In this episode I dedicate the entire Podcast to Islam and the real stated goal of the religion of peace to spread Sharia throughout the world. I discuss the misconception the West has regarding the meaning of peace. Peace has a completely different meaning to us than it does to Muslims. It’s important that we learn this. And I discuss the Obama administration and its seemingly strange relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. But is it really so strange.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
I’ve written dozens of articles and broadcast many podcasts on the topic of Islam. For those who have read and listened to mine and others, you can be sure you are far better informed on the subject than virtually all other non-Muslims throughout the world.
We’ve learned about the Five Pillars of Islam, the prophet Muhammad, Sharia, the Caliphate, the Mahdi (the Twelfth Imam) and jihad. We understand by listening to well-known Islamists such as Anjem Choudary that Muhammad had prophesized that Islam “will one day dominate the whole world, such as that Allah (SWT) showed him the east and the west and the authority of the Ummah (Muslims) was over the whole of it, i.e. over the whole world including the USA, Russia, China, India etc.” We know this is not idle propaganda – they really believe this to be true and are battling everyday to achieve it.
Islamists like Choudary preach that “Muslims must believe in and try to realize through their daw’ah (propagation of Islam) and through the establishment of the Khilafah (the Islamic State) whose foreign policy will be jihad to remove all obstacles in the way of the implementation of Islam (i.e. the sharia) everywhere – that a Muslim must not obey, submit or follow anyone or anything other than Allah in his life. This means that democracy is anathema to Islam…”
Knowing all these things, one can only conclude, by their own words, that Western democracy is utterly incompatible with Islam. Whether they are radical Islamists like ISIS and al-Qaeda, who attempt to conquer by force, or supposedly non-violent groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut Tahrir, who seek to conquer the West by way of Civilization Jihad, the end is still the same – the replacement of democracy and republicanism with theocracy.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Imagine this scenario. A husband-and-wife are married in the Catholic Church. The wife gets pregnant. They have a falling out and get divorced. The now ex-wife wishes to have an abortion but her ex-husband wishes her to have the baby.
Putting aside our views on murder abortion, the husband decides to challenge her decision. Rather than take her to civil court, he and she go before a Catholic tribunal. The tribunal rules that the woman must carry the baby to term and upon the baby’s birth relinquish he/she to the father who will have full custody.
The woman doesn’t stand for this ruling and takes the matter to her state court, but the state court upholds the Catholic ruling.
Now how many liberal organizations would have a cow over this? Naturally all of them. And might the Obama justice system inject themselves into this case? You bet they would.
Surprise. I would agree with the libs. This case should be decided in state court and a tribunal ruling should have no bearing on its outcome. Why? Because there is no place in this country for a parallel judicial system.
Yet with the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood and our overwhelming political correctness, how long will it be before Sharia law becomes that parallel system?
Another surprise. It’s already here, in a manner of speaking. Liberal judges are and have been deferring to Sharia law for years when adjudicating cases.
You may ask how prevalent it is, or more to the point, just how bad it could get?
Well, whenever you wish to predict the future, one merely has to find a similar situation that has already occurred and walk it back. Knowing that liberals and progressives follow the same patterns no matter where or when they reside, you can, with a fair amount of certainty, predict our future.
Political correctness coupled with fear is strangling Europe. As bad as it is here, it’s much worse in European countries. Predictably, France is at the politically correct forefront.
To date there are over 750 “No-Go Zones” in French cities, containing over 5 million Muslims. What’s a No-Go Zone? The PC name for it is “Sensitive Urban Zone”. Ah, that sounds nice, does it not?
What they are is whole swaths of a city where French law enforcement has virtually no presence. It’s a separate country within the city. These areas are controlled by Muslims and the law they follow is Sharia, not French. These neighborhoods erect mosques to further radicalize their population, all financed by governments such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In other words, the Muslim brotherhood.
Oops. Not all the financing comes from Middle East. A lot comes from public assistance provided by the liberal French government. Assistance such as welfare benefits, etc., similar to those provided to Tamerlin Tsarnaev in Boston.
And it’s not just France. This is happening all over Europe. Even Germany has a growing number of court cases where judges defer to Islamic Sharia law. Islamic “Shadow Courts” operate in every major German city.
So if we wish to see our future, whether it be our swift march to socialism and all the joy it creates, or the rise of Sharia, we have only to look across the pond.
The latest issue of the Islamic Horizons magazine of the Islamic Society of North America, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, has an article with an interesting message: The U.S could learn from Islamic law if it weren’t for the “Islamophobes” bashing Sharia.
The theme of the article is that “Islamophobes” are twisting the meaning of Sharia, and it is up to Muslim-Americans to set the record straight. In a game of semantics reminiscent of the campaign to get the media to stop using the word “Islamist” and the “My Jihad” campaign, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is now turning to the words “Sharia” and “fiqh.”
The article argues that critics are actually talking about siyasa, or Islamic administration. Sharia is “divine” and fiqh is Islamic legal rulings. Yet what the article doesn’t explain is that Siyasa is fiqh and fiqh is part of Sharia.
Once readers are told that these are threeCover of the May/June 2013 Issue of Islamic Horizons Magazine separate things, they are open to their redefining. Most importantly, fiqh is framed as a system of jurisprudence superior to the West. This fits into the theme of ISNA’s parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood, that Islam is not just a faith but an alternative civilization.
Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Brotherhood, once said, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”
Recently the left has tried to advance the notion that there is a war on women being waged by the Republican Party and members of the right.
It turns out that this got very little traction and has all but fizzled out. The left may try to resurrect it as the general election heats up, but I doubt it will achieve any traction or be a deciding factor in the election one way or the other.
I speak, of course, of Islam and countries that use Sharia as the law of the land.
In Islamic society, a woman or girl is subjugated to, at best, a second-class citizen, or more appropriately, enslaved.
In Islam, marriage for the woman is not a happy experience.
In Islam, the wife is a slave to her husband. The Islamic traditions stress that a woman should obey her husband’s commands. The Quran gives a man complete authority in marriage: “Men stand superior to women” (Q 4.34).
In addition to absolute obedience, a woman should revere her husband because Islam teaches that, “If a woman knew the right of a husband, she would not sit at his lunch and supper time until he finishes.” One time, a woman came to the Prophet of Islam to ask about her obligations to her husband. He said, “If he had pus from his hair part to his foot (from head to toe) and you licked him, you would not have shown him enough gratitude.”
The Quran gives the husband the right to punish his wife if she goes outside the parameters that he draws for her. It provides men with instructions: “But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed chambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then you do not seek a way against them.” (Q 4.34).
In reading the verse above one will notice that these instructions were given to the husband concerning a wife whom he only fears disloyalty, not a wife that actually committed a disloyal act.
At the beginning of marriage, the husband reminds his wife about the rights that are given to him by Sharia Law. He can say to her, “Fear Allah! I have rights due to me from you. Repent from what you’re doing. Know that obedience to me is one of your obligations.” If the wife refuses to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband, that he should remind her of his rights over her body.
According to Islamic teaching, if the wife remains “disobedient”, her husband should ignore her. This means he abstains from sexual intercourse with her as part of this phase of the punishment.
The word hajr is interpreted to mean, “to refuse to share their beds”. The word hajr actually has several meanings. One of these meanings indicates the hajr of the camel when the owner binds the animal with a hijar, or rope. This rather disturbing interpretation means that the term used in Q 4.34, “refuse to share their beds”, can actually mean to bind the wife and force her to have sexual intercourse.
The Quranic principle of a man’s right to a woman’s body is not open for discussion. Regardless of her psychological or physical state, she has to obey the man’s command to lie in bed and have sexual relations with him.
The prophet of Islam repeatedly made statements advocating this view:
“If a man calls his woman to his bed, and she does not come, and then he goes to bed angry at her, the Angels will curse her until the morning.”
If the previous methods, including instruction and verbal abuse, failed to correct a wife’s behavior, then the husband is given the right to beat his wife. Even though verse Q 4.34 does not specify the mode or limit of the beating, it is believed that the prophet of Islam but a condition on the beating, classifying it as “not excessive”.
When interpreting the phrase “not excessive beating”, Islamic scholars offer the following guidelines:
Avoid hitting the wife’s face. Do not break any of the wife’s bones. Use nonfatal implements or physical force, such as the use of al-siwak (a twig of the Salvadora persica tree), or shoelaces, etc. and the use of the hand (hitting, slapping, punching the neck and chest, etc.).
The wife may receive a beating for any behavior that incites the anger of her husband or for every act that her husband does not like. Current Islamic literature supports the legitimacy of beating and its benefits for “upbringing”.
The abuse of women under Sharia law extends not only to wives but to all females, regardless of age.
Most are forbidden to work or leave the house without a male escort. They are not allowed to seek medical attention from a male doctor and are forced to cover themselves head to toe, even covering their eyes.
It has been widely publicized in Saudi Arabia, which is most Sharia adherent, that women are not allowed to drive, which is rather immaterial, since, for the most part, they are not allowed to leave the house.
Child marriages are quite common as is giving away girls for simple dispute resolution. Forced isolation in the home, exchange marriage and honor killings are also part of Sharia.
In Afghanistan a number of women have been known to set themselves on fire because they cannot bear their lives. Between 60 and 80% of all marriages in Afghanistan are forced as many as 57% of girls are married off below the age of 16, some as young as six. Girls are a commodity and marriage is essentially just a financial transaction.
Sharia law allows polygamy and only men can acquire easy divorce. Under Sharia, the marriage contract actually has three spaces to be filled in by the groom, with the names and addresses of additional wives should he have any.
The penalty for a woman’s extramarital sexual indiscretion is death by stoning or beheading. Rape is a crime under Sharia law, but the criminal and guilty party is always the female, regardless of age or circumstance.
Saudi women are denied the right to make even the most trivial decisions for their children and are not permitted to travel without permission from the child’s father.
So the next time you encounter a woman complaining that she can’t afford her contraception or bellyaching over some supposed “glass ceiling”, remind her how blessed she is to be born and raised in this country, where she has the same rights as everyone else.
Attribution: AL FADI