Thread: Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?

Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?
When truth = slander
by Alyssa A. Lappen
January 2, 2008 1:15 AM

A narrow, technical New York Appeals Court decision rendered last month essentially means that American writers and publishers can be held subject to Islamic law. Alyssa Lappen explains how.


Unless the U.S. Congress and New York legislatures act immediately to stop them, foreign terror financiers and libel tourists now can essentially impose sharia (Islamic) law on American writers and publishers.

Intended or not, a narrow, technical New York Appeals Court decision on Thursday Dec. 20, 2007 produces that net effect. The ruling concerns jurisdiction in Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld’s suit against Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, seeking a federal declaratory judgment against him to render unenforceable in the U.S. a U.K. High Court default “libel” decision. By implication, the New York Appeals Court ruling harms all publishers and writers in New York, the world’s publishing capital.

Ehrenfeld’s case stems from her 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—and How to Stop It, where American Center for Democracy Director reports Mahfouz’ well-documented terror funding. (Full disclosure: Since September 2005, I’ve been an ACD Senior Fellow.) As always after such terror financing reports, Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in Britain. His attorneys informed U.K. High Court Justice David Eady that former CIA director R. James Woolsey wrote her book’s foreword. “Say no more,” Eady replied. “I award you a judgment by default, and if you want, an injunction, too.”

Eady then ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize, retract, pay Mahfouz $225,913.37 in damages and destroy remaining copies of her book. Instead, she ignored the British default judgment and false libel claim—never tried on its merits—and asked the Southern District Court of New York to rule the U.K. judgment unenforceable here.

In the U.S., the Supreme Court’s seminal 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision defined libel or slander by a journalist as stating or writing falsehoods or misrepresentations that damage someone’s reputation—and in cases of public figures, doing so with malice.

Under sharia, by contrast, libel constitutes any oral or written remark offensive to a complainant, regardless of its accuracy or intent. Slander “means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him,” according to Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (d. 1368). 1

Repeat: Sharia regards even the truth as slander if its subject dislikes the facts. Now applied through foreign courts, sharia law interpretations of libel have demonstrably undermined U.S. press viability already. Though Mahfouz never proved merits in any libel case, he has threatened or sued more than 35 journalists and publishers (including many in the U.S.) through Britain’s High Court, and exacted fines, apologies and retractions from all but Ehrenfeld. Last Thursday, New York’s Appeals Court substantially (if not intentionally) allowed the application of sharia rules here.

New York State recently held that it can collect sales taxes from “commercial” enterprises with as little physical presence as a single link on any New York-based website. While temporarily reversed on November 15, the state’s controversial opinion will be enforced after the 2007 Christmas season.

Yet, also by New York fiat, Constitutional First Amendment rights now take a back seat to the state’s conservative “long-arm” statutes—which protect distant commercial enterprises from state courts. A Saudi national suing an American journalist in Britain, Mahfouz hired numerous New York agents and couriers and used many New York electronic and telephone communication systems expressly to halt Ehrenfeld’s investigations and publications concerning terror finance. However, on Dec. 20 the New York Appeals Court established Mahfouz’ New York-based commercial transactions as less commercial (or significant) than a distant merchant’s sales link on a New York-based website.

In its unanimous June 8, 2007 request for a local ruling on jurisdiction, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel specifically extended as wide a berth as possible to the New York Court of Appeals to consider First Amendment rights within the context of Ehrenfeld’s case.

However, the New York Court ignored the federal instructions to consider Constitutional issues—or the effects this case will consequently have on Constitutional rights in the world’s publishing capital. “However pernicious the effect of this practice [libel tourism] may be, our duty here is to determine whether defendant’s New York contacts establish a proper basis for jurisdiction,” wrote Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, an appointee of former Governor Mario Cuomo.

Shockingly, New York’s Court of Appeals allowed Mahfouz’ commercial actions (and any similar commercial actions of any other foreign terror financier and libel tourist) to subjugate Constitutional First Amendment rights to archaic commercial statutes.

Now, the U.S. Congress and New York legislators must swiftly enact new “long-arm” statues, suitable to our electronic age, before further damage to the U.S. Constitution ensues.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/shar..._applies_i.php

NOTE:

1 Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (d. 1368), Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, 1991 and 1994, Amana Publications (revised ed., 1994), p. 730.

Alyssa A. Lappen, an American Center for Democracy Senior Fellow and American Congress for Truth Contributing Editor, is a former senior editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance and former associate editor of Forbes.

Stuff Muslims Don’t Like: [i]A new feature

You know that popular blog “Stuff White People Like?” It’s a humorous site that keeps a running list of, well, stuff that white people like. The mainstream media went ga-ga over the site and a NY publisher forked over a book advance reported to reach $300,000. This week, the blog’s creator announced that the book, “Stuff White People Like,” is now available for pre-order on Amazon.com and elsewhere and will be released in July.

Now, as you all well know, the reason it’s acceptable to poke fun at “white people” is that no one is going to riot, burn things, or slice any heads off for mocking yuppie love of Toyota Priuses and Public Radio and Microbreweries.

Which got me to musing about a new feature: Stuff Muslims Don’t Like.

Of course, Stuff Muslims Don’t Like doesn’t purport to characterize the entire Muslim population anymore than Stuff White People Like purports to characterize the entire population of white people. It’s a look at predictable predilictions, proclivities, and trends.

I’ve already documented tons of items already that have set off the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. And Amboy Times has compiled a handy list of things that offend Muslims. But I think it’ll be a worthwhile exercise from here on out to start keeping a running blog list, a la Stuff White People Like.

Ask yourself this: Would the big chain bookstores carry a book about Stuff Muslims Don’t Like next to the Stuff White People Like book?

It would be an interesting test, no?

To kick things off, the first SMDL entry comes from Birmingham, England this week, where Muslims are outraged over billboard posters of women in bikinis – and outraged over advertising in general:

Matalan posters outrage Muslims
Apr 30 2008 By Paul Suart

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/b...7319-20841859/

A COUNCILLOR today called for more control over advertising posters in “culturally sensitive” areas of Birmingham.

Coun Talib Hussain made his plea after a billboard on the corner of Sydenham Road and Golden Hillock Road, in predominantly Muslim Sparkbrook, was defaced.

The hoarding, close to mosques in Anderton Road and Golden Hillock Road and visible to parents and children walking to Montgomery Primary School, promotes Matalan’s new swimwear range and features three scantily-clad models.

The models have been covered in thick white paint to conceal bare flesh.

Coun Talib Hussain (Ind, Sparkbrook) criticised the vandalism but said it was a result of the lack of action from city council bosses. He said: “I condemn the people that did this but at the same time it’s wrong for companies to put that kind of advert in sensitive wards.

“I have received complaints on a number of occasions not to put adverts like that in Sparkbrook. “The city council should not give permission to advertising like that in these wards. “Having families seeing naked pictures does not bring the community together, it provokes things.”

The vandalism is similar to a spate of attacks in 2005 and 2006 by a group called Muslims Against Advertising

Criticism of over-the-top, pornified advertising is certainly welcome. But the targeted swimwear firm in this case, Matalan, is not some Victoria’s Secret-style retailer. It’s a family clothing company. The photos were not “naked pictures.” (Blogger Methodist Preacher has the advertising photo.) And unlike those who object to the Abercrombie and Fitch-i-fication of advertising, the Muslim critics of the innocuous bikini ads in Birmingham are driven not merely by an interest in protecting “cultural sensitivities”–but by an Islamic imperative that won’t rest until we’ve all traded in our bikinis for those stifling
burquinis.

Out: Two-piece swimsuits.



In: Sharia chic.

And Amboy Times has compiled a handy list of things that offend Muslims.

http://amboytimes.typepad.com/the_am...st_of_thi.html

Time for another installment of Stuff Muslims Don’t Like.

#2: Due process for wives.

In Malaysia, Islamic Sharia law allows men to divorce their wives with a triple talaq text message.

Coming to the US?

Well, here’s a small dose of sanity–surprising, I know–from Maryland’s Supreme Court, which refused to recognize Islamic divorce.

Yes, you can resist sharia creep: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...,4609441.story

Court denies Islamic divorce
Man's attempt to circumvent state law is rejected
By Nick Madigan | Sun reporter
May 7, 2008

Saying "I divorce thee" three times, as men in Muslim countries have been able to do for centuries when leaving their wives, is not enough if you're a resident of Maryland, the state's highest court ruled yesterday.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeals rejected a Pakistani man's argument that his invocation of the Islamic talaq, under which a marriage is dissolved simply by the husband's say-so, allowed him to part with his wife of more than 20 years and deny her a share of his $2 million estate.

The justices affirmed a lower court's decision overturning a divorce decree obtained in Pakistan by Irfan Aleem, a World Bank economist who moved from London to Maryland with his wife, Farah Aleem, in 1985. Both of their children were born in the United States.

In 2003, Aleem's wife filed for divorce in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

When he filed a counterclaim, he did not object to the court's jurisdiction over the case, according to the ruling. But before the legal process could be completed - and without telling his wife - Aleem went to the Pakistani Embassy in Washington and invoked the talaq, in effect attempting to turn jurisdiction of the case over to a Pakistani court that later granted him a divorce.

When they were married in Karachi in 1980, Farah Aleem was 18 and had just graduated from high school. Irfan Aleem was 29, a doctoral candidate at Oxford University in England. As is customary, the couple signed a marriage contract. It obligated Aleem to give his wife the equivalent of $2,500 in the event of their divorce. When they split, he did so, and claimed he owed her nothing more.

Maryland's highest court disagreed.

"If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property," the judges wrote in their decision.

They said the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation."

Priya R. Aiyar, an attorney for Irfan Aleem, said yesterday from Washington that she had been unable to reach her client to tell him he had lost his appeal. Until she does, Aiyar said, she would have no comment on the case.

Jeffrey M. Geller, a lawyer for Farah Aleem, did not return a call seeking comment.

Experts in Islamic law and religion who are based in the U.S. said they agreed with the court's ruling. Abdullahi An-Na'im, a Muslim scholar and law professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said "there can only be one law of the land."

An-Na'im, who wrote Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a, said that "if Muslims wish to influence what the law of the state says, they must do so through the normal political process and in accordance with civic discourse that is equally open for debate by all citizens, and not on the basis of religious beliefs."

Julie Macfarlane, a law professor at the University of Windsor, Ontario, who has spent two years on a research project titled "Understanding Islamic Divorce in North America," said she was surprised that Aleem had tried to force the notion of talaq on a U.S. court.

"It's unclear how he even thought he was going to make a successful legal argument on this point," Macfarlane said.

Many North American Muslim religious leaders, known as imams, now treat a woman's request for a divorce as a right, Macfarlane said, an evolution from the common scenario under which she may split up with her husband only if he consents.

"The theory of Islamic law is that the man has the right and that the woman has to ask for it, but what's fascinating is that in practice, Islamic divorce is evolving to fit contemporary mores," she said. "Women are asking for divorce now. Two decades ago, they were not."

Muneer Fareed, secretary-general of the Islamic Society of North America, said that if Aleem had traveled to Pakistan and invoked his talaq there, it might have been recognized in a U.S. court under the concept of comity, under which nations accept the premise of a law in another country "whether or not we agree with the law or its spirit."

But Aleem, he said, attempted to circumvent any such agreements.

"There was a certain lack of faith here because the husband initiated the talaq after his wife had filed for divorce," Fareed said. "He was trying to defeat the ends of justice within the American legal system."

“moved from London to Maryland with his wife, Farah Aleem, in 1985.
Both of their children were born in the United States.
---
In 2003, Aleem’s wife filed for divorce in Montgomery County Circuit Court.”

Dude’s been living in the state, as 1/2 of a married couple, for 20 years, and SHE filed in Maryland.

dude doesn’t have a leg to stand on!

The sharia creeps in Canada are making noise again. The Religion of Perpetual Outrage strikes anew. As usual, they’re up in arms over a truth-telling cartoon–which makes this a natural entry for our Stuff Muslims Don’t Like Series. Because if there’s one thing they really, really don’t like, it’s Western cartoons that force them to look at themselves in the mirror:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...d-cartoon.html

Police in Halifax are investigating a complaint about a political cartoon that some members of a local Islamic group claim is a hate crime.

The cartoon, published April 18 in the Chronicle Herald newspaper, depicts a woman in a burka holding a sign that reads, “I want millions,” and she says, “I can put it towards my husband’s next training camp.”

The cartoon by Bruce MacKinnon is a reference to Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal, a woman from Nova Scotia whose husband was arrested in 2006 in an anti-terrorism raid. Qayyum Abdul Jamal was released from jail after charges against him were stayed on April 15.

Zia Khan, director of the Centre for Islamic Development in Halifax, said the cartoon goes beyond what can be considered free speech.

“You would not put a native American Indian with feathers and say I need money in order to cull white people’s heads. You wouldn’t do that. This would be libelous,” he said. Khan’s group called police on April 21. He said the group also filed a complaint with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done. Dan Leger, the Herald’s director of news content, said the cartoon does not take aim at all Muslims.

“The whole purpose of that cartoon was to comment on the outrageous demands of this individual for compensation long before any hearing into her case had ever been held,” he said.

In an interview with the Herald before the cartoon ran, Jamal said she wanted to sue the federal government for what her family has gone through and told the reporter, “I want millions,” Leger noted. “[MacKinnon] depicted her exactly the way she looks and used her own words, and that’s the genius of cartooning that you’re able to do that,” he said.

Indeed, the cartoonist is depicting Jamal exactly how she looks. Not as some bigoted steretype, but as an exact representation.

The cartoon :


https://zone.artizans.com/product.htm?pid=337810


The real thing, via Robert Jago:

http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2008/05/...ed-by-muslims/

An accurate depiction of a jihadi shakedown artist?

If a Muslim cuts off a Christians head, that’s serving Allah.
If a Christian draws a cartoon of a Muslim, that’s a hate crime.

There must be some logic in that someplace, but I can’t see it.

Judge dismisses case of woman who says veil cost her claim
24 minutes ago

DETROIT - A federal judge in Detroit has dismissed the case of a Muslim woman who sued a judge for demanding she remove her veil in court.

The judge ruled Monday against Ginnnah (ZHIN'-nuh) Muhammad's claims that her rights to freedom of religion and court access were violated.

Judge Paul Paruk (per-ROOK) requested she remove her veil during a 2006 hearing in the town of Hamtramck (ham-TRA'-mick). She was contesting a $3,000 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle she said thieves had broken into.

Paruk told her he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave her a choice: Take off the veil or have the case dismissed. She kept it on and sued the judge last year alleging he violated her religious and civil rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/...VUuLQxU7.s0NUE

A KSTP TV news crew was attacked outside Tarik ibn Zayad Academy, the Minnesota Muslim charter school. Looks like the administrators were not happy with the results of a state probe of their religious practices in public classrooms: http://kstp.com/article/stories/S449649.shtml?cat=1

The state Education Department on Monday directed a Minnesota charter school to “correct” two areas related to religion at the school. Tarik ibn Zayad Academy, which focuses on Middle Eastern culture and shares a mosque with the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, came under fire after a teacher alleged that the school was offering religious instruction in Islam to its students…

…In an attempt to report about the new findings from the Department of Education, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS went to TiZA. While on school grounds, our crew was attacked by school officials. The two men were able to grab our camera and kept it until police arrived. Our photographer was treated by paramedics after suffering minor injuries.

England`s top judge bows to Sharia law
By Cal Thomas
Tuesday, July 8, 2008

So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.

The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments — and divorce rulings — comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.

And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.

The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to http://www.Womensphere.wordpress.com identifies Sharia family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.

Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.

It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.

Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man.

Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive.

It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law.

This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.

Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Sharia divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done.

The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to (Maryland's) public policy."

British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came — or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.

There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle.


http://www.sacbee.com/debate/story/1065498.html

See also http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...ria-creep.html


With Dharmaveer’s kind permission, I reproduce one of his recent posts below: http://dharmaveer.blogspot.com/2009/...ilization.html

Shari’a vs. Civilization

Modern civilisation is based upon a few axioms. These are held as self-evident, and while not every society has been able to arrive at successful practice of them, most would agree with them in principle. These are:

1. Equality of all human beings in the eyes of the law. In particular, men and women are equal in the eyes of the law, and members of all religious groups are equal in the eyes of the law.

2. Freedom of beliefs in general, and religion in particular. A person is free to choose his beliefs, including her/his faith and the manner of her/his worship.

3. Freedom of expression and freedom to dissent. Freedom to intellectually scrutinize any doctrine, including a religious one.

4. Belief in democracy as the ideal mode of governance.

Once again, while no society has arrived at this perfect ideal in practise, most modern nations would agree to all four points in principle.

- - - - - - - - -

But not Islam. Not Shari’a. Islamic law (Shari’a) is categorically and emphatically opposed to ALL 4 axioms of modern civilization. Let us inspect each one in turn.

1. Shari’a law denies equality to women and to non-Muslims. Both the Kuran and Hadith — the foundations of Shari’a law — assert that women are inferior to men, and this is reflected in Shari’a law. In particular, the testimony of a woman is worth only half of a man in a Shari’a court.

Similarly, since the Kuran and Hadith assert that “unbelievers” are not the equal of Muslims in any manner, the testimony of a non-Muslim is worth only half of a Muslim.

Once again, this is not just the case with “radical Islamists”, but has been agreed upon by all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki) since their beginning.

2. While Islam exhorts all Muslims to wage continuous war (Jihad) upon non-Muslims in order to expand the Islamic state, Shari’a law does not allow any Muslim to leave his faith. This includes someone who may have originally been of a different faith before converting to Islam, and now wants to return to her/his original faith. The penalty for a Muslim who leaves Islam is death, according to all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence. This is based on numerous Hadith where either Muhammad directly says that those who leave Islam must be killed, or his close companions bear witness to him having said so. In several Hadith, this sentence is actually carried out (i.e., a former Muslim is put to death, and this is recorded in the Hadith). Indeed, there is a Hadith which records the execution of such a person (who was originally Jewish, became Muslim, and reverted to Judaism).

Shari’a law also does not give non-Muslims the right to build or repair their places of worship. It does not allow idol worship as a means of worship, and generally approves of the demolition of the temples of anyone it considers “polytheist” or “idolator”. This has been used to justify the destruction of literally thousands of Hindu temples all over India during the years of Islamic rule. Even today, strict implementations of shari’a law demolish idols, such as the Taliban’s destruction of the centuries old Bamiyan Buddhas.

3. Shari’a does not allow any sort of open discussion of Islam. Islam is held to be a doctrine straight from Allah, binding upon humans for all time and in all places. Hence, criticism of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad is punishable by death. This is part of law even in countries that do not have full fledged Shari’a law, such as Pakistan. Under Pakistan’s Tauheen-e-rasool (literally “disrespect of Prophet”) act, any criticism of Muhammad is punishable with death.

4. Shari’a is a strict alternative to democracy. In other words, Shari’a posits itself as a political system, and does not recognize the legitimacy of any other political system such as democracy. Every single school of Islamic jurisprudence says governance by Shari’a is the only acceptable form of Islamic government. Indeed, bringing about such governance by Shari’a law is considered the ultimate goal of the Muslim “umma” (Muslim nation). Democracy is categorically rejected as an acceptable system of governance. Almost every Islamist writing pours scorn on democracy and secularism as “western inventions” that are “contaminating the Muslim ummah.”

So Islamic Shari’a law is opposed to all four basic axioms of modern civilization as we know it. It is not a coincidence that Islamic societies “look very different” from free societies. I have not even gone into issues such as barbarity of punishments (such as stoning to death, chopping limbs etc. which are imposed under Shari’a law). I am speaking simply of the basic axioms that underlie modern human civilization and society and which mankind has generally come to agree upon, with the one exception of Islam. Islam rejects all these axioms. To accept any imposition of Shari’a law, no matter how “harmless” it is deliberately made to appear, would be tantamount to rolling back centuries of human civilisational progress. I particularly appeal to British readers of this blog to understand that by allowing even a mild form of Shari’a, they are allowing the imposition of a system that does not accept women and non-Muslims as complete human beings and forever relegates them to a status between human and animal. Is this what Britain stands for these days? I am appalled. Please, my British readers, raise your voices now.

What I have written here is not something our venal politicians will openly state. But these are the issues we face today. In India, as evidenced by the Shah Bano case, politicians are only too eager to please their Muslim vote banks by allowing limited forms of Shari’a. Shari’a law might soon be allowed in limited form in Britain — a startling new story in Europe’s lack of will to stand up to this civilisational assault. The Indian media, in a characteristically spineless display, did not give any coverage to the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) posters saying “No to democracy, No to secularism, Yes to Shari’a” which appeared in many Muslim localities of cities including Mumbai. Make no mistake — rejection of democracy and secularism, and their replacement by Shari’a, is core to Islamist teaching. It is up to honest intellectuals to inform the public about what Shari’a means.

It means the end of civilization as we know it.

Lt. Col Matthew Dooley, a West Point graduate and highly-decorated combat veteran, was an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College at the National Defense University. He had 19 years of service and experience, and was considered one of the most highly qualified military instructors on Radical Islam & Terrorism.

He taught military students about the situations they would encounter, how to react, about Islamic culture, traditions, and explained the mindset of Islamic extremists. Passing down first hand knowledge and experience, and teaching courses that were suggested (and approved) by the the Joint Forces Staff College. The course "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism" ,which was suggested and approved by the Joint Forces Staff College, caught the attention of several Islamic Groups, and they wanted to make an example of him.

They collectively wrote a letter expressing their outrage, and the Pro-Islamic Obama Administration was all too happy to assist. The letter was passed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Martin Dempsey. Dempsey publicly degraded and reprimanded Dooley, and Dooley received a negative Officer Evaluation Report almost immediately (which he had aced for the past 5 years). He was relieved of teaching duties, and his career has been red-flagged.

“He had a brilliant career ahead of him. Now, he has been flagged.” - Richard Thompson, Thomas More Law Center

"All US military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau, and Joint Chiefs are under Dempsey's Muslim Brotherhood-dictated order to ensure that henceforth, no US military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive ,or just too informative." - Former CIA agent Claire M. Lopez (about Lt. Col Dooley)

The Obama Administration has demonstrated lightning speed to dismiss Military brass that does not conform to it's agenda, and not surprisingly, nobody is speaking up for Lt. Col. Dooley.

IT'S A SAD DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY WHEN GOOD LOYAL MEN LIKE THIS GET THROWN UNDER THE BUS BECAUSE NOBODY HAS THE COURAGE TO STAND UP!

April 29, 2013
Pentagon Deep-Sixes Lt. Col. Dooley for Violating Muslim PC
J. Robert Smith

Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley isn't the one who has to hang his head low. That honor goes to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. Dooley is in the doghouse with the political, knocked-kneed Dempsey over his approved teachings about militant Islam. That's right, approved teachings.

As a result, Dooley, considered a gifted officer with a bright future, has been handed a one-way ticket out of the Army unless an appeal he's filing succeeds. But just like it's hard to beat city hall, it's tough to beat the Pentagon. Dooley's last recourse is federal court.

ReportsThe Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ademic/?page=1

News of Col. Dooley's setback has emerged as some researchers of radical Islam are criticizing the Obama administration for downplaying the Islamic connection in a string of attempted and successful terrorist attacks, including the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15.

Dooley's woes began when he was serving as a war college instructor. American Muslim groups didn't appreciate Dooley's materials, which provided an honest assessment of militant Islam. A guest lecturer in Dooley's class offered strategic and tactical military advice in the event a Muslim nation (like Iran) acquires nuclear weaponry, which evidently didn't sit well with Pentagon or White House PC peddlers.

Again, from the Times:

Col. Dooley's downfall began in October 2011 with a letter sent by 57 American Islamic organizations to John O. Brennan, then President Obama's counterterrorism adviser and now CIA director.

Brennan is an unapologetic apologist for jihad, as Breitbart reported in February: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...ng-Man-for-Job

Domestically, he [Brennan] claims that radical Islam does not pose its own, unique threat to American security. He has helped strip language about "radical Islam," "jihad," and similar terms from government vernacular, choosing instead to refer to "violent extremism" in an attempt to deny terrorists religious credibility. When it comes to jihad, he stubbornly maintains the word does not belong in conversations about terror, no matter what terrorists themselves say.

This from Dooley's attorney, Richard Thompson, who is president of Michigan's Thomas More Law Center (per the Times):

"Yet, despite Gen. Dempsey's personal attacks on LTC Dooley, a command review board consisting of generals and colonels voted to retain LTC Dooley on the list for battalion command. But political correctness once again dominated the Pentagon. Gen. Lloyd Austin, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, directed that LTC Dooley's name be removed from the Command List. Sadly, a principle of leadership -- loyalty to the men who are loyal to you -- is once again ignored. And violation of that principle in this case not only results in a miscarriage of justice to a loyal and patriotic officer, but deprives our nation of a proven combat commander."

A good, honorable man, Matthew Dooley is, and a talented officer who could prove invaluable to the nation as he progresses through the upper ranks. But Dooley's career is effectively being scuttled thanks to the tyranny of PC that infects the military and the Obama Administration.

Right-thinking Americans should contact their congressional representatives to demand an investigation of Lt. Col. Dooley's treatment by Dempsey and the Pentagon. Speaker Boehner and House Republicans should spearhead the charge.

Day by day, PC is eroding the nation's security. Lt. Col. Dooley's railroading is simply another sorry example.


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...muslim_pc.html

comments

It isn't about being sensitive to other people's feelings by avoiding potentially offensive terminology originating from a stereotype; it's solely done to avoid honestly labeling a threat as a known threat for the purpose of allowing the invaders to infiltrate our society while we are lulled into a state of stupidity by the regime and their complicit media puppets.

...

the United States military most of us at AT grew up respecting - the military of our older brothers, uncles, fathers and grandfathers - is being steadily purged of patriots and traditional Americans not 100% on board for Obama's agenda - in favor of those sympathetic to his agenda. Rumor has it that one of the questions being asked would-be senior officers is whether or not they would follow a command to fire on the American people should such a directive be given. If you don't answer "Yes, of course"... you get handed your walking papers and shown the door. The purge is now concentrated upon the most-senior officers of flag rank; once the purge of the admirals and generals is completed, Obama's people will move down the ranks.

Did you know that the "respected" (quotes because I no longer respect them) journal of military affairs, The Small Wars Journal, published an article not long ago on the possibility of the U.S. military fighting a counter-insurgency campaign on American soil? The authors, one of whom was a former army colonel, and both of whom were academics - identified the op-for (opposing force) in their scenario as "right-wing, Tea Party extremists".... chew on that one for a while!

History suggests that if the SHTF, the military would split into pro- and anti-government factions - as happened right after the Civil War (or War of Succession, as we southerners like to call it), 1861-1865. In short, it would probably get very ugly, very fast.

As Feral Cat wisely suggests, better have plan B in the works just in case.

...

57 American Islamic organizations (OIC) = The Muslim Brotherhood; several of whom are safely esconced in the Pentagon to work their sinister plans to weaken our military by intimidating anyone that disagrees with them. The use of PC simply is the preferred weapon, and it's a career-ender for dedicated warriors.Let's do a count of how many Muslims there are in the Pentagon; what they do; and exactly who they are and how they got there and why!!!!
Not only do the OIC control the U.N.; they also control the Obama administration. A mere step towards their intended goal of flying the flag of Islam over the WH. NEVER!!!!!

( Hey! Isn't that one group for each of the 57 states? )

..

Here's a sad reality. Right now, someone who is fairly young at 35 years old, has grown up in a pretty decent America, despite the unraveling of its fabric. They have some sense of what it was, what it is, and what it could have been.

In 30 years, when they're young seniors at 65 years old, what will this country be like. There'll be at least 100-150 million more people in the US than there are now. Whites will be in the minority, and those running the country won't be, in my opinion, very white people friendly.

I've read that the current Muslim population of the US is 2.5%-3%. By 2043-2050, it'll most likely be between 7%-10%... possibly more because they have high fertility rates and large families... not to mention Muslim chain immigration over those years.

As one Islam watchdog writer asserted in 2005 (and the numbers are higher now), with proof to back up his claims:

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

Now. Add in other factors like an overpopulated country, a large latino population who primarily hails from 3rd world countries (not Spain), eroding infrastructure, a failed public education system producing incompetents, incompetent affirmative action people in positions of power, a squabbling multicultural bunch of self-interested nationalities whose loyalties don't lie in US traditional culture, rioting and anarchy, exponentially growing anti-white sentiments fueled by MSM, food and water shortages... and it's going to be the 3rd world for the once great US.

Those 65 year olds will look back to a time that will be forever lost to them... and to their children and grandchildren.

...

I agree and the sad part is that we can see it all happening right before our eyes.

It seems so obvious to me, yet I know plenty of people who either don't see it or who could care less... or continue to make excuses for what is happening before their eyes