Greece bans Islamic law

August 25, 2011

Greece and the Greeks have come in for some well-deserved criticism in recent years, first for their insane profligate borrowing and then for throwing a national tantrum and rioting when their creditors demanded they take steps to fix their fiscal mess.

But, give the cradle of democracy, liberty, and Western civilization some credit, too. When given a chance to strike a blow for human freedom, they did it, banning Sharia law:

This Muslim law establishes among others the right of polygamy and gives only to men the right to divorce their wives which constitutes a problem for the women in Thraki, Northern Greece. Even in Turkey, this law was abolished in 1926.

In addition, this law does not comply with the Greek constitution which establishes the equality of Greeks regarding the application of the laws and the equality of men and women. The National Committee on the Human Rights considers that the Shariah does not protect minorities but abuses the rights and values of all the Greek Muslims.

It is also announced that the family and hereditary relations of all Greek citizens will be regulated by Greek Laws. Thus, the Mufti will only be religious leader of Greek Muslims and will no longer have judicial authorities.

Good. Sharia is a barbaric, misogynistic legal code that enshrines inequality under the law and by its nature as (supposedly) divine law stands foursquare against every principle this country was founded on.

As they might say in Athens, Συγχαρητήρια η Ελλάδα! Congratulations, Greece!

Perhaps ironically, this puts Greece ahead of our more immediate democratic forebears in Britain, where Sharia courts have started to operate apparently with official sanction, though not without controversy, and where even the Anglican Archbishop has said that some accommodation to Sharia will have to be made.

Several states in the US have made moves to ban Sharia by forbidding the courts to consider any law not based on the US and state constitutions (1) This  movement has gained steam since a (thankfully overturned) ruling by a district court in New Jersey that refused to grant a woman a restraining order against her husband because Islamic law does not recognize marital rape (2).

In this case, let’s hope the United States emulates Greece, not Great Britain.

via Big Peace

Footnotes:
(1) You would think this would be a given, but even the Supreme Court has a problem with this.
(2) Naturally, the Justice Department has threatened to oppose such laws. No, not because Obama is a “secret Muslim,” but because the Leftist lawyers there have a contempt for state legislatures and can’t resist pandering to identity politics.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Religion of Peace watch: “Kill every Israeli in Egypt!”

August 23, 2011

The Sinai peninsula has been in almost a state of anarchy since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak (1). Jihadist groups, including al Qaeda (2), have begun to operate openly as Egyptian sovereignty crumbles in an area crucial to Israel’s security. Late last week, Muslims waging jihad fi sabil Allah struck from Sinai in a series of terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel struck back hard, killing not only the instigators of the attack, but also, unfortunately, some Egyptian soldiers (3).

So, what is the logical response of the average Egyptian Islamic scholar to these events? Demand that the transitional government reassert national sovereignty and the rule of law over Egyptian territory and suppress these groups that are endangering the treaty of peace with Israel? Denounce these hijackers of Islam who clearly misunderstand Muhammad’s message of peace? Does he…

Never mind. We all know what the answer is: Kill every Zionist in Egypt.

Islamic scholar Dr. Salah Sultan issued a religious decree according to which it is permissible to kill “any Israeli on Egyptian land, in response to the killing of Egyptian soldiers near the border with Israel,” Egyptian Al-Shuruq newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Thus Israeli businessmen in Alexandria to make a deal are fair game, even though they had nothing to do with the fighting, because, well… they’re Jews and therefore the enemies of all mankind! And, you see, the brave jihadis wouldn’t have done what they did (in Allah’s name) if those nasty Jews hadn’t been occupying Muslim lands (that is, the whole state of Israel) and those Egyptian soldiers wouldn’t have died in the criminal Zionist attack, so all Israelis (and therefore Jews) are to blame!

Yes, that really is what passes for logic there. And yet some people wonder why Arab Islamic society is screwed up.

I don’t.

Footnotes:
(1) Helped along by our Smart Power Administration. Heckuva job, Barry!
(2) See also the announcement from the Kavkaz Center, the propaganda arm of the Chechen jihadi terrorists.
(3) If you don’t want this to happen, Cairo, maybe you should try suppressing these medieval loons before the Israelis have to do it for you. Just a thought.

UPDATE: Barry Rubin with some interesting background on Sultan Salah.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Sharia has come to America: resistance is futile

June 17, 2011

Give up now, kuffar; as Shariah for America shows, we’ve already lost:

As you might guess, my answer involves the word “nuts” and a single finger.

via Big Peace


Iranian official: “Retaliation and punishment are beautiful”

June 8, 2011

Call it the Shiite bookend to the earlier post about a Sunni cleric who argued that mutilating prisoners is an act of compassion. In this case, as PJM’s Reza Kahlili reports, there’s an extra-special Orwellian touch, as the “gentleman” in question is Mohammad-Javad Larijani, head of the Iranian judiciary’s Human Rights Council.

Have these guys got a sense of humor, or what?

Larijani, who had previously claimed that the sentence of stoning is much lighter than actual execution because the “defendant can actually survive,” also said:

  • “Retaliation and punishment are beautiful and necessary things. It’s a form of protection for the individual and civil rights of the people in a society. The executioner or the person carrying out the sentence is in fact very much a defender of human rights. One can say that there is humanity in the act of retaliation.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei also criticized the West last week for demeaning the value of women in their societies. He claimed that the Islamic regime of Iran has upheld the status of women, and that under Islam much attention is given to the role of women in society.

Call me crazy, but I get the sneaky feeling that most Iranian women would be grateful for less “attention:”

These two Iranian officials failed to mention that women in Iran are constantly attacked for not adhering to the Islamic hijab, or that thousands are in prison suffering torture, rape, and execution for seeking their rights. Just days ago, Iranian humanitarian and democracy activist Haleh Sahabi died after being severely beaten by Iranian security forces during her father’s funeral. Her body was immediately seized by Iranian authorities and her family forced to watch as they buried her that same night. No autopsy was allowed. Her father, also an activist, had been arrested several times in the past.

In spite of these atrocities, Iran was recently allowed to join the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Like I said, they’re regular jokers. But keep in mind, per Mr. Larijani, it’s all in defense of human rights.

Whether it’s Sunni or Shiite, these examples from Iran and Egypt are just the latest illustrations of Islam as a totalitarian religious-political system that subordinates the individual to the group as a fate-bound slave. It demands absolute control over the lives of its followers down to the minutest detail and ordains punishment for all deviation. Not just for those things we would regard as real crimes –robbery, murder, rape, etc.– but for all aspects of behavior, even for daring to drive a car when it is forbidden. Especially victimized are women, who are regarded as inferior beings, less intelligent (1), and therefore in need of control and, yes, punishment.

But remember, these are beautiful acts of compassion.

It’s for their own good.

(1) Muhammad said so. So there.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Chopping off hands is true compassion!

June 8, 2011

I don’t know what we benighted kuffar are afraid of. You see, under the enlightened rule of Sharia law, cutting off the hand of a thief or whipping a fornicator 100 times is an act of mercy; you’re both protecting society from the sinner and protecting the sinner form himself! Trust me, he or she will thank you for it.

But don’t take my word for it. Just ask respected Egyptian Islamic scholar Mas’oud Anwar. As a bonus, he even demonstrates the proper Islamic way to whip someone (1):

Of course, what the honored cleric (2) failed to mention was that “fornicators” subject to whipping apparently also includes women who are the victims of gang-rapes. “Compassion” must have a different meaning under Sharia than it does in English.

But that’s just details. It’s the thought that counts.

(1) Anthony Weiner should be very grateful he lives in New York…

(2) Did you notice how enthusiastic and happy he was during his demonstration? Creepy…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Leading Iranian cleric: “Hey, it’s okay to kill Jewish babies”

May 31, 2011

Hey, Mesbah-Yazdi said we could!

That’s the takeaway regarding this fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi in response to a questioner asking whether a suicide bomber was, well, committing suicide:

Q: “Now, about [the] targeting [of] civilians in the Zionist state. Some say that according to the teaching[s] of [Ahl Al-Bayt, i.e. the Prophet Muhammad’s household] and the Koran, it is haram to target civilians in any case. They also say that Israelis are civilians like any other people, while others believe they are settlers and usurpers [rather than] civilians.

“Are the operations [carried out] by Hamas and [Islamic] Jihad against [Israeli] ‘civilians’ haram? Why or why not? How about the Israeli children killed in such attacks? If it is not haram, what is the answer to those who quote the Hadith [which forbids targeting] non-combatants.”

A: “Muslims should not attack those civilians of the occupied territories who have announced their opposition to their government’s vicious crimes, except [in] situations in which they are used as human shields and [when] fighting the aggressors depends on attacking those [same] civilians.”

Note that the learned Shiite scholar, though specifically asked about killing children, never says “don’t do it.” Not a word of forbiddance. You shouldn’t target those who denounced their own government, but if they’re being used as human shields… Well, hey. Stuff happens, you know?

I guess it was the fault of the Fogel children that they didn’t publicly oppose Israeli policy.

Note also that the questioner asked about the religious propriety of suicide bombing. You may be surprised to know that this is a controversial issue in Islam, because suicide is a sin. Islamic scholars have argued with al Qaeda leaders about this, and they in turn have had to engage in stretched-to-the-breaking-point arguments to say it isn’t technically suicide. (Read all about it.) Mesbah-Yazdi apparently comes down on the al Qaeda side of the argument, telling the questioner that it is not only permitted, but it is a religious obligation on all Muslims to conduct “martyrdom operations.”

Funny, but the learned Ayatollah himself has yet to strap on a bomb belt and blast his way to glory as a martyr. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time until he gets around to it.

Just as soon as the right Jewish child comes along.

RELATED: In case you find yourself wondering if Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi is some kind of …er… fanatic, you’re right. How much of a fanatic, you ask? How about, “so bad that even Ayatollah Khomeini banned his movement?” Mesbah-Yazdi is a spiritual adviser to President Gilligan Ahmadinejad; he’s appeared in this blog before.

via The Jawa Report and Ynet News.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Death to What’s-His-Name!

May 10, 2011

Yeah, I’d say it kind of spoils your big moment on TV when you pronounce death on the President of the United States … and can’t remember his name:

More seriously, while this is the usual (and not all that well done) condemnation of the Great Satan for killing a noble mujahideen (and sociopathic mass-murderer), note Sheikh Sa’id’s justification: that Obama is a Muslim who has left the faith and therefore, as an apostate, must die:

“Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.” —Bukhari 9:83:37

This just goes to show that the “Obama is a Muslim” myth(1) has spread far and wide, even to faraway Sudan, and will probably never die. But I can see where Sa’id is coming from: Obama’s father was a (non-practicing) Muslim and, under Islamic law, if you are born to a Muslim father, you are a Muslim. (Daniel Pipes has a good discussion of this.) Practicing Islam doesn’t make a difference, so, in Sa’id’s view, it’s not unreasonable(2) to accuse Obama of being a murtadd — an apostate. That modern Christianity largely sees membership as a matter of some form of baptism and active profession of faith doesn’t matter; after all, as it says in the Qur’an, Christians are the ones who have “gone astray.”(3)

So… Death to What’s-his-name!

(1) For what it’s worth, I’ve never bought into that; it’s just a variant on the “Manchurian Candidate” meme. If Obama is drawn to any religion, its the Black Liberation Theology of James Cone and Jeremiah Wright, which meshes well with Obama’s Socialist politics.

(2) To a totalitarian mind straight out of the Middle Ages, that is.

(3) That passage is generally interpreted to mean the Jews (“…those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down…”) and the Christians (“…those who go astray.”)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)