Sharia Law Is Misunderstood

Posted by Laura Alcorn on November 16, 2009 under Why | Be the First to Comment

Did you realize that “The majority of women around the world associate justice for women, with Sharia compliance”? That’s right, according to Dalia Mogahed, President Obama’s, Islamist appointee on the Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, made this astonishing statement in an interview on a British television show. Mogahed has made news before as a member of the U.S. Muslim Engagement Project, which called for “engagement” with the Muslim Brotherhood — the organization that has a 100 year plan for subverting and overthrowing the West. She teamed up with John Esposito to conduct a poll on Islam, then misrepresented some of the results (some called it “cooking the books”) in order to increase the number of Muslim “moderates.”

What makes Mogahed’s assertion about Shariah even more disturbing is that she made it in an interview hosted by a member of the radical Islamist organization Hizb ut Tahrir on the British Muslim show “Muslimah Dilemma”. HT is committed to the non-violent overthrow of democracy and capitalism and the worldwide imposition under Sharia Islamic law. The organization has been banned as a terrorist organization in several countries — but remarkably, not here in the United States. Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s (HT) national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz. During the discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.

HT calls for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”. Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: “I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of Sharia than the common perception in Western media. “The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women. It also includes the controversial “Hadd offenses”, crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with “maximum criminal punishments” and “laws that… to many people seem unequal to women,” but added: “Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.” Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration’s determination to reach out to the Muslim world. She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.

She described her White House role as “to convey… to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.” That she has the ear of the White House is yet another chilling reminder of how our nation is being led down the path of forced Islamification that England and Western Europe have already walked.

SHARIA LAW IN EUROPE

Unless you read the posts and blogs coming from Europe, you would never know that their governments are as polarized as ours in America. Over the summer, rallies-turned-riots have been happening across the UK between right-winger protesters and Muslims. Supporters of the British National Party have been cautioning for years, that allowing massive third world immigration against the wishes of native Britons, would bring social unrest and increase the probability of a ‘Yugoslavia-style’ civil war.

As the BNP predicted, instead of creating a vibrant mutli-cultural society, the Muslim community remains secular with little integration. In order to appease the Muslim community, Britain now allows Sharia law as an option available to the Muslim Pakistani community and will not be revisited until a death of a woman or girl gets picked up the the media. Even polygamy, paid for by the British taxpayers, gets no legal attention, nor do the victims of this system get legal recourse.

In Europe and Canada, some have even supported immigrants selecting their own Sharia codes under special circumstances. For example, the Muslim community in Quebec tried to get legal recognition of strict Muslim Sharia law in family matters (marriage, divorce, status of women). In Canada’s political correctness, it almost happen – had not organized and outraged feminists defended these Muslim women as Canadians, and would not let them be battered, married off by force, or other Sharia horrors.

This summer in England, a top Muslim leader, Mohammad Nassem, urged his followers to “vent their feelings” against anti-Islamic protesters during a rally that ended in violence and with about 80 arrests. Muslims were encouraged by the leader to counter-demonstrate which was organized by the right-wing English Defense League (EDL). The Times reports that Dr. Naseems advice came less than a month after Muslims of predominantly Asian heritage clashed with the EDL at another anti-Islamic rally that led to 35 arrests.

In England, with a rallying cry of “No Sharia Here” are people, who want to maintain English law and stop the creeping growth of Sharia law in England. The EDL was created on June 27 2009, as a reaction to some Muslims abusing parading British soldiers. They say they formed out of ‘frustration at the lack of any significant action by the British Government against extreme Muslim preachers and organizations. Since then they have taken part weekly demonstrations, against Muslims and the construction of mosques. On reading their website, they have rallies this weekend, and scheduled into December.

On their impressive website, http://www.englishdefenceleague.org. the EDL describes themselves as non-racists. non-violent and non-political, as peacefully protesting militant Islam. A PDF file from their website reads: It’s Not Racist to Oppose Radical Islam. But according to the British media, the EDL uses street confrontation to create trouble, are ‘hooligans’ and frequent the pub before challenging the Islamic protesters.

I wonder what they would be called if they drank tea?

OBAMA’S ANTI-FREE SPEECH MEASURE AT THE U.N.: SPONSORED BY ISLAM

On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote.

When the US sought a seat on the HRC, many who found the HRC neither credible nor useful, opposed the move but,others were more optimistic that the US.could change the HRC from within. Perhaps the U.S. could spur debate stemming from its opposition to China, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia on critical human rights votes.

Who would think that Americans would enter the HRC and support the opposition’s anti-freedom measures. The Obama current administration has done worse: it’s leading the charge.

The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation.

Second, it recognizes the media’s “moral and social responsibilites” and the “importance” that its potential voluntary code of conduct could play in combating intolerance.

This resolution appears to stem from the Organization of Islamic Conference’s resolution to “combat defamation of religions”. The OIC’s resolution would ban outright the “defaming” of religions, speech critical of religion (even if accurate), and open discussion about any negative consequences resulting from the implementation of religious beliefs (such as Sharia law).

In the past, when the US addressed international speech norms, it went out of its way to ensure that treaties by which it was bound would not restrict free speech or undermine America’s first amendment protections. But now, change has come.

The Obama Administration is relinquishing one of America’s most fundamental freedoms: free speech. Obama is once again bowing down to the Muslim world.