Category 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.

Advertisements

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

BY ANDREW G. BOSTOM

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.

FACEBOOK2.05K TWITTERTW