Female genital mutilation in Iraqi Kurdistan: “we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/024127.php

The mainstream media and Islamic advocacy groups in the United States constantly tell us that female genital mutilation is a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam. They do this despite the fact that the among the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, Shafi’is consider circumcision obligatory for women; Hanbalis say it is an honorable custom, but not obligatory; Hanafis say it should be done as a courtesy to the husband. None of the three, you’ll note, say that the practice is wrong, immoral, un-Islamic.

Anyway, the upshot of this situation is that while most Westerners take for granted, if they’ve ever heard of female genital mutilation at all, that it is un-Islamic, it remains only Muslims who haven’t gotten this message.

“For Kurdish Girls, a Painful Ancient Ritual,” by Amit R. Paley for the Washington Post, December 29 (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

TUZ KHURMATU, Iraq – Sheelan Anwar Omer, a shy 7-year-old Kurdish girl, bounded into her neighbor’s house with an ear-to-ear smile, looking for the party her mother had promised.There was no celebration. Instead, a local woman quickly locked a rusty red door behind Sheelan, who looked bewildered when her mother ordered the girl to remove her underpants. Sheelan began to whimper, then tremble, while the women pushed apart her legs and a midwife raised a stainless-steel razor blade in the air. “I do this in the name of Allah!” she intoned.

As the midwife sliced off part of Sheelan’s genitals, the girl let out a high-pitched wail heard throughout the neighborhood. As she carried the sobbing child back home, Sheelan’s mother smiled with pride.

“This is the practice of the Kurdish people for as long as anyone can remember,” said the mother, Aisha Hameed, 30, a housewife in this ethnically mixed town about 100 miles north of Baghdad. “We don’t know why we do it, but we will never stop because Islam and our elders require it.”

Kurdistan is the only known part of Iraq –and one of the few places in the world–where female circumcision is widespread. More than 60 percent of women in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq have been circumcised, according to a study conducted this year. In at least one Kurdish territory, 95 percent of women have undergone the practice, which human rights groups call female genital mutilation.

The practice, and the Kurdish parliament’s refusal to outlaw it, highlight the plight of women in a region with a reputation for having a more progressive society than the rest of Iraq. Advocates for women point to the increasing frequency of honor killings against women and female self-immolations in Kurdistan this year as further evidence that women in the area still face significant obstacles, despite efforts to raise public awareness of circumcision and violence against women. […]

Supporters of female circumcision said the practice, which has been a ritual in their culture for countless generations, is rooted in sayings they attribute to the prophet Muhammad, though the accuracy of those sayings is disputed by other Muslim scholars….

 

Of course. But they don’t seem to be able to dispute the accuracy of those sayings effectually enough to curb this practice where it is found among Muslims.

STOP THIS BARBARITY! FGM

Sexual Mutilations And Islam

A. Ghosh

The temperature generally drops several degrees when female circumcision is mentioned by any European when Mohammedans are present. What is interesting from a historical point of view is the fact that both male and female circumcision had been practiced in Ethiopia and Egypt, since remote antiquity. Sanchuniathon, Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, etc. have confirmed this. There can be absolutely no doubt that the practice of male circumcision was borrowed by the Hebrews from the Egyptians. To quote Davenport: “Abraham, who had hitherto called himself Abram, added a syllable to his name at the same time that he curtailed a portion of his skin, thus effecting a compromise, or quid pro quo.” According to the Bible, the ‘covenant’ fell into desuetude but was revived by Moses – but not for the reasons given in the Exodus! According to the old scholiast: “Moses, the king and legislator of the Jews, having from want of cleanliness a diseased prepuce, was compelled to cut it off, and fearing that this privation, if known to his subjects, might expose him to ridicule, ordered them all to undergo a like operation.”

For males, circumcision is a messy but comparatively trivial operation, whereas for females, clitoridectomy is not only painful beyond belief, but is the equivalent of total castration. All of the women whom I know personally, who have undergone pharaonic circumcision and have been infibulated, say they have never recovered from it – physically or mentally – and of course, they are absolutely incapable of experiencing any sexual pleasure. On the contrary, sex is very painful for them.

No doubt, Eastern men have always nourished , and still nourish, a deep visceral fear and distrust of all infant females – some of the bright ones might grow into brainy women who would go after them with meat cleavers, join “Women’s Lib”, demand equal rights, etc. So, aeons ago, the ancestors of Semitic ‘machos’ reached the conclusion that the only way to beat the deadly females of their species was to circumcise them first, then lock them up in harems or zenanas.

Pharaonic circumcision and infibulation is regarded as the only one hundred percent effective way to safeguard a girl’s virginity. Indeed, it is so effective that, for intercourse to take place after marriage, the husband or matron has to defibulate the bride with a knife to pry her open.

The ghastly screams and shrieks which have terrified so many foreign tourists at night in the vicinity of “Honeymoon” hotels in Port Sudan are emitted by brides being defibulated. A Sudanese journalist commented, “For us they seem perfectly normal, we all know that the first nights of marriage are agony.”

But just what is pharaonic circumcision? I have seen it being done when I was staying as a guest in the home of wealthy Arab friends. A great feast had been prepared to which all female relatives and friends had been invited, and since I was regarded as a guest of honor, I not only had to attend, but was given a ringside seat. The miserable little victim – a beautiful child, incidentally – was grabbed by four women, who threw her upon a sort of pallet on the ground and pinioned her arms and legs. Then the gedda, or specialist, or matron, or whatever you want to call her, kneeled between the little girl’s thighs and began the operation by slicing off the clitoris. All of the women present began making the most prodigious din (by ullulations), which they kept up during the whole operation in a futile effort to drown the howls and shrieks of agony of the patient. As soon as the clitoris had been excised, the matron scooped (roughly speaking) it out, then began to pull and tug to extract its roots. Blood gushed left, right and center. This was only an hors d’oeuvre – the next step consisted in shearing off the edges of the inner lips, then carving off the rim of the outer lips, from which the gedda removed a gory ribbon of flesh about 2 centimeters in width. Where the clitoris had once been was a gaping hole from which blood poured. I will spare you a few other details which I would rather not enlarge upon. Finally, the matron stitched up the raw and bleeding flesh, after which she carefully inserted a tiny hollow tube into the lower portion of the vagina, to allow for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. This, so I was subsequently informed, was to remain in place until the scar had formed. The ‘operation’ had lasted all of twenty minutes. Finally, the patient was bound up with cords from the hips to the knees to prevent her from making any movements which might cause the stitches to burst. For fifteen days, all girls who have been infibulated have to remain motionless, supine, and trussed up like fowls.

As a direct result of this ritual butchery, most Mohammedan women are permanently cowed which is hardly surprising since they have been castrated. A few exceptions react as Cleopatra did. According to many historians, the ‘Serpent of the Nile’ had been subjected , as most Egyptian females, to pharaonic circumcision, and her whole life was a sort of mopping up action, totally unencumbered by any treacherous below-the-belt emotions.

According to Dr, El Sayed Mirghani El Sayed, the very first African doctor to write a thesis on female circumcision, in Africa alone “fifty million or more female children are circumcised every year”. In Somalia, all girls between the ages of seven and ten are forced to submit to this barbarous operation, for religious and social reasons. Most Egyptian girls, including those who attend universities, have been infibulated.

Unfortunately, no one knows how many of the little victims who have been circumcised, die – either immediately due to shock, or a little later due to the infections resulting from this prehistoric butchery. Sometimes, the patients bleed to death; hemorrages which often last for forty-eight hours are frequent occurrences, but generally they succumb to tetanus or gangrene. Whenever a death resulting from circumcision occurs, as Dr. J.G. Taoko reported, it is bruited about that the ‘evil eye’ was to blame, or else it is rumored that the victim herself was to blame because she had had sexual relations before the ceremony and was ‘punished’ for her ‘crime’.

It is hardly necessary to describe what happens to all women who have been infibulated when they are on the point of giving birth. The vagina, a mass of scar tissue, is far too narrow to permit the baby to emerge. So what happens? They simply slash her open. Then, of course, later she has to be infibulated all over again. Any husband can force his wife to undergo infibulation ad nauseum. One of my unfortunate friends has been infibulated five times.

Mahomet cannot be blamed for introducing either male or female circumcision, which had been practised thousands of years before his birth, but it is relevant to note that he never made the slightest effort to ban, suppress, or even discourage female circumcision. On the contrary!

According to the Omatiya version of the hadiths (sacred words of the Prophet), when Mahomet saw a woman in the Medina busily carving up the genitalia of a small girl, he said: “Do not cut too deeply.” According to the second version (Razeen) he allegedly said “Do not cut too deeply. It clears the complexion of the woman and is more agreeable for her husband.”

Although the Koran considers excision as an ’embellishment’ for women but not a formal command, most Mohammedans everywhere labor under the delusion that female circumcision is a prescription of Islam. Modern Islamic leaders all appear to be bending over backwards to encourage the practice.

The grand Mufti of Mecca – who might be compared to the pope for all of Islam – publicly proclaimed: “The ablation of the gland clitoris is agreeable to Allah.” This astonishing pronumciamento was made smack in the middle of this century.

Abraham, according to the Bible, was either on the verge of or over the edge of madness, since he obviously suffered from auditory and visual hallucinations. When in their throes, he fancied or imagined that he saw and heard a god who introduced himself as “el elyon”. And, though Time failed to mention in their October 17, 1983 cover story “Luther 500 years young,” Luther (who like Calvin suffered acutely from chronic constipation) received his greatest moment of spiritual enlightenment when he was struggling upon the privy – the famous, immortal Turmerlebnis. All atheists who know Latin have laughed themselves into insensibility reading Melanchthon’s description of one of Luther’s affrays with the devil…

To return to Mohammedanism, which, let us face it, is spreading enormously (even in the United States with the Black Muslims), it might indeed be a good idea, as my three Islamic “closet Atheists” have vociferously and repeatedly suggested, to acquaint Americans with few hard facts regarding Mohammedanism, as well as the fact that every year over fifty million little children are castrated “like animals” in forty countries of Africa, the Middle and Near East (in the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate).

UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO etc., have been in possession since 1958 of ‘confidential documents’ which informed them of the savage ‘mutilations which are inflicted on children, but not one of these organizations has ever done anything constructive. They remain rife with lethargy, or, like frightened cuttlefish, exude inky sophistries. They are pusillanimous and models of ineptitude. As for the “Holy See,” well, it seems that the great battle against abortion and the glorious crusade against contraception (the present pope’s psychotic preoccupations) prevent the Vatican and “his holiness”from embarking on another battle to relieve the sufferings endured by millions of defenseless children. Although some African countries have legally banned female circumcision, it is still widely practised. Many wealthy individuals now have their daughters circumcised in hospitals who specialize in these black market operations and become rich on the proceeds.

Khomeini’s MEIN KAMPF entitled Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious Principles should be a must for all those interested in Islam with the lid off. The ayatollah makes no secret that his goal is “universal Islamic power” – the “holy war” has already begun and will end with the “total victory for Islam”. Here are a few gems from this astonishin book:

A woman may belong to a man in two ways: by continuous marriage, or temporary marriage. In the first case it is not necessary to indicate the duration, but in the second case one must indicate whether the period is for one hour, one day, one month, one year.

One of the most serious of all sins, he goes on to inform us, is to refrain from paying one’s taxes to the clergy. Oddly enough, anyone who “restrains” himself from urination thereby commits a sin (?!) If a fly enters into one’s mouth during Ramadan, one is not obliged to remove the said fly – one may swallow it: No one who has eaten garlic should be allowed to enter a mosque. Wearing an ‘occidental hat’ is a disgrace and contrary to the will of Allah.

The saintly ayatollah has classified wine and alcoholic beverages as ‘impure; but regards both opium and hashish as ‘pure’. Incidentally, he informs us that there are ‘eleven impure things’: pigs, dogs. etc. and also men and women who are not Mohammedans.

Apart from these, “it is forbidden to defecate upon the graves of the faithful,” etc. All Iranian women are now obliged to wear chadors whenever they emerge from their homes; failing this they are spat upon in the streets and some have even been knifed. No doubt Khomeini will force all Iranian women to undergo pharaonic circumcision and be infibulated, if he has not already made the practice a legal obligation. In Ethiopia, the Amharas (who are Christians) and the Falashas (who are Jews) as well as some other tribes, also insist that their women be circumcised, but the only people who practice infibulation are the Mohammedans. Excision is bad enough; infibulation is Grand Guignolesque.

To quote Pierre Leulliette, author of LE VIOL DES VIOLS: “Ces mutilations ne sont elles pas des armes imparables pour le maintien de la polygamie selon Mahomet?”

President Reagan named 1983 “the year of the Bible” and exhorted all citizens each in his or her way to re-examine and re-discover its priceless and timeless heritage. The Bible and the Koran are maelstorms of mythological absurdities. But the authors of the Bible and the author of the Koran – one really has to hand it to them – were talented psychological engineers, because in defiance of all laws of logic and common sense, they succeeded – chacun a son tour – in flinging a great bridge of lies over a bottomless gulf of nonsense, historical falsifications, and sheer unadulterated baloney.

In the Old Testament, the Jewish deity is described as behaving with a totally anthropomorphic lack of self control; not infrequently, he carries on like a hungry mandrill who has just been forcibly deprived of a banana. The Koran answers every question, particularly those which are of no interest.

In Bondage in Kuwait

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/02/in-bondage-in-kuwait.html#readfurther

by Baron Bodissey

 

This email is from our Austrian correspondent ESW, and concerns her personal experiences with “guest workers” in Kuwait.

Dear Baron,

I need to add my two cents’ worth to your post on workers’ exploitation in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. As you know, I lived in Kuwait in 1990 and again from 1997 to 2000. You cannot imagine the things I saw and heard.

In 1990 I got stuck in Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion. This is not the place for the entire story of my journey back to Austria. But let me tell you one of the most harrowing images I have stored in my memory: As our convoy — made up of Austrian citizens — approached the border between Iraq and Turkey near a town called Zakho, we found that the border had been closed for the night. We managed to bribe the guards into opening the border control area. The mountainous area was dimly lit at 3 a.m., but I was able to see the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of not so affluent Asian migrant workers lying asleep on the rugged and rocky ground, waiting for the gates to Turkey — and to freedom — to open in the morning.

I had seen these same workers driving in open trucks, children being baked in the hot desert sun, squashed between the family’s belongings in the open area in the back of the truck. We were lucky in that we were welcomed upon our return to Austria. The Asians were not welcomed at all because they brought with them problems: the countries they had left could not provide jobs for them; their families were dependent on the workers’ incomes and were now destitute.

When I returned to Kuwait in 1997, nothing had changed for the hundreds of thousands of maids and drivers. They were still in bondage. It starts with their sponsors — the Kuwaiti employer —confiscating their passports, making it impossible for the workers to run away, that is, to flee the country. Without their passports and — even more important — without the so-called iqama, the stamp in the passport with the work permit, they are stuck. Not even the embassies can help these poor souls.

Considering what we all know about Arab supremacy, what do you think the Minister of Labor is going to do to help when the Indian ambassador is at his doorstep? Nothing. You guessed right. So all these representatives can do is provide safe houses for these maids to hide in until things are sorted out with their sponsors.
– – – – – – – – –
When summer approached and with it the unbearable heat, the number of visa requests rose steadily. The larger the family, the more maids and drivers were required to travel with these families. It sickened me having to stamp visas for the maids, knowing perfectly well that they would not have a wonderful and relaxing time in Austria, that they would have to work just as hard as in Kuwait, running after misbehaving and abusive children, often having to double as sex slaves. We at the embassy also knew perfectly well that the maids went along to work, which is actually illegal according to the visa regulations. But what could, what should we have done? It was an impossible situation. 

It is well-known that maids were often forced to sleep in the kitchen, under the table, on a foam mattress. There is no law that regulates working hours, vacation time, or sickness compensation. Migrant workers, according to the law, fall into a special category. There are no lawyers they can contact because there is nothing these lawyers can do. If the workers do get vacation time, and that’s a big if, they usually travel home to the Philippines or India or Sri Lanka, or wherever they are from.

And they always return, which should tell us a thing or two about their lives back home. How bad must life be in these countries, that an abused maid leaves her family to return to Kuwait? To 40 Kuwaiti Dinars in salary, about $120.

Maids and drivers, which means boys and girls, are strictly segregated. Imagine the boredom. Imagine what happens if they do get together. Imagine the consequences. An illegitimate pregnancy. And that’s when the s**t hits the fan.

I usually enjoy reading the newspaper. Yet one of the saddest aspects of reading Kuwaiti newspapers was reading about abused maids. The English-language newspapers were filled with news about maids who had committed suicide by jumping out of windows.

Imagine how bad things must be to commit suicide, without saying good-bye to your family. Imagine the loneliness. Just imagine.

I couldn’t back then. I can’t now.

— ESW

Freedom of Speech?

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

by Baron Bodissey

 

I mentioned yesterday “A Memorial to Oriana Fallaci”, the Counterjihad Conference 2008 in Florence sponsored by Una Via per Oriana that took place over the weekend. Our Austrian correspondent ESW was there representing Mission Europa — Netzwerk Karl Martell. She gave a speech which is reproduced below.

Freedom of Speech?
by ESW

Imagine the following: In May this year a well-known and highly accepted expert on Islam — notably a woman — was invited to speak in the Austrian city of Traun. The topic of her address was to have been “Islam in Europe — A Challenge to the Government, Society and the Church”. A group comprising members from religious and community organizations, including the Catholic and Protestant churches as well as Muslims, had organized the event, which was supported by the city of Traun. However, only five days before the event Omar Al-Rawi, in charge of integration matters in the Islamic faith community and member of the socialist party, strongly criticized the event. He wrote to the organizing committee that Mrs. Schirrmacher was a well-known anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim activist and that the city of Traun’s support was terrible. Due to Al-Rawi’s criticism the event was then canceled. Now, Mrs. Schirrmacher’s credentials are impeccable. Her book Women and the Sharia is considered a standard work, and she has held countless speeches and written articles in which she propagates the rights of Muslim girls and women. A well-respected German law professor and expert on Islam hit the nail on its head by saying, “I am very surprised that no one wants to hear her crucial arguments. She cites many facts and examples.”

Mrs. Schirrmacher was uninvited simply because one man deemed her unworthy of speaking. Did he even know what she was going to say? Did he care?

These happenings in May can be considered an assault on the basic right to freedom of expression and opinion. This assault was neither the first nor the last in a series of attempts by Muslims and Muslim organizations to suppress any kind of dissenting opinion, to suppress anything that seemingly goes against the teachings of Islam. Also contributing to the suppression of free thought is the labeling of anyone daring to speak out against Islam. “Islamophobe!” is the new battle cry. “Racist! Nazi! Right-winger!” We are none of that. The notion of Islamophobia — for which there is no agreed-upon definition — according to Roger Kimball is “a misnomer”, since a phobia describes an irrational fear. The fear of the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but well founded. Kimball believes that we should actually speak of “Islamophobiaphobia”, the fear of and revulsion towards Islamophobia.

Attacking the freedom of expression and accusing critics of Islamophobia are part of a tactic referred to as “soft jihad”. We should worry more about this version of jihad, rather than the bloody version. Soft jihad uses and abuses the language and the principles of democratic liberalism not to secure the institutions and attitudes that make freedom possible, but to undermine that freedom and pave the way for theocratic intolerance (R. Kimball). Soft jihad, according to Barbara Kay, is law-abiding. It exploits liberal discourse and weaknesses in our legal systems to induce guilt about a largely mythical Islamophobia.

Let us examine the manifestations of both Islamophobia and the attempts to ban freedom of expression and how it is aided and abetted by the United Nations and the European Union and also some of its manifestations and particularities in Austria.

In spring of this year, free speech effectively died at the UN and, with it, around the world. The UN Human Rights Council caved in to a demand by Muslim member countries that religious matters, i.e. matters of Islam, only be discussed by religious scholars. Council President Costea explained that religious matters can be “very complex, very sensitive, and very intense.” Since the council is no longer allowed to discuss religious matters in depth, it will not do so. Period. Case closed. No more discussion about genital mutilation, stoning, or child marriage. None of this has much, if anything, to do with religion per se, but everything to do with Islam.

– – – – – – – – –
This discussion of religion has a long history dating back to the late 1990’s, when Pakistan introduced the first “defamation against Islam” resolution to the Human Rights Council. Although the title was later changed to include all religions, Islam remained the focus of these resolutions, which have passed not only in the Human Rights Council, but also in the UN General Assembly. In March of this year, the Islamic nations were also successful in introducing a change to the mandate of the UN’s special rapporteur on freedom of expression who now “reports on instances where the abuse on the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.” At first glance, all of this may look and sound good. However, on closer scrutiny one realizes that defamation of religions is not about protecting individual believers from damage to their reputations caused by false statements, but rather about protecting a religion, or some interpretation of it, or the feelings of its followers. According to Angela Wu, an expert on international law, “Defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals and makes the state the arbiter, thereby requiring the state to sort good and bad ideologies. This violates the foundations of human rights rather than the individuals who hold the ideas.” What is worrying about all this is the fact that these resolutions keep passing, as they have been for the past ten years. This could help the concept of “defamation of religions” to become an international legal norm.

What about the European Union, one might ask. The EU prides itself in upholding fundamental rights as demonstrated by the creation of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. The EU also prides itself in being at the forefront of human rights by making available to its citizens the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Again, all of this looks and sounds just wonderful, even reassuring, until one scratches the surface. According to its website, the agency’s areas of activities include the fight against racism, xenophobia, and related intolerance. What is meant by “related intolerance”? It is not explicitly stated. However, upon his nomination as director of the EU Agency of Fundamental Rights, Morten Kjaerum named rising Islamophobia his biggest challenge.

Honesty in dealing with the population has never been on the agenda of the EU. Again, the Charter of Fundamental Rights sounds innocuous until one takes a closer look. For instance, Article 11 of the charter grandly states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.” However, the legal explanations make more explicit what is meant by this freedom, namely that it is “subject to conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, for public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.” In essence, there is freedom of expression in the EU, but it is a very limited freedom, a freedom quickly abused by those who do not agree with free thought. As Fjordman succinctly sums up, “The anti-discrimination laws in Europe come from a small group of appointed leaders who respond to pressures from the Islamic world, not from their own people. If native Europeans vote “no” to the proposed EU-constitution, they are immediately denounced and ignored. If Muslims say they want a total ban on “discrimination and Islamophobia” in Europe, they get it immediately.”

To emphasize the above, the EU has introduced a framework decision to combat racism and xenophobia, which punishes certain forms of conduct as criminal offenses, such as public incitement to violence and hatred or public distribution of material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia. Punishment must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. Remember that criticizing Islam de facto falls under the category “racism and xenophobia”. According to the Council of Europe, European governments “bear a special responsibility to ensure full respect for the freedoms of thought, speech, and religion.” Governments are also asked “to develop guidelines to combat Islamophobia in the media.” The EU even offers a special media toolkit “to promote the principles of cultural diversity in TV programs.” It’s all there for you to grab paid for with your taxes if you want to be re-educated as mandated by the EU and the Council of Europe. More recently, the United Nations admonished Austria for not doing enough to combat racism and stereotyping. The UN report suggests adopting “self-mechanisms of print media”, in short, introducing self-censorship. And while both the EU and the Council of Europe introduce framework decision after framework decision on the rising Islamophobia and discrimination in Europe, not one piece of legislation covers the rise of Christianophobia. Discrimination against Christians in Europe is mentioned in passing by a member of the Fundamental Rights Agency board, focusing on intolerance and discrimination against Christians, but also against members of other religions.

The Fundamental Rights Agency takes advantage of member states by asking their national officials to do the work, with the added advantage that their cost is borne by the national taxpayer (Booker, North. “The Great Deception” p. 525). For instance, data collection reports on the local issues of fundamental rights are compiled, and thus its research paid for, by the Austrian taxpayer, through the so-called RAXEN National Focal Points (NFPs). In Austria, two institutions, the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights and ZARA (Zivilcourage und Anti-Rassismus Arbeit), compile this so-called data collection report. The 2007 report notes that no tendencies of Islamophobia were observed in Austria. As always, one needs to look closely for the real story. In this case it is found in the section called “Unofficial data and information”: “There were 37 cases of racist violence in 2006, where the victims were visibly belonging [visibly belonged] to an ethnic or religious minority recognizable by (…) a religious symbol, especially the Muslim headscarf.” The report furthermore notes that the “high vulnerability of Muslim women wearing a headscarf is striking”.

The current situation in Austria epitomizes the success of institutions such as the Fundamental Rights Agency and the Council of Europe. Eurabia is fully implemented and going ahead full steam. Interfaith dialogue between Christianity and Islam is one case in point. There is no questioning of the oft-repeated, mantra-like assertion that Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions, that there is a common ancestor, Abraham, uniting all monotheistic religions. Why are the visible differences in religious practice not raised? Reference to a “common ancestor” does not help us today to solve our problems in peaceful coexistence. In addition, Austria is forced to contend with the “Law on Islam”, introduced in 1912, which states: “The doctrines of Islam, its institutions and customs shall enjoy the same protection, unless they are in contradiction to state law.” However, the Quran has never been scrutinized for such contradictions! The Law on Islam and the Islamic Faith Community are considered the definitive problem solvers. Unlike members of other religious groups, those of the Islamic faith enter the political spotlight by demanding “integration by participation”. This means, according to one representative of the Islamic faith community, that although Muslims are not religiously defined, they do want more participation. The insistence on a more detailed explanation was met with accusation that the inquirer was an enemy of Islam.

The implementation of the Eurabia concept has permeated society as a whole. This is evident in numerous areas, such as the media, the sciences, the integration policies, or the schools. The media, for instance, either practices rigorous self-censorship or disinformation as well as deliberate non-information. The Austrian Broadcasting Corporation has been sugar-coating Islam for many years and routinely does not question Muslim claims. In one radio show the listener is not told whether or not Islam provides a foundation for terrorism. Another point raised was that the terror attacks in Great Britain were committed by British citizens. Why was the fact that the terrorists were naturalized Pakistanis neglected? At a conference of imams in Vienna, topics for discussion were, among others, how Muslims in Austria are continuously being excluded. However, it was not explored how acceptance can be expected if the Western way of life is rejected and Westerners are considered infidels. Euphemisms are used for Muslims: “Asian youth”, “südländisch aussehend” (having a southern appearance).

Integration policies are geared towards favoring immigrants over the native population. There is an official government agency — the Austrian Integration Fund — catering solely to immigrants and their “problems” by offering “effective, unbureaucratic assistance in finding accommodation, job-seeking or language learning”. Successful asylum seekers are even granted scholarships as well as other financial assistance to help them integrate into Austrian society. For those wanting to learn more about integration, the Integration Fund offers an “Intercultural Conflict Management” course open only to students with a migration background or those familiar with intercultural conflict. Integration policies, however, do not assert any claims on the immigrant other than softly forcing them to learn the German language. Yet even these free language courses — at the taxpayer’s courtesy — are deemed excessive by the Islamic faith community.

To conclude, there is a widespread and multi-pronged approach in silencing dissenting opinions. The European Union does not constitute a safe haven for freedom of speech; rather, it furthers the opposite by launching and instating countless programs to curtail this very freedom. We should not endorse what Senegal’s president Wade wants: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.” What we must stand up for every day is what Voltaire so famously said: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” This would mean the right to say “I think Islam suspicious and dislikable” and “I’m sick of constantly being told that all religions should be considered equal and that the brutal Islamic behavior is our fault” without being labeled racist or xenophobic. This would be a step in the right direction.

 

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/09/freedom-of-speech.html#readfurther

Menschenrechte – Wie der Islam sie versteht

http://www.lausannerbewegung.de/index.php?p=22

Wenn in einem islamischen Land Christen und andere Nicht-Muslime wegen ihres Glaubens verfolgt werden oder zum Christentum übergetretene Muslime mit der Todesstrafe bedroht werden, klagt die Presse im Westen an, daß in den islamischen Ländern gegen die Menschenrechte verstoßen werde. Gleichzeitig haben fast alle islamischen Länder Menschenrechtserklärungen unterzeichnet, wie zum Beispiel die „Allgemeine Menschenrechtserklärung“ der Vereinten Nationen aus dem Jahr 1948. (1)

Menschenrechte und Sharia

Einige islamische Organisationen haben in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten sogar selbst Menschenrechtserklärungen formuliert. Sie unterscheiden sich allerdings insofern grundsätzlich von Menschenrechtserklärungen westlicher Länder, als daß sie dem Koran und dem islamischen Gesetz (der Sharia) vor der Gewährung aller Menschenrechte stets den höheren Rang einräumen. Menschenrechte können daher in islamischen Ländern eigentlich nur im Rahmen der im Koran und dem islamischen Gesetz festgelegten Gebote gewährt und eingefordert werden. Artikel 24 der Kairoer Erklärung der Menschenrechte von 1990 formuliert etwa: „Alle Rechte und Freiheiten, die in dieser Erklärung genannt wurden, unterstehen der islamischen Sharî’a“ [also dem islamischen Gesetz], und Artikel 25 ergänzt: „Die islamische Sharî’a ist die einzige zuständige Quelle für die Auslegung oder Erklärung jedes einzelnen Artikels dieser Erklärung“. Diese betont die „historische Rolle der islamischen Umma“ [der weltweiten Gemeinschaft aller Muslime], „die von Gott als die beste Nation geschaffen wurde und die der Menschheit eine universale und wohlausgewogene Zivilisation gebracht hat, in der zwischen dem Leben hier auf Erden und dem Jenseits Harmonie besteht und in der Wissen mit Glauben einhergeht“ (2).

Was bedeutet diese Höherordnung von Koran und islamischem Gesetz (Sharia)? Sie bedeutet, daß in islamischen Ländern Menschenrechte an sich, losgelöst von den religiösen Werten der islamischen Offenbarung, tatsächlich nicht existieren. Innerhalb des vom Koran und vom islamischen Gesetz gesteckten Rahmens können sie jedoch gewährt werden. Dem säkularisierten Westler, geprägt von Aufklärung und der Trennung von Kirche und Staat, fällt es entsprechend schwer, nachzuvollziehen, daß in einem Land die Richtlinien für Politik, Wirtschaft und das private und öffentliche gesellschaftliche Leben stark vom Islam und seinen Werten bestimmt werden.

Menschen-Rechte oder Pflichten?

Deshalb sind islamische Apologeten (Verteidiger ihres Glaubens) in der Regel der Auffassung, daß in erster Linie Gott Rechte gegenüber den Menschen, der Mensch jedoch Pflichten gegenüber Gott zu erfüllen habe. Der Mensch hat z. B. die Pflicht, sich Gott und seinem Willen zu unterwerfen und die fünf Säulen des Islam zu erfüllen (Bekenntnis, fünfmal tägliches Gebet, Fasten im Ramadan, Almosen, Wallfahrt nach Mekka).

Menschenrechte für Muslime und Nichtmuslime

Im Islam existierte von seiner Entstehungszeit an keine Trennung zwischen Religion und Staat bzw. Politik und Religion, während etwa im Alten Testament bereits eine gewisse Trennung zwischen Kirche und Staat, zwischen dem Amt des Königs und des Hohepriesters bestand. Die Einheit von Politik und Religion existierte im Islam schon bei Muhammad im 7. Jahrhundert n. Chr., der selbst gleichzeitig religiöser wie politischer Führer der ersten muslimischen Gemeinde war. Auch seine unmittelbaren Nachfolger (Kalifen) vereinigten beide Ämter in einer Person.

Der Islam ist in vielen islamischen Staaten Staatsreligion, von der angenommen wird, daß entweder jeder Staatsbürger oder doch die meisten ihr anhängen. Im islamischen Staat ist „die Religion das staatsbildende Prinzip. Der Staat ist Träger einer religiösen Idee und damit selbst eine religiöse Institution … Ihm obliegt die Sorge für die Gottesverehrung, die religiöse Unterweisung und die Glaubensverbreitung“ (3). Grundsätzlich muß daher unterschieden werden zwischen Menschenrechten für Muslime und Nichtmuslime: Muslime verhalten sich durch ihren Glauben staatsloyal und können unter dem Dach ihrer Religion den vollen Schutz ihres Staates genießen. Nichtmuslime dagegen sind durch ihren ‘Unglauben’ dem islamischen Staat gegenüber nicht loyal und können daher diesen Schutz nicht unter allen Umständen in vollem Umfang beanspruchen. So besitzen Muslime in einem islamischen Land im Vergleich mit Nichtmuslimen stets umfangreichere Bürgerrechte. So darf zum Beispiel in der Regel ein Muslim nicht von einem Nichtmuslim beerbt werden, sondern nur von einem Muslim.

Religionswechsel als Staatsverrat

Muslim zu sein bedeutet also, ein mit allen Rechten versehener Staatsbürger zu sein. Wer dem Islam nicht anhängt, weil er von ihm abgefallen ist, begeht Staats- oder Hochverrat, denn der Islam ist „Bestandteil der Grundordnung des Staates“ (4). Wenn ein Muslim seinem Glauben abschwört, greift er diese Grundordnung an und gefährdet die Sicherheit und die „Stabilität der Gesellschaft, der er angehört“ (5). Martin Forstner faßt zusammen: „Nur wer an Gott und an den geoffenbarten Koran glaubt und die Scharia befolgt, ist fähig, Bürgerkompetenz zu entwickeln, während der Gottlose als Feind der Gesellschaft gilt. Die immer wieder verlangte religiöse Bekenntnispflicht – durch die Erfüllung der täglichen fünf Gebete, des Fastens im Monat Ramadan … – ist Mittel der Beförderung der staatsbürgerlichen Moral, weshalb denn im islamischen Staat die volle Bürgerrechtsfähigkeit an das Bekenntnis zum wahren Glauben gekoppelt ist“ (6).

Aufgrund dieser ‘Wächterfunktion’ des Staates über die Religion seiner Bürger kann daher, sofern das islamische Gesetz strikt ausgelegt wird, trotz der Formulierung von Menschenrechtserklärungen bei Abfall eines Muslims vom Islam niemals den Menschenrechten (z. B. bei Glaubenswechsel) vor dem islamischen Gesetz der Vorrang eingeräumt werden. Wo ein Muslim – aus muslimischer Sicht – Hochverrat an seinem Staat begeht, muß das religiöse Gesetz vor allen Menschenrechtserklärungen befolgt werden, und das verlangt die Bestrafung des Abtrünnigen mit dem Tod. Umgekehrt kann der Nichtmuslim in einem islamischen Staat nur die Menschenrechte genießen, die ihm der Koran und das islamische Gesetz einräumen (wie z. B. die eingeschränkte Glaubensausübung).

Als Christen müssen wir uns darüber klar sein, daß für einen Muslim sein Religionswechsel (z. B. sein Übertritt zum christlichen Glauben) weder von seiner Familie, noch seinem Umfeld oder seiner Herkunftskultur als Privatangelegenheit betrachtet werden wird, sondern immer auch als ein öffentlicher, ja politischer Akt. Deshalb wird sich der Hauptvorwurf gegen den Konvertiten – außer der Verzweiflung über die familiär empfundene Schande – auf der Ebene des ‘Verrats an Volk und Vaterland’ bewegen. Die Einsicht in diesen Sachverhalt fordert Christen im In- und Ausland zum intensiven Gebet und wo immer möglich, zur konkreten Unterstützung des Konvertiten auf.

 

Ergänzende Arbeitshilfen:

• „Christen in islamischen Gesellschaften“
• „Der Abfall vom Islam nach Koran und Sharia“
• „Wenn Muslime Christen werden – Verfolgung und Strafe für Konvertiten“

Anmerkungen:

1: Saudi-Arabien stellt eine Ausnahme dar und unterzeichnete diese Menschenrechtserklärung nicht.
2: Die Kairoer Erklärung der Menschenrechte im Islam wurde zum Beispiel veröffentlicht in: Gewissen und Freiheit Nr. 36, 19. Jg./1991, S. 93-98. Vgl. dazu auch Osman El Hajje. Die islamischen Länder und die internationalen Menschenrechtsdokumente, in: Gewissen und Freiheit 36/1991. S. 74-79, sowie die kritische Analyse von Martin Forstner. Das Menschenrecht der Religionsfreiheit und des Religionswechsels als Problem der islamischen Staaten, in: Kanon. Kirche und Staat im christlichen Osten. Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für das Recht der Ostkirchen. (Wien). Jg. 10/1991. S. 105-186, sowie die „Allgmeine Islamische Menschenrechtserklärung“ des Islamrates für Europa in Paris vom 19.9. 1981 in Cibedo/Dokumentation (Frankfurt) Nr. 15/16, 1982
3: O. Spies und E. Pritsch. Klassisches Islamisches Recht. 1. Wesen des Islamischen Rechts. in: Handbuch der Orientalistik. Abt. 1. Erg.bd. 3. Orientalisches Recht. E. J. Brill: Leiden, 1964. S. 220-343, hier S. 220. Eine gewisse Ausnahme stellt die Türkei seit Atatürk dar.
4: Forstner. Menschenrecht. a. a. O. S. 116
5: Forstner. Menschenrecht. a. a. O. S. 116
6: Forstner. Menschenrecht. a. a. O. S. 138

Literaturhinweise:

Bassam Tibi. Im Schatten Allahs. Der Islam und die Menschenrechte. Piper: München, 1994 ff.
Lorenz Müller. Islam und Menschenrechte. Sunnitische Muslime zwischen Islamismus, Säkularismus und Modernismus. Deutsches Orient-Institut: Hamburg, 1996

Autorin dieser Ausgabe: Dr. Christine Schirrmacher

---

Die Lausanner Bewegung im Internet: http://www.lausannerbewegung.de.
Diese Seite finden Sie unter http://www.lausannerbewegung.de/index.php?p=22.

V.i.S.d.P.: Birgit Winterhoff
Realisierung: Frontantrieb, Stuttgart.

Warnung: Eine Reise auf die Malediven ist ein Alptraum!

http://info.kopp-verlag.de/news/albtraum-malediven-wo-menschenrechte-mit-den-fuessen-getreten-werden.html

Albtraum Malediven – Wo Menschenrechte mit den Füßen getreten werden

Udo Ulfkotte

Das Inselreich der Malediven gilt bei europäischen Touristen als “Urlaubsparadies”. Ein geschicktes Marketing setzt die vielen Atolle, weiße Sandstrände und unzählige Korallenriffe in den Vordergrund. Dahinter jedoch tun sich Abgründe auf. Vor allem gegen “Ungläubige” – also Nicht-Muslime – wird öffentlich gehetzt. Doch ausgerechnet diese “Ungläubigen” finanzieren die Ausfälle des streng islamischen Staates…

Zur Jahreswende 2007/08 hatten die Malediven schon mit einem Federstrich einfach so allen nicht-islamischen Bürgern die Staatsbürgerschaft entzogen und diese Menschen zu Staatenlosen gemacht. Die Malediven, ein streng islamischer Staat, wollen christenfrei werden. Niemand protestierte. Niemand regte sich auf. Man hat seither einige Monate abgewartet – und nun folgte der nächste Schlag: Das Land hat sich jetzt eine neue Verfassung gegeben. Sie verspricht Mehrparteienwahlen und demokratische Reformen. Und die Medien jubeln. Dabei verwehrt die neue Verfassung allen Nicht-Muslimen ausdrücklich die Grundrechte. Urlauber, die auf den Malediven Entspannung suchen, dürfen zwar schnorcheln und tauchen, aber beispielsweise nicht in der Bibel lesen oder zu Gott beten – sofern sie dabei nicht »Allah u-akbar« rufen und sich gen Mekka verneigen. Nicht-Muslime sind nach der neuen Verfassung Menschen zweiter Klasse. Allen Minderheiten wird das Recht auf freie Religionsausübung vorenthalten. Auch Rede-, Versammlungs- und Pressefreiheit gibt es nicht.

99,4 Prozent der Einwohner des Landes sind Muslime – den 0,6 Prozent Nicht-Muslimen hat man nun mit der neuen Verfassung noch einmal bestätigt, dass sie keine Staatsbürger mehr sind. Denn Nicht-Muslime können nun auch gemäß der neuen Verfassung keine Staatsbürger der Malediven mehr sein. Da es nur einige wenige hundert Menschen betrifft, protestiert auch in diesen Tagen niemand gegen diese Menschenrechtsverletzungen.

Die auf den ersten Blick so schönen Malediven, auf denen man entspannt die schönsten Wochen des Jahres genießen soll, sehen bei näherer Betrachtung erschreckend düster aus. In jeder Familie gibt es nach offiziellen Angaben der Vereinten Nationen mindestens einen Heroinsüchtigen. Der Alkohol ist den einheimischen Moslems streng verboten. Aber über Heroin nichts im Koran. Eine Rauschgiftaufklärung hat es in dem Land nie gegeben. 90 Prozent der Kinder zwischen neun und 14 Jahren konsumieren heute auf den Malediven Rauschgifte. Und Heroin ist – nach Angaben der Vereinten Nationen – auf den Malediven die Einstiegsdroge Nummer Eins. Das gibt es sonst nirgendwo auf der Welt. Mit Macheten hacken die Drogenkinder aufeinander ein, wenn man sich die Hoheit über die Rauschgiftgeschäfte auf den Straßen streitig macht. Die Touristen bekommen von alledem nichts mit. Für sie ist das »Urlaubsparadies« eine »heile Welt«.

Für die Einwohner der Malediven gibt es allerdings weder Kläranlagen noch fließendes Trinkwasser. Solche Vorzüge dürfen nur die Touristen genießen. Mehrere hunderttausend »Ungläubige« finanzieren mit ihren Urlaubsreisen Jahr für Jahr die streng muslimische Diktatorenfamilie um Staatschef Mohammed Abdul Gayoom, die seit nunmehr fast drei Jahrzehnten über das Land gebietet und den Menschen vor allem auch ihren Christenhass eingeimpft hat. Die Herrscherfamilie hat einen Grund für dieses Verhalten: 80 Prozent der Tourismuseinnahmen werden dirkret an die großen islamischen Familien abgeführt. Und die bunkern das Geld auf Schweizer Bankkonten. Es ist abzusehen, dass die Einwohner des Landes irgendwann gegen ihre Rückständigkeit und Unterdrückung aufbegehren werden. Alle Nicht-Muslime sollen dann als Ventil für die sich immer mehr aufladende Wut der einheimischen Bevölkerung bilden. Man verfährt nach dem Motto: »Seht her, die ›ungläubigen‹ Urlauber haben euch viele Jahre nur ausgebeutet.« Der Hass auf die Nicht-Muslime sitzt auf den Atollen jedenfalls schon jetzt sehr tief. Und eines Tages könnte er sich gewaltsam entladen. 

Ein Paradies sind die Malediven nur für Taucher und Touristen. Schon im Jahre 2004 hat das Europäische Parlament ein Reiseverbot für die Malediven gefordert – und Besucher sollten zumindest über die dort herrschenden Menschenrechtsverletzungen und Schrecken aufgeklärt werden. Ist das bei uns angekommen? Nein, die Bild-Zeitung sucht in diesen Tagen das »Bikini-Mädchen 2008« – und als Belohnung winkt eine »Traumreise« auf die Malediven …

FAQ Shariah

http://www.stopshariahnow.org/ssn/component/jsupport/index.php?option=com_jsupport&task=viewFaq&cid%5B%5D=10&helpful=yes

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
(Sources at end)

General Questions About Shariah Islamic Law

1. What is Shariah, also called Shariah Islamic Law?

• Shariah, meaning “the way” or “path”, is the entire body of Islamic law dating back to the 7th century
• It is a legal framework regulating how Muslims must live their lives, both privately and publicly, in order to be considered devout Muslims.
• Shariah has remained virtually unchanged for the past 1000 years.
• Shariah today is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, parts of Nigeria, Indonesia, and the law under which the Taliban operate in Afghanistan and, more recently, in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda radicals operate under Shariah Islamic Law too.

2. What areas of life are covered by Shariah?

• Shariah stipulates behavior regarding political life, divorce, child rearing, hygiene, sexuality, marital concerns, finance, penal codes, sexuality, supremacy of men, subjugation of women, treatment of non-Muslims, dietary laws, hygiene, social relationships, banking, business, economics, contracts, prayer and spirituality.
• Shariah also mandates that devout Muslims participate in Jihad (“holy” or “just” war) and da’wa (proselytizing and propaganda) in order to achieve the goal of Shariah, to create a one world Islam, known as the “Caliphate”. Violent Jihad is waged against non-devout Muslims and non-Muslims who refuse the “invitation” to live according to Shariah.

3. Why is Shariah considered “indivisible? What happens to Muslims who do not follow Shariah Islamic law?

• Shariah is an all-embracing body of religious, social, political, and military duties which, according to Shariah authorities, cannot be segmented in any way.
• Under Shariah, a Muslim is “devout” if he follows, or at least recognizes that one should follow, every aspect of Shariah. There is no ability to pick and choose a part of Shariah as authoritative and a part as “obsolete”.
• Those who aren’t faithful to Shariah in its entirety are not recognized as true Muslims, and are punished.
• Muslims who choose to reject all or part of Shariah are deemed “apostates” and are subject to punishment or even death.

4. Why is Shariah considered by many who live under it to be a barbaric, authoritarian and cruel system?

• Shariah is seen by many who live under it as an oppressive and violent political movement, much like communism and fascism, controlling through fear of barbaric and cruel punishments and death.
• Shariah has been used as the basis for political leaders to retain control over Muslims and non-Muslims by forcing them to adhere to an oppressive Shariah “constitution” developed more than 1000 years ago.
• More than ever before in history, Shariah “authorities”, schooled for many years in all aspects of political Shariah, have gained strength. Shariah law authorities are empowered by petrodollars and share political powers with sovereign rulers who fear overthrow by Shariah radicals.

5. What percentage of Muslims wish to live under Shariah Islamic law?

• Polls suggest that only 10-15% of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide wish to live under the all-encompassing Shariah system that dictates all aspects of a Muslim¹s life including religious, social, political, and military obligations.
• This translates into a huge pool – 120-180 million – of recruits and supporters for one of the primary tenets of Shariah: Jihad.
• Shariah law authorities are empowered by petrodollars and share political powers with sovereign rulers who fear overthrow by Shariah radicals.
• If there is a choice, peace-loving Muslims (which are the majority of Muslims) choose to stay away from authoritarian Shariah law.
• It is Muslims themselves who are most oppressed under Shariah, especially Muslim women, children, gays and peace-loving Muslims.

6. What are some examples of authoritarian Shariah law?

• Capital punishment for those who slander or insult Islam.
• Murder of Muslims who wish to leave Islam.
• Requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms; beating of disobedient woman and girls;
• Execution of homosexuals;
• Engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages;
• Requirement of the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape;
• Stoning of adulteresses;
• Slavery is permissible.
• Waging Jihad is a religious obligation
• Amputation of body for criminal offenses;
• Female genital mutilation;
• Inferior status for all non-Muslims, known as Dhimmitude.

7. What is the purpose of authoritarian Shariah Islamic Law ?

• The primary purpose of authoritarian Shariah law is to promote a Shariah-based Islam as the only legitimate theo-political system (church and state are one) and help establish its rule worldwide through Jihad and da’wa (acts of kindness) of many kinds, including word (propaganda & intimidation which suppresses of free speech ), the sword (violence), and money (economic influence and finance).
• Shariah is institutionalized around the world through infiltration into Shariah funded mosques, universities, banks, companies, lobbying groups, and Islamic charities all over the world.

8. What are the sources of Shariah Islamic Law ?

• Much of Shariah is a post-Quranic, meaning not written in the Quran or the words of Mohammad. It is a man-made, politicized doctrine and more radical than the Quran. In fact, the word Shariah only appears in the Quran once. However, some ideas of Shariah Law are in the Quran and also in the Hadith, or interpretation of the life of Mohammad. It is important to remember that just because a Muslim follows the faith of Islam and reads the Quran, it does NOT mean they subscribe to or promote or want to live under Shariah Islamic Law. Many peace-loving Muslims worldwide do NOT want to have any connection with Shariah Islamic Law.

9. How is Shariah related to Jihad?

• The goal of Shariah is to create a one world Islam in which a Shariah-based Islam reigns supreme, known as the caliphate.
• Shariah obligates all “devout” Muslims to either wage or support violent Jihad against the non-Muslims who refuse to live according to Shariah.
• The Sept 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in which nearly 3000 Americans were murdered was an act of Shariah-sanctioned Jihad.

General questions about Shariah Islamic finance also known as Shariah Compliant Finance (SCF)

1. What is Shariah compliant finance, often called “Shariah Finance”, or “Islamic Finance”?

• Shariah compliant finance is a mechanism designed to wage Jihad against the West through economic control.
• Shariah Finance is “political totalitarian control through finance”
• Traditional banking has been the sole and primary source of banking in the Middle East and by Muslims since the beginning of banking history. The first Shariah Bank: The Islamic Development Bank was created in 1973 – 1974.

2. How did Shariah compliant finance begin?

• Shariah compliant finance is not part of the Quran, and was created in the 1930’s by Hassan al-Banna as a means of creating an economic infrastructure for the institutionalization of Shariah, and funding of Jihad. Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949) was an Egyptian social and political reformer best known for founding the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna’s leadership was critical to the growth of the brotherhood during the 1930s and 1940”s.
• It was not until the 1970’s when oil prices rose and OPEC was created that Shariah Finance got its real start as Shariah authorities saw an opportunity to harness petrodollars toward their goal of a one world Islam through Jihad, which of course, requires money, influence, economic power, and a place to house this with real bricks and mortar. Traditional banking, similar to Western banking has existed in the Middle East since the start of banking. Muslims investors like most investors all over the world, do not choose to mix politics, religion and money.

3. How does Shariah Islamic Finance work?

• Banks and the real estate on which they sit provide global hard asset locations for the promotion and legitimization of Shariah worldwide.
• As stated earlier, most Muslims do not want to live under Shariah Law, which explains why Shariah Banking was unsuccessful and represented only a market share of investment assets in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Indonesia as recently as 2004. In fact, Saudi Arabia did not have an official Shariah Islamic Bank until 2004. Traditional banking was primary. Though Saudi Arabia has ruled under Shariah Law for years, they resisted the entry of Shariah Banking until 2004. The Saudi Royal Family was not interested in having religious radical Sheiks manage their money or have any access at all. Today Egypt continues to hold back Shariah Banking, having suffered serious fraud and bankruptcy issues by Shariah banks in the 1980”s. Unfortunately, Egypt today is being pressured into creating Shariah Banks by Shariah faithfuls who claim Egyptians are not devout Muslims without Shariah Banking. The government of Egypt is being shamed and threatened into Shariah compliance.

4. What is the difference between the stated purpose of Shariah Islamic Finance and the real purpose as evidenced in recent, well-documented examples?

• While the stated purpose of Shariah finance focuses on issues of forbidden interest and prohibition against investments in pork and alcohol, this not the true focus of Shariah finance
• For example, Shariah states that investments in banking are forbidden because the excess of interest income , yet in 2008 Muslims who appear to be Shariah faithful investors purchased 8.5% of Citibank this past year, purchased Barney’s clothing store which sells sexy “non-Islamic” western wear, hotels which serve alcohol, and have purchased thoroughbreds and racetracks, and hotels with gambling. All these activities are forbidden under Shariah, yet it appears it is these same investors who are demanding Shariah Islamic investments? Most of the transactions above are private deals, so no public disclousure of transparency is required or accessible.

• Shariah Law is about control and creation of a one world Islam, and Shariah finance is a means of achieving that control through economics, finance and real estate.

5. How is Shariah Finance being promoted by global and U.S. banks and investment companies?

• Shariah Finance is being promoted as “ethically responsible,” “culturally respectful” Islamic religious investments. This on the basis that Shariah forbids investment in gambling, alcohol and pornography. But what about a political agenda that mandates violent Jihad, stones women, forces girls to marry, and calls for the death of Muslims who leave the faith. Is this “ethically responsible”?
• Shariah Finance is being promoted to non-Muslims as a way to diversify their portfolios with a new kind of investment.
• Because collecting interest is considered exploitative and “un-Islamic”, Shariah investments are artificially re-formulated so that interest cash flows become “rents” and “profits”. This is achieved through derivative structures and contracts. This is perfectly legal, much as other western derivatives.
• Banned Industries: Shariah investments may not invest in “haram”industries”, i.e. non-Shariah industries such pork, alcohol, media, entertainment, gambling, and interest based financing.

6. What are the processes of “Zakat contributions” and oversight of “purity” of Shariah investments? What are some of the inconsistencies one finds if one digs deep into the prospectus of a Shariah Investment?

• Zakat contributions: Shariah Law mandates that devout Muslims give “zakat” or charity to Shariah Approved Charities. Muslims are obligated to donate 2.5% of assets. Shariah Banks in the Middle East are donating these profits directly to Islamic Shariah Charities on behalf of investors. The charity is chosen by the Shariah sheiks that sit on the “advisory board” of these banks. It may well be that up to 20% is being donated, a number we have heard about, but have no direct evidence.
• In speaking with American bankers setting up shop in the Middle East and offering Shariah investments, our team was told that a particular American bank was paying a 20% tax to the government in which they were operating, for the right to conduct this business. Businesses often pay taxes to the government in which they are directly operating. It becomes a question of whether this is tax money is really “zakat” and is being directed to Islamic charities, of which many of which fund terror. We just don’t’ know.
• It is very unclear how American Investment Companies transacting in America are handling this charitable obligation requirement of Shariah Law. Transparency is very weak in disclosing exactly how, where, if and who is paying this Zakat or Shariah charitable obligation .

• There are two central Zakat collecting agencies. One in UAE and one in Malaysia. These Zakat agencies donate to Shariah approved charities. There are 8 Shariah approved categories of Zakat including the needy , however up to 4 of the Shariah approved charities can be interpreted to “fund Jihad”. This is because the goal of Shariah is to create a one world Islam through Jihad, and so funding is required to train, support, transport and arm Jihadis.
• Purification: Oversight of Shariah investments by Shariah authorities requires that the return on investment NOT contain “interest” of profits attained from investments in un-Islamic companies, excess interest income. If return on investment does by chance include these “tainted” or “impure” profits, they must be given to Shariah Zakat charities so that the Shariah investment remains “ pure”.
• Example of purification: Under Shariah Return on Investment (ROI) cannot include interest income or income from “unislamic “ companies (like pork or alcohol producers). If there is a Shariah mutual fund that only invests in shoewear companies (completely Islamic), these companies have operating cash on their balance sheets that are invested in overnight money markets. This overnight interest income cannot be distributed as part of ROI, and must be “purified” by giving this funds away to Shariah approved charities. The kind of overnight interest income can be quite substantial.

• Though transparency is very weak, one Islamic fund did disclose that purification was approx 6% of ROI. Extrapolation: There is currently $ 1 trillion dollars of Shariah Assets in the US as of Nov 2008, and if this money were to yield 5% annually (ROI), this translates to $3 billion of the return on investment would be distributed to Shariah approved Charities. Given that 4 categories of Shariah charity allow for “support of Jihad”, it can be extrapolated that $1.5Billion of these dollars are funding terror. This example assumes that the 6% purification number we uncovered is accurate. Again, transparency is very very weak.

7. What exactly is not being disclosed by Banks, Law firms & Consultants promoting Shariah Finance? In Prospectuses and on websites?

• The true nature of Shariah Law and its connection to Jihad.
• Disclosure that Sept 11th was a Shariah Jihad attack.
• Disclosure that Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran & the Taliban/Al-Qaeda are Shariah governments or regimes.
• The political nature of Shariah goal to create one world Islam, or hegemony.
• The tenets of Shariah law such as polygamy, forced child marriages, etc.
• Treatment of non-Muslim according to Shariah.
• The philosophy, writings and mandates of paid Shariah Scholars who are schooled first and foremost in Shariah Law and must embrace every aspect of Shariah Law including Jihad against the West and inhumane rules of living and justice.
• The exact process of “purification” and giving of “zakat”. How much is given away, who decides and where it goes.
• The eight categories of approved Zakat of which 4 can be interpreted to mean “ in the service of Jihad”. Meaning funding of suicide bombers, support for Jihadists including their meals and travel.

8. Who are key drivers of Shariah Finance on Wall Street, in London Dubai? Are these drivers providing full disclosure of Shariah?

The following key drivers of Shariah Finance are NOT providing full disclosure of the true nature of Shariah Islamic Law, it’s connection to Jihad, human rights abuses, Taliban and Al-Qaeda, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

a. Investment Firms/ Banks: Citibank, HSBC-Amanah, UBS, Barclays, Deutche, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Lloyds, Barclays, Arcapita, Inc.
b. Hedge funds: Millennium, Zweig-DiMenna, Toqueville Asset, Paulson & Co, Ospraie Capital.
c. Index Providers: Dow Jones, S & P,
d. Law Firms; Gerstyn Savage, Patton Boggs, Kings & Spalding, Clifford Chance, Murtha Cullina LLP
e. Consulting Firms: Shariah Capital
f. Real Estate Investment Companies: Guidance Residential, Blackstone

9. How might the promotion of Shariah Finance on Wall Street be fraudulent?

• Shariah Mutual Funds promote themselves as “ethical funds.”
• One must ask, however, how a political doctrine that conducts Jihad against non-believers, & oppresses Muslim women, children and gays, and who calls for the death of peace-loving Muslims who criticize Shariah or choose to leave the faith “ethical”?
• How would an American investor of Shariah finance react if he knew that Sept 11th was an act of Shariah-sanctioned terror? Isn’t this a material omission of fact and therefore fraudulent marketing of Shariah investments by all investment service providers? Is this securities and consumer fraud?

10. Is a Shariah finance investor entitled to know that some of his ROI might be donated to Shariah Zakat charities, of which many have been found to fund terror?

• Every Shariah finance investor should be aware the US Treasury Department has designated 27 Muslim charities in the US and worldwide as terrorism entities due to their funding of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, HAMAS and others.
• Every Shariah finance investor should ask himself if he is the unwittingly funding terror himself.
• Every Shariah Finance investor should understand that there are 8 categories of acceptable “charity” as defined by Shariah Law, of which 4 may be interpreted to mean “support of Jihad”, such a supporting families of suicide bombers.

11. Do All Muslims Support Shariah Islamic Finance?

Not at all.
Here’s who has spoken out publicly despite personal threats by Shariah radicals.

Muslim Canadian Congress
American Islamic Congress for Democracy
Muslims against Shariah
Timur Kuran- Professor of Economics and Political Science and Gorter Family Chair in Islamic Studies- Duke University.

12. Who are some Muslim critics of Shariah IslamicFinance?

• Pakistani scholar Fazlur Rahman takes a position supporting fixed interest, as does the well-known scholar, Seyyed Vali
• Reza Nasr. Muslim Turkish academic Timur Kuran has stated the following objections to Islamic finance:
? Shariah-compliant finance is an “invented tradition” of our time that does not go back to Muhammad’s time
? The complex Shariah financial tools involve thinly-disguised payments of interest
? Shariah-compliant finance merely serves the Islamist goal to enhance a separate Islamic identity, preventing assimilation
? Shariah-based economics have also dismally failed in relieving poverty in Muslim lands

13. Has there been Muslim consumer rejection of Shariah Islamic Finance?

• While this is hard to quantify, traditional banking, non-religious non-political, was the only kind of banking until Shariah banking was created in 1970”s.

.
• Demand for Shariah banking has been artificially created by Shariah radicals who threaten peace-loving Muslims saying that they are not “true” Muslims unless they live a life according to Shariah law (which includes banking with an Islamic Shariah Bank). Even still as of Aug 2008, only 20% of Muslim assets worldwide are in Shariah banks. There is tremendous pressure being put on liberal Muslims through mosques that in order to be a devout “true” Muslim they must engage in Shariah Banking and donate to Islamic Charities.

• During the 1980’s there were numerous Shariah banking failures in Egypt due to lack of transparency and alleged fraud. To this day, Nov 2008, Egypt is one of the last Islamic countries NOT to engage in Shariah banking. There is pressure every day by Shariah radicals on the Egyptian government, so the expectation is that Shariah banking may well start again in Egypt soon.

• 14. Who are the Shariah authorities advising U.S. financial institutions, law firms and consultants, and what risks do they impose on their U.S. clients?

• The top 20-30 advisers include Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Sheikh Mohamed Ali Elgari, Faysal Mawlawi, Sheikh Nizam Yaquby, Suleyman al-Maniya and others.
• Analysts suggest there may be conflicts of interest and antitrust issues, since the same advisers often are on the Shariah advisory boards of dozens of Islamic banks, U.S. banks, and various Islamic indexes (the Dow Jones Islamic Index, the S&P 500 Islamic Index), as well as smaller financial services companies such as mortgage financer Guidance Financial Group.
• As advocates of Shariah Law, these advisors embrace Jihad against the West, subjugation of non-Muslims, and oppression of Muslim women, children, homosexuals and non-believers.

15. Could you give examples of profiles of prominent Wall Street and London Shariah Scholars who sit on “Shariah Advisory Boards” in banks on Wall Street and all over the world?

• Yusuf Qaradawi: A prominent Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, Qaradawi is chairman of the Shariah boards of the two Qatari Islamic banks owned by the ruling families among many others. He is well known for his statements in favor of Jihad, including suicide-homicide attacks against Israeli citizens by Palestinian terrorists and legal rulings supporting the Jihad carried out by Hamas and Hizballah against Israel.
• Muhammad Taqi Usmani: A radical Deobandi cleric and a former Shariah court judge from Pakistan, Usmani sits on dozens of Shariah boards in the West and is a key executive in the Karachi Deobandi madrassa Darul Uloom, which has trained thousands of Taliban and jihadist cadres. He was complicit in the murder and suffering of countless innocent Ahmadi Muslims declared apostates in Pakistan. He has said that Muslims living in the West “must live in peace until strong enough to wage Jihad’ against their fellow-citizens in order “to establish the supremacy of Islam.” Usmani is on the board of the Dow Jones Islamic Index (as of May 2007, now he is off their website?), UBS-Warburg, Guidance Financial Group, Citiicorp-Citi Islamic Investment Bank, HSBC Amanah Finance, Saudi American Bank, Islamic Development Bank of Jedda, First Islamic Bank of Bahrain, and many other institutions.
• Sheikh Yusaf Talal DeLorenzo: DeLorenzo is considered to be the leading authority on Shariah Finance in the United States and one of the half-dozen best-known Shariah Advisors internationally. Although he has carefully avoided making public statements in support of Jihad, his affiliations, high praise of Shariah scholars like Taqi Usmani and Yusaf Qaradawi indicates he is a full supporter of Shariah Islamic Law. To e an Islamic Scholar, by definition you must embrace Shariah Islamic Law in its entirely, it is indivisible. He studied with prominent Deobandi Scholars at madrassa Jamia Uloom Islamia in Pakistan. The international Crisis Group (ICG), a human rights think tank in Brussels said the Jamia Uloom madrassa is the “fountainhead of Deobandi militancy countrywide”, has “ carried the mantle of Jihadi leadership” and “boasts close ties with the Taliban”. DeLorenzo himself was an advisor to Pakistani president Zia ul-Haq the military dictator, who in the late 1970’s put into place the network jihadi madrassa that eventually produced the Taliban. Delorenzo, who lives in Virginia, said “in order to be more readily understandable to regulators in Muslim-minority countries, such as the U.S. and Europe, there is nothing wrong in using another term, like Ethical Advisory Board “ (instead of Shariah Advisory board). DeLorenzo has also said” Adapting Islam to modern finance” could influence other areas of Shariah which has “ essentially been in a coma for several centuries…and desperately needs reviving.” Sheik DeLorenzo as of Sept 2008 sits on these advisory boards: Dow Jones Islamic Market Index, Guidance International, Inc., Brown Brothers Harriman Islamic GLobal Equity Fund, Socially Acceptable Market Investments (SAMI), Thababi Ijara Fund I in UAE, Ihila.com in Dubai, Muslim E-financials in Washington D.C. , Devon Islamic Ventures. Sheik DeLorenzo is the Chief Shariah Officer at Shariah Capital in Greenwich, Connecticut. Shariah Capital has been involved in many of Shariah Islamic deals made in America

16. What are other names for Shariah Finance?

• In America and around the globe, these are the names for Shariah Finance: Islamic Finance and Shariah Finance, Shariah Compliant Finance, Shariah Banking, Islamic Banking, Interest Free Banking, Ethical Banking, Socially Responsible Banking, Riba-free banking.
• How can a political movement that promotes forced child marriages, subjugation of women, killing of homosexuals, polygamy and stoning of adulterers , jihad against non-believers be ethical???? The justification is : slamic investments don’t invest in gambling or alcohol.

17. If Shariah is really as oppressive and barbaric as described here, how is it possible that American companies and banks all over the world have embraced Shariah banking as a new marketplace?

• The campaign to globalize Shariah including Shariah Finance is being enabled by sovereign Middle East Rulers actively promoting and funding the political goals of Shariah.
• The result is a multi million dollar advertising campaign directed at Western banks to educate them about “ethical financing needs” of over 1.2 billion Muslims eager to invest in Western investments as long as certain “benign” Islamic religious requirements are met.

• At oil prices of $100 barrel, the Middle East takes in $1trillion dollars in revenues, much of which is profit. Years ago, Sovereign Islamic rulers didn’t have access to western markets. Today, thanks to the Internet banking and bankers developing a ‘multicultural “ viewpoint… Western financial markets have opened up to Islamic countries. Mid-East rulers want a good return on their investment like everyone else. Let’s not forget however, that Mid-East rulers can invest freely in America, without Shariah banking. And they do. Note Prince Talaweed, currently has an 8.5% state in Citicorp.
• At a recent Islamic Finance conference in New York City, an attendee asked, “I understand Shariah Finance. No interest, no pork; but what does Shariah exactly mean?” The entire room of over 300 investment bankers, lawyers and the presenters of the conference went silent. Sheik Nizam Yaquby, was asked to respond. He answered this question with a simple “Shariah is the path on which we walk, the water which we drink”. Not one person in the room followed up with a question. The group went back to looking at flowcharts and graphs. (A team of experts working to expose Shariah finance has been attending these conferences).

18. Why are Western banks allowing this?

• Western banks are not asking the real questions about the goals, methods and laws of Shariah because they are blinded by promise of enormous fees and annuities. This is not uncommon with Western Banks:

– The Sub-prime mortgage meltdown occurred because bankers where not asking the right questions and doing their own independent due diligence. There is a term for this; it is called “moral hazard”. This means that an investment firm has less incentive to protect themselves from fraud if they have a law firm someone they trust saying they have done the due diligence and everything is legitimate. This is why the sub-prime mortgage collapse resulted in a global economic crisis. Firms relied on the assurance of other firms, colleagues, lawyers, that the mortgages were well documented. Very few firms did independent due diligence. And so when there is a loss in value in value, every firm across the globe has a loss because there are no “fire walls”. Essentially, it becomes a house of cards.
-The Savings and Loans disaster of the 1980”s, Latin American debt crisis of the 70:s, dot.com crisis of the 90”s…all were the result of blindness, perhaps willful, on the part of American and global bankers.
-In each case, when the lack of transparency and poor due diligence became known, millions of American investors, homeowners, and breadwinners lost their retirement savings, homes and/or livelihood

19. How fast is Shariah Islamic Finance growing?

• Estimates for total funds committed to some kind of SCF investment or transaction is $ 1 trillion worldwide as of Jan 2007.
• Annual SCF growth is estimated at 15-25%.

20. What kinds of Shariah Finance investments are being offered?

• U.S. Financial Institutions are quickly creating the same array of SCF ( Shariah Compliant Finance ) products that exist in traditional finance markets:
-SCF bonds (sukuk)
– SCF mutual funds
– SCF mortgages
-SCF insurance
– SCF hedge funds and SCF REITS
-SCF insurance products.
– SCF Exchange traded commodities platforms
-SCF home mortgages
-SCF Exchange traded funds.

21. Where is Shariah-compliant finance most prominent? According to the November 2007 edition of The Banker:

• Iran dominates the world of Shariah-compliant finance.
• Three of the five largest Shariah-compliant financial institutions in the world—including the top two—are Iranian.
• The amount of Shariah-compliant financial assets in institutions in Iran is over twice as large as the amount in financial institutions in the world’s second largest Shariah-compliant country, Saudi Arabia.

22. How does Shariah Finance threaten Americans?

• Shariah finance is a threat to Western values, human rights and US national security.
• Shariah finance has a political objective: to legitimize Shariah Islamic Law in the West.
• Shariah-compliant finance provides financial support to extremism and terrorism.
• Shariah-compliant financial institutions employ Shariah scholars, many of whom have been shown to be extremists, even to the point of advocating suicide bombing and jihad against America.
• Shariah Scholars are directing profits of Shariah investments to Islamic charities. Under Shariah, “charity” or “zakat” includes the funding of Jihad, 27 Islamic charities have been designated as funding terrorism by the US Treasury Department.
• Wall Street is branding and endorsing Shariah Islamic law as legitimate and western by promoting Islamic financial investments. Wall Street is welcoming Shariah Islamic Finance into America through our banking system. It’s easy for American’s to say: If Citicorp, Harvard Law and Business School , Dow Jones and everyone else is involved in Shariah finance..it must be safe, western culturally important..and we must then consider Shariah Islamic law in our court system, public education system, politics, etc…to be sensitive to this important population.

• Shariah Islamic Finance is giving Shariah faithful religious leaders a seat at the corporate table of every firm involved in Shariah Islamic Finance.

23. How does Shariah finance threaten freedom-loving Muslims in the West?

• In the same way the terrorist leaders who are given a world platform to speak are legitimized, so Banks and investment companies engaged in Shariah finance legitimize Shariah as a respected way of life.
• Democratic Muslims come to the West to escape Shariah and religious political oppression.
• Acceptance of Shariah in the name of blind “multiculturalism” by uniformed capitalists undermines freedom for these immigrants.

24. Could you give an example of how Shariah Finance legitimizes Shariah Law? They seem so different.

• Yes, England is a good example of how Shariah Finance drives the Shariah agenda.
• London has embraced Shariah Finance in the past 5 years.
• Lloyds Bank has announced plans to offer Shariah investments to every one of their 2000 branches.
• HBS, Citibank, Barclays, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Deutche Bank, UBS: all offer Shariah investments.
• In addition, there are more than 10 Islamic Shariah courts in England.
• Polygamy is recognized with social service benefits granted to up to four wives to one man.
• There are reports of forced child marriages, criminal penalties for “insulting Allah”.
• There are reports of “No-Go “ Shariah neighborhoods, in which western-clothed girls are at risk of rape, with no guarantee of protection by police authorities.
• The highest Chief Justice in U.K. Lord Phillips just stated that Shariah Law could be compatible with English Common Law.
• There is a crisis of forced child marriages. Children are falling off school rosters without a trace and forced child marriages are suspected.

25. Have Shariah-compliant financial institutions in the US been tied to terrorism?

Yes. Here are three examples:
• Two Shariah-compliant banks registered in the Bahamas, Bank Al-Taqwa and Akida Bank, were, according to the US Treasury Department, shell companies actually run out of Italy and Switzerland, whose only real business was laundering money to terrorists. From 1988 until November 2001, when it was designated a terrorist entity by the US government and the UN, Bank Al-Taqwa transferred tens of millions of dollars to HAMAS, Al Qaeda, the PLO, Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA), the Taliban, Egyptian Gama’a al Islamiya and the Tunisian An-Nahda.
• Today in 2008, there is an active lawsuit managed by the Cozen O’Connor law firm, representing 36 global insurance companies (Ace, Chubb, Allstate) and Cantor Fitzgeral which alleges that Saudi Arabia and a network of Shariah Islamic banks (e.g., Dubai Islamic bank) were the source and/or mechanism of funding the September 11th terrorist attacks and the U.S. Cole attack which murdered over 3000 Americans. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/hot_topics/19374964.html.
• Bait u Mal al Islamic (BMI), a Shariah-compliant investment company based in Secaucus, NJ, ( which promoted itself as an Islamic alternative to conventional investments and solicited funds for real estate development), was named as the “US banker for the Muslim Brotherhood.” by U.S. Federal prosecutors. In testimony before a US Senate committee, former White House counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke said that BMI’s financial services were little more than a cover “to conceal terrorist support,” and that its investor list “read like a who’s who of designated terrorists and Islamic extremists.” BMI worked closely with the Bank Al-Taqwa/Akida Bank network in transferring millions of dollars to terrorist groups through them, while receiving large amounts from well-known donors suspected of funding terrorism. These included the Hamas top leader, Mousa Abu Marzouk, who made a number of investments with BMI. Tellingly, BMI continued to work with Marzouk even after the latter was declared an internationally designated terrorist by the United States government in 1995.

26. How widespread is the use of Shariah Islamic charities to fund terror?

• The United States Department of Treasury has designated 27 Muslim charities in the US and worldwide as terrorism entities due to their funding of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, HAMAS and others. See a list of these orgs on this website under Shariah Islamic Charities.

27. We know that there is state sponsorship of terrorism. Is there state sponsorship of Shariah finance?

• State sponsorship of Shariah finance has been ongoing since its inception with the founding of the first Shariah-compliant bank in 1975, Islamic Development Bank (IDB).
• In Iran, which has more Shariah-compliant institutions than any other nations, all of the banks are in fact state-run.
• More recently, UAE has created the DIFC, which is a trade free zone in Dubai which states it’s preference for Shariah compliant companies and banks.

28. Have Shariah-compliant financial institutions been tied to weapons of mass destruction?

• Yes. Iran’s largest bank, Bank Melli, which was named in the November 2007 edition of The Banker as the largest Shariah-compliant bank in the world, has been put under sanctions by both the US government and the European Union for its role in financing Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
• Also, UAE, a promoter of Shariah Finance has exported nuclear components to North Korea.

29. What can our government do to protect our markets from Shariah finance?

• The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Trustreet PPTYS (TSY) must enforce existing federal and state securities law mandating due diligence, transparency and disclosure of material aspects of Shariah Finance.
• Mechanisms to fund terror must be exposed and criminalized.
• Petrodollars must be invested through existing Western banking regulations and markets.