Tag Archives: Florida

American Muslims Celebrate Defeat Of Congressional Islamophobes Allen West And Joe Walsh

See why they ALL need deported?

 

By (RNS) American Muslims are celebrating the ouster of two congressmen known for their anti-Islamic rhetoric, and heralding the outcomes as a sign that Muslim voters, at least in some districts, are a political force to be reckoned with.

“These encouraging results clearly show that mainstream Americans reject anti-Muslim bigotry by candidates for public office and will demonstrate that rejection at the polls,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “This election witnessed an increased political awareness and mobilization effort among American Muslims that dealt a major blow to the Islamophobia machine.”

Republican Rep. Allen West lost to Democrat Patrick Murphy by about 2,500 votes in Florida’s 18th Congressional District, which includes Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. West has not conceded, however, and has filed a motion to have paper ballots recounted.

There are roughly 160,000 Muslims in Florida, comprising about 0.9 percent of the population.

Over in Illinois, 21,000 votes separated Republican Rep. Joe Walsh from his successful Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth, an Iraqi War veteran and double amputee. Illinois is home to the country’s largest concentration of Muslims, about 360,000 comprising 2.8 percent of the population.

“His anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant positions were not the sole reason I voted for Duckworth, but they played a big role,” said Junaid Afeef, who helped organize fundraisers and phone banks targeting Muslim voters.

Afeef even appeared in a television ad supporting Duckworth. “Joe Walsh wants us to be afraid of our neighbors. We need to be afraid of Joe Walsh,” Afeef said in the spot.

In an August campaign speech, Walsh warned voters that radical Muslims were lurking amongst them.

“One thing I’m sure of is that there are people in this country — there is a radical strain of Islam in this country — it’s not just over there — trying to kill Americans every week,” Walsh said. “It’s here. It’s in Elk Grove. It’s in Addison. It’s in Elgin. It’s here,” Walsh added, naming towns in his district.

West, whose funders included casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, repeatedly derided Islam, asserting that it was “not a religion” but a “totalitarian theocratic political ideology” in which terrorism is inherent.

“By supporting Patrick Murphy you are sending a message that anti-Muslim sentiment has no place in the halls of the U.S. Congress,” wrote Ahmed Bedier, a former director of CAIR’s Florida chapter, in an email urging Muslims to support Murphy.

West and Walsh did not respond to requests for comment.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, a former presidential candidate and Tea Party standard-bearer who co-wrote a letter suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Huma Abedin, had ties to extremists, won by about 4,300 votes, a margin of less than 2 percent.

In Florida’s 22nd District, Democrat Lois Frankel handily defeated Republican Adam Hasner, a former Florida House majority leader who once left a Florida House meeting when an imam delivered the opening prayer.

Several other congressmen known for strident rhetoric about Islam fared better, including Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona, Louis Gohmert of Texas, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Diane Black of Tennessee, and Steve King of Iowa.

FLORIDA JIHAD ALERT

The Muslim Brotherhood, now honored guests at the White House, and flush with $1.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars given them by Barack Hussein Obama, will be using that money to help to re-elect Obama who has assured them he will green light a Palestinian state in his second term.

A Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) will hold a pro-shariah Conference in Tampa, Florida on May 11 – 13, 2012. The Conference will be at the Hilton Hotel Airport 2225 North Lois Avenue, Tampa FL. ISNA is a cultural jihad organization that has been designated as an “un-indicted co-conspirator” in the federal terrorism financing case called – Holy land Foundation Trial. The Muslim Brotherhood is actively working to get President Obama re-elected. Join with many patriotic Americans as we stand against the Muslim Brotherhood in Florida. For details contact — Info@TheUnitedWest.org

Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human Rights

By JanSuzanne Krasner

A controversy over the defeat of Florida legislation that would have restricted state courts from considering foreign laws as part of legal decisions has intensified.  This is after a Tampa judge ruled that two opposing Muslim parties have their dispute settled under Islamic sharia law “pursuant to the Quran” in spite of the fact that one Muslim group did not want to do this…and the Florida Appellate Court denied the petition to appeal the judge’s ruling.

The proposed law, SB 1360, had been opposed jointly and lobbied against by both CAIR and the ADL.  It drew the passionate attention of many in the Florida Jewish community, where opinions seem to be drawn on party lines.  These groups erroneously argue that this ban will actually put other religious laws in jeopardy as well, especially Jewish religious law, called Halakhah.

English: 11th Century North African Qur’an in ...

Abraham Foxman, Director of the ADL, claims that passage of the law would have been “harmful to the religious freedom of all Floridians, including observant Jews.”

He and others are seriously mistaken.  The defeated law and others proposed by several state legislators are meant to make it clear that disputes heard in religious alternative courts must not contradict or interfere with the administration, application, or exercise of state and federal constitutional law, and either party has the right to immediate redress in the civil secular court system for enforcement of those rights.  These proposed legal guidelines do not prohibit the use of other religious laws — only sharia law.

In a recent Florida Jewish newspaper article, the publisher emeritus made an argument in defense of sharia courts in America based on the existence of other religious courts.  He believes that sharia law is constitutionally compatible, just like Halakhah and Canon Law and is more economical, and that banning it is simply unconstitutional, discriminating against one religious group over others.

This position is substantiated by comparing sharia law to Jewish law, noting the similarity of the two.  But this editor falls short in his argument by avoiding a comparison of the serious differences that exist in the laws of the Quran, which sharia legislates.  Like others espousing this position, the editor presents an incomplete picture and uses it to belittle those who take an opposing viewpoint.  It is most important to include the inequalities inherent in Islamic law in any discussion of this nature because they expose the unconstitutionality and incompatibility of sharia law within the American justice system.

American citizens must be allowed to question, without being called “Islamophobes” or “bigots,” the inherent threat of Islamic sharia ideology, disguised as only religious law, before it endangers our American society.  The political correctness of this constitutional argument actually blinds one to the dangers of some Islamic laws…specifically those that pertain to women and children and the punishments rendered for breaking these laws.  It is clearly the dissimilarities that distinguish other religious laws from the unconstitutionality of sharia laws.

Opponents to SB 1360 offered as proof of the wisdom of their position that religious laws are already being used in local civil courts in determining judgments regarding family matters, dietary requirements, and business disagreements…and they point out that nothing disastrous has happened.  The guidelines applied to these decisions are in line with, and enforceable by, the American court system.  But it is also necessary that both parties agree to participate in a religious court rather than a secular court and that they both agree that the decision of the arbitrator is binding.

On the face of this, as the editor pointed out, is there is nothing “sinister” about religious courts settling family, dietary, and financial disputes, especially with this practice already having gone on for years in arbitration courts.  Some even wonder why anyone would question our Constitution’s and appellate courts’ ability to prevent the impact by Islamism in America.

The “sinister” fact is that Islamic ideology makes Muslim women and children powerless, intimidated by the obscene rules of a male-dominated society.  Sharia law requires women to present practically impossible proof of their innocence, such as eyewitnesses to being raped.  A woman who seeks justice for this crime, files for divorce, or desires child custody, or a child that strays into Western ways, has hardly any means to win in a sharia court.

In addition, the Islamic laws prescribe cruel and inhuman punishments that the American people would understand and agree to be inhumane and unconstitutional.  These penalties usually pertain to sexual matters, stealing, alcohol consumption, and apostasy and include punishments that are retaliatory in nature.

Caning and flogging in public are done in cases where a female is found guilty of a minor sexual infraction, and stoning to death for a wife’s adultery is common in the Muslim world.  Amputation of a hand or foot is considered an appropriate price for thievery, while beheading, crucifying, and hanging are the recommended penalties for murder or blasphemy.  Children can also be harshly treated under sharia law by being forced to remain in the custody of an abusive father after there is a divorce.

Killing in the name of “family honor” is an accepted form of Islamic punishment for a woman’s unfaithfulness or a Muslim child straying too far from the Islamic way.  To believe that Muslim women who seek justice in America are willingly agreeing to sharia courts is absolute blindness.

One has to wonder how anybody, whether liberal or conservative, religious or not, can support such treatment of more than half of the Muslim population (23% of the global population is Muslim) and condemn those of us fighting this unjust ideology entering our court system.  It seems that all that is heard is how victimized Muslims are, especially after 9/11, and we know how well Americans can identify with the so-called underdog.  (The facts show that religious persecution of Muslims is extremely small when compared to the global growth of anti-Semitism and the Islamic persecution of Coptic Christians.)

It is also important to add to the information the Muslim Brotherhood’s credo, which clearly presents the Quran as the supreme word of Allah, above all other laws: “Allah is our goal, the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way and death for the sake of Allah is the highest aspiration.”

This mission statement was written back in the late 1920s by the fastest-growing political organization in the Muslim world today.  It demands that the U.S. Constitution take a back seat to the Quran, which rejects America’s constitutional secularism and its legal penalties, while Halakhah and Canon law do not.

The evidence of extreme female and child subjugation in Islamic sharia law should be enough to justify strong American non-partisan support in favor of banning sharia courts without jeopardizing the other religious courts’ status.  Those religious leaders fearing that Halakhah or Canon laws are threatened by banning sharia law need only to take a look at the inherent unconstitutionality of sharia laws before condemning the proposed legislation.