Category Archives: Sharia Law

Interview with Gregorious Nekshot

Posted on by

For those of you who do not know, Gregorious (a nom de plume) was arrested by no less than 10 policemen in Holland where they ransacked his apartment and took him to jail for the heinous crime of drawing cartoons lampooning Islam in the Netherlands. A fairly classic case of, ‘you call us intolerant, and we will lay the hammer down on you’. The video of his speech is currently the top post at Gates of Vienna and a full transcript of the speech is available on a Danish blog where the speech was held. You have to scroll down a bit for the English transcript. Well worth seeing and for that matter, reading as well.

Remember, this speech and these events such as we see with Geert Wilders, are tomorrows newspaper for the USA as much as they are last years news for Canada. Do not blow this off. Watch this interview. Gregorious is someone who actually ‘gets it’.

A small sample below…

Ladies and Gentlemen

In the Netherlands, satire is an old tradition. This tradition began seven centuries ago, in the thirteenth century, with the epic poem Reynaerd ‘the Fox’. The poem Reynaerd ‘the Fox’ ridiculed nobility and clergy – the highest civil and religious authorities of that era. The author must have been a wise man, he managed to keep his identity a secret. Monty Python’s movie Life of Brian pokes fun at Christianity. The movie stirred up anger and controversy in 1979. Nevertheless, the movie could be watched almost everywhere. The makers, Terry Jones, Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle and Michael Palin received neither death sentences nor did the Public Prosecutor lift them from their beds and put them behind bars.

These two fairly random examples illustrate that in Western Europe, religion – in the cases mentioned Christianity – has been ridiculed for ages. First this was done anonymously or under pseudonym, later openly. In Western culture, rationalism, science, humanism and democracy, in a lengthy and painful process, created the separation between Church and State. Freedom of Speech became a constitutional right in many countries. Thus, ridiculing Christianity, without fear of losing one’s life, has been possible for quite some time.

When large numbers of migrants with a different cultural and religious background came to Western Europe, things fundamentally changed. Poorly educated – and without exception raised under dictatorial regimes – a lot of immigrants with an Islamic background cannot agree to our separation between religion and politics, no matter how self-evident this separation appears to us.

Continue Reading →

CAIR sues bank for refusing service.

Posted on by

This from the Montreal Muslim News. It’s crucial at this point that tolerance be properly defined. People have a right to their own religious observance but no one should be obliged to embrace accommodate or adjust to it. Should I choose to walk an elephant to celebrate my love of Ganesh, the Hindu Elephant god, this doesn’t mean I have the right to demand the city hire extra people to shovel up after it.

Grace, who has read the Employers Guide to Islamic religious practices linked to below, has this to add…

This guide is an outline to all American employers specific needs of American Muslims in the workplace. Definitions of holidays and festivals, dietary needs clothing obligations and prayer times are all included in the booklet. For example, when a Muslim employee is at prayer, he cannot be obligated to conduct any of his usual duties as an employee. The booklet specifies that his coworkers should not interupt him under any circumstances and should not take offense, (something Muslims seems to wish a monopoly on) to his absense during prayer time. As for participating in professional conduct in a corporate setting, Muslim employees are not encouraged to shake hands or when engaged in conversation are obligated to lower their gaze. In other words, not only must we accomodate all these factors, but we must not dislike the inconvinience. Its not just what they must be allowed to do, its how we must feel about it.

Additionally, there are other booklets outlining Islam’s specific needs to American and Canadian employers. Guides are given to educators, health care providers and correctional institutions, with a forthcoming manual to be given to the law enforcement community.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CAIR: Calif. Muslim Denied Service at Bank over Hijab
DOJ asked to investigate possible civil rights violations by bank officials

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 2/2/2009) – A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the U.S. Department of Justice to determine whether a California bank violated a Muslim woman’s civil rights when it denied her service because she was wearing a religiously-mandated head scarf, or hijab.

According to the woman, she was denied service Saturday at a Navy Federal Credit Union in San Diego, Calif., despite telling bank officials that she wears her head scarf for religious reasons.

In a statement, the bank said:

“‘In the interest of Security and Safety for our members and employees – hats, hoods and sunglasses must be removed when entering the branch office.’ Special consideration for cultural and religious garments is under the discretion of the branch management. Navy Federal is making inquiries into the recent incident.”

“Under this bizarre and discriminatory policy, no Muslim woman wearing a head scarf, no Sikh man wearing a turban, no Jewish man wearing a yarmulke, no Catholic nun wearing a habit, no cancer survivor wearing a scarf, no Amish woman wearing a bonnet, and no blind person wearing sunglasses may enter a Navy Federal Credit Union branch nationwide,” said CAIR-San Diego Public Relations Director Edgar Hopida. “We call on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate this disturbing case and Navy Federal’s apparently unconstitutional policy and to ensure that the religious rights of all customers are maintained.”

Hopida said CAIR offers a booklet called “An Employer’s Guide to Islamic Religious Practices” to help corporate managers gain a better understanding of Islam and Muslims.

CAIR, America’s largest Islamic civil liberties and advocacy group has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

Durban II. It’s back, and now its insane.

Posted on by

By Anne Bayefsky

Friday, January 30th 2009, 4:00 AM

The United Nations “anti-racism” forum, known as Durban II, is becoming a more important test for President Obama‘s multilateralist ambitions with each passing day. Durban I was the anti-Semitic hatefest that ended three days before 9/11. Durban II – the UN equivalent of the Son of Sam – will take place in April in Geneva. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has called on Obama not to legitimize the meeting, or its message, and not to attend. Canada has decided to stay away. But Obama has still not decided whether the United States will go. This Wednesday, however, the stakes got a lot higher with the UN’s release of the latest negotiating text.

Negotiators have now put on the table claims that (1) a homeland for the Jewish people is racism – a “racially based law of return,” (2) Israel is guilty of “apartheid” and (3) the veracity of the murder of one-third of the Jewish people during the Holocaust is subject to question. A reference to Holocaust facts has now been “square-bracketed” because Iran and Syria have questioned the numbers of Jews that died and consensus is the only guiding principle governing the decision-making process.

In total, six provisions are dedicated to demonizing Israel as racist. Not one of the other 191 UN states is mentioned. The intention is clear: the political defeat of Israel in the same vein as apartheid South Africa, because repeated attempts at a military defeat of Israel have failed.

But Israel is not the only target of Islamic and Arab states and their developing world partners. The draft takes straight aim at freedom of expression and counterterrorism. Free speech should supposedly be curtailed by new laws against “projecting negative, insulting and derogatory images of religions and religious personalities” and the introduction of “a code of ethical conduct” for the media. Counterterrorism activities are “obstacles hampering progress in the collective struggle against racism.”

At the top of the agenda is the creation of a hierarchy of human rights victims with “Muslim minorities” topping matters of concern. “The intellectual and ideological validation of Islamophobia” is a “most disturbing phenomenon,” the agenda says. “Anti-Arabism” is introduced as intolerance of a religious minority. Religions, instead of individuals, can be defamed. Calls are made to preserve “religious and cultural identities” without reference to universal rights and freedoms. Broad condemnation of “any advocacy of racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” is coupled with a refusal to require any finding by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and a fair and public hearing.

In other words, Durban II is a frontal assault on universal human rights and freedoms by religious fundamentalists.

Continue Reading →

A little fiction to help get some perspective on today’s reality.

Posted on by

There is a story this link leads to, which is a wonderful dialectic. One which reminds me of the wonderful writieng style of Scott Adam’s best known as the creator of Dilbert but less known perhaps for his most charming book, ‘god’s Debris‘, one of the most enjoyable reads I have ever had. This story I do not think was written by Adam’s and nor is it charming in other than style. But like brilliant fiction since the invention of the novel, is a good way of using literary devices to help us understand our own reality. This author uses a time traveler from the future to solidify our understanding of the present. Settle back with a drink perhaps and take 15 minutes and enjoy this 2 page short story. This writer, actually gets it. We all need to if we hope to survive the near future in any recognizable way.

Al Queda terrorist in UK jail demands female guards wear veils.

Posted on by

This is just one example of why terrorism cannot be treated as a crime.

AL QAEDA KILLER MAKES VEILS JIBE FROM PRISON CELL

Story Image

Terrorist Kamel Bourgass, jailed for life

Wednesday January 28,2009

A MURDERING Al Qaeda terrorist has sparked outrage after threatening legal action under the Human Rights Act unless women prison wardens in his presence wear veils.

Kamel Bourgass, 33, was jailed for life in 2004 after stabbing brave Special Branch officer Stephen Oake to death in a police raid.

Now Bourgass is not only recruiting extremists to his twisted cause in Wakefield prison but is claiming that women wardens without veils infringe his human rights.

He has even cracked sick jokes about the bravery medal DC Oake received posthumously, sneering that it was made from the “metal of my knife”. The Algerian had been preparing a deadly ricin poison attack on Bri tain when father-of-three Detective Constable Oake, 40, arrested him.

Bourgass, the first Muslim fanatic to murder a British police officer, has been in Wakefield jail for just a few weeks. But insiders claim he has already begun preaching Islamist hate against the West to inmates. And wearing his long black cloak, he has infuriated wardens with the sick jibe about DC Oake.

A prison insider revealed: “He is very abusive and confrontational with staff and says female officers in prayer meetings are a breach of his human rights.

“If they are on duty, he demands they wear a veil.

“We’ve been told to closely monitor him because he preaches hatred at prayer meetings.”

Great essay about Geert Wilders from Anti Jihad.org

Posted on by
geertbannerlarge2
By

Jeffrey Imm

on January 27, 2009

A great man once warned that we “cannot sit idly by” and “not be concerned about what happens” in other places as injustice happens, equality is crushed, and liberties are threatened. He told us that: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

That great man dared to defy an ideology of identity-based supremacism, an ideology based on denying equality to all men and women, an ideology based on the lie that some are inherently superior to others simply based on their race, religion, creed, or national origin. That great man challenged a supremacist ideology whose “ugly record of brutality is widely known,” and he did not fear to name it or protest against its oppression of others. As a result, he was threatened and charged by some with actions that would “incite to hatred and violence.” Those against him felt that a line had to be drawn to stop his protestations and stop his message of defiance against supremacism. That man was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man in America, who is still celebrated today and honored today as a courageous leader in defending equality and liberty.

But just a few days after the United States’ annual honoring of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s life and courage in defying supremacism, another man in another part of the world in another era, was being charged once again with inciting hatred for defying another supremacist ideology. That man was Geert Wilders, a legislator in the Netherlands, who has dared to defy the ideology of Islamic supremacism. Mr. Wilders has challenged Islamic supremacism because of its leaders’ threats against humanity, because of Islamic supremacism’s goals to conquer the Earth, and because of Islamic supremacism’s refusal to acknowledge the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty.

Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not fear to recognize that this problem dealt with the identity-based supremacist ideology of “white supremacy,” so Geert Wilders has also not feared to address the identity of those who would promote an Islamic supremacy. Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. challenged whites, so Geert Wilders has challenged Islam. Defying any supremacist ideology requires the honesty to name the problem, so that humanity can find a solution. Whispering among ourselves in the dark in the face of a brutal supremacist ideology will only ensure that no one can gather the courage to light the first candle of wisdom to help humanity find the answers we desperately need.

In the case of Geert Wilders, a court was repulsed by his comments comparing Islamic supremacism’s beliefs to those expressed in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. That court was not repulsed by the daily calls for killing Jews by Islamic supremacists. That court was not repulsed by the antisemitic hate that is regularly channeled in the Islamic supremacist media. That court was not repulsed by the regular calls for the destruction of Israel by Islamic supremacists. That court was not repulsed by the references to the antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion promoted in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf within the very charter of the Islamic supremacist Hamas organization, a group defended by protestors in the Netherlands over the past few weeks. That court was not repulsed by other Netherlands politicians defending calls for an intifada against Israel, while Amsterdam crowds called for “Jews to the gas.”

For the rest of this excellent essay please visit this site where it originated. Thank you.

Yes they really do believe in 72 virgins. But a crucial correction here.

Posted on by

The thing of it is, when they talk about enemies of Islam and those who wage war on Islam and or Muslims I think its very important to make a crucial distinction here.

They do not mean on those who would destroy Islam as there are none. They mean on those who oppose Islam’s imposition on the rest of us. To a Muslim, when you reject their rule and imposition of sharia law on yourself and your nation it is a war on Islam as this imposition is what Islam demands. So when watching this video I would recommend keeping that in mind. There is no one anywhere waging war on Islam. Not China Europe or the US no one. There are only those who wish to allow Muslims to practice their faith without imposing it on the rest of us, which is contrary to Islamic principles. Something that we in the west with our genuinely tolerant principles simply cannot grasp. If we could, we would pass laws against Islam as we did against Shintoism during WW2.

Canada angers Islamists

Posted on by

It would appear that Canada has been scratched of the guest list to sit down to dinner with the Islamists. No more invites; we’ve pissed off the Arabs and Muslim world with one fell swoop. How? Canada officially declared her support for Israel in the Gaza conflict and Israel’s right to defend herself against terrorism.

And now the bony finger of extremism and twisted logic wags itself at Canada in…….. anger.

A January 14 editorial in the Arab News condemns Canada’s decision to vote against a motion by the UN human rights council to vilify Israel in the Gaza conflict, the only country out of 47 to do so, and to demand an investigation into Israel’s human right’s violations. Canada did so, realizing the slanted position of the proposal which clearly intended to discredit Israel’s stance while simultaneously rendering Hamas blameless. 

” With a stroke, Canada has lost it’s credibility, honour and friends in the Arab and Muslim world”.   

Funny, I didn’t know we had any ‘friends’ in the Arab and Muslim world. 

Certainly, this ommission to defend Hamas is seen as repugnant only among those who would wish that peace replace violence in Gaza via submission to terrorist ideology. The many well meaning? union organizations whose stance for justice and peace rely on condemning Israel, the anti-semites who protest at weekend rallies shouting Nazi rhetoric and of course, the ‘moderate’ Muslim organizations who belittle Canada and the United States at every turn are seething with rage at both the Conservative’s and Liberal’s official stance; that Canada denounce terrorism. The NDP is too busy handing out spare shoes and hot cocoa at the rallies to comment.  Not surprisingly, I found this article on the nation’s most prominent, Islamic, peace loving site, the CIC.

“Canada’s famed evenhandedness seems to have vanished. It has been replaced by blindness and hardheartedness. It is truly shocking”.

It IS a truly shocking and welcome turn, especially to Canadians who had all but given up on the government’s willingness to re-adjust it’s balls in the trousers of the nation and deligitimize terror states and their supporters through abject rejection. As for heardheartedness? The Arab and Muslim world have the monopoly on hardheartedness and heartlessness: just ask the innocent Palestinian people, the victims of Hamas and the countless other innocents around the world who have perished in the name of Islamic ‘peace and justice’.

There is a concerted push by Islamists to see Canada evolve into a safe haven for the imported hatred of Jews and sharia law that ensure intolerance, bigotry and misogyny. All one has to do is attend a pro-Hamas rally on any given weekend to witness the desire. The anger amongst them at Canada’s recent offical denunciation of Hamas combined with the ongoing willingness of Islamist sites and Muslim community newspapers to re-publish the sentiment should come as little surprise to anyone who understands the mandate. If we have indeed ‘thrown fairness to the wind’ as they claim, it is because our definition of fairness is a radically different one, as are the definitions of peace and social justice.

“Canada has, in the past rarely done anything to anger anyone”, states the Arab media editorial. 

So be it.  Time to eat at home with a big ham and swiss on rye and a cold beer.

Grace

Why they fight and why we are not. A clarification urgently needed.

Posted on by

There is a simple but crucial misunderstanding by the average decent fair minded European or North American which causes us to place ourselves at a distinct disadvantage to the jihadis in our midst. We believe in creating a territory within which, each person or group is free to express themselves how we choose to so long as it causes no major harm to others. We fight amongst ourselves as to where the lines need to be drawn. Whether an activity is truly harmful or not and where to allow an activity such as smoking in bars or cleaner energy and so on. But ultimately it stems from the principles stated above.

What we utterly fail to recognize is that Muslims world wide feel any law but sharia is an abomination. That any area which they claim is rightfully Islamic lands, and while ultimately this includes the whole world , for the moment it means any and all lands once governed by Muslims at any point in it’s history, must be governed by sharia or divine law.

This precludes any choices. When George W. Bush claimed simplistically perhaps, “They hate our freedoms” he was bang on the money. They do indeed hate our freedom to be anything other than Muslim and to govern according to any principle other than sharia law. Below is a fatwa from islam online which is a clear if chilling statement of principle and obligation for all Muslims living anywhere on earth. I would like to add that its a clear reason to end all Islamic immigration to the west immediately and perhaps even reversing it for all Muslims who have broken any laws or advocated the overthrow of our government and way of life. Special thanks to Grace for digging through the dirt to find this gem.

Wa `alaykum As-Salam Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

First of all, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you have in us. We hope our efforts meet your expectations.
It is the duty of every Muslim to support all his fellow Muslims in all times especially at times of calamities as all Muslims constitute one body when an organ of it aches, all the other organs feel ill as a result. In his Hadith, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stated: “A Muslim is a brother of a Muslim. He must not wrong him, nor fail him, nor hand him over (to enemies).” Muslim scholars state that there is nothing wrong in paying the Zakah as well as sadaqah to oppressed Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Burma and in every part of the world.

In his response to the question, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the prominent Muslim scholar, states the following:

The meaning of Jihad in our present time particularly refers to striving to liberate Muslim lands from the grip of the disbelievers who usurped them and imposed on them their own laws in lieu of the Divine Law. Those disbelievers may be Jews, Christians or both or even pagans, who follow no particular religion at all. Disbelievers are all alike.

Capitalists, Communists, Westerners, Easterners, People of the Book and pagans are by no means different from one other. They should all be fiercely fought if they attempt to occupy any part of the Muslim land. This duty falls on those closest to the occupied land, who should be aided by those closest to them, who, in turn, ought to be aided by those closest to them, till it becomes incumbent on all Muslims to take part in Jihad.

Muslims have never been more severely afflicted than they are nowadays. Many of their lands have been captured by the disbelievers, on top of which is Palestine that has fallen victim to corrupt Jews. Similarly, Kashmir has been dominated by pagan Hindus. Chechnya and other Islamic states have fallen in the grip of pagan tyrannical communism.

Retrieving these lands, freeing them from the clutches of atheists and their twisted laws is the joint responsibility of all Muslims. Declaring Jihad to save our land is an Islamic obligation.

If war is waged anywhere to achieve this goal, namely to free the occupied lands of the laws and the tyranny of disbelievers, it is undoubtedly a case of Jihad for the sake of Allah. It thus needs to be financed from the money of Zakah, the amount of which is to be decided based on the total sum of the charity, the requirements of Jihad as well as the degree of the need of other potential recipients of charity. This is all to be decided by reliable scholars, if they are to be found.

What needs special attention is the warping of a central thesis in this ‘fatwa’. When they say captured lands they mean a free area where Muslims in no way are prevented from worshiping or living as a Muslim but where they are not able to impose their laws on everyone else. This distinction is not subtle. When they mean liberate, they mean to impose some of the most draconian and restrictive laws the planet earth has ever seen. Two clear facts need to be recognized and applied to any moral equation with respect to Islam and the rest of the world.

Muslims who emigrate to other nations are not forced to by those nations. They chose to live amongst us.

We do not force them to our values or way of life. We allow them near perfect freedom to believe and act as they will short of breaking secular laws governing abuse of other human beings whether its women children or anyone at all. They would however, impose their values on us in our own homes as they do in all Islamic lands.

Pakistani schools mirror UNRWA ones. Go figure!

Posted on by

For Pak kids, ‘J’ is for jihad Times of India

(This article may be worth reading in the context of the recent post, UNRWA now 99% terror free!)

ISLAMABAD: Thousands of Pakistani schoolgoing children are growing up learning that the Urdu equivalent of the letter A stands for Allah, B for
‘bandook’ (gun) and J for jihad.

Though not officially prescribed for pre-schoolers, books printed by Iqra Publishers are being used in several regular schools and madrassas across Pakistan.

The three examples of Allah, ‘bandook’ and jihad are not the only ones which sound like a “blueprint for a religious fascist state”. The Urdu letter for the T sound stands for ‘takrao’ (collide), K for ‘khunjar’ (dagger), H for ‘hijab’ (veil) and Z for ‘zunoob’ (sins) – which includes watching television, playing musical instruments
and flying kites.

According to the National Bureau of Curriculum and Textbooks, Class 5 children are expected to “acknowledge and identify forces that may be working against Pakistan”, “make speeches on jihad and shahadat (martyrdom)”, “understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan”, “India’s evil designs about Pakistan” and “demonstrate by actions a belief in the fear of Allah”, said a report in Newsline magazine.

Saudi grand mufti endorses sexual perversion in Islam

Posted on by

So, here we have it. The ‘powerful’ grand mufti in Saudi Arabia, Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh states it is perfectly reasonable for girls as young as ten to be married off and those in opposition to this are doing these ‘brides’ an injustice. According to the grand mufti, Islamic sharia law is “not unjust for women”.

Really?

The grand mufti and the supporters of sharia, many of whom live in Canada, would be wise to recognize the growing number of Muslims and non-Muslims alike who directly oppose such extremist rhetoric. Visit muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com for a sample of such opposition. 

I ask the mufti, why start at ten? why not two or three? Heck, why not negotiate the arrangemnt in vitro? I would also ask why, if marriage is condoned for a girl of ten, is she not marrying a boy of her own age?  Why is she betrothed to a man old enough to be her great grandfather? Could it be that sexual perversion in Islam is a holy mandate and through this perversion, the countless lives of young girls are stolen to satisfy the sexual urges of old men? Could it be that sharia’s very existence depends upon condemning women to lives of servitude?

It is my contention that one of the primary reasons sharia law exists is to provide Muslim men an exit out of reason and morality, a cushion to provide mass ignorance a comfortable place to reside, with women being the collective scapegoats; the group identified as perfect slaves under Allah, (pnbwh). Without sharia, men in Islam would have to exist with women on an equal basis, a concept considered outrageous and immoral to many a Muslim mind. A concept far too western; far too Christian; far too un-Islamic.

But what would I know? I hail from a western nation where society provides opportunities for girls to grow up along side boys as individuals with choice, as whole women and men with value, unencumbered by ancient, holy regulation spewed by decrepid geriatrics; a society which does not condone the rape and slavery of minors to perpetuate the ignorance of Quaranic passages; a society which does not trade the lives of girls to satisfy the perverted demands of Muslim men who would otherwise be left by the wayside without the reliance of a holy creed.

My daughter is eleven and according to Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh she is of ripe age to marry a seventy year old if she were a Saudi. Likewise, my son is twelve and according to sharia (and if he too were Saudi), free to pursue his life unencumbered by the threat of slavery.  The grand mufti speaks of injustice and, indeed there is. The only injustice however, lies in the stolen lives of girls, rampant Muslim misogyny and the sexual perversion Islam endorses.

Grace