Posted tagged ‘Sharia law’

Trump in Poland: “Our Civilization Will Triumph”

July 7, 2017

Trump in Poland: “Our Civilization Will Triumph”, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, July 7, 2017

Trump in Warsaw wasn’t just paying lip service to unattainable ideals, any more than Obama was when he said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Obama worked very hard to make sure that would be true, and now his successor is working very hard to ensure that Judeo-Christian civilization survives instead. Americans can be grateful that we do not, for the moment, have (as Trump as said) a President of the world, but a President of the United States.

********************************

Interrupted repeatedly by chants of “Donald Trump! Donald Trump! Donald Trump!” as he was speaking in Poland on Thursday, President Trump delivered a ringing affirmation that he would defend Western civilization: “Just as Poland could not be broken, I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail, our people will thrive, and our civilization will triumph.”

Now, we’re used to Presidents affirming that civilization will triumph. Barack Obama did it, too. Trump’s remarkable innovation here, and sharp departure from the example his predecessor set, is in declaring that Western civilization would triumph. Barack Hussein Obama, by contrast, was famous for declaring the triumph of Islamic civilization, most notably when he told the United Nations General Assembly on September 25, 2012: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

If the future is not to belong to those who are perceived as slandering the prophet of Islam, Sharia blasphemy laws criminalizing criticism of Islam will have to have been imposed; people aren’t likely to give up criticizing Muhammad voluntarily, especially as jihad terror attacks incited by his teachings become an ever more common feature of life in the West. Thus if the future doesn’t belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam, it will be because the freedom of speech has been extinguished and Islamic values have prevailed: Islamic civilization will have triumphed.

If that was not what Barack Obama wanted, he never gave any indication of it during eight years in the White House. The Democrats constantly pointed to his killings of bin Laden and al-Awlaki as indication that he was tough on terrorism, but amid foreign and domestic policies indefatigably supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and its auxiliaries in the United States, unstinting opposition to the freedom of speech regarding criticism of Islam, and an appalling deal that gave aid and comfort to the Islamic Republic of Iran, those killings only made clear that while Obama evidently opposed violent jihad, he had no serious objection to other methods of Sharia imposition and Islamization.

In Warsaw Thursday, Trump offered a radically different vision. “We are fighting hard against radical Islamic terrorism,” he declared. “And we will prevail. We cannot accept those who reject our values and who use hatred to justify violence against the innocent.”

We cannot accept those who reject our values.” After eight years of Obama acting as if the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms were burdens to be cast off rather than rights to be defended, this is an extraordinary statement. It is also one of the reasons why Trump’s notorious “travel ban” contains a little-noted directive that is clearly designed to preserve American values. The March 6 executive order states:

To be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available the following information:…information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called “honor killings,” in the United States by foreign nationals.

Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (Reliance of the Traveller o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. In this case the victim was the murderer’s daughter, a victim to the culture of violence and intimidation that such laws help create.

The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but “the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.’” And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”

Until the encouragement Islamic law gives to honor killing is acknowledged and confronted, more women will suffer. President Trump is trying to keep women from suffering in this way in the United States.

That element of the executive order is the kind of thing that is involved in ensuring that “our civilization will triumph”: stopping the encroachment of Sharia values in the United States. Trump in Warsaw wasn’t just paying lip service to unattainable ideals, any more than Obama was when he said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Obama worked very hard to make sure that would be true, and now his successor is working very hard to ensure that Judeo-Christian civilization survives instead. Americans can be grateful that we do not, for the moment, have (as Trump as said) a President of the world, but a President of the United States.

UK Universities and the PC Police

July 3, 2017

UK Universities and the PC Police, Clarion ProjectMeira Svirsky, July 3, 2017

Jonaya English (Photo: Video screenshot)

A police offer in the UK has threatened young woman he will pressure her university to withdraw her acceptance over a comment she made on social media about Islamist terrorism. He has also threatened her with charges of harassment.

The young woman, named Jonaya English and who is set to enter Newcastle University, engaged with a former high school acquaintance on Twitter after the attack at the Finsbury Mosque.

The acquaintance, who tweets under the handle of @mariamiwaseem posted a tweet stating that UK’s anti-radicalization program Prevent is tainted because it created suspicion about Muslims being terrorists; moreover, the Finsbury Mosque attack proves that Muslims are victims, not perpetrators.

In response, English tweeted back that, while the attack on the mosque was wrong, one attack on a mosque proved nothing and that the majority of the time, Muslims were the perpetrators of attacks. “Where do they learn it?” English asked. “The Quran.”

English subsequently received an email from Police Constable Mohammed Khan, saying that if she didn’t engage with him, he would ask Newcastle University to withdraw its offer to her as a “safeguarding measure.”

The officer’s communications to English appear below in a tweet by UK media personality Katie Hopkins who asks the officer’s  Northumbria Police Department: “Who is the head of your force please? Are you guys sharia?”

“I was stating a fact,” English states in a video (below) she made to explain the incident. “Muslims are the perpetrators most of the time, and they get these ideas from the Quran.”

 

English continued, “The thing that made this disgusting was that the officer, who was also a Muslim, said that he will try to get the university to withdraw my [acceptance]. I wrote a tweet  about a political opinion which is all over the political forum which is Twitter. Somebody [who] clearly doesn’t like this decides  to report me for ‘harassment.’ It’s …  simply an allegation (and a false one at that) and the officer says he’s going to get my offer withdrawn.”

As one former police officer said: “This officer has exceeded his power and abused his position.”

While the saga of this story continues, it is worth contrasting it to statements made by the president of the UK’s Salford University’s Student Union. Zamzam Ibrahim, a Muslim of Somali decent who was elected president of the union in March, recently made headlines with her responses to questions posed on AskFM (a question and answer-based social media network).

When asked, “What’s the one book you think everyone should be required to read?” she answered, “The Quran, We would have an Islamic takeover!”

Ibrahim, who recently completely a bachelor’s degree in business and financial management, also opposes the UK government’s Prevent program, calling it “disastrous” and “racist.”

Writing under the hashtag #IfIwasPresident, Ibrahim tweeted, “I’d oppress white people just to give them a taste of what they put us through! #LMFAO [Laughing my f—king ass off] ”

Yet, no complaints of harassment or threats from the police have been brought against Ibrahim.

The stifling of conversation – including the chilling effect on free speech caused by members of the UK police force – set a dangerous precedent for democratic societies worldwide. Officers, whose job it is to uphold the law – which includes the guarantee of free speech — are becoming self-appointed (or worse, are directed to become) enforcers of political correctness  (i.e., whatever values happen to be in style at the moment).

Preventing the free exchange of ideas and, in this case, pushing the narrative that Islamists are not the main perpetrators of terror attacks, not only defies the facts, but it creates an atmosphere that breeds violence such as the revenge attack on the Finsbury Mosque.

If we not allowed to talk about Islamism, the driving force behind the world’s current blight of terrorism, it will be left to the far-right extremists to defend their countries in the only language they are convinced will be effective.

 

Texas Enacts ‘Anti-Sharia’ Law

June 16, 2017

Texas Enacts ‘Anti-Sharia’ Law, BreitbartMerrill Hope, June 16, 2017

(Earlier “American law for American courts” legislation had been problematic because it prohibited consideration of foreign laws even in business contexts where, for example, an American company had entered into a contract with a German company providing for situations where German or American law business law would apply. The present law apparently does not do that, and is a good start. — DM)

Photo: Breitbart Texas/Lana ShadwickPhoto: Breitbart Texas/Lana Shadwick

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law House Bill 45, more commonly known as “American Laws for American Courts,” or ALAC. It prohibits the use of any foreign law in the state’s courts, specifically in family cases that involve marriage or parent-child relationship matters.

One of the bill’s co-authors Representative Jeff Leach (R-Plano) thanked the governor, who signed HB 45 on Wednesday. Leach called the law “vitally important bill to further safeguard and protect our Constitutional rights!” In the last legislative session, Leach authored the comparable yet unsuccessful ALAC measure, House Bill 562.

Thank you Governor Abbott for signing our House Bill 45 – a vitally important bill to further safeguard and protect our Constitutional rights!

HB 45 lead author Representative Dan Flynn (R-Canton) also introduced similar past legislation that failed. In a recent press release, Flynn noted foreign law is often applied in Texas cases concerning divorce orders, child support, property settlements and sometime even, spouses enter into agreements to have foreign law applied to their disputes.

“My colleagues and I here at the Texas Legislature want to make sure Texas judges never apply foreign law in Texas courts in violation of constitutional rights and the public policy of our state,” said Flynn.

Under HB 45, Texas and U.S. law supersede all other laws. It prevents state judges from applying any foreign law because, in doing so, it infringes upon U.S. and Texas constitutional rights. The bill shields litigants in family law cases “against violations of constitutional rights and public policy in the application of foreign law” under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, federal and judicial precedent, the Texas Family Code, and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, among other protections.

HB 45 makes no mention of any particular foreign nation, religion, or cultural practice but clarifies that “foreign law” means a rule, law, or code from a jurisdiction outside of the United States and it shall not override U.S and Texas law or their respective constitutions. It specifies that a “foreign judgment” means a ruling from a court, tribunal, or administrative adjudicator outside U.S. states and territories. The bill underscores that, in the event of any legal conflicts, “federal or state law prevails.”

In January 2015, Breitbart Texas confirmed in a report that an Islamic tribunal using Sharia law operated in Dallas. Dr. Taher El-badawi, one of four attorneys who called themselves “judges” and not arbitrators, claimed the tribunal and its decisions were “voluntary.” El-badawi said the tribunal operated under Sharia as a form of “non-binding dispute resolution” in civil disputes in family and business cases but also admitted that when in conflict between Sharia and Texas law, “we follow Sharia law.”

In December 2015, Flynn asked Attorney General Ken Paxton “the extent to which current law authorizes or requires a judge of a state court to apply foreign law in certain family law disputes.” Last year, Paxton ruled in a seven-page nonbinding legal opinion: “Under Texas law, a court is not required in family law disputes to enforce a foreign law if enforcement would be contrary to Texas public policy or if it would violate a party’s basic right to due process.” However, according to the Attorney General’s office, Paxton’s opinion only constituted a written interpretation of existing law and did not decide any law.

The Texas chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called HB 45 anti-Sharia law and lobbied for the state’s Muslim community to oppose the bill. “We believe it prevents Muslims from practicing their faith in areas such as Islamic marriage, divorce, funeral procedures, and civil agreements, they said in a press release.

HB 45 requires the Texas Supreme Court adopt its rules by January 1, 2018. The law goes into effect on September 1, making Texas the 12th state to enact ALAC. The other states are Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington, according to ACT for America.

New Blasphemy Laws for Canada?

June 15, 2017

New Blasphemy Laws for Canada? Clarion ProjectShabnam Assadollahi, June 15, 2017

Wikimedia Commons/Carlos Latuff)

Criticizing Islam in Canada should not be illegal or disliking it should not be classified as a phobia. A “phobia” is a type of mental disorder. Isn’t the “Islamophobia” motion, which was unanimously passed by the Canadian government and calls for limiting the rights of Canadians to criticize Islam, contrary to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms? What is the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then?

The definition of Islamophobia from a Google search is “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.” What exactly has the Parliament of Canada made a motion against? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Mohammed? Criticism and condemnation of the Islamic State and all Islamic terrorist groups affiliated with radical Islamic ideology? Petitioning against those Canadians who condemn Sharia law? If Canadians criticize Islam or convert from Islam, will they now be considered “Islamophobes” by Canada?

What’s next? Sending Iran and Hamas type morality police to the doorsteps of Canadians critical of Islam, while radical imams in the country continue to spew openly hateful and radical ideas in schools and mosques? What about Canadians who are suspicious of others plotting possible terrorist activities – will they be afraid to report it to authorities in case they are wrong?

The motion (M-103) which the Canadian government recently passed was initiated on June 8, 2016, by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. It condemns Islamophobia in “all” forms.

The details of the motion, which was sponsored by a member of parliament from the Liberal party, are extremely sketchy to say the least. The motion states:

“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

It seems that many Western politicians, the mainstream media and our intellectual elites use the term “Islamophobia” without even knowing what is in Islam. There might be a lot of things about which one could be rationally “phobic,” or simply fearful of, in Islam.

For example, political Islam is known to be an ideology that produces Islamist terrorists. Islamic Republic of Iran is a prime example of it.

Since Trudeau Liberals came to power, Canadians have been constantly reminded that to speak negatively about Islam is supposedly acting as a fear-mongering, racist, xenophobic, “Islamophobe.”

Yet, many people are rightfully afraid of harm coming to them from Islamic (sharia law) and radical or political Islam. I am a living example of one who has experienced harm from radical Islam.

I was imprisoned at age 16 by the Iranian regime for simply expressing my disagreement with their policies (which now might be viewed as Islamophobic in Canada). They held me prisoner for 18 months in their notorious Evin Prison; I miraculously escaped the murder and rape I heard about every day in that dark place.

Read Shabnam Asadollahi’s story here

The memories of my imprisonment still haunt me. And the regime’s threats still follow me today in Canada. Therefore, I have a reasonable fear of radical Islam. To call my fear a phobia, an irrational fear, lacks compassion and fails to recognize the true reality of the present danger living close to me once again.

It was reported that the highest commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards recently said they would soon kill all dissidents living abroad. That means I am on their hit list.

People are jittery about radical Islam and sharia law for many justifiable reasons: They look at how shariais practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, by the Islamic State and Nigeria’s Boko Haram.

The Islamic Cairo Declaration of 1990, written as a direct refutation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that all human rights are defined under Islamic sharia law. Therefore, beheading, stoning, flogging, slavery, child marriage, wife-beating, amputations and a woman’s worth considered half of a man’s are all human rights.

Is that what we want for or in Canada? Or in any country?

To those of us who have experienced Islamic Sharia law first-hand, protecting Western values – free speech, common law, equal justice under the law, democratic (“man-made”) governance; individual freedoms, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, to name just a few – is indeed a cause for concern. Every single one of them is contradicted by Islamic Sharia law or radical Islam.

Why should it be against the law to outspokenly disagree with aspects of a different political ideology, religion or culture? Especially if it outspokenly threatens one’s own?

It is interesting to note that there are no comparable terms for other religions, such as Christianophobia or Judeophobia that define a dislike or prejudice against Christianity, Judaism or the Judeo-Christian worldview.

What is true is that Christians and Jews would never be allowed to call for a similar motion in any Middle Eastern country in the world.

While M-103 has been stirring in our halls of government, there is also another trend sweeping through these same halls to rid the Canadian Charter of obsolete, unconstitutional or redundant laws, thanks to other Liberal MPs.

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017, the liberals unveiled Bill C-51 that would clean up the Canadian Criminal Code. This Bill would remove the outdated blasphemy law that has existed in Canada since 1892. Government feels this would clean up old law that isn’t consistent with freedom of speech and religion in Canada.

Strangely, C-51 and M-103 seem to contradict one another. While M-103 condemns Islamophobia in all forms, including speaking against Islam, C-51 is loosening law to allow anyone to freely express themselves concerning anyone’s religion without fear of reprisal or imprisonment. Will C-51 only apply to every religion except Islam?

“Intolerance of Intolerance” is the de-facto blasphemy law of the secular state. Is the Government of Canada scrapping one blasphemy law, only to replace it with another?

A complete version of this article appeared on Mackenzie Institute.

Sharia Down Under

May 29, 2017

Sharia Down Under, Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, May 29, 2017

Recently, Australia adopted stricter vetting rules for immigrants to avoid admitting those who harbor hostile Islamic views. Evidently, this measure comes several decades too late: Those who harbor hostile Islamic views were let in a long time ago. Now, what will Australia do about those who are there?

***********************************

Sharia law, the president at the time of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils ludicrously argued, far from discriminating against women, “guarantees women’s rights that are not recognised in mainstream Australian courts”.

The Australian Federal Police investigated 69 incidents of forced or under-age marriage in the 2015-16 financial year, up from 33 the previous year. While there are no official numbers, it is estimated that there are 83,000 women and girls in Australia who may have been subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which has spent the past four years probing numerous religious organizations, has made no inquiries into Islam. The commission has held 6,500 one-on-one private interview sessions with survivors or witnesses making allegations of child sexual abuse within institutions, but only three sessions in relation to Islamic institutions.

What legacy did Australia’s former Grand Mufti, Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali — named “Muslim Man of the Year” in 2005 and the country’s most senior, longest-serving (1988-2007) Muslim cleric — leave behind?

In 1988, when Hilali was imam of the largest mosque in Australia, he gave a speech at Sydney University in which he described Jews as the cause of all wars and the existential enemy of humanity.

In July 2006, he called the Holocaust a “Zionist lie” and referred to Israel as a “cancer”.

In October 2006 — insinuating that the long prison sentences handed to Sydney’s Lebanese gang-rapists for attacking young teenage girls in the year 2000, were unfair — he compared Australian women who do not wear the Islamic veil to meat left uncovered in the streets and then eaten by cats. During his long career, Hilali also praised suicide bombers as heroes and called the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States “God′s work against oppressors” and “the work of 100 percent American gangs”.

At the time, Hilali’s principal adviser and spokesperson, Keysar Trad, wrote, “The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country and… the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us.” Trad subsequently served as president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils — the national umbrella organization, which represents Australian Muslims at national and international level — from July 2016 until May 2017.

According to Australian senator Cory Bernardi:

“In 2009, the New South Wales Supreme Court found that Mr. Trad ‘incites people to commit acts of violence’, ‘incites people to have racist attitudes’ and is a ‘dangerous and disgraceful individual’… When talking about the gang rape of young women in Sydney by a group of Lebanese men… Mr. Trad … described these types of perpetrators as ‘stupid young boys’… Mr. Trad did not condemn Sheikh Hilali’s disgraceful comments about women being ‘uncovered meat’ in a speech about rape. Instead Mr. Trad chose to defend that speech and the sheikh’s comments”.

In February, Trad told Sky News presenter Andrew Bolt that an angry husband can beat his wife as “a last resort” but should only use his fists against her once he sees that “counselling” — chocolate and flowers, according to Trad — does not work.

Trad also called for the introduction of polygamy in Australia. He said that taking a second wife was “an alternative to divorce”, as, “in our religion, god hates divorce”.

Recently, in May 2017, after an emergency election, Rateb Jneid replaced Trad as president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils.

Since 2011, Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, who does not speak English and relies on translators, has been the Grand Mufti of Australia. In 1995, before moving to the West, Abu Mohamed wrote:

“The West does not bring to us any good, all they bring are their diseases, their designs and their shortcomings… They insist to impose on us their corrupt values, and their philosophy and mannerism, the very things which brought disease, fear, crime and stress to them, the very things which severed ties and broke relationships.”

According to the Daily Telegraph:

The Grand Mufti’s views were also laid bare… with the release of details of a book he wrote saying non-Muslims wanted their women to walk around ‘exposed as a piece of sweet pastry … ­devoured by the eyes of men'”.

In December 2012, Abu Mohamed led an Australian delegation of Muslim scholars to the Gaza Strip, where they met senior Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. Abu Mohamed told local news agencies:

“I am pleased to stand on the land of jihad to learn from its sons and I have the honor to be among the people of Gaza, where the weakness always becomes strength, the few becomes many and the humiliation turns into pride”.

In 2013, Grand Mufti Abu Mohamed visited sheikh Yusuf al-Qara­dawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, in Qatar. Qaradawi advocates suicide bombings; has urged the world’s Muslims to fight in Syria and has said that killing people who leave Islam is essential, as Islam would otherwise disappear.

After the Paris attacks in November 2015, Abu Mohamed implied that the ISIS atrocities were partly caused by “Islamophobia”, saying:

“It is… imperative that all causative factors such as racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention must be comprehensively addressed.”

With Muslim leaders such as former Grand Mufti Hilali, former president of the Association of Muslim Councils, Kayser Trad, and current Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, it should hardly come as a surprise that sharia — and indeed jihad — have made significant inroads in Australia. In 2011, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils sent a submission to the Federal Parliament’s Committee on Multicultural Affairs, asking for Muslims to be able to marry, divorce and conduct financial transactions under the principles of sharia law. Sharia law, the president at the time of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils ludicrously argued, far from discriminating against women, “guarantees women’s rights that are not recognised in mainstream Australian courts”.

Although polygamy is illegal in Australia, a study in 2011 found that, “Valid Muslim polygynist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas, are recognized, with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits”. When former Prime Minister Tony Abbott called for action after learning about the issue, he was told that it would cost more to pay the wives the single parent benefit. Centrelink, the Australian authority responsible for welfare and other benefits, said that it did not hold data based on polygamous relationships or religion, and that Islamic marriages are not registered. The problem of unregistered Islamic marriages and social welfare fraud is a familiar issue in Europe.

Last year, a 14-year-old Melbourne girl was forced to marry Mohammad Shakir, 34, in a ceremony at a Victoria mosque. In March, Shakir pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of forced-marriage. Ibrahim Omerdic, the Melbourne imam who performed the Islamic wedding ceremony, is also due to appear in court on criminal charges.

Muslim Australian girls, some allegedly as young as nine, have also been taken overseas, or are being threatened with it, and forced to become child brides. A nine-year-old girl reported that she would be taken to Afghanistan to marry, while others were told they would be forced to marry cousins of their parents when they turned 13. In 2012, a 16-year old refugee girl from Afghanistan was flown to Pakistan for a “family holiday” and forced to marry a man she had never met.

The Australian Federal Police investigated 69 incidents of forced or under-age marriage in the 2015-16 financial year, up from 33 the previous year. In the 2013-14 financial year, only 11 cases were investigated. Government agencies are said to consider the figure of 69 potential recent cases the tip of the iceberg, with many girls “too fearful to contact police”. A government child-welfare hotline has received more than 70 calls for help in the past two years, mainly from concerned teachers, counsellors and school principals. Forced marriage was criminalized in March 2013 in Australia. However, the law is not retroactive and marriages entered into prior to the law are beyond the authorities’ jurisdiction, meaning those girls are almost certainly lost.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is another Islamic practice that has recently come to public notice in Australia. In March 2016, three people, among them the mother and a Muslim cleric, were sentenced in Sydney for their role in the female genital mutilation of two seven-year-old sisters. While there are no official numbers, it is estimated that there are 83,000 women and girls in Australia who may have been subjected to FGM. 1,100 girls are born every year to women who may have had FGM, which means that their daughters are also at risk of being subject to FGM.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which has spent the past four years probing numerous religious organizations, including Catholics, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and obscure cults numbering a negligible amount of members, such as new age ashrams, has made no inquiries into Islam. The commission has held 6,500 one-on-one private interview sessions with survivors or witnesses making allegations of child sexual abuse within institutions, but only three sessions in relation to Islamic institutions.

Four Islamic terrorist attacks, including the Lindt Café siege in Sydney in December 2014, in which the manager and a mother of three were killed, have taken place in Australia. Eleven attacks have been foiled, including planned public beheadings. This statistic does not include the January 2017 car-ramming in Melbourne. The driver, Dimitrious Gargasoulas, murdered six people, including children, and wounded 20 others, when he plowed his car into pedestrians. Even though a witness claimed that Gargasoulas was shouting “Allahu Akbar”, police refused to treat the event as a terrorist attack and even allegedly told a reporter to remove her interview with the witness from the internet. Gargasoulas had apparently converted to Islam prior to the attack and told the judge in a subsequent court hearing, “Your Honour, did you know the Muslim faith is the correct faith according to the whole world?”

Recently, Australia adopted stricter vetting rules for immigrants to avoid admitting those who harbor hostile Islamic views. Evidently, this measure comes several decades too late: Those who harbor hostile Islamic views were let in a long time ago. Now, what will Australia do about those who are there?

A mosque minaret in Sydney, Australia. (Photo by Cole Bennetts/Getty Images)

 

Links Between Islamism and Executions

May 10, 2017

Links Between Islamism and Executions, Gatestone InstituteMajid Rafizadeh, May 10, 2017

(The notion that Islamist countries and Islamist NGOs, such as the Islamic State, do not adhere to western norms of due process must be shocking to anyone who has been living in a cave with no contact with the rest of the world for many years. But what about those in Europe and elsewhere who insist on unlimited immigration from Islamist countries to honor their gods named “Diversity” and “Multiculturalism”?   — DM)

People have, it seems, often been arrested or detained on the basis of a rumor; then convicted without trial, counsel or often even the chance to mount a defense.

As Amnesty International points out, “In many countries where people were sentenced to death or executed, the proceedings did not meet international fair trial standards. In some cases, this included the extraction of ‘confessions’ through torture or other ill-treatment”.

The laws under which these people are sentenced to death are often not only vague and open to interpretation. Charges that warrant the death penalty, for instance, include being “corrupt on earth”, “enemies of Allah on Earth”, or alleged “crimes against chastity”. What exactly does “corrupt on earth” or “enemies of Allah on Earth” mean?

Just how strict and brutal it is to enforce Islamic law, sharia, has now been revealed by Amnesty International.

Amnesty’s study, which details the number of reported executions around the world, clearly maps out the most at-risk populations. Lands ruled predominantly by sharia are apparently the most vulnerable to multitudes of executions without fair trials. At the top of the list, with the most executions, are those nations that enforce Islamic sharia law. Despite many human rights violations, these nations, apparently undeterred, continue to execute their citizens.

Sharia makes those in authority infallible and untouchable. Therefore, whatever the government or those in power deem to be “just” can be carried out without question or consequence. Under sharia law and the Islamic penal code, executions can be carried out in sickening forms. Those convicted may be beheaded, hanged, stoned, or shot to death.

As disturbing as the numbers in the report may be, they do not represent the reality that the citizens in these nations across the world face every day. There is, evidently, a connection between radical Islamist governments and extremist groups. The report does not include the gruesome executions that are carried out on a regular basis by extremist Islamist groups and non-state fundamentalists, such as members of the Islamic State (ISIS) and their affiliated groups.

These executions include, as we have seen, slitting throats, burning alive, drowning alive and crucifixion.

If these acts were included in the Amnesty International report, the total number of executions committed under the authority of Islamist law would be far higher. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, for example, pointed out that the Islamic State executed 33 people in the first week of April alone.

The report also did not include the number of Westerners being shot, executed and terrorized by Islamist groups. Many of these, such as ISIS, Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH), the Badr Organization, Or Kata’ib al-Imam Ali (the Imam Ali Battalions), are funded and trained by Islamist governments and oil-rich, unaccountable leaders.

Mass executions are evidently also being carried out by both extremist Islamist governments and Islamist groups. A culture of executions, often extra-judicial, as in Pakistan, seems to run rampant within the borders of these countries. Without any consequences for this horrifying disregard for human life, the numbers will only increase.

In Pakistan, Asia Bibi (pictured with two of her five children), a Christian, sits on death row for “blasphemy.” Asia’s “crime” was to use the same water glass as her Muslim co-workers. “You defiled our water,” the Muslim women told her.

Both Islamist governments and Islamist groups justify their brutal acts by referring to the “religious” Islamist legitimacy of their murders. Members of fundamentalist Islamist governments, to legitimize these types of atrocities, also exploit the right of “sovereignty”: they point out that they belong independent state with a fully operating and “legal” judiciary.

In the Amnesty International report, the Iran ranked number one, per capita, in executing people. It also accounted for 66% of all officially recorded executions in the region. Again, this amount only represents those executions that were officially registered.

It is also critical to point out that the statistics Amnesty International provides were given by the very governments that carried out the executions. This method means that those in power were the ones to calculate and decide what number should officially represent their country. The unofficial number is thought to be even higher. There is nothing to stop governments from simply keeping the true number to themselves.

Executions carried out under the strict governmental laws of sharia and Islamist judicial systems can have even more grotesque characteristics. The high number of executions included children, some convicted before the age of 18. Death sentences may frequently have lacked due process and what many would consider acceptable standards of proof. People have, it seems, often been arrested or detained on the basis of a rumor; then convicted without trial, counsel or often even the chance to mount a defense. As Amnesty International points out, “In many countries where people were sentenced to death or executed, the proceedings did not meet international fair trial standards. In some cases, this included the extraction of ‘confessions’ through torture or other ill-treatment”.

Prisoners’ vulnerabilities also had no bearing on their executions. Even those seriously ill were executed. Mass executions or stoning could be ordered and then carried out within a very short time, sometimes within days, giving those convicted no time to mount any form of appeal.

The laws under which these people are sentenced to death are often not only vague and open to interpretation. Charges that warrant the death penalty, for instance, include being “corrupt on earth”, “enemies of Allah on Earth”, or alleged “crimes against chastity”. What exactly does “corrupt on earth” or “enemies of Allah on Earth” mean? There are no guidelines to establish guilt or innocence. Those in power are therefore able to decide who has violated what laws on what can only be a capricious basis. Islamist sheikhs, imams, or judges can subjectively interpret charges any way they like. A charge of being “corrupt on earth” can apply to having fun at a party or writing poetry that government decides is critical of it. A charge of being “corrupt on earth” can apply to someone who is homosexual, someone who is claimed to have committed adultery, or who has simply declined to accepted an unwanted advance. It can mean anyone who has done anything that the ruling leaders dislike.

These Islamist laws, moreover, also serve as a perfect tool for exploitation. A woman finding herself accused of breaking a law may be assured that if she agrees to sleep with a judge, for instance, he will interpret the law in a lenient way and protect her from the death penalty. After a woman submits to this, she can be executed nevertheless. Sometimes girls are forced into sighah — the Shiite Islamist law of temporary marriage — with a cleric, or a governmental official; after “consummating” it, they can also be put to death.

What does a charge such as “crimes against chastity” mean under sharia? This accusation can apply to a girl who has been raped. Instead of the law providing protection for the victim and consequences for the rapist, the victim is accused of the crime of “adultery”, convicted without a fair trial, and swiftly executed.

When Islamist laws enter a land, it seems the number of stonings, beheadings, and executions goes up.

Leaders of these nations can use this flexibility to terrorize and control entire societies, expand their power, export their ideology, and ensure that there is no opportunity to resist. More disturbing is that those numbers are just a portion of the truth.

A Slap in the Face to Democracy: Canada’s “Anti-Islamophobia” Motion

May 9, 2017

A Slap in the Face to Democracy: Canada’s “Anti-Islamophobia” Motion, Gatestone InstituteRuthie Blum, May 9, 2017

(Please see also, Tarek Fatah on M-103: “Replace the word Islamophobia with Islamofascism”. — DM)

“While the NCCM’s open letter does not directly call for Sharia law or the criminalization of criticism of Islam, it does advance the notion that the famously tolerant nation of Canada must set up anti-racism directorates in each province to track instances of Islamophobia, institute a mandatory course on systemic racism for Canadian high school students, and train its police officers to use bias-neutral policing.” — Josh Lieblein, The Daily Caller.

“Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning… so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies,” wrote Samer Majzoub, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate of the Canadian Muslim Forum — presumably meaning that the next steps are to make it binding.

“The objective of Jihad… warrants that one must struggle against Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (polytheism) and the worship of falsehood in all its forms. Jihad has to continue until this objective is achieved.” — ICNA Canada website.

Growing concern in Canada over liberal policies benefitting Muslim extremists sheds light on why an “anti-Islamophobia” bill — proposed in the wake of the deadly January 17 Quebec City mosque attack and approved by parliament on March 23 — spurred such heated controversy there.

Motion 103, tabled by Liberal Party MP Iqra Khalid, a Muslim representing Mississauga-Erin Mills, calls on the Canadian government to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.” Because the bill makes no mention of any other religious group targeted by bigots, it was opposed by most Conservative Party politicians and a majority of the public.

Ahead of what would turn out to be a 201-91 vote in favor of the motion, a petition was circulated asking MPs not to support it. According to the petition, Motion 103 would “lay the groundwork for imposing what is essentially a Sharia anti-blasphemy law on all of Canada.”

The petition further stated:

“…criticism of Islam would constitute a speech crime in Canada.

“This motion uses the term ‘islamophobia’ without defining it, and without substantiating that there is in fact any such widespread problem in Canada.

“This will lead to ideologically-driven overreach and enforcement against alternative points of view—including mature, reasoned criticisms of Islam.

  • “Criticism of the treatment of women in Islamic-majority Middle Eastern countries could be criminalized;
  • “It could be a punishable offense to speak out against the Mustlim Brotherhood, or to denounce radical Imams who want to enact Sharia law in Canada;
  • “Criticism or depiction of Muhammad could be punishable by law;
  • “Schools that teach the history of Islam’s violent conquests could be fined—or worse.

“That kind of content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory censorship is unacceptable in a Western liberal democracy.”

Meanwhile, citizens bemoaning what they view as the increasing radicalization of Muslim communities in Canada, due largely to the unfettered immigration policies of the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, took to the streets of Toronto, Ottawa and other cities to denounce the bill. This response took place in spite of its being non-binding.

A closer look at Motion 103’s initiator, supporters and other respected Muslim figures in Canada, however, indicates that there is cause for worry.

“Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning… All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies,” wrote Samer Majzoub, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate of the Canadian Muslim Forum — presumably meaning that the next steps are to make it binding.

According to Islamist Watch’s Josh Lieblein, writing in The Daily Caller:

” …Khalid is a former President of York University’s Muslim Students Association, a student group with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Similarly, Omar Alghabra is a former director of the Canadian Arab Federation, an association that has published statements in support of terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

“M103’s supporters in the Muslim community have questionable ties of their own. It has been reported that Samer Majzoub was the manager of a Montreal private school that received a $70,761 donation from the Kuwait embassy, while the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) – formerly the Canadian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Council on American-Islamic Relationspublished an open letter linking M103 to a wide-ranging campaign aimed at reducing systemic racism and Islamophobia in Canada.

“While the NCCM’s open letter does not directly call for Sharia law or the criminalization of criticism of Islam, it does advance the notion that the famously tolerant nation of Canada must set up anti-racism directorates in each province to track instances of Islamophobia, institute a mandatory course on systemic racism for Canadian high school students, and train its police officers to use bias-neutral policing.”

This attempt to turn free speech on its head in Canada is in keeping with the teachings of the country’s top Muslim cleric, Iqbal Al-Nadvi, chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams, president of the Canadian branch of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim chaplain of the Canadian army.

ICNA is an organization that strives “to build an Exemplary Canadian Muslim Community” by “total submission to Him [Allah] and through the propagation of true and universal message of Islam,” according to Jonathan D. Halevi.

Al-Nadvi, he pointed out, has openly quoted the Islamic Prophet Muhammed asserting, “Jihad will continue till the Day of Judgment.”

Canada’s top Muslim cleric, Iqbal Al-Nadvi, who is chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams, president of the Canadian branch of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim chaplain of the Canadian army, has openly quoted the Islamic Prophet Muhammed asserting, “Jihad will continue till the Day of Judgment.” (Image source: ICNA video screenshot)

ICNA Canada’s website states:

“The objective of Jihad… warrants that one must struggle against Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (polytheism) and the worship of falsehood in all its forms. Jihad has to continue until this objective is achieved.”

In a piece for Gatestone Institute last October, Canadian terrorism expert Thomas Quiggin pointed to the enabling of, and contribution to, the rise of Islamic radicalism by Prime Minister Trudeau himself. According to Quiggin, Trudeau lauded a mosque in Ottawa, whose imam is part of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, an organization that was placed on the United Arab Emirates list of designated terrorist organizations in 2014. Trudeau called the mosque a shining example of “diversity… within the Muslim community in Canada.”

Two months later, during the days prior to and following the Quebec City mosque attack, a survey revealed that more than half of the citizens of Canada and Quebec consider the presence of Muslims to be a security concern. An even greater majority said they support some form of vetting of immigrants to test their appreciation for Canadian values, and believe that immigrants should integrate into and adopt Canadian culture once they settle in the country.

In this context, the passage by the Canadian Liberal Party establishment of Motion 103, pushed and backed by influential Muslims with radical records, was a slap in the face to democracy — just as its opponents have been claiming.