Tag Archives: Sharia law

Tunisia: Another MidEast Country Falls to Radical Islam


“You shall know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16)
The much-trumpeted Arab Spring is shaping up to be an Arab Winter.
In the liberated Egypt and Libya, Sharia law will rule. Now, Islamic radicals have claimed victory in the first democratic election of Libya’s neighbor, Tunisia.

Tunisia was the birth-place of “Arab Spring” when Mohamed Bouazizi, a vegetable seller in a provincial town, set fire to himself in protest at poverty and government repression. His action provoked a wave of protests which, weeks later, forced autocratic president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali to flee to Saudi Arabia.
The revolution in Tunisia, a former French colony, inspired uprisings which forced out entrenched leaders in Egypt and Libya, and convulsed Yemen and Syria — re-shaping the political landscape of the Middle East.

The Associated Press reports, Oct. 24, 2011, that Islamists on Monday claimed victory in Tunisia’s first democratic election, sending a message to other states in the region that long-sidelined Islamists are challenging for power after the “Arab Spring.” Official results from Sunday’s vote have not been announced, but the Ennahda party said its workers had tallied the figures from results posted at polling stations around the country.

“The first confirmed results show that Ennahda has obtained first place,” campaign manager Abdelhamid Jlazzi said outside party headquarters in the center of the Tunisian capital.
As he spoke, a crowd of people in the street shouted “Allahu Akbar!” or “God is great!” Other people started singing the Tunisian national anthem.
Mindful that some people in Tunisia and elsewhere see Islamists as a threat to modern, liberal values, the party official stressed Ennahda would wield its power in a responsible and inclusive way.
“We will spare no effort to create a stable political alliance in the constituent assembly. We reassure the investors and international economic partners,” Jlazzi said.
Even if its victory is confirmed when official results from the vote — the first democratic election in Tunisia’s history — are released, Ennahda will still have to share power with other, secularist parties.
Sunday’s vote was for an assembly which will sit for one year to draft a new constitution. It will also appoint a new interim president and government to run the country until fresh elections late next year or early in 2013.
Ennahda is led by Rachid Ghannouchi, a scholar who was forced into exile in Britain for 22 years because of harassment by Ben Ali’s police. He is at pains to stress his party will not enforce any code of morality on Tunisian society. He models his approach on the moderate Islamist of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.
But the party’s resurgence is met with ambivalence by some people in Tunisia. The country’s strong secularist traditions go back to first post-independence President Habiba Bourguiba who called the hijab, or Islamic head scarf, an “odious rag.”
A crowd of about 50 people gathered late on Monday outside the offices of the electoral commission, demanding an investigation into what it said were irregularities committed by Ennahda.
A leading secularist challenger to Ennahda, the Progressive Democratic Party (PDP) conceded defeat. It had warned voters that modern, liberal values would be threatened if the Islamists won. “The PDP respects the democratic game. The people gave their trust to those it considers worthy of that trust. We congratulate the winner and we will be in the ranks of the opposition,” a party statement sent to Reuters said.
Here’s what Wikipedia says about the Ennahda or Renaissance Party:

  • Although traditionally shaped by the thinking of radical Muslim ideologue Sayyid Qutb and Maududi, the party began to be described as “moderate Islamist” in the 1980s when it advocated democracy and a “Tunisian” form of Islamism recognizing political pluralism and a “dialogue” with the West.
  • Critics charge that one of Ennahda’s main leaders, named Rashid Al-Ghannushi, had a history of violence.
  • In the 1989 elections, the party was banned from participating. In 1991, President Ben Ali jailed 25,000 Ennahda activists. Ennahda militants attacked the ruling party headquarters killing one person and splashing acid in the faces of several others. The party was legalized on 1 March 2011.
  • The party is generally described as socially centrist with mild support for economic liberalism (free market). The party says it wants Islam in public life; that it will be more accommodating to other viewpoints such as closer relations with the West and greater economic freedom; and currently rejects radical Islamism as a form of governance for Tunisia.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs


This is not a joke.
Muslims in Spain are killing dogs because according to Islamic teaching dogs are “unclean” animals.
Soeren Kern reports for Hudson New York, October 6, 2011, that Spanish authorities are investigating the recent deaths by poisoning of more than a dozen dogs in Lérida, a city in the northeastern region of Catalonia that has become ground zero in an intensifying debate over the role of Islam in Spain.
All of the dogs were poisoned in September (local media reports here, here, here, here and here) in Lérida’s working class neighbourhoods of Cappont and La Bordeta, districts that are heavily populated by Muslim immigrants and where many dogs have been killed in recent years.
Over the past several months, residents taking their dogs for walks have been harassed by Muslim immigrants opposed to seeing the animals in public. Muslims have also launched a number of anti-dog campaigns on Islamic websites and blogs based in Spain.
In July, two Islamic groups based in Lérida asked city officials to regulate the presence of dogs in public spaces so they do not “offend Muslims.” Muslims are demanding that dogs be banned from all forms of public transportation including all city buses as well as from all areas frequented by Muslim immigrants. They say the presence of dogs violates their religious freedom and their right to live according to Islamic principles.
Dogs are not the only Islam-related controversy in Lérida, where 29,000 Muslims now make up around 20% of the city’s total population.
In December 2010, Lérida became the first municipality in Spain to ban the burqa head covering in all public spaces. Women found violating the ban will be fined up to €600 ($750).
Much of Spain was ruled by Muslim conquerors from 711 and 1492; Salafists believe that the territories the Muslims lost during the Spanish Reconquista still belong to them, and that they have a right to return and establish their rule there – a belief based on the Islamic precept that territories once occupied by Muslims must forever remain under Muslim domination.
Salafism is a branch of revivalist Islam that calls for restoring past Muslim glory by forcibly establishing a universal Islamic empire (Caliphate) across the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe such as Spain, which Salafists view as a Muslim state that must be re-conquered for Islam.
The Salafist Houzi has called on Muslims who are eligible to vote in Spain to support Catalan separatist parties as a means to firmly establish Islamism in Catalonia. The Catalan independence movement supports the independence of Catalonia from Spain.
Catalonian pro-independence parties have traditionally favored immigration from non-Spanish-speaking countries, especially from Arabic-speaking Muslim countries, in the belief that these people would speak Catalan rather than Spanish.
The end result of this decades-old policy is that Catalonia is now home to a huge concentration of hard-line Islamist groups including Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami and the Salafists. Salafi preachers in Catalonia do not believe in democracy and teach that Islamic Sharia law is above Spanish civil law.
Meanwhile, the Catalan regional government says that during the first six months of 2011, it prevented 14 forced marriages and the genital mutilation of 24 Muslim girls.
Not surprisingly, some Catalans are having second thoughts about Muslim immigration. The Catalan nationalist party Plataforma per Catalunya (PxC), which has some 70,000 active members, is opposed to any further Muslim immigration.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

There Are Good Muslims

Last Sunday before Mass began, the priest acknowledged the 10th anniversary of that terrible day, 9/11, by remembering and honoring those who died. But he also cautioned us that we shouldn’t generalize — that the guilty are not all Muslims, but those particular individuals who perpetrated the attacks.
On Fellowship of the Minds, we often bemoan why “moderate” Muslims do not speak out against the atrocities committed by their fellow Muslims in the name of Islam.
On August 31, 2011, in Washington, D.C., a group of American Muslim leaders — the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) — spoke out against the extremists’ agenda of imposing Sharia in America. This is the AILC’s motto:

As American Muslim leaders, we come together to defend the US Constitution, uphold religious pluralism, protect American security and cherish genuine diversity in the practice of our faith of Islam.

We applaud the AILC for their stance and for speaking out, and hope that more Muslims have the courage to do so. Here is their statement.
~Eowyn

American Muslims speak out against the enforcement of shari‘ah law in America

Public Policy Alliance – Sept 5, 2011
Washington, DC (August 31, 2011) – A coalition of diverse American Muslim leaders has announced support for a proposed bill in the Michigan State Assembly, HB 4679, that is intended to bar Michigan courts from enforcing any foreign law, if doing so violates any rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and/or the state of Michigan’s constitution.
Like many Americans, members of the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) have been observing the efforts of a growing number of state legislatures, which are seeking to address the incompatibility of various shari‘ah court systems around the world with the principles and foundations of our Constitutional republic and its laws. As American Muslims, we believe that the law should treat people of all faiths equally, while protecting Muslims and non-Muslims alike from extremist attempts to use the legal instrument of shari‘ah (also known as Islamic jurisprudence, or fiqh) to incubate, within the West, a highly politicized and dangerous understanding of Islam that is generally known as “Islamism,” or “radical Islam.”
We see no evidence that statutes like HB 4769 will adversely impact the free exercise of our personal pietistic observance of Islam, which is not in conflict with the U.S. or Michigan constitutions. We recognize that not only Muslims, but also Jews, Christians and all people of faith need the government to protect their right to peaceful assembly, mediation and arbitration free of coercion, but also within the bounds of American constitutional principles. Therefore, we stand together as a diverse coalition in support of any legislation that serves to protect and integrate our communities into the fabric of this great nation, by strengthening our accountability to the laws of the land, and the constitutions of the various states in which we live.
As American Muslims we are conscious of the fact that Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups and other Islamists and their surrogates in the U.S. are trying their best to portray any opposition to manifestations of shari‘ah law as “racism” and “discrimination against Muslims.” However, as a coalition of traditional, liberal and secular Muslim Americans, we denounce this fear-mongering and playing of the race card, which only serves to mask the Islamists’ highly politicized agenda. According to AILC member C. Holland Taylor, “the Islamist agenda threatens not only the well-being of the United States and its inhabitants, but also undermines and distorts the highest principles of Islam itself.”
“Michigan House Bill 4769 seeks to ensure that American Muslims can live in freedom and safety, in accordance with our constitutional principles, and not be enveloped by the tentacles of medieval, man-made laws that have been falsely accorded divine status,” said the AILC.
“To equate Bill 4769 to racism is not only dishonest, but is a poor and clumsy attempt at making ordinary Muslim Americans feel alien in their own homeland, while creating a rift between Muslims and the rest of our country,” said AILC member Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.
Michigan House Bill 4769 states:

“[To] …limit the application and enforcement by a court, arbitrator, or administrative body of foreign laws that would impair constitutional rights; to provide for modification or voiding of certain contractual provisions or agreements that would result in a violation of constitutional rights; and to require a court, arbitrator, or administrative body to take certain actions to prevent violation of constitutional rights.”

The AILC statement reinforces the American Muslim community’s commitment to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the separation between religion and state. Unfortunately, Islamist groups would like to compromise this separation and provide cover to medieval, misogynistic and homophobic laws that no Muslim is obligated to demand as public law.
“Shari‘ah law, wherever it has been applied in the public domain, be it in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, has resulted in untold misery and oppression of Muslims, in particular Muslim women, by Islamists and dictators who invoke shari‘ah law to justify their rule,” said AILC member Manda Ervin. “Many of us fled the Muslim world to escape shari‘ah law and to practice Islam in our personal lives, by moving to the USA and other western countries. We do not wish these laws to follow us here,” she concluded.
The Michigan state senators are not alone in expressing concern about foreign laws creeping into North America under the guise of religious freedom. Many Muslim academics, religious scholars and human rights activists have voiced their concern.
The contrast between what has occurred in Britain and in Canada provides a roadmap for how the U.S. may address these legal issues. In Britain, shari‘ah arbitration courts have been allowed to assume virtually unchecked control of legal arrangements in many Muslim communities. This is creating a ghettoized, medieval and separatist state within Britain. In Canada, however, local Muslims led strong opposition to the Islamists’ shari‘ah agenda and were successful in preventing its implementation, thereby sparing our Northern neighbor the fate of so many Muslims in the United Kingdom, where women are commonly subjected to forced marriage and the denial of basic human rights.
“We Muslims in Canada defeated an attempt by Islamists to sneak shari‘ah law into Ontario,” said AILC member Tarek Fatah, who has been on the front lines of this struggle for many years. “We recognized the damage shari‘ah had inflicted on Muslims in the UK, and its oppressive nature in Muslim-majority countries, and decided to oppose it. We urge American Muslims not to succumb to the Islamists’ propaganda, and to back the Michigan Bill, which will protect Muslims and non-Muslims alike from the impact of foreign laws that violate the U.S. or Michigan constitutions.”
About the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC)
The American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) is a diverse coalition of liberty-minded, North American Muslim leaders and organizations. AILC’s mission advocates for defending the US Constitution, upholding religious pluralism, protecting American security and cherishing genuine diversity in the faith and practice of Islam. AILC provides a stark alternative to the Islamist organizations that claim to speak for what are diverse American Muslim communities. For more information on AILC, please visit our website at https://www.americanislamicleadership.org/.
AILC Coalition Signatories

Bahman Batmanghelidj
Founding Member
Alliance for Democracy in Iran
Virginia, USA
Manda Zand Ervin
President
Alliance of Iranian Women
Maryland, USA
Tarek Fatah
Founder
Muslim Canadian Congress
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Jamal Hasan
Council for Democracy and Tolerance
Baltimore, MD
Farzana Hassan, Ed.D.
Past President
Muslim Canadian Congress
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D.
President
American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Phoenix, AZ
Hasan Mahmud
Member, Advisory Board
World Muslim Congress
Dallas, TX
C. Holland Taylor
Chairman & CEO
LibForAll Foundation
Winston-Salem, NC
Jalal Zuberi, MD
Associate Professor of Pediatrics
Morehouse School of Medicine
Atlanta, GA
Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

"Creeping" Sharia Law


Isn’t so “creeping” any more…it’s here in our U.S. judicial system. The Center for Security Policy released a study that found Sharia Law was involved in court cases in 23 states. The Center evaluated 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah and American state law.  The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.
Some people have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy.  The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.
Key findings from the study:

  • At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
  • At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
  • The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct “Categories” of dispute:  21 cases dealt with “Shariah Marriage Law”; 17 cases involved “Child Custody”; 5 dealt with “Shariah Contract Law”; 3 dealt with general “Shariah Doctrine”; 2 were concerned with “Shariah Property Law”; 1 dealt with “Due Process/Equal Protection” and 1 dealt with the combined “Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody.

This is just unbelievable that Sharia is now in our courts. Time to wake up America!
DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

More Questions to Ask About Osama bin Laden's Death

Here’s a follow-up on my post of last night, “Questions to Ask About Osama bin Laden Death.”

Question #1:

Why is the press (see Daily Mail and Telegraph) posting pics of a dead Osama bin Laden which is a fake photoshop that has been circulating on the Internet for years?

How do we know this? Because the same “death” photo had been featured in a story released over a year ago.

Question #2: What happened to his body?

When the news broke yesterday evening that US forces had captured and killed Osama bin Laden, we were told that the 9-11 mastermind “was killed a week ago by a US bomb,” that “he was shot and killed by ground US forces in Pakistan,” and that “a House Intelligence committee aide confirms that the United States has the body.”
Upon awaking this morning, I discovered a radically different version. We are now told that we no longer have bin Laden’s corpse. Instead, the body is already buried at sea! From the AP:

“A U.S. official says Osama bin Laden has been buried at sea. After bin Laden was killed in a raid by U.S. forces in Pakistan, senior administration officials said the body would be handled according to Islamic practice and tradition. That practice calls for the body to be buried within 24 hours, the official said. Finding a country willing to accept the remains of the world’s most wanted terrorist would have been difficult, the official said. So the U.S. decided to bury him at sea. The official, who spoke Monday on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters, did not immediately say where that occurred.”

This means those of us who are just a tad skeptical about what the Obama administration tells us will have to just take the nontransparent administration’s word that (a) The body was really Osama bin Laden’s ’cause alleged DNA tests prove it!; and (b) The corpse was a “fresh” one, instead of a long-refrigerated specimen.
Alas, the Wikipedia article on “Islamic Funeral” does not say that Muslim practice calls for the body to be buried within 24 hours. This is what Wiki says:

“sharia (Islamic religious law) calls for burial of the body, preceded by a simple ritual involving bathing and shrouding the body, followed by salah (prayer). Cremation of the body is forbidden. Burial rituals should normally take place as soon as possible and include:

  • Bathing the dead body, except in extraordinary circumstances….
  • Enshrouding dead body in a white cotton or linen cloth.
  • Funeral prayer.
  • Burial of the dead body in a grave.
  • Positioning the deceased so that the head is faced towards Mecca.”

In other words, Sharia law does NOT mandate that the dead must be buried within 24 hours. However, Sharia law DOES mandate that the corpse be buried in a grave, that is, in the ground instead of at sea. I can think of at least one reason why Muslims don’t bury their dead at sea. The dead is supposed to be buried with the head facing towards Mecca — something that just can’t be done if the body is dumped into the sea.
In fact, according to al-Islam.org, Sharia law specifically instructs the following:

“620. * It is obligatory to bury a dead body in the ground, so deep that its smell does not come out and the beasts of prey do not dig it out, and, if there is a danger of such beasts digging it out then the grave should be made solid with bricks, etc.

621. If it is not possible to bury a dead body in the ground, it may be kept in a vault or a coffin, instead.

In other words, what we are told by the Obama administration — that bin Laden’s body was “buried at sea” to abide by Muslim traditions — is bupkus, A LIE.
Lastly, since when does the United States bury the body of an enemy combatant in accordance with the enemy’s religious strictures?
H/t May, Steve, and Joan!
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Religion of Peace Strikes Again

The "Religion of Peace"


Only 14, Bangladeshi girl charged with adultery was lashed to death
Via CNN:  Hena Akhter’s last words to her mother proclaimed her innocence. But it was too late to save the 14-year-old girl.  Her fellow villagers in Bangladesh’s Shariatpur district had already passed harsh judgment on her. Guilty, they said, of having an affair with a married man. The imam from the local mosque ordered the fatwa, or religious ruling, and the punishment: 101 lashes delivered swiftly, deliberately in public. Hena dropped after 70. Bloodied and bruised, she was taken to hospital, where she died a week later.
Hena was the youngest of five children born to Darbesh Khan, a day laborer, and his wife, Aklima Begum. They shared a hut made from corrugated tin and decaying wood and led a simple life that was suddenly marred a year ago with the return of Hena’s cousin Mahbub Khan. Khan eyed Hena and began harassing her on her way to school and back, said Hena’s father. He complained to the elders who run the village about his nephew, three times Hena’s age.
The elders admonished Mahbub Khan and ordered him to pay $1,000 in fines to Hena’s family. But Mahbub was Darbesh’s older brother’s son and Darbesh was asked to let the matter fade. Many months later on a winter night, as Hena’s sister Alya told it, Hena was walking from her room to an outdoor toilet when Mahbub Khan gagged her with cloth, forced her behind nearby shrubbery and beat and raped her.
The next day, the village elders met to discuss the case at Mahbub Khan’s house, Alya said. The imam pronounced his fatwa. Khan and Hena were found guilty of an illicit relationship. Her punishment under Sharia or Islamic Law was 101 lashes; his 201. Mahbub Khan managed to escape after the first few lashes.
Darbesh Khan and Aklima Begum had no choice but to mind the imam’s order. They watched as the whip broke the skin of their youngest child and she fell unconscious to the ground.
Bangladesh is considered a democratic and moderate Muslim country, and national law forbids the practice of sharia. But activist and journalist Shoaib Choudhury, who documents such cases, said Sharia is still very much in use in villages and towns aided by the lack of education and strong judicial systems. The Supreme Court also outlawed fatwas a decade ago, but human rights monitors have documented more than 500 cases of women in those 10 years who were punished through a religious ruling. And few who have issued such rulings have been charged.
Police are now conducting an investigation and have arrested several people, including Mahbub Khan, in connection with Hena’s death.
We can only hope that Khan and others involved in this brutality are properly prosecuted and that justice is served for Hena’s death.
DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

U.S. Islamic Website Calls For Demolition of Statue of Liberty

Still think American Muslims are harmless little fuzzballs?
Think again.
There is an utterly malevolent website called Shariah4America: A Call for Revolution which is calling for the demolition of our Statue of Liberty — the symbol of the United States of America and a beacon to all freedom-loving people in the world. Shariah4America calls on all “sincere Muslims” to instigate “a plan” to demolish Lady Liberty and replace her with a minaret.
~Eowyn

The Islamic Demolition of the Statue of Liberty

One of the founding principles of the Islamic constitution is to ensure that all sovereignty and supremacy belongs solely to God; the Shari’ah is a practical manifestation of this sovereignty and supremacy because it seeks to establish His command in society.
The status of a nation subsequently does not depend on its number, strength or technological advancement, but rather how much it submits to the commands of God. When a nation seeks to be free from such commands, then ultimately it will meet its destruction.
The Statue of Liberty, designed by Frederic Bartholdi, stands on Liberty Island in New York Harbor; representing Libertas, the Roman (false) goddess of Freedom, it is symbolic of the rebellious nature of the US constitution that elevates the command of man over the command of God.
In Islam, the public veneration of idols and statues is strictly prohibited. This has forced sincere Muslims to develop realistic plans that will aid in the removal of the Statue of Liberty.
Due to the scale of the task at hand, it is highly likely that rigorous safety checks will need to be employed before the demolition of the Statue of Liberty can commence; thus as a temporary measure, it is proposed that a large burkha is used to cover the statue, thereby shielding this horrendous eye sore from public view as well as sending a strong message to its French creators.
Post demolition, it is recommended that a minaret be built as a fitting replacement, allowing the glorification of God to be proclaimed daily as well as act as a powerful reminder of the superiority of Islam over all other ways of life.
Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Europe Wakes Up to Suicide by Islamization

Amidst the flickering light of a dimming western civilization, some Europeans seem finally to be waking up to Creeping Islamization. But it’s likely too little, too late. But it’s not too late for America!
Warning: The following news account clearly was written by a biased reporter.
H/t my ol’ friend Sol.
~Eowyn

Anti-Muslim groups descend on Paris
Ferry Biedermann – The National – Dec 19, 2010 

PARIS – Groups from across Europe yesterday gathered in the French capital to give voice to increasingly pronounced anti-Islam sentiments on the continent. Claiming to represent a wide range of political opinion, from Marxists and feminists to hardcore secularists and right-wing activists, the groups said they would coordinate their fight against what they call the Islamisation of Europe.
French Muslim and left-wing groups denounced the gathering that drew about 500 people as divisive. The president of the mainstream French Council of the Muslim Faith, Mohammed Moussaoui, said, “We are strongly in favour of the right to free expression but we feel that such a meeting is a threat to national unity and to our ability to live together.” He accused the organisers of incitement to hatred but the authorities rejected the council’s appeal to have the meeting banned. The police cordoned off the area near the hall where the gathering took place but only a few dozen people showed up for a counter-demonstration.
Anti-Islam groups have gained political momentum in several European countries in recent years. In Denmark and the Netherlands, political parties with a strong anti-Islam element are crucial in supporting minority governments. And in Sweden, a similar party for the first time crossed the electoral threshold in September.
The key personality of the Paris meeting, unmistakably, was Oskar Freysinger of the Swiss People’s Party who initiated the referendum last year in which the Swiss voted to ban the construction of minarets. The ponytailed politician, who was trailed by bodyguards in bomber jackets and black shades, was mobbed like a rock star by the crowd of mostly middle-aged and elderly Frenchmen and women. Mr Freysinger said that he was excited to take part in an effort to jointly combat the forces of Islamisation in Europe. “I do think that the Swiss model can be exported. I think that what we did can be replicated in France,” he said.
The meeting, organised jointly by the right-wing Bloc Identitaire and the nominally Republican left-wing Riposte Laïque, comes amid renewed tensions surrounding the presence of Muslims in France. Like elsewhere in Europe, these centre on a range of issues including demands to stop the construction of new mosques, protests against the conversion of food-outlets to halal only and an emphasis on the rights of women and gays. Less than 18 months away from the next presidential elections, several political blocs in France are taking up the matter.
Last week, Marine Le Pen, daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen and his likely successor as leader of the ultra right-wing Front National, caused outrage by comparing the overflow of Muslims from mosques into the streets of French cities during Friday prayers with the Nazi occupation during the Second World War. 
The Bloc identitaire is a much younger organisation, founded in 2003, but it is planning to run Arnaud Gouillon as its candidate in the 2012 presidential elections. Mr Gouillon is already well-versed in the emerging European anti-Islam discourse. “I am not against Muslims. I am against Islam,” he echoed a line also used by right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders and others.
The clash of civilisations theme was also taken up by the sole American speaker at the meeting, Tom Trenton, who founded the Florida Security Council, which bills itself as an educational organisation developed by Floridians who say they understand the extreme seriousness of the various security threats facing both the United States and Florida. Conflict with Muslim countries that promote the introduction of Sharia in the West “is inevitable” he claimed. Asked whether Islamisation is really an issue in the US, he answered, “maybe in the States we can keep things under control for a while longer but here in Europe I do not know if that’s possible”.
While almost all speakers deplored the idea that they were racist or xenophobic and the organisers had been warned by the police that they would be monitored for such language, many remarks veered from alarmist into the realm of incitement. Both the Dutch and Danish speakers mentioned “gangs of Muslims” roaming the streets of Europe and alleged a link with alleged rape of women.
Mr Moussaoui of the French Council of the Muslim Faith said that the talk of Islamisation was just a cover. “The use of the term is a way of fanning fear among European populations, to make them afraid of losing their identity because of the presence of Muslims.”

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Americans Support Full-Body Scanners 2-to-1


Good news!
Most Americans are morons, so stupid they will meekly and compliantly march to their own slaughter.
A new poll by ABC News and the Washington Post finds that Americans support the deployment of those full-body porn airport scanners by a whopping 2-to-1 margin.

As reported by ABC’s Gary Langer on November 22, 2010:

Americans by a 2-to-1 margin support the use of naked image full-body x-ray scanners in airport security lines, but fewer than half back aggressive new pat-down procedures — and opposition to both rises among those most affected: people who fly with any frequency.
Overall results in this ABC News/Washington Post poll mark the public’s longstanding emphasis on security over privacy. 64% support the use of the scanning machines, even though they produce x-ray images of a passenger’s unclothed body that security officials can see. Half as many are opposed, and “strong” supporters outnumber strong opponents, also by 2-to-1.

Sheeple Americans! Do you not know that these new “enhanced airport security procedures” do NOTHING to enhance your security? Let me explain it to you in simple terms:

  1. Muslims have been and are the most likely terrorists who hijack/blowup passenger airplanes. [See Take This Fun Terrorism Quiz and DHS Sees Americans, Not Islamic Jihadists, as Terrorists“.]  
  2.  

  3. Islamic clerics, the Figh Council of North America, have forbidden Muslims (via a fatwah or religious ruling) from being screened by the full-body scanners, on the grounds that the scanned images are so pornographic they violate Sharia law.
  4. CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) says they have been “guaranteed” by the Obama administration that only the heads and necks of Muslim women will be “patted down.”
  5. This means that Muslims can smuggle explosives onto your plane by secreting them anywhere on/in their bodies below their necks.
  6. Which means that subjecting yourselves to the humiliation of the scanners and pat-down body searches — which in some cases include TSA agents inserting their fingers up your rectum or vaginadoes not and will not give you “security” against terrorism!!!

Wake up, Americans!
~Eowyn 

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Islam Says Marital Rape Is OK

MEMORANDUM

To: Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, NOW, all Lefties, and Zionist Jew-haters (like Mark Glenn) who would have us believe that “Islamophobia” is a Mossad Jewish plot.

Fr: Fellowship of the Minds

You will be among the first to be stoned to death should this Religion of Peace ever succeed in imposing Sharia Law in America. Sadly, by the time this finally penetrates through the thick fog you call your mind, it’ll be too late….. 

H/t beloved fellows Tina & Steve.
~Eowyn  
Sharia-Sanctioned Marital Rape in Britain—And North America
By Andrew Bostom – October 14, 2010

Britain's Sharia Council. Second from the right is Maulana Abu Sayeed.


As reported in the UK Independent [2] (10/14/10), president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, has reiterated alarming comments made during a March, 2010 interview [3], sanctioning marital rape.
Sheikh Sayeed was in fact responding to an inchoate effort at modernizing the contracts which govern Muslim marriages in Britain. The good Sheikh, representing Britain’s main Islamic Sharia court, the Islamic Sharia Council [4], promptly published a rebuttal of the contract, which included a statement on sexual abuse (page 6 here [5]). He opined [3] in the March interview:

Clearly there cannot be any “rape” within the marriage. Maybe “aggression”, maybe “indecent activity.”

He further rejected both the characterization of non-consensual marital sex as rape, and the prosecution of such offenders as “not Islamic.” Sheikh Sayeed, who came to Britain from Bangladesh in 1977, also brazenly expressed his Sharia-supremacism and accompanying disdain for Western, i.e., British Law, stating

…to make it exactly as the Western culture demands is as if we are compromising Islamic religion with secular non-Islamic values.

Sayeed re-affirmed these sentiments to The UK Independent [2]:

In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape.

Crowing with pride during his March 2010 interview [3], Sheikh Sayeed maintained,

No other sharia council can claim they are so diverse as ours because other sharia councils, they are following one school of fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence]. Ours is diverse –we are hanafi, shafi’i, hanbali.we have Bangladeshi…we have Pakistani, we have Indian, we have Palestinian, we have Somali scholars on our board.

At present there are 16 main sharia courts around Britain, located in Birmingham, Bradford, and Ealing in West London. These institutions are “complemented” by more informal sharia-based tribunals—the think tank Civitas asserting that up to 85 tribunals currently exist [6] in Britain.
But for those who naively—and smugly—proclaim such phenomena are absent within the Muslim communities of North America, consider AMJA, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America [7]. AMJA’s mission statement claims the organization was, “…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities.”
In response to the specific query, “Is there a such thing as Marital Rape?,” the AMJA issued fatwa #2982 [8]:

For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.

An ocean apart from Britain—now a recognized Western hotbed for “Islamic fundamentalism”—the same Sharia-sanctioned misogynistic bigotry prevails in a North American clerical organization openly advising US and Canadian Muslims.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0