Pamela Geller, American Thinker: Defending Shariah in America

Please go over to The American Thinker and read my article on the latest cultural jihad: 

Defending Shariah in America
Pamela Geller
Washington Post whitewashes Muslim campaign to re-educate "misunderstanders" of Shariah 

Story continues below advertisement

America, apologizing to brutal murderers for disposing of terrorist messages in a quran, is Shariah law in America.

America, Judge Martin dismissing the charges against a Muslim who attacked a Halloween parade goer because his costume was an insult to Muhammad, is the Shariah.

America, mosqueing the workplace is the Shariah.

America, demonizing and marginalizing of pro-freedom voices like mine, like those of my colleagues, is the Shariah.

America, mosqueing the public school is the Shariah in America.

America, mosqueing the neighborhood is the Shariah in America.

The Washington Post on March 2 ran a piece written by Omar Sacirbey for the Religion News Service. Muslims launch campaign to 'understand' Shariah. It began: "Against a backdrop of heartland fears that U.S. Muslims seek to impose Islamic law on American courts, a leading Muslim group will launch a campaign on Monday (March 5) to dispel what it called misconceptions about Shariah."

"Heartland fears" are actually heartland realities: a new study has found that Shariah has already been used as a determining factor in court cases in 23 states.

"Many Americans associate Shariah," says the Post, "with the harsh punishments carried out in a few Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, even as U.S. Muslim groups insist they have no desire to introduce Islamic law on themselves or others." It quotes Zahid Bukhari, president of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Circle of North America, complaining: "There were all these wrong notions about Shariah."

Here's the thing: "U.S. Muslim groups insist they have no desire to introduce Islamic law on themselves or others," so why should they be blocking efforts to outlaw it? It doesn't make sense. And it's not that "Americans associate Shariah with the harsh punishments carried out in a few Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia" — it's that those things are part of every form of Shariah ever known since the beginning of Islam. So are Americans right to associate Shariah with stonings, amputations, clitorectomies, honor killings, death for apostates, the denial of free speech, and the treatment of women like slaves? When has there ever been a Shariah state that didn't feature those things?

Bukhari goes on, as quoted in the Post: "The most worrisome thing, he said, was that the level of hatred toward Shariah had spread from the margins of society to the mainstream. The ICNA campaign has already drawn fire from 'anti-Shariah' groups in the United States."

"The level of hatred toward Shariah." It's "hatred" now to know what Shariah is and has always been in every place it has ever been implemented.

The article says that ICNA is sponsoring the "roughly $3 million dollar campaign" that "will feature billboards in at least 15 U.S. cities, 'Shariah seminars' on 20 college campuses, and town hall-style forums and interfaith events in 25 cities."

This sinister, deceptive taqiyya campaign has 3 million dollars, and we're having trouble scraping together two nickels for our campaign countering it with the truth. If we had 3 million dollars, everyone in America would know the truth about Shariah.

One of the billboards that ICNA has set up above the Holland Tunnel in New York City says, "Shariah is not scary." Shariah is not scary, unless you're an apostate from Islam, or a girl who doesn't want to wear hijab, or a wife who angers her husband, or a Christian who says he doesn't think Muhammad is a prophet, or a Jew who is breathing…

Then the WaPo mentions the resistance: "Even before the campaign was launched, there was already pushback from two groups, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop the Islamization of Nations, both categorized as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center."

Note how the WaPo mentions the SPLC's politicized and manipulative designation, while never mentioning that SPLC characterizes essentially any and every effective group that is not far-Left or Islamic supremacist as a "hate group." Nor does it mention that ICNA is a Muslim Brotherhood group, so designated in a captured internal MB document that says that the Brotherhood in the US is dedicated to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house."

The article does have the decency to quote me calling the ICNA campaign "a complete whitewash." Er yup. Then it says: "The two groups have designed a billboard parodying ICNA's Kansas City billboard. 'Shariah: Got Fatwa? Get help!' it says, along with a toll-free number and website, neither of which worked."

The WaPo is lying. They both work.

The deceptions start coming thick and fast in the WaPo article after that: "Geller wrote on her blog that the Quran endorses wife beating and mandates that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's. Shariah, she said, mandates the death penalty for apostasy and the subjugation of non-Muslims."

Wife-beating: "Good women are obedient….As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them" (Quran 4:34). Testimony: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (Qur'an 2:282). Death penalty for apostasy: Muhammad said: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari 9.84.57). Subjugation of non-Muslims: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Quran 9:29)

But the WaPo tells us not to believe the Quran's plain words: "Muslim scholars counter that Geller and like-minded critics cherry-pick from Islamic scripture or quote it out of context to paint a false picture of Shariah."

Does anyone still fall for this "out of context" line? Can anyone explain a context in which it is OK to say that a man can beat a woman? What context justifies saying apostates from Islam should be killed? What context makes it just fine that non-Muslims should be warred against and subjugated? They don't address any of that, only the question of a woman's testimony. They quote "Sheikh Abdool Rahman Khan, an ICNA Shariah expert and resident scholar at the Islamic Learning Foundation outside Chicago," acknowledging that "early Islamic law said a woman's testimony was worth half a man's, but only in some areas, such as finance and medicine, where there were few women bankers or doctors. 'It wasn't about equality, it was about participation of women in certain professions,' Rahman said."

And yet Shariah states like Saudi Arabia and Iran still devalue a woman's testimony. But they don't mention that. Instead, they haul out the familiar claim that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contain "problematic texts" also, as if the world were plagued with Scripture-quoting Jewish and Christian terrorists.  Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im of the Emory University School of Law in Atlanta says: "But Christians aren't judged based on what the Bible said 2,000 years ago, but on how they behave today. Why are Muslims judged according to these literalist interpretations, and not according to how the vast majority of good Muslims behave today?"

The vast majority of Muslims today don't live in Shariah states. But that doesn't change the nature of Shariah, or what it would be like if implemented again.

Bukhari concludes: "The Muslim community also needs to be educated about Shariah, and we will be having these programs also for Muslims."

Yeah, sure you will.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here

0 0 votes

Article Rating

10 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Debi Brand

12 years ago

“Muslim scholars counter that Geller and like-minded critics cherry-pick from Islamic scripture or quote it out of context to paint a false picture of Shariah.”
Any former fruit pickers out there?
I’m one.
As a teenager, I worked the orchards. You’ll never guess where I found and thus picked cherries: from trees that exclusively produced cherries.
Though I also picked pears, peaches, apples, never once, on any of those trees did I find any fruit growing on them but on each tree its unique and respective fruit.
In each instance, with out fail, the fruit I brought from every cherry tree I cleared represented clearly and truthfully, the fruit that tree produced. Irrespective of the branch from which I picked it.
End of story.

0

Debi Brand

12 years ago

In the era of the Prophet, as the conquest of Islam steadily advanced, telling of their exploits, as well as details and fundamentals of their new faith and embraced religion, many a Muslim expressed himself via lines of poetry.
Following here, a few of excerpts from those lines:

God honoured us and made our religion victorious….
by what the apostle recites from the Book
I liked the punishment Thaqif got yesterday on the side of the valley.
They were the chief of the enemies from Najd
And their killing was sweeter than drink….
Panting after the spoil
With a loud-voiced army, among them
The apostle’s squadron advancing to the fray
O Seal of the Prophets, you are sen [sic] with the truth
With all guidance for the way.
God has built up love upon you
In His creation and named you Muhammad.
Then those who were faithful to your agreement with them,
An army over whom you set al-Dahhak,
A man with sharp weapons …
…. He attacked those of (his) kith and kin
Seeking only to please God and you.
….
Crushing the heads of the polytheists;
….
Now splitting their skulls with his sharp sword.1
The B. Sulaym hastened before him
With continual cuts and thrusts at the enemy.
They walked beneath his banner there
…They did not hope for consideration of kinship
But obedience to their Lord and your love.
These were our doings for which we are renowned.
He handed us a fluttering standard.
We conquered with his flag and his commission bequeathed3
A glorious life and authority that will not cease.
The day that we formed the prophet’s flank
In the vale of Mecca when spears were quivering ’twas
Our answer to him who called us to our Lord in truth:
We went helmeted and unmailed alike….
Which slew the hypocrites—an immovable army.
By us the prophet gained victory; we are the people who
In any emergency inflict loss and do well. ….
we came with a thousand of Sulaym finely clad
In armour woven by David.
We hailed him lord at the two mountains of Mecca
And it was to God that we paid homage.
We entered Mecca publicly with the guided one by force of arms,
….
In front of the apostle a banner fluttered above us
….
God’s religion is the religion of Muhammad.
We are satisfied with it; it contains guidance and laws.
By it he set our affairs right after we had erred
And none can avert the decree of God.
….
we are on the side of the guide, the prophet Muhammad,
And number a thousand which (number) no (other) tribe reached.
With strong warriors of Sulaym
Who obey his orders to the letter,
….
When we came to Mecca, our banner
Was like an eagle soaring to dart on its prey
(Riding) on horses which gazed upwards.
You would think when they gallop in their bits there is a sound of
jinn among them,3
The day we trod down the unbelievers
And found no deviation or turning from the apostle’s order.
In a battle mid which the people heard only
Our exhortations to fight and the smashing of skulls
By swords that sent heads flying from their base
And severed the necks of warriors at a blow.
Often have we left the slain cut to pieces
….
They are the people who helped God
And followed the apostle’s religion
….
We helped God’s apostle, angry on his account,
With a thousand warriors apart from unarmed men,
We carried his flag on the end of our lances,
His helper protecting it in deadly combat.
We dyed it with blood, for that was its colour,
The day of Hunayn when Safwan thrust with his spear.
We were his right wing in Islam,
We had charge of the flag and displayed it.
….
an army of Helpers who did not leave him
Obeying what he said unquestioningly.
Since you have made Khalid chief of the army
And promoted him he has become a chief indeed
In an army guided by God whose commander you are
By which you smite the wicked with every right.
I swore a true oath to Muhammad
And I fulfilled it with a thousand bridled horses.
The prophet of the believers said, Advance!
And we rejoiced that we were the vanguard.
We passed the night at the pool of Mustadir;
There was no fear in us but desire and preparedness (for war).
We obeyed you till all the enemy surrendered
And until in the morning we overtook the crowd, the people of
Yalamlam.1
….
By God’s command we smote those we met
In accordance with the best command.
….
Our leader the prophet, firm,
Pure of heart, steadfast, continent,
Straightforward, full of wisdom, knowledge, and clemency;
….
We obey our prophet and we obey a Lord
Who is the Compassionate, most kind to us.
If you offer peace we will accept it
And make you partners in peace and war.
If you refuse we will fight you doggedly,
‘Twill be no weak faltering affair.
We shall fight as long as we live
Till you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge.
We will fight not caring whom we meet
Whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains.
How many tribes assembled against us
Their finest stock and allies!
They came at us thinking they had no equal
And we cut off their noses and ears
With our fine polished Indian swords,
Driving them violently before us
To the command of God and Islam,
Until religion is established, just and straight, and
Al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Wudd are forgotten
And we plunder them of their necklaces and earrings.
For they had become established and confident,1
And he who cannot protect himself must suffer disgrace.
(Ibn ishaq’s, Sirat Rasul Allah; A. Guillaume; pages 576 to 588)

“This is Allah’s pattern which has passed away before—meaning defeat for the unbelievers and victory for the believer; you will not find any change in the pattern of Allah.” Al Fath:23 (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; Translation: Aisha Bewley)
I could go on and on and on and on….

0

Charles Martel

12 years ago

This is the comment I posted on the WP article.
I consider this article biased, and here is why. 1) “Geller wrote on her blog that the Quran endorses wife beating and mandates that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s. Shariah, she said, mandates the death penalty for apostasy and the subjugation of non-Muslims.” Geller wrote that because that’s what the Koran says. 2) Having been labeled “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center” only proves that those so labeled are not the useful idiots the SPLC is used to deal with. 3) As per point 2, having the WP use the SPLC as a source, puts the whole article on shaky ground. 4) All of Islam’s political doctrine is found in three sacred texts, the Trilogy: The Koran (the words of the Islamic god Allah, as reported by Mohammed.) The Hadith ( the traditions of Mohammed, governing every aspect of daily life.) And the Sira (the life of Mohammed.) And that’s it. Any contemporary interpretation should be seen through the concepts of taqiyya (concept that permits Muslims to lie when circumstances call for it when in pursuit of jihad.) Taysir (a broader concept of taqiyya, which allows Muslims hiyla to drop aspects of Sharia when circumstances call for it, such as when they are under infidel/Western authority. In fact, some of Islam’s top leaders are great advocates of taysir, “especially for those Muslim minorities living in Europe and America.” ) And finally, my favorite: Tawriya (doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is “technically” true, as per Raymond Ibrahim article of February 28th in the Stonegate Institute web page.) These concepts of premeditated deceit in Islam were carefully laid down by the prophet in order to spread his faith and ease the conquest.
We better wake up, because unless we understand what we are dealing with very fast … reversing the tide will be hard. And this has nothing to do with American politics. I read somewhere that Americans believe that the end of the Cold War was the end of history …

0

Auntie Izlam

12 years ago

@ “Debi Brand” …”The prophet”?
Your “prophet”? Certainly NOT my “prophet”. Certainly NOT everyone’s prophet as that statement intimates. Be careful of adopting their phrases, even when quoting, and becoming far too comfortable with them , unless of course that is what you intended.

0

Auntie Izlam

12 years ago

Further to my last statement. I was referring to the use of “prophet” in the introduction not in the so-called poem as I do not read tributes to mo.
And I should have ended that post with. “This is one of thee ways sharia creeps into our lives without a shot being fired or a head leaving it’s body.”

0

Air Jordan 2012

12 years ago

Further to my last statement.

0

Auntie Izlam

12 years ago

@Air Jordan 2012
Yeah, it’s bad grammar. it was late , I was tired, bite me. At least I didn’t say a pedophile, murder , rapist was your prophet.

0

Debi Brand

12 years ago

“Auntie Izlam,” (already, I all but feel as though we are family…)
On the small chance that you may revisit this page and read this post, I post the following:
First, be be careful! Authie “Izlam”??? (As in Auntie Islam, as in, Auntie devotee to Muhammad. )
Be careful. This is, shall I say, how “one of thee [sic] ways sharia creeps into our lives without a shot being fired or a head leaving it’s body.”
Indeed, taking on your newly embraced faith, hiding your conversion, yet embracing and thus using your new Islamic name…
Second point: following the definition of a “prophet” as well as the grammatical guidelines for capitalization of proper pronouns, in my statement, in my reference to the son of ‘Abd al-Muttalib, father of Qasim (Abul Qasim), Ahmad, Ibn Abi Kabsha, the effective, leading spokesman for the doctrine known as Islam, I wrote “the Prophet.”
Third point: you stated thus: “I do not read tributes to mo.”
I do.
Here’s why: On 9/11 2001, I became an avid disciplined student of Islam. As such, I am just that—one whom with vigor and discipline pursues a comprehensive, substantiative, lucid knowledge and understanding of Islam.
Given such a pursuit, I read, reread, read, and reread the “Sacred Texts” of Islam. Integral to those text is the Sirah—the biography of the Prophet of Islam.
Part of that biography the above lyrics that I posted.
In brief, I add nothing to the “Sacred Texts,” I take nothing from them. I print, state, or post the comments with respect to the stated texts as they are written on and read from the page—allow the precepts, practices and details of Islam to rise from the pages of the “Sacred Texts” of Islam, and there from, and therewith, speak for themselves.
All the same, thanks for tip, “Auntie.”

0

Auntie Izlam

12 years ago

You’re welcome and it’s anti-islam for the record darling.

0

Debi Brand

12 years ago

“anti-islam ,”
Ah, cute.
However, if you don’t mind, I still far prefer thinking of you as Auntie; it just solidifies the whole like-family deal, which of course, I’m, like, totally fond of.

0