Islam and Sharia Law are coming to America Islam is the cure for fun and freedom.

Islam and Sharia Law are coming to America

Examiner.com 18 May 2010
By Jim Campbell

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to set regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is now expanding into the United States. All Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Prophet Muhammad in the Sura.

What is Sharia Law?

Also meaning “path” in Arabic, sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Qur’an and the Sunna, the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses.

The chief elements of Sharia Law are first: a belief that women are deficient in their natural and “innate” potentials and abilities, including their psychological-makeup and intellectual capacity. The Islamic Penal Codes are based on violence in its most primitive forms. These not only authorize organized state violence, but also encourage male violence against women within the family and in society. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the family honor.

While the Islamic Penal Codes have born down a tremendous injustice on the women they are not just second-class citizens, half a man, but at times their very existence is disregarded. It has been pointed out that our women have managed to achieve equality in one field only: equal right to imprisonment, exile, torture, being killed, and now being slaughtered.

Second, a belief in a social and family order where men must be guardians over women, and women must submit.

Third, a belief in an unequal system of rights and consequently, wherever the question of the reproduction of such an order is concerned, of a system of punishment that is also unequal.

1. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. Sura 5:90-91.

2. Islam allows husbands to beat their wives. Qur’an, 4:34

3. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge, physical eye for physical eye. Qur’an, 5:45

4. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. Qur’an, 5:38

5. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated. Qur’an, 5:33. As an alternative, the convicted may have a hand and the opposite foot cut off while being banished from the land instead of crucifixion.

6. Islam commands that Homosexuals be executed. Abdu Dawud no. 447. Burning to death, stoned while against a wall, or stoned and thrown over a cliff.

7. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death. Qur’an, 24-6

8. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

9. Islam orders apostates to be killed. Sura 9:11-12

10. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad

Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced ‘charity’ or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury.

ACT for America is an organization that provides education about Islam and sharia and is dedicated to stop their encroachment on America. (…)

 

Naming the Enemy— ISLAM

Naming the Enemy

 

Posted By Fern Sidman On May 17, 2010 @ 12:03 am In FrontPage | 6 Comments

On Tuesday evening, May 11th, the crossroads of the world, better known as Times Square in Manhattan was the scene of a passionate display of fortitude as members of the Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam gathered for a rally to expose the existential perils that radical Islam represents to the Western world. Standing just a few blocks from the place where 30 year old Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani born and Taliban trained American citizen attempted to detonate his vehicle filled with deadly explosives, the leaders of this rainbow coalition of activists sounded a clarion call as onlookers watched and listened.

Comprised of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and ex-Muslims, the HRCARI is a nascent organization that champions the rights of those who have been victimized and slaughtered by Muslim extremists. Having staged its very first rally in Times Square in May of 2009, their ranks have swelled over the last year with those who are deeply concerned about the cultural indifference to the burgeoning growth of Islamic radicalism.

Charles Jacobs, a board member of the HRCARI and a writer for The Jewish Advocate in Boston said, “Our purpose here today is two-fold. We are here to send a clear message to the press and politicians who have intentionally obfuscated the nature of this most recent terrorist attempt by not labeling the enemy as radical Islam and acquiescing to political correctness. We are also here to educate the public about the pernicious agenda of those radical Islamists who would love nothing more than to obliterate our cherished values of democracy, freedom and liberty.”

“The Western world is mired in self-doubt and self-guilt that has been imposed upon us by those post-modern forces on the left and in the sphere of academia who believe we are deserving of the animus of our enemies,” he ruefully observed.

Holding aloft signs and banners saying, “Elected Officials and Mass Media – Unveil The Truth: Radical Islam Attacks Humanity,” “Stop Billions of Saudi Oil Money that are Funding Worldwide Radical Islamic Intolerance and Terror,” “Reform Radical Islmamic Madrassas: Stop Teaching Hate” and displaying placards of those Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, women and gays who have been summarily murdered by brutal Islamic regimes, the rally attendees graphically described the horrific consequences of being an “infidel” in the Muslim world.  Martin Rosenthal, a rally attendee from Queens held a homemade sign that said, “Queers Against Radical Islam” and spoke of the heinous atrocities committed against both gay men and women in such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Narain Kataria, the founder of the Indian American Intellectuals Forum said, “Since 9/11/2001, the followers of the so called “religion of peace” have carried out 15,101 deadly terrorist attacks and killed more than 75,000 people. It does not requite a rocket scientist to tell us that the aim of the Jihadist is to dominate the entire world, force all of us to surrender and to plant the Islamic flag in Washington, London, Jerusalem and New Delhi, not to mention New York City.” He also spoke of the mass slaughter of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. “Pakistan is the nursery of terrorism. Pakistan is the epicenter of Jihad. Pakistan is the most untrustworthy ally in the war on terror. Pakistan is fooling us. They use sophistry and subterfuge to hoodwink us,” he declared.

“What we need here in America and throughout the free world is intellectual clarity,” said Madeline Brooks, the Manhattan chapter head of Act For America, a national human rights organization that stridently opposes radical Islam and serves as a bulwark against the mendacity of multicultural relativists in the progressive camp. “We here in New York are faced with mortal danger each day. We are the prime terror target on this planet. We are in daner of being nuked and the government’s denial of this threat only leaves us in a much weaker state and undermines the confidence of the people who reside here. That is the reality of radical Islam and we do ourselves a grave injustice by not confronting it head on with the gravitas that it demands” she continued.

John Kenneth Press, a PhD in history and the author of  “Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future” (2007 – Social Books) said, “Culturism is a political philosophy, art and science based upon the understanding that cultural diversity is real and important. Western culture believes in free speech, feminism, and the separation of church and state. Islam, for example, does not. Western culture is based on individuals applying their intelligence towards progressive and productive ends. For 1400 years there has been a worldwide Jihad fueled by radical Islam whose objective is death and destruction of all infidels and the sooner that we give voice to this, the sooner that we demand that our government consider this threat as a moral and physical exigency, the sooner we can increase our chances of not falling prey to an Islamic caliphate.”

“21st century Nazism is now tantamount to radical Islam” said Andrew Upton, a board member of HRCARI. “There is someone here today holding a sign saying, “Queers Against Radical Islam.” We applaud this person for spotlighting the fact that gays and lesbians are considered worthy of death in Islamic countries as are women who are consistently victims of honor murders by male family members for attempting to divorce their husbands, for being raped, for not allowing themselves to be party to forced marriages and for purported violations of Sharia law,” he said.

At the conclusion of the rally, the participants took their signs and banners and staged a march throughout the Times Square area calling on all concerned citizens to lobby their elected officials and the press to “jettison the fraud of multicultural relativism and political correctness in the name of our survival.”

Why the Ground Zero Mosque Must Be Stopped

Why the Ground Zero Mosque Must Be Stopped

By Madeline Brooks

Planting a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims murdered Americans on 9/11 in the name of Islam is a huge slap in the face. Why shouldn’t Muslims be sensitive enough to realize that a huge mosque planted right near the horrific wound to the U.S. created at Ground Zero by Muslims is outrageous to us? They claim a right to be insulted by cartoons mocking their prophet, even to the point of beheading people.
The Imam of the Ground Zero Insult, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is not the nice guy he likes to hold himself out to be. At his Friday afternoon khutbah services and in his book What’s Right With Islam Rauf states that he wants the mosque to be a place where inter-faith understanding is fostered. His sonorous voice is smooth and almost hypnotic. His writing style appears to be rational and unthreatening.

However, this does not jibe with the aspects of him that are downright hostile and frightening.

During a recent Friday sermon, this writer did due diligence as a mosque monitor and heard Rauf deny that Muslims perpetrated 9/11. In an interview with CNN shortly after 9/11, Rauf said, “U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We [the U.S.] have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA.” Elsewhere, Rauf has stated that terrorism will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims. And that it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians. 
Rauf has numerous ties to CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Department of Justice funding case brought against Hamas, an openly terrorist organization. CAIR is also the initiator of numerous cases designed to intimidate non-Muslims from criticizing aggressive Muslim behavior, and to use our own legal and democratic processes to undermine and dominate America, forcing it to become Islamic. 
Rauf calls himself a Sufi, evoking among non-Muslims a “peace and love” image. But that’s not the whole picture. Sufism has many sides to it, including the Koranic injunction to spread Islam one way or another, and it has a rich history of waging war, too. Could it be that one of the frequently used tools of war, lying to the enemy, explains the contradiction between Rauf’s image as reconciler of religions and his sympathies and associations with terrorists?
A previous Rauf project, Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, clearly shows on its website that it is headed and funded by individuals from Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned fifteen of the nineteen jihad jockeys who rode the 9/11 planes of destruction. The funding for the mosque at Ground Zero is much murkier so far. All that has been publicly disclosed is that the support comes from unidentified sources in Saudi Arabia and Muslim-ruled Malaysia. Rauf reportedly says he paid $4.85 million for the property — in cash. Where exactly did this money come from? Was it Wahhabist-supporting Saudi sources, which have already funded many other mosques in New York City?
The mosque is called Cordoba House. Muslims like to refer to Spain and especially the city of Cordoba as a place where their rule reached a glorious peak. Contrary to the myth of a Golden Age of equality during the Muslim occupation of Spain (and in particular in Cordoba), Spain and Cordoba were places where Christians and Jews suffered as social inferiors under Islamic oppression. Equal civil rights never existed for non-Muslims under Sharia, or Islamic law. Rauf even admits as much when he writes, “Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule simply had to pay a tax to finance their protection by their Muslim overlords.” This is not equality! Americans do not demand a special tax to protect Muslims from ourselves. That would be extortion, not “protection.”
Through another organization Rauf started called the Cordoba Initiative, he created the “Sharia Index.” This will measure how closely countries follow Sharia, or Islamic law. While Sharia can cover such relatively innocuous aspects of Muslim life as religious weddings (hopefully not to twelve-year-old girls), it also demands that all Muslim life be governed by laws derived from the Koran, without the intervention of civic institutions, such as democracy. And the Koran dictates that everyone, even non-Muslims, must ultimately live under Sharia. Do you understand how that is in direct conflict with our Constitution and other aspects of our secular society? 
Rauf gets even trickier here. He states in What’s Right With Islam that a society that follows natural law, such as America, is already practicing Sharia. However, he does not note that his peculiar definition of Sharia acceptance is shared by just about no other Imam. So what prevents him from adjusting his singular idea of Sharia back to the norm of forced conversions, murdering non-Muslims and apostates, amputations of thieves’ hands, stoning of adulterous women, execution of homosexuals, etc.? Throughout his writing, Rauf floats an image of a harmonious, pleasant Islam — nice to everybody. But this is totally disconnected from Islam’s actual history of bloody conquest, enslavement, and humiliation of other people — which he never acknowledges. 
Still another unsettling part of Rauf’s problem mosque is why the city has given the building a pass. Records for the Department of Buildings have shown numerous complaints for illegal construction and no access, yet the issues were listed as “resolved.”
Community Board One’s financial district committee needs to reconsider its endorsement of this mosque. The prestigious American groups that are reportedly also financing the mosque, The Ford Foundation and The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, need to think again about what they are getting into. The Department of Buildings needs to reassess its action. The Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, which supports the project (Why? What has a religious building got to do with immigration?) needs to reevaluate its approval. 
Mayor Bloomberg himself needs to withdraw his support for this mosque, especially in light of the recent Times Square car bomb attempt. If not, he will be helping to provide a handy meeting place for future terrorists, those who understand Imam Rauf’s real message: Speak sweetly, appear to be a well-adjusted member of American society, and plan the destruction of America, either with bombs or “peaceful” undermining. 

Madeline Brooks is an NYC resident and writer.

Mosque to go up near New York’s ground zero

By Nicole Bliman, CNN
May 7, 2010 3:19 a.m. EDT

The mosque project has gotten mixed reviews from families and friends of 9/11 victims.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Project includes 15-story community center, a mosque, performance art center
  • Community Board of lower Manhattan voted unanimously to support the project
  • Project gets mixed reviews from families and friends of 9/11 victims
  • After funds raised, center to be completed in three to five years

New York (CNN) — Plans to build a mosque two blocks away from ground zero have set off an emotional debate among area residents and relatives of victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Cordoba House project calls for a 15-story community center including a mosque, performance art center, gym, swimming pool and other public spaces.

The project is a collaboration between the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, both of which work to improve relations with followers of the religion.

The two groups presented their vision to part of the Community Board of lower Manhattan on Wednesday night.

Ro Sheffe, a board member who attended the meeting, said the project did not need to get the board’s approval.

“They own the land, and their plans don’t have any zoning changes,” Sheffe said. “They came to us for our opinions and to let us know their plans. It was purely voluntary on their part.”

The 12 members who were at the meeting voted unanimously to support the project. Community board members are appointed by the borough president and serve as advisers to the borough president and the mayor’s office.

Daisy Khan, executive director of the Muslim society, described her vision of a center led by Muslims, but serving the community as a whole.

“It will have a real community feel, to celebrate the pluralism in the United States, as well as in the Islamic religion,” Khan said. “It will also serve as a major platform for amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies. It will counter the extremist momentum.” [NOTE: This is pure eyewash. All religious Moslems have very much to do with "extremist ideologies" because the supremacist, hateful, violent ideology of Islam is part and parcel of the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad. No religious Moslems will dare to critize those passages which justify Islamic terrorism.]

The need for the center is twofold, Khan said, because it will support the needs of the growing Muslim community.

“The time for a center like this has come because Islam is an American religion,” Khan said. [NOTE: Islam is an American religion only in the sense that Moslems live in America. In terms of values and teachings, Islam is NOT an American religion. Not even close.] “We need to take the 9/11 tragedy and turn it into something very positive.”

Sheffe said a community center for lower Manhattan residents is “desperately needed.” The area was mostly commercial, Sheffe said, but as more people move downtown, the lack of residential amenities is a problem.

The project got mixed reviews from families and friends of September 11 victims.

“I think it’s the right thing to do,” said Marvin Bethea, who was a paramedic at ground zero. “I lost 16 friends down there. But Muslims also got killed on 9/11. It would be a good sign of faith that we’re not condemning all Muslims and that the Muslims who did this happened to be extremists. As a black man, I know what it’s like to be discriminated against when you haven’t done anything.” [NOTE: Typical bait and switch. At first we are talking about Islam, the religious belief system. Then they switch to talk about Muslims. Some Moslems take the doctrines of Islam seriously; some don't. We are legitimately concerned about those Moslems who do take the Islamic doctrines seriously,]

Herbert Ouida, whose son was killed in the attacks, supports the project as a way to bridge cultural divide.

“I understand the anger, the bitterness and hatred, but it only generates more hatred,” Ouida said. “Such a large part of the world has this faith, and to say anyone who has this faith is a terrorist, it’s terrible.” [NOTE: Again, the bait and switch. Nobody says that all Moslems are terrorists. The correct argument is that the doctrines of Islam motivate many Moslem to become terrorists -- and also non-terrorist supremacists and silent jihadists.]

Others decried the idea of building a mosque so close to where their relatives died.

“Lower Manhattan should be made into a shrine for the people who died there,” said Michael Valentin, a retired city detective who worked at ground zero. “It breaks my heart for the families who have to put up with this. I understand they’re [building] it in a respectful way, but it just shouldn’t be down there.”

Others such as Barry Zelman said the site’s location will be a painful reminder.

“[The 9/11 terrorists] did this in the name of Islam,” Zelman said. “It’s a sacred ground where these people died, where my brother was murdered, and to be in the shadows of that religion, it’s just hypocritical and sacrilegious. “

However, Khan emphasized that the attacks killed Muslims, too. [NOTE: This is irrelevant. The memorial to the victims includes the Moslem victims. The fact that there were Moslem victims says nothing about the violent, jihadist doctrines of Islam which caused the 9/11 Moslem terrorists to do what they did.]

“Three hundred of the victims were Muslim, that’s 10 percent of the victims,” she said. “We are Americans too. The 9/11 tragedy hurt everybody including the Muslim community. We are all in this together and together we have to fight against extremism and terrorism.” [NOTE: Such fakery! If they want to fight against “extremism”, then let them teach their children that the violent, intolerant, hateful, warlike passages in the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad are no longer valid. That is the only way they can fight against Islamic “extremism” and terrorism.

Cordoba House is still in its early stages of development. The American Society for Muslim Advancement is hoping to raise funds for the center to be completed in three to five years. [NOTE: Let's watch where these funds come from. Saudi Arabia? Dubai?]

“This is war of religion, not just a war between Arabs and Israelis…this is an Islamic war, which will end in victory only under the banner of Jihad”

“This is war of religion, not just a war between Arabs and Israelis…this is an Islamic war, which will end in victory only under the banner of Jihad”

Here is yet more indication that the war against Israel is a jihad against Israel, motivated by an antisemitism with deep, ancient roots in Islam — and thus it will not be solved by Israeli concessions, or the establishment of a Palestinian state. The one thing we can be sure of about this is that Western analysts will ignore it, as they have all the other indications of the same thing. “Calls for Jihad in a Rally of Kuwaiti Students Union: This Is a War of Religion, Not a War between Israelis and Arabs,” from MEMRITV, March 29 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The following excerpts are from a rally in which Kuwaiti students show solidarity with the Palestinian cause. The rally aired on Al-Jazeera TV on March 29, 2010.

Read complete article

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/this-is-war-of-religion-not-just-a-war-between-arabs-and-israelisthis-is-an-islamic-war-which-will-e.html

The Real Reason They Hate Us

The Real Reason They Hate Us
Frank Gaffney
Friday, April 09, 2010

For the first time in its history, the United States is trying to wage and win a war without accurately identifying the enemy or its motivations for seeking to destroy us. That oversight defies both common sense and past military experience, and it disarms us in what may be the most decisive theater of this conflict: the battle of ideas.

Such a breakdown may seem incredible to veterans of past military conflicts. Imagine fighting World War II without clarity about Nazism and fascism, or the Cold War without an appreciation of Soviet communism and the threat it posed.

Yet today, the civilian leaders of this country and their senior subordinates – responsible for the U.S. military, the intelligence community, homeland security and federal law enforcement – have systematically failed to fully realize that we once again face a totalitarian ideology bent on our destruction. 

That failure is the more worrisome since the current ideological menace is arguably more dangerous than any we have faced in the past, for two reasons. First, its adherents believe their mission of global conquest is divinely inspired. Second, they are here in the United States in significant numbers, not just a threat elsewhere around the world.

What, then, is this ideology? It has been given many names in recent years, including political Islam, radical Islam, fundamentalist Islam, extremist Islam and Islamofascism. There is, however, a more accurate descriptor – the one its adherents use. They call it “Shariah.”

Perhaps the most important thing to understand about Shariah is that it is authoritative Islam, which presents itself as a complete way of life – cultural, political, military, social and religious, all governed by the same doctrine. In other words, this comprehensive program is not simply the agenda of extremists hunkered down in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Neither can its directives be attributed to deviants hijacking Islam. 

Rather, Shariah – which translates from Arabic as “path to God” – is actually binding law. It is taught as such by the most revered sacred texts, traditions, institutions, top academic centers, scholars and leaders of the Islamic faith. Fortunately, hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world do not wish to live under a brutally repressive, woman-demeaning, barbaric and totalitarian program. Such Muslims are potentially our allies, just as those who do adhere to Shariah are our unalterable foes.

The immutability of Shariah-adherent Muslim  hostility toward the rest of us derives directly from the central tenet of Shariah: Muslims are explicitly required to seek the triumph of Islam over all other faiths, peoples and governments.

The ultimate objective of Shariah is the establishment of a global Islamic state – Sunni Muslims call it “the caliphate” – governed by Shariah. The means by which this political outcome is to be achieved is called “jihad.”

Since 9/11, many Americans have become unhappily acquainted with the terrifying, violent strain of jihad. Under Shariah, violence – often described by non-Muslims as “terrorism” – is the preferred means of securing the spread and dominion of Islam, as it is the most efficient. 

While Shariah deems jihad to be the personal obligation of every faithful Muslim capable of performing it – man or woman, young or old – they can forgo the violent form when it is deemed impracticable. In such circumstances, the struggle can be pursued through means that are, at least temporarily, non-violent. Taken together, the latter constitute what renowned author and expert Robert Spencer calls “stealth jihad.” Adherents to Shariah call it “dawah.”

Examples of stealth jihadism abound in Western societies, notably Europe and increasingly in the United States. They include the demand for symbolic and substantive accommodations in political, economic and legal areas (for example, special treatment or rights for Muslims in the workplace, in public spaces and by government); the opportunity to penetrate and influence operations against government at every level; and the insinuation of the Trojan horse of “Shariah-compliant finance” into the West’s capital markets.

If stealth jihad seems less threatening than terrorism, the objective is exactly the same as that of violent jihad: the subjugation to the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) of all non-Islamic states that, like the United States, make up the Dar al-harb (House of War). It follows that those who seek ostensibly to impose Shariah through non-violent techniques – notably in the West, the organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood – are our enemies every bit as much as those who overtly strive to defeat us by murderous terrorism.

Many Western elites, including the Obama administration, have been seduced by the seemingly benign quality of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, we know from the 2008 prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation – the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history – that the Muslim Brothers’ mission in the United States is “a kind of grand jihad to destroy Western civilization from within … by their own miserable hands.”

Another Brotherhood document, titled “The Rulers,” was seized in a 2004 raid and describes how the organization will try to overthrow the U.S. Constitution in five phases:

  • Phase I: Discreet and secret establishment of elite leadership
  • Phase II: Gradual appearance on the public scene, and exercising and utilizing various public activities
  • Phase III: Escalation, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through the massmedia
  • Phase IV: Open public confrontation with the government through the exercise of political pressure
  • Phase V: Seizing power to establish an Islamic nation, under which all parties and Islamic groups will become united

“The Rulers” makes plain that all the above-mentioned phases “are preliminary steps to reach the (fifth) phase.”

The Muslim Brothers know that by masking their ideological agenda as a religious program, they can use Western civil liberties and tolerance as weapons in their stealthy jihad. For this strategy to succeed, however, they must suppress any discussion or understanding of the true nature of Shariah. 

Adherents to Shariah insist that their law prohibits any slander against Islam or Muhammad. Under such a catch-all restriction, virtually any kind of conversation about – or critique of – Islam can be considered impermissible if Muslims find it offensive. Particularly in Europe, the ever-present prospect of violence, like that which followed the September 2005 publication of Danish cartoons poking fun at Muhammad, is generally sufficient to induce self-censorship.

In this country, the application of such prohibitions seems unthinkable, given the guarantees of free speech enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment. Unfortunately, the Obama administration last year co-sponsored with Egypt a relevant and deeply problematic resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Council, promoted for years by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim-majority nations that stridently embraces Shariah and seeks to legitimate and promote its advance around the world. 

The resolution calls on members of the United Nations to prohibit statements that offend Islam. It also calls for criminal penalties to be applied to those who make such statements. 

The U.S. implementation of such a resolution would obviously be a matter not just for the executive branch, which supported it, but for Congress and the judiciary as well. It is a safe bet that any formal effort to supplant the First Amendment in this way would meet with great resistance.

To a stunning degree, U.S. leaders have been effectively conforming to Shariah slander laws for some time now.  For instance, presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have both repeatedly described Islam as a “religion of peace,” without acknowledging the requirement for jihad its authorities demand, pursuant to Shariah. 

At the Muslim Brotherhood’s insistence, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department have barred the use of perfectly accurate terms like “Islamic terrorism.” The U.S. government has also embraced the Muslim Brothers’ disinformation by translating jihad as nothing more than “striving in the path of God.”

Under the Bush and Obama administrations, the favored name for the enemy has been “violent extremism” – a formulation that neither offers clarity about the true nature of our foe nor lends itself to a prescription for a successful countervailing strategy. Even when al-Qaeda is identified as the enemy, it is almost always accompanied by an assurance that its operatives and allies have “corrupted” Islam. Ignored, or at least earnestly obscured, are two unhappy realities: such enemies are implementing Shariah’s dictates to the letter of the law, and they have millions of fellow adherents around the world who view Islam’s requirements the same way.

One of the most egregious examples of this practice of unilateral disarmament in the battle of ideas is the January report of the independent review of the Fort Hood massacre, co-chaired by former Army Secretary Togo West and former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vernon Clark. Their 86-page unclassified analysis purported to dissect an event allegedly perpetrated by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan – a medical officer whose business card described him as “Soldier of Allah,” whose briefings justified murder of his comrades in the name of jihad, and who shouted the Islamic martyr’s cry “Allahu Akbar!” (“God is great!”) as he opened fire, killing 13. Incredibly, the words “Islam,” “Islamic terror,” “Shariah,” “jihad,” and “Muslim Brotherhood” were not used even once in the West-Clark report.

Such political correctness, or willful blindness up the chain of command, doubtless caused Hasan’s colleagues to keep silent about his alarming beliefs, lest they be punished for expressing concerns about them. Now, reportedly, six of them have been designated as the scapegoats for what is manifestly an institutional failure.

The painful truth is that however we rationalize this sort of behavior, our Shariah-adherent enemies correctly perceive it as evidence of submission, which is the literal meaning of the word “Islam,” and what Shariah demands of everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. 

Indeed, Shariah offers non-believers only three choices: conversion to Islam, submission (known as dhimmitude) or death. Historically, dhimmitude was imposed through successful Muslim conquests. In more recent years, tolerant Western nations have increasingly succumbed to stealthy jihadism, backed by more or less direct threats of violence. 

That trend, worrying as it is, may be giving way in this country to a new campaign: jihad of the sword. The past year saw a fourfold increase in the number of actual or attempted terrorist attacks in the United States. Sadly, that statistic will likely be surpassed in the year ahead. Four of the nation’s top intelligence officials have testified before Congress that it is certain new acts of violence will be undertaken in the next three to six months. Worse yet, a blue-ribbon commission has calculated that the probability of the use of weapons of mass destruction somewhere in the world by 2013 is now over 50 percent.

Is this dramatic upsurge in violent jihad directed at the United States unrelated to our behavior? Or does it reflect a growing calculation on the part of our Shariah-adherent enemies that violence against the United States is now, once again, practicable? 

Either way, the time has clearly come to make a far more serious effort to defeat both the violent and stealthy forms of jihad being waged against this country. If we are to do so, however, we have to start by telling the truth. 

Our enemy is not “violent extremism,” or even al-Qaeda alone. Rather, it is the millions of Muslims who – like the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and their allies – adhere to Shariah and who, therefore, believe they must impose it on the rest of us.

We are at war with such individuals and organizations. Not because we want to be. Not because of policies toward Israel or the Middle East or anything else we have pursued in recent years. Rather, we are at war with them because they must wage jihad against us, pursuant to the dictates of Shariah, the same law that has guided many in Islam for some 1,200 years. 

What is at stake in this war? Look no further than The American Legion’s Americanism Manual, which defines Americanism as “love of America; loyalty to her institutions as the best yet devised by man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity and happiness; and the willingness to defend our country and Flag against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” 

Such values cannot coexist with Shariah, which demands the destruction of democratic nations like the United States, its governing institutions and liberties. Shariah would supplant them with a repressive, transnational, theocratic government abroad and at home.

The extraordinary reality is that none of this – the authoritative and malevolent nature of Shariah, its utter incompatibility with our civilization, and its adherents’ determination to force us to convert, submit or die – is concealed from those willing to learn the truth. To the contrary, the facts are widely available via books, the Internet, DVDs and mosques, both here and overseas. Interestingly, on Dec. 1, 2005, Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called on his troops to expose themselves to precisely this sort of information: “I say you need to get out and read what our enemies have said. Remember Hitler. Remember he wrote ‘Mein Kampf.’ He said in writing exactly what his plan was, and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet, their goal is to destroy our way of life. No equivocation on their part.”

As it happens, Maj. Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer and Army Reserves intelligence specialist recruited by the Joint Chiefs to be their expert on the doctrine and jurisprudence of jihad, took Pace’s admonition to heart. He wrote a master’s thesis inspired by the chairman’s quote, titled “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.” 

Coughlin’s briefings explicitly and repeatedly warned military leaders of the enemy’s “threat doctrine” – drawing from, among Islamic texts, passages the Fort Hood suspect used to justify his massacre. Unfortunately, engaging in such analysis, let alone acting on it, was powerfully discouraged in January 2008 when Coughlin was dismissed from the Joint Staff after he ran afoul of a Muslim Brother then working for Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

In short, we are today confronted by the cumulative effect of a sustained and collective dereliction of duty, one that is putting our country in extreme peril. Our armed forces – like their counterparts in the intelligence community, Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement – have a professional duty to know the enemy and develop appropriate responses to the threat doctrine. If this dereliction is allowed to persist, it is predictable that more Americans will die, both on foreign battlefields and at home.

The American people also need to become knowledgeable about the threat of Shariah and insist that action be taken at federal, state and local levels to keep our country Shariah-free. This toxic ideology, if left unchecked, can destroy the country and institutions that are, indeed, “the best yet devised by man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity and happiness.”

Fitzgerald: Obama constructs a reality that does not exist

Fitzgerald: Obama constructs a reality that does not exist

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said. – from this news story

This is not only a problem in the United States. It is a problem all over the Western world. How are the people of Western Europe to understand their own reality if they cannot speak truthfully, and openly, about the ideology of Islam? If they have noticed — and they have at long last noticed — that Muslim immigrants are particularly aggressive, demanding, hostile, and un-integrable, save always for a small, discrete minority of people who arrive as Muslims but become integrable only to the precise extent that they cease to take Islam to heart, or even, in the best cases, as a result of the mental freedom and physical security that the West offers them, become estranged permanently from Islam (for who knows better what Islam is all about, than Wafa Sultan, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Magdi Allam, and all the other outstanding and brilliant apostates who offer us their articulate testimonies?), should the peoples of Western Europe not allow themselves to employ the only vocabulary that allows them to discuss this matter?

And when they realize, as many of them now do, that this is a problem not in one, or two, or a half-dozen, countries in Western Europe, but in all of the them without exception, and perhaps most noticeably so in the two countries that have elevated Tolerance to the level of State Religions (i.e., Denmark and the Netherlands), are they to be rendered mute through a policy that fills the collective heart of the O.I.C. with satisfaction and deep pleasure?

If they realize that these Muslim immigrants pose a permanent problem that no group of non-Muslim immigrants poses, should they be reduced to whispers? Should their permitted lexicon be lacking such words as “Jihad” and “dhimmi” and “Jizyah” and even, it seems, “Islam” itself? The latter word is always and everywhere, if applied to the case, to be modified fore and aft, with such meretricious verbal tricks as “Islamism” and “Islamists,” or sleight of word, as with “violent extremists” who have kidnapped — in the alternative, hijacked — “a great religion.”

If Israelis wish to begin to grasp their own reality, and to comprehend why “peace-processes” and treaties mean nothing, but are merely part of one unending Treaty of Al Hudaibiyya being used to whittle away at the state of Israel, in order to push it back into conditions of maximum peril and hopeless vulnerability, they will need to use, and to hear others use, such words as “Islam” and “Jihad” and “dhimmi.” If the Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslims of India are to grasp the permanent threat to them, one not assuaged by a possible surrender of Kashmir, but that goes on, unassuageable, forever, they will need to use such words as “Jihad” and “dhimmi” and “Dar al-Islam.” If the Thais, or the Russians, or the Filipinos, wish to understand what it is that they are dealing with, they must — they cannot but — use the words that exist to properly explain this reality. The Christians of the southern Sudan, and the Christians of southern Nigeria, have used such words as “Jihad” before. They understand, perhaps better than those in the West, what Islam is all about, because in black Africa, the Arabs and those whom they have islamized and arabized have been able to treat the black African non-Muslims as roughly, as murderously, as they wish. They have had no need to engage in the kind of stuff we see Muslims engaging in here — Interfaith-Healing, Outreach Nights at the Mosque, taqiyya masters such as Tariq Ramadan spreading their smiling word in order to charm or confuse the unwary and the ill-prepared, and to keep up this mountebank’s patter at such a pace that no one who speaks quietly, logically, and with attention to the evidence can get in a word, or if he can get in a word, can truly and properly be heard by those unwary and those ignorant Infidels over the steady tariq-ramadanian hum.

Those who make policy and construct policies are dealing with a reality that they refuse to learn adequately about. In so refusing, they hobble themselves from thinking sensibly, and at times imaginatively, about what makes the most sense, what would weaken the Camp of Islam and thus the threat to all non-Muslims from Islam and its adherents. They prefer to throw money, and men, and materiel, at the problem. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, before we are through, will have cost well over three trillion dollars.

Think of what that could have done, as far as this country goes. We fight over a few hundred million here and there, we fight about health care and social security, and we keep avoiding, in some collective mental paralysis, connecting these budgetary woes with the sums being spent — futilely, and quite unnecessarily, in the lands of Muslims, in order to bring them (for how long? forever?) prosperity, to bribe them into (most temporarily) being “our friends.” This “friendship” consists of their not becoming or giving harbor to those “violent extremists” who, we tell ourselves, are a discrete, isolated group, when in fact any Muslim who now, or in the future, for whatever reason, chooses to take Islam fully to heart, can become one of those “violent extremists.” And long before that, Muslims have shown, in thought, word, and deed, that they do take Islam sufficiently seriously to attempt to press its case everywhere, to change our legal and political institutions and our social arrangements, to interfere with our academic teaching and thinking about Islam, to interfere with our freedom of speech, and our ideas of what can or cannot be spoken and written. They do all this unapologetically, with violence or the threat of violence. What’s more, they conduct, unhindered, vast campaigns of Da’wa targeted at the most vulnerable and also the potentially most dangerous kinds of people — the psychically and economically marginal — who, in converting to Islam, add to the security threat to all the non-Muslims. Those former fellow citizens, now changed utterly, become a threat to us and the political institutions of this country, and the physical security of its citizens.

Because of the ignorance of Islam at the top, we have instead locked ourselves into a Tar Baby policy that requires the expenditure of vast sums on places that cannot, because of Islam, ever embrace advanced Western democracy. They cannot — because of Islam — ever be our true allies, or ever be counted on to help suppress the forces of violent Islam. They will, however, do what they can to divert outside their countries, to the Infidels, the fury of those who are working against their own regimes, as the Saudi government’s “re-education” efforts of Al-Qaeda supporters consists not in ending their Muslim fanaticism, which the Al-Saud share or promote, but in redirecting their murderous fury away from the Al-Saud themselves to the Western Infidels who deserve whatever those local fanatics wish to inflict on them — just please leave us, the nice Al-Saud, alone.

Never before has such sustained stupidity, in the face of a decade of what should have led to some obvious conclusions, been exhibited by the Western world. Even with Hitler and the Nazis, there were only six years from his resistible rise in 1933 to the outbreak of war in 1939, when suddenly “everyone” appeared to have “known all along” what Churchill and a few others, and only they, had known. We have had perfectly good information — for those who do not put their trust in the New York Times but go online — about the Jihad, in its violent manifestations, and in those that employ non-violent means, for nearly a decade. We have had the vain efforts in Iraq and the vain effort now in Afghanistan, where the actual goals are never clearly stated, because to even attempt to do that would expose the whole enterprise to the quizzical looks, and the criticism, and even the mockery, that the assumptions upon which it rests deserve.

Eventually reality will break in. But when? At what considerable unnecessary future cost? Perhaps there are those in the Obama Administration who have never read “Politics and the English Language” by Orwell, though it is now a staple in freshman composition courses. Perhaps they are unaware of how Hitler and Stalin, refashioned the lexicon, or how such words as, for example, “People’s Democracy” came to describe the most despotic of regimes.

The Obama Administration does not strike me as full of people terribly interested in, or impressed by, faith — in the way that George Bush, a born-again Christian, was so impressed with what religion had done for him that he simply couldn’t believe that something — Islam — called a “religion” could be other than good.

So what is it that prevents the Obama Administration from learning about, analyzing, studying the history of, Islam and Islamic conquest, as it would, presumably, anything else? What makes it so fearful, in the councils and corridors of power, of people speaking truthfully about such matters, or at least asymptotically coming close to that truth, so that they are now apparently being deliberately told they cannot use the very lexicon they most need, and now most lack?

The self-inflicted intellectual wounds here will have, do already have, fantastic consequences — not good ones for us, but very good for the Camp of Islam — in the world we like to call “real.” But the Obama Administration is engaged in the political construction of a reality that does not exist, and is leading itself, and those whom it presumes to instruct and protect, astray.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers