Category Archives: Blog

Obama’s Muslim adviser criticizes Assad for not being able to deliver “resistance to Israel”

Obama selected Dalia Mogahed as an adviser on the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She is an open advocate of Sharia, so it’s no surprise that she supports the Syrian revolutionaries, who are the same as the other “Arab Spring” revolutionaries: pro-Sharia Islamic supremacists. But for her to characterize Assad as not being able to deliver on “resistance to Israel,” besides purveying the Palestinian jihadist canard of Israel aggression, also ignores the fact that Damascus was headquarters for Hamas and other jihad organizations, and Assad pursued a course of consistent hostility to Israel.

But not hostile enough for Obama adviser Dalia Mogahed.

UPDATE: from a7

A Muslim adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama warned in a post on the Twitter social networking site last week that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad can’t deliver ‘resistance to Israel.’ The adviser, Egyptian-born Dalia Mohaded, is employed in the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, at the White House.

The tweet, posted on March 10 and picked up by the media watchdog Jihadwatch, read as follows: “To those siding w/Assad: he cannot deliver stability, protection of minorities, or resistance to Israel. He is a killer w/o legitimacy.”

The tweet has sparked numerous responses in media, on the Internet and on Twitter reflecting concerns that Mohaded appeared to be more concerned about the Syrian president’s inability to carry out “resistance to Israel” — which is a key U.S. ally — than his compassion for his own people, and his murderous rampages against them.

More than 8,000 Syrians have died at the hands of government forces since the Arab Spring uprising a year ago sparked brutal retaliation by Assad loyalists against civilian protesters, including torture, rape and other atrocities. Many of the victims were women and children. Turkey has reported at least 14,000 refugees from Syria have crossed the border near Idlib into its territory; the United Nations estimates that more than 200,000 people have been left homeless by the burgeoning civil war in which Assad’s troops have fired heavy artillery at city neighborhoods in order to suppress the uprising.

The issue of Mogahed’s questionable priorities has also been raised by the Family Security Matters (FSM) organization, who noted that Mogahed serves on the U.S. Homeland Security Council, and is an executive at the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and its polling center.

“Mogahed has been a tenacious defender of groups like the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both of which are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood,” points out FSM in a post on the organization’s website.

CAIR was one of some 300 unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation conviction in which the organization was shut down for illegally channeling funds to the Hamas terrorist rulers of Gaza.

The organization insists that it is a civil rights group focused on promoting understanding of Islam and dedicated to fighting discriminating against Muslim Americans.

Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human Rights

By JanSuzanne Krasner

A controversy over the defeat of Florida legislation that would have restricted state courts from considering foreign laws as part of legal decisions has intensified.  This is after a Tampa judge ruled that two opposing Muslim parties have their dispute settled under Islamic sharia law “pursuant to the Quran” in spite of the fact that one Muslim group did not want to do this…and the Florida Appellate Court denied the petition to appeal the judge’s ruling.

The proposed law, SB 1360, had been opposed jointly and lobbied against by both CAIR and the ADL.  It drew the passionate attention of many in the Florida Jewish community, where opinions seem to be drawn on party lines.  These groups erroneously argue that this ban will actually put other religious laws in jeopardy as well, especially Jewish religious law, called Halakhah.

English: 11th Century North African Qur’an in ...

Abraham Foxman, Director of the ADL, claims that passage of the law would have been “harmful to the religious freedom of all Floridians, including observant Jews.”

He and others are seriously mistaken.  The defeated law and others proposed by several state legislators are meant to make it clear that disputes heard in religious alternative courts must not contradict or interfere with the administration, application, or exercise of state and federal constitutional law, and either party has the right to immediate redress in the civil secular court system for enforcement of those rights.  These proposed legal guidelines do not prohibit the use of other religious laws — only sharia law.

In a recent Florida Jewish newspaper article, the publisher emeritus made an argument in defense of sharia courts in America based on the existence of other religious courts.  He believes that sharia law is constitutionally compatible, just like Halakhah and Canon Law and is more economical, and that banning it is simply unconstitutional, discriminating against one religious group over others.

This position is substantiated by comparing sharia law to Jewish law, noting the similarity of the two.  But this editor falls short in his argument by avoiding a comparison of the serious differences that exist in the laws of the Quran, which sharia legislates.  Like others espousing this position, the editor presents an incomplete picture and uses it to belittle those who take an opposing viewpoint.  It is most important to include the inequalities inherent in Islamic law in any discussion of this nature because they expose the unconstitutionality and incompatibility of sharia law within the American justice system.

American citizens must be allowed to question, without being called “Islamophobes” or “bigots,” the inherent threat of Islamic sharia ideology, disguised as only religious law, before it endangers our American society.  The political correctness of this constitutional argument actually blinds one to the dangers of some Islamic laws…specifically those that pertain to women and children and the punishments rendered for breaking these laws.  It is clearly the dissimilarities that distinguish other religious laws from the unconstitutionality of sharia laws.

Opponents to SB 1360 offered as proof of the wisdom of their position that religious laws are already being used in local civil courts in determining judgments regarding family matters, dietary requirements, and business disagreements…and they point out that nothing disastrous has happened.  The guidelines applied to these decisions are in line with, and enforceable by, the American court system.  But it is also necessary that both parties agree to participate in a religious court rather than a secular court and that they both agree that the decision of the arbitrator is binding.

On the face of this, as the editor pointed out, is there is nothing “sinister” about religious courts settling family, dietary, and financial disputes, especially with this practice already having gone on for years in arbitration courts.  Some even wonder why anyone would question our Constitution’s and appellate courts’ ability to prevent the impact by Islamism in America.

The “sinister” fact is that Islamic ideology makes Muslim women and children powerless, intimidated by the obscene rules of a male-dominated society.  Sharia law requires women to present practically impossible proof of their innocence, such as eyewitnesses to being raped.  A woman who seeks justice for this crime, files for divorce, or desires child custody, or a child that strays into Western ways, has hardly any means to win in a sharia court.

In addition, the Islamic laws prescribe cruel and inhuman punishments that the American people would understand and agree to be inhumane and unconstitutional.  These penalties usually pertain to sexual matters, stealing, alcohol consumption, and apostasy and include punishments that are retaliatory in nature.

Caning and flogging in public are done in cases where a female is found guilty of a minor sexual infraction, and stoning to death for a wife’s adultery is common in the Muslim world.  Amputation of a hand or foot is considered an appropriate price for thievery, while beheading, crucifying, and hanging are the recommended penalties for murder or blasphemy.  Children can also be harshly treated under sharia law by being forced to remain in the custody of an abusive father after there is a divorce.

Killing in the name of “family honor” is an accepted form of Islamic punishment for a woman’s unfaithfulness or a Muslim child straying too far from the Islamic way.  To believe that Muslim women who seek justice in America are willingly agreeing to sharia courts is absolute blindness.

One has to wonder how anybody, whether liberal or conservative, religious or not, can support such treatment of more than half of the Muslim population (23% of the global population is Muslim) and condemn those of us fighting this unjust ideology entering our court system.  It seems that all that is heard is how victimized Muslims are, especially after 9/11, and we know how well Americans can identify with the so-called underdog.  (The facts show that religious persecution of Muslims is extremely small when compared to the global growth of anti-Semitism and the Islamic persecution of Coptic Christians.)

It is also important to add to the information the Muslim Brotherhood’s credo, which clearly presents the Quran as the supreme word of Allah, above all other laws: “Allah is our goal, the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way and death for the sake of Allah is the highest aspiration.”

This mission statement was written back in the late 1920s by the fastest-growing political organization in the Muslim world today.  It demands that the U.S. Constitution take a back seat to the Quran, which rejects America’s constitutional secularism and its legal penalties, while Halakhah and Canon law do not.

The evidence of extreme female and child subjugation in Islamic sharia law should be enough to justify strong American non-partisan support in favor of banning sharia courts without jeopardizing the other religious courts’ status.  Those religious leaders fearing that Halakhah or Canon laws are threatened by banning sharia law need only to take a look at the inherent unconstitutionality of sharia laws before condemning the proposed legislation.