Muslim Prayer Service at Nat. Cathedral – Gohmert Video

Editor’s Note – In recent days, prior to yesterday’s “inter-faith” Muslim prayer service at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., many Episcopalians and fellow Christians where righteously infuriated that their church would be used for such an event.

Many knew that this would violate their church because under Sharia law, wherever Muslims hold prayer services, the property and structure become a part of Dar al Islam (Land of Islam) forevermore.

Great Mosque of Cordoba from the Air (photo: Ulamm)
Great Mosque of Cordoba from the Air (photo: Ulamm)

Dr. Sebastian Gorka wrote an article in Breitbart about this and other pertinent and little known facts, especially about this event’s timing and Shariah Law concerning prayer services and it was read on the floor of the House of Representatives by Louis Gohmert, R-TX and is in the must see video below.

In addition to what Gorka wrote, and Ric Wells summarized below, this is a tactic used throughout Muslim history.

Two other sites, or locations (of many, many other instances) will forever be infamous for what happened to a Christian holy site – Cordoba, Spain, and Jerusalem, Israel.

Muslims consider both to still be their own, even though Islam is no longer in charge of the Iberian Peninsula.

Haram-al-Sharif
Masjid Qubbat as-Sakhrah in Jerusalem – Dome of the Rock, Al Aqsa Mosque

However, the Great Mosque of Cordoba still stands on the grounds of a Christian Church that was a Temple prior. Therefore, it is a part of Dar al Islam forever.

In Jeruslaem, atop the Temple Mount, Muslims built Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock, known in Arabic as Masjid Qubbat as-Sakhrah, in the Old City.

In 691 AD, the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik Marwan ordered its building, 55 years after conquering Jerusalem.

Today it stands as one of Islam’s holiest sites, again atop a former Jewish and/or Christian holy site.

They proclaim it is one of the most holy sites because in Islamic writings that the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven from a mosque in that area during the Night Journey.

But as is true with so much in Islam, this never happened and Muhammed never actually went to Jerusalem, and the timing is all wrong.

You may wish to reference the Calyph’s proclamation mentioned in the article and the video below.

To fundamental Muslims, ‘out-reach’ means come and take our stuff!

Rep Louie Gohmert – Muslim Prayers in Church Mean Much More Than First Appears

By Rick Wells – From GOPthedailydose.com

On Friday, Texas Republican Louie Gohmert read an article by Dr. Sebastian Gorka into the Congressional Record from the floor of the House. The article, which was published on Breitbart.com, was titled “Muslim Brotherhood Overruns National Cathedral in DC” and focuses on the recent “inter-faith” Muslim prayer service held there.

The article points out how it was exactly one hundred years ago that the last emperor of Islam, or Caliph, declared his last jihad against the infidels and it coincidentally marks the first time that the church will be the site of a Muslim prayer service.Washington-National-Cathedral-in-Washington--DCjpg

Symbolism is a very important component of how things are done in the Muslim world.

Gorka points out that as part of World War One, the Caliph declared the “holy war” on the infidels and that it was that declaration which led to the genocide against Christian Armenians and Assyrians.

Rep Gohmert has photos of their crucifixions as a backdrop to his comments.

While noting that the history and the timing may not be known to the Episcopal leaders who agreed to allow the prayer service to take place, Dr. Gorka says it most certainly was known to the Muslim organizers, which included The Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR),

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the All-Dulles Area Muslims Society (ADAMS).

The supremacist nature of Muslim groups such as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood is now part of the Congressional Record, as is the fact that they are a modern day extension of the fundamentalist belief in a destiny and a mandate to rule the world under the iron fist of Muslim Sharia law.

Their perverted mission to wipe all other faiths from the Earth is graphically exposed by the horror of the photos behind the Congressman. This is a real and very serious problem. What is happening in Syria and Iraq is a rebirth of this scourge upon our planet.

Americans need to understand that fact and Rep Gohmert did us all a service by presenting Dr. Gorka’s information in the manner in which he did.

%CODE%

About the Author:

Rick Wells is a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us

Were Oklahomans Wrong to Ban Sharia?

By Karen Lugo, SUA Kitchen Cabinet member

Muneer Awad, who filed the lawsuit against Oklahoma’s attempted ban on sharia law, says that he thinks judges can and should follow directives like those in his will – to “look to Islamic precepts in situations where Awad’s wishes aren’t clear.”

Awad believes initiatives like the one passed by more than 70 percent of Oklahomans — but denied effect by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals — to prohibit judges from citing sharia, or foreign, law as authoritative would bar judges from discerning Islamic religiously-inspired contract and estate instructions. Awad is wrong. He is incorrect in thinking that judges can currently determine a person’s last will and “wishes” by referring to religious precepts.

Anti-Shariah Law demonstration in Oklahoma

Judges are already prohibited from deciphering religious issues by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The often misunderstood “wall” that is thought to separate church and state really does block judges from entering the religious realm. Judges may not interpret matters of religious practice and must only apply “neutral principles of law.” The Supreme Court has consistently reinforced its hands-off approach to doctrinal matters believing that courts are ill-equipped to deal with such decisions. Awad, if you leave gaps in your will for a judge to fill according to Islamic tenets, you will be sadly disappointed. Accordingly, so would a Jew or Christian be denied judicial opinion on matters of religious practice.

All of this illustrates the exact problem with sharia and why it is offensive to American traditions. Sharia adherents observe no barricade between mosque and state. Doctrinally dictated sharia rules govern every aspect of a pious Muslim’s life from personal, familial, financial, marital, to civic affairs. Thus, it is not surprising that a sharia-adherent Muslim would expect a legal tribunal to complete gaps in a marital agreement, a contract, or a will. Americans are certainly free to conduct their affairs according to religious motivations but they know not to ask the courts to supply missing articles of faith.

As Americans have consented to be governed according to the rule of citizen-inspired and legislatively-adopted law, it is not surprising that there is a clash with those that would impose dogmatic law dictated by clerics. Oklahomans were correct in their concern; they just turned to the wrong branch of government to protect the culture.

The Tenth Circuit acted according to current Establishment Clause precedent in affirming the hold on the so-called Oklahoma Anti-Sharia Amendment. American courts have determined that government may not take action that singles out a particular religion or creed in a discriminatory fashion. A more generically worded initiative called American Law for American Courts may fare better with wording that simply denies as authority all sources of foreign law when in tension with American law or constitutional protections.

After recently completing a study of American family law cases, I would suggest that it is most important for state legislators to consider adopting clear statutes that would provide standards for secular licensing of marriages, enunciation of prenuptial agreements, and registration of marriages officials.

Again, religious ceremonies and solemnizations may certainly take place outside the civic realm, but when parties present themselves before a judge and ask to have a marriage dissolved or dispute resolved, judges must to be able to define the relationship and the expectation of the parties according to “neutral principles of law.”

The painful lesson learned from Great Britain and Europe is that surrendering authority to adjudicate family law matters to sharia courts or shadow sharia tribunals is just the first step to accepting a subculture that is contrary to democratic values. British MP, Philip Davies observes that “[these courts] do entrench division in society, and do nothing to entrench integration or community cohesion. It leads to a segregated society.” House of Lords member Hope says that “there is no place in [sharia law] for equal rights between men and women.”

While American law and founding traditions protect both individuals and groups, they are based upon a vigorous defense of individual liberty. The rule of law that was established as a bulwark between the citizen and oppressive groups – and the individual and tyrannical government – does not make exceptions for activist groups that demand exceptional treatment.

______________

Karen Lugo is also the Founder of the Libertas-West Project and a co-director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

SecState – Ignorance of other cultures, recipe for failure

Editorial Note– It would be wise for someone who holds one of the most powerful offices on the planet, US Secretary of State, to acquire a factual understanding of the very people with whom she is or will be negotiating with as our number one diplomat.

Typical in the west, we think as westerners, and then think that other cultures must see that we are preeminent and that they should think as we do. That however is a recipe for failure.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Not recognizing the vast differences between such diametrically opposed cultural differences has been our bane for years, and is one prime reason America has not won a diplomatic victory since the Berlin Wall came down.

Why is it so hard for our politicians to understand that the most ‘religious’ or ‘pious’ members of Islam are seeking to overthrow all other governments in favor of Sharia Law?

It is not the so-called moderates, or ‘Muslims-in-name-only’ we need to fear, its the most fundamental followers of Islam that we need to fear, and they are the ones filling the leadership vacuum in the new so-called free Arab nations.

When the most pious of Islam take over, you get nations like Iran. Even Turkey is turning away from its secular past – simple math here folks!

Islam and Democracy (Especially a Representative Constitutional Republic) are exactly 180 degrees out of phase – a simple look at what they say, and the history behind it shows this simple fact! The Islamic Republic of Iran is neither a republic nor a democracy, but it sure calls itself one.

Clinton: ‘Insulting, Dangerous and Wrong’ to Say ‘Muslims Cannot Thrive in a Democracy’

By Patrick Goodenough

CNS News

What political parties call themselves is less important than what they do, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday night, referring to Islamist parties boosted by this year’s upheavals in the Arab world.

Addressing a National Democratic Institute (NDI) awards dinner, Clinton tackled head-on an issue that has given rise to growing anxiety in recent months – concerns that the so-called “Arab spring” will catapult anti-U.S. Islamists to power.

Concern centers on the projected rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the victory of the Islamist Ennahdha party in Tunisia’s elections for a constituent assembly late last month, and Libyan interim leaders’ remarks about the primacy of Islamic law (shari’a).

Clinton in her speech implicitly dismissed the notion that Islam and democracy cannot coexist.

“The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous and wrong,” she said. “They do it in this country every day.”

Adherence to democratic principles was crucial, she said: “Parties committed to democracy must reject violence, they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, association and assembly, they must respect the rights of women and minorities,” she said.

“They must let go of power if defeated at the polls, and in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration,” she added.

“In other words, what parties call themselves is less important than what they do.”

In an earlier background briefing, an administration official touched on this aspect of Clinton’s speech.

“I think our fundamental point is that we’re less concerned about … what a party is called than about what it does,” the official said. “We’re less concerned about whether Islamists win or lose than we are about whether democracy is winning or losing in the process.

“And so if parties come to power that don’t respect the rules of democracy, then everybody loses, and we will be on the side of the citizens in those countries who have put so much hope in the democratic process and who have the primary role in enforcing those democratic standards in their own societies.”

The official described the speech as “an opportunity to address some really fundamental questions about the United States and our role in light of the Arab spring and the changes in the Middle East.”

Clinton also confronted the issue of the differing – inconsistent, say critics – responses by the administration to various situations in Middle Eastern and North African countries.

The U.S.-backed NATO military intervention in Libya, but has steered clear of any discussion of similar involvement in the crisis in Syria, where more than 3,000 people have been killed since President Bashar Assad began clamping down on anti-government protests in mid-March.

The administration responded cautiously to the crackdown on protests in Bahrain and had relatively little to say about demands for reforms in Saudi Arabia, but backed a Gulf Cooperation Council plan requiring Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to resign.

President Obama’s calls for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to step down also came far more swiftly than his call for Assad to leave: It took him about a week and half from the outbreak of violence in Libya to call for Gaddafi’s departure, and one week from the beginning of the Egyptian uprising to call for a “transition” to democracy and about two more to prod Mubarak to resign – but more than 22 weeks had passed since the outbreak of violence in Syria by the time he urged Assad to “step aside.”

“Situations vary dramatically from country to country,” Clinton told the NDI event. “It would be foolish to take a one-size-fits-all approach and barrel forward, regardless of circumstances on the ground.”

“Our choices also reflect other interests in the region with a real impact on Americans’ lives – including our fight against al-Qaeda, defense of our allies, and a secure supply of energy.”

“There will be times when not all of our interests align,” she conceded. “That is just reality.”

Clinton said the administration has spoken out about the need for reforms in Bahrain, and had shared with the Saudis “our view that democratic advancement is not just possible, but a necessary part of preparing for the future.”

For Assad, she had a warning that “he cannot deny his people’s legitimate demands indefinitely.”

“Those leaders trying to hold back the future at the point of a gun should know their days are numbered.”

At Monday night’s dinner, the NDI posthumously honored three “champions of democracy” – former vice-presidential candidate and ambassador Geraldine Ferraro; former ambassador and assistant secretary of state Richard Holbrooke; and former ambassador and Democratic National Committee chairman Charles Manatt.

The ‘New’ Libyan Government – Sharia Law to Rule

Editor’s Note – Be careful of what you ask for. When you kick over a can of worms, it may be more than worms that emerge. Now that the dictator is gone, what is emerging from the can of worms may be more volatile, especially if Shariah Law becomes the backbone of the ‘new’ Libya.

Islamic Sharia law will be the ‘basic source’ of legislation in free Libya, says new leader

  • I regret Gaddafi death says prime minister: Tyrant ‘should have answered for his crimes in court’
  • ‘Embrace honesty, patience and mercy,’ NTC head tells Libyans

By SAM GREENHILL

AP/Mail OnLion

Libya’s new prime minister has laid out a vision for his country’s new legal system – and it may come as a bit of shock to some of the millions of citizens still celebrating their new-found freedom.

Benghazi Celebration

Mahmoud Jibril said the country’s legislature would have an Islamist tint and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.

He outlined several changes in a major speech, including putting caps on interest for bank loans and lifting restrictions on the number of wives Libyan men can take. The Muslim holy book, the Koran, allows men up to four wives.

Mr Jibril also thanked those who fought and fell in the war, saying they ‘are somewhere better than here, with God.’

Displaying his own piety, he then stepped aside from the podium and knelt to offer a prayer of thanks.

But, after Libya announced its official liberation from Colonel Gaddafi’s 42-year rule yesterday, the nation’s new leader said he wished the hated despot was still alive.

Prime minister Jibril said he would have preferred to see Gaddafi put on trial for his crimes.

‘I want to know why he did this to the Libyan people,’ Mr Jibril explained. ‘I wish I were his prosecutor in his trial, because this is the question in everybody’s mind: Why?

Unanswered questions: Libya's Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril wanted the opportunity to interrogate Gaddafi

‘Did the Libyan people deserve what he did throughout 42 years of oppression, of killing, of everything?’

Britain yesterday urged the new Libyan government to investigate the killing of Gaddafi last week.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the reputation of the ruling National Transitional Council had been ‘a little bit stained’ by the way the dictator died at the hands of his captors.

Graphic footage broadcast around the world from the scene showed a wounded and bleeding Gaddafi being manhandled by fighters loyal to the NTC before apparently being shot.

But few in Libya were mourning Gaddafi’s passing yesterday as the Libyan people finally declared themselves liberated.

Tens of thousands joined in scenes of wild jubilation nationwide as the country’s interim government brought a formal close to eight months of bloodshed to unseat the dictator and his family. They started the countdown to democracy by announcing there would be elections within months.

The long-awaited declaration of liberation came more than two months after revolutionary forces swept into Tripoli and seized control of most of the oil-rich nation. The end was delayed by fierce resistance from Gaddafi loyalists in his hometown of Sirte, as well as in Bani Walid and pockets in  the south.

At a ceremony in the eastern city of Benghazi, where the revolution began, Mr Jibril declared the defeat of Gaddafi a ‘great moment’, but he warned the Libyan people to remember the agony of the past and choose a different path for the future.

With Gaddafi gone, he said, the NTC must move swiftly to transform the country into a democracy.

Among its first challenges is to disarm the freedom fighters, most of whom were students, office workers and factory hands who underwent rudimentary military training when the uprising began. Mr Jibril said it was a priority to ensure huge caches of weapons were turned in over the ‘next few days’.

The vast majority of Libyans appear glad Gaddafi is dead. Many think it will allow the nation to move forward without fear that his supporters will try to sabotage the transition to democracy.

But the UN and Amnesty International have demanded an investigation into evidence suggesting the former leader was summarily executed after being captured alive.

A bullet hole in Gaddafi’s left temple has been hidden from view by his head being tilted to one side in the freezer room where his body is on show to the public. A blanket also hides the bruises on his torso and scratch marks on his chest that had earlier been visible.

Uncertain: Gaddafi's son and one-time heir apparent Saif al-Islam has apparently escaped

Mobile phone footage of Gaddafi’s last moments shows the bloodied dictator being taunted with a pistol, before a single shot rings out, followed by silence.

Omran al-Oweib, the commander of the rebels who captured Gaddafi, admitted things had ‘got out of hand’ among young soldiers when they tried to bring him in alive.

Before the doomed dash for freedom that ended in his death, rebels discovered that Gaddafi had hidden for two weeks in a boarded-up house in Sirte, living on ready meals and tinned tomatoes.

But as the neighbourhood crumbled around him under the revolutionaries’ shelling, his sense of self-importance remained intact – a wall in his bolthole was decorated with a signed photograph of himself in his naval commander’s uniform.

Also found in the house were a brocaded cranberry silk waistcoat – size 54 – with a handmade gold-striped tie and some Italian shirts.

n Between 60 and 70 per cent of Tunisian voters turned out for their country’s first free elections yesterday. They were voting to elect an assembly to appoint a new government after an Arab Spring uprising.

The long-banned Ennahda party is expected to win when the results are announced today.