Category Archives: Sharia

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.

Shocking Polls Show What U.S. Muslims Think of U.S. Laws

Islam 0


As July 4 approaches, new polling data reveal non-Muslim Americans are increasingly cognizant of the threat Sharia — Islam’s totalitarian religio-political “law” — poses to their basic liberties. Overwhelmingly, they reject its encroachment in the United States.

But polling data also reveal that an ominous, growing proportion of American Muslims wish to impose Sharia on America.

Opinion Savvy polled a random sample of 803 registered voters — 98.2% non-Muslim, and 1.8% Muslim (with age, race, gender, political affiliation, and region propensity score-weighted to reduce biases) — from June 19 to June 20, 2016. They asked:

Do you believe that the United States government should screen, or actively identify individuals entering the United States who support Sharia law?
Seventy-one percent affirmed:

Yes, supporters of Sharia should be identified before they are admitted into the US.
The group answering “yes” was then asked:

Once identified, do you believe that individuals who support the practice of Sharia law should be admitted into the United States?
Eighty percent responded:

No, supporters of Sharia should not be admitted into the US.
The next query, which addressed only foreign visitors, elicited an even more emphatic demand for fidelity to bedrock First Amendment principles. It asked:

Do you believe that the United States government should require all foreign individuals entering the United States to affirm that they will uphold the principles of the constitution, such as freedom of religion and speech, above all personal ideologies for the duration of their stay in the country?
Seventy-eight percent insisted:

Yes, visitors to the US should be required to agree to uphold the constitution, regardless of their personal ideology, as a condition of their visit.
The unblinkered assessment of Sharia validates its broadly shared rejection by non-Muslim Americans, but also illustrates how increased U.S. Muslim Sharia support represents a dangerous trend.

Time Is Running Out for American Muslims
The Sharia, Islam’s canon law, is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith” — the traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community — and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists. Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.,” within Western European Christendom.

Sharia is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Here are some liberty-crushing, dehumanizing Sharia sanctions: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

Compounding these fundamental freedom- and dignity-abrogating iniquities, “matters of procedure” under Islamic law are antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law. “Evidentiary proof” is non-existent by Western legal standards, and the Sharia doctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”) grants wide latitude to the ruling elites — rendering permissible arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects. Clearly, Sharia “standards” are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

From October 22 to October 26, 2012, Wenzel Strategies polled 600 U.S. Muslims of high socio-economic status. They were asked:

Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?
Regarding this most fundamental U.S. right, 58% replied “no.” Only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious or any other dogma.

Indeed, oblivious to U.S. constitutional law as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed with the following:

[T]hose who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges.
Only 38% did not; 17% were “unsure.”

Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the U.S. code, answering affirmatively that:

Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.
In June of 2015, data from a survey of another 600 U.S. Muslims conducted by the respected political pollster Kellyanne Conway revealed:

51% … agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharia.
Perhaps most frightening, 25% of those polled agreed:

[V]iolence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.
Why is Sharia supremacism — which is diametrically opposed to U.S. Constitutional law — so alarmingly prevalent among U.S. Muslims? The inescapable conclusion, validated in Senate Judiciary Committee testimony this week by Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney, is that mainstream institutional Islam within the U.S. inculcates this liberty-crushing mentality.

Haney’s presentation mentioned in passing the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, (AMJA). Well-accepted by the broader American Muslim community, the Islamic scholars affiliated with AMJA have attained influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. AMJA scholars train American imams. They issue online “fatwas” — Islamic Sharia rulings — to guide individual Muslims. Should the mainstream AMJA accomplish its unabashed goal of implementing Sharia in North America, the organization has already issued a ruling which sanctions the killing of non-Muslim “blasphemers.”

Donald Trump’s rational call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, especially from hotbeds of violent Sharia supremacism, must be viewed gimlet-eyed bearing in mind irrefragable data capturing U.S. (here, here) and global Muslim attitudes, as well as the behavior of mainstream, institutional American Islam.

Muslims Attack People in England for Drinking Beer…?!?
Forty years ago, Husayn al-Quwatli — director general of Dar al-Ifta, the center of spiritual authority for the Sunni community of Lebanon, and author of the treatise Islam, the State, and Secularism (1975) — candidly elucidated the Muslim Sharia supremacist mindset which perhaps best validates Trump’s moratorium:

The position of Islam is very clear on one point, namely that the true Muslim cannot take a disinterested position vis-à-vis the state. As a result, his position with regard to ruler and rule cannot be an indecisive one which is content with half solutions.
Either the ruler is Muslim and the rule Islamic, then he will be content with the state and support it, or the ruler non-Muslim and the rule non-Islamic, then he rejects it, opposes it, and works to abolish it, gently or forcibly, openly or secretly.


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.”