Europe under Islamic Sharia – While Obama funds Muslim Brotherhood

Freedom or Sharia?  The two ideologies cannot co-exist.

European capitals repeat the decline into Islamic authoritarian Sharia.. History simple being repeated.  In America, Obama buys favors by funding Muslim Brotherhood operations all across the world using money America has borrowed from China, adding to the debt of America’s future generations.  We need another four years of this?  Watch the video to learn more about how Obama administration policies are designed to destroy America (or, in his words, “transform”).


Former American CAIR official insists on Sharia Law in Egypt

For those who refuse to accept the reality that suppression of Liberty is fundamental to Islam.. Words to the contrary are constantly expressed by CAIR.. but don’t be fooled.  Taqiya is alive and well as the former American CAIR official show us… Lieing (Taqiya) is a cunning obsession that is well documented policy within Islam and has been used by Islam for centuries as a means to hide the the plans for takeover from clueless residents of a targeted region.


Former Hamas-linked CAIR official running for president in Egypt, pledges to “complete the implementation of Islamic law in Egypt”

What he says is not so surprising. Who he is is what is noteworthy here. “Egyptian Presidential Candidate Bassem Khafaji Pledges to ‘Complete the Implementation of Islamic Law in Egypt,'” from MEMRI TV, March 7 (thanks to Benedict):

Following are excerpts from Egyptian presidential candidate Bassem Khafaji, which aired on Al-Nas TV on March 7, 2012:

Bassem Khafaji: Let me tell you, in all honesty, that as a Muslim Egyptian, I am convinced of [the need to] complete the implementation of Islamic law in Egypt. I do not hide this truth in any way, because it is in keeping with the inclination of the Egyptian people.

We Egyptians – both Muslims and non-Muslims – refer to the shari’a in many things. I often ask people: How did you get married? Wasn’t it according to the shari’a, regardless of whether you are Muslim or not? Weren’t you married in accordance with your religion? When somebody in our family dies, how we inherit him? Not in accordance with the shari’a?

No [candidate] should say that he is coming to implement the shari’a, because part of it has already been implemented. What the Egyptian people want is to complete this implementation. As president, I will personally assist in the completion of the correct implementation of the shari’a, by consulting the experts [in Islamic law].

Jihad Watch reader Benedict, who kindly alerted me to the above item, also points out that Bassem Khafaji, or Khafagi, used to work in the U.S. for Hamas-linked CAIR:

The former community affairs director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Bassem Khafagi was arrested in January 2003 on suspicion of aiding terrorists. Khafagi is also the founder of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), a radical, Ann Arbor, Michigan-based organization. He pled guilty in a Detroit federal court to two counts of bank fraud and one count of visa fraud.

Hamas-linked CAIR constantly insists that Muslims in the U.S. don’t want to implement Sharia here. So did Khafagi change his mind about Sharia when he went back to Egypt? Or does he think Sharia should be implemented in Egypt but not here? Or maybe he and others in Hamas-linked CAIR really do want to bring Sharia here? I confidently await the imminent explanation from Honest Ibe Hooper, clearing all this up!

States must choose — sharia or Constitution? (

3/5/2012 3:55:00 AMBookmark and Share

A pro-national defense activist says the recent decision by Pennsylvania judge Mark Martin to throw out an assault charge against a Muslim man based on sharia law is the perfect illustration of why states must enact statutes banning foreign law from American jurisprudence.


Martin recently dismissed charges brought against an Islamic man who attacked an atheist who was marching in a Halloween parade dressed like Mohammed. Martin has been accused of basing his decision on Islamic sharia law rather than on the U.S. Constitution.

Brigitte GabrielBrigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT for America and author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, says the Pennsylvania case is hardly an isolated incident.

“Actually [there are] 51 cases in American court rooms where Islamic law was considered above the Constitution of the United States,” Gabriel says, “especially in domestic law and in family law. And that’s simply unacceptable.”

Her organization is spearheading a petition urging states to pass legislation called “American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC).

“We do not single out sharia law,” Gabriel says, “even though sharia law does come under the general law that we are introducing. And this is why, in the states where we passed it already — Tennessee, Arizona and Louisiana — those laws have not been challenged because the Islamic lobby knows that the law we are introducing is so bulletproof they cannot fight it.”

Gabriel says 20 states are currently looking at ALAC, and she expects six states will pass it this year.



How would you describe individual states that move to ban

 foreign law from decisions in U.S. courts?   VOTE

American Islamic “judge” imposes Islamic Sharia decision in American Courtroom and disregards Constitution.. claiming Sharia is superior law.

Wake up America.

Muslim Lobby- aggressively fighting Anti-Sharia Americans

November 18, 2011

CAIR now attempting to
control law enforcement
training programs

        Click on the image above to
        add your name to this
        important petition!

Dear Bill,

CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) has, either through its national organization or its chapter affiliates, repeatedly tried to intimidate federal and local elected officials who have the courage to stand up to radical Islam.

The latest from CAIR is its effort to dictate who the FBI uses as trainers in its counterterrorism programs. (See the CAIR release below).

Apparently, it’s not sufficient that the Obama administration has stripped all references to jihad and radical Islam from its national security strategy regarding terrorism.

CAIR won’t be happy until every government entity in America knuckles under to its sharia-driven agenda aimed at silencing any critique of radical Islam and any connection between radical Islam and Islamic terrorism.

CAIR has also made it clear it will aggressively fight our efforts to pass “American Laws in American Courts,” legislation that will prohibit courts from applying sharia law. Will we win? Or will CAIR win?

We need to hear from you, that you are in support of this effort. Please sign the pledge to protect your state from sharia law today! Nearly 35,000 people have signed thus far. Thank you! But surely out of our 175,000 members there are more than 35,000 people who support this effort! Check out how your state is doing here

CAIR Files Multi-State Records Requests on Anti-Muslim Law Enforcement Trainings

Group seeks information about state-level trainings that may have used taxpayer dollars to fund anti-Muslim trainers.

(Nov 15, 2011 – LOS ANGELES, CA)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced today that 15 of its chapters nationwide have filed 87 separate public records requests about possible Islamophobic training of local, state and national law enforcement personnel.

CAIR is seeking information about state-level trainings that may have used federal taxpayer dollars to fund anti-Muslim trainers, a phenomenon highlighted in recent research and media reports.

Attorney General: FBI Hurt Terror Fight with ‘Violent Muslim’ Training

In a statement, CAIR said:

“CAIR’s public records requests seek to ensure that law enforcement agencies are using qualified trainers who present objective and unbiased information to help protect Americans from violent extremists of all types. We firmly believe that good training leads to good investigations, while biased training leads to biased investigations. We are particularly concerned with ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on training that is agenda-driven, inaccurate or Islamophobic.”

Both Attorney General Holder and FBI Director Mueller have acknowledged that the Department of Justice and the FBI are reviewing their training materials to remove inaccurate and biased information. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which provides most of the Federal funding for state and local training, recently issued a set of recommendations for countering violent extremism training.

Muslims tell DOJ to find a way to criminalize criticism of Islam! « Creeping Sharia

And cut back anti-terror funding amongst other things. Neil Munro with a very disturbing piece with absolutely unimaginable consequences when it becomes reality. And it will if we the People do not start protecting our freedoms.

Holder & Perez: Two of the most dangerous men in America

via Progressives | Islamists | Justice Department | The Daily Caller.

Top Justice Department officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.

The department’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line — I say this with utter honesty — I know they can come up with a way” to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz, a female, Egyptian-American lawyer.

“I’d be willing to give a shot at it,” said Aziz, who is a fellow at the Michigan-based Muslim advocacy group, the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding.

The audience of Islamist advocates and department officials included Tom Perez, who heads the department’s division of civil rights.

“We must continue to have the open and honest and critical dialogue that you saw in the robust debate,” Perez responded in an enthusiastic closing speech a few minutes after Aziz made her demands at the event.

“I sat here the entire time, taking notes,” Perez said. “I have some very concrete thoughts … in the aftermath of this.”

The meeting at George Washington University showcased the expanding alliance between American progressives and Islamists, said Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in New York.

Progressives “are making these Islamist groups into the [political] representatives of Muslims in the United States,” he told The Daily Caller. That elevation of Islamists to a leadership role sidelines the majority of American Muslims who don’t want Islamist leaders, as well as American Muslims who are female or gay, he said.

McCarthy investigated and prosecuted Egyptian-born Imam Omar Abdel-Rahman, dubbed “the blind sheik,” for urging Muslims to kill New Yorkers. Abdel-Rahman was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1996.

Progressives ally with the Islamic lobby because “they think it will be a political voting bloc that will be reliably Democratic,” said Robert Spencer, an author and expert on Islam.

None of the Islamist advocates of civil rights officials in attendance, including Perez, objected to Aziz’s call for free-speech restrictions. 

The event did not include Zuhdi Jasser, an Arizona Muslim, former naval officer and a co-founder of a coalition of modernist Muslim groups, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition. “The Islamist groups’ victimology feeds into the left’s propaganda that the right is anti-minority and anti-Muslim, so there’s a mutual political benefit there,” said Jasser, who clashes with Spencer over rival responses to the Islamist groups.

Nor did the conference include any influential critics, such as McCarthy and Spencer, who argue that Islamist terror attacks are partly motivated by Islamic texts. These texts include the Koran’s verse 9:5, which says “when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.”

Aziz, however, used her invitation to argue that Americans’ fear of Islamists’ bombs has evolved into racism towards dark-skinned men.

The word “Muslim,” she said, “has become racialized. … I don’t accept this formalistic cop-out that this is all about religion.”

Aziz did not offer any evidence for her claim, which she said justifies the use of Title VI anti-discrimination laws against institutions and individuals who argue that Islamic texts spur Islamic violence.

This legal redefinition, she said, would also “take [federal] money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.”

Aziz also argued against the commonplace police practice of informally talking with people in communities, including Muslim communities. “This has been a real problem with this outreach stuff,” she said. Muslims “are acting in good faith, and then they find their imams, who were going to outreach meetings, were being spied on,” she complained. “Some have been deported. Some have been prosecuted.”

In March, Afghan-born New York Imam Ahmad Wais Afzali was ordered deported after he admitted he lied to the FBI about warning a suspected Muslim terrorist that he was being investigated. That terrorist, Najibullah Zazi, admitted that he was planning to place bombs in the New York City subway. The imam learned about the investigation because he had offered to work with local police to help identify potential terrorists in his congregation.

“People are going in good faith” to talk with police, Aziz said. “They’re being very honest about what their grievances are. They’re telling the government, ‘This what we want you to do … [and] we want you not to spy on our community.’”

Dwight Holton, a Justice Department legal counsel based in Oregon, said the threat of criminal gangs or terror attacks justifies routine police contacts with locals. “When we go to a barber shop to talk to the community, we don’t tell them you can have a lawyer,” he said.

“You should,” Aziz immediately replied.

Aziz’s advocacy was supported by a second Islamist advocate, Islamic Society of North America president Mohamed Magid. He argued that “teaching people that all Muslims are a threat to the country… is against the law and the Constitution.”

Magid asked Perez to change the federal government’s rules governing terror investigations, for more private meetings with top justice department officials, for the reeducation of FBI agents, and for more people to oppose criticism of Islam, which he labelled “religious bigotry and hate.”

In 2009 the federal government named Magid’s organization an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful 2009 trial of three Muslims who smuggled $12 million to the Islamist terror group Hamas. Two of the smugglers received life sentences.

During his speech, Perez applauded the Islamist lobbyists for persuading government officials to end extra security checks on airline passengers from Nigeria and 12 Islamic countries. The checks were adopted in 2010 after a Nigerian Muslim tried to blow up a passenger aircraft on Christmas Day.

“What did we hear in the aftermath of that? We heard a lot of feedback from people in this room and from leaders across the country that we could be doing a better job [by ending the checks]… and a few month later, and thanks to you, we did just that,” Perez told the Islamist advocates.

McCarthy, the former prosecutor, said few people recognize the expanding alliance between progressives and Islamists.

Americans “don’t realize that Islamist ideology is collectivist and redistributionist, so it works seamlessly with the left,” he said.

“They disagree over gay rights and women’s rights, [but] on many big items they’re on the same page,” McCarthy added, citing Islamist groups’ support for the administration’s health sector law as an example.

Perez did not promise to meet any of the demands made by the Islamists, but he repeatedly promised extensive consultations and flattered the attendees, while speaking in a style that blended the cadences of an academic lecturer and a rural preacher. “There will be times where we have honest differences of opinion, but if we don’t talk and don’t actively listen and if we don’t reflect and recalibrate where necessary, then we won’t be doing our job, and you have our continuing commitment to that end,” Perez declared.

Progressives, including Holton and Perez, choose to ignore the Islamists’ stated goals, Spencer said. “They assume — and force us to assume on pain of charges of ‘Islamophobia’ — that all Muslims are moderate, peaceful and have no intentions of bringing Sharia [Islamic law] here,” said Spencer. “No amount of evidence to the contrary, no amount of jihadi plots, and no number of demands for accommodation of Sharia’s provisions, ever disabuses them of this dogma.”

Justice Department officials declined to comment to The Daily Caller.

When the session ended, Perez — a Maryland resident, a progressive and a former staffer to Sen. Ted Kennedy — climbed the stage to embrace Imam Magid, who was born in Sudan and trained at a Saudi fundamentalist seminary.

With each passing day and each small victory, Muslims are becoming more bold. A year ago the Muslim request was more subtle as we told you about here: Did Muslim group ask DOJ to start enforcing sharia blasphemy law?

Share this post with your friends and family and Contact Your Elected Officials. Muslims aided and abetted by so-called Progressives and the DOJ are diligently working to make mere discussion of Islam a crime.

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.

Filed under: Alerts, Creeping Sharia, DC, FBI, Legal, Media, News, Politics, Religion, Sharia, Stealth Jihad Tagged: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

And today’s USA corrupt DOJ is itching to find a way to accomodate the demands to elevate Sharia law .. Complacent US citizens should get off the couch and do just a little self education. We are watching the Muslim Brotherhood snake it’s way into our American institutions and install Sharia. Imagine the USA falling into the hands of these monsters. Free speech is the FIRST right to be disregarded and put aside.

John Esposito’s Deceptions on ‘Islamophobia’

Non radicalized Muslims agree… Sharia free America is vital.

John Esposito’s Deceptions on ‘Islamophobia’
Posted By Hasan Mahmud On August 22, 2011

John Esposito

In most cases, a patient won’t even realize, let alone resist, when a doctor betrays him.

I am a Muslim. I believe that accepting our (Muslims’) share in creating “Islamophobia” in the West will help eliminate it. Dr. John Esposito’s recent article in the Huffington Post, “Islamophobia: A threat to American Values?” puts the entire blame on Western “media commentators, hard-line Christian Zionists and politicians.” He even neglects to mention the huge contribution Muslim societies have had on the issue. Esposito ignores that in our global village the West is regularly flooded by violence coming from Muslim societies; violence which is perpetrated in the name of Islam while citing Quranic verses and the Prophet’s examples. The list is long. Here are some examples:

1. A Sharia court stoned to death a gang-raped girl, who was a minor at the time.
2. A Sharia court flogged another girl to death for having an affair.
3. Punishing raped girls/women by Sharia courts is continuing.
4. Wife-beating is openly preached.
5. Child-marriage is openly preached.
6. “No rape in marriage” is openly preached.
7. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is supported by many clergics including some of Al Azhar University.
8. Women are instantly divorced – there is no maintenance in such cases.
9. A woman appealed to a Sharia court to order her husband to beat her not every day but once a week.
10. Sharia-police (Hisba) are invading people’s lives.
11. The persecution of Muslims with different ideas is reaching a frightening level.
12. Non-Muslims are arrested for carrying their holy books.
13. The persecution of non-Muslims is continuous and reaching a disturbing level.
14. Hate preaching against non-Muslims in media is common.
15. Indoctrination of children with such hate is open and alarming.
16. School syllabi are full of hatred directed at “The Other.”
17. Non-Muslim places of worship are destroyed regularly.
18. Lying and deceiving are supported.
19. Civil rights are violently suppressed by “Islamic” governments — often by hanging.

With such phenomena and experience, what else does Dr. Esposito expect from the West except “Islamophobia”? He also blames the West for resisting the Ground Zero Mosque. I wish he knew how many Muslims around the world are opposed to the proposed Islamic center, not because we don’t want mosques, but because before its construction, the notion of the center created “fitna” (division) and violently divided the whole nation.

Esposito is also utterly wrong to state: “Today, opposition to mosque construction with claims that all mosques are ‘monuments to terrorism’ and ‘house embedded cells’ in locations from NYC and Staten Island, to Tennessee and California, has become not just a local but a national political issue.” I wish he knew that only last month a new mosque, Baitul Gaffar, was constructed in New York without a shadow of resistance, or how many euros European governments are pouring into the construct of new mosques. By the way, women were barred from attending the opening ceremony of Baitul Gaffar (House of Creator) in New York.

Throughout his article, Esposito, a respected scholar, uses mini-exceptions as general examples. Despite overwhelming support for Muslims among politicians, he cites a few bad apples. For instance, Esposito says, “Politicians use fear of Islam as a political football.” He also states that “Justice Kagan is being accused of being ‘Justice Sharia.’” Accused? Knowing about widespread violence sanctioned by Sharia law, as the dean of Harvard Law School, Justice Kagan tried “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law” with the blessing of Saudi money. If such a person is not “Justice Sharia,” who is? Aren’t there Islamists trying to establish Sharia courts in the USA? Yes, the blueprint of American Sharia courts was created as early as 1993 by TAM, The American Muslims. Plus, who is breeding the home grown terrorists? Are they Western media commentators, hard-line Christian Zionists and politicians?

I wish Esposito mentioned the hate-tsunami against Jews and the West that roars in the media and throughout the pulpits of the Muslim world, constantly in Himalayan magnitude. One cartoon against our Prophet (SA) caused chaos to break loose, but during my long years in the Middle East, I saw many dozens of worse cartoons in the media about Jews and their holy book. No government contained that, nor was there a sane Muslim voice against these cartoons.

Esposito also states that “all Muslims have been reduced to stereotypes of Islam against the West, Islam’s war with modernity, and Muslim rage, extremism, fanaticism, and terrorism” and “all leaders of that [American] society look at all Muslims with suspicion and prejudice.” These are hyperbolic overstatements. I am a Muslim; I live in Canada and often travel to the US – there is a general sense of concern, but in general, Muslims are doing well, living well and are treated well. The overwhelming support and protection of Muslims by common North Americans and churches after 9/11 is on record, but is sadly overlooked.

Yes, “We all [governments, policymakers, the media, educational institutions, religious and corporate leaders] have a critical role to play in countering the voices of hate, the exclusionary theologies and ideologies.” Esposito should give the same advice to the leaders of Muslims world.

Once again, in our global village, the West is continuously bombarded by the news of serious violence from the Muslim world against women, non-Muslims and Muslims of different Islamic ideas, in the name of Islam.

This is the main reason for “Islamophobia” — and a logical one.

URL to article:

Muslim Sharia Lobby Working to hide Sharia’s sobering assault on America

Sharia Lobby Shifts into Fifth Gear

Slow down, moving too fast, got to make the U.S. last…

Alyssa A. Lappen

Sharia advocates desperately want to convince legislators and the public that Islamic law is plain vanilla — and totally nonthreatening to existing U.S. legal codes. Notwithstanding a nationwide Muslim Brotherhood-backed pro-sharia push, nothing could be further from the truth.

“There are many unpleasant doctrines within Islam,” including its “repugnant” criminal code, honor killings, female genital cutting, and a Quranic verse Muslim clerics often cite, proclaiming “wives as a tilth unto you” (2:223), to deny the existence of marital rape. [1]

So allowed sharia professor Sadiq Reza at an Aug. 25-26 New York Law School (NYLS) conference. Any attempt to enforce its criminal code, he added, “would violate Constitutional law.” He insisted, though, that western Muslims don’t “favor” these aspects of Islam and none seek to impose them. Evidence that they do abounds (here, here, here, here, here) but Reza said his broad web search found none.

Northwestern University Islamic law professor Kristen Stilt, too, disdained sharia criticism as “lunacy.” And University of Toronto Islamic law professor Mohammed Fadel referred the audience to a glossy, Soros-funded condemnation of skeptics, breathlessly entitled “Fear, Inc.” to persuade the gullible.

Soon afterward, journalist Joseph Klein recalled some points of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood “scholar” Yusuf Qaradawi, revered by the Islamic world — and “Fear, Inc.” co-author Wajahat Ali. Qaradawi identifies fully with sharia as described by former CIA director R. James Woolsey and fellow so-called hate mongers headed by Center for Security Policy CEO Frank Gaffney, not Ali and his co-detractors. Qaradawi considers charity “jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money,” as I noted in fall 2007. Like the MB-backed Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Qaradawi also seeks to internationally criminalize insults to Islam or Mohammed.

CSP’s sharia description is quite correct — not the “hate” or “lunacy” that Reza, Ali, Stilt and Fadel call it. Sharia is indeed a

“complete way of life” (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law… Shariah is, moreover, a doctrine that mandates the rule of Allah over all aspects of society.”

Despite all sharia’s sobering negatives, orchestrated campaigns to hype it and smear its critics — with Reza in a vocal role — have worked their expected magic. Days after NYLS’s pro-sharia confab, in a Sept. 2 New York Times op-ed, Yale assistant professor Eliyahu Stern dutifully parroted the line of former Harvard Custodian of Two Holy Mosques prof. Frank Vogel, who thinks sharia “quite brilliant.” (On Sept. 3, its shine likewise compelled an unasked Dutch cleric, to “invite” Queen Beatrix to Islam.)

One might think a Yale assistant professor or the Times would check their facts prior to publication. One would be wrong. True enough, over 12 U.S. states are currently considering legislation that would outlaw using laws alien to U.S. foundational precepts in American courts. But Stern misspoke. A “bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote ‘the destruction of the national existence of the United States’,” he incorrectly groused.

Stern cited the summary of a proposed Tennessee bill version not actually passed into law. The real banana, Material Support to Designated Entities Act of 2011 (House Bill No. 1353), signed into Tennessee law Jun. 16, 2011 to amend its criminal code on terrorism, never once mentions the words “sharia,” “Muslim,” “Islam,” or “Islamic law.” Nor does American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts, House Bill No. 3768, signed into Tennessee Public Chapter 983 in May 2010, to address foreign laws containing discriminatory or unequal precepts or clauses otherwise alien to U.S. and state civil, criminal and Constitutional laws and public policies.Yet — evidently, without any independent study of sharia — Stern admonished its U.S. critics to forgo their Constitutional rights to free speech, and worse, allow and accept U.S. court recognition of Islamic law.

But also on Sept. 2, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (ALIC) endorsed Michigan‘s proposed HB4769 version of American Laws for American Courts.

Though apparently oblivious, in assuming a pro-sharia position, Stern effectively accepted a 7th century sharia dictate intended to suppress second class, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis): Islamic rule prohibits non-Muslims especially, at dire risk, from criticizing Mohammed, Islam or sharia, what most Muslims project as divine, perfect, immutable — and indivisible — laws. (Several conference speakers unwittingly echoed Qaradawi and, while lauding sharia, also noted Islam’s total ban on its criticism.)

Put another way, the professors want American non-Muslim critics to comply with sharia and shut up.

Many women suffer real “oppression” in Muslim majority lands, for example, especially rape victims living under zina (extra-marital sex) or other sharia statutes, U. of Wisconsin law professor Asifa Quraishi admitted. Yet at every opportunity, including the NYLS conference, Quraishi has pushed hard to integrate sharia for Muslims into U.S. courts. Meanwhile, she’s advised international women’s rights advocates in Muslim majority countries that they would serve best “not to mention Islamic law at all.”

Quraishi blamed overseas human rights opposition to “sharia legislation (and sharia in general)” for exacerbating the plight of Muslim women. They “created an unwinnable and unnecessary war, of ‘sharia vs. women’s rights’.” That again said Muslims will not adapt, and infidels must follow sharia.

Here is the 7th century dictate to second class, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis), write large: non-Muslims’ criticism of Mohammed, Islam or sharia equals blasphemy. Such efforts to silence legitimate discussion render exceedingly troubling any consideration of separate and unequal sharia practices for use in U.S. courts. Already, too many U.S. Muslims ask and expect fellow citizens to censor themselves on sharia-related questions — or suffer bullying, and name calling best limited to pre-schoolers.

In 19th century Europe, Stern wrote, both political elites and philosophers embraced “fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty.” Immanuel Kant “argued that the particularistic nature of ‘Jewish legislation’ made Jews ‘hostile to all other peoples’,” Friedrich Hegel opposed Jewish dietary and other Mosaic laws as limits on an ability to identify with “fellow Prussians” or provide dutiful civil service and Bruno Bauer demanded that Jews renounce private religious rules in exchange for “full legal rights” and citizenship.

However, European Jewish history offers no logical reason for U.S. sharia critics to forgo their “full legal” and Constitutional rights to free speech or to allow Islamic law in secular courts. All citizens, including Muslims, already hold full rights, which no one seeks to revoke. Freedom requires no fixing.

To Muslims, sharia means justice, we’re told. Ironically, accepting such law in U.S. courts would create injustice, by making American Muslims more equal than others. They’d get exclusive rights, namely civil court access to religious cannon, not allowed to anyone else. This would substantially differ from the right to privately adhere (within the law) to religious cannon, which America has always allowed. Reinforcing this truth, the courageous U.S. men and women of AILC have clearly enumerated,

“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, … 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.”

If sharia were advanced, progressive, wonderful and “brilliant,” its truth and beauty could withstand all criticism and questions. But sharia raises a major reg flag, in banning free speech and inquiry. How it would play out in the U.S. is perhaps best examined by looks at Britain and Germany, where all sharia‘s ills stand fully exposed. One needs no PhD or LD to realize that officially accepting any part of a legal system so often demonstrably at odds with our own would, yes, prescribe genuine national disaster.

If anything, intense pressure from closet Muslim radicals for U.S. sanction of sharia should push every state that can to pass its own bill as quickly as possible.


[1] Andrew G. Bostom, “Sharia-sanctioned marital rape in Britain—and North America,” American Thinker,Oct. 15, 2010,, citing “Is there such a thing as marital rape?,” AMJAonline Jurisprudence Section, Association of Muslim Jurists in America, May 30, 2007, (first viewed 10/15/2010). Based on sharia, the influential Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America insists that marital rape is not a crime. The imams actually approve of felony attacks on wives. In 2007, a husband asked AMJA,“Is there such a thing as marital rape in the shariah?…is a man permitted to FORCE his wife to have sexual intercourse with him? … she is naashiz and unwilling to have coitus.” Fatwa # 2982 replied,

“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.” Contributing Editor Alyssa A. Lappen is a U.S.-based investigative journalist focusing on the Middle East and Islam. She is a former Senior Fellow for the American Center for Democracy (2005-2008); former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor (1993-1999), Working Woman (1991-1993) and Corporate Finance (1991). She was previously an Associate Editor at Forbes, where she worked upwards of 12 years (1978-1990), and an editor and staff writer at several other publications. She is also a poet. Her website is

Losing Our Sons Trailer

Who represents whom? Naivety among our “leaders” is not only unacceptable, it’s becoming criminal. Elitists and apologists seem to cling to government employment like leeches to a victim- professing that nothing is wrong, while the leech drains the victim of life and slowly destroys from within.

It is time to resist all dhimmi’s who walk the halls of our government and replace them with Americans who will defend traditional American values..leaders who will vigorously stamp out the murderous, evil effort to impose barbaric Shariah “law” on freedom loving America.

UN Human Rights Commission.. Lusted over by Islamic States

This Englishman has firsthand experience with the tentacles of radical Islam. The effort by Islamic states to subdue and stop all discussion of worldwide examples of evil doing should wake up every freedom loving individual everywhere. The intolerant cannot tolerate truth telling.. and hope to use the cover of the UN to impose severe penalties for anyone accused of reporting observations of beastly behavior by Muslims anywhere. Nothing new really- after all, this has been policy for hundreds of years among those populations who have been tormented by Sharia “law”.