Calling Islam- ISLAM

Calling Islam “Islam”
By Bosch Fawstin

I wrote this a few years ago, and I think it’s worth posting again, particularly after the latest jihadist attack in Boston. I noticed, after the attack this week, that a number of people are using more proper terminology to identify this enemy, which is very important in taking on the enemy. I recall watching panel discussions after 9/11, with each panelist using a different term to describe the enemy we face. That annoyed the hell out of me as I think it’s incredibly important to identify the proper terms when speaking about our enemy, and to NEVER create terms, for whatever reason. To me, the only difference between “Islamism” and Islam is three letters. Below I try my best to make the case why we should always call Islam “Islam.”

Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy’s ideology as:

“Islamic Fundamentalism,” “Islamic Extremism,” “Totalitarian Islam,” “Islamofascism,” “Political Islam,” “Militant Islam,” “Bin Ladenism,” “Islamonazism,” “Radical Islam,” “Islamism,” etc….

The enemy calls it “Islam.”

Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as “Radical Nazism,” “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism.” The implication would be that there are good versions of those ideologies, which would then lead some to seek out “moderate” Nazis. Those who use terms other than “Islam” create the impression that it’s some variant of Islam that’s behind the enemy that we’re facing. A term such as “Militant Islam” is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion. Bush told us “Islam is peace” — after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name. He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And now we have Obama, who tells us, from Egypt:

“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

If only he felt that way about America. Washington’s defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.

Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and State is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic (“Sharia”) Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian. Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some “extremist” form of it. If jihadists were actually “perverting a great religion,” Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can’t is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God. From the Koran:

“Slay the idolators wherever you find them…” Chapter 9, verse 5

“When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them….” Ch. 47:4

Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life? This evil man is Islam’s ideal man, Mohammad. Whatever he said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It’s no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was his own. Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent.

For the 13 years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity and with the help of a large gang of followers that he managed to gain power. But he wanted his moral pretense too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah’s conveniently timed “revelation” that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad. From then on, violence became Islam’s way in the world. And today, acting on Mohammad’s words, “War is deceit” — in the sense that Muslims use earlier “peaceful” verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims. Those “peaceful” passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam. How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.

Note also that the only reason we’re talking about Islam is because we’ve been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam’s “conscientious objectors”? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn’t stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representives of “Moderate Islam.”

Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam. In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy’s ideology “Islam,” and they dismiss the idea of “Moderate Islam” as they would the idea of “Moderate Evil.” When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a “Muslim Extremist,” then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.

Islam is the enemy’s ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it’s up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can. If we can’t even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we’d be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy’s ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, “Jihadists,” and our response, “The War on Jihad.” But behind it all, it’s Islam that makes the enemy tick.

Despite my frustrations with the refusal of many to call Islam “Islam,” I know that those who speak out against Jihad put themselves in danger, and I respect their courage. But it’s important that we acknowledge Islam’s place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying “Islam” helps Islam and hurts us. So let’s begin calling the enemy’s ideology by its name. Let’s start calling Islam “Islam.” [1]

Obama Muslim Connection

Report: Obama said ‘I Am a Muslim’

By Pamela Geller

“The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV’s “Round Table Show” in January, on which he said that “he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda.”
Obama allegedly said this in the context of reassuring Gheit that he would soon deal with Israel:

He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare) [sic], that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel.

Could this be true? Even if Gheit’s claim isn’t true, or was misreported, every country in the free world must be cognizant of the catastrophic sea change that has taken place in the leadership of the free world — as witnessed by events over the past year. Barack Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and yet whether he is a Muslim or not, he has undeniably gone around the world promoting Islam and Sharia (Islamic law).
And now, if what Gheit says is true, we know why.
The alleged exchange between Obama and Gheit would almost certainly have happened in early January 2010, when Gheit was in Washington, D.C. regarding “Mideast peace talks.”
On Thursday, January 7, 2010, the Associated Press reported that “Clinton and Mitchell [were] scheduled to meet” with Gheit on Friday, January 8, 2010: see ABC news here.
On Friday, January 8, 2010, Hillary Clinton and Gheit spoke with each other. The U.S. Department of State has provided video before the meeting: see the Department of State here.
On Saturday, January 9, 2010, NPR spoke with Gheit about his visit: see NPR.org.
This is a devastating claim, and yet no media outlet is covering it. Remember, during Obama’s campaign, I and others were excoriated for using his middle name. We were accused of implying he was a crypto-Muslim. We could not discuss his background, his Islamic schooling, his ties to Islam. However, I have meticulously documented his Muslim background in my soon-to-be-released book,The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.
It became all too clear after his election how proud Obama was of his Muslim name, background, and family. He made this plain when he gave his very first interview to Muslim media and boasted of these things. He suddenly became proud of the very things that were verboten to speak of during the campaign. That was the level of deceit and obfuscation.
If Gheit’s reported claim is true, then Obama is a baldfaced liar. But why? Why lie if you have nothing to hide?
Of course, if Obama believes himself a Muslim, then his prior behavior constituted taqiya — deception or lies to advance Islam. This he performed brilliantly during his election: He lied with brazen contempt. And now his Islamic Jew-hatred is made painfully clear in his stunning rebuke of Israel. In Israel Today, political analyst Aviel Schneider exposes some of the further implications of Gheit’s claim:
That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements. Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.
“Obama is a real problem for Israel,” a senior official told told Yediot. “He is Israel’s biggest strategic catastrophe.” The newspaper also quoted another official who believes that for the first time Washington has switched sides. “The Obama White House is putting pressure only on Israel but does not expect anything from the Palestinians,” he said. “These American demands are unacceptable.”
Is it any wonder that Obama’s counterterror adviser speaks Arabic, calls Jerusalem “Al-Quds,” and calls jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam”?
We know that Gheit met with Obama in April 2010 in D.C. — check out White House.gov, which lists Gheit as one of the attendees of a “Nuclear Security Summit” at that time. And they met more than once. Gheit had a private meeting with Obama in May 2009.
Worse yet, Gheit just last month called Israel “the enemy.” This after Israel gave them the Sinai (which Israel had won in a defensive war and defended through another one) with all its oil in return for “peace.”
How plausible is Gheit’s reported claim about Obama? Let’s review Obama’s track record:
And earlier this week, Obama became the first president to host a press conference with theAmerican flag nowhere in sight.
Ouch. What a disgrace.
Now: will the lapdog media make Obama address Gheit’s claim?
The American people deserve answers. But whether or not what Gheit reportedly says is true, Obama’s pro-jihad track record is clear.

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author of The Post-American Presidency (coming July 27 from Simon & Schuster).

Obama’s Greatest Achievement In 2012 Was Creating An Islamist Egypt

US President Barack Hussein Obama’s greatest achievement in 2012 was creating an Islamist Egypt ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Make no mistake about it, without Obama giving the Muslim Brotherhood financial support and the backing of the United States, the phony Arab Spring never would have taken hold. Of course, all this was done to turn the Middle East’s largest Muslim country into a Sharia-ruled regime that just happens to sit on the southern border of Israel.

What a coincidence.

From Yahoo News: CAIRO (AP) — Egypt’s Islamist-backed constitution headed toward likely approval in a final round of voting on Saturday, but the deep divisions it has opened up threaten to fuel continued turmoil.

obama-islam-will-dominate-the-world

Passage is a victory for Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, but a costly one. The bruising battle over the past month stripped away hope that the long-awaited constitution would bring a national consensus on the path Egypt will take after shedding its autocratic ruler Hosni Mubarak nearly two years ago.

Instead, Morsi disillusioned many non-Islamists who had once backed him and has become more reliant on his core support in theMuslim Brotherhood and other Islamists. Hard-liners in his camp are determined to implement provisions for stricter rule by Islamic law in the charter, which is likely to futher fuel divisions.

His liberal and secular opposition, in turn, faces the task of trying to organize the significant portion of the population angered by what they see as attempts by Morsi and the Brotherhood to gain a lock on political power. The main opposition group, the National Salvation Front, said it would now start rallying for elections for the next lawmaking, lower house of parliament, expected early next year.

“We feel more empowered because of the referendum. We proved that at least we are half of society (that) doesn’t approve of all this. We will build on it,” the Front’s spokesman, Khaled Daoud, said. Still, he said, there was “no appetite” at the moment for further street protests.

Saturday’s voting in 17 of Egypt’s 27 provinces was the second and final round of the referendum. Though the constitution is widely expected to pass, the key questions will be over turnout and the margin of victory. Preliminary results from the first round a week ago showed only 32 percent turnout and a relatively low edge of 56 percent for the “yes” vote. Preliminary results from the second round are expected to emerge by early Sunday.

The new constitution would come into effect once official results are announced, expected in several days

In a sign of disarray in Morsi’s administration, his vice president and — possibly — the central bank governor resigned during Saturday’s voting. Vice President Mahmoud Mekki’s resignation had been expected since his post is eliminated under the new constitution. But its hasty submission even before the charter has been sealed and his own resignation statement suggested it was linked to Morsi’s policies.

“I have realized a while ago that the nature of politics don’t suit my professional background as a judge,” his resignation letter, read on state TV, said. Mekki said he had first submitted his resignation last month but events forced him to stay on.

The status of Central Bank Governor Farouq el-Oqdah was murkier. State TV first reported his resignation, then soon after reported the Cabinet denied he has stepped down in a possible sing of confusion. El-Oqdah, in his post since 2003, has reportedly been seeking to step down but in recent weeks the administration was trying to convince him to stay on. The government is eager to show some stability in the economy as the Egyptian pound has been sliding and a much-needed $4.8 billion loan from the IMF has been postponed.

“I don’t trust the Brotherhood anymore and I don’t trust the opposition either. We are forgotten, the most miserable and the first to suffer,” said Azouz Ayesh, sitting with his neighbors as their cattle grazed in a nearby field in the Fayoum countryside.

Over the past month, seven of Morsi’s 17 top advisers and the one Christian among his top four aides resigned. Like Mekki, they said they had never been consulted in advance on any of the president’s moves, including his Nov. 22 decrees, since rescinded, that granted himself near absolute powers.

Those decrees sparked large street protests by hundreds of thousands around the country, bringing counter-rallies by Islamists. The turmoil was further fueled with a Constituent Assembly almost entirely made up of Islamists finalized the constitution draft in the dead of night amid a boycott by liberals and Christians. Rallies turned violent. Brotherhood offices were attacked, and Islamists attacked an opposition sit-in outside the presidential palace in Cairo leading to clashes that left 10 dead.

The turmoil opened up a vein of bitterness that the polarizing constitution will do little to close. Morsi opponents accused him of seeking to create a new Mubarak-style autocracy. The Brotherhood accused his rivals of being former Mubarak officials trying to topple an elected president and return to power. Islamists branded opponents “infidels” and vowed they will never accept anything but “God’s law” in Egypt.

Both rounds of voting saw claims by the opposition and rights groups of voting violations. On Saturday they said violations ranged from polling stations opening late to Islamists seeking to influence voters to say “yes.” The official MENA news agency said at least two judges have been removed for coercing voters to cast “yes” ballots.

The opposition’s talk of now taking the contest to the parliament elections represented a shift in the conflict — an implicit gamble that the opposition can try to compete under rules that the Islamists have set. The Brotherhood’s electoral machine has been one of its strongest tools since Mubarak’s fall, while liberal and secular parties have been divided and failed to create a grassroots network.

In the first post-Mubarak parliament elections last winter, the Brotherhood and ultraconservative Salafis won more than 70 percent of seats in the lower chamber, which was later dissolved by a court order. The opposition is now betting it can do better with the anger over Morsi’s performance so far.

The schism in a country that has for decades seen its institutions function behind a facade of stability was on display in Saturday’s lines of voters. In the village of Ikhsas in the Giza countryside south of Cairo, an elderly man who voted “no” screamed in the polling station that the charter is “a Brotherhood constitution.”

“We want a constitution in the interest of Egypt. We want a constitution that serves everyone, not just the Brotherhood. They can’t keep fooling the people,” Ali Hassan, a 68-year-old wearing traditional robes, said.

But others were drawn by the hope that a constitution would finally bring some stability after nearly two years of tumultuous transitional politics. There appeared to be a broad economic split, with many of the middle and upper classes rejecting the charter and the poor voting “yes” — though the division was not always clear-cut.

In Ikhsas, Hassan Kamel, a 49-year-old day worker, said “We the poor will pay the price” of a no vote. He dismissed the opposition leadership as elite and out of touch. “Show me an office for any of those parties that say no here in Ikhsas or south of Cairo. They are not connecting with people.”

In the industrial working class district of Shubra El-Kheima just north of Cairo, women argued while waiting in line over the draft charter. Samira Saad, a 55 year old housewife, said she wanted her five boys to find jobs. ”We want to get on with things and we want things to be better,” she said.

Nahed Nessim, a Christian, questioned the integrity of the process. “There is a lot of corruption. My vote won’t count.” She was taken to task by Muslim women wearing the niqab, which blankets the entire body and leaves only the eyes visible and is worn by ultraconservative women.

“We have a president who fears God and memorizes His words. Why are we not giving him a chance until he stands on his feet?” said one of the women, Faiza Mehana, 48.

The promise of stability even drew one Christian woman in Fayoum, southwest of Cairo, to vote “yes” — a break with most Christians nationwide who oppose the draft. Hanaa Zaki said she wanted an end to Egypt’s deepening economic woes.

“I have a son who didn’t get paid for the past six months. We have been in this crisis for so long and we are fed up,” said Zaki, waiting in line along with bearded Muslim men and Muslim women wearing headscarves in Fayoum, a province that is home to both a large Christian community and a strong Islamist movement.

The scene In Giza’s upscale Mohandiseen neighborhood was starkly different.

A group of 12 women speaking to each other in a mix of French, Arabic and English said they were all voting “no.”

“It’s not about Christian versus Muslim, it is Muslim Brotherhood versus everyone else,” said one of them, Shahira Sadeq, a Christian physician.

Kamla el-Tantawi, 65, said she was voted “against what I’m seeing” — and she gestured at a woman nearby wearing the niqab.

“I lose sleep thinking about my grandchildren and their future. They never saw the beautiful Egypt we did,” she said, harkening back to a time decades ago when few women even wore headscarves covering their hair, much less the black niqab. Many voters were under no illusions the turmoil would end. source – Yahoo News

Palestinians: The Third Intifada Has Begun- Dr. John McTernan’s Insights

Dr. John McTernan

                            Verse of the Day

Zechariah 12:6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.

Commentary

Jerusalem once again is the focus of world attention. Zechariah 12 is like reading the modern media as Jerusalem has the world’s attention. Israel is building homes in Jerusalem and now the nations are upset. There really is no other city in the world that gets all this attention from the UN and other nations. I still feel that this coming all-out war between Israel and the Arabs will be over Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be the rallying cry of the Islamic caliphate when it organizes the Jihad to take the city. This Jihad is the final attack of Islam as God will destroy it.

Today’s events are focused on Jerusalem and Syria. This is right out of the Bible from Isaiah 17 and Zechariah 12!

Jerusalem will be focus of Third-Intifida

Palestinians: The Third Intifada Has Begun  12/17/12 When it starts, it will be the last one for the Palestinians as the Bible states that none are going to survive.

source: http://defendproclaimthefaith.org/blog/

Islamic Beast Rising in Michigan- CAIR FIGHTS CONSTITUTION

Hamas-CAIR fights sharia bill in Michigan

How can anyone oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties?

Lady Macbeth media are on a jihad to scrub the sharia (USA Today column: “Sharia doesn’t pose a threat to freedom”)

“Muslim rights group” — perverted language of the fatally absurd. CAIR is the arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, and is working furiously to impose the brutal and racist sharia with an end goal of “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”

Muslim rights group urges bill in Michigan Legislature be stopped “Detroit Free Press”

A Muslim rights group has urged Gov. Rick Snyder to veto legislation designed to block the use of Islamic law in the state, should the bill reach his desk.

A House bill to bar use of “foreign laws that would impair constitutional rights” was on Tuesday’s House agenda. Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, sponsored the bill, which doesn’t specifically mention the Islamic legal code sharia. However, the bill’s supporters have said they are concerned about the use of sharia spreading.

[…] The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement criticizing what it called an “anti-Islam bill” and urged that it be rejected.

The group said it “is calling on all people of conscience to urge Gov. Snyder to veto the biased bill, which is among those that seek to impose government-sanctioned discrimination on followers of a minority faith.”

At least 20 states have considered similar measures, and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed one into law in May.

“It’s our hope that this bill doesn’t make it all the way to the governor,” Dawud Walid, executive director of the council’s Michigan chapter, said. “But if it does, we sincerely hope that he will veto this bigoted bill.”

Here is an excerpt of the testimony I gave to the Alaska legislature in support of foreign law prohibition:

How can anyone oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties? We all accept that state and federal const’l rights to a jury trial in CIVIL cases can be waived almost by default (thus two parties agreeing to be bound by German or French law where there is no jury trial right in a civil matter) would not be affected by the bill since the jury trial right is per the law waived by default.

But there is no jurisprudence in the federal system and none in any state that would allow a party to waive Equal Protection—that is, could an african american agree to be discriminated against by the state? Absolutely not, so why would we allow a party to “waive” an equal protection claim in court where the state’s police power is being used to enforce an offensive foreign law?

We now have groups that has ever come to this country with a ready-made model of society and government they believe to be superior to what we have here and are working to institute it.

For example, Islamic law contravenes American freedoms in numerous particulars.

We have seen sharia law in New Jersey. Back in July 2010, a Muslim husband raped his wife, and the judge determined that no sexual assault occurred because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex on demand from their husbands. Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court was not allowed to stand—this time. But there have been over a hundred cases of Sharia jurisprudence in the US, and Jeffery Mittman of the ACLU has testified that“all have been overturned by a higher courts, therefore there is no problem since the American constitutional system worked.” Of course, this begs the question of why should this have happened in the first place. Secondly, it is simply not true that all cases have been overturned. In fact, there are cases in CAL and MD in which trial courts were overturned by appellate courts, the latter of which turned the blind eye to the threat from shariah.

There are also ongoing initiatives to compel businesses to adopt Sharia norms. In March 2007, Target stores in Minneapolis shifted Muslim cashiers who refused to check out pork products to other jobs in the stores.[1] The J. B. Swift meat packing plant in Greeley, Colorado in September 2008 fired Muslim workers who turned violent and walked off their jobs when denied special break periods to end the Ramadan fast at the appointed time.[2] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, however, sided with the Muslim workers and forced Swift to reinstate them.[3] Ultimately, Swift added footbaths and bidets to its plant for the Muslim workers.[4] Cab drivers in the Minneapolis airport several years ago tried to stipulate that they wouldn’t carry passengers who had alcohol with them – passengers had to conform to Sharia law or not get a cab.

In November 2008, a federal judge ordered Gold’n Plump, Inc., a chicken processing plant, to pay $365,000 to Somali Muslim workers for firing them for walking off the job to pray, and for making new hires sign a form acknowledging that they may have to handle pork on the job.[5] And in February 2010, a group of Muslims in Colorado sued Wal-Mart, claiming that they were fired in order to provide jobs for local non-Muslims, and that they had been denied prayer breaks while on the job.[6] Mind you, it is not necessary for a Muslim to pray at a certain time if necessity makes it impossible to do so. These actions are merely devices in which to impose Islam on non-believers. Prayer is not absolutely required on a strict schedule, and Muslim prayers are commonly “made up” after work or school. This is true even in Muslim countries, i.e., Iran.

The irony is that the ACLU would oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties.

The idea  “presented by Muslim Brotherhood groups that ‘Sharia Law’ is not actually ‘law’, but religious traditions that provide guidance to Muslims regarding the exercise of their faith” or that ‘Sharia Law’ differs depending on the country in which the individual Muslim resides is patently false. For example, in the Oklahoma case against the foreign law prohibition, the plaintiff stated that marrying more than one wife is permissible in Islam but in the United States, where that is illegal, Muslims do not marry more than one wife because Sharia in the United States mandates Muslims to abide by the law of the land and respect the law of their land.”

And yet in August 2007, when asked how common polygamy was among Muslims in the United States, unindicted co-conspirator CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper said that a “minority” of Muslims here were polygamous, and added: “Islamic scholars would differ on whether one could do so while living in the United States.”[7] He didn’t say anything about Muslims in the U.S. being given pause by the fact that the practice remains illegal in the United States. Iman Aly Hindy, has stated this about the relationship between Islamic law and American law: “This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion. If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that.”[8]

Apparently many Muslims in America as well as Canada think the same way. A May 2008 estimate found between 50,000 and 100,000 Muslims living in polygamous arrangements in the U.S., in defiance of American law.[9] This shows that we need to stand against Sharia or Muslims will continue to defy American law and instead live according to Shariua dictates.

Legal expert David Yerushalmi, a pioneering legal authority in the drafting of such state laws, points out that “the global jihad leadership against which we have aligned most of our military and intelligence resources since 9/11 informs us in Arabic, Pashtu, Urdu, Persian, and even in English that the global jihad against the West is fundamentally directed and determined by Islamic law, or sharia. The jihad leaders further tell us that their ultimate goal, in addition to that of the ‘defensive jihad’ incumbent on every Muslim to rid the Islamic world of an occupying infidel presence is the implementation of sharia law as the law of the land in any place Muslims step foot.”

“Surveys in the Muslim world consistently evidence that somewhere between 50% to 70% of the global Muslim community desires to create a unified Caliphate for all Muslims and to order that political hegemony according to a strict al Qaeda-like sharia.”

The separation of mosque and state is essential to preserving American freedom and our way of life. Yet the Islamic supremacists have made real inroads. We have seen over the last few years the encroachment of Islam on the secular marketplace. Muslims have demanded, and received, special accommodation in public schools, in the workplace, in our government, and in privately owned businesses.

One only needs to look at the disintegration of Europe and the establishment all over that continent of enclaves in which Sharia is enforced and the law of the land disregarded, to glimpse a bleak future made possible by “good intentions” and the failure of multiculturalism. In those areas of Europe, women and non-Muslims suffer institutionalized discrimination, and there is no freedom of speech or freedom of conscience.

It is time to stand up for American rule of law and individual rights for all.

%d bloggers like this: