Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

All In The Family: Shaima Alawadis: Not Victim of Islamophobia!

All In The Family: Shaima Alawadis: Not Victim of Islamophobia!

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Bare Naked Islam! A few readers with elephantine
memories will recall the mysterious battery of Shaima Alawadis which
precipitated her death.  An obviously forged note was produced,
casting suspicion on an unknown “Islamophobe”. The usual line up of
self-righteous AssWholes proceeded to do their ritual
song & dance blaming “Islamophobia” & ‘hate speech” implying
that “right wing extremist” bloggers caused her death.

Months after the echo of the song reverberated their
last notes, an arrest has been made in the infamous case. The person
arrested is not an Islamophobe inspired to  murder by “extremist”
blog posts.  He is Shaima’s husband.  Her death has the
hallmarks of honoricide.

How convenient to blame her  death on
those who  sound a warning about the damnable doctrines &
practices of Islam including  genocidal conquest, slavery,
barbarian rapine & terrorism.   If the  government
would only silence us, Shaima would still be alive.  Yeah,
right.  I will not hold my breath waiting for an apology
from the LibTards & AssWholes.

View more videos at:

More related stories with numerous
polemical images linked at Bare Naked Islam, linked above.


We are all Shaima!

Shame on you: AssWholes! If married to a Muslim, you
very well could join her in the hospital if not the cemetery.  You
exploited a brutal murder for political gain, unjustly accusing the
innocent of  inspiring & inciting murder.  [Emphasis

4:34. Men are the protectors
and maintainers of
, because Allâh has made one of them to
excel the othe
r, and
because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore
the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allâh and to their
husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allâh orders them to
guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband’s property,
etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill­conduct,
admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them
(lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not
against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most
High, Most Great.

The parenthetical “lightly, if it is useful”  is not in the
original Arabic text.  Source:  Corpus Quran



the bed

N – genitive masculine plural



and [finally] strike them.

CONJ – prefixed conjunction wa (and)

V – 2nd person masculine
plural imperative verb

PRON – subject pronoun

PRON – 3rd person feminine
plural object pronoun


فعل أمر والواو ضمير متصل في محل رفع فاعل و«هن» ضمير متصل في محل نصب
مفعول به



Then if

REM – prefixed resumption

COND – conditional particle


حرف شرط

Alternative translations:
Tafsir Ibn Kathir teaches against severe beating.

Indeed Moe told his followers not to beat their
wives severely, but in doing so, he let the cat out of the bag. This
text is found on page 651of The Life of Muhammad.

You have rights over your wives and
they have rights over you. You

have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should

not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put

them in separate rooms and to beat them but not
with severity
. If they

refrain from these things they have the right to their food and clothing

with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners

with you
having no control- of their persons
. You have taken them only

as a trust from God,3 and you have the enjoyment of their
persons by the

words of God, so
understand (T. and listen to) my words, 0 men, for

I have told you.


3. *bi amanati ilah* This is a difficult phrase. It is probably to be
understood in the sense

of Sura 8. 27 and more particularly 33. 72 where the Quranic
commentators differ widely.

See Lane, 102a.

The oral traditions of Moe’s companions amplify the
concept for us.  Moe first told his companions not to beat their
wives, then he revised his order. And don’t beat your wife as you would
your slave girl.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 11, Number 2139:

Narrated Mu’awiyah al-Qushayri:

I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him:
What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food
what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe
yourself, and do not beat
them, and do not revile them

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 11, Number 2141:

Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:

Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah
(peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s
but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah
(peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become
emboldened towards their husbands
, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat
. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of
Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the
Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round
Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the
best among you.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 1, Number 0142:

Narrated Laqit ibn Sabirah:

I was the leader of the delegation of Banu al-Muntafiq or (the
narrator doubted) I was among the delegation of Banu al-Muntafiq that
came to the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). When we reached the
Prophet, we did not find him in his house. We found there Aisha, the
Mother of the Believers. She ordered that a dish called Khazirah should
be prepared for us. It was then prepared. A tray containing dates was
then presented to us. (The narrator Qutaybah did not mention the word
qina’, tray).

Then the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) came. He asked:
Has anything been served to you or ordered for you? We replied: Yes,
Messenger of Allah. While we were sitting in the company of the
Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) we suddenly saw that a shepherd
was driving a herd of sheep to their fold. He had with him a newly-born
lamb that was crying.

He (the Prophet) asked him: What did it bear, O so and so? He
replied: A ewe. He then said: Slaughter for us in its place a sheep. Do
not think that we are slaughtering it for you. We have one hundred
sheep and we do not want their number to increase. Whenever a ewe is
born, we slaughter a sheep in its place.

(The narrator says that the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) used the
word la tahsabanna, do not think).

I (the narrator Laqit) then said: Messenger of Allah, I have a
wife who has something (wrong) in her tongue, i.e. she is insolent. He
said: Then divorce her. I said: Messenger of Allah, she had company
with me and I have children from her. He said: Then ask her (to obey
you). If there is something good in her, she will do so (obey); and do not beat your
wife as you beat your slave-girl.

I said: Messenger of Allah, tell me about ablution. He said:
Perform ablution in full and make the fingers go through the beard and
snuff with water well except when you are fasting.


The Qur’an depicts the killing of a boy who was
expected to dishonor his parents by taking the wrong path.  The
murder was in anticipation of the birth of a better child who would be
obedient and not sinful.

18:74. Then they both proceeded, till they met a boy, he (Khidr) killed him.
Mûsa (Moses) said: “Have you killed an innocent person who had
killed none? Verily, you have committed a thing “Nukra” (a great
Munkar – prohibited, evil, dreadful thing)!”

18:80. “And as for the boy, his parents were
believers, and we feared lest
he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.

18:81. “So we intended that their Lord should
change him for them for one better in righteousnes
s and near to

Shari’ah provides no retaliation for killing one’s
offspring or grandchildren.  This is from page 584 of Reliance of
the Traveller.

O1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:…

(4)  a father or mother (or their fathers or

mothers) for killing their
offspring, or offspring’s


Muslims & LibTards: kindly kiss my big, smelly,
deformed & ulcerated foot!

November 9, 2012 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer tell it as it is!

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer tell it as it is! A Facebook friend linked to a web page from New Zealand, which contained videos from a meeting in Colorado March 22, ’12.

In these videos, Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer tell it as it
is.  Because others shared these videos with me, I am sharing them
with you. I ask that you share them with others.

Robert Spencer cites the Qur’an, hadith &
Reliance of the Traveller in his remarks.  I want you to
understand that he is not blowing smoke, so I have included quotes and
links in this blog post.  The links include one to Amazon, where
you can purchase a hard copy of Reliance of the Traveller and on line
images of Reliance & Hedaya because I want you to verify for
yourself the veracity of Spencer’s statements.

Why does the threat of Jihad go unrecognized?  Primarily because
Islam is successfully disguised as a religion. We presume that
religions are anodyne & benign; Islam is predatory &
violent.  Secondarily because our leaders lack the SISU to
acknowledge the threat because if they did, popular demand for the
eradication of Islam would be considered genocidal; a new Holocaust.

Sahih Bukhari, considered to be the most authentic
of the six canonical hadith collections, is made available by the
Muslim Student Association at USC.  Turn to Volume 6, Book 60, Number
the story of the commencement of Moe’s prophetic career.

    Divine mandate

The divine mandate to enforce the wrath of Allah in this life by
punishing infidels is found in the Qur’an.  in Surah At-Taubah 2,
Allah tells the pagans of Mecca that they can not escape. The
translators insert an explanation in parenthesis.

9:2. So travel freely (O Mushrikûn – see V.2:105)
for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot
the Punishment of)
Allâh, and Allâh will disgrace the

Allah then commands the Muslims to wage war against the pagans of Mecca
to punish and disgrace them.

9:14. Fight against
them so that Allâh
will punish them by your hands and disgrace them
and give you
victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people,

Spencer cites Surah At-Taubah 29 which commands
Muslims to wage war against “people of the Book”.

9:29. Fight against those who
(1) believe not in Allâh,

(2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden
by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the
religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the
(Jews and Christians), until they pay the
Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

Full comprehension of that verse requires reference
to its antecedent in Surah Al-Anfal, (The Spoils) which commands
perpetual warfare against pagans & atheists until only Allah is
worshiped on a global scale.   These are outcome oriented,
open ended loops conditioned on predetermined outcomes: cessation of
resistance, monopoly of faith & practice and extortion &

8:39. And fight them until
there is no more
(disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others
besides Allâh) and
the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone

[in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others
besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

These conquest imperatives are codified in Book O, Chapter 9.8&9 of Reliance of the Traveller,
which you can purchase from Amazon.
“The caliph makes war on Jews…”, “the caliph fights all other peoples
until they become Muslim”.  These are offensive, not defensive
wars. For the proof of this fact, click the link to Book O9.8 above and
scroll up to O9.1. The Muslims must attack passive kuffar who are at
home, minding their own affairs at least once in every year.  For
the remaining doubters, Hedaya, the codification according to the Hanifi
school, declares that “Destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels
though they be not
the first aggressors

    humiliation & disgrace

Full comprehension of this issue requires reading
one hadith which was bowdlerized by Khan , the context of Surah
Al-Imran 110 and the hadith which explains it.

Ch 61 # 2756: …It is mentioned from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet, may
Allah bless him and grant him peace, “My provision has
been placed under
the shadow of my spear
, and abasement and humility
have been placed on the
one who disobeys my command

3:110. You [true
believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet
Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples
ever raised up for mankind
you enjoin Al-Ma’rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has
ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that
Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of
the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better
for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are
Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh – and rebellious against
Allâh’s Command

3:111. They will
do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; and if they fight against
you, they will show you their backs,
and they will not be

3:112. Indignity
is put over them wherever they may be
, except when under a
covenant (of protection) from Allâh, and from men; they have drawn on
themselves the Wrath of Allâh, and destruction is put over
This is because they disbelieved in the Ayât (proofs, evidences,
verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and killed the
Prophets without right. This is because they disobeyed (Allâh) and used
to transgress beyond bounds (in Allâh’s disobedience, crimes and sins).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are
the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for
the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they
embrace Islam

In Hedaya, we learn that jizya is in liew of
.  We also learn that it is to be collected in a humiliating and degrading manner,
although Shafi’i disagrees.


Many of the restrictions on conquered Jews &
Christians are found in the Pact of Umar.  The prohibition on building
churches and public manifestation of religion, are codified in Reliance

Islam must be dominant. To comprehend this fact,
turn to Surah At-Taubah 33 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.65. The political aspect of
Shari’ah is found in Reliance O.25 (the Caliphate). In O22.1, we discover that judges must be Muslims. In
we learn that authority is for Muslims only.  That rule is not
limited to the caliphate, it drills down into the family.
Muslimas are prohibited from marrying kuffar because religion is passed
down patrilineally.  If a Muslim woman marries a Christian, her
children will be Christians, not Muslims.  When a Muslim marries a
kuffar and divorces her, she can not obtain custody of her children
because kuffar have no right to authority, as stated in . M13.2{c}.

    destroying their miserable house

The concept comes from Surah Al-Hashr 2. Full
comprehension requires reference to Surah Alanfal 57-

He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the
Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their
homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get
out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from
Allâh! But Allâh’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they
expected it not, and He cast terror into
their hearts
, so that they destroyed
their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers.

Then take
admonition, O you with eyes
(to see).

8:57. So if you gain the mastery
over them in war, punish them severely
in order to disperse
those who are behind them, so that they may learn a

Other translators include the concept of striking
terror in 8:57
. Muslims are commanded to treat their victims
harshly so as to terrorize prospective victims.

    commanded to fight

Moe confirmed the jihad imperative, as recorded in
sever hadith. This one stands out for its clarity: we are the targets,
its open season on us and we have no rights until we become

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered
to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped
but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla
and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be
sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and
their reckoning will be with Allah.
” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah
that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and
property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the
right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers,
prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and
has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”

    war on free speech


Reliance of the Traveller O8.7
lists twenty acts which entail apostasy, subjecting the apostate to
execution.  Reviling Allah, Moe or Islam gets a Muslim decapitated
as does any expression of doubt or denial of Allah’s existence and
wonderful character.  This law is imposed upon dhimmis in O11.10-5: Saying anything impermissible about
Islam. its deity or profit gets a dhimmi killed.


R2.2: Slander

Slander (ghiba) 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

Mention means by word, writing, sign, or
indicating him with one’s eye, hand, head, and so forth.Body refers to
saying such things as that someone is blind, lame, bleary-eyed, bald,
short, tall, dark, or pale.

Religion includes saying that he is corrupt, a
thief, cannot be trusted, is a tyrant, does not care about the prayer,
does not watch to avoid filth, does not honor his father, does not
spend zakat on what it should be spent on, or does not avoid slandering


Retaliation is prescribed for homicide &
manslaughter, but not for a Muslim who kills his progeny.

01.2 The following are not subject to
retaliation[ …]

o1.2 (4) a father or mother (or their fathers or

mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s


Here is the scriptural & traditional basis for that ruling.

Then they both proceeded, till they met a boy, he (Khidr) killed him.
Mûsa (Moses) said: “Have you killed an innocent person who had killed
none? Verily, you have committed a thing “Nukra” (a great Munkar –
prohibited, evil, dreadful thing)!”

18:80. “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should
oppress them by rebellion and disbelief

Sahih Bukhari Volume
6, Book 60, Number 249

March 31, 2012 Posted by | GWOT, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Political Correctness | , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Al-taqiyya about Shari’ah Must Be Refuted!


The S-Word

Fearmongering about Sharia law in America needs to stop

Published: Thursday, November 18, 2010

I did not find the article to be rich in substance, but a few points need to be raised.

The proposal was bolstered by a case in New Jersey in which the court considered Sharia law in its decision to deny a Muslim woman a restraining order against her sexually abusive ex-husband. That decision, thankfully, was overturned on appeal.

What if?  Suppose there was a technical error in the appeal, causing the original verdict to be upheld?  What if the appeals court failed to recognize the lower court’s error?  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

After the negligence comes the sarcasm.

But it was enough to drive seven out of ten Oklahoma voters toward the “Save Our State” Amendment,” to “save” Oklahoma from, in the words of the bill’s main author, Muslims who desire nothing more than to take away “liberties and freedom from our children.”

A student, occupied with learning and passing exams, can be forgiven for being ignorant of Islamic doctrines & practices, but not for assuming that he knows everything about the subject. I was ignorant of Islam when I was a student, but I have learned a great deal in the last ten years.  Islam’s strategic objective is total world domination: making the entire human race slaves of Allah. Islam does not recognize man made legislation, it demands the imposition of Shari’ah, derived from the Qur’an & Sunnah.

But the law exemplifies something far more insidious than bad public policy. Quite simply, there is a dangerous amount of ignorance in the United States about what Sharia law actually is. And until this misconception is corrected, as another concerned columnist so eloquently put it, the war on global Islamist terror will also continue be a war on American Muslims.

Basing American court decisions on the American Constitution, legislation & case law is not “bad public policy”, it is common sense.  There is a dangerous level of ignorance about Shari’ah. That ignorance can be corrected by reading Reliance of the Traveller, Noah Ha Mim Keller’s translation of Umdat Al-Salik, the Shafi’ite school’s handbook of Fiqh.  The text includes certificates of authenticity and accuracy from scholars at Al-Azhar.

In England, Shari’ah courts deal mainly with family law. Safe, sane and simple; no threat there, right?  Wrong!!!  Book m treats of the laws of marriage. Lets examine a sample.

m3.13: Guardians Who May Marry a Virgin to a Man Without Her Consent

Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.

-1- The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride’s father or father’s father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

-2- Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.

Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father’s father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin’s silence is considered as permission.

As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father’s father, or someone else.

So much for the minimum legal age. So much for choosing your own lifetime mate.  Book n treats of divorce.  Who can do it?
Divorce is valid from anyDivorce is valid from any


Divorce is valid from any:

(a) husband;

(b) who is sane;

(c) has reached puberty;

(d) and who voluntarily effects it.

A divorce is not valid from:

-1- (non-(c) above) a child;

-2- (non-(b) ) someone insane;

-3- or (non-(d) ) someone who is wrongfully coerced to do it, as when one is threatened with death, dismemberment, being severely beaten, or even mere verbal abuse or a slight beating if the person being coerced is someone whose public image is important and would thereby suffer. (O: Someone being forced should use words that give a misleading impression (def: r10.2) for his ostensible “divorce.”)


A free man has three pronouncements of divorce (O: because of the word of Allah Most High,

“Divorce is two times, then retain with kindness or graciously release” (Koran 2:229),

and when the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was asked about the third time, he said.

“It is Allah’s having said, or graciously release”’).


The words that effect a divorce may be plain or allusive. Plain words effect the divorce whether one intends divorce by them or not, while allusive words do not effect it unless one intends divorce by them.

n3.2 Using plain words to effect a divorce means expressly pronouncing the word divorce (O: or words

derived from it).  When the husband says’ “I divorce you,” or “You are divorced,” the wife is divorced

whether he has made the intention or not.

(A: Here and in the rulings below, expressions such as “The wife is divorced,” or “The divorce is effected,” mean just one of the three times (def: n9.0(N:) ) necessary to finalize it, unless the husband thereby intends a two-or threefold divorce (dis: n3.5) or repeats the words three times.)



Let divorce cases be handled by Shari’ah courts; great idea, ladies?   How about honoricide?  Book o treats of “justice”. o.1 details retaliation for death or injury. There are certain cases in which no retaliation is due. Here they are.


The following are not subject to retaliation:

-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) );

-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);

-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring;

-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor’s) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.

You can not execute a Muslim for killing a kuffar, an apostate or his own offspring. That’s the law. It should be enforced, of course. It is so much superior to our man made laws.   How about the blood money to be paid for murder?


(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury’s type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim’s indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )

The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.

A Muslim woman is worth only one half of her Muslim husband. A Christian is worth only one third as much as a Muslim. What a great system, lets implement it!

Then there is the matter of eligibility to give testimony in court.


Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:

(a) is free;

(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1) (O: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane person, even when the child’s testimony regards injuries among children that occurred at play);

(c) is able to speak;

(d) it mentally awake;

(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,

“Let those of rectitude among you testify” (Koran 65:2),

and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying);

(f) and who is outwardly respectable (O: respectability (muru’a) meaning to have the positive traits which one’s peers possess in one’s particular time and place. Sheikh al-Islam (A: Zakariyya Ansari) says, “Respectability is refraining from conduct that is unseemly according to standards commonly acknowledged among those who observe the precepts and rules of the Sacred Law.” It is according to standards commonly acknowledged (def: f4.5) because there are no absolute standards for it, but rather it varies with different persons, conditions, and places, Such things as eating and drinking (A: in the marketplace or wearing nothing on one’s head may vitiate it (A: though the latter is of no consequence in our times), as may a religious scholar’s wearing a robe or cap in places where it is not customary for him to do so).


The testimony of the following is legally acceptable when it concerns cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales:

-1- two men;

-2- two women and a man;

-3- or a male witness together with the oath of the plaintiff.


If testimony does not concern property, such as a marriage or prescribed legal penalties, then only two male witnesses may testify (A: though the Hanafi school holds that two women and a man may testify for marriage).


Christians can’t testify, nor can menial laborers and it takes two women to give evidence. What a great system! Other schools of Islamic jurisprudence are not exact matches, but are objectionable, none the less.  For example, the Maliki’s Risala. Marry off your virgin daughter, unequal blood wit, female testimony, infidel testimony. Is that warm glow of Ivy League superiority holding still holding up?

One senator had words of wisdom about basing rulings on foreign law.

I did want  to mention it in that connection. But lf me U.S. Supreme Court. ls not going to look to the laws of the Uunited States, including  the fundamental law of tho Unted Status, which In tho Constitution, but lnterpreting what is and is not constltutlonal under tha U.S. Constitution by looking at what foreign governments and foreign Iaws have to my about that same issue. I fear that bit by bit and case by case the Amerlcan people are slowly losing control over the meaning of our laws and the Constitution itself. It this trend continues, foreign governments may have a say in what our laws and
our Constitution mean and what our policies  ln America. should be.

Senator John Cornyn, March 20,2005, Congressional Record, Vol. 151, Pt. 4, pg. 5516

International and Foreign Law Sources: Siren Song for U.S. Judges? By Chimène I. Keitner on page ten, cites legislation proposed in 2005 that would limit federal judges to domestic sources except for British common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Justices cited as favoring consideration of foreign law, cited by Chimène I. Keitner. include William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor,Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy.  Shari’ah is not mentioned in that article, but the same principle applies.

For the grand finale, lets glance at the temporary injunction.

Munir Awad vs. Oklahoma  State Board of Elections;  Case No. CIV-10-1186-M

State Question No. 755, which was on Oklahoma’s November 2, 2010 ballot, provides: This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases.
It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law….

“Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the ban on the state courts’ use and consideration of Sharia Law violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Three elements are listed:

  1. by Oklahoma’s official condemnation of his religion/faith as reflected through the amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution banning state courts’ use or consideration of Sharia Law,
  2. by the invalidation of his last will and testament which incorporates various teachings of Mohammed, and
  3. by the excessive entanglement of the state courts with religion that would result from the amendment as the state courts in implementing the amendment would have to determine what is and is not encompassed in Sharia Law.

Constitutional elements:

  1. must have a secular legislative purpose,
  2. its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
  3. it must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

The amendment specifies the local sources of law and proscribes use of foreign law and Shari’ah. It is unreasonable to equate rejecting Shari’ah as an input to judical decisions with rejection of Islam.

Does any reasonable person believe that the amendment rejects or invalidates the plaintiff’s last will and testament?  If his will is probated, it will be subject to state law, regardless of Shari’ah. Book l treats of inheritance. Only one third of the estate can be bequeathed, the rest is divided according to a complex formula. If you are crazy enough to want to figure it out, go to Book l.1.

Entanglement?  All the courts need to do under the amendment is perform  their duties as they do now, considering the facts, law and constitutions but not Shari’ah.  There is no need for the courts to read Reliance, Risala or Hedaya, they just need to do their job. The complaint is obviously unfounded.

The amendment has a constitutional purpose: preserving the primacy of the federal and state constitutions.  It neither advances nor inhibits religion, it prevents entanglement the court system with Shari’ah.  It does not foster government entanglement with religion, it prevents entanglement. 

November 19, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , | Leave a comment

Watch this SIOA Video

Bare Naked Islam posted this powerful video..  I want you to view it.  I want you to share it with others.  The electorate needs to know the truth about this issue.  Geller & Spencer have started the ball rolling.  BNI has boosted it.  Others must kick the ball and keep it rolling.  I am passing the ball to you.

In the video, Rifqa Barry pours out the heart of her story, one of honor killing.  Honoricide is widely considered to be a cultural issue separate from Islam.      Those harboring that misconception ignore the fact that Islam is not a religion, it is an all-encompassing way of life.  In fact, Islamic law is not silent on this issue.
Under Islamic law, Rifqa’s father can kill her with impunity.  The following quote is from Reliance of the Traveller.

-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring;

That quote is part of a list of killings for which there is no indemnity (blood money). The list is given in Book O, Chapter 1.2.

Rifqa Barry is subject to the death penalty for rebellion against Allah. In Islam’s eyes she deserves to be killed.


When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.


In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.


There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).


The indemnity for killing a male Muslim is 100 camels.

Pay particular attention to the  clauses I emphasized in the quote below; they speak directly to the issue of inequality.


(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury’s type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim’s indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )

The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.

When a miscarriage results from someone having struck the stomach of a pregnant woman (O: or other part of her, or when someone frightens her, resulting in a miscarriage), the indemnity for the fetus is a male or female slave worth one-twentieth of the indemnity payable for killing the fetus’s father, or one-tenth that of its mother. (A: The indemnity is whatever they agree upon.)

Is this clear to you yet?  Killing a male Muslim will cost you 100 camels. Killing a female Muslim will cost you 33 camels.  Killing a Christian will cost you 33 camels.  Killing an apostate is free.  Killing your own offspring is free.  Get a clue, for Chrissake!!!

Every time a Muslim, politician,  preacher, commentator  or academic  tells you that Islam:

  • is great
  • is a religion
  • is peaceful
  • is an equally valid pathway to God
  • respects human dignity
  • respects human equality

he or she is a damn liar deserving all the contempt & detestation you can muster.  Voting for such a politician is a suicidal  act of treason.

May 4, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Uncategorized | , , , , | 1 Comment


%d bloggers like this: