Tag Archives: Sharia Law in America

Smile, You Are Being Manipulated (Again)

Posted on by

I repeat. I am not a supporter of Donald Trump. I am, however, a supporter of an honest press and honest reporting. In the coverage of Donald Trump, there is no danger of either. Donald Trump is currently being drawn and quartered in the press for recent remarks about suspending Muslim immigration to America.

This is the direct quote taken from First Coast News:

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”

He was referring to a poll taken by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP).

The Center for Security Policy has replied to criticism of this poll:

In June 2015, the Center for Security Policy commissioned a nationwide online survey among 600 Muslim adults (age 18+) living in the United States.  The methodology used for this online survey instrument is consistent with international industry standards outlined in the ESOMAR Guideline for Online Research. The Center for Security Policy stands by the findings in our nationwide poll and we invite anyone to view its findings.

This is what the poll found:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey.  It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

The results of this poll are much more of a problem than any statement made by a political candidate.

I would also like to mention that Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the United States unless they opposed the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency. This is noted in a Front Page Magazine article from yesterday. The press is attempting to manipulate the American public into calling Donald Trump a racist, bigot, whatever. They have misquoted him and ignored his evidence. Again, I am not supporting him for President, but I don’t like the media thinking they can choose the Republican candidate. If the Republicans allow that, they are the stupid party and deserve to lose.

Is This The Direction We Should Be Heading ?

Posted on by

The Corner at National Review posted an article today by Andrew McCarthy about a recent court ruling in Pennsylvania.

The article reported:

A state judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed an assault and harrassment case against a Muslim defendant who admitted attacking the victim. Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq and a convert to Islam, ruled that Talag Elbayomy’s sharia defense — what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed — trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim.

So let me get this straight. The assault victim, Ernie Perce, an activist atheist, paraded last October in a “Zombi Mohammed” costume. As a result of this, he was attacked by Talag Elbayomy. According to this judge, Mr. Perce’s First Amendment free speech rights are not valid since Mr. Elbayomy’s god was insulted. OK. So do this mean that if I want to attack someone physically for some of the anti-Christian artwork that has surfaced in recent years, I can do that and not be convicted? If I kill them, is it still ok?

This is totally ridiculous. I am not sure if appeal is an option in this case, but it should be. The U. S. Constitution trumps sharia law. If the judge does not believe that, he has no business being a judge in America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tonight In Stoughton Massachusetts

Posted on by

 

Image of Mark Durie
ATC Speakers Forum Presents:
“Islam and Dhimmitude: From Ancient Rituals to Present Realities”
With
Dr. Mark Durie
WHEN:            October 3, 2011 at 7:30 PM
WHERE:         Ahavath Torah Congregation – 1179 Central Street, Stoughton, MA
PRICE:            $5
Dr. Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist and pastor of an Anglican church. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.
This lecture by an Australian scholar of Islam discusses the position of non-Muslims – Jews, Christians and others – under sharia law.
There are two stories about non-Muslims living under Islam, who Muslims call dhimmis. One is that dhimmis were the fortunate recipients of Islamic benevolence. The other is that non-Muslims had to buy their heads back each year in a legal system designed to degrade and belittle them, and to ensure their decline. The story of the dhimmis, and their centuries of subjugation under Islamic law, raises troubling questions about the spiritual trajectory of western societies, and their seemingly inexorable drift towards the psychology of surrender.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Ignoring The Facts When Publishing A Newspaper

Posted on by
Young Saudi Arabian woman wearing Islamic clot...

Image via Wikipedia

On Friday the New York Times posted an op-ed piece entitled, “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America.” I would like to disagree. I am not planning to bore you with the details of Islamic Law–I have written about many of its tenets before. Instead, I would just like to cite a few examples of life in countries where there is Islamic (Sharia) Law. But, as an aside, I suspect that the reason the New York Times is calling it Islamic Law rather than Sharia Law (which it is) is that many people might not realize that they are the same thing.

Yahoo News reported on August 12 of this year:

In its 2010 report, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says almost 800 women were victims of “honor killings” — murders aimed at preserving the honor of male relatives — and 2,900 women reported raped — almost eight a day.

The bulk, or almost 2,600, were raped in Punjab alone, Pakistan’s most populous province.

And the numbers are rising: media reports say crimes against women have risen 18 percent in the year to May and the human rights commission believes its figures represent only a fraction of the attacks which take place across the country.

Pakistan is a country under Islamic Law.

On November 17, 2010, AOL News reported:

Saudi Arabia has no religious freedom in theory or practice, according to a report released today by the U.S. State Department. The report also slammed other countries, including Iran and China, for their lack of tolerance of diverse faiths.

“The public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited” and Saudi government officials “continued to raid private non-Muslim religious gatherings,” the report said.

Saudi Arabia is under Sharia Law. Religious freedom is not part of Sharia Law. It is a very necessary part of our democracy.

Iran is also a country ruled by Islamic Law. Breitbart posted a story about the fashion police in Iran a few years ago:

Tehran’s police have said they are operating a three stage process in implementing the new wave of a crackdown on dress deemed to be unIslamic, which started with some intensity on Monday afternoon.

First, women are given a verbal warning on the street. If the problem is not resolved there, they are taken to the police station for “guidance” and to sign a vow not to repeat the offence. Should this be unsuccessful, their case is handed to the judiciary.

“Sure my manto is short, but there are many others whose clothes are more seductive than mine and they walking by without any punishment,” one of the arrested girls in the minibus complained bitterly.

The arrested women will now go to a “centre for combating vice”.

Their parents will be phoned and they will bring a longer coat and fuller headscarf for their daughters. If the young women sign the pledge they will then be released. 

As someone who raised three daughters, all of whom were teenagers at one time, I would have loved to have the fashion police in my house. However, the idea of fashion police is not compatible with democracy.

If we allow Sharia (Islamic) Law into our courts, we will undermine our democracy. Those who support Sharia Law do not support individual freedom.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta