Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
RE: HSIG - Muslims Attack Sikh In Leicester, GB
7/24/2011 2:01:15 PM
Hi Peter and friends, even though this article was written about the situation in Australia, it is not only Australia's problem but all non-Islamic countries like the US and Great Britain. The multi wives part doesn't concern me near as much as the child marriages do, which to me are incomprehensible and are the epitome of child abuse.
The column below by Andrew Bostom zeroes in on one aspect of the threat of sharia to the West: Islamic polygamy. An NPR article in 2008 cited sources estimating that as many as 100,000 Muslims live in polygamous families in the U.S.
Note that the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America has issued fatwas sanctioning polygamy, in keeping with sharia law. One ruling declares American law prohibiting polygamy “against Islamic law.”
Australia: Sharia-Sanctioned Polygamy and Child Marriage
July 21st, 2011 by Andrew Bostom |

Despite an overall apologetic tone borne of transparent obeisance to cultural relativism, two legal academics, Dr Ann Black and Dr Kerrie Sadiq from The University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law are “suggesting” in their research publication, “Good & Bad Sharia: Australia’s mixed response to Islamic Law” (due to be published in the University of New South Wales Law Journal on Monday July 25, 2011) that,
Australia is right to act with caution in dealing with Sharia law.
Why are even these obviously devout votaries of the academic social religion of cultural relativism concerned about the practice of Sharia in Australia at all, or what they term, with revealing euphemism, “legal pluralism?”
One reason was extracted from the forthcoming paper of Drs. Black and Sadiq, and cited by The Australian’s legal affairs editor, Chris Merrit:
Valid Muslim polygynist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas, are recognized, with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits.
Merrit’s background article on Black and Sadiq’s findings also noted how this practice of Muslim polygamy in Australia involved “marriages where one party is under the lawful marriage age.” And Merrit provided this additional context:
The findings come soon after Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, triggered a backlash inside the Islamic community when he called for Australia to compromise with Islam and embrace legal pluralism.
…The latest research has found that while polygamy is unlawful, mainstream law accommodates men who arrive in Australia with multiple wives and gives some legal standing to multiple partnerships that originate in Australia.
More alarming “context” not addressed by the report of Drs. Black and Sadiq, and in fact dismissed by Dr. Black in these words, “The ‘foreignness’ of Sharia law is increased by media reports which highlight ‘differences’ and feed into fears about the Muslim presence in Australia,” was provided by The Australian Daily Telegraph:
On Sunday, a recent convert to Islam in Sydney was allegedly lashed 40 times with electrical cable by men from his mosque, in a terrifying home invasion, as punishment for drinking alcohol – forbidden under Shariah law. Two people have been arrested in connection with the attack.
The staid report by two Australian cultural relativist academics should (but won’t) make our mainstream media talking heads curious about how mainstream Islamic opinion views polygamy in the United States. For example, what have the esteemed mainstream Islamic clerics of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) opined regarding polygamy? The AMJA mission statement maintains:
[The AMJA was] founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America. … AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities.
A report in The Muslim Observer published October 21, 2010, highlighting AMJA’s “seventh annual American conference of imams,” confirms that the organization is accepted as such by the mainstream American Muslim community. AMJA and its recent “training” conference for American imams were described in these banal terms:
The organization AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) has a list of scholars associated with it which stretches from Al-Azhar University to Virginia’s Open University, and back across the ocean to the professors at Saudi universities. Its website, amjaonline.com, provides fatawa on many issues and promises 24-hour access to scholars who can give legal opinions on the issues people face. AMJA focuses on providing fatwas to Americans, and believes it is able to provide culturally appropriate fatwas although many of their scholars are not American–because they have some American scholars and because of the technological ties that bind AMJA’s American scholars with those abroad. AMJA just had, in Houston, its seventh annual American conference of imams, and two local Michigan imams attended, namely Imam Musa of Bloomfield’s Muslim Unity Center, and Imam Ali of MCWS. Mr. Sadiqul Hassan of AMJA explained that “the event was the 7th annual imam workshop.” Mr. Hassan said that AMJA is “a fiqh council basically,” with “scholars who live abroad and inside the U.S.; we have experts in different fields to educate about life in the U.S. — fatwa are based on life in the U.S.”
Not only does AMJA extol polygamy in accordance with the Sharia, AMJA endorses its extra-legal (i.e, vis a vis US law) application here in America, as can be readily gleaned from these two “fatwas” or Islamic legal rulings:
Fatwa 2134 Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah Date 2006-10-27
Polygamy in Islam is permissible for different reasons, like:
1- The sexual energy of men is more than that of women in general. So, in some cases, one wife is not enough to fulfill the conjugal desire of her husband
2- Pregnancy and delivery negatively affect the shape and physical attraction that women have.
3- World wide, the percentage of females is always more than that of males, eventually, there must be a solution, either to permit adultery and prostitution, or to allow polygamy
4- One husband could take care of more than one wife at the same time; socially, financially, and even sexually as I mentioned above. However, the opposite is not right because of the physical and psychological capability that Allah the all mighty gave men.
Fatwa 3370 Scholar Dr. Hatem al-Haj Date 2007-08-08
Comment from Muslim questioner: We know that polygamy is against USA law. But I heard from my friend that as long as you don`t register your marriage to the registrar, it is okay to have more than one wife here in the states, i.e., all the wives are living here. The argument that he made was that the law that prohibits marrying more than one is against the shaariah so, it is okay for us to break it…There are some scholars in the USA are practicing polygamy without the knowledge of the authorities using that argument….
Dr. Hatem al-Haj’s response: Polygamy is halal in Islam and may be highly recommended when the number of females is bigger than that of males to afford all females a decent life that suffices their physiologic, emotional and other needs. The US law about polygamy is against the Islamic law, for no one can make prohibited that which Allah specifically made allowable.

+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: HSIG - Muslims Attack Sikh In Leicester, GB
7/24/2011 3:57:04 PM
Hello Friends,

It seems as if Islam has no shame and will justify any of their disgusting "customs" by a fatwa. They have the pedophile in chief Mohammad as their example of what's allowed and not allowed and pedophilia and marrying young girls is definitely allowed. Raymond Ibrahim wrote an excellent article on this subject and it might be an eye opener for many.

Thanks Evelyn for an excellent article. I read it and decided then to incorporate it with Raymond Ibrahim's article since in a way they do compliment each other.. Thanks for doing half the work for me. Kudos. :)

Shalom,

Peter

Raymond Ibrahim

Pundicity

New Saudi Fatwa Defends Pedophilia as 'Marriage'

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jihad Watch
July 21, 2011

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/9956/new-saudi-fatwa-defends-pedophilia-as-marriage

Send RSSShare: Facebook Twitter Google +1
Be the first of your friends to like this.

Muslim "child-marriage"—euphemism for pedophilia—is making headlines again, at least in Arabic media: Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, just issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage, and that girls can be married "even if they are in the cradle."

Appearing in Saudi papers on July 13, the fatwa complains that "Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry."

Fawzan insists that nowhere does Sharia set an age limit for marrying girls: like countless Muslim scholars before him, he relies on Koran 65:4, which discusses marriage to females who have not yet begun menstruating (i.e., are prepubescent) and the fact that Muhammad, Islam's role model, married Aisha when she was 6-years-old, "consummating" the marriage—or, in modern parlance, raping her—when she was 9.

The point of the Saudi fatwa, however, is not that girls as young as 9 can have sex, based on Muhammad's example, but rather that there is no age limit whatsoever; the only question open to consideration is whether the girl is physically capable of handling her husband/rapist. Fawzan documents this point by quoting Ibn Batal's authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari:

The ulema [Islam's interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle. But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was 6 when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was 9 [i.e., when she was deemed capable].

Fawzan concludes his fatwa with a warning: "It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah's province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage."

Fawzan, of course, is not the first to insist on the legitimacy of pedophilia in Islam. Even the former grand mufti of Saudi Arabia supported "child-marriage," since "the Koran and Sunna document it."

Nor is this just some theoretic, theological point; the lives of many young girls are being destroyed because of this ruling. Recall, for instance, the 13-year-old girl who died while her much older husband was copulating with her (it was later revealed that, due to her reluctance, he was tying her up and "raping" her—as if there is another way to describe sex with children); or the 12-year-old who died giving birth to a stillborn; or the 10-year-old who made headlines by hiding out from her 80-year-old "husband."

Then there are the countless anonymous girls who do nothing to warrant any media attention—such as die—and have learned to live with their elderly husbands pawing at them, like, no doubt, the girl who married Islam's most popular cleric, Yusuf Qaradawi, when she was 14.

What do we make of the fact that it is always Islam's religious, authoritative voices—not aberrant voices, not "terrorists," "extremists," or any other euphemism coined for the occasion—that are constantly demonstrating Sharia's savageries? Weeks before this fatwa, a female politician and activist in Kuwait called for institutionalizing sex-slavery (recommending that Muslims buy and sell female Russian captives from the Chechnya war); a popular Egyptian preacher not only said the same thing, but added that the solution to Islam's poverty is to go on jihad and plunder the lives and possessions of infidels.

Sounds odd? Perhaps; but it is perfectly consistent. After all, distilled and in the eyes of the non-believer, Sharia law is nothing less than a legal system built atop the words and deeds of a 7th century Arab, whose behavior—from pedophilia and sex-slavery to war mongering and plundering—was very much that of a 7th century Arab. Having enticed or enslaved his contemporaries into following him, his teachings continue to entice and enslave their descendants; and, now as then, it is always the innocent who suffer.


Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: HSIG - Hezbollah Working With Drug Cartels On the Mexican Border
7/25/2011 6:15:32 AM
Hello Friends,
I just posted this over in the President That Hates His Country Thread and figured it should be posted here as well.
Shalom,
Peter

Quote:
Hello Friends,

The DHS is in denial in regard to Hezbollah working with the Mexican drug cartels in Mexico. Evidence is piling up that they are there and training the cartels in Jihadi tactics. In addition they are stockpiling weapons along the border that can be used in attacks against the United States. What's interesting is that this information has been available for some time now and yet the DHS is in denial. I wonder if there is any connection with Project Gunrunner? The Department of Justice providing weapons to the Mexican gangsters on the one hand and DHS covering up Hezbollah's training and stockpiling weapons along the Mexican/US border. Frightening stuff isn't it?

The B Hussein regime with its lackeys the DOJ and DHS are responsible for these coverups and should be held accountable.

Shalom,

Peter

homelearnactdonatelocal chaptersContact Congress
ACT! for America





News Report: Hezbollah working with drug cartels on the border


Dear Peter,

For years, ACT! for America president Brigitte Gabriel has been warning Americans about terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah partnering with Mexican drug cartels.

Rep. Sue Myrick, recipient of our top legislative award the past two years for her courageous efforts to protect our national security from radical Islam, has relentlessly pursued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on this matter.

DHS’s response has been “we see no evidence of Hezbollah partnering with drug cartels in Mexico.”

Astonishing.

Check out this short news story, just the latest on the growing threat Hezbollah poses to the United States.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0VuDfZoMYA


Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: HSIG - From Today Belgium Enforces The Ban On Burqas
7/25/2011 9:40:19 AM
Hello Friends,

Belgium joins France in outlawing the Burqa or as they call it "the full Islamic veil in public". We've been witness to many cases in which Muslim women wearing the burqz deny it was them when appearing in court. There was a case in the USA recently and one in Austrailia that hit the headlines. In addition to that there were also cases of Jihadis wearing the burqa and passing themselves off as a woman. The dangers are transparent and should be understood by all reasonable people.

Belo is an interesting article covering the issue.

Shalom,

Peter



In a great day for allterations, Belgian burqa ban begins

To participate in society, one must be recognizable. To be recognizable, one must show one's face.

It is one thing to be unidentifiable in a society where one is always under the control of a male guardian and a perpetual minor, and therefore not a full participant in society. But the Carnita Matthews case in Australia demonstrated how the surreal masquerade ball of face veils in an open society becomes a vehicle for gaming the system. It becomes a means of selective participation in society at the whim of the wearer (or in other cases, those who make her wear it), and presumes a right to pick and choose her responsibilities in society. That is not equality under the law, either for men and women or Muslims and non-Muslims. "Belgian ban on full veils comes into force," from BBC News, July 23:

A law has come into force in Belgium banning women from wearing the full Islamic veil in public.
The country is the second European Union nation after France to enforce such a ban. Offenders face a fine of 137.5 euros (£121; $197) and up to seven days in jail.
Two women who wear full veils launched an immediate court challenge, saying the law is discriminatory.
France, home to Europe's biggest Muslim population, enforced its ban in April.
Belgium's law bans any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in places like parks and on the street.
It was passed almost unanimously by the lower house of parliament in April 2010.
MPs voted with only two abstentions to back the legislation on the grounds of security, to allow police to identify people.
Other MPs said that full face veils such as the burka or the niqab were a symbol of the oppression of women.
But critics of the law say it could end up excluding women, leaving those who do wear the full veil trapped in their homes.
And they say the measures are over the top - estimates suggest only a few dozen women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of about half a million.

What matters is that the practice has grown -- there used to be none. One could just as well find a situation some time from now where the argument would be they can't be banned because so many women wear them. For something that is wrong in principle, why would one have to try to wait until the number is "just right" -- and according to whom?

"We consider the law a disproportionate intrusion into fundamental rights such as the freedom of religion and expression," Ines Wouters, the lawyer representing the two women challenging the ban, told the newspaper La Libre.
She has taken their case to Belgium's constitutional court, where she will request a suspension of the law, AFP news agency reported.

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: HSIG - MSM's Biased "Reporting" On The Oslo Massacre
7/26/2011 8:00:46 AM
Hello Friends.

There have been multiple cases of the MSM going on a "binge" as a result of the Norway tragedy. There are a few obvious flaws in their reasoning and I'll touch on them but some of the media and Islamic outbursts bordered on the ridiculous.

1. Muslim organizations were "insulted" cos everyones initial gut reaction was that this was another Jihadi attack. I wonder why?

2. There was one claim by a specialist or expert" on one of the biased MSM networks that there is an outburst of conservative terrorist attacks in the past few years. Of course no facts were given nor any examples and the interviewer didn't question the expert asking for his data which should have been part of this so called expertise. Another case of smearing their opponents with libelous claims that have no foundation. See video below.

3. Anti Jihadists who have been educating and fighting the scourge of Jihad for years now were mentioned once in Breivik's 1500 page manifesto and now are being"blamed" for his actions. In addition he's being called a radical Christian while he says he's not a religious man.

There are many more points to raise but this will suffice for the moment. One question I have is why have these left wing progressive media organizations researched this lunatics manifesto while they'll totally ignore the Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood's charters that are so revealing? These charters are out there for all to see and in a future post I'll paste it in the Hamas charter for those interested. Instead they ignore their agenda for world domination and killing all the non believers in the world. Anyone see bias here?

Facts mean nothing to the MSM when they have a political agenda and are on a mission to destroy two honorable people whose only fault is their fight against Jihad in all its different forms. Hmmmm, connect the dots and the Islamic organizations who were insulted and the progressive left MSM who kowtow to the Jihadi Muslim organizations and you'll find Taqiyya and Jihad at it's best. Obfuscate and lie and you're hitting at the core of their attacks. So the left wing rag the New York Times wrote a "hit piece" on Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer without supplying any facts other then their being mentioned once in the 1500 page manifesto. The actual fact is that MSM has been fabricating news for years instead of reporting on facts as they should be doing regardless of their political affiliation. This a sham and disgrace and the problem is that many are still falling for their obvious obfuscations and lies.

Add to the MSM those with an agenda of their own who supply articles of a dubious nature and sources and you've got a serious problem here in knowing where to look for honest reporting.

Shalom,

Peter

Wonder why he gave no examples to prove his "allegations"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcZy4LvI6tc


The Character Assassination of Robert Spencer

Posted by David Horowitz Bio ↓ on Jul 25th, 2011

The New York Times today has a wretched editorial masquerading as a news story on Robert Spencer and his alleged complicity in the Oslo massacres because his ideas are cited by the lunatic responsible. Joseph McCarthy could not have done it better. The Times next will blame Noam Chomsky for the crimes of Osama bin Laden and Al Gore for the crimes of the Unabomber since the ideas of both were cited by the lunatics. Chomsky is not only cited by the Islamic terrorists, he openly supports them — yet the Times would be the first to express shock and outrage at the mere suggestion of Chomsky’s complicity in the crimes of al-Qaeda, Hizbollah and Hamas.

Robert Spencer has never supported a terrorist act. His crime in the eyes of the left is to have told the truth about Islamic fanatics beginning with the Islamic prophet who called for the extermination of the Jews and said in his farewell speech that he was called to fight until all men say that there is no God but allah. (see Bruce Thornton’s article today’s Frontpage).

The attack on Robert Spencer, a man of great courage and decency, is just one phase in the war against all those who speak out against Islamic terror and Islamic imperialism. The Times attack is but the latest and most repulsive salvo in this war.

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!