Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

  • ACT for America

  • Support Ummat-al-Kuffar!

  • Participant at Counter Jihad Conferences

  • Counterjihad Brussels 2007

  • Counterjihad Vienna 2008

  • Counterjihad Copenhagen 2009

  • Photobucket
  • RSS International Civil Liberties Alliance

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Big Peace

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Geert Wilders

  • International Free Press Society

  • Religion of Peace

Archive for the ‘Dhimmitude’ Category

Shariah Law Enforced in Paris

Posted by paulipoldie on December 28, 2010



Undercover Video – Muslim Prayer – Paris Streets

District 18 – Barbes
  • Three “Maxime Lepante” teams
  • Two teams – part of the Mosque
  • One team – on the perimeter
  • Prayer shut-down, every Friday, thousand’s of Muslims
7th Century Shariah or 21st Century Western Civilization


Posted in Dhimmitude, Islam, Islamization, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

Think Again: A double standard for Islam

Posted by paulipoldie on October 31, 2010

Jerusalem Post

Hate speech laws are applied in West against those critical of Islam, but never against Muslim imams who mock Jewish, Christian infidels.

Islamists everywhere demand respect for Islam, the prophet and the Koran, and threaten murderous mayhem should that demand not be honored. At the same time, they do not hesitate to express their contempt for other religions and their adherents, as well as the system of democratic rights protecting the freedom of religion.

Nor are those threats to be taken likely. More than 50 people died in violence triggered by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s 1989 edict against Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, and all those connected with its publication or distribution. Dozens of Europeans are now in hiding or under police protection because of death threats from Muslims.

Sadly, the West has to a shocking degree acquiesced in this double standard. The Washington Post removed from its website a cartoon including the words “Where’s Muhammad,” even though it contained no depiction of him; South Park’s producers edit episodes mentioning Islam but not those ridiculing Christianity; Yale University Press deleted all the actual cartoons from a book on the Danish cartoon controversy. Australian preachers were fined for quoting the Koran, and leading Dutch politician Geert Wilders was put on trial for his strident criticism of Islam.

Hate speech laws are applied in Europe against those critical of Islam, but never against Muslim imams who mock Jewish or Christian infidels. Even here, Tatiana Susskind was sentenced to two years in jail for posting a cartoon of the face of Muhammad on the body of a pig, but preachers from the Islamic Movement can broadcast what they want about Jews and Judaism.

The double standard conveys to the Islamists two dangerous messages. First, violence works; the West is terrorized. Second, Islam is the one true religion: Behold, even Westerners treat it with a deference not shown to Christianity or Judaism.

INTELLECTUALS AND cultural elites have played a major role in fostering the West’s acceptance of voluntary dhimmitude by manipulating the level at which the debate takes place whenever it touches issues of Islam. In part, intellectual attitudes are motivated by fear; in part by a refusal to acknowledge a civilizational struggle between the West and expansionist Islam. For some, the frisson of seeing their own bourgeois society under attack contributes to the fun.

The recent uproar over the threat of an obscure Florida pastor to burn the Koran provides a classic example of the different ways the debate is framed depending on whether Islam is perceived as the “aggressor” or the “victim.”

The Koran burning would undoubtedly have been protected “symbolic speech” under settled First Amendment doctrine. Burning the American flag, another highly charged act, has been protected by the Supreme Court. At the same time, it must be conceded that the Koran burning is highly offensive to Muslims and has no purpose other than to offend.

Let’s compare the response to the threatened Koran burning to another recent hot-button issue: the Ground Zero mosque. In discussing the proposed mosque, President Barack Obama focused, or at least claimed to focus, on the impermissibility under the First Amendment of banning only mosques from a particular area. He expressed, or claimed to express, no opinion on the propriety of the project.

The issue of the propriety of the project or the implicit message it would convey to the broader Islamic world was beyond the pale of legitimate discussion, proclaimed New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. He professed to be totally uninterested in the fact the project’s initiator, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an advocate for the spread of Islamic law (Shari’a) or that he has assigned America part of the blame for 9/11 or that he initially described the site of the mosque as so close to Ground Zero that debris from one of the hijacked airplanes fell on it. That the building of the mosque will be viewed by Islamists worldwide as an example of Islamic religious structures replacing those of the conquered infidels is irrelevant.

Pastor Terry Jones, by contrast, was immediately condemned by Obama (“un-American”), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (“disgraceful”) and Supreme NATO Commander in Afghanistan Gen. David Petraeus. The latter argued that the Koran burning would endanger allied troops and make the Taliban’s recruiting easier.

In short, critics of Jones – just about every single person in America – framed the discussion of his proposed action in terms of its propriety or impact, and ignored its protected status under the First Amendment, while defenders of the Ground Zero mosque talked only of the First Amendment, and ruled out of court issues of propriety or the boost the mosque would give to the Islamist narrative of Islam triumphant.

Even more striking is the contrast of the calumny heaped on Jones, with the public discussion of grossest offenses to Christianity. Christians who protested the taxpayer-supported Brooklyn Museum of Art’s display of a picture of Jesus’s mother on a background of buttocks and female genitalia or the use of a National Endowment of the Arts grant to produce a jar with a plastic crucifix in urine (Piss Christ) found themselves pilloried by their cultural betters as philistines and lectured on the privilege of living in a society in which even the most transgressive art can find a public forum.

Only transgressive art that might rile notoriously irritable Muslims gets a pass. US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer seriously entertained the idea, in response to a question from George Stephanopoulos, that Koran-burning might be compared to shouting fire in a crowded theater if Muslims in Afghanistan would go on murderous rampages in response. He thereby treated Muslims as possessed of rage response instinct that completely bypasses all higher brain function.

THE DISPROPORTIONATE media attention focused on Jones served the Islamist cause by giving credence to the charge of Islamophobia, which is constantly used to exclude discussion of Islam from the free marketplace of ideas. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, for instance, felt compelled to “apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness directed at you.”

Yet Islamophobia is largely a fiction. Jones, one person in a nation of more than 300 million, did not constitute a wave of anything. Hate crimes against Muslims are exceedingly rare in America – even after 9/11, the Fort Hood massacre, the attempted Times Square bombing and a dozen other foiled terrorist attempts. Hate crimes against Jews and Jewish institutions are eight times as common as those against Muslims.

The Western media consistently downplays the scope of Islamic threat, perhaps in an effort to calm its fears. The overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide are peace-loving fellows, we are assured, and only a handful of bad apples spoil the image of the rest. Ignored are the worldwide network of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi mosques and the vast number of Muslim Brotherhood-inspired offshoots – not just al-Qaida and Hamas, but groups in Western countries promoting Shari’a as the only legitimate system of law.

Endemic problems in virtually the entire Arab and Muslim world are ignored. On a Freedom House scale of freedom (on which seven is the least free) the median for Arab nations is 5.5. For the rest of the world it is 2.5. Whether it is child brides in Gaza, institutionalized selection of dancing pre-pubescent boys as mistresses by older males in Afghanistan or widespread clitoridectomy in much of the Muslim world, the media take a pass. All these phenomena deserve more attention than Jones’s antics.

When Khomeini pronounced it the duty of every Muslim to kill Salman Rushdie and all those promoting his book, British intellectuals rallied to his defense. Recently, when Mollie Norris, a cartoonist for a Seattle alternative weekly, had the misbegotten idea of promoting “Draw Muhammad Day,” she was advised by the FBI to change her identity and go underground. Her own paper contented itself with a laconic announcement, “Mollie Norris no longer exists.”

The story of an American journalist fearing for her life in America received scant coverage.

No wonder Paul Berman titled his recent book on Western responses to Islam The Flight of the Intellectuals.

The writer is the director of Jewish Media Resources. He has written a regular column in The Jerusalem Post Magazine since 1997, and is the author of eight biographies of modern Jewish leaders.

Posted in Dhimmitude, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islam, Islamization | Leave a Comment »

Decoding the Words of the OIC

Posted by paulipoldie on October 10, 2010

Decoding the Words of the OIC

by Baron Bodissey

Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has forcefully condemned Tyranny of Silence, a new book by Flemming Rose.

Mr. Rose, you may remember, is the editor who published the infamous Mohammed Cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten back in 2005. His book gives an account of that incident and related events, and includes a copy of the full page of cartoons. Needless to say, the reappearance of the Motoons is what twists the knickers of the OIC.

“Baron,” you say, “This is a dog-bites-man story. Why do you even bother mentioning it?”

That’s a good question.

This is a small skirmish in a much larger battle: the OIC’s ten-year plan to combat “Islamophobia”, which is chronicled by its much-touted Islamophobia Observatory. There’s more to Prof. Ihsanoglu’s statement than meets the eye, but you have to know how to decode the utterances of the OIC to get at the full import of what they’re putting over on us.

When the OIC issues public declarations, they are carefully constructed to be in full compliance with sharia. Islamic law is “coded”, in the sense that a computer program is coded; that is, lengthy instructions and pieces of information are condensed into a relatively small number of words and phrases, which are packed with pre-defined meanings. What is significant for our purposes is that those words and phrases often signify something completely different from what we commonly understand them to mean.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
We’ll begin with the full statement by Prof. Ihsanoglu, with selected portions bolded to receive greater attention later on. According to the OIC’s website:

OIC Secretary General Condemns Publication of the Book “Tyranny of Silence”

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu today strongly condemned the publication of the book entitled “Tyranny of Silence” in Denmark. The book contains a compilation of denigrating caricatures and cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) published by the Jyllands Posten in 2005 which aroused worldwide condemnation and denunciation, and caused hurt and insult to the sentiments of Muslims around the world.

The OIC Secretary General expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he and some other leaders of the Muslim countries had personally addressed letters to the Foreign Minister of Denmark urging the intervention of the Danish government against the publication due to the highly provocative and inciting contents of the book. He reiterated his position when the Foreign Minister of Denmark called on him to discuss the issue at the sidelines of the 65th session of the UN General Assembly.

Emphasizing the moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark in this regard, the Secretary General said that the publication of the book was a deliberate attempt to incite prejudices and animosity which would undermine the ongoing efforts of the international community for promoting understanding and peaceful coexistence among peoples of diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.

Referring to the statement issued by the Danish Foreign Ministry, the Secretary General said that the publication constituted a flagrant violation of the stipulation of Article 20 of 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. In this connection he also referred to the Danish Criminal Code which in its section ‘140’ stipulates protection of religious feelings against mockery and scorn, and in section ‘266 b’ stipulates protection of groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of their religions among other things.

He added that the publication of the book substantiated the OIC’s concerns over the abuse of freedom of expression by motivated groups and individuals to fuel hatred towards Islam and Muslims in some parts of the western world.

Jeddah, September 30, 2010

The first thing to notice is this lovely Trojan Horse which the UN has kindly provided for the OIC, and inside which the Soldiers of Allah have been wheeled into the heart of the citadel of Western human rights:

Violation of the stipulation of Article 20 of 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights”

As published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Article 20 prescribes the following:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law [emphasis added].

The above wording has proved very useful to the Ummah. As I have pointed out many times in the past, the OIC has been hard at work for more than a decade to persuade the UN that “Islamophobia” is a form of racism. And they have largely succeeded in their efforts, especially now that the current American administration has given their initiative the Obama seal of approval.

With all that in mind, let’s take a closer look at some of the words and phrases that are so densely packed with meaning when used by the OIC.

1. Abuse of freedom of expression

So what does the OIC mean by freedom of expression?

The OIC identifies English as one of its official languages, so to understand the official position of the OIC on any issue, one need only visit the OIC website, choose the “English” tab, and read what is found there. Those English-language descriptions represent the official policy of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

From the OIC’s perspective, “freedom of expression” is a precisely-defined term. Its meaning is controlled by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which in turn is controlled by Islamic law. So the OIC’s understanding of “freedom of expression” is drawn directly from sharia.

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is a formal legal instrument that was promulgated by the OIC on behalf of OIC member states. The official document is dated 5 August, 1990, and was formally served at the United Nations in 1993. From the point of view of the OIC’s member states, the Cairo Declaration is real law, and has real consequences.

Below are some of the relevant provisions spelled out in the Cairo Declaration:


(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason.
(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by Allah is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah.
(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.


(a) All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled.
(d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah. [emphasis added]

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is really the application of sharia law repackaged as “human rights”. For its signatories, there is no right that can contravene or lie outside of sharia. Articles 24 and 25 give a concise expression:


All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.


The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Now we know that sharia contains the sole criteria by which these rights are measured. For all OIC member states — that is, all signatories to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam — human rights are defined as sharia law.

Therefore, when analyzing statements from either the OIC or an OIC member state, the reader should keep in mind that Articles 24 and 25 are in effect.

And what does the Cairo Declaration have to say about freedom of expression?


(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination. [emphasis added]

The Cairo Declaration thus lists racism and the incitement of doctrinal hatred as exceptions to the right of free speech. The European Union has already criminalized “racist” speech, and “incitement of doctrinal hatred” is the basis of one of the charges filed against Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. The United States is not as far along as Europe (yet), but, as you can see, the European Union is well on the way to full sharia-compliance with respect to freedom of expression.

Officially or not, intentionally or otherwise, the EU is moving towards the implementation of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

Having absorbed the above lessons in basic sharia, it’s easy to understand the significance of the next phrase:

2. Incite prejudices and animosity

As we now know, it is an abuse of freedom of expression as defined by sharia to “excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred”, and “inciting prejudices and animosity” constitutes one method by which such hatred might be excited. What precise abuses might constitute the incitement of prejudices and animosity? The Secretary General’s statement includes several variants of the same offense:

3. Denigrating caricatures and cartoons of Prophet Muhammad

  • Highly provocative and inciting contents of the book
  • Hatred towards Islam
  • Insult to the sentiments of Muslims
  • Mockery and scorn
  • Scorn and degradation on account of their religions

This last item contains a “term of art” that is artful enough to verge on kitman, or theologically-mandated misdirection.

When the OIC refers to “religions”, it seems to be embracing modern Western principles by acknowledging the need to show tolerance for other religions.

But what other religions does Islam recognize?

When a Westerner — generally a Jew, a Christian, or an atheist — uses the word “religion”, he knows exactly what he means: a group of people who share a body of beliefs, recognize a supernatural creator, and adhere to moral doctrines as laid down in scripture and codified by tradition. He also recognizes that there are many religions, and accepts that other people may adhere to a different one than he does — if he himself even has one.

But that’s not a Muslim means by “religion”. Assuming that he follows the tenets of Islamic law, when he says “religion”, he means “Islam” — there is no other.

The grounds for this assertion may be found — surprise! — in the Koran, which recognizes only one religion. Surah 3 tells us:

God said, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah)418, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).” (Koran 3:85, Yusef Ali’s translation)

Yusef Ali footnotes this passage with #418:

The Muslim position is clear. The Muslim does not claim to have a religion peculiar to himself. Islam is not a sect or an ethnic religion. In its view all Religion is one, for the Truth is one. It was the religion preached by all the earlier Prophets. It was the truth taught by all the inspired Books. In essence it amounts to a consciousness of the Will and Plan of Allah and a joyful submission to that Will and Plan. If anyone wants a religion other than that, he is false to his own nature, as he is false to Allah’s Will and Plan. Such a one cannot expect guidance, for he has deliberately renounced guidance. [emphasis added]

If the Koran — which is the basis of all Islamic law — tells us that any religion other than Islam is false, then what does the OIC mean when it proposes “to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation”? What other religions does the OIC acknowledge besides Islam?

The most authoritative compilation of Sunni Islamic law, as understood by the Shafi’te School, is Reliance of the Traveller. In Book W, “Notes and Appendices”, al-Misri tackles the topic of “Abrogation of Previously Revealed Religions”. Quoting Mohammed (citing a rigorously authenticated hadith from Muslim), he says:

By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad (pbuh), any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell.

Furthermore, in Book W, Section 4 “The Finality of the Prophet’s Message”, al-Misri tells us:

(2) Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses in the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as is equally attested to by many verses of the Koran. Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation, or that it is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He sent the final Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world.

To believe that “remnant cults” such as Judaism or Christianity are acceptable is a form of unbelief. And “unbelief” is explained in Book O, “Justice”, Section 8, “Apostasy from Islam”:

Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief and the worst. (o8.0)

Whoever Voluntarily Leaves Islam Is Killed.


When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. (o8.1)

If “denying or not mentioning” the abrogation of the other religions is “unbelief”, anyone who believes that Christianity or Judaism is “acceptable” is an apostate, and may be put to death.

The passage at w4.1 continues:

This is a matter over which there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars…

When there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars, the matter in question has been permanently and completely settled. Scholarly consensus (ijma’) puts an issue beyond ijtihad, or interpretation. As far as Islam is concerned, the matter is closed.

So we may conclude that published Islamic law — relying on recognized authority, citing authoritative hadith, validating the plain reading of Koran 3:85 — tells us that the set of all religions that are considered valid has only a single element, and that element is Islam.

When any member state of the OIC — or any other entity of the Ummah — speaks of “defamation of religions”, it cannot refer to any religion other than Islam. Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Wicca cannot be defamed. According to Islamic legal definition, the only religion that can possibly be defamed is Islam.

This is why the OIC, using its overwhelming influence at the UN, is making such a concerted effort to force non-Muslim countries to enact laws against the defamation of “religions”.

This also helps us understand what it is meant by:

4. Moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark in this regard


5. Promoting understanding and peaceful coexistence

The non-Muslim nations of the world have a moral responsibility, and that responsibility can only de defined by Islamic law, since Islam is the only recognized moral authority.

The political leadership of Denmark, like any other political entity in the world, exercises the authority delegated to it as a dhimmi state subordinated to the Ummah. Using that authority, it must execute the moral code specified by sharia by protecting Islam from insults and defamation.

For Muslims, “understanding” means to accept their submission to the will of Allah as revealed to his messenger Mohammed.

For non-Muslims, “understanding” means to recognize their inferiority, and acknowledge the supremacy of Islam.

“Peaceful coexistence” means that dhimmis — non-Muslims who are allowed to live within an Islamic state on a provisional basis — must obey the tenets of sharia, pay the poll tax by their own hand with full submission, and feel themselves subdued.

These are the meanings that are encoded in the OIC statement. The same meanings are encoded in various forms in every OIC statement.

All of this is quite clear. None of it is occluded. It’s not hard to understand; you just have to study the actual texts that make up the body of Islamic law.

It’s not a secret. It doesn’t require any special insider knowledge to figure it out. Read what Islamic legal authorities write with Muslims as their intended audience, and that will explain it all.

You also have to ignore what the glib-tongued impresarios of Islam say for the benefit of non-Muslims.

You have to recognize that you’ve been snowed up until now.

You’ve been scammed.

They’ve been filling your head with pretty lies.

You have to say, “We won’t get fooled again.”

Posted in Dhimmitude, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islam, Islamization, Islamophobia | Leave a Comment »


Posted by paulipoldie on September 26, 2010

Posted at American Thinker, August 19, 2010

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.


One of the clearest lessons about Islam is found in the Sharia. The largest part of the Sharia is devoted to regulating the life of Muslims down to the smallest detail. There is no aspect of life that is not regulated-sex, food, art, business, education, prayer, manners, speech and how to think and not to think. There is no aspect of life that is outside the power of Sharia-religion, politics, ethics, culture are included. The Sharia is the operating manual for a complete civilization. Islam is complete within itself and needs nothing from the outside.

The Sharia has one other quality that is as important as the totality of its scope. The civilization of Sharia is not just different, it contradicts our civilization.

Inside Islam justice, religion, politics, law, human rights and compassion do not mean what they mean to us. All of these ideas are based on the principles of submission and duality as found in the Sharia.


Our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. We do not always fulfill the principles, but they are the ideals we strive for, and can be used for debate and self-criticism to correct and improve our culture.

Our principles lead to the ideals of critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and a free-ranging humor.

These are beautiful ideals and they are worth keeping and striving towards. Do we meet them? No, but what is more important they contradict the Sharia. It is one thing to fail to achieve these ideals, but it is entirely another to see them disappear as a public option under the impact of Sharia. Sharia law limits critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and humor.


Part of the genius of Islam is the totality of Sharia, which includes a concept of war that attacks the host civilization at every aspect of its being. In modern times the military power of Islam is weak, but this is more than compensated by its ability to attack along legal and cultural lines under the guise of being a religion.

As Sharia is applied to a society, the host civilization is annihilated in each and every manifestation of culture. This annihilation is demonstrated by a peculiar fact about the history of Islamic countries-part of it is missing. Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist civilization. We see its remnants in ruins and fragments such as the Bamiyan Buddhas that were destroyed by the Taliban. Who knows the Buddhist history of Afghanistan? Practically speaking, it does not exist. Who knows the history of how Turkey, North Africa, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq went from being Christian to Islamic?

We don’t know the history because of the total annihilation of the past cultures by Sharia law. As time goes on customs, law, art, literature, and ethics of the host culture are replaced by Islamic values under the application of Sharia. The result is that there is nothing left of the history before the implementation of Sharia law.

There is a second aspect of this annihilation-the dhimmitude of the Kafirs (non-Muslims) remaining inside Islamic society. If you talk to Christians who are left in Islamic countries, they are an abused people who are unable to fight back after centuries of suffering and degradation under Sharia law. They are not supported by other Kafirs and are left to suffer under the oppression that will eliminate their few numbers. Whatever memory they have of the past is ignored by those who should be defending them.

If we are to go down the Sharia road, history teaches that it has always led to an Islamic mono-culture. In the end, there is no such thing as a little Sharia.

Posted in Dhimmitude, Islam, Islamization, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran

Posted by paulipoldie on September 12, 2010

One of the most frequently used arguments in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran. The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument suggests that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but the analogy is very popular since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. “See, Islam is like Christianity; Christians are just as violent as Muslims.” If this is true, then you don’t have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine.
However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on the in the marketplace of ideas.
Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Koran? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison, and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.
The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is what they do to the “other,” or political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note that regardless of whether a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions violent, neither constitutes violence against vegans or PETA members.
The next item is to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called “fighting in Allah’s cause,” or jihad.
We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira, and Hadith, or the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is Mohammed’s biography. The Hadith are his traditions — what he did and said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behavior.
The Koran is the smallest of the three books, also called the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text[1]. This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam’s sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed’s is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.
It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:

It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful. Here is a chart of the growth of Islam.

Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of ten new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of ten thousand per year. All the details of how to wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad — world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic manual, and the Hadith is a tactical manual, of jihad.
Now let’s go to the Hebrew Bible. When we count all the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament.
When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy[2] and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible[3]. The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.
The real problem goes far beyond the quantitative measurement of ten times as much violent material; there is also the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way. Beyond the one-god doctrine, Islam is unique unto itself.

Another measurement of the difference between the violence found in the Judeo/Christian texts and that of Islam is found in the use of fear of violence against artists, critics, and intellectuals. What artist, critic, or intellectual ever feels a twinge of fear if condemning anything Christian or Jewish? However, look at the examples of the violent political threats against and/or murders of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortune, Kurt Westergaard of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and many others. What artist, critic, or intellectual has not had a twinge of fear about Islam when it comes to free expression? The political difference in the responses to the two different doctrines is enormous. The political fruits from the two trees are as different as night and day.
It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.
– Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam

Posted in Brainwashing, Counterjihad, Dhimmitude, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization, Islamkritik | 1 Comment »

And so it begins: 11 injured in Afghanistan in protests against Qur’an-burning

Posted by paulipoldie on September 11, 2010

Robert Spencer analyzes:

Who is responsible for these injuries? Terry Jones? No — despite the best efforts of Barack Obama, General Petraeus and so many others to portray him as responsible for any violence in the Muslim world that may occur in response to his Qur’an-burning. Obama and Petraeus and the rest have forgotten, or want us to forget, that one’s response to someone else’s provocative action is entirely one’s own responsibility. If you do something that offends me, I am under no obligation to kill you, or injure you, or run to the United Nations to try to get laws passed that will silence you. I am free to ignore you, or laugh at you, or to respond with charity, or to respond with insult, or any number of reactions.

Obama and Petraeus ought to be saying, Yes, of course we disapprove of this Qur’an-burning, but in America we believe that freedom of expression is a fundamental bulwark against tyranny and hallmark of a truly free society, and it requires us to put up with things we don’t like without responding with violence. They could, in other words, be using this as a teaching moment to demonstrate why free societies are preferable to Sharia states. But they don’t dare do that, and instead are effectively reinforcing the principle that violent intimidation works: they know that some idiot is going to injure or kill someone in Afghanistan or somewhere because of this, and so they want to Terry Jones to stand down. Instead, they should be telling these Afghans to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that if someone burns a Qur’an in Florida, it doesn’t harm them, or the Qur’an, or Allah, or Muhammad, and that to respond with irrational violence against people who are not involved with the burning (or against the people who are involved with it) is just savagery.

All the politicians are busy condemning Terry Jones. Everyone in the world is busy condemning Terry Jones. Everyone seems to have forgotten about freedom of expression, and why it is so important to reinforce even when we find the expression detestable — indeed, especially in such cases. And so, if we continue down this path, one thing is certain: that which is not understood or valued will not be protected, and so it will be lost.

“11 Afghans injured in anti-Quran-burning protests,” by Amir Shah for Associated Press, September 10:

KABUL, Afghanistan – Thousands of Afghans are protesting a small American church’s plan to burn the Muslim holy book. At least 11 people have been injured.Police in the northern province of Badakhshan say several hundred demonstrators ran toward a NATO compound where four attackers and five police were injured in clashes. Protesters also burned an American flag at a mosque after Friday prayers.

In western Farah province, police said two people were injured in another protest….

Posted in Brainwashing, Dhimmitude, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islam, Islamization, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

Quran Burning: Two Opinions

Posted by paulipoldie on September 8, 2010

From Act! For America‘s President, Brigitte Gabriel

ACT! for America Denounces Koran Burning

A message from Brigitte Gabriel, President
and CEO of ACT! for America

We at ACT! for America denounce and condemn, in the strongest terms, the upcoming Koran burning event organized by Pastor Terry Jones and members of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida. Their proposed event is ill-conceived, counter-productive and unwelcome in a world where ideas and philosophies are best debated in the context of the issues and the facts. We find this an archaic act that serves no useful purpose, and as such is a regrettable instance of an inability or unwillingness to discuss the issues facing us in a reasonable and constructive manner.

ACT! for America is, and has always been, committed to exposing the threat of the political ideology of radical Islam and its sharia law through constructive debate, illumination of the facts, and a reasoned analysis of the implications of the threat.

Pastor Jones and his congregation are stooping to the tactics of and joining the inarticulate who express their anger and opposition through destructive and spiteful acts of denigration. What is the difference between his actions and the actions of Islamists destroying synagogues in Gaza or churches and Bibles in Lebanon, Bosnia and Egypt? We are better than that as Americans.

Always devoted,

Brigitte Gabriel

From Gates of Vienna

Update: In an attempt to be more effective in making my point, I have approached the same topic from a different angle here.

Umma Iwo Jima
Most readers have probably heard of Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida, who organized International Burn a Quran Day for September 11.

Although burning Korans is not to my taste, I’m glad I live in America, where a citizen has a right to burn a lawfully purchased copy of a book on his own property if he wants to.

However, General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. operations in Afghanistan, doesn’t agree. He thinks the actions of Rev. Jones and his followers may cause the death of American troops in Afghanistan.

Here’s what ABC News has to say about it:

A Florida pastor’s plan to burn Qurans at his church on Sept. 11 ignited a protest today by hundreds of Afghans, who burned American flags and shouted “Death to America,” and the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said the preacher could be increasing the threat to his troops.

The crowd in downtown Kabul reached nearly 500 today, with Afghan protesters chanting “Long live Islam “ and “Long live the Quran,” and burning an effigy of Terry Jones, senior pastor from the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is planning the event.

The protesters were well aware of the pastor’s inflammatory comments, such as the “Islam is an evil religion,” since they have been spread wide on the Internet. Jones has also authored a book, “Islam Is of the Devil.”

The protesters’ anger wasn’t limited to Jones, however. Chants of “Death to America” echoed through the crowd, and U.S. flags were set ablaze alongside the effigy of Jones.

America cannot eliminate Muslims from the world,” one Afghan man told ABC News.

The angry crowd pelted a passing U.S. military convoy with rocks.

Gen. David Petraeus said he is outraged by the pastor’s decision to burn the Quran, which he said could “endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort here.”

Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Jack Keane, an adviser to Petraeus, called it “outrageous” and “insulting to Muslims.”

“It’s also insulting to our soldiers in terms of what they stand for and what their commitment is to this country and to the Muslims in this country,” Keane told ABC News.

Now, I don’t want to debate the merits of burning Korans. That’s not the point of this post.

What I want to talk about is the presence of American troops in Afghanistan, and what they are there to do.

Are they fighting and dying to avoid “insulting Muslims”?

What does our military stand for? Does it stand for protecting Islam from insult? Or does it stand for protecting the rights and the well-being of American citizens?

Here’s what David Petraeus would have said if he were a real soldier in the mold of, say, General George Patton, rather than a lickspittle dhimmi appeaser of heroin-trafficking Afghan warlords:
– – – – – – – –

“I wouldn’t burn a Koran myself — but, then, that’s a matter of personal taste.

“Let me just say this: those people in Florida aren’t putting anyone at risk. The only people responsible for putting my troops at risk are those homicidal maniacs who froth at the mouth over what they call their ‘religion’.

“My boys are here to defend the American way of life, and they are fighting and dying to preserve the right of American citizens to burn any damn thing they feel like — except maybe the American flag.

“And as for those demonstrators on the streets of Kabul — they can go to hell.”

But we don’t have generals like that anymore.

Our generals don’t win wars. They build nations.

They are tasked to win the hearts and minds of whatever godforsaken lice-infested child-molesting goatherds their fool of a commander-in-chief sends them out to protect.

This is what our “national defense” has become.

This is what all those billions and billions of our tax dollars do for us nowadays.

God help us all.


Baron Bodissey added this:

Fear of the Nazi Street

by Baron Bodissey

Based on some recent comments, my point about Gen. David H. Petraeus is not getting across. It has nothing to do with whether anyone should or shouldn’t burn a Koran.

My point is that something has gone deeply, catastrophically wrong with the way our top political leaders and military commanders conceptualize and conduct the current war.

Perhaps a little historical analogy will help clarify matters:

Eisenhower Warns Against Planned Burning of Mein Kampf

LONDON, June 19, 1944 — The top American commander in Normandy has warned that plans by a small Florida church to burn copies of Mein Kampf on Tuesday, the anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Russia, could play into the hands of the very extremists at whom the church says it is directing that message.

Hitler in a turbanBurning copies of Mein Kampf, the founding document of Nazism, “would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Germany — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence,” the commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower said in a telegram to The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Echoing remarks the general made in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published Friday, he said: “It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort. It is precisely the kind of action the SS uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Nazi community.”

In 1943, violent and sometimes lethal riots were set off around the world by a mistaken report by Newsweek that a Pentagon investigation had found that military interrogators of detainees at a camp in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, tried to flush a copy of Mein Kampf down a toilet. The same year, a Canadian newspaper that printed cartoons portraying Adolf Hitler also led to riots across the Nazi world.

– – – – – – – –

Terry Jones, the pastor of the tiny Florida church that plans the Mein Kampf burning, says that as an American Christian he has a right to burn Mein Kampf because “it’s full of lies.”

Some of his prior attempts to incite anti-Nazi fervor have met with less public attention. Last year, he posted a sign at his church declaring “Nazism is of the devil.”

Nazi leaders in several countries, including Holland and Hungary, have formally condemned him and his church, the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, which has 50 members.

In Normandy, meanwhile, a district governor from Rouen was assassinated by Gestapo insurgents on Monday night along the Caen-Bayeux highway in the north of Normandy, officials said.

The real NYT article is here.

Is everything a little clearer now?

We’re not waging a war. We’re playing cute little games and being nicey-nicey to people who have declared themselves to be our implacable enemies.

Treating them kindly will not change their minds. Only our conversion to Islam or our surrender and submission to Islamic dominance — or our deaths — will make them feel differently about us.

Posted in ACT! for America, Dhimmitude, Fight back!, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islamization, Must Read, Sharia | 5 Comments »

Seeing dogs denied on taxis driven by Muslims

Posted by paulipoldie on September 3, 2010

For those who keep denying this problem.

Für diejenigen, die behaupten, dieses Problem gebe es nicht.

The Washington Post article is HERE. Excerpt:

In study, half of D.C. cab drivers pass by blind people with guide dogs

In a study by a civil rights watchdog group, taxi drivers in the District often drove past blind people who were trying to hail a cab while accompanied by guide dogs.

The Equal Rights Center, in a report released Wednesday morning, said that it conducted 30 tests this year and that in half of them, drivers passed someone with a guide dog to pick up a person who did not have a guide dog. In three of the cases in which the taxi stopped for the blind person, the driver attempted to impose a surcharge for transporting the dog, the Equal Rights Center said….


“The law is in place,” said Ashley N. White, outreach manager for the Equal Rights Center, “but no one is really enforcing it.”…

No mention of “Muslim,” of course.

H/T Infidel Bloggers Alliance

Posted in Dhimmitude, Diskriminierung/Discrimination, Human Rights - menschenrechte, Islam, Islamisierung, Islamization, Sharia | 1 Comment »

Wonderful, Wonderful Cordoba

Posted by paulipoldie on August 31, 2010

Posted By David Solway On August 27, 2010

The proposed construction of the “Cordoba” mega-mosque near Ground Zero has served as a catalyst for a renewed interest in the history of Cordoba under Islamic rule in Al-Andalus (Spain). Many of those who are opposed to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s presumed “bridge building” initiative, as represented by the project first called Cordoba House and now renamed Park51, have gone back to the history books, or have decided to speak out and address the purport of the designation: “Cordoba.” For instance, Victor Davis Hanson in a recent interview [1] alludes to “the rather silly evocation of Cordoba; in toto, it was not really a utopian medieval city of understanding.” And Lisa Graas shows [2] that “things started out rather bad under Muslim rule…and went downhill over time…The history for us is clear and it is a history that no Catholic would like to see a repeat of in Manhattan.” Cordoba Jews fared better for a time, as Jane Gerber lavishly chronicles in The Jews of Spain [3], but they too eventually fell victim to persecution. Even the renowned Jewish sage Moses Maimonides [4] was forced to flee the city, escaping to Fez where he lived for years disguised as a Muslim.

And yet all this should have been evident in the weeks and months  after the Twin Towers were destroyed and nearly three thousand people were murdered by so-called “Islamist” terrorists. For it would not take long before Muslim and non-Muslim apologists for the “religion of peace” would hearken back to the ostensibly genial and temperate era of Moorish Spain, a time, we were instructed, when Christians and Jews were welcomed by their Muslim overlords and peacefully integrated into the life of the realm, permitted to worship freely and even received into the learned professions, many as katibs (secretaries) to the Caliph. Such conjurings by journalists and pundits constituted nothing less than an intellectual embarrassment. Mutatis mutandis, these fairy tale votaries resembled an updated version of Danny Kaye and crew singing “Wonderful, Wonderful Copenhagen [5],” that “friendly old girl of a town.”

I recall coming across numerous references to the splendors of Cordoba in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, which were obviously intended to deflect indignation and fury and to distill for a supposedly vulgar multitude the deeper meaning of Islam. For example, in order to strengthen and validate a benign conception of Islam, attention was (and still is) frequently drawn to the intellectual activity of Cordoba, in particular to the translation and transmission of the seminal texts of the classical world that would otherwise have been lost to mankind. What such advocates for the great Islamic contribution to the Western library forgot is that none of this material was original to Islam.

As David Bentley Hart writes in Atheist Delusions [6], “Islam was the beneficiary of Eastern Christendom.” It was “Syriac-speaking Christians who provided an invaluable caste of scholars and physicians, and through them the achievements of Greek and Roman antiquity passed into Islamic culture.” In fact, not Moorish Spain but medieval Italy was “perhaps a more important port of entry for Greek texts into Western Europe…in the late eleventh century,” when scholars, poets, clerics and doctors fled from the Muslim conquest of Constantinople to Pisa, Venice and Palermo. But resonant specifics are precisely what the glib justifiers of a presumably Islamic monument to human progress, of Cordoba as a shining city on the hill, have labored to suppress.

The point they were (and are) trying to make, of course, is that this particular epoch represents the essence of Islam, a religion which, according to President Obama, advances “the dignity of all human beings,” and which was later hijacked by extremists who perverted the root message of the faith. The destruction of the WTC and the human carnage of the event was, somehow, an aberration, a “man-caused disaster” which had nothing to do with the real Islam. Ground Zero was only a grotesque distortion of the true Islamic inglenook where marchers for peace warm their bunions.

In order to maintain this fantasy, there is no recognition of the fact that the suicide terrorists, as Charles Krauthammer points out in an article titled “Moral Myopia at Ground Zero [7],” “were the leading, and most successful, edge of a worldwide movement…with cells in every continent, with worldwide financial and theological support, with a massive media and propaganda arm and with an archipelago of local sympathizers.” Those who defend the Cordoba project, dreaming the dream of pastoral reconciliation betokened by what is, at least in part, an Andalusian mirage, facilitate the task of the jihadists.


As I argued in The Big Lie [8], which I began writing in September 2001 a few days after the catastrophe (and which was published in 2007), the golden age of Moorish Spain that features in the history books and glitters in the public imagination is, to a significant degree, something of a historical fiction: the Almoravid and Almohad dynasties were by no means an unbroken halcyon interregnum in the annals of Islam but cruel and intolerant dispensations given to fervid and prolonged outbursts of savagery. Even the famed Caliphate of Cordoba, as Hanson and others indicate, was not the uniformly enlightened Castle in Spain of popular fancy. Islamic tolerance, as Bat Ye’or in her The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam [9] unpacks for us, is more of a modern fable than a historical verity.

Nothing is ever uni-dimensional when it comes to historical exegesis; complexities must always be allowed for. The history of Cordoba, which Richard Fletcher masterfully elaborates in Moorish Spain [10], was exceedingly chequered: “years of peace and plenty under the Caliphs of the tenth century,” patronage of the intellectual and scientific disciplines and economic prosperity, broken by years of turbulence, political intrigues, exactions of tribute, fratricidal strife, sumptuary laws, vestimentary differentiation, slavery and in general the ill treatment of minorities. Ultimately, as Fletcher writes, “The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was a land of tranquility.” One wing of the historical diptych is impressive in the context of the age; the other is disfigured with the limning of atrocities. It is this second panel that is left out of the picture of Cordoba that has been painted for us.

And that is the trouble. A half-truth readily morphs into a complete lie. The misery and spoliation of conquered peoples, the executions and martyrdoms, the humiliation and oppression which is also Cordoba, are airbrushed out of the historical register. Amnesia and “bridge-building” are the order of the day. The pristine figment of an idealized Cordoba, the cherished beacon of tolerance and enlightenment in an otherwise dark and barbarous period, is meant to disarm skepticism in the present. “Cordoba” is, paradoxically, code for both grandeur and deception. I would respectfully suggest that the Shanksville memorial [11] in honor of the heroic victims of Flight 93, currently under construction and scheduled to be dedicated on September 11, 2011—which is, interestingly enough, also the slated opening date [12] of the Cordoba mosque—might be a far more relevant and exalted pledge of remembrance than a minaret at Ground Zero.

Meanwhile, a vast chorus of Islamophiles are still busy warbling a melodious ditty to the pleasures, delights and glories of an immaculate Cordoba, a wonderful, wonderful Cordoba with its “welcome so warm and gay,” the Copenhagen of its day of which the Park51 mosque is touted as an exemplar and a revival. It is pitched to an increasingly dubious public as a metaphorical “bridge” to the long-desired destination of ecumenical harmony. Perhaps it should just be called al-Qantara, “the Bridge,” rather than the inscrutable Park51.

A bridge, however, is not always what it seems. Richard Fletcher reminds us that “the first mosque in Cordoba was built on a central site in the city near the Roman bridge over the river Guadalquivir.” The parallel is striking. The thirteen-storey high Cordoba House mosque is planned for the “central site” in New York City near the place where an architectural cynosure once stood. Is the mosque a bridge or a structure meant to overshadow it?

Questions remain. Assuming it is some kind of bridge, who is crossing it? Which way does traffic flow? Both ways? Or is it rather a permanent and grandiose pontoon intended to facilitate an inexorable invasion under cover of “mutual understanding,” what former Muslim and author [13] Sayed Kamran Mirza calls [14] “an iconic symbol of Islamic victory”?  And where exactly will we find ourselves once the bridge has been crossed? In the modern or the medieval age? In New York? Or in Cordoba?

Posted in Dhimmitude, Islamization | Leave a Comment »

Shariah for Dummies

Posted by paulipoldie on August 30, 2010

Shariah for Dummies

Posted: August 27, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
World Net Daily

By Nonie Darwish
© 2010 

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that the U.S. Constitution is Shariah compliant. Let us examine below a few laws of Shariah to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:

  1. Jihad, defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion,” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (caliph). Muslim caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Shariah and unfit to rule.
  2. A caliph can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force.
  3. A caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.
  4. A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go toward jihad.
  5. It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
  6. A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.
  7. The Muslim public must remove the caliph if he rejects Islam.
  8. A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
  9. A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate, 2) an adulterer, and 3) a highway robber – making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.
  10. A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim but will get it for killing a Muslim.What would the world look like under Shariah law? Find out in Nonie Darwish’s “Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law”
  11. Shariah never abolished slavery or sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.
  12. Shariah dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging – even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
  13. Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply with Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their Scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.
  14. It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. But the same does not apply to Muslims.
  15. A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
  16. Banks must be Shariah compliant, and interest is not allowed.
  17. No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women in low-level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.
  18. A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslim minority.
  19. Homosexuality is punishable by death.
  20. There is no age limit for marriage of girls. The marriage contract can take place any time after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.
  21. Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, and gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.
  22. Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying, “I divorce you,” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.
  23. There is no community property between husband and wife, and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.
  24. A woman inherits half what a man inherits.
  25. A man has the right to have up to four wives, and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.
  26. The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.
  27. A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married, her marriage is annulled.
  28. The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.
  29. A woman loses custody if she remarries.
  30. To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.



  31. A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
  32. A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Not all Shariah schools allow the face of a woman exposed.
  33. A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife at the time he caught her in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”
  34. It is obligatory for a Muslim to lie if the purpose is obligatory. That means that for the sake of abiding with Islam’s commandments, such as jihad, a Muslim is obliged to lie and should not have any feelings of guilt or shame associated with this kind of lying.

The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Muhammad’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the U.S. Constitution.

Nonie Darwish is the author of “Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law” and founder of Former Muslims United.

Posted in Dhimmitude, Diskriminierung/Discrimination, Human Rights - menschenrechte, Islamization, Sharia | Leave a Comment »