Creeping Sharia

[Julian]

The islamists are already in the schools with the blessing of the treasonous liberals and globalists. Denial is no longer viable.

[Julian]

'American Taliban' Attorney Now Number Three at DOJ

Just as Koran-Burning Rage 2012 must not be seen as an isolated event but rather as a cycle of sharia ascendancy, or, as indicated in my last column, another notch in our decline into dhimmitude, so, too, the advance of a leading member of the "al Qaeda bar" into the highest reaches of the Department of Justice must not be seen as just one more singularly noxious incident in the life of our nation's capital. This, too, is part of the tectonic shift under way.

Over at Pajamas Media, J. Christian Adams lays out the gruesome details of the elevation of Tony West to the No. 3 man at the Justice Department. Adams explains that West (zero relation) and his San Francisco law firm have represented "some of the most radical Islamic terrorist causes, including the American Taliban John Walker Lindh."

Adams reports that, in his new position, West, who has brought into senior Justice jobs other prominent jihadist defenders, will be overseeing detainee policy at Guantanamo Bay.

It's either a mad, mad, mad, mad world -- or, as I believe, it all makes perfect sense. We are being taken down from within due to a potent nexus of fear, non-rational thinking, and subversion.

First, beginning on 9/12/01, the Bush administration effectively outlawed the way public officials may talk and write and ultimately think about Islam by formulating the de facto and, finally, in 2008, the practically de jure lexicon that de-links Islam from its institutional lifeblood, jihad. The effect is to foil all rational approaches to thwarting the Islamic threat. Since President Obama came to office, he has simply, if enthusiastically, taken the Bush policy of de-linking Islam from jihad, both violent and pre-violent, to its logical conclusions.

Thus we see in 2010, for example, the FBI's National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) inviting Kifah Mustapha, a known operative of Hamas, a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, to a six-week "citizens' academy" inside the top secret installation.

Thus we see, also in 2010, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NCTC chief Michael Leiter, and FBI Director William Mueller unable to comment cogently when I had the opportunity to quiz them, one after another, on this egregious national security risk that they willingly incurred in the spirit of so-called Muslim outreach.

Thus we see in the summer of 2011 the abrupt cancellation of a conference at the CIA on Homegrown Radicalization due to pressure from a homegrown radical group, CAIR, whose co-founder Nihad Awad was identified by the FBI as a member of Hamas, a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Thus we see in February 2012, MB-Hamas-linked CAIR strikes again, pushing for the abrupt withdrawal by Gen. Jerry Boykin from a West Point prayer breakfast.

Thus we see, also in February 2012, the FBI "purge" hundreds of pages of anti-jihad material under the watchful eye of more MB-affiliated front groups.

Today we see the elevation of a leading member of "the al Qaeda bar" to a position of control over Gitmo policy at the Justice Department.

The continuum... continues.

Notice anything else about these events?

They're coming faster and more furiously.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012 ... r-3-at-doj

[Julian]

Sharia in The UK: Man gets year in prison for posting material "offensive to the Islamic faith" in his front window

When will reporting acts of jihad become illegal? That's blasphemy, too. Perhaps that's why the mainstream media self-enforces the sharia and redacts Islam, "allahu akbar," etc. from the thousands of jihadi attacks across the world, or the sharia from news stories about honor killing, FGM, gender apartheid, etc.

Clearly, the UK is fast becoming the first Islamic state in Europe.

UK: Man gets year in prison for posting material "offensive to the Islamic faith" in his front window Jihad Watch

Is England Saudi Arabia now? Is Sharia in effect? Is it now illegal to post material "offensive to the Islamic faith" in a window? If Conway had posted material "offensive to the Christian faith," would he have been arrested or jailed? Who decides what is offensive?

I haven't seen what Conway posted, and I do not support the BNP or any group with race-based policies or any truck with antisemitism, but this is a free speech issue. His political views are as irrelevant as his marijuana possession: he got the year in jail for the material on Islam, and another three months for the cannabis.

Unless what he posted in his window was calling for violence or genocide, it shouldn't matter how offensive it may have been to any group or individual. Clearly there is no more freedom of speech regarding Islam in Britain; under the guise of "hate speech" laws, Sharia blasphemy laws have become the law of the land. The arbiters of what constitutes "offensive" material control the discourse, and no dissent is allowed. This is the road to tyranny.

"Gainsborough man jailed over anti-Islam images in his flat window," from This Is Lincolnshire, March 9 (thanks to Ima):

A GAINSBOROUGH man who plastered his front window with vile anti-Islamic hate literature has been jailed for a year.

Darren Conway, a self-confessed supporter of right-wing organisations, was given a 12-months' sentence at Lincoln Crown Court.

The court was told on Tuesday that carer Conway had covered the front window of his ground floor flat in Heaton Street in Gainsborough with 17 photographs and posters.

Many were offensive – attacking both the prophet Mohammed and the Muslim religion.

Conway, 44, had denied displaying the religiously aggravated hate material on April 16 last year.

But he was convicted following a short trial earlier this year, when sentencing was postponed for reports to be prepared.

Judge Michael Heath told Conway: "To describe the material you put in your window as grossly offensive is an understatement.

"There is no place in a civilised society for conduct of that sort and the only sentence I can justify for it is an immediate custodial sentence."

Conway was also given a three-month concurrent jail sentence – to run alongside the longer term – after admitting unlawful production of cannabis.

Sixteen cannabis plants were found growing in his home when police visited to investigate the hate crime.

Christopher Lowe, prosecuting, said that Conway, who admitted to supporting both the BNP and the English Defence League, was caught after a member of the public complained to police.

"Later that day police attended the premises and found 17 posters and images in the front window in full public view," said Mr Lowe.

"The majority of the displayed posters and images were undoubtedly offensive to the Islamic faith.

"Conway was arrested at the scene and taken into police custody.

"He appeared to make out that those posters were, more or less, an opportunity to get back at his landlord.

"He was trying to justify them on a political and religious basis.

"In the back room was found a small grow of cannabis plants. Sixteen plants were growing under heated lamps."...

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

[Julian]

British Government: Christians Have No Right to Wear Visible Cross or Crucifix

(CNSNews.com) –Britain’s Conservative-led government plans to argue in a European Court of Human Rights case that employers are entitled to ban the visible wearing of crosses at work because displaying the symbol is not a recognized “requirement” of the Christian faith.

A document leaked to Britain’s Sunday Telegraph outlines the argument the government plans to present at the tribunal in Strasbourg, France, where two Christian women will claim that their rights were violated when employers barred them from wearing crosses at work.

At the center of the applicants’ case is Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

But the government will argue that “the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9.”

Furthermore, it will say that “the restriction on the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”

“In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognized form of practicing the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith,” says the document, which the Telegraph says was prepared by the Foreign Office.

The second most-senior figure in the Anglican Church, Archbishop of York John Sentamu, told the BBC Sunday that the government was “beginning to meddle in areas that they ought not to. I think they should leave that to the courts to make a judgment.”

Earlier another Anglican bishop challenged the argument about displaying a cross not being a requirement of Christianity.

“OK, if you say wearing a cross isn’t a compulsory part of Christianity, we agree,” Bishop of Peterborough Donald Allister told the Telegraph last month. “But it is a duty of a Christian to be public about their faith as well as private, and that is clear New Testament teaching.”

News of the government’s intervention in the case comes amid a raging dispute between the government and church leaders over Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron’s plans to legalize same-sex marriage by 2015.

Hijabs, turbans allowed

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the final destination of two drawn-out legal battles, brought by Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, two women who fell foul of their employers for wearing crosses at work.

Eweida, a Coptic Christian and British Airways staffer at Heathrow Airport, was told in 2006 to remove or cover up a small cross she wears around her neck. She refused and was sent home on unpaid leave. Eweida noted that colleagues of other religions, including Muslims and Sikhs, were allowed to wear religious items such as hijabs, turbans and religious bracelets.

The airline policy won the backing of the National Secular Society, which complained that activists were “determined to push religion to the front line of British life” and accused Eweida of clearly being “motivated by a wish to evangelize at work.”

The following year British Airways changed its uniform policy and allowed Eweida to return to work, but refused to pay her for the period she was suspended. Claiming religious discrimination, she took the case to an employment tribunal, but lost.

After the Supreme Court declined to consider her case, she decided to take the matter to the ECHR.

Chaplin, a nurse in her 50s, was prohibited from working at a hospital after refusing to cover up a cross she said she had worn at work throughout a 30-year nursing career. An employment tribunal in 2010 ruled in favor of the employer, a government National Health Service (NHS) trust, saying its policy was based on health and safety grounds, not religion, and adding that wearing a cross was not a requirement for Christians.

Six senior Anglican bishops, including former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, backed Chaplin, saying in a March 2010 letter that that nurse “has worn the cross every day since her confirmation [40 years earlier] as a sign of her Christian faith, a faith which led to her vocation in nursing, and which has sustained her in that vital work ever since.”

“The uniform policy of the NHS trust permits exemptions for religious clothing,” they wrote. “This has been exercised with regard to other faiths, but not with regard to the wearing of a cross around the neck.”

The ECHR has also been asked to consider two other cases brought by British Christians claiming religious discrimination – a woman who lost her job with a London council in 2007 after she refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples; and a relationship counselor who was fired by a large national charity after refusing to provide sex therapy to same-sex couples.

Britain has given same-sex couples similar legal rights to married couples under civil partnership provisions introduced in 2005.

Now Cameron’s government is proposing to legalize marriage for same-sex couples in England and Wales, launching a public consultation exercise on the matter.

Although churches will not be forced to perform “weddings” for homosexual and lesbian couples, the proposals have ignited a storm of protest.

A letter by senior Roman Catholic archbishops, read at thousands of churches across England and Wales on Sunday, warned that that changing the legal definition of marriage would be a “profoundly radical step” that would “gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/british ... r-crucifix

[Julian]

I dare any to deny that Christians are persecuted and that Britain is becoming and islamic nation.

Who's wearing the "tin foil hats now"?

[smallLliberal]

I dare any to deny that Christians are persecuted and that Britain is becoming and islamic nation.

Who's wearing the "tin foil hats now"?

The Queen is still head of State ... she is also the leader of a christian religion.

So ... there you go. Still christian.

[Julian]

I dare any to deny that Christians are persecuted and that Britain is becoming and islamic nation.

Who's wearing the "tin foil hats now"?

The Queen is still head of State ... she is also the leader of a christian religion.

So ... there you go. Still christian.

Until an imam is running Britain there is nothing to be seen here.... move along.... (He REALLY IS that stupid)

[Julian]

Thrilled that Yahoo ran this article on the fight for free speech in the West:

Fighting Back in the War on Free Speech Pamela Geller, March 18, 2012

Free speech is under attack worldwide, and the attack is growing in virulence. But now a new international organization is fighting back.

Back in December, the United Nations passed Resolution 16/18, with the backing of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The stated goal of the resolution was to "combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief," but this is all just smoke and mirrors. In fact, this resolution is designed to restrict truthful speech about Islamic supremacy and jihad, so as to render the West mute and defenseless before the advancing threat of jihad and Sharia. ..... read the rest

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6 ... 970b-500wi

Sign up for this conference - September 11, 2012

SION World Congress for Free Speech- Symposium and Dinner
Seating is Limited

UN Plaza Millenium Hotel, 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm

[Julian]

CAIR will be doing back flips to put pressure on the hotel and every politician in NY to stop this.

[Ogopogo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... peech.html


BBC refuses to screen play about Islamic threat to freedom of speech
Mark Thompson, the BBC's director-general, says it will not screen the controversial 'Can We Talk About This?'.

By Tim Walker

7:30AM BST 28 Mar 2012

Comments85 Comments

Although the BBC was willing to disregard protests from Christians who considered its decision to broadcast Jerry Springer: The Opera as an affront, Mark Thompson, its outgoing director-general, is more wary of giving airtime to Can We Talk About This?, the National Theatre’s examination of how Islam is curtailing freedom of speech.

Lloyd Newson, the director of the DV8 physical theatre company which staged the new work, challenged Thompson to screen his production during a platform discussion at the theatre.

He pointed out that Jerry Springer: The Opera was a lot more controversial because it was a “satire”, whereas his work, consisting of a series of comments and factual statements set to dance, is “a factual piece”.

Thompson’s spokesman tells me: “We are currently working with the National on various ideas. There are currently no plans to broadcast Can We Talk About This?, but this is not due to the play’s content or themes.”

In the past, Thompson has conceded that there is “a growing nervousness about discussion about Islam”. He claimed that because Muslims were a religious minority in Britain, and also often from ethnic minorities, their faith should be given different coverage to that of more established groups.

Can We Talk About This? was lauded by newspapers on the Left and Right, with The Sunday Telegraph saying that dance proved “a powerful metaphor for freedom”. It described it as a “refreshing, unexpected and very courageous piece of theatre”.

[Julian]

The Brits have become a loathsome bunch collectively. There are many good individuals, but they don't matter a whit.

[smallLliberal]

The Brits have become a loathsome bunch collectively. There are many good individuals, but they don't matter a whit.

When was the last time you were there?

[Julian]

Military Makes Special Exceptions for Muslim Soldiers' Political Speech

The military is enforcing the sharia and giving special rights for Muslims. When George Bush drove through Fort Walton Beach past Hurlburt Field while on a campaign trip in 2004, they told the troops they couldn't even wave at him as he drove past the base.

Not only were these Muslim soldiers excused from punishment; their "political" speech is traitorous. These Muslim soldiers should be court-martialed for treason.

more: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

[Julian]

Islamist revolution for sale in TO bookstore



TORONTO - An Islamic bookstore in east Toronto is selling books that urge Muslims to usurp the Western world and install an Islamic State in its place.

The books, written by deceased Islamic scholar Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - are available at the Islamic Circle of North America bookstore in Scarborough.

"Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation that rules it," Maududi wrote in Jihad in Islam. "Islam requires the earth - not just a portion - but the whole planet."

Maududi was an influential Pakistani journalist, theologian and Muslim revivalist leader who wrote more than 120 books and pamphlets and lived from 1903 to 1979.

He is described in the preface of one of the books as an author who "provided the present-day revival of Islam with its intellectual foundations."

Maududi's books carry a common theme of Islam as a revolutionary "ideology and program which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals."

"Jihad," which he refers to in at least one book as a war against non-Muslims, is in fact "undertaken for the collective well-being of mankind" to establish "God's order" in the world and create a "just and equitable social order among human beings," he wrote.

Terrorism expert David Harris calls such material - antiquated or not - incredibly "problematic" to National security, but goes on to say that because of Canada's freedom of expression legislation, police and the courts, in many cases, can't do much about it.

"This is highly problematic," said Harris, adding that with Canada's ever expanding immigration of people from Middle Eastern countries - such as Egypt - the chances of importing people with radical ideologies also increases. "What we're seeing now is not even a hint of what we will be living ... We're going to see an expanding of these tendencies."

A request for the Islamic Society of Toronto to speak about the books was not immediately returned.

Tarek Fatah, a Muslim moderate and renowned commentator, cautioned that such literature can be dangerously attractive to young men raised in overly-strict Muslim households.

"The radical Islamists ... keep pumping this idea that ... their Islamic heritage is far superior than what the Western world has done, and that the West, what it's doing, is absolutely Satanic, and these books over here validate those issues," said Fatah.

Most of Maududi's books - small and slim paperbacks - could be bought for as little as $1.

When one of the store's managers was asked by a reporter who posed as a customer whether he stocked "Jihad in Islam" - arguably the most radical book of the bunch - he said he hadn't carried it for years because the RCMP had been to his store to ask questions about why it would carry such a book.

Another manager said the store didn't carry any of the six books on the reporter's list.

But within 30 minutes, the reporter found Jihad in Islam and four others of Maududi's stacked on a bottom shelf in the middle of the store.

When it was revealed to the store manager that it was a Toronto Sun reporter who bought those books, he was irate, saying he "will say nothing" before disappearing into an office at the back of the store.

Like the manager, the RCMP would not comment.

*****

In the The Process of the Islamic Revolution, Maududi wrote that Muslims "should be prepared to sacrifice all prospects of personal advancement in wordily life" including giving up friends and their own and their parent's expectations to further the expansion of Islamic belief.

"Society, government, law, nation, country, whatsoever obstructs the achievement of their object [of an Islamic Revolution], they should be prepared to struggle against it," he wrote.

On the other hand, it is "impossible" for Muslims to live under an "alien State System" and observe Muslim beliefs, he wrote.

In Jihad In Islam, Maududi wrote:

"All rules which he considers wrong; all taxes that he deems unlawful; all matters which he believes to be evil; the civilization and way of life which, in his view, are wicked; the education system which seems to him as fatal - all these will be so inexorably imposed on him, his and his children that evasion will become impossible," he wrote.

As soon as Islam "captures" another state, it will ban gambling and prostitution, outlaw business dealings forbidden by Islamic law and "make it obligatory for non-Muslim women to observe the minimum standards of modesty in dress as required by Islamic Law."

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/ca ... 01730.html

[Ogopogo]

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/04/ ... marriages/

Sex and Sharia: Muslim women punished for failed marriages
Charlotte Rachael Proudman

* By Charlotte Rachael Proudman


79774300 300x170 Sex and Sharia: Muslim women punished for failed marriagesToday I received another telephone call from a young Muslim woman, Nasrin, who pleaded with me to help her obtain an Islamic divorce. After fleeing a forced marriage characterised by rape and physical violence, Nasrin applied for an Islamic divorce from a Sharia council; that was almost 10 years ago now. Despite countless emails, letters and telephone calls to the Sharia council as well as joint mediation and reconciliation meetings, the Sharia council refuse to provide Nasrin with an Islamic divorce. Why? Because of Nasrin’s sex. An Imam at the Sharia council told Nasrin that her gender prevents her from unilaterally divorcing her husband, instead the Imam told her to return to her husband, perform her wifely duties and maintain the abusive marriage that she was forced into.

Having represented Muslim women pro bono at Sharia law bodies across the UK to obtain Islamic divorces, I am all too aware of the gender discriminatory experience many Muslim women suffer at some Sharia councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals (‘Sharia law bodies’). Unfortunately their experiences have not been highlighted by the media. Instead some Sharia law bodies have been misrepresented by the media as being transparent, voluntary and operating in accordance with human rights and equality legislation. This is not the case.

Many Sharia law bodies rule on a range of disputes from domestic violence to child residence all of which should be dealt with by UK courts of law. Having observed Sharia law bodies ruling on legal disputes it is all too apparent that they operate within a misogynist and patriarchal framework which is incompatible with UK legislation. For instance, the cost of an Islamic divorce is £400 for a woman compared to £200 for a man at the Islamic Sharia Council in East London; this is an example of blatant gender discrimination which is incompatible with the Equality Act 2010.

With over 85 Sharia law bodies operating in the UK, the majority of which charge vulnerable and impoverished Muslim women astronomical fees, Sharia law bodies have become successful and lucrative businesses. For instance the Islamic Sharia Council rules on over 500 Islamic divorces per annum at a cost of £400 for every woman applicant, equating to an annual turnover of £200,000 for Islamic divorces only. If we consider the additional legal disputes they rule upon it is likely some Sharia law bodies have an annual turnover of over £500,000. The majority of women I represent can barely afford a £15 weekly shop let alone £400 for an Islamic divorce. These destitute women have been forced to pawn their jewellery and take out loans from dangerous loan sharks in order to pay for Islamic divorces that are not even guaranteed and ultimately to fund a service that is pricing women out of the Sharia law market.

Diana Nammi, founder of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation explained that “Sharia law bodies are money-spinning businesses because they afford men more rights than women unlike UK law which is underpinned by a fundamental principle of ‘equality for all’. In most cases women do not receive any practical advice or assistance to help them exit abusive marriages, and instead face further discrimination perpetrated by Sharia ‘judges’”.

According to Anne-Marie Hutchinson OBE, partner of Dawson Cornwell a leading family law solicitors firm, “women are forced to apply for Islamic divorces from Sharia law bodies to end their marriages unlike men who are in a position of power as they only have to pronounce talaq (divorce) three times to end their marriages”. However, this is not a quick process, it is time consuming and emotionally draining for many women including Nasrin who applied for an Islamic divorce almost 10 years ago.

By protracting the time it takes for women to obtain Islamic divorces, Sharia law bodies are punishing women for their failure to maintain miserable marriages, and in Nasrin’s case an abusive forced marriage which was flawed from its incept. Rather than freeing Muslim women from the shackles of unhappy marriages they are kept in limbo and are expected to mourn their destructive marriages and to reflect on their failures as wives and mothers. Worryingly some Sharia law bodies are growing cynical business enterprises, which use their position of power to maintain unequal gender relations while profiteering on the misery of Muslim women.

Anne-Marie Waters, Spokesperson for One Law for All commented – “the very process employed by Sharia law bodies is gender discriminatory, flawed and incompatible with UK legislation”. For instance, unlike male divorce applicants, women are requested to bring along two Muslim, male witnesses to corroborate their testimony. I have yet to represent a Muslim woman who is able to comply with this gender discriminatory requirement that is contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Not only are such requirements near impossible to adhere to, but they also reflect Sharia law bodies’ ideology that women are second class citizens. A stark comparison can be drawn between the way in which women are perceived as lacking capacity to give evidence before Sharia law bodies and their inability to give evidence in court to substantiate their own cases in Dickensian times. Women were treated as criminals not citizens in Dickensian times; their belonging to society was rejected as they were portrayed as mad and bad because of their gender. Sharia law bodies are a 21st century example of the patriarchal Dickensian period that eventually prompted the early Suffragettes to engage in feminist activism to bring about gendered change.

Where are the Suffragettes now that we need them? Fortunately we have Baroness Cox’s Bill, which aims to prevent Sharia law bodies from ruling on family and criminal matters. With collective action from politicians, lawyers, human rights and women’s rights organisations it is hoped that Muslim women will be better informed of their right to seek legal remedies under UK law instead of submitting to Sharia law bodies that promote and subsist in a patriarchal framework that runs parallel to UK law.
Tagged in: divorce, gender, islam, marriage, muslim women, sharia law