Spain: Two Islamic associations from Lérida ask Local Council to forbid dogs in buses in public area

Two Islamic organizations based in Lerida have asked the City Council to enact local rules to prohibit the presence of dogs in both city buses and in some areas frequented mostly by Muslims, as dogs are considered “unclean” in Islam.

Those associations are the same that made claims against the city ordinance that banned the burqa. Lleida believe that the Consistory should regulate the presence of dogs in public places and in certain municipal facilities “not to offend Muslims”.

Judas Priest!

CAIR succeeds in blocking Oklahoma's anti-shari'a law!

From Robert Spencer:

Hamas-linked CAIR is thumping its chest at this victory over the popular will, and says: "CAIR says the ballot measure would infringe on the constitutional rights of ordinary Oklahomans -- including the right to wear religious head scarves in driver's license photographs, choose Islamic marriage contracts, implement Islamic wills, or to be buried according to one's religious beliefs."

But in this CAIR is, yet again, lying. The Oklahoma law forbids lawmakers from legislating for Oklahomans as a whole using Sharia rather than American law. It does not forbid private individuals from getting married or writing wills in any way they wish.

The Muslim Threat Against Canadian

No, I'm not, really. I thought once about trying it, but the thought of it did put me off as it got closer to my lips. I kind of shuddered at the thought. I don't like the smell of it. Holding it in my hand is kind of yucky too, to be perfectly honest. Don't understand the attraction at all. In fact, it grosses me out entirely. Who would want that stuff in his mouth!? Good Greece. But things are different in Canada. I don't say anything. Seems lots of guys here like it. They indulge often, even in public, which gets to me. Yeah, I'm not one to talk, being in counselling for a Coke habit. I'm not perfect.

I do though feel a need to stand up for the rights of men who do things I wouldn't do myself. I know what Muslims would do to such men, and I object. Thus, I stand with men I wouldn't really like to be around. When I see them in public washrooms, I get nervous. But I have to stand with them there too if it's a matter of standing against Islam. Life is tough.

I wine, I know. But let's keep in mind that we have to do this together for the sake of all of us.

UN: Islamic law is major influence on refugee law, says study

From ADN Kronos International:

New York, 23 June (AKI) - The 1,400-year-old Islamic custom of welcoming people fleeing persecution has had more influence on modern international refugee law than any other traditional source, according to a new study sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

High Commissioner Antonio Guterres said that more than any other historical source, Islamic law and tradition underpin the modern-day legal framework on which UNHCR bases its global activities on behalf of the tens of millions of people forced from their homes around the world.

This includes the right of everyone to seek asylum as well as prohibitions against sending those needing protection back into danger, Guterres said in the foreword to “The Right to Asylum between Islamic Sharia and International Refugee Law: A Comparative Study.”

In the study, Professor Abu Al-Wafa, Dean of the Law Faculty at Cairo University, describes how Islamic law and tradition respects refugees, including non-Muslims; forbids forcing them to change their beliefs; avoids compromising their rights; seeks to reunite families; and guarantees the protection of their lives and property.

“The international community should value this 14-century-old tradition of generosity and hospitality and recognize its contributions to modern law,” wrote Guterres.

He said that “racism, xenophobia and populist fear-mongering manipulate public opinion and confuse refugees with illegal migrants and even terrorists.”

These attitudes have contributed to misperceptions about Islam, and Muslim refugees – who account for the majority – have paid the price, said Guterres.

“Let us be clear: refugees are not terrorists. They are first and foremost the victims of terrorism. This book reminds us of our duty to counter such attitudes.”

The study, published by UNHCR in cooperation with Naif Arab University and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, is scheduled to be launched on Tuesday at Naif Arab University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The idea that Islam welcomes refugees, making no effort to get them to change their religion, and doing nothing to deny their rights, is absolutely preposterous.

One need look no further than the Palestinians. Egypt refuses to take in Palestinian refugees, going so far as to have erected a wall at their border, which they keep locked almost all the time. And, when the Palestinians tried to enter Jordan, the King had them slaughtered en masse.

And, where in the world does Islam treat those of other religions with respect? And, if there is a place where other religions are tolerated to some extent, why is it the Christians, Jews, and Hindus are fleeing?

The answer is, because what Muslims consider to be respect for another religion is what we consider to be persecution and oppression. Their notion of respect is to subdue those who are not the same as them and force them to pay a Dhimmi Tax for their protection.

In the Western world, paying protection money is called Racketeering. In the Islamic world, apparently, it is called respect.

UPDATE: Jihad Watch points out an important tenet of Islamic Law regarding refugees:

... a cardinal point of Islamic refugee law is that Muslim refugees must fight jihad war against those who have made them refugees. "To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid. (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right, (for no cause) except that they say, 'our Lord is Allah.'" -- Qur'an 22:39-40

In other words, when the United States invited Muslim refugees, say from Iraq or Afghanistan, into our country, it is incumbent upon these Muslims to wage Jihad against us.

They bite our hands off even as we feed them.

That Islam, such a gracious religion.

British atheist says sharia courts are OK

There’s an atheist in Scotland who thinks sharia courts are OK. Good for women, too. Not only that, but he or she speaks for the organisation, Atheist Scotland.

A letter from I Stewart, convener of Atheist Scotland, appears in the Scotsman (second letter on the page).

“Like the Kirk [Church],” the letter writer says, referring to a previous letter from someone else, “we support the introduction of sharia courts in Scotland for members of the Muslim community.” Stewart continues:

In cases of domestic violence or abuse of women, we feel that sharia courts would give Muslim women the opportunity to resolve their disputes without recourse to the criminal law.

By using sharia courts, Muslim women and their partners would not have to appear in open court and risk the public humiliation of a criminal conviction for domestic violence.

A guilty finding in a sharia court for domestic violence would not result in a criminal conviction and therefore would not appear in a Disclosure Scotland police criminal records search, thus avoiding the potentially devastating effects on the job opportunities of the male partner, particularly in sensitive areas.

Why should a male partner be spared public humiliation if he’s a Muslim but not a non-Muslim male partner who would have to appear before magistrates or in the Crown or Sheriff Court? How does it make it a good thing for women if a sharia court is going to rule, as it most likely will, in favour of the man, because women are treated as second or third class by traditional Islam?

Here’s a good reason why sharia courts are a bad idea.

UK: Sharia Law Now Officially Sanctioned

From Gandalf at Up Pompeii:


Gandalf comments: So it has come to this, Sharia law is now part of the British legal system, now it is just a question of time and we will start seeing stoning and public decapitations.

Of course the Muslim population will say this will not happen in the UK but you can bet your bottom Dollar it will, you cannot cherry pick Sharia law.

Do I exaggerate I hear you say, I think not, the fact that the decisions of these stone age courts will be upheld by the legal system in this country demonstrates the amount of submission to Islam that exists in our Government and Judiciary, they will not challenge the introduction of public beheadings or stonings.

the libertarians who have over the years campaigned and promoted the Religion of Peace had better look out because they too will fall foul of this abominable form of "justice", indeed they could be amongst the first to feel its edge when it achieves prominence.

Here is the article:

First UK Sharia court up and running in Warwickshire

A MUSLIM college in Warwickshire is running the UK's first official sharia law court.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has used sharia law to settle more than 100 civil disputes between Muslims across the UK since it opened last December.

The tribunal, which runs along side the British legal system, was set up by scholars and lawyers at Hijaz College Islamic University in Watling Street, Nuneaton.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, recently said there was no reason why sharia law, derived from several sources including the Koran, could not be used for contractual agreements and marital disputes.

Cases already heard in Nuneaton include an inheritance dispute between three sisters and their two brothers, a divorce and a neighbour dispute.

In the inheritance case, the men were given double their sisters' inheritance.

Pastorius note: If you thought Gandalf was exaggerating in the orange letters above, you can see that already England is willing to bend over and submit to Islam when it comes to women's rights. And, women's rights are human rights.

The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Dr Michael NazirAli, who was born in Pakistan and has both a Christian and Muslim family background, said he was concerned that people might feel coerced into accepting sharia arbitration.

Dr Nazir-Ali, who converted from Islam to Christianity, warned that recognising the tribunals could lead to discrimination, particularly against Muslim women.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal operates in tandem with the British legal system, and decisions challenged by the losing party will be upheld by a county court bailiff or high court sheriff.

The Nuneaton tribunal cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute at the tribunal, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision.

Mr Siddiqi said: "As long as the parties have submitted to the tribunal's jurisdiction, a county court bailiff or high court sheriff can enforce our decisions.

"If the losing party objects, the winning one has to apply to the county court or high court who will enforce the tribunals' decisions, as long as they are reasonable.

"What we decide will be upheld by the British courts as long as both parties agree to submit to our jurisdiction in the first place."

She's Dead

Follow up to this story about the ten-year-old Muslim girl who got a divorce from her husband, from this source, showing what happens when girls seek a divorce under shari'a law:

Girl Forced to Marry at Nine Murdered After She Sought Annulment

Saturday, September 06, 2008

A 17-year-old Pakistani girl forced to marry a 45-year-old when she was only nine was reportedly killed by her parents...

The murder has intensified despair among human rights workers in Pakistan over a recent spate of "honor killings," in which two women and three teenage school girls were buried alive in Baluchistan Province because they wanted to marry the men of their choice.

Saira Nusrat Bibi was successfully fighting a legal battle to have her marriage annulled. As she left court in the Punjabi city of Sahiwal, she was surrounded by a group of men reportedly sent by her parents, and shot in front of police...

Weep for Saira Nusrat Bibi and for all the other girl children trapped by the barbarism of shari'a law.

Pat Condell: The Shari’ah Fiasco

Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)

What Does The Muslim Brotherhood Support?

For one thing, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood seems to favor female genital mutilation:

The Religious Affairs Committee at the People's Assembly has discussed questions tabled by MB [Muslim Brotherhood] deputies al-Sayyid Askar and Ali Laban on the action taken by the Awqaf Ministry of printing and distributing booklets on the female circumcision. The two deputies made strong accusations to the Awqaf Ministry of squandering public funds by printing and distributing thousands of copies of a booklet that has already been printed twice under the provocative title of "female circumcision is not part of the Islamic rites."

The two deputies have also accused the Awqaf Ministry of violation of the constitution and law. MB Deputy Askar said that this title was in conflict with the consensus of the fiqh experts [Islamic jurisprudents] that female circumcision was one of Islam's rites.

[...]

Another member of the MB Parliamentary bloc Mahir Aql has warned against the danger of this campaign [against female genital mutilation] which seeks to undermine the Islamic Shari'ah....

Who gets the blame?

[S]uspect foreign bodies, some of which are Christian evangelical while the others were Jewish, were behind the financing of the campaign against female circumcision

and

[T]he government seeks from this [anti-FGM] campaign to uproot Islam in order to please the West and to appease the suspect Zionist-US organizations.

So, opposing the mutilation of girls and women is a conspiracy against Islam? Infidels and modern Muslims cannot agree that such a practice is barbarism?

Note: Today's edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show will include a discussion of FGM with our guest Cassandra. Maybe Cassandra, WC, and I will be considered fatwah-worthy?

[Hat-tip to Pastorius, who notified me of this posting at Isaac Schrodinger.

Defining Shari'ah

A short little blurb from this Islamic source:

Linguistically Shari’ah means a watering hole in the desert. In the legal sense Shari’ah refers to: “Everything that Allah revealed to the Prophet [may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him].”

Have fun with that, IBA. Lots of possibilities for discussion, I'd say.

Archbishop or Archdhimmi?

Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)

Hoorah For The Archbishop

Having just watched the BBC 10'0 Clock News it is now obvious that Rowan Williams has done England a favour. The shock and outrage at his speech on sharia law has spread far and wide. From Archbishops and parish priests to ordinary church goers they are all appalled and disgusted and are now also looking at the wider issues of the Islamification of Britain.

Middle England has woken up, he has let the genie out of the bottle and it cannot be put back. This is the wake up call that was needed. This week has been a good week. Instead of the Islamists winning at every turn they are on losing ground. Firstly, al-Qaradawi, the “eminent scholar" has been refused a visa to visit the UK, secondly Abu Hamza is to be extradited to the US, and thirdly the "Sharia Shindig" put a very negative spotlight on Islam.

It's not often we can report victories for the cause, small though they may appear to be, perhaps the tide is turning. From the BBC:

Friends of Dr Rowan Williams say he is in a state of shock and dismayed by the criticism from his own Church.

All the main political parties, secular groups and some senior Muslims have expressed dismay at his comments.

The Muslims are dismayed, that can't be bad.

The BBC understands from sources who work on Christian-Muslim interfaith issues that Dr Williams has faced a barrage of criticism from within the Church and has been genuinely taken aback by how his words were received.

BBC News religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott says both traditionalists and liberals in the Church have their own reasons for criticising Dr Williams.

Traditionalists maintain that English law is based on Biblical values and that no parallel system could be tolerated in the UK.

Liberal Anglicans believe giving Sharia legal status would be to the detriment of women and gay people.

Among those critical of the archbishop is the chairman of evangelical Church group Reform, the Reverend Rod Thomas.

"The Church at the moment, and the country, needs a clear lead. The country is itself in a debate about its own sense of identity," he said.

"The moral values that we pursue are ones that we need to know are clearly grounded, and it would be most helpful for the leader of the Church to be able to explain to people how the values we cherish stem from our Christian tradition."

Looks like he's pleased no one. Except me.

Is There No End to This Nonsense?

Only a matter of some days ago, we learnt that the United Kingdom is to recognize polygamous marriages. This, of course, is to accommodate the Muslims. The taxpayer will have to pick up the tab. It will hasten the Islamization of our once great country, since more and more children will be born, at taxpayers' expense, to Muslim families.



Now, today, we get this nonsense from the Archbishop of Canterbury! One could be forgiven for believing that the political élite are involved in some sort of conspiracy to undermine the system!


As the Archbishop of Canterbury, and being the leader of the Anglican Communion worldwide, this man should be upholding Christian values, not Islamic ones. If the leader of the Anglican Communion doesn't defend Christian values, then who can we expect to do it?



But instead of that, this weak, cowardly, fawning man chooses to side with the very religion which is engaged in a war against the West, against Judeo-Christian civilization, against all that Christianity stands for. This is really quite, quite unbelievable!



The churches are emptying more with each passing day; yet all this man can think of doing is standing up for Muslims, the Christian Church's traditional archenemy.



What this man should be doing is preaching that there is no salvation other than through the Lord Jesus Christ, for that is what a true Christian is supposed to believe. He therefore should be spending his time trying to figure out how to fill the empty churches again. After all is said and done, isn't that the raison d'être of an archbishop in the first place? To fill churches.



Muslims need no help to establish Shariah law in the UK; indeed, it is already operating in many no-go areas throughout Europe, including the UK. Moreover, there is no doubt about it that it will spread, because there is nobody in power strong enough, or determined enough, to stop Islam and Shariah taking root.



Does the Archbishop of Canterbury not realize that each and every country which Islam has ever entered, and has been allowed to put down roots, it has eventually taken over? Each and every single one of them! There is only one exception to this rule, and that was Moorish Spain. But it took the Spaniards over five hundred years to reclaim their land for themselves, and there was much bloodshed in the process, much bloodshed in the 'Reconquista'.



Is this what we want for our country? Is this the legacy we wish to bequeath to our children?



It seems to me that the best thing that this Archbishop can do is hang his head in shame, and resign. The already weakened Church can do without his sort. Moreover, he must surely realize that Muslims deny the Christ, they deny the crucifixion, they deny Jesus as the Son of God. So they would do him out of a job straightaway. Muslims are not in the habit of compromising; it's their way or no way.

©Mark Alexander

All Rights Reserved