Radical Islam in Tennessee


Sharia in America toon

John R. Houk

© August 6, 2012

 

The Rutherford Reader is a free local and weekly newspaper with circulation in the Murfreesboro, TN area as well as 43,000 online subscribers. The Reader’s money base is third party advertising for the Murfreesboro area.

 

So what, right?

 

The Reader is a local bastion against Radical Islam in its area making the newspaper a target for Radical Muslims pretending to be moderate and Multicultural Leftists. In the case of Murfreesboro, most of the large circulating Tennessee newspapers rag on the Reader (especially The Tennessean) as the local hate-speech and bigoted media.

 

The thing is there isn’t an iota of truth to the accusations. The Reader is simply having journalist contributors and perhaps the publisher report on the local Mosque which has deep pocket connections to Radical Islam. Unless you have been in a coma since September 2001 you do know America was attacked by the Radical Muslim transnational terrorist organization known as al Qaeda. The USA has been involved in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) since 911. So whether bureaucrats in the U.S. government publicly recognize that war or not Islam in its so-called radical form has been at war ever since.

 

HENCE, after a Mosque engages with Muslim-American organizations that have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas or whatever terrorist organization, it is noble for a local newspaper to buck Liberal Multiculturalism and report on Radical Islam and/or the speakers promoting a Radical Islamic agenda for America. AND in case you have been victimized by Muslim Apologists, that Islamic agenda is not pretty or copacetic for Constitutional America especially as related to the Bill of Rights.

 

One of the contributing journalists to the Reader is Justin O. Smith. Justin is also a defender of the Reader when Muslim Apologists and Multicultural Leftists wrongly go after the Reader rather than say a newspaper like The Tennessean which has been caught lying to support in print Radical Islam in Tennessee.

 

On Facebook I found such a defense from Justin and I am cross posting it below.

 

JRH 8/6/12

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Tired of the bullying!

Letters to the Editor…pg 4 of ‘The Rutherford Reader’ and Mrs. Pam King’s excellent article!…

 

By Justin O. Smith

August 4, 2012 5:36pm

Facebook

 

To the Editor:

Last week I sent the following message via Facebook to William Cripps: “I am very concerned that you and your wife have attempted to ruin a local business, The Rutherford Reader. When you contact business people and threaten them if they continue to advertise in The Reader, this is at best very unethical and at worst, just slimy! No one has actually proven that anything printed in The Reader is either hate speech or lies, it is only your opinion.

You certainly do have the right of free speech and so do I. I wonder how the people at ATI in La Vergne would feel if they were aware of your attempts to put a business out of business with unfounded opinions and and (sic) absolutely zero proof? I wonder how the Democratic Committee in Murfreesboro would like what Sara is doing? Are those the tactics they approve of?”

Needless to say, I have not received a response from either of them. I am seriously tired of the bullying! While working on a note to explain myself, I ran across the following
written by a Facebook friend, Dawn Ellen. Dawn has perfectly formalized my thinking so I quote her:

 

“People who spew the words “hatred” and “bigotry,” when you attempt to enlighten them about the reality of Islam are drowning in ignorance. They are being compliant and complicit in the Islamization of America and the world. They have never studied the Qur’an/Hadiths, the life of Muhammad, or the history of Islam. They only have Liberal sound bites and Islamic propaganda running through their brains. They spew those words because they have no intelligent argument or response. I laugh at their perpetual nonsense and then move on. There is no point in responding, because their brainwashed minds are not open to reasonable and logical debates, but rather they are blind to the truth and will never see it. It is most definitely pitiful.”

Pam King

Murfreesboro, TN

 

___________________________

Radical Islam in Tennessee

John R. Houk

© August 6, 2012

_________________________

Tired of the bullying!

 

About Justin O. Smith

 

From Facebook Page:

 

Studied at Middle Tennessee State University

Lives in Murfreesboro, Tennessee

Born on February 16, 1957

Political Views: Conservative

 

I found this on Justin at the end of a Counter Jihad Report Post from 7/5/12:

 

Justin O. Smith is a concerned citizen with a B.S.-MTSU/ International Relations & Cultural Geography, ex-firefighter, U.S. Army and freelance writer.

Fjordman: The Bias and Dishonesty of Wikipedia


Wikibias logo

Due to the psycho mass murderer Anders Breivik, Fjordman has been a target of the Mainstream Media (MSM) because Breivik manipulated many of Fjordman’s essays into his manifesto to change Europe’s political order through terrorism. The multiculturalists of Europe have pretty much labeled Fjordman a person that incites hatred. The problem is the MSM picks up on the multiculturalist labeling without checking out Fjordman’s scholarship which is detailed from facts and not fabrication. Norwegian authorities astonishingly have interrogated Fjordman in a hostile manner in relation to the butcher of Utøya Youth Camp as if he some kind of ring leader.

 

According Fjordman he has ignored the multiculturalist critics; however he felt the need to set the record straight as far as Wikipedia was concerned. Below is that article as posted at EuropeNews.

 

JRH 6/23/12 (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

Fjordman: The Bias and Dishonesty of Wikipedia

 

By Fjordman

19 June 2012

EuropeNews

 

I cannot and will not respond to all of the negative writings about me or accusations against me. My time is limited, and may be more usefully spent doing other things. My initial instinct was to ignore the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, too, but on further reflection, it seemed necessary to clarify the record.

 

Tens of millions of people use Wikipedia on a regular basis. They have a right to know just how biased this source can be and sometimes is.

 

Because Wikipedia is continuously edited by numerous unpaid volunteers in many countries, it changes more frequently than, say, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online. The following Wikipedia citations all refer to entries as they existed on June 15, 2012. One may hope some of these will later be changed for the better.

 

I will mainly focus on the English and Norwegian language editions in this discussion. The Vietnamese, Kurdish, Esperanto or Azerbaijani versions may also have problems, but I haven’t checked them. And yes, these all exist. By the summer of 2012, Wikipedia had entries on Anders Behring Breivik in about 60 different languages, which probably pleases his grossly inflated ego immensely. He is a nobody who became a somebody through mass murder.

 

The English entry on ABB claims that “In his writings Breivik displays admiration for the English Defence League (EDL)” and “sought to start a Norwegian version of the Tea Party movement” in the USA, who want lower taxes and less government interference in the lives of individual citizens. As a matter of fact, the EDL are quite marginal in the manifesto, receiving only a handful of very short mentions in more than 1500 pages.

 

The single most extensive quote about the EDL there is actually extremely negative, denouncing them as pathetic and useless non-violent sissies. Yet Breivik’s denouncing the EDL in the mainstream media was transformed into a mantra of “Breivik was just like the EDL, who are a group of potential terrorists.” This is, to say the least, grossly dishonest.

 

Under the subheading “Writing influences,” Wikipedia listed among others the Freedom Party of Austria, the Swiss People’s Party, Winston Churchill, Robert Spencer, Patrick Buchanan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, the Australian historian Keith Windschuttle, Charles Martel, Richard Lionheart and John III Sobieski of Poland.

 

To their credit, the Wikipedia community included a (very brief) reference to that fact that Breivik admired and wanted to copy the brutality and methods of the Islamic Jihadist terror network al-Qaida. It also stated in a single paragraph that Wikipedia was extensively quoted in the manifesto and that Breivik during the trial named the free encyclopedia as his primary source of education, but the entry did not elaborate more upon this.

 

It said much more about Breivik’s alleged ties or sympathies to Zionists, “far Right” Islamophobes, “national conservatives” or even the English journalist Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear, the popular BBC television show about cars which currently enjoys hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide. From reading this Wikipedia entry, one might get the impression that Anders Behring Breivik was the collective product of all European and Western forces to the Right of the Social Democrats who don’t kiss the boots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Much has been written about Anders Behring Breivik and his relationship with the Internet. It is true that he was affected by visiting blogs, reading texts or news, seeing videos or playing computer games online. On a darker note, he used it during his terror preparations to buy equipment, weapons and effects for his self-made uniform, and also to send his so-called manifesto by email to hundreds of people. However, the Internet itself is neither good nor bad; just like telephones or books are not. Technical tools may change the manner in which human beings interact, but they ultimately reflect the complexities of human relationships and the human mind itself.

 

The American entrepreneur Jimmy Wales co-founded Wikipedia as a free Internet-based encyclopedia operating under an open-source management style, edited collaboratively by volunteers and amateurs in multiple languages. Despite its significant flaws, chief of which is the lack of professionalism, Wikipedia has over the past decade become one of the most popular websites on the entire planet and is sometimes openly credited as a source by the mass media. Jimmy Wales visited Oslo to participate in Wikipedia Academy 2012. He then stated that his creation simply reflects ordinary human beings and their culture, for better or worse.

 

Just to highlight how important the encyclopedia is considered to be, a number of senior representatives of national political and cultural life participated in Wikipedia Academy 2012 alongside Wales and Jarle Vines from Wikimedia Norway. One of them was Heikki Holmås of the Socialist Left Party, the Minister of International Development in the Stoltenberg government. The Arts Council Norway, the main governmental operator for the implementation of Norwegian cultural policy, fully financed by the Ministry of Culture, announced in 2012 that it had set aside money for training purposes to encourage certain state employees to edit entries at Wikipedia.

 

Knut Olav Åmås, debate editor at newspaper Aftenposten, warned in 2010 that the Arts Council, which controls substantial sums of tax payers’ money that is of interest to many people in key positions in the country’s cultural life, exhibits less and less independence from the Ministry. Åmås suggested that this was a desired policy by Minister of Culture Trond Giske and his successor Anniken Huitfeldt, both from the Labor Party.

 

While being more tightly controlled by the left-wing government, the Council has increased significantly in staff and budget. Its current director Anne Aasheim, a lesbian Feminist who previously was editor-in-chief of the left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, worked for years in senior positions at the state broadcaster NRK.

 

The English Wikipedia entry on me by mid-June 2012 was extremely negative and biased. The opinions of known ideological enemies were presented as the gospel truth. It matter-of-factly referred to Eurabia as a “conspiracy theory” and contained several outright falsehoods about my person. For example, it claimed that the Norwegian police “called me in for questioning” and that I “agreed” to have my premises searched. I did no such thing. They couldn’t call me in for questioning, since neither they nor the press had any idea who I was.

 

I did not agree to have my flat ransacked, and I still question the legality of doing so to a witness with no criminal record, given that the police didn’t have a shred of evidence that this person had committed a crime. Unfortunately, I apparently cannot try the legality of their action in a court afterwards because the Supreme Court has ruled against this. Which means that the Norwegian police, without having permission from a judge, can ransack the flat of a person who is not charged with anything criminal, and confiscate whatever they want, and that person cannot contest this decision in a court afterwards because by then the damage has already been done.

 

For the record: the report from my questioning written by the police themselves, which I later signed, clearly stated that my lawyer and I did not approve of my premises being searched. Therefore the account published in Wikipedia is a lie, plain and simple.

 

The entire entry reads like a case study in character assassination. There are almost too many things about my profile there to criticize, but take this quote as an example: “Norwegian historian Vidar Enebakk has criticised the way he thought Fjordman misused academic research for political purposes. Øyvind Strømmen argues that Fjordman’s essays fulfill all the criteria of Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism. The Norwegian professor Arnulf Hagen claims that there was much to suggest that Fjordman had a Wikipedia account which made 2000 edits.”

 

Let’s start with the final claim first. Arnulf Hagen, a technology professor at NTNU, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in the city of Trondheim, claimed that Wikipedia has been manipulated by “right-wing extremist networks.” He did point out some real flaws in the Wikipedia model, for instance that a tiny percentage of its anonymous users are responsible for a vastly disproportionate number of edits or entries there.

 

In a magazine published by the labor unions (LO), which cooperate intimately with the Labor Party, Hagen suggested that I have operated within a vast right-wing extremist network in the Wiki-world under the nickname Misheu, and there edited more than two thousand articles. That’s definitely a very interesting theory. The only problem with it is that is has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever and is 100% fabricated. I never had anything actively to do with Wikipedia at all under any name until well after the Breivik case, when I first contacted them to request that a few statements on their extremely hostile entries on me be edited. I didn’t even know how to log in there.

 

That fact didn’t prevent Mr. Hagen from publishing several articles about this issue and being interviewed about it by the national broadcaster NRK. Curiously, nobody asked me about the matter even though quite a few journalists have my email address.

 

In another venue, Professor Arnulf Hagen, again without having the tiniest shred of evidence, stated that the American author Bruce Bawer writes at the blog Gates of Vienna under the pseudonym The Observer. For the record: I know who The Observer is, and he is an ethnic Norwegian.

 

Wikipedia suggests that Eurabia is a “conspiracy theory,” despite the fact that those wring about this subject can back up every single claim using publicly available sources. I am also routinely refereed to as a “conspiracy theorist” in the mainstream media in multiple countries, despite the fact that they find it hard to pinpoint exactly what I have written that is factually wrong. Yet here we have a case where a respected academic at a noted national university simply invents things out of thin air, thereby implicating named individuals in a vast conspiracy. He had these claims published with nary a single critical question asked by established journalists.

 

It says bad things about the state of modern academia when an established professor, who is supposed to know a thing or two about sources and doing critical research, fails so utterly and publicly in this task. I hope Hagen is better at his job under normal circumstances. If not, perhaps he should consider finding a different line of work.

As for the second claim, in the Norwegian, English and German entries on me, writer Øyvind Strømmen is referenced as an objective scholar saying that I am a “Fascist.” Under relevant literature in the Norwegian entry for “Eurabia,” Strømmen is listed along with the far-Left and pro-Islamic Swedish activist Andreas Malm, who writes for the Socialist newspaper Internationalen. Yet, incredibly enough, Bat Ye’or’s book from 2005 is not mentioned.

 

By comparison, Strømmen’s entries in English and Norwegian were entirely positive, simply praising him for his “insights” into “conspiracy theories utilized by the far-right, anti-Islamic groups in Europe.” The entries in both languages contain hardly a single critical word about him, despite the fact that a substantial number of people do not agree with Mr. Strømmen and some seriously question his alleged credentials as an academic “expert.” The difference is that the political Left, who appear to control Wikipedia, like him, but not me.

 

I pointed out to the encyclopedia that Strømmen has no stronger academic credentials than I do and is highly politicized. If his opinions about me can be cited on my Wiki profile, it is only fair and balanced that I be allowed to state my opinions about him, too, which have been quoted in the press previously. They ignored this plea.

 

As for the third claim, the researcher Vidar Enebakk from the University of Oslo, who has acted as a visiting scholar at the University of Cambridge in England on the history of science, in September 2011 wrote an essay in the newspaper VG concerning the articles I have published on the Internet about the history of science, from geology to quantum physics.

 

According to him, the range of my writings is impressive, their contents “scarily good,” although he did admittedly have some reservations about some of my interpretations.

 

Enebakk does not agree with my political views at all, but he was nevertheless fair enough to evaluate my writings on science and found them well-informed.

 

As for being politicized, history-writing is probably always politicized, but has become extremely so over the past decades under Multicultural and Marxist pressures. I am simply making a modest attempt to add some sorely needed counterbalance to what I consider to be anti-European propaganda, and can always document what I write. Far too many myths about alleged European Christian evilness and Islamic tolerance and scientific progress are allowed to remain unchallenged today.

 

In 2009 and 2010 I published A History of Astrophysics and Cosmology, A History of Geology and Planetary Science and A History of Beer. These three essays alone amount to more than 74,000 words, or a full-length book. All of this was published for free. I didn’t receive a single cent for doing this and didn’t ask for any, either. I have written very extensive historical essays about the history of European music, mathematics, optics, Indo-European linguistics, superstring theory and chocolate. I’ve spent years researching how Europe and the Islamic world used the Greco-Roman cultural legacy differently. Again, all published online entirely for free.

 

Scientific history is not a marginal part of my production but has been purposefully ignored by Wikipedia. I have written more about astronomy and astrophysics than I have about radical Feminism, but one would know nothing about that from reading their entries. I sent links to these and other essays of mine that can be found on the Internet on the so-called Fjordman Files to Wikipedia Norway. I was answered by John Erling Blad. Yet they deliberately chose to ignore them, despite the fact that I could easily document all of my claims. This amounts to a crystal-clear violation of Wikipedia’s own stated principles, presumably for political reasons.

 

The Norwegian Wiki entry under “political debate” said that I declined a challenge by Abid Raja, a politician of Pakistani descent, for a debate in August 2011. At that point I had needed a few weeks off to recover from the inhuman media pressure against my person. I also didn’t like the bullying “You’re going to participate in my media stunt or I’ll call you a coward” attitude. That was all the entry said under political debate, even though I could easily document that I have published quite a few texts in the press after this. Again, this fact was willfully ignored.

 

A suspicion that this is done for ideological reasons is strengthened by statements made to the mass media. The public broadcaster NRK, Norway’s equivalent of the BBC, stated that Wikipedia needs help to increase patrolling and keep “right-wing extremists” away. Jarle Vines, the leader of Wikimedia Norway, warned that even the boundlessly evil Fjordman has tried to manipulate the entries. Ironically, Mr. Vines highlighted the goals of being “objective,” fair and “balanced.” I contacted Wikipedia regarding my entry and a couple of others precisely because I found them seriously lacking in terms of being objective, fair and balanced.

 

“There is no lack of people who share Breivik’s opinions among users of Wikipedia,” says Jarle Vines, especially on controversial topics such as Islamophobia. Harald Haugland, a member of the Wikipedia administration, thinks there is reason to believe that like-minded groups concentrate on the English version, which has many more readers. He warns against using the encyclopedia as a primary source of scholarly knowledge, however.

 

Suggestions have been made that people who “sympathize with Breivik,” by which they seem to mean anybody who thinks that Islamic Jihad and the spread of sharia are greater threats than Islamophobia, have launched an assault on Wikipedia. Yet their entry on “Islamophobia” in languages such as English, German, French, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Danish presents Islamophobia as a serious problem that could threaten world peace, indicating a very substantial and possibly systemic Wikipedia bias in favor of Islam and Multiculturalism.

 

The Islamic convert Anne Sophie Roald, a professor in History of Religion, has indicated that Islamophobia was recognized as intolerance at the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance in January 2001. The conference, attended by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Secretary General Ján Kubis and representatives of the European Union and Council of Europe, adopted a declaration to combat “genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and xenophobia” as well as all forms of discrimination.

 

This program to combat Islamophobia in any way, shape or form has over the past decade been institutionalized at a pan-European level in the CoE and the EU, in cooperation with Islamic organizations. These are not empty words.

 

Notice that this conference about combating opposition to Islam took place before the attacks of September 11th, 2001. It did not happen in response to any particular event; it was part of an ongoing process at the highest levels of European policy-making, the UN and other organizations to clamp down upon any criticism of Islam.

 

When compiling his manifesto or compendium, Anders Behring Breivik made extensive use of Wikipedia, which he briefly suggested might be a battlefield. Yet as these examples demonstrate, Wikipedia arguably suffers from a substantial bias towards the very forces Breivik professes to hate, which reminds us once more of how clueless Breivik has often been.

 

What conclusions can be drawn from this? I’m not suggesting that no one should ever use Wikipedia under any circumstances. With caution, I occasionally do so myself, at least as one of many sources, when searching for simple factual information about subjects that are not politically charged. However, the more politicized the subjects or individuals involved become, the less reliable Wikipedia becomes as well.

 

Wikipedia should be treated in the same manner as the BBC. The BBC is fine as long as one is interested in cars or the colorful sex life of some rare beetle on Madagascar. One just shouldn’t rely on it for information concerning ideology, politics, culture, religion or world affairs.

____________________________

EuropeNews Homepage

 

About EuropeNews:

 

• EuropeNews represents the principles of freedom of the press, clarification & human rights against canons of religious intolerance and terrorism.

 

• EuropeNews Press Review gathers independent day-by-day news regardless of political standpoints or ideologies.

 

• EuropeNews select the best articles from the most credible of thousands of information sources, to show the diversity of viewpoints and information available with modern media.

 

• EuropeNews media monitoring stands for transparent democracy.

 

• EuropeNews editorial staff followes no political or economic interests, but offers daily updated a wide selection of articles about democracy & Islam Ideologie.

 

• EuropeNews is a neutral media service run by volunteer effort. Our editoral and financial independence is important to us.

 

Read Entire About Page

Geert Wilders: Marked for Death


Marked for Death - Geert Wilders bk jk

Fjordman has written an essay that focuses on Geert Wilders because of the May 2012 release of the book “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me.” The book is about Geert’s realization about the dark side of Islam and how Muslims have responded to him for exposing the dark side of Islam.

 

Fjordman takes up from the book to defend this bastion of Free Speech in the Western World. The West is under a huge dose of Leftist Multiculturalism in which it is politically correct to disdain Christianity and politically incorrect to speak or write the truth about Islam. In writing the truth of Islam a person like Geert Wilders is then labeled a hate-bigoted Islamophobe. Muslim Apologists and Leftist Multiculturalists consider the term Islamophobe an epithet; however I personally where the term as a badge of honor. The honor is not living in fear and loathing of Islam rather the honor is in not becoming intimidated by the intolerance of Islam.

 

Geert Wilders in the irony of defending Free Speech has landed into the position of being the focal point of Islamic hatred with his life under constant threat.

 

Here is Fjordman’s essay.

 

JRH 5/11/12 (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)

Please Support NCCR

********************************

Geert Wilders: Marked for Death

 

By Fjordman

May 11, 2012 @ 12:30 am

FrontPageMag.com

 

The courageous Dutch politician Geert Wilders released his book Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me in May 2012. The foreword to this title was written by the eloquent Canadian-born political commentator and cultural critic Mark Steyn, who has a special talent for writing about serious topics in a humorous way. He has published several books and written essays for publications ranging from the Jerusalem Post and the Chicago Sun-Times to the National Review, The Australian and Canada’s National Post.

 

Steyn is honest enough to admit that when he was first asked to contribute to Wilders’ new book, his initial reaction was to say no. The main reason for this is the potentially high cost of being associated with a man who lives with constant death threats.

 

Yet, after taking a stroll in the woods, Mark Steyn felt ashamed at the ease with which he was caving in to the enemies of freedom, and decided to accept the offer after all. He recalled how the Canadian Islamic Congress boasted that their attempts by legal aggression to silence Steyn’s critical writings about Islam had cost his magazine substantial sums, and thereby attained their “strategic objective” of increasing the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.

 

In the case of Geert Wilders, that cost is not merely limited to money. Despite being an elected Member of Parliament in what used to be one of Europe’s freest and most tolerant countries, he is regularly vilified by Western mass media. When trying to enter Britain, a nation that once was a champion of liberty, he was detained by plainclothes border guards on arrival at London’s Heathrow airport in February 2009 and deported from the country.

 

The democratic Dutch MP had been invited to the House of Lords, where Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson wanted to show his 17-minute Islam-critical film Fitna. The Home Office refused him entry on the grounds he “would threaten community security and therefore public security,” not because he threatened to use violence, but because Muslims might use it.

 

Lord Ahmed from the Labour Party, Britain’s first Muslim member of the House of Lords, the upper house of the British Parliament, pledged to bring a 10,000 strong force of angry Muslims to lay siege to Parliament. A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain claimed that Wilders has been an open and relentless preacher of “hate.” At the same time, London has become a notorious intentional center for Islamic militants, who spew hate on a daily basis.

 

Geert Wilders accused the Labour government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown of being “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe.” He was later allowed entry to the UK, however. He was also put on trial in the Netherlands accused of criminally insulting religious and ethnic groups. Wilders was eventually found not guilty in 2011, but the entire process took several years.

 

As Mark Steyn puts it, “He is under round-the-clock guard because of explicit threats to murder him by Muslim extremists. Yet he’s the one who gets put on trial for incitement. In twenty-first century Amsterdam, you’re free to smoke marijuana and pick out a half-naked sex partner from the front window of her shop. But you can be put on trial for holding the wrong opinion about a bloke who died in the seventh century. And, although Mr. Wilders was eventually acquitted by his kangaroo court, the determination to place him beyond the pale is unceasing: ‘The far-right anti-immigration party of Geert Wilders’ (the Financial Times)… ‘Far-right leader Geert Wilders’ (the Guardian)… ‘Extreme right anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders’ (AFP) is ‘at the fringes of mainstream politics’ (Time). Mr. Wilders is so far out on the far-right extreme fringe that his party is the third biggest in parliament.”

 

Maybe those who are out on the fringe are the ones who think that disliking Islam is “far-right.”

 

Yet it’s not just Wilders himself who is being attacked in this fashion. Those who dare to meet him or support some of his views could find themselves attacked by the mass media and the political elites in a comparable manner. Cory Bernardi, born and raised in Adelaide and currently representing the state of South Australia for the Liberal Party in the Australian Senate, in 2011 came under fire not only from members of other parties but also from his own — allegedly conservative — party when he wanted to facilitate a trip to Australia by Wilders.

 

The Sydney Morning Herald simply labeled Geert Wilders “an Islamaphobic Dutch politician.” The Melbourne-based The Age claimed that Wilders’ “objectionable” and “poisonous anti-Islam views” are “abhorrent and plainly wrong” and that his ideas are self-evidently “repugnant.” The newspaper continued to suggest that if Senator Bernardi did not dissociate himself from Mr. Wilders’ views, then perhaps his own party should demote him.

 

Wayne Swan, Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia under PM Julia Gillard, said Bernardi has right-wing extremist views. Other senior Labor Party members indicated that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott should discipline the senator and remove him from his portfolio responsibilities. Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett declined to say whether he believed Abbott should have Bernardi expelled from the Liberal Party, or copy the way former Prime Minister John Howard had Pauline Hanson disendorsed as a candidate ahead of the 1996 national election due to her vocal opposition to non-European mass immigration. Australian Greens senator Richard Di Natale also condemned Bernardi’s associations with Wilders. “Multiculturalism is one of this country’s great successes and it must be defended,” he stated.

 

Wilders commented in an essay published in The Washington Times on May 4 2012 that “As I write these lines, there are police bodyguards at the door. No visitor can enter my office without passing through several security checks and metal detectors. I have been marked for death. I am forced to live in a heavily protected safe house. Every morning, I am driven to my office in the Dutch Parliament building in an armored car with sirens and flashing blue lights. When I go out, I am surrounded, as I have been for the past seven years, by plainclothes police officers. When I speak in public, I wear a bulletproof jacket. Who am I? I am neither a king nor a president, nor even a government minister; I am just a simple politician in the Netherlands. But because I speak out against expanding Islamic influence in Europe, I have been marked for death. If you criticize Islam, this is the risk you run. That is why so few politicians dare to tell the truth about the greatest threat to our liberties today.”

 

Wilders received his first death threats in 2003 after asking the government to investigate a radical mosque. In November 2004, after a Muslim fanatic murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh, policemen armed with machine guns pushed him into an armored car and drove him off into the night. That was the last time he was in his own house. Since then, he has lived “in an army barracks, a prison cell and now a government-owned safe house.” The security detail has become part of his daily routine, but it must still be hard getting used to being a virtual prisoner in your own country and unable to visit a restaurant or cafe in a normal manner.

 

Hostile journalists often denounce Wilders and his Party for Freedom as “populists,” but they are popular for a reason: They state uncomfortable truths that the ruling elites want to sweep under the carpet. The natives are rapidly being turned into a harassed minority in Amsterdam, Rotterdam or The Hague, a pattern that can now be seen in far too many European cities.

 

Fifty-seven percent of the Dutch people say that mass immigration was the biggest single mistake in Dutch history. Yet what is arguably the greatest change their country and their continent have experienced in historical times is beyond honest discussion in the mainstream media.

 

Wilders goes on to note that “I have read the Koran and studied the life of Muhammad. It made me realize that Islam is primarily a totalitarian ideology rather than a religion. I feel sorry for the Arab, Persian, Indian and Indonesian peoples who have to live under the yoke of Islam. It is a belief system that marks apostates for death, forces critics into hiding and denies our Western tradition of individual freedom. Without freedom, there can be no prosperity and no pursuit of happiness. More Islam means less life, less liberty and less happiness.”

 

Geert Wilders has sacrificed his personal freedom of movement and the prospects of a normal life in order to warn his country, his continent and his civilization against serious threats to their freedom. We should honor that sacrifice by listening carefully to what he has to say.

__________________________

About Fjordman

 

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

                                  

Copyright© 2012 FrontPageMagazine.com

Breivik, European Free Speech and American Free Speech


Mo & Aisha k-i-s-s-i-n-g

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2012

 

The essayist Fjordman is an instrumental writer to expose the dark side of Islam to the Western world. Back in July 2011 mass murderer/terrorist Anders Breivik killed men, women and children under the delusion it would begin a grassroots paradigm (One may have to log into Google to read this link) that would take down Left oriented governments of Europe and replace them with a new European order that would employ a warped vision of Christianity to remove Muslims from Europe. Breivik built his warped paradigm on the backs of legitimate writers and politicians that have caught onto the nature of the dark side of Islam. That dark side incidentally is something that cannot coexist peacefully with the Western heritage of Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman civilization that has developed into a civilized world of representative governments, Civil Rights and a socio-political society that differences are usually settled with legislation and an effective judicial system. I am a bit prejudiced but I have to say the United States of America has arisen to the highest level of this Western heritage. (That’s why everyone wants to move here even when they hate America.)

 

The act of terrorism that Breivik did was ghastly horrible. AND one the side effects was to give ammunition to Left Wing Multiculturalists that anti-jihad writers are nothing but extremist Right Wingers that promote hate and incite Islamophobia to the point of bigotry and violence. There were a host of anti-jihad writers that Breivik plagiarized and quoted for his master plan, but it seemed that Norwegian Fjordman was a large focus of inspiration that turned to twisted goals. It is one thing to expose Islam. It is quite another thing to breed hatred toward Muslim believers as a whole. I think Islam is evil myself; however under the principles of religious freedom and Free Speech Islam must be free to be practiced as long as the theo-political nature of Islam does not itself inspire Muslims to do the very same thing that Breivik did.

 

Unfortunately Europe does not have the same parameters of Free Speech that America has. God help America if our nation begins to dilute Free Speech as Europe has. In Europe a Christian can be slapped with the accusation of a hate crime by openly promoting Biblical morality if it offends non-Christians or practitioners of alternate lifestyles. Such warped limitations on Free Speech in Europe have already occurred.

 

** Äke Green: Pastor Äke Green of Sweden was convicted of hate crimes for preaching that homosexuality is a sin in 2004. Pastor Green’s conviction was overturned in Swedish Appellate Court in 2005, but if I was a betting man I am guessing Sweden has strengthened their hate crime law limiting Christianity. (SlantRight.com article posted in 2007)

 

** André-Mutien Léonard: Belgian homosexual activists have brought charges against Mgr André-Mutien Léonard, the Roman-Catholic bishop of Namur, for homophobia, a criminal offence in Belgium according to the country’s 2003 Anti-Discrimination Act. In an interview last April in the Walloon weekly Télé Moustique, the bishop is said to have described homosexuals as “abnormal” people. According to Michel Graindorge, the activists’ lawyer, the bishop intended to “stigmatize” homosexuals, whose “identity and dignity is debased from the moment that the bishop considers them to be abnormal.” (SlantRight.com article posted in 2007)

 

** Christian Vanneste: Last January Christian Vanneste, a member of the French parliament (who has just been reelected), was convicted for homophobia by a French court. Mr Vanneste had said that “heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality” and that “homosexuality endangers the survival of mankind.” (Brussels Journal 2007)

 

** Susanne Winter: Vienna — Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam’s prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter’s home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported. (Gates of Vienna 1/22/09)

 

** Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: There is now a conviction against Austrian citizen Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (ESW), who stood trial on a charge of “incitement to hatred” at a series of seminars educating about political Islam and the challenges we face. The case was closed on February 15th 2011 by judge Bettina Neubauer, who gave the following verdict to ESW, who was also convicted of being a “Repeat offender”, in spite of this conviction being her first:

 

·         Acquitted on the charge of incitement to hatred

 

·         Convicted for denigration of the teachings of a legally recognized religion.

 

·         Punishment: 120 day fines for a total of 480 euros.

 

 

 

After having gone through this material at the first two hearings, the audience of the case had a clear expectation that ESW would be acquitted of the charges and have her name cleared. But at the end of the second hearing, the judge added an unexpected twist to the case:

She inquired of ESW about her comments that the actions of Muhammad would today be considered ‘paedophilia’. While ensuring a nod of approval from the prosecutor, she then extended the charges to also encompass “Denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion”. (Gates of Vienna 2/18/11 READ ENTIRITY)

 

Judge Leo Levnaic-Iwanski upheld the verdict of the lower court, which convicted Elisabeth on the charge of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” (Gates of Vienna 12/20/11)

 

 

The Superior Court confirmed the verdict, although with a somewhat different reasoning. While the lower court regarded pedophilia as factually completely unjustified, the higher court judged the remark “liked a little something with children” to be an extreme evaluation. Only the isolated explanation that Mohammed had sex with a child was allowable.

In supporting the verdict, there was explicit reference to the Winter case and the disposition of the European Court of Justice: (Gates of Vienna 1/28/12 READ ENTIRITY)

 

** Geert Wilders: Fitna and some of the speeches delivered by Wilders hit the European concepts of political correctness, multiculturalism and diversity right smack in the groin. The Leftists of Europe and the Muslims of Europe (which are more radicalized than many would dare to comment on) went in violent seizures that someone would dare speak out against people that are divergent from Western Culture.

 

 

HERE IS THE THING. GEERT WILDERS HAS BEEN ACQUITTED IN THE DUTCH JUDICIAL SYSTEM! (SlantRight 2.0 6/26/11 READ ENTIRITY)

 

European Hate Speech Laws

 

 

In large part, the movement to circumscribe the bounds of free expression has its roots in three instruments of international law—the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Discrimination (CERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 10 of the ECHR, for example, grants the freedom of expression to all, but the exercise of this right is conditioned on conformity with the restrictions necessary, inter alia, “for the protection of the reputation and rights of others.” The CERD and ICCPR, which also purport to recognize the freedom of expression, go a step further. Article 4(a) of the CERD obligates signatories to make “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred” a punishable offense, while Article 20 of the ICCPR requires outlawing “any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.”

 

Given the nebulous standards on which much of Europe’s hate speech laws are based—indeed, there is not even a universally agreed upon definition for what constitutes hate speech—it is little wonder that such legislation has ensnared speech it was likely never meant to punish. Delineating the line between speech that is considered rude and that which is considered insulting for the purposes of criminal prosecution is an utterly subjective undertaking, and a distinction that governments are ill-suited to determine. Compounding the problem of these laws’ arbitrariness is their selective application: while European authorities have at times appeared reluctant to go after Islamist firebrands spouting hatred, those engaging in legitimate debate about Islamism are frequently targeted for prosecution. Examples abound: (The Legal Project © 2012 READ ENTIRITY)

 

I am sure There are other cases Left Wing Multicultural persecution of truth tellers especially related to Islam. The cases above are the ones I have been most familiar with over the years. I did not even mention cases in Canada which has a comparable Free Speech infringement in the similitude of Europe.

 

The horrendous terrorist murders perpetrated by Anders Breivik has thrown a monkey wrench into liberating Free Speech in Europe. Because of Breivik the anonymity pursued by Fjordman was exposed as Norwegian authorities began shining a light because Breivik based a large amount of his deviant epic on Fjordman’s writings.

 

Anders Breivik is now in the middle of his trial in Norway. Breivik has been found insane by a couple of psychiatric experts. Especially in Europe a successful insanity defense will keep Breivik out of prison. Breivik would be committed to a psych ward.

 

Here is the remarkable twist. Breivik does not want to be declared legally insane and escape prison. He wants to be prosecuted as a person acting on political ideology rather than insanity. Of course that sounds insane. There will be no acquittal for Anders Breivik. Here is a glimpse of the Breivik legal defense team goal:

 

Defense attorneys for confessed terrorist Anders Behring Breivik have confirmed that former guerrilla leader Mullah Krekar and anti-Muslim blogger Peder Jensen, better known as “Fjordman,” are among the roughly 35 persons they’re calling to testify during Breivik’s trial. The goal is to prove that Breivik, like Krekar and Jensen, is driven by political ideology, not insanity, and therefore can be held responsible for his attacks. (Krekar, ‘Fjordman’ called to testify; Views and News from Norway, 4/3/12)

 

As I asserted, I have no doubt that Breivik will be convicted under this legal defense and spend the rest of his life in jail.

 

Here’s the problem though. If the Breivik defense team is successful in waving a declaration of insanity and is convicted for political ideology, then all European anti-jihad writers and politicians will find themselves in a legal pickle. This is especially the case for Fjordman because he is a Norwegian citizen.  If Breivik is convicted for political thoughts as well as for murder then Fjordman would be an accomplice to the crimes of murder perpetrated by Breivik.

 

The reasoning will have nothing to do with whether or not Fjordman helped Breivik in the demented scheme to bring change to Europe. Fjordman could be judged guilty of inspiring Breivik to formulate his plan. It is the old anti-Free Speech ploy of assigning incitement to perform hate crimes via Fjordman (and others) writings.

 

Friends, this is not good for Free Speech or Religious Freedom!

 

If Breivik’s legal team is successful in waving a declaration of insanity, the best thing that could happen for Free Speech is for the Prosecution to pursue a case of murder in whatever degree that Norway utilizes (No death penalties in Europe). If independent thought via writing is attached to murder charges it will not bode well for Fjordman’s Free Speech and it will not bode well for Free Speech in all of Europe. There is an extension here as well. European law has been creeping in the American judicial system due to Left Wing activist judges who ignore that a foreign legal precedent quite probably would be unconstitutional in the good old USA.

 

The legal wrangling going on in Norway may not be getting a lot of press in America; however legal decisions there just might affect the rule of law in America. After all, our President has shown a predisposition to ignore the Constitution. Limiting Free Speech because of unconstitutional hate speech laws is not beyond the pale of America’s Left.

 

JRH 4/5/12

_______________________________

Support NCCR

Tennessee has the Right Idea on Sharia


No Sharia 2

John R. Houk

© March 5, 2011

Sharia Law is the un-American aspect of Islam that needs absolute prohibition in the United States of America! The UK has already subjected itself to cultural suicide by allowing Sharia to be practiced by Muslims outside the rule of law that applies to everyone else in Britain. One of the glaring results is a slow awakening among those who are typically politically correct and have looked the other way as Sharia practicing Muslims have engaged in acts of violence that are not only culturally unacceptable but are prosecutable crimes even in pc minded UK.

UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron has gone public condemning multiculturalism as something that is not working. Prime Minister Cameron was pointing to the emergence of home grown terrorism among British Muslims. MP Jack Straw has alerted the British public that there is an epidemic of Muslims (Straw emphasized persons of Pakistani heritage) preying on young white girls and turning them into sex-slaves for other Muslims.

If multiculturalism is beginning to receive a bad rap in the UK (and Germany for that matter); then why would America allow Sharia Law to be practiced in America especially since many aspects of this particular Islamic law are obviously unconstitutional.

Oklahoma citizens overwhelmingly passed a law that would make Sharia Law or any other international law that contradicts the Constitution to be applied in Oklahoma. Of course a local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) went to the Courts to sue complaining Oklahoma’s law is unconstitutional with the U.S. Constitution. OK-CAIR talked a Federal Judge to stay the institutionalizing of the law until a Court decision arrives on Oklahoma’s law.

Here is a list of thirteen States that have followed Oklahoma’s excellent idea that I found on a website that believes anti-Sharia laws are “useless”:

1. ALASKA: Rep. Carl Gatto (R) has introduced SB 88, which invokes the Constitution to make sure that “foreign law is prohibited.

2. ARIZONA: Arizona’s anti-Sharia law is HB 2582, the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act.” In addition to banning the implementation of Sharia law, the bill would also ban “canon law, halacha and karma.

3. ARKANSAS: Arkansas’s anti-Sharia bill is SB 97, which says that the “the recognition and enforcement (.PDF) of a foreign judgment or ruling is limited to the extent that its 33 enforcement would not directly conflict with the public policy of Arkansas.”

4. GEORGIA: Rep. Mike Jacobs (R) has introduced a bill that would “ban the use of Sharia law in state courts.” Jacobs says of the issue, “We’re seeing more of a feeling that Sharia law should be applied in domestic cases.” “Arbitration is a routine business exercise by people who are prepared to sacrifice some of their constitutional rights in return for reduced cost and expediency,” said Michael J. Broyde, a “member of the Beth Din of America — the largest Jewish law court in the country,” in response to the law. “[The bill would] incapacitate Georgia companies as they engage in international commerce.”

5. INDIANA: Indiana’s SRJ 16 would make it so that courts could not enforce a “law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States.”

6. LOUISIANA: Louisiana passed a law guarding against “international law” being used in its courts in June 2010.

7. MISSISSIPPI: House bill 301 was introduced to ban “Mississippi courts from using foreign laws, including Sharia law, which is a guide to Islamic religious practice.”

8. NEBRASKA: Legislative Bill 647 aims to “prohibit Nebraska courts from using foreign laws in decisions.)” If passed, it will have to be voted on by Nebraska voters in 2011 because it is a constitutional amendment.

9. SOUTH CAROLINA: In South Carolina, Sen. Mike Fair (R) has introduced legislation to ban the implementation of Sharia law, saying there is “a need to clarify that cultural customs or foreign laws don’t trump U.S. laws.” He does admit, however, that his bill is “stating the obvious.”

10. TEXAS: State Rep. Leo Berman (R) recently introduced a constitutional amendment “prohibiting a court of this state from enforcing, considering or applying a religious or cultural law.” If the legislature passes the amendment, it will appear on the November 2011 ballot for Texas voters to approve.

11. SOUTH DAKOTA: South Dakota’s anti-Sharia bill is HRJ 1004, which says that no court “may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction.”

12. UTAH: Rep. Carl Wimmer (R) introduced a bill banning Sharia but then shortly withdrew it after being warned it could harm “international business,” admitting it was “too broad.” He is still looking for ways to ban Sharia.

13. WYOMING: State Rep. Gerald Gay (R) says his bill banning Sharia law is “a ‘pre-emptive strike’ to ensure judges don’t rely on Shariah [sic] in cases involving, for example, arranged marriages, ‘honor killings’ or usury cases.”

Thanks to: ColorLines for being the first website via the Google search engine to provide a list of States even though the writer of the post is obviously against such laws prohibiting Sharia from getting a toe-hold.

Another State is joining the fold. Tennessee legislators are attempting to pass an anti-Sharia Bill. That would make Tennessee the 14th State that has awakened to the fact that Sharia and the U.S. Constitution are contradictory in regard to the unalienable rights of humanity.

The other 13 States have tried to be as politically correct as possible to keep their anti-Sharia laws separate from the Disestablishmentarian Clause and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment; viz., “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Sharia Law is part of the religion of Islam and Constitutionally Congress (and therefore State Legislatures also) can neither establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise of a religion. This is a thorny issue in the consciousness of Americans. The other 13 States handled the separation from the Disestablishmentarian Clause (etc.) by writing the law to prohibit matters of Sharia Law and international being used as State Judiciary precedent in matters of deciding law civil or statutory. The meaning being that if Sharia or international law differs from the U.S. Constitution or the State Constitution, no judicial ruling may be considered to override constitutional documents based on foreign laws or the political aspects of Sharia in particular. The concept is to purely keep the law secular and have no interference in an individual’s personal practice.

The Tennessee Senate and House Bills (SB 1028 and HB 1353) takes the matter a step further. There is an actual chance that the practice of Sharia Law in matters of worship incites violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the U.S. government; that practice then would be a felony punishable by a fine and/or up to 15 years in prison.

Tennessee is tackling the thorny issue that Islam is more than a theological religion, but is also a political religion. The Tennessee anti-Sharia Bill attempts to sift through the theological to shake out the political that indeed promotes the overthrow of the U.S. Government, limits Free Speech, Religious Freedom, Free Choice, Free Thought, gender equality (i.e. equal rights for male and female), actually incites violence toward non-Muslims, incites violence toward Muslims that break Sharia (e.g. apostasy, adultery, thievery, etc.) and if you are a Moral Relativist Sharia would mean death for homosexuals and transgender freaks.

I may disagree with Leftist economics and political utopianism as well as the practice of homosexuality but I do not wish their death. AND as a Christian (regardless of idiotic acts in the name of Christianity), God’s Word forbids the killing of people because of ungodly thoughts or practices. In the Biblical Scripture those judgments are taken care of by God at the Last Judgment. A Christian’s duty is to share the Good News that Jesus Christ has delivered humanity from the evil darkness of Satan’s world system that is separate from God’s Kingdom. The world system is temporal and God’s Kingdom is spiritually eternal. The Founding Fathers intended Christian Principles and Christian Morality to be the measuring stick of the rule of law in America. However, there is a vast difference between the Christian example paradigm and the Islamic mandate of an active paradigm of Islam/Sharia to be impressed in the rule of law.

The theopolitical nature of Islam unites the temporal community with Allah’s spiritual authority as one system managed by Allah on both plains meaning as the temporal end evolves a Muslim is obligated to take Islam to the world. Like the Borg of Star Trek, resistance is futile. You will be absorbed into the Ummah collective or you will be enslaved to its rules or you will die. Minus my diatribe against Political Islam, the Tennessee SB 1028 and HB 1353 isolates the portions of Sharia that would be in essence – unconstitutional.

The Leftist multiculturalists, Islamic apologists and duped American clergy that have viewed Tennessee’s anti-Sharia law as an infringement on religious freedom are saying things such as:

Siddiqi says says (sic) he’s not unusual among his fellow Muslims.

“…and Sharia demands, that I follow, and obey, the law of the land and the country in which I live.”

The bill would outlaw… Sharia, making it impossible to practice Islam.

Sharia law, like the Christian Bible and the Jewish Talmud, tells its adherents how to live their lives in an ethical fashion.

… Rabbi Kliel Rose, of the West End Synagogue. Rabbi Rose says he is speaking for himself and from the Jewish tradition.

“…so this has far-reaching effects. So first it’s Sharia, and then it’s Halaka, Jewish law. So as an observant Jew, you know, I have reasons to be very fearful of what’s to come, if this is passed.”

Remziya Suleyman, policy coordinator for the Tennessee Immigrant Refugee Rights Coalition

This debate is in no way about Sharia, or Islam. It is about whether our state government will uphold their values, of our constitution, and refrain from telling Tennesseans which is a good, and a bad religion.

Rev. Joseph P. Breen, a Catholic priest, joined the group.

I’d like to read you just a few words, not only of how I stand, but the way the Catholic Church feels. Our country was founded as a place of religious freedom, a refuge for those who were persecuted for their beliefs. Religious diversity is a basic right of everyone. As a Catholic, I share the belief with others that all religions have the same civil liberties. Unjust legislation against any religion is an assault on us all.

The above excerpted samples are from a Muslim, a Jew and a Roman Catholic Priest and are located at: Religious Groups Fight Together Against Anti-Sharia Bill; by Joe White; Nashville Public Radio; March 01st, 2011.

Ed Brayton found on Science Blogs (February 26, 2011 10:35 AM) says:

But of course, every group of Muslims will claim to be Sharia-compliant. Because Sharia just means “following the Quran.” But there are radically different versions of what that requires, just as there are in Christianity. So this means the AG of that state has to investigate every single Muslim group in the state without any actual reason to suspect that they’ve done anything wrong. 4th Amendment? Silly liberals, that doesn’t apply to Muslims!

The Fourth Amendment Reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

An unreasonable search and seizure would be without a search warrant. So the real question from a Leftist would be, “What is the probable cause for a reasonable search relating to Sharia Law?”

If it is against the law to plan the overthrow of the U.S. Constitutional government, that might be a probable cause, right? If in the practice of Sharia Law a Muslim individually or severally conspires to do harm and violence claiming that such a conspiracy is the duty to submit to Allah; that might be probable cause, right? If a Muslim utilizes Sharia Law to divorce rather than constitutional Law, that divorce might not be enforceable, right? In Sharia, it only takes a male Muslim to say “I divorce you” three times and it becomes a done deal. When the male performs the triple talaq (i.e. “I divorce you”) it must be understood Muslim theologians look down on divorce and have instituted various waiting periods. Also many Muslim nations have modernized Sharia talaq to fit national social rules; nonetheless the male can still divorce simply because he has become displeased with his wife. Waiting periods officially are for the purpose of reconciliation; the actual reason is to discover if the wife is pregnant or not. If she is pregnant she is entitled material support for the child. If she is not pregnant she is on her own and returned to her family. The Sharia penalty for thieving is amputation (WARNING-graphic video); a probable cause investigation if a Muslim organization takes it upon itself to punish someone for stealing is warranted, right? Sharia Law is the excuse for Honor Killing. This Muslim practice occurs when there is the perception that family honor in the face of Allah and the ummah has been distained. To restore honor typically a male family member such as the father or the brother (but women have been known to cooperate in this practice as well) takes it upon himself to kill the offending person which usually a female but males have been known to receive this honor retrieving wrath as well. The practice is illegal in many Muslim nations BUT most of the time is NOT enforced. The Honor Killing practice has begun to occur in Europe and America with greater frequency. The irony is the MSM has deemed the label of Honor Killing is not pc and have avoided pointing out this kind of murder in America as part of the religious practice of Islam. Muslim apologists have tried to convince American multiculturalists that Honor Killing is not a part of Islam or Sharia Law but of a cultural setting from Muslims that have a heritage from such a nation where Honor Killing is practiced. You know though that is hogwash. If there is more of a cultural connection than an Islamic Sharia connection it is because a Muslim nation of origin allows a greater measure of the penalties of Sharia to be practiced.

I found a concise description of the actual reality of the violent nature of Sharia Law that demonstrates there is controversy among Muslim scholars as to an update evolution of Sharia, keeping Sharia in it 7th century purity and how much is actually derived from the Quran:

Despite official reluctance to use hadd punishments, vigilante justice still takes place. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one’s family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor (National Geographic). Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules, elicit as much controversy. There is significant debate over what the Quran sanctions and what practices were pulled from local customs and predate Islam. Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. “With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people’s problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events,” says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.

The key to understand the above quoted paragraph as to comprehend the Islamic technical terms of hadd and tajdid.

Hadd:

Hudud (Arabic , also transliterated hadud, hudood; singular hadd, حد, literal meaning “limit”, or “restriction”) is the word often used in Islamic literature for the bounds of acceptable behaviour and the punishments for serious crimes. In Islamic law or Sharia, hudud usually refers to the class of punishments that are fixed for certain crimes that are considered to be “claims of God.” They include theft, fornication, consumption of alcohol, and apostasy.

Punishments

The punishments vary according to the status of the offender: Muslims generally receive harsher punishments than non-Muslims, free people receive harsher punishments than slaves, and in the case of zina’, married people receive harsher punishments than unmarried.

In brief, the punishments include:

· Capital punishments – by sword/crucifixion (for highway robbery with homicide), by stoning (for zina’ when the offenders are mature, married Muslims)

· Amputation of hands or feet (for theft and highway robbery without homicide)

· Flogging with a varying number of strokes (for drinking, zina’ when the offenders are unmarried or not Muslims, and false accusations of zina’)

Tajdid:

Tajdid is the Arabic term for “renewal.” In formal Muslim discussions, this term refers to conscious efforts to bring about the renewal of religious faith and practice, emphasizing strict adherence to the prescriptions of the Qur˒an and the precedents of the prophet Muhammad. The foundation for this usage is a widely accepted tradition in which Muhammad is reported to have said, “God will send to this umma [the Muslim community] at the head of each century those who will renew its faith for it.” Persons engaged in this activity of renewal are called mujaddids.

Although there have been disagreements over the details, and over which Muslim leaders were deserving of the title of mujaddid, the basic understanding of the importance of renewal has been remarkably constant throughout Islamic history. In the course of the history of the human community of Muslims, Muslims recognize that the actual faith and practice of the people sometimes departed from the ideal defined by the Qur˒an and the model of the Prophet. Muslims believe …

Note that tajdid is an application is used by Muslims who desire to modernize Islam and by Muslims desiring a return to the purist Islam of the 7th century. In essence “renewal” works both ways for Muslims.

You get the picture! The political aspects of Islam must be separated from the theological religious aspects. Just because Muslims or Muslim Clerics say all of Sharia is religious does not make it so. Someone needs to wise up and write legislation to declare the parts of Islam/Sharia that is political must be separate from the religious. Then religious Freedom for Islam remains under the First Amendment protection of the Free Exercise of religion. Then there should be less Left Wing panic about 4th Amendment probable cause in searching and seizing.

Keep in mind that a majority Islamic organizations and Mosques receive their literature and information from Wahhabi Saudi sources and places linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. These sources are not exactly a paragon of renewal in updating Sharia to modern forms of transforming Islam to a more peaceful religion.

This knowledge of Sharia Law definitely means the Tennessee Bill to make portions of Sharia a felony as it relates to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law essential to protect American Constitutional Rights of Life and Liberty.

And yet it is a thorny issue that definitely will require clarity. Both Multiculturalists and Muslim apologists do have a point with the First Amendment right that sweepingly says that Congress shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of Religion. And yet again, You must realize that the context of the word “religion” to the Founding Fathers referenced the various Confessions of Christian sects or denominations rather than the practice of non-Judeo-Christian religions. Also I am certain that a few open minded Founding Fathers also had in mind Judaism and unwittingly Islam. Even today scholars of a secular mind place Judaism, Christianity and Islam as part of the Judeo-Christian strain of religion.

Original Intent constitutionalists and the family values Christian Right view the context of religious freedom of being able to practice and worship even though Jewish, Muslim and any religion force the ceasing of Christian worship in the name of multiculturalism. Believers in Original Intent and Christian Values also would resist atheists and secularists wishing to impose Moral Relativity and Secular Humanistic values in such a way that Biblical Morality would be illegal. An example is homosexuality. Biblical Christians believe homosexuality is unholy deviant sin; thus a Christian business should not be forced to hire a homosexual or perhaps demands that a homosexual lifestyle NOT be taught as normal and acceptable in Public School. So also teaching multicultural diversity in understanding different cultures should not be forced down the intellectual throat of Christian children.

The first course to bring clarity will be through the judicial system. The problem with the judicial system it has somehow become bloated with multicultural Living Constitution Liberals who disdain constitutional Original Intent. In my view Conservative America’s judicial system will be unable to bring balance on the issues inherent in Congress not establishing a State Religion, making laws prohibiting religion, enforcing Free Speech and so on in application to Islam’s Sharia Law.

This will come down to the Amendment process, the Constitutional Convention process or social disorder in which the government will break all kinds of Constitutional Law to bring order. I am convinced this will lead to a Leftist dictatorship or to a Right Wing dictatorship which will in turn eventually erupt into either America’s second Revolutionary War or its second Civil War depending if the rebellion is based on groups of people or the States. I should say if it gets that far, there is the danger of a strong foreign power flexing its muscles and step into the fray to take over governing thus making all Americans losers.

Think of Rome invading Greece, Egypt and the Land of the Jews by the request of some ruler who hoped to gain advantage over local rivals. Let us pray this scenario does not play out and that Constitutional controversy will be settled by the Amendment process as the best case scenario.

JRH 3/5/11