Category Archives: Sharia Law

Islamic court: OK to beat wife if no marks left

Posted on by

Other sources: The National:

MSNBC:

h/t TL

Man in United Arab Emirates was initially fined $136 for hitting spouse, daughter

Advertisement | ad info
msnbc.com msnbc.com
updated 10/18/2010 7:41:53 AM ET 2010-10-18T11:41:54

A man can beat his wife and kids as long as he leaves no physical marks, the United Arab Emirates’ highest court has found.

The judgment came after a man slapped his wife and kicked and slapped his daughter, according to Abu Dhabi’s The National newspaper.

In the case debated by the Federal Supreme court, the daughter was bruised on the hand and knee, while the wife’s lip and teeth were injured.

According to the court, the injuries showed that the man had over-stepped his rights under Shariah, or Islamic law, the newspaper reported. He had originally been fined 500 United Arab Emirates dirhams ($136), but appealed the case twice.

At 23, the daughter was deemed too old to have been disciplined, the newspaper said.

Story: U.K. cleric: Rape is impossible within marriage

According to Shariah law, a man can beat his wife and children as long as he has first tries unsuccessfully to discipline them by admonishing and then abstaining from sexual relations with his wife.

Islamic scholars don’t agree on the definition of “beating” but they do agree that it should not be too severe.

“Although the (law) permits the husband to use his right (to discipline), he has to abide by the limits of this right,” Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri wrote in the ruling released Sunday, according to The National. “If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment.”

Shariah law has come to Canada.

Posted on by

From The Ottawa Sun

Court decision puts veil over women’s rights

By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency

Last Updated: October 17, 2010 2:00am

It is illegal for a woman wearing a face-obscuring veil to board a plane in Canada. But a unanimous ruling last week by the Ontario Court of Appeal says it’s just fine for that same woman to give testimony in court with her face covered.

There’s more. Ontario’s highest court says veiled women can ask for an order to clear men out of the courtroom — any men in the public gallery, any male court staff, even her opponent’s lawyer, even the judge himself — in return for taking off her veil. It’s paragraph 85 of the ruling.

Shariah law has come to Canada.

Face-obliterating veils called niqabs are a medieval tool for gender apartheid. They destroy a woman’s identity. They turn her into an object, a chattel owned by her master — which is why they’re the norm in Saudi Arabia, where women have fewer rights than men and only slightly more than animals.

Burkas — an even more prison-like shroud, with just a tiny beekeeper’s screen to peek through — are the Taliban variety. Those are now allowed on the witness stand in Canada, too.

Rip the Ten Commandments off the wall, because we must have separation of church and state. But when the most un-Canadian expression of radical Islam walks in the court, our judges follow the Qur’an.

But that’s not fair to the Qur’an. No verse in that book requires face-covering. But our judges now say it’s a Charter right.

To their shame, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened to support this. They have demanded Bibles be removed from schools and the Lord’s Prayer be banned from legislatures. But Muslim veils — a chastity belt for the face — have their support in a secular court.

The CCLA has found religion. And LEAF, the feminist law organization built with Canadian tax dollars, has a new view on a woman’s proper place. They argued for the niqab, too.

As National Post columnist Barbara Kay points out, a survey of Muslim women in France found 77% wear the veil out of fear of men.

Australian Imam Taj Din al-Hilali put it another way, in a sermon about rape: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street … and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.”

LEAF supports covering up “the meat.” Now our courts do too.

The Ontario ruling came about because a Muslim woman alleged she was molested as a child by her uncle and her cousin in the 1980s. It’s a horrendous accusation and, if true, the woman deserves our sympathy and the accused deserve our most punitive punishment. But before we get there, there’s the matter of a trial.

In Canada, even accused rapists have the right to question their accuser and the court has the right to observe her demeanour. It’s why we don’t allow testimony from someone wearing a mask.

But this accuser didn’t want to take off her mask.

“It’s a respect issue, one of modesty and one of — in Islam, we call honour,” she told the judge at the preliminary inquiry “It’s to conceal the beauty of a woman.”

She had only been wearing a veil for about five years and the judge found her religious belief was “not that strong.” But “I would feel a lot more comfortable if I didn’t have to, you know, reveal my face.”

Sure, she took the veil off to get her driver’s licence. But that was important, you see. Not like accusing a man of a horrendous crime.

The judge told her to take off her veil. That’s what was over-ruled last week.

This could be great, says the Court of Appeal. The reliability of her veiled testimony could actually be better.

“Without the niqab … one could not expect her to be herself on the witness stand … her embarrassment and discomfort could be misinterpreted as uncertainty and unreliability.”

But it’s more than law. It’s politics, they say. Allowing the niqab “could be seen as a recognition and acceptance of those minority beliefs and practices.”

That’s exactly the problem.

In heaven, Aqsa Parvez is screaming again.

— Read Levant’s blog at ezralevant.com

UK: Secret Halal Meat Sale – Why not Label it?

Posted on by

Christianvoice.org.uk Halal Focus Net

Britain ’s biggest supermarket chains are selling halal lamb and chicken without telling unsuspecting shoppers, reported the Mail on Sunday.

The paper had to force an admission out of Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose, and M&S, none of whom tell shoppers whether their lamb is ritually slaughtered, even when a Muslim slaughterman is intoning ‘Bismillah Allah-hu-Akbar’ (meaning ‘In the name of Allah, who is the greatest’) over each animal killed.

No beef sold is halal, it seems. But 5% of chicken sold in Tesco is halal as is 35% of the store’s UK lamb. None of it is labelled as such. The Co-op is the same. We believe that only Asda and Morrisons clearly label their ritually-slaughtered meat but we were waiting for confirmation as we went to press.

NEW ZEALAND LAMB IS 70% HALAL
The scandal applies mostly to lamb. 70% of New Zealand lamb sold by British supermarkets is slaughtered according to Muslim law. The reason is that New Zealand supplies a growing Muslim consumer base in the Middle and Far East . It was the New Zealanders who developed the ‘pre-stun’ method of slaughter, rendering the animal unconscious by electric shock, rather than by a captive-bolt pistol, which is very ‘haram’ (forbidden).

But none of the New Zealand halal lamb is labelled as such, so consumers do not know that they are buying and eating ritually-slaughtered meat. A growing proportion of meat slaughtered in British abattoirs is also halal, using the same method, and that does not appear to be labelled ‘halal’ in many stores either.

In their statements, the supermarkets were determined to present the issue as solely one of animal welfare. They appeared oblivious to the religious implications of the Islamic blessing pronounced over each animal killed. But even that could not explain the procrastination, ignorance and/or inability to explain the facts to consumers that the supermarkets displayed.

TESCO AND THE CO-OP
For example, when the Mail on Sunday rang them, Tesco were initially reluctant to admit they sold any halal meat at all. Tesco said in a peculiar statement: ‘It is not the case that all the meat we sell is halal or that our suppliers only offer halal meat.’

But when quizzed further, a spokesman was more forthcoming: ‘All our New Zealand lamb is halal-slaughtered, as is 35 per cent of our UK lamb. Less than five per cent of our chicken is halal.’ Continue Reading →

Niqab is the “British way”

Posted on by

From The Telegraph U.K.

Islamic face-veil part of ‘British way of life’

The full Islamic face-veil is a part of the “British way of life” and should be celebrated along with religious symbols such as the crucifix, according to a report published today.

By Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor
Published: 8:30AM BST 16 Oct 2010
Islamic face-veil part of 'British way of life'

Politicians in France and Belgium have voted in favour of banning the full veil Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Opponents of the veil claim it oppresses women and presents a barrier between those who wear traditional dress and the rest of society.

But in a new report from think-tank Civitas, Alveena Malik, a former faith adviser to the last Labour government, said the test of whether religious symbols are appropriate should be based on whether they are practical.

Politicians in France and Belgium have voted in favour of banning the full veil, or “niqab”, and other European countries are thought to be considering similar action.

In a new report, Women, Islam and Western Liberalism, Mrs Malik said: “We in Britain need to take a different direction from others in Europe and to accept the veil as part of a modern British way of life.”

She continued: “The wearing of religious symbols, including the full veil, should be a fundamental human right of an individual in both the public and private sphere.

“The real test for religious symbols in the public sphere should always be: ‘Does the wearing of a symbol (such as the kirpan, turban, yarmulke, crucifix and the veil) hinder a citizen’s ability to perform their public civic duties?’”

Britain is in a “unique” position to embrace such a public display of faith because of the role the church plays in the affairs of the state and its “multicultural diversity”.

Mrs Malik was appointed by last government to a panel of faith advisers for the Department for Communities. She has overseen British Council guidance on “intercultural dialogue”.

The Stones.

Posted on by

When I think of stones I think of The Rolling Stones. When these women think of stones, they think of death. In April of this year the United Nations elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women……

SkyNews

Iranian Stoning Film To Be Shown In London

11:44pm UK, Thursday October 14, 2010

Lisa Holland, World Affairs correspondent

A film portraying the real-life stoning of an Iranian woman is opening in London, but it’s a film the Iranian government does not want the world to see.

Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani is sentenced to be stoned for adulteryThe film is dedicated to Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, facing execution in Iran.

It depicts a brutal form of punishment still sanctioned by Iran’s current hard-line regime.

The film’s director claims some European governments have been reluctant to support it – fearful of antagonising Iran’s regime, already at loggerheads with the west.

The film The Stoning Of Soraya M is based on the true story of a woman brutally killed after being falsely accused of adultery.

Soraya is stoned to death in her Iranian village under Islamic Sharia law.

The film’s director, Cyrus Nowrasteh, has dedicated the screening to Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani currently facing execution by stoning or hanging in Iran for adultery.

Cyrus NowrastehThe film’s director Cyrus Nowrasteh

Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen said: “The final scenes of The Stoning Of Soraya M are quite horrific and many viewers might want to turn away. I’d urge them not to.

“This is the cruel reality of execution by stoning; watch, be enraged, and take action to stop this inhumane practice.

“The case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has been taken up by people all over the world, who have protested and written letters to the Iranian authorities urging them to stop her execution by any method.

“We have to keep this pressure up and make it clear to Iran’s leaders that killing Sakineh would cause a global outrage.

“Stonings are thankfully rare in Iran but they represent the ugly tip of a very large iceberg.

“At least 190 people have already been executed this year in Iran, mostly by hanging and after unfair trials.

“Amnesty opposes the death penalty regardless of the method of execution.

“We are calling on the Iranian authorities to stop this execution, stop the use of stoning altogether and stop criminalising the sex lives of consenting adults.”

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the west of using the Ashtiani case to generate further opposition against it – at a time when Iran’s nuclear programme is drawing international condemnation and concern.

The Stoning Of Soraya M serves as a painful reminder of the ruthlesslness of the Iranian government – past and present.

More cultural enrichment in Canada: the importation of polygamy, child brides, forced marriages

Posted on by

From The Ottawa Sun

Polygamy, child brides pose problems for immigration officials

By BRIAN LILLEY, Parliamentary Bureau

Last Updated: October 12, 2010 4:13pm

OTTAWA – Forced marriages, child brides, polygamy and arranged marriages between first cousins are some of the problems that Canadian immigration officials in Pakistan have to deal with.

The revelations are contained in a 26-page report prepared by Canadian officials working out of the immigration and visa office in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The report was obtained by immigration lawyer Richard Kurland through access to information legislation and supplied to QMI Agency.

“With few exceptions, the Islamabad spousal reunification programme involves Muslim proxy marriages arranged by the families, the vast majority of which take place between first cousins,” reads the report.

According to Kurland, polygamy is most common among wealthy Pakistani families trying to immigrant to Canada. Canadian officials often won’t reject an application just because a man has more than one wife, Kurland said.

“They say we can’t do this because you are polygamists so you have to divorce some, keep one and work it out domestically,” Kurland said. Kurland told QMI that often second or third wives will be sponsored into Canada as skilled workers for a business or as a maid for the household.

As for first cousins marrying, while the practice is not common in Canada due to a higher risk of birth defects, marrying your cousin is legal in this country.

“Marriages that are legal in Canada are legal for the purposes of immigration and sponsorship,” said Alykhan Velshi, a spokesman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

Tazeen Ahmad, a British woman of Pakistani descent, produced a documentary earlier this year for Channel 4 called Dispatches: When Cousins Marry.

Ahmad documented the cultural reasons for the practice among British Pakistanis as well as the problems, such as a high rate of recessive gene disorders.

Canadian Court of Appeal ‘decides’ on niqabs in courtrooms

Posted on by

From The Ottawa Sun

Putting face on religion

By MICHELE MANDEL, QMI Agency

Last Updated: October 13, 2010 10:08pm

TORONTO – It is a typically Canadian solution.

The Ontario Court of Appeal won’t ban Muslim witnesses from wearing a face veil. Nor will the highest court in the province grant them an automatic right to do so.

Instead, in its highly anticipated decision, the appeal court has ruled right down the middle, saying “each case must turn on its own facts.”

As long as it doesn’t prejudice a fair trial, the court ruled, Muslim women should have the religious right to wear their niqab when testifying.

But if a judge is convinced by the accused that he can’t properly defend himself if she’s testifying against him behind a veil, the witness must remove her niqab and allow the face-to-face confrontation that is the norm in Canadian courts.

Justice system

“The criminal justice system as it presently operates, and as it has operated for centuries, places considerable value on the ability of lawyers and the trier of fact to see the full face of the witness as the witness testifies,” wrote Justice David Doherty in the ruling released Wednesday morning on behalf of the three-judge panel.

“There is no getting around the reality that in some cases, particularly those involving trial by jury where a witness’s credibility is central to the outcome, a judge will have a difficult decision to make.”

It was not a clear-cut victory for any side, but one cautiously applauded by all.

“It’s a real step forward,” said David Butt, lawyer for N.S., the Toronto woman who was ordered to remove her niqab at a preliminary hearing. “This walks a middle ground that balances two very important, competing rights.”

N.S. came forward in 2007 and accused her uncle and cousin of sexually abusing her as a child. When the case went to a preliminary hearing in 2008, she said she wanted to testify while wearing her niqab. When the judge ruled against her, she took her case to the Ontario Court of Appeal in June.

In its 54-page decision, the three-judge appeal panel ruled that there needs to be a “case by case assessment” and for the first time set out guidelines for judges in these previously “uncharted waters”.

For N.S., the appeal court overturned her niqab ban and said she must be given a proper hearing to show why her religion requires her to cover all but her eyes.

The defence must also be allowed to call evidence on the issue before the judge decides if she can testify wearing her veil or whether accommodations can be made for her testimony — such as an all-female court.

“The court did not decide the crux issue of whether the niqab comes off or stays on,” said N.S.’ lawyer.

“On the other hand, the court has given us a very firm set of factors to guide us.”

The Criminal Lawyers’ Association had argued that a witness can’t be properly cross-examined if their face is concealed but was satisfied with the ruling.

“It is a paradigmatic, Canadian decision insofar as it strikes a very workable compromise rather than making a choice between two important competing values,” noted association president Paul Burstein. “Time will tell.”

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, was relieved the court of appeal did not grant an automatic right to give testimony behind the veil, which he insists is a political, not a religious, symbol. But he was troubled the appeal court seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate women wearing a face covering many in the west see as backward and misogynistic.

“They do not think that Muslim women are women per se, but some kind of exotic species that they have to nurture in the laboratory that’s called Canada,” Fatah complained.

For its part, the appeal court wisely shied away from making a definitive ruling on a piece of cloth that continues to divide.

“The wearing of a niqab in public places is controversial in many countries including Canada,” Doherty wrote.

“The controversy raises important public policy concerns that have generated heated debate. Those difficult and important questions are not the focus of this proceeding and cannot and should not be resolved in this forum.”

mi************@******ia.ca

UK sharia chief – there is no such thing as rape within marriage

Posted on by

And, there goes a thousand years worth of human rights advancement in one fell swoop.

From The Samosa:

Wednesday, 06 October 2010 15:13
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Chaminda Jayanetti speaks to the president of Britain’s main Islamic law court about rape within marriage.

It is hardly the most obviously controversial of statements:

The husband undertake not to abuse his wife/child(ren) verbally, emotionally, physically, or sexually.

This statement is from the London-based Muslim Institute’s Muslim Marriage Contract, published in 2008 as an attempt to modernise the contract governing many Islamic marriages in Britain. But few within the British Muslim establishment were impressed. Britain’s main Islamic sharia court, the Islamic Sharia Council, produced a swift rebuttal of the contract, including the statement on sexual abuse (page 6 here).

Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed is the president of the Islamic Sharia Council. A softly spoken elderly man with the manner of a kindly grandfather, he is far removed from a firebrand radical Islamic preacher – indeed, he is nothing of the sort.

But sitting in a small office at the al-Tawhid Mosque in East London, where the Council’s sessions had been relocated while its nearby headquarters were renovated (the Council has now moved back), I asked Sheikh Sayeed whether he considered non-consensual marital sex to be rape.

“No,” he replied. “Clearly there cannot be any ‘rape’ within the marriage. Maybe ‘aggression’, maybe ‘indecent activity’.”

He said it was “not Islamic” to classify non-consensual marital sex as rape and prosecute offenders, adding that “to make it exactly as the Western culture demands is as if we are compromising Islamic religion with secular non-Islamic values.” Continue Reading →

Aisha shows her new face to the world.

Posted on by

From The Telegraph U.K.

Taliban oppression poster girl unveils new nose

A woman who became the poster girl of Taliban oppression in Afghanistan after being mutilated by her husband has unveiled her new face to the world.

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Published: 7:08PM BST 12 Oct 2010
Aisha

Aisha on the cover of TIME magazine before her surgery, left, and, right, after her prosthetic nose was fitted Photo: TIME/FILMMAGIC.

The image of Aisha, 19, without a nose, prompted a worldwide outpouring of sympathy after it appeared on the cover of Time Magazine accompanying an article highlighting the plight of women in Afghanistan.

She appeared before the cameras to receive an Enduring Heart award at a benefit for the Grossman Burn Foundation, which paid for her surgery, in Los Angeles.

Maria Shriver, wife of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s and California’s first lady, presented the award.

“This is the first Enduring Heart award given to a woman whose heart endures and who shows us all what it means to have love and to be the enduring heart,” Miss Shriver said.

Aisha, whose surname has never been disclosed, responded: “Thank you so much.”

When Aisha was 12, her father vowed to repay a debt by promising her in marriage to a Taliban fighter. She was handed over to the fighter’s family, abused and made to sleep in a stable with animals.

She was caught after trying to escape and her nose and ears were sliced off by her husband as a punishment.

“When they cut off my nose and ears, I passed out,” she told CNN. “In the middle of the night it felt like there was cold water in my nose. I opened my eyes and I couldn’t even see because of all the blood.”

After being left for dead in the mountains, she crawled to her grandfather’s house and was taken to an American medical facility.

Following time time at a shelter in Kabul, she was flown to the US by the Grossman Burn Foundation in August and stayed with an American family.

This month, she had a prosthetic nose fitted at the West Hills Hospital. Dr Peter H Grossman said they hoped to give Aisha a more “permanent solution”.

This might involve rebuilding her nose and ears using bone, tissue and cartilage from other parts of her body.

Longueuil girl, 13 dies after father ‘slapped’ her for not praying/preying

Posted on by

Found on TROP

‘Ray of light’ was under pressure to pray, neighbours say

By René Bruemmer, The Gazette October 11, 2010

Family and friends place a notice for members of the media outside the appartment complex of the family where a 13-year-old girl died over the weekend, a few days after a slap from her 71-year-old father that reportedly placed her into a coma.

More Images »

Family and friends place a notice for members of the media outside the apartment complex of the family where a 13-year-old girl died over the weekend, a few days after a slap from her 71-year-old father that reportedly placed her into a coma.

Photograph by: Vincenzo D’Alto, The Gazette

This story has been updated.

MONTREAL – A 13-year-old Longueuil girl died Saturday night as a result of injuries she sustained Wednesday when police say her 71-year-old father slapped her and she went into a coma.

Police said Mousaa Sidime, who was arrested for aggravated assault and has been detained since the incident, could now face a more serious charge when he appears in court Tuesday.

The girl, whom neighbours identified as Noutene Sidime, was found by emergency responders shortly after 6 p.m. Wednesday at her family dwelling on Chambly Rd. in Old Longueuil when the elderly father called police to say he had slapped his daughter, Longueuil police Constable Mark David said.

“When we got there the girl was bleeding around her nose and she has been in a coma ever since,” David said. Continue Reading →

Niqabs in Canadian courts???

Posted on by

From The National Post

Ontario court to rule if woman can wear niqab while testifying

The Ontario Court of Appeal is expected to rule if women can testify in court while wearing a niqab.

For the first time in Canada, an appellate level court is going to rule on whether a woman can testify in court while wearing a niqab.

The Ontario Court of Appeal is scheduled to release its ruling Wednesday in the case of a 32-year-old Muslim woman who says she was sexually abused as a child by two male relatives.

The decision will be issued just days after the constitutional council in France approved legislation that will ban the wearing of a burqa or a niqab in public places. Women who wear the face-covering clothing could face fines of nearly $200. Anyone in France who forces a woman to wear a burqa or niqab could be sentenced to a year in jail.

In the case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, the woman was originally ordered by a provincial court judge in October 2008 to remove the Muslim veil, which covers most of her face except for her eyes, while testifying at the preliminary hearing of the defendants.

The alleged sexual assault victim refused and the Ontario Court of Appeal heard arguments from the Crown and defence, as well as several other groups, during a two-day hearing in June.

The Ontario government urged the court not to issue a “blanket statement” and instead set out a legal framework for courts to decide the issue on a case-by-case basis. The appeal court could for example, allow limited questioning of a female Muslim witness, to ensure that her religious reasons for wearing the niqab are legitimate.

A lawyer for one of the two defendants argued that there is a long-standing right to assess the demeanor of witnesses when they testify and the woman should have to remove the niqab. The Muslim Canadian Congress sided with the defendants and its lawyer told the court that wearing the niqab is a political statement and the issue is not about religious freedoms.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) argued in favour of the woman’s right to testify while wearing the niqab. The lawyer representing LEAF suggested the woman should not have to “relive being forcibly uncovered,” if ordered to remove the niqab in court.

sk***@**********st.com

Todays comic instalment: Mohamed LIVES!!!

Posted on by

Here is a link to First, Second and Third part of this series. You need to read them first to ‘get’ this one.

Once again, thank you to our mystery artist who did this rather clever and interesting little series. I don’t need to say irreverent. But I do need to say funny and it is.

Continue Reading →

Gay-bashers thrive in modern-day Netherlands

Posted on by

H/T Snaphanen.dk

“Fortuyn was a Marxist professor, a champion of gay rights, women’s rights, liberal drug laws and euthanasia. Yet, because he opposed Muslim immigration, the CBC called him “right wing.””  -Ezra Levant

Toronto Sun:

By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency

Last Updated: October 10, 2010 2:00am

If you think Amsterdam is the gay capital of Europe, you’re half-right, but 10 years out of date. Today it’s the gay-bashing capital of Europe.

Because Amsterdam isn’t just gay. Now it’s Muslim, too. A million Moroccans and Turks have immigrated to the Netherlands, and sharia law rules the streets.

If you doubt it, then you haven’t been paying attention. Actually, that’s not fair. Gay-bashing is front-page news only when it’s committed by a straight, white male.

The media is terribly uncomfortable writing about gay-bashing by minorities. It’s the same reason why Canadian feminists are so eerily quiet about honour killings of Muslim girls.

According to an “offender study” by the University of Amsterdam, there were 201 reports of anti-gay violence in that city in 2007 — and researchers believe for every reported case there are as many as 25 unreported ones. Two thirds of the predators are Muslim youths.

The violence couldn’t be more brazen. It’s not in the back alleys in the dark, it’s in the heart of the city, often in broad daylight. It’s a direct dare to the Dutch government to show who rules the streets.

In 2008, 10 Muslim youths broke into a fashion show, dragged gay model Michael du Pree off the stage and beat him bloody. Last month, several lesbians were hit by beer bottles thrown at their heads as they marched in a parade of thousands to protest violence against gays. There’s a gay community centre in Amsterdam — you’d think that would be safe. Wrong. It’s a target, with home-invasion style beatings. No one is immune. Last year Hugo Braakhuis, the founder of Amdsterdam’s gay pride parade, was attacked. Continue Reading →

Team B II Report with Frank Gaffney

Posted on by

I would like to post this 37 minute video here in response to some comments made by ‘Yahya’, who I believe is the key person of the blog that appears to have taken over for, or is at least connected to, a site Vladtepesblog has quoted from time to time, ‘Montreal Muslim News’. A site which published all sorts of highly illiberal fatwas, or Islamic rulings on, pretty much every single aspect of life and how a Muslim should do it, and often, how to impose that ideology on all the rest of us in Canada and by extension the rest of the Western, non-Islamic, world as well.

In a recent comment, Yahya made the statements:

Well, first of all, Muslims are in fact not trying to supplant what you call “our millennium old system of jurisprudence” by advancing a 7th century sharia code. I honestly don’t know where you come up with these fantasies. Many Muslim scholars and intellectuals have said there is no contradiction between western laws which are just and Islamic jurisprudence. The unifying principle is justice, and if a western law adheres to that principle then it is in accordance with Islamic law. Do you have something against justice?

Speaking of Islamic jurisprudence, what does anyone know of it here other than a small sampling of the penal code which is much more complex that how you may understand it. Once would have to study Islamic jurisprudence for years to address this topic in an educated way, yet people here cut and paste statements they get from a google search.

Ignoring the close call with the Clay Pot Logical Fallacy Yahya makes here, Muslims use the word Justice in a dramatically different way. Justice of course means, under the sharia, or that Islam is supreme while others “pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued”.

Justice in no way means what Muslims know we think it does when they use the word. Less obtusely, Muslims use the word Justice, much like they use the concept of womens rights. Further, it is no fantasy that England has over 100 legal sharia courts operating now, and have hundreds more illegal ones. It is no fantasy that girls who run away from home because they are afraid of being killed by their families in England for adopting British culture, are being returned to their families by Muslim police from women’s safe houses so often, that women are now afraid to call emergency services for help.

It is no fantasy that in many western nations, illegal sharia ‘police’ patrol Islamic neighbourhoods making sure that women dress according to code and other aspects of sharia are observed to the extent they can get away with it. It is also no fantasy that many nations now find that food is halal and unmarked so that people cannot know that they are eating meat that has been butchered in a way that violates all cruelty to animal laws that our civilization has built over centuries. This means that people are violating their own principles often each day and are not even allowed to know it.

So in that light, I offer you this video.

Eeyore for Vlad T.