By John Guandolo
….Specifically, the U.S. Constitution, in its Preamble, identifies the People as sovereign under our system. Sharia specifically states all of mankind must submit to Islam: “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Allah Almighty alone.” (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Mohammed Hashim Kalamali)
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states “This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land.” As was noted in an earlier UTT Blog this week, the most popular Junior High School text in American Islamic schools – What Islam is All About – states, “The law of the land is the Shari’ah of Allah.”
Finally, the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the freedom to practice their faith and religion without government interference. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” Sharia, which comes from the Quran and the example/teachings of the prophet Mohammed, states “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie and wait for them in every stratagem of war” (Quran 9:5); and “But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn away from Islam, seize them and slay them wherever you find them, and take no friends or helpers from among their ranks.” (Quran 4:89) In Sharia, there is no disagreement among the scholars and 100% of authoritative Islamic Law legally puts Muslims at a higher status in the community with greater rights than those of non-Muslims, and 100% of all Islamic Law mandates that all apostates from Islam be killed.
What the Global Islamic Movement intends to do, and says it intends to do, and is killing tens of thousands of people across the globe and overthrowing countries in furtherance of, is the imposition of Sharia on the world. This is not about religious freedom for Muslims in any way. It is about a violent and organized effort to impose foreign law (Sharia) on American citizens in direct conflict of the U.S Constitution and U.S. Federal Code.
Those who have sworn an Oath to protect and defend America and our Constitution must do so against any incursion into our system by Sharia. Sharia should be viewed as a cancer inside our system – a viewpoint which was crystal clear to our Founders.
by John Guandolo
As Americans come to better understand that Sharia is real law and jihadis intend to impose it on all Muslims and non-Muslims alike, it becomes important to know when Sharia adherence is increasing in a particular area because it indicates violence from the jihadis will soon follow.
As law enforcement and military units have discovered, adherence to Sharia is directly proportional to the level of violence advocated in the Islamic community against those who do not want to be adherent to Sharia – Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
A 2004 study entitled Understanding Terror Networks by a former CIA case officer revealed that 97% of jihadis were highly adherent to Sharia. This adherence was measured in observable behavior including the wearing of traditional Islamic garb and growing a Sharia adherent beard.
A study published in 2011 randomly surveyed 100 mosques across America and measured the correlation between Sharia adherence and the promotion of violence through published literature at the mosque, comments and teachings of the Imam, and other factors. This “Mapping Sharia” study revealed a one to one correlation between Sharia compliance and violence taught at Islamic Centers, Mosques, and Masjids.
In the New York Police Department’s landmark 2007 report on the homegrown threat entitled, “Radicalization in the West” the NYPD identified the implementation of Sharia and the establishment of a global Islamic state (Caliphate) as the driving “Jihadi-Salafi ideology” behind jihadists in the U.S and beyond (page 17). The report notes the “progression or gravitation towards Salafi Islam” and regular attendance at a Salafi mosque are two key indicators of “radicalization” of Muslims towards jihad. The term “Salafi” comes from the Islamic phrase “al salaf al-salih” or the “righteous predecessors”—the first three generations of Muslims. These are individuals who strictly follow Sharia, and while there are debates among Salafis on a variety of issues, there is no legal disagreement in the Sharia on the definition and obligation of jihad, nor of how Muslims must relate to non-Muslims.
The NYPD report identifies “signatures” of “Salafism” – or what I call here “Sharia Adherence”—which include: being part of a group which will strengthen your Salafis/Sharia Adherence, and “wearing traditional Islamic clothing, growing a beard (page 31).”
If you see an increase in Sharia adherence in your community, you will see an increase in violence and jihad.
Here are a few of those signatures of Sharia adherence:
Sharia adherent men will have short/trimmed mustaches but their beards are often unkempt.
“Cut the mustaches short and leave the beard as it is.” Bukhari 7:781
In Islam, Mohammad is the most perfect example of a Muslim. Islamic men who dye their beards red with henna are identifying themselves with the Prophet Mohammad who wore his beard this way.
Black Islamic Headdress
Islamic men who wear the black headdress are identifying themselves as jihadis. Overseas, American military soldiers and Marines understand this. While only a few sightings have been reported in the United States, if this is seen in your community, it should be taken seriously….
By E. Jeffrey Ludwig
….The cutting of the clitoris of girls is intended to curb their sexual desire and preserve their sexual honor before marriage. The practice has a tremendous cost: many girls bleed to death or die of infection. Most are traumatized. Those who survive can suffer adverse health effects during marriage and pregnancy. New information from Iraqi Kurdistan raises the possibility that the problem is more prevalent in the Middle East than previously believed and that FGM is far more tied to religion than many Western academics and activists admit.
When asked why they subject their daughters to the operation, many Muslim women respond that it has always been like that. Because the clitoris is considered “dirty” (haram), women fear that they cannot find husbands for their daughters if they have not been mutilated, and many believe that men prefer sex with a mutilated wife. Others stress the religious necessity of FGM, even though Islamic law is unclear on the matter.
When the jihadists denounce Christianity, denounce Judaism, and denounce the West (especially the “Great Satan,” the USA), they are declaring war to the death. Among our many irreconcilable differences with the Muslim world is our rejection of their inhuman violence against women.
We are in WWIII, but it is a war of civilizations, not of nations as such, although some terrorist nations such as Libya, Iran, and Qatar are involved. Nor is religion per se defining this conflict. Although religion is paramount for the jihadists, it is not for the West. One side of this conflict is Western, pleasure-seeking, technological, democratic, and motivated by Judeo-Christian values. Interwoven in this gestalt are socialistic, communistic, and quasi-humanistic ideas of progress (derived from Judeo-Christian ideals yet not acknowledging that derivation).
Obviously some of these trends and themes within Western civilization are in conflict with each other. Yet all of these factions are together, to a greater or lesser degree, at war with another alien lifestyle and mindset. That other side of the conflict is Islamic, totalitarian, anti-progress, indifferent to scientific advances, death-oriented, rage-filled, duplicitous, maniacal, vengeful, non-productive, and dependent yet prideful (denying said psychic, political, and economic dependency).
The vile essence of this opposition can be seen in the widespread practice of FGM. Here, on a day-to-day basis, we see the very worst in mankind manifesting itself. If we do not win in the struggle against Islamic supremacism, the cult of FGM will have prevailed. Who can bear the thought?
By David Gelernter
To the Yale Muslim Students Association and its many sister organizations that have co-signed a letter protesting Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s lecture on Monday:
I love your new free-speech concept! Obviously this woman should have been banned from campus and had her face stomped in; why couldn’t they have just quietly murdered her in Holland along with her fellow discomfort-creators? These people are worse than tweed underwear! They practically live to make undergraduates uncomfortable. But let’s deal with the harsh realities. Your inspired suggestion, having Official Correctors speak right after Ali to remind students of the authorized view of Muslim society, is the most exciting new development in Free Speech since the Inquisition — everyone will be talking about it! You have written, with great restraint, about “how uncomfortable it will be” for your friends if this woman is allowed to speak. Uncomfortable nothing. The genital mutilation of young girls is downright revolting! Who ever authorized this topic in a speech to innocent Yale undergraduates? Next thing you know, people will be saying thatsome orthodox Muslim societies are the most cruel and benighted on earth and that Western societies are better than they are (better!) merely because they don’t sexually mutilate young girls! Or force them into polygamous marriages, countenance honor killings, treat women as the property of their male relations, and all that. Can’t they give it a rest? You’d think someone was genitally mutilatingthem.
We all know that Free Speech doesn’t mean that just anyone can stand up and start spouting. Would you let your dog talk for an hour to a Yale student audience? What’s next, inviting Dick Cheney? Careful study of contemporary documents makes it perfectly clear that when the Bill of Rights mentions Free Speech, it is alluding to Freedom of Speech for the Muslim Students Association at Yale. We all know that true free speech means freedom to shut up, especially if you disagree with your betters. And true free thought means freedom to stop thinking as soon as the official truth is announced by the proper Authorities — and freedom to wait patiently until then.
Now take this Ayaan Hirsi Ali. First of all, she’s a black woman, and they’re not quite ready for prime time, know what I mean? And she’s against the systematic abuse of women in Muslim societies. What about people who are for the systematic abuse of women in Muslim societies? Furthermore, she lacks “representative scholarly qualifications.” Want the whole campus flooded with quacks expressing their so-called opinions based on “experience” and “knowledge” instead of academic authority? And she’s Dutch. More or less. Enough said.
Thank you for protecting us from having to listen to uncensored ideas and make up our own minds, Yale Muslim Students Association. Or at least trying. We will treasure your letter and keep it under our pillows forever.
— David Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale University.
Filed under: Evil, Foreign influence, Freedom of Speech, Islam, Sharia Law | Tagged: Civilization jihad, freedom of speech, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Student Association, sharia law | Leave a comment »
If you don’t have time for the whole thing, skip to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (at about the 12:26 mark), and Douglas Murray (at about the 28:55 mark), then skip to the end to hear the results.