Tag Archives: Sharia

Facebook cowers and complies with sharia Law

Facebook has become the dominant force in the distribution of news in the United States, making it powerful beyond the dreams of Edward Bernays. If Facebook determines that a source of news is to be shunned, the results can be catastrophic, effectively silencing the voice involved just as surely as cutting off the loudspeakers at a large rally would silence a speaker. That makes dispatch from The Gulf Today, which seems to have been ignored by our media, very disturbing:

ISLAMABAD: The Facebook management has assured Pakistan that it will remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism.

The commitment was given by Vice President of Facebook Joel Kaplan who called on Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan on Saturday. (snip)

The interior minister, the spokesperson said, has been playing a proactive role in engaging the internet service providers and finding solution to the issue of misuse of social media.

This also included convening of a special meeting of the ambassadors of the Muslim countries in March on a single-point agenda to discuss blasphemous content on social media and how to effectively raise voice of the entire Muslim world against the madness unleashed against Islam and holy personalities in the name of freedom of expression.

“Blasphemous content” means anything remotely critical or questioning of Islam, Mohammed, or any of its doctrines.  Sharia forbids it on penalty of death.  Even among Muslims, accusations can fly of blasphemy for even implyhing something negative, and the holier-than-thou crowd can always resort to violence because holy violence is sanctified in Isalm. “Turn the other cheek” plays no role at all in Shaira-compliant zones:

“Nothing is more sacred to us than our religion and our holy personalities,” the minister observed.

He said that the government of Pakistan firmly believes in freedom of expression but cannot allow anyone to misuse social media for hurting religious sentiments or undertaking unlawful activities.

Nisar said that Pakistan appreciates the understanding shown by the Facebook administration and the cooperation being extended on these issues.

These sahria-compliant policies are not new at Facebook, and they have already taken a toll on freedom of speech.  As Pamela Geller knows all too well:

My feed is blocked from my millions of followers on Facebook, and I have seen my circulation drop precipitously in the past three months. For news publishers, Facebook is the motherboard of link traffic. No news site can survive without them. None of us are immune, which is why my traffic is down upwards of 70% since the block. My Facebook page has a million followers; add my organizations to that, and it is roughly 1.5 million people. Now imagine their sharing capability, and their friends and their friends — you get the picture. It’s how we fight fake news. All of my FB followers experience similar issues with their posts and shares. I receive scores of emails everyday from readers telling me of new blocks, bans and Facebook jail sentences. It’s why I am suing.

Why the block? Because under Islamic law, you cannot criticize Islam. Facebook adhering to the most extreme and brutal ideology on the face of the earth should trouble all of us, because Mark Zuckerberg has immense power. He controls the flow of information. He controls what you see and don’t see on Facebook. We did not give him the power to abridge our unalienable freedoms.

Pamela believes that the Sherman Antitrust Act ought to be used to break up Facebook. But because social networks require the broadest possible extent, I am not sure that breakup would work. The resulting half-networks would be crippled. How would users be allocated to one or another of the new networks resulting from the breakup, for instance? People would reconfigure their memberships anyway.

I would much prefer legislation that would require social media to censor only direct threats, making it illegal to delete content on any other basis. That threat is necessary to counter the pressure Facebook obviously faces from Muslim governments like Pakistan’s. Losing a billion-plus-strong market like the 57 Muslim countries is obviously undesirable for Facebook, so its management is responding to pressure.

The value of that market would have to be balanced against the value of markets like the United States that could stand up for free speech. By seeming to cave in to the demand that Isalm be the only subject that cannot be discussed openly and honestly, anywhere in the world, Facebook is in the process of handing the first global triumph of sharia, enforcing its ban on blasphemy.

German Muslim Politician Supports Introduction of Sharia Law in Europe

A politician has controversially voiced her backing for Sharia law being introduced in Europe, calling it “absolutely comparable” with current legislation.

Absolutely comparable in what way exactly? Sharia demands that married individuals who cheat be stoned to death. To me, that doesn’t seem very compatible with Germany law. After all, Germany has actually abolished the death penalty.

And how about the Sharia-prescribed punishment for theft — cutting off the thief’s hands? I’m all for a zero-tolerance policy, but modern European governments do not have the right to cause bodily harm to suspects (or convicted criminals, for that matter).

Another issue: rape. When a woman says she has been raped, Sharia demands she finds a couple of witnesses who can corroborate her story. If she doesn’t find such witnesses, she can be put on trial herself, resulting in a very serious punishment.

The State Secretary for the Berlin government, Sawsan Chebli, defended Islamic law saying it can exist alongside Germany’s Basic Law because it “largely regulates the relationship between God and man.”

That, too, is simply not true. Sharia law is “divine” according to fundamentalist Muslims — that is correct. But that doesn’t mean it mostly focuses on the relationship between God and man. In fact, it focuses quite a bit on man’s relationship with… man. Either Mrs. Chebli doesn’t know what she’s talking about, or she’s lying through her teeth. In either case, she clearly is unfit for her role in Berlin’s local government (seriously, she’s actually state secretary? What a joke).

The above is bad enough, but Chebli was just getting started.

She also said that Germans should stop criticizing Muslim women who wear headscarves, arguing that it’s a “religious duty” for them. Other than that, there’s nothing to it. Sounds very reasonable, but it certainly does matter whether or not a Muslim woman wears one. Those who do are generally very conservative and, therefore, not exactly well-adjusted to European culture and values. Those who don’t tend be more Western-minded.

Well, perhaps that’s not always the case. You see, Mrs. Chebli doesn’t actually wear a headscarf herself. That’s right: she’s all for Sharia and for her fellow Muslim women covering up in public, but she doesn’t do so herself. Perhaps someone could explain to Mrs. Political Correctness that, if Sharia were to be introduced, she would be among its first victims.

Thankfully, not even members of Mrs. Chebli’s own Social Democrat party (SDP) support her outrageous remarks. Erol Özkaraca, a Turkish-German politician, responded with disbelief:

Chebli is one of the comrades who wants to build a bridge to Islamist societies. This is absolutely wrong. It is fatal.

Note the distinction Özkaraca makes between Islamic societies (in other words, societies in which the majority religion is Islam) and Islamist societies (in which Sharia is the law of the land): You can be a Muslim and modern at the same time. However, nobody can combine Western enlightenment values with Islamism. Chebli is apparently all too willing to sacrifice the former in favor of the latter.

The good news is that I’m convinced that the German people aren’t willing to let Chebli and her ilk get away with their anti-German Islamism. In fact, if recent polls are to be believed, the immigration hawks of Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany) are already quickly gaining ground. Every time an undercover Islamist like Mrs. Chebli opens her mouth, the party undoubtedly receives thousands of extra votes — or perhaps even more.

Pay attention to what’s happening in Germany. The elections will be held sometime between August 27 and October 22, 2017. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU is losing ground in the polls while the AfD is surging. The more that people like Chebli open their mouths, the bigger the AfD will become.

Yes, Germany’s very own populist revolution coming up… just like in the Netherlands.

51% of U.S. Muslims would trade Constitution for Shariah

Ben Carson’s comment that he would not support a Shariah-compliant Muslim for president because Islamic law is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution led to the former brain surgeon’s roasting among media talkers and politicians of all stripes.

He has been excoriated as “anti-Muslim,” “bigoted,” even “anti-American” and unfit for office.

“For any candidate to suggest that someone should not be elected president because of what he or she may believe is nothing short of religious bigotry,” said Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., one of two Muslim congressmen.

But what do American Muslims believe?

The Council on America-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has been most vocal in its calls for Carson’s withdrawal from the GOP presidential race, claims to speak for American Muslims. The organization has a long history of ties to terrorists, as documented by WND’s “Rogues gallery of terror-tied leaders,” but it is still treated by most U.S. media as the Muslim equivalent of the American Civil Liberties Union.

According to a local newspaper report, Omar Ahmad, a founder of CAIR, told a conference hall packed with California Muslims in July 1998 that Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.

The reporter paraphrased Ahmad saying, “The Quran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

When CAIR issued a statement in 2003 denying Ahmad made the remarks and claiming the paper had issued a retraction, WND News Editor Art Moore talked to the reporter and two of her editors and found that they stood by the story. Moore then spoke with CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, who repeated the claim that the paper had issued a retraction. When Moore informed Hooper that the reporter and the editors stood by the story, the CAIR communications director ended the call. But he called back a few minutes later saying he wanted to amend CAIR’s statement to say that the Muslim organization was seeking a retraction. Three years later, however, when the issue came up again, CAIR still had not contacted the paper.

On April 4, 1993, Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Hooper appeared on Michael Medved’s radio show in October 2003 and stated: “If Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims believe that God’s law is superior to man-made law.”

In May 2015, WND reported that an informal survey of Somali-American Muslims on the streets of Minneapolis showed widespread support for Islamic law as preferable to U.S. law.


Other CAIR leaders also “express their contempt for the United States,” reports Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes.

Ihsan Bagby of CAIR’s Washington office has said that Muslims “can never be full citizens of this country,” referring to the United States, “because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country,” Pipes reported in his 2006 article, “CAIR Islamists Fooling the Government.”

Pipes also noted that Parvez Ahmed, who followed Ahmad as CAIR chairman, touted the virtues of Islamic democracy in 2004 by portraying the Afghan constitutional process as superior to the U.S. Constitution. Ahmed was quoted in the Orlando Sentinel as saying:

“The new Afghan constitution shows that the constitution of a Muslim nation can be democratic and yet not contradict the essence of Islam. During my meeting with a high-ranking Afghan delegation during their recent visit to the United States, I was told that the Afghan constitutional convention included Hindu delegates despite Hindus accounting for only 1 percent of the population. Contrast this with our own constitutional convention that excluded women and blacks.”

51 percent of U.S. Muslims prefer Shariah

There are now an estimated 3 million Muslims residing in the United States as citizens or with permanent legal status, and more than 250,000 new Muslim residents enter the U.S. per year as refugees, on work visas and student-based visas, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

A poll commissioned in May 2015 by the Center for Security Policy showed that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred that they should have their own Shariah courts outside of the legal system ruled by the U.S. Constitution. And nearly a quarter believed the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing Shariah.

“That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that Shariah is ‘The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad,'” writes Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy.

SPLC says ‘no worries’

Along with CAIR is another organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which makes great strides to assure the American people that Islamic law, or Shariah, is not something they should be concerned about.

In its online document titled “Teaching Tolerance: What is the Truth About American Muslims,” the SPLC says Shariah is essentially no different than any other religious code of conduct and compares it to Judaism and Christianity.

SPLC asks: “Do American Muslims want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia?” And then provides the following answer:

“No. American Muslims overwhelmingly support the U.S. Constitution and do not seek to replace it with Sharia or Islamic law. The vast majority of American Muslims understand Sharia as a personal, religious obligation governing the practice of their faith, not as something American governments should enforce.”

The American Catholic magazine delved into the issue in 2010 when it asked, “Is Sharia compatible with the U.S. Constitution?”

“The simple answer is of course, ‘no,'” the magazine stated and then listed 13 reasons why.

Number 4 on the list stated: “Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.”

What do Muslim scholars say about ‘democracy’?

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni Muslim cleric and head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, is quoted in “The Islamization of the West” by Patrick Sookhdeo, as saying:

“Islam entered Europe twice and left it. … Perhaps the next conquest, Allah willing, will be by means of preaching and ideology. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. … Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects.”

Well-known British Islamist Anjem Choudary spoke similarly in a February 2010 interview with Iran’s Press TV when he stated:

“Our objectives are to invite the societies in which we live to think about Islam as an alternative way of life … and ultimately, as well, to establish the Shariah on state level.”

William Wagner, writing for the Family Research Council, addressed the issue now magnified by Carson in his article, “Islam, Shariah Law, and the American Constitution.”

“With the patient planting of new enclaves, the process of establishing the parallel society and political system has begun. Those behind this process seem willing to master an understanding of the occupied country’s government and legal system, systematically dismantling it while building the framework for an Islamic theocracy as its replacement. Such a replacement, when complete, dogmatically declares a different kind of absolute than the self-evident Truths, which undergird the American Constitution.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/poll-most-u-s-muslims-would-trade-constitution-for-shariah/#T06ChwSYCQOI7AHU.99