Muslim mobs stone Christians – “in the U.S.”; Muslim brotherhood islamists now in control of Egypt, and Obama inviting them to White House; A U.S. Lawmaker saying- Model public schools after Muslim ones praising virtues of Islamic ‘madrassas’; RIP- free speech about Islam; Koranic Origins and Modern Islamic Intolerance; and finally Educating about Sharia’s Threat

Posted on July 11, 2012


See Muslim mob stone Christians – in U.S.!

Hundreds chant, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ while hurling urine, eggs, bottles, concrete

.

President Barack Obama has invited Egypt’s newly elected Islamist [Full Story]

Muslim Brotherhood candidate elected president of Egypt

.

U.S. Lawmaker: Model public schools after Muslim ones

Praises virtues of Islamic ‘madrassas,’ ‘where foundation is the Quran’

Published: 2 days ago by Chelsea SchillingEmail | Archive

A U.S. lawmaker – who prides himself on being only the second Muslim elected to Congress – has declared that America “needs Muslims” and U.S. public schools should be modeled after Islamic madrassas, “where the foundation is the Quran.”
In a dramatic video dated May 26, U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., addressed an Islamic Circle of North America convention, saying the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was hard on Muslims and that Americans should look to Muslim schools for guidance.

At the 6:19 mark, Carson declares:

“America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged, where the foundation is the Quran. And that model that we are pushing in some of our schools meets the multiple needs of students.

“Most of us are visual learners. Some of us are auditor learners – we learn by hearing. Many of us are kinesthetic learners. We learn by doing, touching, feeling. I have found … that we need an educational model that is current, that meets the need of our students. America must understand that she needs Muslims.”

He adds, “There are over 7 million Muslims in this country. And while we are under attack, we cannot retreat.”

Carson is married to Mariama Shaheed Carson, public-school principal of Snacks Crossing Elementary School in Indianapolis, Ind

July  8, 2012

RIP: Free Speech about Islam

By Adam  Turner

The  right of Westerners to speak freely regarding Islam-related topics — radical  Islam or Islamism, Islamist terrorism, and Islamist terror funding — is in  jeopardy.  Islamists and their sympathizers try to silence any and all  questions possibly critical of Islam with a vicious, multi-pronged assault until  a critic is silenced, punished, or made an example of for  others.

Islamists  seem to use at least three different methods: 1) the initiation of legal  proceedings, known as “lawfare” — i.e., frivolous or malicious lawsuits which often do not even hope to succeed in court  and are reluctant to reach discovery to avoid disclosing information, but which  therefore seem intended, on charges of hate speech or defamation, to harass and  financially crush the defendant; 2) threats of violence, or violence itself; or  3) pressure applied based on political correctness, as with attempts to smear  reputations by alleging “racism,” “Islamophobia,” or other epithets.   Sometimes the Islamists use only one of these methods — sometimes two, or all  three.  Regardless, the assault is often  successful.

The  Danish cartoon controversy, for example, began  in September of 2005, after an author in Denmark stated that he could not find  an artist willing, under his own name, to illustrate a book about the Islamic  Prophet Mohammed’s life.  In Islam, it is considered blasphemous  to draw a picture of the prophet.  In response, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran twelve cartoons by various artists depicting  Mohammed, with the editor explaining  that the project was an attempt defend the Danish right to exercise free speech  and to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and  self-censorship.  The most controversial of these cartoons — the “bomb in  the turban” picture of Mohammed — was drawn  by Kurt Westergaard.  These cartoons were soon reprinted  in magazines/newspapers in more than 50 other countries.  However, the  only major U.S. magazines/newspapers to reprint any of the cartoons were  the conservative Weekly Standard, the atheist Free Inquiry, and the  Denver Rocky Mountain News.  Many organizations cited their  unwillingness to publish them out of concern for the sensitivities of Muslim  readers.  A fear of violence may also have been a significant  concern.

Soon  after the cartoons were published, Islamist, Islamic, or politically correct  pressure groups swung into action.  In October of 2005, some ambassadors  from Muslim countries sent a letter requesting  a meeting with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, stating that they  wished to discuss  the “on-going smearing campaign in Danish public circles and media against Islam  and Muslims.”  They also hinted that the Danish  government should legally prosecute the paper’s editors.

At  the same time, a nearly identical letter arrived  in Copenhagen from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC — now known  as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), an intergovernmental organization  of fifty-seven Muslim states, also protesting the publication of the  cartoons.  As noted here,  “[t]he diplomatic protests aimed to use international disapproval to sanction  the newspaper — and the Danes — for Islamophobia,” an invented  term patterned after the term “homophobia.”  Coinciding with the arrival of  the letters, three thousand Danish Muslims demonstrated in Copenhagen and  demanded an apology from the newspaper for insulting Muslims.

The  Danish prime minister, however, refused to bend to the politically correct  pressure and declined to meet with the ambassadors.  As he explained,  “[t]his is a matter of principle.  I won’t meet with them because it is so  crystal clear what principles Danish democracy is built upon that there is no  reason to do so.  As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit  the press –nor do I want such a power.”  He did concede, however, that  offended parties could attempt to seek legal relief from Danish  courts.

Sure  enough, later that same month, several Danish Muslim organizations filed a complaint  with the Danish police claiming that the Jyllands-Posten had committed  an offense under the law.  They cited sections 140 and 266b of the Danish  Criminal Code.  Section  140 is the blasphemy law, which prohibits disturbing public order by  publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing  religious community in Denmark.  Section  266b criminalizes insults, threats, or degradation of natural persons, by  publicly and with malice attacking their race, color of skin, national or  ethnical roots, faith, or sexual orientation.  But in early 2006, the  Danish regional public prosecutor discontinued the investigation, as he ruled  that the cartoons concerned a subject of public interest and thus were  protected.  This judgment was later confirmed  by the highest Danish authority, the director of public prosecutions.   Although his ruling protected the speech rights of the Danish cartoonists in  this case, the director still insisted on correcting Jyllands-Posten‘s  expansive view of the right to free expression in the Danish  code:

Although  there is no basis for instituting criminal proceedings in this case, it should  be noted that both provisions (Sections 140 & 266b) of the Danish Criminal  Code contain a restriction of the freedom of expression[.] … To the extent  publicly made expressions fall within the scope of these rules there is,  therefore, no free and unrestricted right to express opinions about religious subjects.  It is thus not a correct  description of existing law when the article in Jyllands-Posten states  that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression[.]

Of  course, a legal dead end was not the end of the pressure.  In December of  2005, two Danish imams began a tour of the Middle East to publicize  the Jyllands-Posten drawings.  In their “dossier,” the imams  stuffed some other inflammatory information, including three additional  — and more insulting — pictures, untruthful allegations of discrimination  against Muslims in the West, and an interview discussing Islam with Dutch  then-member of parliament and former Muslim-turned-critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi  Ali.  (Ayaan Hirsi Ali had once been honored for her advocacy for free  speech by the Danish governing party.)  This first imam tour, and a second  tour by the same individuals, as well as instigation  by various Arab governments, led to widespread protesting across the Muslim  world throughout 2006.  In the Muslim world, protestors took to the  streets, destroying buildings, burning the Danish flag, and sometimes setting  fire to Danish embassies.  Eventually, more  than 200 people were killed and hundreds more injured in violence  surrounding the publication — and republication — of the  cartoons.

Most  disturbingly, starting in 2005, and continuing until today, Muslim radicals  began to physically threaten Jyllands-Posten‘s employees, the  cartoon artists, and Danes in general for the drawing and the publishing of the  Mohammed cartoons.  Most prominent among the Islamist targets was  cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who was immediately  forced into hiding under police protection.  Since 2005, there have been  countless threats, plots, and/or attacks against Danish targets stemming from  these cartoons.  Here are just some of the more prominent  ones:

  •   In 2005, a Pakistani Islamist party offered  a reward to anyone who killed a cartoonist.
  •   In 2006, the Danish embassies were sacked  in Damascus and Beirut.
  •   In 2008, the Danish Embassy in Islamabad was damaged  in a suicide vehicle bombing. The bombing killed six people and wounded 30,  mostly Pakistani Muslims.
  •   In 2009, following the arrest of U.S. citizen David Headley for planning the  2008 Mumbai attacks, American officials learned that Headley had also conducted  surveillance in Denmark for an attack  against Jyllands-Posten, with the codename of “The Mickey Mouse  Project.”
  •   In 2010, Danish police shot and wounded an  Islamist at the home of Kurt Westergaard.  The Islamist broke down the front door with the axe, before being stopped by the  door to a panic room. Luckily, neither Westergaard nor his five-year-old  granddaughter was harmed. Although sentenced to nine years in prison in 2011,  the terrorist appealed the sentence, claiming that he was only trying to scare  Westergaard to make him “stop bragging about drawing the cartoon.” His sentence  was subsequently  affirmed.
  •   In 2011, three Norwegian Muslims were prosecuted  for planning to bomb the offices of the Jyllands-Posten. On the first  day of the trial, the prosecutors said the plot was planned with al-Qaeda in  Pakistan, which is where one of the men had been trained.
  •   On May 28, 2012, Danish domestic intelligence services picked  up two Danish-Somali brothers suspected of plotting a terror attack in  Denmark.

For  more comprehensive lists, please see here  and here and here  and here  and here.

It  has been seven years since one Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten,  printed cartoon depictions of Mohammed.  Seven years.  Yet to this  day, the opponents of this cartoon speech have continued their efforts to punish  the paper, and the Danish people, for their desire to preserve free speech in  Denmark.  These speech thugs have hit the Danes with legal threats, with  politically correct shaming, and with murderous violence.  While the legal  process may have been abandoned (for  now?), the violence, and the attempted shaming, have never stopped.   But, to their great credit, the owners and employees of Jyllands-Posten  remain unbowed against the threats to their speech rights.

Unfortunately,  this unrelenting assault on free speech regarding Islam-related topics has had  its effect on others — both in and out of Denmark — who, unlike Jyllands-Posten, are not so brave.  The Danish paper Politiken, which originally stood with Jyllands-Posten, later  caved in the face of Islamist (either legal  or physical threat) pressure and apologized for its republication of the  Mohammed cartoons.  Yale’s press capitulated too, refusing  to publish the Mohammed cartoons in a book about the Mohammed cartoons.   The Washington Post chose to rerun an old Non  Sequitur cartoon rather than use the new submission that used a  “Where’s Waldo?” gag, replacing Waldo  with Mohammed, to satirize the media’s hesitancy to offend radical Islam.  Comedy Central censored  their hit show South Park after threats over simply showing Mohammed,  in four episodes, in 2006 and then in 2010.  (In contrast,  Mohammed was depicted in a South Park episode aired prior to the  Cartoons Controversy.)

There  are a few who get what this struggle is all about and fight to keep their free  speech regarding Islam alive.  Ezra  Levant is one such individual.  And then there is the French magazine Charlie  Hebdo, which was bombed for its courage.   But these are the  exceptions.  The vast majority do what is most rational — cave in to the  pressure, and censor their Islam-related speech.

Adam  Turner serves as staff counsel to the Legal  Project at the Middle East Forum.  He is a  former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he focused on national  security law.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/rip_free_speech_about_islam.html#ixzz2088ktN7E

July  8, 2012

Ancient Koranic Origins and Modern Islamic Intolerance

Andrew  G. Bostom

Wednesday,  July 4, 2012, Americans celebrated the 236th anniversary of the Declaration  of  Independence, affirming yet again our unique God-given heritage of  freedom.

…  that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with  certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit  of Happiness.

The  same day, prosecutors in Indonesia — that bastion  of contemporary Islamic tolerance  and moderation — insisted  upon a four-year prison term for Shiite leader Tajul Muluk, under Article 156,  Paragraph A of the Criminal Code, which penalizes “blasphemy.”  Tajul was  accused, specifically, of informing his students that the contemporary Koran  they (and all Muslims) now study was not the original “sacralized” text.   Currently incarcerated, Tajul Mulk has received  death threats from fellow inmates even before his trial, while in December 2011,  over 300 members of Tajul’s Shiite community were displaced  when a mob of 500 people attacked and burned houses, a boarding school, and a place of worship.

Tajul  Muluk’s prosecution epitomizes contemporary Islamdom’s consistent, utter  rejection of basic freedom of speech, even in a much-ballyhooed “tolerant”  Muslim society.  This liberty-crushing suppression of free speech — in  accord with Islam’s totalitarian sharia — is  exercised with particular vehemence regarding any questions about Islam’s  origins, even when such queries comport with major aspects of the pious Muslim  narrative, not to mention objective textual discoveries.

Arthur  Jeffery (1892-1959) was a great 20th-century scholar of Islam, who,  in the finest Western traditions of objective inquiry, conducted pioneering,  magisterial analyses of the Koranic text’s evolution.  Jeffery laid out his  unbiased, scholarly views on such endeavors on October 31, 1946, at a meeting of  the Middle East Society of Jerusalem:

Wherever  we find a religion that has a Scripture, that fact presents scholarship with the problem of the textual history of that  Scripture. There are no exceptions to this among the historic religions. In the  case of Buddhism, for example, we have the problem of the Pali Canon, the  Sanskrit Canon, the Tibetan Canon, and the Chinese Canon. In the case of  Zoroastrianism there is the liveliest dispute among Iranian scholars at this  very moment as to the Avestan text, and, as is well known, the text of the  Pahlavi books is an exceedingly complicated problem. Each generation of students  for the last hundred years has found itself faced with new problems concerning  the text of the Old Testament, and our own memories are still fresh with the  excitement caused by the discovery of the Chester Beatty Papyri and the Ryland’s  Gospel fragment, both of which raised lively discussions on matters related to  the textual history of the New Testament. Whether we face the text of the Book  of the Dead, coming from the ancient Egyptian religion, or the text of the  Qur’an coming from the youngest of the great historic religions, we have the  problem of the history of the text.

The  acknowledged existence of Koranic “variants,” albeit ostensibly different  “dialectical forms,” purportedly led Caliph Uthman (r. 644-656) to appoint a  committee of learned Muslim men to “homogenize” the text and destroy all other  copies.  Arthur Jeffery’s scholarship, and the work of many other textual  analysts, amassed considerable evidence of various human recensions in the  evolution of the Koranic text.  One striking example was Jeffery’s  discovery of a variant text of the Koran’s brief opening prayer itself, the  so-called Fatiha (chapter or sura 1, verses 1-7).  This important finding  was consistent with earlier Western, and even classical, pious Muslim  scholarship, as Jeffery noted in 1939:

The  peculiar nature of the Fatiha has been recognized by Western scholars from  Nöldeke [the great Koranic scholar; d. 1930] downward, but it is not merely a  hostile Western opinion, for Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi [the great Koranic commentator  and Muslim philosopher; d. 1209] quotes Abu Bakr al-Asamm [d. 816/17; early  theologian and scholar] as saying that he considered it not to be part of the  Koran and apparently the oldest commentaries began with Surat-al-Baqara [i.e.,  the second chapter, or sura of the Koran].

Earlier,  despite Jeffery’s yeoman effort to apply Western methods of textual analysis  with the greatest deference to Muslim sensibilities, his sincere endeavors were  ultimately deemed offensive by institutional Islam.  Former U.S. ambassador  to Egypt, and then president of the American University in Cairo John Badeau recounted  the circumstances surrounding Arthur Jeffery’s departure as head of the  university’s modest School of Oriental Studies in  1937:

It  was very interesting why he left. After all, Cairo was the natural spot for a  scholar doing his research. He had come across a very early commentary on the  Quran. I think it had been in one of the mosque libraries in Damascus. In any  case, he had got hold of it and brought it to Cairo and was working in it; its  value was that it contained variant readings of the Quran text that are not  otherwise in existence. So Jeff [Jeffery] got one of the shaykhs of Al-Azhar to  come down and do work with him, and they were working through this commentary,  annotating, and translating it. He never would use a typewriter, and wrote his  notes out in longhand in a series of notebooks. One of the things that Jeff  would not have was a telephone in his  office. He abominated it, and the telephone was at the end of the hall. After  some months of work, he and the shaykh had had a session;  the notebooks  were piled on one side of the table. The telephone rang, Jeff’s secretary came  in to tell him he was wanted, so he left the room and went to the telephone. When he came back, the shaykh who had been helping him was gone, and all the  pages were ripped out of the notebooks and torn up. The shaykh could not stand  the heresy of being confronted with these variant readings of the Quran.  Apparently it had been bothering him for some time. In effect, Jeff said, “You  know, I simply cannot do this kind of work in Cairo.” At  that time, Columbia had lost its Arabic scholar and approached him, and he left  the American University and came to Columbia, where he remained until he  died.

Jeffery’s  predicament — circa 1937 — and the far worse current plight of Indonesian  Shiite leader Tajul Muluk are pathognomonic of Islam’s stultifying affliction:  the angry, doctrinaire suppression of open, critical inquiry and  self-examination.  Until Muslim societies allow such inquiries to proceed  unencumbered, they will remain in their ossified medieval fortresses, devoid of  basic freedoms, or even the fundamental awareness of why those freedoms  represent the quintessence of human nobility.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/ancient_koranic_origins_and_modern_islamic_intolerance.html#ixzz2088xs4W2

Educating Conservatives About Sharia’s Threat

An ignorant column spurs much-needed discussion.

June 18, 2012 – by Andrew G. Bostom Bio

Matthew Schmitz, deputy editor at First Things, wrote an essay titled “Fears of Creeping Sharia” that was published at NRO on Wednesday, June 13.

The piece was striking in its willful ignorance about:

  • the intrinsic nature of Sharia itself;
  • the frequency and intensity of efforts by mainstream American Islamic organizations to promote Sharia in America (and we now know these are Muslim Brotherhood appendage organizations, who unfortunately do seem to represent the masses as per the only available polling data we have);
  • the legal basis for American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).

Schmitz compounded this fundamental ignorance by maliciously spraying charges of “anti-Muslim bigotry” at those who confront Sharia encroachment. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann were specifically condemned for their alleged role in “dignifying the disreputable anti-Sharia movement.”

My rebuttal pieces addressed Schmitz’s uninformed views on Sharia itself, and the copious evidence of Sharia encroachment.

I summarized, for Schmitz’s edification, the liberty-crushing, dehumanizing nature of Sharia: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

Refusing to acknowledge Sharia’s ugly, living essence, Schmitz instead made a factually challenged, immoral equivalence between totalitarian Islamic law — a form of state governance — and modern Church canon law, which is deliberately confined to religious affairs, even glibly asserting: “Surely Catholics would love to see canon law cover the globe.”

I also pointed out what Schmitz steadfastly ignored: ominous polling data from U.S. Muslims; jihad funding trial revelations and the content of more banal Muslim litigation proceedings; mosque surveillance reports; analyses of Islamic education institutions and their Muslim schoolchildren’s textbooks; the issuance of obscurantist “fatwas” (Islamic legal rulings) by the respected, mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America; and an open declaration by one of America’s largest mainstream Muslims organizations, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), in its 2010 ICNA Members Hand Book, which calls for the (re-)creation of a global Muslim Caliphate and the imposition of Sharia in America.

But the coup de grace in debunking Schmitz’s diatribe was supplied by David Yerushalmi, who corrected Schmitz’s mischaracterization of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation (such as Kansas’s recently passed law), elucidated a legal case study cited in the Center for Security Policy analysis I had referenced as part of my rebuttals to Schmitz, and reminded us all that the earliest of these laws (now passed in Kansas, Tennessee, Arizona, and Louisiana) have been in effect for several years without being challenged, let alone overturned.

Yerushalmi also provided a clear, didactic example of the need for ALAC-style laws. He described in brief an appellate court decision from Maryland, cited in the Center for Security Policy Study, where:

The court enforced a Pakistani Sharia court’s judgment of custody in favor of the father even though the mother had argued that she was not provided due process because had she gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she could have been subject to capital punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.

Yerushalmi then summarized the salient facts of the case and appellate court ruling*, as follows:

The Maryland appellate court ruled that since the woman could not prove she’d be executed had she gone to Pakistan to litigate custody in the Pakistan Sharia Court, which is a national-state court in Pakistan, her failure to go to Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making the void as against public policy argument. ALAC would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to have reversed the lower court’s outrageous decision (emphasis added).

Judge Billings Learned Hand (1872-1961) was a U.S. judge and judicial philosopher. Hand served on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and subsequently the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge Hand has the distinction of having been quoted more often than any other lower-court judge by legal scholars and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Apropos to the ongoing Sharia debate at NRO, I re-read Judge Hand’s 1950 opinion from United States v. Dennis, I83 F.2d 20I, 2I3 (2d Cir. 1950). The case involved Communist agitation designed to violently impose a new “utopian” order in America. Hand’s discussion included a little known, if clear-eyed, direct analogy between ancient Islamic and modern Communist totalitarianism, which contained a specific reference to Islam’s inherent militancy.

In his famous conclusion (from paragraph 51), Judge Hand states:

It is of course possible that the defendants are inspired with the fanatical conviction that they are in possession of the only gospel which will redeem this sad Planet and bring on a Golden Age. If so, we need not consider how far that would justify the endless stratagems to which they resorted; and it is not for us to say whether such a prosecution makes against the movement or, on the contrary, only creates more disciples; ours is only to apply the law as we find it. Once the question is answered whether the Smith Act is valid, and whether there was evidence before the jury from which they might hold it violated, we can find no privilege and no right denied them which had substance. We know of no country where they would have been allowed any approach to the license here accorded them; and none, except Great Britain, where they would have had so fair a hearing. Their only plausible complaint is that that freedom of speech which they would be the first to destroy, has been denied them. We acknowledge that that freedom is not always easy to protect; and that there is no sharp line which marks its scope. We have tried to show that what these men taught and advocated is outside the zone …

Earlier, in paragraph 15, Judge Hand — describing the font of militant global Communism, Communist Soviet Russia — made this direct analogy:

By far the most powerful of all the European nations [Russia] had been a convert to Communism for over thirty years; its leaders were the most devoted and potent proponents of the faith; no such movement in Europe of East to West had arisen since Islam (emphasis added).

Jules Monnerot’s 1949 Sociologie du Communisme was translated into English and published as Sociology and Psychology of Communism in 1953. Monnerot made very explicit connections between pre-modern Islamic and 20th century Communist totalitarianism. The title of his first chapter dubbed Communism the “The Twentieth Century Islam.” He elucidates two primary shared characteristics of Islam and Communism: “conversion” — followed by subversion — from within, and the fusion of “religion” and state. Citing Stalin (circa 1949) as the contemporary personification, Monnerot elaborated on this totalitarian consolidation (“condensation”) of power shared by Islam and Communism, and the refusal of these universalist creeds to accept limits on their “frontiers.” Monnerot further observes that to those who did not accept their ideology, or self-proclaimed “mission,” Communism — and Islam before it — were viewed as imperialistic religious fanaticisms. Finally Monnerot underscores how incoherent Western intellectual apologists for totalitarianism — whether Communist or Islamic — promote the advance of these destructive ideologies.

Five years later, Bernard Lewis — still considered by many to be the doyen of living Western Islamic scholars — confirmed Monnerot’s assessment. Lewis, in his 1954 essay “Communism and Islam,” expounded upon on the quintessence of totalitarian Islam and how it was antithetical in nature to Western democracy while sharing important features of Communist totalitarianism —  most notably, global domination via jihad:

I turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition. … Many attempts have been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical-attempts usually based on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both. This sort of argument expresses a need of the uprooted Muslim intellectual who is no longer satisfied with or capable of understanding traditional Islamic values, and who tries to justify, or rather, re-state, his inherited faith in terms of the fashionable ideology of the day. It is an example of the romantic and apologetic presentation of Islam that is a recognized phase in the reaction of Muslim thought to the impact of the West.

Quite obviously, the Ulama [religious leaders] of Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which, the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as “There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet’” was laying his finger on a real affinity (emphasis added).

Consistent with his contemporary scholarly milieu, Judge Hand’s spontaneous comparison between Communism and Islam in a legal opinion reflects a thoughtful, unapologetic mindset free from the corrosive influence of cultural relativism that plagues us today, six decades later.

Notwithstanding the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s (AMJA’s) mainstream acceptance, including uncritical endorsement of its seventh annual American conference in Houston (October 15-18, 2010) to train American imams, AMJA has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates (here), “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime,” here), or adulterers (by stoning to death, here), and condone marital rape. Even more ominously, another Arabic-language fatwa from AMJA’s Dr. Salah Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether “the Islamic missionary effort in the West … [was] to the point where it could take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:

The Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.

Just three months ago (March 14), Translating Jihad put what one might wish to deem as these circumscribed, “purely Islamic” rulings, in a more disturbing — and entirely unacceptable — seditious context. AMJA’s own words make plain the organization’s long-term commitment to superseding the U.S. legal code with its antithesis, a Sharia-based system.

We must regain the thoughtful sobriety of Judge Learned Hand and other intellectuals of that era if we are to preserve our hard-won freedoms from the modern scourge of ancient Islamic totalitarianism, now resurgent, including within the United States as directed by “religious leaders” cum seditious “legists” such as the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America.

——————————————–

* The Maryland appellate court’s own words, cited by Yerushalmi:

Additionally, appellant [the mother] asserts that the Pakistani custody orders were founded on principles of law repugnant to Maryland public policy because the Pakistani courts allegedly “penalized the mother for not appearing without considering the affect of her admission to adultery on her ability to return to Pakistan.” In this regard, appellant points out that if convicted under Pakistani criminal law, her penalty could be public whipping or death by stoning. Although Dr. Malik [the expert] opined that appellant would be arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the custody proceedings, he also conceded that punishment for adultery was extremely unlikely and that proving the crime was extremely difficult. Given this testimony, the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in not considering the effect of whether appellant’s admission to adultery [under sharia] was “repugnant” to Maryland public policy in its failure to find that the Pakistani courts punished her for not appearing.”

Andrew Bostom (http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/) is the author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (2005/2008) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (2008).
Posted in: Uncategorized