The Department of Justice released their 2010 hate crime statistics. Once again, we see that “Islamophobia” is not even close to anti-Semitism.
“Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.”
– Yasser Arafat
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
“For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”
– Zahir Muhsein
Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member
March 31, 1977 in Dutch newspaper Truow
Bill DOES NOT violate rights of Muslims, though Jihadists would have us believe otherwise
The South Carolina Senate is currently debating legislation that would ban the enforcement of foreign and religious laws – including Islamic sharia law – but opponents claim the bill would violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In April, a Judiciary subcommittee conducted two hearings (on two separate days) on Senate Bill 444, which would prevent foreign and religious law from violating an individual’s constitutional rights. A third subcommittee hearing is in the offing.
S.C.’s bill does not mention sharia law, and appears to avoid religious infringement altogether, unless the religious law would violate the rights of another: “A court, arbitrator, … or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”
Howard Stravitz, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, testified at the South Carolina subcommittee hearing that the bill would violate Muslims’ freedom of religion. Stravitz did not respond to The US Report’s request for clarification.
“The backers of these discriminatory proposals realize if they put specific references to Sharia or Muslims, it won’t pass constitutional muster,” said Ibrahim Hooper, Director of Communications at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
When The US Report contacted Hooper to clarify which elements of S. 444 he considered unconstitutional, Hooper instead sent material related to Oklahoma’s attempt at banning sharia rather than South Carolina’s legislation. Senate Question 755 was approved by 70 percent of voters before being blocked by a federal judge.
It bears noting that CAIR recently made headlines when the Department of Justice scuttled pending terror-financing prosecutions against the organization and one of its co-founders. Both were listed as un-indicted co-conspirators in the trial against the Islamic charity group, Holy Land Foundation, which sent over $12 million in donations from the U.S. to the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas. CAIR is linked to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to establish sharia law not only in the U.S., but worldwide.
David Yerushalmi, a lawyer and expert on Islamic law, called Oklahoma’s Senate Question 755 “poorly drafted” as sharia was left open for vague interpretation. Yerushalmi wrote that “There are patently constitutional ways to legislatively preclude sharia from raising its ugly head in our legal system and to do so in clearer, more legally precise ways than was achieved by Question 755.”
It appears that the stumbling block is to what degree each state defines foreign laws: a federal judge blocked Oklahoma’s ban when a plaintiff from CAIR contended that by blocking sharia in state courtrooms, Muslims’ were essentially denied their freedom of religion as the plaintiff defined sharia as a religious practice rather than an authoritative legal-political-military system.
The underlying problem is that many Muslims consider Islamic religious laws to be divine commandments which trump man-made laws such as the Constitution.
In 2007, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) issued a fatwa, or Islamic legal ruling stating that “Islamic law does not recognize [man-made law], either fully or in part.” While not all U.S. Muslims may agree with the supremacy of sharia, the fact remains that a Muslim legal organization within the United States commanding Muslims to follow sharia and not federal and state laws.
The AMJA has issued other rulings which call for the execution for apostasy and blasphemy, as well as condone marital rape, female genital mutilation, and the stoning of adulterers.
How could a law preventing an individual from violating the rights of another be unconstitutional? No one seems to have a substantive answer. Instead of answering the question, the bill’s opponents continue to put forth strawmen like “the bill would adversely impact international trade,” which it would not in any way shape or form.
Moreover, according to our sources, when questions by the opponents were fully and adequately answered by the bill’s proponents during the hearings, the answers were ignored and the same questions were repeated by the bill’s opponents later in the hearings.
Perhaps the focus should be shifted from legislation that aims to protect constitutional rights to the imported legal system that undermines constitutional rights.
In a sane world, advocating for the undermining of our Constitution would be called sedition.
General David Petraeus, the top commander of both U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, says that the recent Qur’an burning in Florida has inspired multiple deadly riots in Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai called last month’s Qur’an burning by the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla. “a crime against the religion and the entire Muslim nation,” and demanded that Pastor Terry Jones be brought to justice.
This incident demonstrates that in Afghanistan, we are fighting a war against an enemy who often has few ideological differences with the population we are trying to protect. The Taliban and the Afghan people both seek the establishment of Islamic sharia law, which explains President Karzai’s demands to bring Jones to justice. Under sharia law, burning a Qur’an is considered blasphemy – anything disadvantageous to Islam can be considered blasphemous – and may be punishable by death.
While the Qur’an burning has destabilized the security situation for our troops in Afghanistan, it only provided the catalyst for those whose sensitivities are on a hair-trigger anyways. The problem isn’t burning books – it’s the ideology that inspires people to take to the streets, injuring and killing innocent Afghans (including at least one child) and aid workers in retaliation for the burning of a book.
Americans should read books instead of burn them, but when something so simple can inspire riots and murders around the world, pyrophilic “outreach centers” aren’t the ones with the problem.
Mark Steyn notes at NRO’s The Corner (via SteynOnline.com):
I’m always impressed by the say-one-thing-in-Cairo-another-on-CNN shamelessness of jetset Muslims – Imam Rauf at Ground Zero, Tariq Ramadan, Sheikh Qaradawi, and Dr. [Mahmoud] Ayoub… Taqqiya is the most important concept in Islamic imperialism.
Reza Khalili would know, he was a member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is interesting to see that Islamic end times prophecy mirrors that of Christians – just from the other side. John Bernard has more at Let Them Fight.