NO one can rationally posit that Islamic leaders are not a clear and present danger to the west. More specifically, few Americans realize how far down the Shariah Law path America is. In fact, revelations re the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans prove that their control of the west is on schedule, especially in America.
Commentary By Adina Kutnicki
WHILE many western elitists, including those who hold governmental positions of power – ugh…slimy politicians…damn them to hell – are TOTALLY clueless as to the ins and outs of Shariah law, others understand the basic goal of Islamic leaders; submission of all to Allah via an overriding Islamic Caliphate. A tall order, but no less doable.
REGARDLESS, those who profess ignorance are no less culpable of the ensuing outcome, just like their better informed counterparts. In fact, as a matter of legal record, ignorance of the law – ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat – is NOT a defense. Those of us who have a background in law, particularly in criminal law, understand what’s what.
THAT being the case, it is this site’s mission to catch millions of its readers up to speed, most compellingly, re the basics of Shariah law. Inherently, Shariah law is anti-freedom and anti-liberty, defacto, inhumane.
NOT only that, but if addled westerners believe their stranglehold is something they can escape – if not beaten back – think again:
The excuses are manifold. Racism, cultural differences, Islamophobia, relativism… but it all ends the same way, with Western writers, artists and thinkers being censored and Western women being subject to Taliban treatment.
An Afghan refugee would drive from his home in Tullamarine to nightclubs in Frankston late at night searching for drunk, vulnerable young woman to prey on, a court was told today.
He would pick them up in his white 1988 Honda Civic and rape them.
The victim was sitting on the footpath behind the 21st Century Dance Club when Esmatullah Sharifi approached her and offered to give her a lift to the Bay Hotel.
She accepted but became anxious and confused when they had been driving for an hour and she saw a road sign saying Sorrento.
Sharifi then pulled over into a dark side street and raped her in the front passenger seat.
“She began to scream and cry out for help,” Ms Dalziel said.
“The accused put his left hand over her mouth and his right hand around her neck, restricting her breathing. He said to her, ‘I’ll take you home after it, I’ll give you back your phone as well’.
In the rapist’s defense, his lawyer argued that he wasn’t at all clear about this whole “Women are human beings” thing.
Mr Regan said Esmatullah Sharifi was uneducated, illiterate, inexperienced in forming relationships with women, and was confused about the nature of consent. He is in Australia on a permanent protected visa.
The judge didn’t buy it then, but the usual lefty approach is to just keep appealing until you find a bleeding heart judge who accepts the horrible notion being put forward. And that didn’t take very long.
Granting leave to appeal, Court of Appeal Justice Robert Redlich said: “The sentencing judge rejected any suggestion (Esmatullah Sharifi) didn’t have a clear concept of consent in sexual relations.”
In April last year, a psychologist told the County Court that Sharifi had “an unclear concept of what constitutes consent in sexual relationships” in Australia.
“It proves, in my view, an adequate basis for most grounds of appeal that (Sharifi) wishes to pursue,” the judge said.
We’re not just dealing with ignorance of the law. We have Western judges setting out the notion that if a Muslim settler in Europe, America or Australia does not understand the concept that women can refuse sexual contact, that this is a mitigating circumstance….
INCONTROVERTIBLY, their overt barbarism (via ALL of Shariah law’s other offenses) renders Islam, its laws, in violation of western laws and norms, even as western judges/politicians are cowed into accepting Shariah law as the “law of the land”! Dangerous as that.
Islam teaches that shari’a, as God’s revealed law, perfect and eternal, is binding on individuals, society and state in all its details. By logical extension, any criticism of shari’a is heresy. Muslims who deny the validity of shari’a in any way are labeled as non-Muslims (infidels) or apostates (those who convert to another religion) by traditionalists and Islamists. As such, they face the threat of being prosecuted for apostasy, a crime that carries the death penalty in shari’a.
The mandates of shari’a are extremely harsh compared to modern Western standards. They infringe on many modern principles of human rights, religious freedom, and equality of all before the law. For example:
Hudud punishments are the severe penalties prescribed by shari’a for offenses defined as being against God himself. The punishments for these crimes are seen as divinely ordained and cannot be changed by humans. These include 100 lashes or stoning to death as punishment for adultery; 80 lashes for false accusation of adultery; amputation of limbs for theft; 40 or 80 lashes for drinking alcohol; imprisonment, amputation or death (by crucifixion in serious cases) for highway robbery; and the death penalty for apostasy from Islam. Methods of execution for apostasy can include decapitation, crucifixion, burning, strangling, drowning, impaling, and flaying. Apostates are denied a decent burial after their deaths, and the Muslims who participate in killing them are promised an eternal reward in paradise.
Discrimination on the basis of religion is fundamental to shari’a. By religious edict, Islam must be dominant; only Muslims are considered to be full citizens. Jews and Christians are defined as dhimmis (literally “protected” i.e. permitted to live). However this protection is on condition that they do not bear arms, know their lowly place in society, treat Muslims with respect, and pay a special poll tax (jizya).
Shari‘a divides the world into two opposing domains: the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the House of War (Dar al-Harb). Muslims are supposed to wage jihad to change the House of War (where non-Muslims are dominant) into the House of Islam, dominated by Muslims. While some modern Muslims reject this aggressive understanding of jihad, and see it merely as a strengthening of personal faith, most agree that jihad includes defending Muslim territory and Muslims from any form of aggression; this leaves the door open to interpreting any conflict involving Muslims as a case of defensive jihad. Islamic terror groups justify their atrocities by references to theshari’a rules on jihad.
Shari’a discriminates on the basis of gender. Men are regarded as superior. Women are treated as deficient in intelligence, morals and religion, and must therefore be protected from their own weaknesses. Shari’a rules enforce modesty in dress and behavior and the segregation of the sexes. These regulations place women under the legal guardianship of their male relatives. Women are inherently of less value than men in many legal rulings. A man is allowed up to four wives, but women can have only one husband. A man can divorce his wife easily; a woman faces great obstacles should she want a divorce from her husband. A daughter inherits half as much as a son, and the testimony of a female witness in court is worth only half that of a male witness. In cases of murder, the compensation for a woman is less than that given for a man.
Shari’a courts often display a clear gender bias. This is seen in the widespread practice of accusing rape victims of illicit sexual relations (zina), an offense which carries punishments ranging from imprisonment and flogging to death by stoning.
Female genital mutilation is widespread among some Muslim communities, especially in Egypt, East Africa, Yemen, and Indonesia. Many Muslim leaders see the practice as essential for preserving women’s chastity on which family honor largely depends.
In shari’a there are differences between the various schools of law as to the extent of what a woman may reveal in public. The Hanafi and Maliki schools of law permit face and hands to be revealed in public, thus there is no need for a veil over the face. Among Hanbalis there are two opinions, some permitting the revealing of face and hands, others forbidding it. The Shafi‘is demand that a woman’s face and hands be covered in public, thus demanding some kind of veil over her face.
Both Qur’an and hadith urge modesty in women’s dress and command them to cover themselves in public. The problem is a matter of interpretation of the original Arabic words used.
Most Sunni Muslims believe shari‘a to be completely unchangeable, althoughShi’asallow for the possibility of interpreting and adapting it to new circumstances. Since the nineteenth century, there have been efforts at reforming shari’a in a liberal direction in order to accommodate it to the modern world, but in the contemporary Muslim world, the traditionalists and especially the Islamists — upholders of the traditional view ofshari’a – are now dominating public opinion.
Of particular concern for Americans are cases where Muslim litigants seek — sometimes successfully — to have their cases in U.S. courts decided by principles of Sharia law. As of May 2011, the Center for Security Policy (CSP) had identified 50 examples in 23 states “where Muslim-Americans had their cases decided by Sharia Law against their will.” In one case, a Trial Court judge had ruled based on Moroccan Sharia law, even though those involved were not Moroccans or even Muslims. In Tampa, Florida, a judge had ruled that a dispute between two Muslim parties would be solved in accordance with Sharia, overruling the objections of one party. And in a notorious New Jersey case, a judge had exonerated a Muslim man of raping his wife because Sharia allowed him to do so. (The ruling was later overturned.) The 50 instances cited by CSP represented just a fraction of the total number of such cases.
IN line with the above barbaric implementation of Shariah, the aforementioned“any criticism of shari’a is heresy“, is especially noteworthy. It aligns with today’s thesis: the implementation of blasphemy laws across the west! An omerta.
At his White House press conference Friday, President Obama once again endorsed the placement of a triumphalist mosque in immediate proximity to Ground Zero, declaring it the “inalienable right” of the increasingly transparently immoderate imam determined to build it there. Troubling as this evidence is of Mr. Obama’s submission to shariah – the supremacist political-military-legal code of places like Saudi Arabia and Iran that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf says he wants to bring to America, even more worrisome is something else he at least implied: He was prepared as “Commander-in-Chief” to prevent the burning of Qurans by a pastor in Florida.
Now, I am no fan of book-burning, of any kind. But, as I noted in this space recently, it is absolutely the “inalienable” right of any American citizen to do it – whether the book is the Bible (which we now know the U.S. military has burned in Afghanistan, lest it be used to proselytize there), the U.S. Constitution or, yes, the Quran.
The President evidently feels justified in contemplating the use of force to stop Quran burnings on the basis of the possibility raised by General David Petraeus, among others, that such a bonfire in Gainesville would translate into a conflagration elsewhere. All of us must be concerned at the prospect that the latter might consume U.S. servicemen and women or civilians, in Muslim lands or elsewhere.
Still, as such brilliant commentators as Andy McCarthy, Diana West, and Debra Burlingame have observed, there is something peculiar about the remarkably contrasting concern being expressed by Barack Obama and his friends over Muslims’ rights and sensitivities on the one hand, and his seeming indifference to those of Americans who are not Muslims. The only common denominator between his attitude toward a mega mosque that offends more than 70% of our countrymen and women and his attitude toward the prospect of an “insensitive” book-burning is that he wants to ensure nothing is done that would offend Muslims.
This practice amounts to enforcing shariah’s strict laws prohibiting “blasphemy” and “slander.” In Saudi Arabia and the other states governed by this repressive code, the penalty for such a crime can be death…..
WITHOUT reservation, this investigative journalist warned the readers: Obama Inc., via Eric Holder’s (in)Justice Dept. (in concert with his replacement), has already laid the groundwork for implementing blasphemy laws, even if called otherwise. A pig is still a pig, even if prettified with lipstick. Sheesh. Believe it, or not.
CONCOMITANTLY, as previously explained, Shariah law’s bias against women goes far beyond what western women consider discriminatory, particularly as they continuously opine over fair and equitable pay in the workplace etc, even if their creds are not up to snuff. Regardless, as part of Shariah law, one would think that ACTUAL enslavement of women would be a non-starter for them! Okey dokey. Not so fast.
INCREDIBLY, leftist women are as insane as their male counterparts, at least when it comes to silencing any criticism of “sacred cows”, Islam being one of them. Resultant, they believe they can pick and choose which Shariah laws they will “tolerate”, as if they will have a choice to do so. Dumb asses. Once Islamic law becomes the “law of the land” there will be no going back. Understood?
BUT that doesn’t mean that the rest of us will be dragged into their warped mindset, even if they babble that “peace” will be achieved, contingent upon westerners zipping their lips re Islam. Hell no.
NOW Islamic countries are free (that’s an oxymoronic statement) to do what they wish within their boundaries and there isn’t a damn thing that westerners can do about it. But outraged folks can shout about Islam’s inhumane actions from the rooftops, and they can badger their reps to cease sending monies to anti-freedom offending countries.
CONSEQUENTIALLY, if one wants to visualize what handing over control to Shariah law jihadists entails, as dictated by appeasement-oriented westerners, well….
His profile picture on Facebook is of Qassam Brigades terrorist Hassan Mohammed al-Hindi, who might be a brother of his or perhaps another relative, who was killed when trying to attack Israel from the sea early in the summer war.
But even before the war he showed how much he loved terrorism – and Hamas’ Al Qassam Brigades:
In this cartoon on his page we get an impression of how well he adheres to supposed UNRWA standards of tolerance, peace and coexistence:
How about his opinion of the children that he teaches?
Here is a photo that reveals his view of children:
His caption is “The next generation of the elite.”
Is that enough to get him fired? Come on, who are we kidding?
For those who are not offended by any of this, you have my sympathies. But maybe you are the type of person for whom this photo, that he also posted, is considered worse than incitement to murder…..
SICK, twisted bastards….the jihadists and their enabling western appeasers! Lights out for the west, if not beaten back!
Sign up to get alerts from Joe!