► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Sharia (Islamic Law)’

Progress!

by Kafir ( 197 Comments › )
Filed under Islamic hypocrisy, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Sharia (Islamic Law) at June 13th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

Remember the post on islamic slavery featured here at theBlogmocracy the other day? Even though slavery is kept hush-hush in today’s world, here we have an uppity “free” muslima from Kuwait speaking through her hefty bag to give her opinions on islamic slavery. Her demand? Make it legal once again.

Russian Blonds Wanted for Islamic Sexual Slavery

When Muslim Sheikhs discuss the topic of sexual slavery of women, which is allowed in the Qur’an, it comes out a bit politically incorrect even to the taste of the majority of Muslims, who have long forgotten that slavery is a well- established institution in Islam. Saudi Arabia officially abolished slavery as late as 1962, not because Islam made the Saudis do it, but because the Saudis wanted to save face after an international cry against slavery. But now some Muslims are demanding its return. So Muslim spin misters are advocating the embarrassing, but legal, topic through the mouths of Muslim women.

A Kuwaiti woman who is called an “activist” and former candidate to the Kuwaiti parliament, spoke to the Kuwait Times about the establishment of a new law permitting men to buy and sell non-Muslim girls, captured in jihad, as sexual slaves in order to protect Muslim men against seductive sexual immorality. The Arabic Al Arabiya had more details on what that woman, Salwa al-Mutairi, is advocating:

Ms. Mutairi who was nice enough to put the minimum age of 15 for slave girls, Christian Jews or other, to be sold. She demanded the immediate establishment of slave agencies just like agencies for maids, where the slave girls will earn a whopping 50 Kuwaiti Dinar monthly and in return will cook, clean, take care of the kids and be the slave of the wife during the day. But her job does not end there; at night, whenever Mutairi is not in the mood, then her husband will not stray too far away from the house, since it is halal (kosher) for the husband to have sex with the slave girls without any marriage or unnecessary paper to satisfy his sexual pleasures. Better do it at home under the watchful eyes of the wife and kids only for 50 Dinars. Wow, what a deal!

Mutairi, who regards non-Muslim girls as subhuman, talked to the camera as a holier than thou “free” Muslim woman, and did use the expression “free women” referring to herself and all Muslim women, as she was wearing her black Islamic garb covering everything except her face, while advocating such immoral insanity as a right from Allah to Muslims.

On a more serious note, looking at a woman like Mutairi we are reminded of the deranged wives of the kidnappers of Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Dugard. The reason such abductors succeeded and went undetected for many years was because of their mentally sick wives who were willing enablers and who posed as mothers to those poor girls. Mutairi represents the worst in women: she sells her soul and her fellow women in order to get respect and attention in a Muslim world that has no mercy or respect for her.

NOW to protest this craziness in 5… 4… 3… 2… oh, who am I kidding…



Last week, a Muslim woman was seen shoplifting. She was caught on camera. Police are looking for a woman with dark eyes.



MEMRI: “Belgian Islamist Abu Imran Calls to Plant the Black Flag of Al-Qaeda over the Elysee Palace and Calls Upon Carla Bruni to Wear the Niqab”

by Philip_Daniel ( 129 Comments › )
Filed under Europe, Islam, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Terrorism, Terrorism at April 7th, 2011 - 2:30 pm

Belgian Islamist Abu Imran released a video on April 3rd in anticipation of an Islamist rally in Paris, France on April 9th. In the course of this video he confirms the suspicion that Islamism is nothing but a form of blatant Imperialism transparently hidden under the veil of “social justice”. Though he initially chastises France for banning the niqab, he very clearly states that his real grievance with France is that it constitutes a former Islamic colony which must return to Islamic Shari’ah governance, for it “belongs” to the Muslimeen as a divine patrimony, much like Al-Andalus (the mention of which suggests a desire to “return” it as well to Islamic rule). He implores France to remember the Battle of Poitiers in 732, when Charles Martel defeated the Moorish invader Abdul Rahman Al-Ghafiqi, and implies that this time Islam will be victorious over the forces of kufr and shirk in France. He invites both Carla Bruni and Nicolas Sarkozy to Islam; recall that extending the Da’wah is a prerequisite before initiating war against any polity that does not implement the Islamic Shari’ah. Demonstrating that he is theologically-inspired rather than reacting to any perceived “injustice”, he calls Nicolas Sarkozy a “Roman Dog” in reference to the centuries of aggressive warfare waged by the Khilafah against the Byzantine Empire. Again, demonstrating his imperialist intent, he calls upon the Muslimeen of France to actively overthrow their kufr-and-shirk-based government , “liberating” France so as to replace the so-called Taghut with Islamic Shari’ah, so that the “black flag” of Islam flies over the Élysée Palace. To Abu Imran, Muslimeen cannot accept any political system other than Islamic Shari’ah; accepting “man-made law” would constitute shirk and kufr, and Mu’mineen are directed by Allah and Muhammad to fight in order to rid the world of such Fitnah and Dhulm and Fasad so that Islam prevails all over the earth. In fact, Muhammad explicitly promises in a sahih hadith that the sultaan (authority) of his Ummah will stretch across the entire dunya (Earth) with no exception. This is undoubtedly an imperialist doctrine. The desire to conquer France so that it becomes a province of the Dar Al-Islam is totally independent of any sort of “injustice” perpetrated by the West, in contrast to what self-loathing progressive activists may believe; it is deeply rooted in Islamic fiqh, whether Maliki or Hanafi or Shafi’i or otherwise, and it, as a manifestation of the doctrine of Al-Wala’a Wa’l-Bara’a (Loyalty and Enmity), is the source of the enmity displayed by Mu’mineen towards all institutions and values which conflict with the Islamic Shari’ah and to every dawlah (nation-state) which rejects and repudiates it. The only opportunity left for Mu’mineen is to subjugate the Dar Al-Harb by force so that kuffar live under its aegis as Ahl Al-Dhimma paying jizya in lieu of death and accepting the implementation of Islamic Shari’ah upon them; with this having been executed, Islam will dominate over Taghut and Allah will be pleased. The world will have been “liberated” from the “filth” of kufr and shirk; this is what Abu Imran means when he proclaims the goal of his “brothers” and “sisters” to be to “purify” France of kufr and shirk, replacing it with the legislation decreed by Allah in the Koran and Sunna. The world belongs to them — including France, they have been bequeathed the entire world by Allah and his Rasul, Europeans have no right to resist because this is the decree of Allah and only his legislation may be implemented, Islam has ruled over France before so “there is no reason to fear” — softening the blow through deceptive sweet-nothings, and it is only a matter of time before Islam conquers the Elysée Palace and Islam is victorious and cleanses France of kufr and kuffar — a genocidal position, to be sure. That is his message, and it is one of unapologetic imperialism, encouraging the establishment and expansion of the Islamic Caliphal Empire so that it covers over the entire earth. This is hardly the first Salafi to express such an opinion in a European language. For a progressive to defend such a reactionary and oppressive mentality is to ignore the reality as explained by not only a “believer” himself on video, but also the ‘ijma of the ulema

At the very end of the video, notice the injunction to “Support Our Troops” — while direct personal involvement in Jihad At-Talab Wa’l-Ibtida’i is considered a Fardh Kifaya (Collective Obligation), it is Waajib (Obligatory) to support the mujahideen in any way possible. Here the speaker acknowledges the internationalist nature of Islamic Imperialism and expresses his support for it. As I doubt that the French will clamp down on such seditious activity, whether France will be brought under Islamic governance by the word, the womb, or the sword remains to be seen…

MEMRI: “Belgian Islamist Abu Imran Calls to Plant the Black Flag of Al-Qaeda over the Elysée Palace and Calls Upon Carla Bruni to Wear the Niqab”

MEMRI TV PROJECT

Sheik Abu Imran
Sharia4Belgium

The Internet
April 3, 2011

Allah’s blessings upon you, my dear brothers and sisters in France.

We respond to your call, Jama’at Al-Tawhid (“Group of Monotheism”).

My dear brothers, you sent us an invitation to participate in the April 9 demonstration in Paris.

We will be honored to come, and partake with you in the victory of our Islamic nation, with the grace of God.

We are coming to perform a da’wa.

Our da’wa is directed toward Carla Bruni.

We call upon Carla Bruni to become a Muslim, to repent, to join our Islamic community, and to wear the niqab.

I ask Allah to guide Carla Bruni, to turn her into a niqab-wearing Muslim, and to make her divorce that unbeliever, Sarkozy, may Allah fight him.

I pray to Allah for the family of that false idol Sarkozy to become Muslim, and to wear the niqab – so that this unbeliever Sarkozy will the niqab in his very home, and in his very own family, Allah willing.

We are coming to say: Oh Sarkozy, enemy of Allah, dog of the Romans, son of the unbeliever, we are on our way.

We are on our way with “Allah Akbar,” “Allah Akbar.”

We are coming with our nuclear bombs of “Allah Akbar.”

We are coming with our black flags – the black flags of “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”

We are coming to take back what belongs to us, to regain our land and purify it of unbelief and of the unbelievers.

We are coming with “There is no god but Allah.”

We are coming because we reject democracy.

We do not accept democracy. We accept nothing but the tawhid of Allah.

We accept nothing but: “There is no god but Allah.”

We accept nothing but the shari’a of Allah.

Just as we ruled many European lands, we are coming to make you think about (the Battle of) Poitiers, to make you think about Andalusia, and to make you think about…By God, we are on our way.

The day you will see the black flag flying over the Elysée is very near.

I ask Allah to give us the power to plant the black flag over the Elysée.

I say to all my brothers and sisters in France: We are coming from Belgium to support you, with our group, Sharia4Belgium.

We are coming to support you.

I ask all my brothers and sisters in France to come to the Place de la Nation in Paris.

We will be there, with our brothers from Jama’at Al-Tawhid.

May Alla accept their actions, and grant them a place in Paradise for their sacrifices and their activities, which aim to bring victory to this community.

May Allah reward them with Paradise.

Allah willing, we will meet next week in Paris.

May Allah facilitate our path, and purify France of unbelief and the unbelievers.

Allah willing, we will see you next week.

Salaam Alaykum, and Allah’s blessings be upon you.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

Inside Iran: Interview with Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman

by 1389AD ( 35 Comments › )
Filed under Iran, Islam, Open thread at March 27th, 2011 - 10:00 am

Animated wooden email box

From the 1389 Blog Mailbox:

BlackbootJacks: Interview with Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman

Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman

Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a writer and historian who formerly taught World History and Islamic Civilization at Golden Gate University in San Francisco, where she was also Executive Director of the San Francisco United Nations Association and was a frequent speaker for the World Affairs Council and the Commonwealth Club.

She has been a 26-year observer of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and has been charting the growth of fanatical radicalized Islam around the world. Both as a columnist for local newspapers and in scholarly papers given at academic conferences and published in the Comparative Civilizations Review, she has warned of the danger to democratic societies from a rising tide of fundamentalist/political religions.

Books by Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman

The September 11, 2001 attack on America has increased the demand for her columns and as a lecturer. A book completed just before the attack, God’s Law or Man’s Law: The Fundamentalist Challenge to Secular Rule, has been published, and is going into its second edition.

Dr. Farhat-Holzman has lived in Iran twice: the first time when married to an Iranian student who was doing his graduate research in his home country. She was witness to Iran’s accelerated attempt at modernizing during the reign of the last Pahlavi shah.

Her second residence there was fifteen years later, during the period leading up to the Islamic Revolution. She was the cross-cultural expert on a project that involved a number of US defense firms, US intelligence agencies, and the Iranian Air Force. Her perspective on radicalized Islam is a combination of domestic experience, professional experience, and her background as a historian.

May we present…

Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman

ITF:

Welcome Dr Farhat-Holzman to the Infidel Task Force and thank you for taking the time to chat with us. You come with major credentials and I’m sure the readers will enjoy this column

Dr. Farhat-Holzman:

I am delighted to have found you—and been found by you!

ITF:

When someone hears about a woman living in Iran, the images that immediately spring to mind are of Sally Field in the movie: “Not Without My Daughter”. Tell us please how you were introduced to Iran.

Dr. Farhat-Holzman:

I met my Iranian husband at UCLA, and in graduate school, he received a Ford Foundation Grant to study Persian Court Music (an ancient and lovely tradition that was rapidly disappearing). We spent two years in Iran, living with his family and giving birth to our first child.

His family, being old aristocracy, was nothing like the terrible family of the young woman in “Not Without My Daughter.” My experience was during the post World War II period when the young Shah finally roused himself to engage in modernization projects (something his father had done as the first modernizer after centuries of decay). My then husband’s family were patriotic, eager to see Iran get out from under the thrall of Islam, and they welcomed me—their educated and curious American daughter-in-law. Adding to my luck: I had an amazing and unique mother-in-law who was vibrant, beautiful, and wise, and we took to each other and were friends until her premature death right after the Islamic Revolution.

My experience was very different from that of the Sally Field character who went to Iran at the wrong time and into the worst kind of family—pious merchant class people.

And years after my marriage ended, I was sent to Iran on a project that involved cross-cultural training—and this was during a period that the revolution was brewing. I did try to notify my Congressman at the time and the State Department Iran Chair, but I was not believed. I was being politically incorrect, it seems…

Read the rest HERE or HERE.


Islamic court- OK for men to beat wives, young children “as long as the beating leaves no physical marks.”

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 153 Comments › )
Filed under Islam, Sharia (Islamic Law) at October 19th, 2010 - 6:30 pm

As if we needed more proof that the ROP™ is anything but “peaceful”, the Federal Supreme Court of the United Arab Emirates ruled that husbands can legally beat their wives and young children as long as the beatings leave no visible signs of bruising, etc. Islam is a scourge upon the world.

Yes, yes, yes… religions are different. Cultures are different. Customs and traditions are different throughout the world. We all know this. Despite the differences in culture and religion across the planet, it seems sensible to expect a certain level of respect for all human beings and their rights. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The United States is often criticized in the media and abroad for not doing more to protect human rights, there are countries in far worse shape, and the media are turning a blind eye.

Groups like the United Nations love to dump on the U.S. for all the perceived abuses and injustices that occur, yet they ignore abuses that occur every single day in the name of religion. As noted in a story on FoxNews.com, the highest court in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ruled that a husband can beat his wife and young children “as long as the beating leaves no physical marks.” How’s that for civility?

The decision by the Federal Supreme Court shows the strong influence of Islamic law (Sharia) in the Emirates despite its international appeal in which foreign residents greatly outnumber the local population.

The court made the ruling earlier this month in the case of a man who left cuts and bruises on his wife and adult daughter after a beating.

In a follow-up story running on The Guardian, the reporter notes:

The court upheld the right of the unnamed man from Sharjah – one of the seven emirates – to beat his wife and children to “discipline” them after he had exhausted two other options: admonition and then abstaining from sleeping with his wife. Scholars differ on what constitutes “beating” but agree it must not be severe.

In the case of the wife, it was the degree of severity that put the man in breach of the law. But his daughter was 23, and therefore too old to be disciplined by her father, the court said. He claimed he did not mean to harm either of them.

I guess it will be up to the daughter’s new husband to take over the beating duties.

CBSNews.com posted a story last week under the headline Fears of Sharia Law in America Grow Among Conservatives. It’s an interesting headline, but I fail to see the point of it. Are they trying to show that Sharia law is “not so bad”? Are they trying to say that conservatives are just a bunch of kooks? Probably a little bit of both. However, my point is that if there is a “code of conduct” that allows wife beating just as long as there are no physical marks present, then that is NOT a real code of conduct.

Read the rest here