BEFORE we proceed, let’s clear up the following whining and opining from Islamists and leftists: since Jews are allowed to arbitrate certain cases via a Rabbinical Bet Din, surely Muslims should have the same right, if they want to utilize their religious court option ala Shariah law, agreed? A fair question, but only if one is ignorant of the major underlying distinctions between the two, or if the questioner is malevolent in intent. That’s a mouthful, but no less true.
IN the main, the Bet Din … בית דין … handles commercial, communal and matrimonial conflicts, but its renderings can never violate the nation’s laws. Not only that, but the purpose of said adjudication is solely for Jewish litigants. On the other hand, Shariah law, while utilized by Muslims, is designed to (eventually) supplant the (western) laws of the land, to impose its basis upon all citizens, like it or not!
IF you really want to understand what’s what, one must listen to well known hooked up Islamic leaders, as discomfiting as it is. They pull no punches, yet, are Americans, westerners at large, paying attention?
On the Ben Shapiro Show Thursday, Imam Anjem Choudary said the President Obama is “inventing” his own version of Islam to forward his foreign policy agenda and that the “radical” form Choudary espouses simply aligns with the principles of the Koran and Sharia Law.
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.
Shapiro then asked Choudary to discuss the Muslim view on the freedom of expression, specifically with regard to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Choudary explained that Muslim scripture made clear that those who insult the Prophet, like journalists at Charlie Hebdo, must be punished: “Those who would insult the Prophet, kill them.” Sharia Law he said, clearly requires any who would insult those Muslims deem “prophets,” including Moses and Jesus, be tried in court and punished. This a system, he added, that Muslims are willing to “fight for and even die for.”
When Shapiro asked him if he believed that Western governments should ban the blasphemy of Mohammed, Choudary said he wanted Sharia Law in its entirety to be imposed on Western governments because it was a “better” system. However, if that were not possible, laws should be put in place against “provoking Muslims.” As he stressed in his article, Choudary said that killings like those Wednesday are “the consequence of insulting the Prophet.”
Pointing to the incompatibility of the Western and Sharia systems, Shapiro asked Choudary why the West should allow people like him to live in their boundaries. Choudary said he was born in England so he had the right to live there, and that “people always change” and “change is good,” so he believed that it was time for the West to change.
Choudary: The difference between divine law and man-made law—in other words liberal democracy and [inaudible] moralities and liberties—is that divine law can’t be changed. We can’t change the Koran, we can’t change the sayings of the Prophet, which include insulting the Prophet and the consequences. But you can change your laws…
If the West’s laws are not change, he warned, we’ll have a “blood bath.”
Choudary argued that what we’re witnessing is a “clash of two civilizations,” with al-Baghdadi leading on one side and Barack Obama leading on the other, leading Shapiro to ask about Obama’s portrayal of Islam:
Shapiro: President Obama has repeatedly attempted to what he has characterized as “defend” Islam, saying that ISIS is not Islamic. He has said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” […] But the way he characterizes Islam is not the way you characterize Islam […] How many people do you represent versus how many people does President Obama represent when it comes to Islam? Are you in fact representative of a “tiny minority” within Islam or are you representative of something larger?
President Obama, Choudary said, is “lying” about Islam, along with other Western leaders. The Koran itself shows that “Barack Obama is a liar” about the religion’s true nature:
Choudary: Islam for them is whatever they think Islam is in terms of their own interests. Islam is in accordance to the Koran, of the sayings and actions of the Prophet. That’s it. […] I say to you, look at the Koran, look at the sayings of the Prophet, and check for yourself. Is Barack Obama a liar or am I lying? I think that you will find that he’s a liar. He’s only inventing Islam according to what his own foreign policy is.
Shapiro asked Choudary if he took offense to being called a “radical” by the Western media, to which he responded that in Scripture “every prophet of Islam was demonized,” adding that he simply teaches Sharia Law as it truly is.
YUP, you gotta give Choudary props for telling the truth! Always on (Islamic) message. In fact, he has been front and center within counter terrorism analyses for some time.
IN this regard, those who are truly aghast at their bloodletting must understand that it makes no diff to them if they decapitate, burn alive, etc. in the Mid East, in any city USA or another western locale. The point being, when they reach a certain critical mass (via the activation of sleeper cells, be they ISIS, Hezbollah, or other Sunni branches all over America) it will ensure their deadly swathe.
YET if more evidence is required re the barbarism within Shariah law, this week’s burning of the Jordanian pilot is a prime example. It is explained by an acclaimed scholar of Islam, Dr. Mordechai Kedar:
Islamic State publicized a horrifying twenty minutevideo this week, the high point of which was the execution of a Jordanian pilot, Maaz al-Kassasbeh, by burning him alive. The film attempts to justify the punishment by describing Jordan’s part in the war against ISIS, using photos of ISIS dead, including women, children, men and mainly those burned to death.
The rest of the film has the pilot describing the involvement of the air forces of Jordan, United Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco and United States and notes that American planes take off from Turkish bases.
The film is edited professionally and includes impressive sound and visual effects that attest to the talents and abilities of its editors. Many minutes are spent showing a silent visit the Jordanian pilot makes to the ruins of a large building, which seems to be the staff headquarters of ISIS that was hit by the coalition’s airplanes, possibly even the plane flown by the Jordanian himself.
Anyone who attacks Islamic State will be condemned to Hell on earth – and if he is unsure about how Hell looks and about what happens to the wicked there, he now has a movie that answers both questions.
The entire film is meant to justify the scene that is shown near its end: the burning alive of the Jordanian pilot. The event is carefully staged: the pilot is put in an iron cage so that he has no chance of escaping the fire, and the orange clothes which he wears throughout the film are soaked in gasoline. Even the sand under the cage is full of gasoline and a rivulet of gasoline-soaked sand reaches the spot where a soldier stands carrying a stick to which a gasoline-soaked rag is attached. Another soldier lights the rag, it sets the rivulet on fire, the flames advance towards the cage and set the gasoline under the pilot’s feet ablaze and after the pilot dies in excruciating agony, a bulldozer arrives and covers the cage with rocks.
What the film presents is nothing new to anyone who is familiar with Islamic sources, those that tell about how Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin of Muhammed who married his daughter Fatma and became the fourth Caliph, burned two heretics to death. There is a dispute among Islamic religious figures about whether that is allowed, opponents claiming that only God is licensed to condemn heretics to the flames – that is, to burn in Hell. Islamic State – which sees itself as the force that will reestablish the original Islamic State – uses Ali’s precedent on the burning of enemies, and allows punishment by fire on earth.
This point is extremely important to those in charge of the ISIS propaganda machine: the message the film conveys is that anyone who attacks Islamic State will be condemned to a living Hell – and if he is unsure about how Hell looks and about what happens to the wicked there, he now has a movie that answers both questions. Just for comparison’s sake: several months ago, the web was full of ISIS fighters talking about Yazidi girls that they were going to have their way with, and that, too, was a clear message: that is, instead of waiting for 72 virgins, whoever joins ISIS gets to enjoy Paradise on earth.
Another reason for burning the pilot to death is the Islamic legal principle of mutuality – the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of the Jordanian pilot the video takes pains to show ISIS victims, including children, burned in coalition attacks. Ths presentation of burned victims is meant to justify the method by which the pilot is executed, based on the mutuality principle.
|The vast majority of people who identify with Islam in America do not adhere to Sharia law 100 percent as Islam dictates. They are essentially Apostates of Islam. There are thousands, if not millions, of Muslims who assimilate into the American culture by going to our colleges, obtaining legitimate employment, and swearing by the U.S. Constitution just to avoid scrutiny by the U.S. intelligence organizations. They are known as “Sleeper Cells.” When the timing is right, they will openly support physical Jihad operations against America and Israel. Our “Mapping Sharia” study shows that 75 plus percent of the mosques and Islamic centers in America have materials calling for hate and violence against non-Muslims and their respective governments.|
AND not to get off topic, but is it any wonder that the Islamist-in-Chief is pushing for Shariah law, refusing to identify Islam with terror, regardless of the carnage? Well, stop wondering: he condemned violence committed by ISIS and other Islamic militant groups and called for a “push” against those who “try to distort our religion.”
AIN’T that special…once again via “my Muslim Faith”, he outed himself!
SO what’s to be done? Well, take a page out of the following (Mississippi) lawmaker’s playbook, even though a preponderance are deaf, dumb and blind:
AMERICANS (westerners) must fully internalize that the Islamic barbarism rampaging across the world is sanctioned under Shariah law. Forget about all the lies that ISIS (and every other Islamic-based hydra) is against Islam’s laws! The decapitations, and everything in between, are “Pure Islam”. Simple as that. Horrific.
AS a visual (mind’s eye) foretaste, just imagine what will happen to the “face” of America, if Shariah law becomes the law of the land, whether actually enshrined on the books or via practical application, as FULLY implemented already in Dearborn, Michigan! Did you realize that?
MIND you, this “lovely” young jihadi feels secure enough, an untouchable, to display her support for Hamas/Islamic jihad by screaming Allahu Akbar, as well as outfitting herself in Allah’s warrior garb at UC Davis!
PATRIOTS, please listen up: this jihadi-in-training is not dabbling in face paint, as a youthful rebellious streak or sorority hi-jinx. Not at all. She is portraying her true colors – PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE to Islamic jihad – and is just one aspiring Islamist among countless, all across America. She is DEADLY serious.