Know thy enemy…not his propaganda

Editor’s Note – Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Clare is also a close friend and frequent contributor to SUA.

Know thy enemy…not his propaganda:

Imagine our military forcing cadets before World War II to visit a Shinto Shrine in Hawaii to understand the Japanese, or forcing them to visit the German American Bund, an American Nazi party sympathizer group in Buffalo to get to know the Nazis, or any number of Communist Party meetings in the USA during the Cold War so they could identify with their nemeses.

Sheer lunacy and madness! Ignorance of ones enemies is not a good battle plan…

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. – Sun Tzu

______________

U.S. Military Bows to Islam … Again!

By Clare Lopez – RadicalIslam.org
Clare Lopez

The U.S. military is in a full-fledged retreat that is marked by such desperation that it qualifies as a rout. No, not the retreat from Afghanistan, where Afghans in uniform are attacking, killing, and wounding American and other coalition troops with increasing frequency as the grip of Islamic Law tightens like a noose around the country.

Not the one in Iraq, either, where an Iranian puppet regime now seems powerless to stop the wave of al-Qa’eda suicide bombings and sits waiting for the next civil war to explode anew. No, the most ignominious retreat that the U.S. military currently is involved in is the one which has top Pentagon officials ordering Defense Department schools to purge all training content that would actually inform military students about the enemy threat doctrine of Islamic jihad and its shariah origins.

The stated objective of the dhimmified behavior is to ensure that American warriors never get the idea that the U.S. is at war with Islam—or apparently any realization that Islam is at war with the U.S. either.

General Martin Dempsey

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, has ordered all Department of Defense (DoD) curricula to be reviewed for anything “disrespectful of the Islamic religion.” Pentagon spokesman Captain John Kirby added helpfully (if not especially grammatically) that the U.S. is “at war with terrorism, specifically with Al Qaeda, who has a warped view of the Islamic faith.”

The surrender statements followed complaints about “anti-Islam” themes which allegedly had been presented in a class called “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism,” taught at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA.

In effect, the scrubbing of truthful — if difficult — material about what is really contained in Islamic doctrine, law and scripture that so motivates the forces of Islamic jihad will bring the U.S. military into compliance with Islamic law on slander. It also brings DoD into line with the capitulation-to-Islam campaigns already underway at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and State as well as throughout the Intelligence Community.

Cadets visit Islamic Center of NJ

Under Islamic law (sharia), “slander” means “to mention anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike.” The sayings of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (the hadiths) also discuss slander:

“Do you know what slander is?” They answered, “Allah and His Messenger know best.” He said, “It is to mention of your brother that which he would dislike.” Someone asked, “What if he is as I say?” And he replied, “If he is as you say, you have slandered him, and if not, you have calumniated him.” – Sunan Abu Dawud

Whether these top-ranking DoD officials realize it or not, their actions in purging military training courses of truthful material that a Muslim “would dislike” (because it reflects badly on Islam), is, in fact, tantamount to submission to Islamic law at a time when enemy forces these troops must confront on the field of battle fight precisely in the name of that law (sharia).

Not content to confine its capitulation campaign to the mid-level officer ranks, DoD also aims to set military mindsets straight about Islam early on. West Point cadets continue to participate in what apparently has become a staple of their academy experience: a visit to the Islamic Center of New Jersey, a mosque with a long list of questionable associations and statements by members of its congregation and leadership.

The April 2012 visit by some 23 West Point cadets in U.S. military uniforms to this mosque featured gender separation of the men and women students as well as photographing the women in head scarves, for prominent placement in leading American newspapers. The one-time Imam of this Islamic Center, Sayyid Askar, proclaimed in 2000 that “jihad is an absolute obligation upon those whose land has been occupied.”

Cadet Mission to NJ Bridges Mideast Culture Gap by associated press

And finally, just to make sure that the ranks of the U.S. military better reflect the ethnic diversity not just of the USA, but of places where they may eventually serve, the U.S. Navy SEALs and SWCCs (Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen) are now recruiting at swim programs … in Dearborn, Michigan. That’s right: The U.S. Navy SEALs are looking for young recruits in neighborhoods that are home to large concentrations of Arab-Americans, some of whom hail from family backgrounds in southern Lebanon.

Opening a Can ‘O Worms – Political Islam Fills the Vacuum

Editorial Note – Revolutions historically have not proven to deliver the outcome so many citizens hope for. Look at the French Revolution. The Arab Spring that has spread across several countries is a revolution that is not only out of control, but leadership, money, deals, weapons, and trade agreements in addition to agriculture, basic, clean water and electrical power is lost. Then there are the many forces wrangling to assume control.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get a different can of worms!

This leaves citizens of Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, and Bahrain in desperate positions. The Muslim Brotherhood has functioned for decades as a union shop providing healthcare, education, and housing to a select few and this is infecting the foreign policy decisions of many other countries.

The biggest point to the Revolution(s) is where does it leave Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims? Two choices remain, dead or relocated.

Please read the following essay:

Arab Spring boosts political Islam, but which kind?

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

Oct 25 (Reuters) – More democracy is bringing more political Islam in the countries of the Arab Spring, but Islamist statements about sharia or religion in politics are only rough indicators of what the real effect might be.

The strong showing of Tunisia’s moderate Islamists in Sunday’s election and a promise by Libyan National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil to uphold sharia have highlighted the bigger role Islamists will play after the fall of the autocrats who opposed them.

These Islamists must now work out how to integrate more Islam into new democratic systems. Many terms used in the debate are ambiguous and some, especially the concept of sharia, are often misunderstood by non-Muslims.

Jan Michiel Otto, a Dutch law professor who led a recent study of how 12 Muslim countries apply sharia, said political Islam covers a broad spectrum of approaches.

“If sharia is introduced, you don’t know what you’ll get,” said the Leiden University professor, editor of the book Sharia Incorporated. His study indicated that, contrary to what many Western observers might think, more Islam did not always mean less liberty.

Yasin Aktay, a Turkish sociologist at Selcuk University in Konya, said Sharia itself was not a defined legal code and not limited to the harsh physical punishments seen in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

“That’s a fetishised version of sharia,” he said.

ENNAHDA LEADS THE WAY

Many Middle Eastern constitutions already enshrine Islam as the official religion and mention sharia as the basis of law, but also have civil and penal codes based on European models.

Apart from Saudi Arabia, which has only Islamic law, Middle Eastern countries apply a complicated mix of religious and civil law. Sharia can be applied almost symbolically in one country, moderately in another and strictly in a third.

Ennahda, the Islamist party leading the vote for Tunisia’s constituent assembly, is the first in the Arab Spring countries to have to start spelling out how much Islam it wants.

It says it respects democracy and human rights and wants to work with secularist parties to draft a new constitution. Its leader Rachid Ghannouchi has long advocated moderate Islamist policies like those of the AKP, the ruling party in Turkey.

The Tunisian constitution declares Islam as the official religion but does not mention sharia as the foundation of the legal system. Given the country’s strong secularist traditions, Ennahda would face serious opposition if it tried to have sharia declared the basis of law there.

Aktay said Ghannouchi’s writings in the 1980s helped to influence Turkish Islamists to shift their paradigm from seeking a state based on sharia to entering democratic politics.

Since then, the AKP’s success in Turkey has served as a model for Ghannouchi as he entered practical politics in Tunisia, he added.

EGYPT’S MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

Egypt, which is due to elect a new lower house of parliament by early December, describes Islam as the state religion in its constitution and calls it the main source of laws.

The Muslim Brotherhood is expected to emerge as the largest party. Its bid to build a “Democratic Alliance” has foundered, with most of the liberal and rival Islamist groups splitting away to run on their own or form other blocs.

“I don’t believe the Brotherhood will claim more than 25 percent of the parliamentary seats, which is an important bloc but not a majority,” said Hassan Abu Taleb from Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.

Egypt has also allowed several Salafist groups to run. The Salafists, who Abu Taleb said could take up to 10 percent of the vote, want strict implementation of Islamic laws, including those their critics say are anti-democratic.

LIBYA

In Libya, former dictator Muammar Gaddafi ruled by decrees that included mention of Islam as the state religion and sharia as the inspiration for at least some laws.

NTC chairman Jalil surprised some Western observers on Sunday by saying sharia would be the source of Libyan law, but he had already spoken in more detail about it.

“We seek a state of law, prosperity and one where sharia is the main source for legislation, and this requires many things and conditions,” he said in early September, adding that “extremist ideology” would not be tolerated.

The exact place of sharia in the legal system in practice will only be settled once a new constitution is written by a constituent assembly and approved by a referendum.

Libya’s Muslim Brotherhood has fewer than 1,000 members because under Gaddafi recruitment was secretive and restricted to elites, said Alamin Belhaj, a member of the NTC and a senior member of the group.

SYRIA

Syria, where an uprising against President Bashar al-Assad has been raging since March, has a secularist government but mentions Islam as the source of law in its constitution.

The main opposition body, the National Council, has so far named 19 members to its general secretariat. Four are members of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and six are independent Islamists.

It has yet to spell out its platform or make clear what kind of a state should take over, if Assad is overthrown.

“In Syria, the Islamist current is a moderate movement,” said Omar Idlibi, an activist with the grassroots Local Coordination Committees. (Reporting by Tom Heneghan in Paris, Tamim Elyan and Shaimaa Fayed in Cairo and Mariam Karouny in Beirut; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Study shows Sharia Law is creeping into our legal system

Editor’s Note– United States of America Law, derived through the Constitution, is the ONLY law that should ever be applied in ourcourt systems, at any level. One great problem in America is that too many people do not like the restrictions our Constitution exerts upon the way ‘we the people’ have chosen to govern ourselves. Because of these restrictions, many have sought alternative ways to get around our rule-of-law society by legislating, and failing that, by executive fiat and court action, almost always through liberal activism, cloaked in specious arguments.

Great Britain succumbs under Sharia Pressure

The reasons are many, and the arguments are often strained and twisted. Contorted logic is employed to achieve their ends by employing these superficially plausible, but incorrect arguments. No where else is this more evident than it is where a so-called religion tries to force its will upon our legal system. Islam’s Sharia is purported to be a higher law than that of men and nations, but our inalienable rights are not recognized by it. So we have a conundrum, at least that is how many perceive the issue and so they seek to meld the two. This is how Islam’s goals work. Its stated goals, in the Koran, and other writings, in the words of their leadership, is for Sharia to be the law of all peoples, no matter the location. The manner and method to achieve this end is to infiltrate other systems, and eventually take them over. Examples abound in Europe, especially in Britain, and is evident by the study findings below, and they are trying it here.

Many in leadership positions, are also fostering this Sharia infiltration, maybe not overtly, or by design, but certainly through appeasement, and political correctness. The current Federal administration is perhaps the most guilty of allowing the door to be opened to this erosive measure, especially when people like Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri was appointed to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom by Barrack Obama in June of this year. A person with ties and fealty to the Muslim Brotherhood is now speaking on behalf of America, desensitizing our citizenry to Sharia. Not only has Sharia law been applied to our domestic court system, but Obama has installed a new bridge within his administration and this bridge directs America and policy to favor Islam.

New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States

Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study–Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.  The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.

Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy.  The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.

The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.

On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process.  These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah.  When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.

 Key Findings:

  • At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
  • At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
  • The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct “Categories” of dispute:  21 cases dealt with “Shariah Marriage Law”; 17 cases involved “Child Custody”; 5 dealt with “Shariah Contract Law”; 3 dealt with general “Shariah Doctrine”; 2 were concerned with “Shariah Property Law”; 1 dealt with “Due Process/Equal Protection” and 1 dealt with the combined “Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody.”
  • The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.

Mr. Gaffney added:

This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country:  To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States?  The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America.  It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.

Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law.  Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.

The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com.

DOJ Keeping Islamic Bank Settlement Secret