Yes, They Can ... Impose Sharia Law

Yes, They Can ... Impose Sharia Law by Frank J. Gaffney Jr

2. America Must Not Own a Sharia-Based Financial Business by Jeffrey Imm

3. Making Islamophobia Mainstream by Steve Rendall and Isabel Macdonald

4. Mosque fights for rights, but slurs Jews, West by John Goddard

5. Texas: After mistrial, US jury mulls Muslim charity terror case

6. London: Muslim hate preacher Bakri makes a mockery of UK law

Compiled by Syed Asadullah

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-the-west/yes,-they-can--impose-sharia-law--/d/983

*****

Yes, They Can ... Impose Sharia Law     

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr, November 12, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama became president-elect on the uplifting, if inexact, slogan, "Yes, we can."

This week, there is growing evidence that people who have in mind doing away with the presidency of the United States - and all other aspects of our secular, democratic and constitutional form of government - are similarly convinced of their inevitable success. Judging by the sheer audacity of their agenda, "Yes, they can" would appear an apt description of the prospects for the Saudis and other champions of the totalitarian program they call Shariah.

In the run-up to an emergency summit outgoing President Bush has called to address the now-global financial crisis, the oil-rich Islamists of the Persian Gulf led by Saudi Arabia have not only established that their petrodollars are indispensable to any solution. They also seem to have secured the Bush administration's acquiescence to the sinister strings attached to any bailout of the West in which they might participate.

Specifically, the Saudis and their friends want the United States to join those, particularly in Europe, who have accommodated themselves to Shariah. No, we are assured, they aren't taking about the brutal theo-political-legal code that features such barbaric practices as beheadings, floggings, stonings, amputations, female genital mutilation and mysogeny more generally.

All they want, those in the know insist, is for Washington to encourage Wall Street - more and more of which is owned by the U.S. government - to embrace Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF). A Treasury Department seminar convened last week depicted SCF as nothing more than a kind of socially responsible investing vehicle that respects Muslim religious beliefs by eschewing interest-bearing transactions and those involving pork and "sin" stocks. So, what's the big deal? The Catholics, Methodists and Jews have their funds, why not the Muslims?

What makes the Shariah-Compliant Finance gambit both a big and troublesome "deal" is that, unlike these other religious traditions; Shariah's adherents are pursuing a global theocracy. They believe they must impose their agenda on everybody else, religious and secular alike, using violence if necessary. And SCF is explicitly described by leading practitioners as a complement to violent holy war: "financial jihad" and "jihad with money."

In other words, there is no such thing as free-standing Shariah-Compliant Finance. According to all of the recognized authorities and institutions of Islam, Shariah is a unified, indivisible program to which all faithful Muslims must adhere comprehensively.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the Saudis & Co. is not simply seeking to insinuate Shariah-Compliant Finance into our capital markets. They are also advancing creation of a parallel Shariah-governed society through various other means.

One of these techniques will be in evidence when the Saudi monarch himself convenes a meeting in New York City in the hope of imposing Shariah blasphemy laws worldwide. In light of the stated, and seemingly benign, purpose of the so-called "Culture of Peace" event hosted by King Abdullah at the United Nations - namely, promoting interfaith understanding and tolerance, numerous world leaders, including President Bush, will be present. Never mind that Saudi Arabia is arguably the most intolerant nation on Earth, a fact even some in the Bush administration have acknowledged.

The real reason attendance at the king's seance will be impressive, of course, has more to do with the hope that petro-largess will flow to those who ingratiate themselves to the House of Saud. Abdullah appears confidently to have signaled that, if the West plays ball on the "Culture of Peace" agenda, the Saudis and their fellow Islamists will be constructive at what might be called the subsequent "Culture of Money" meeting in Washington.

What will the answer be when the Islamists insist that free speech must not allow the slander, libel or defamation of Shariah, or other aspects of their faith? If the European Union and the United Nations Human Rights Council have already accommodated themselves to this demand, why should we object? So what if, by so doing, we would effectively thereby be precluded from talking about - or even understanding - the Islamist threat we face, to say nothing of eviscerating the First Amendment? As the Treasury Department can attest, we need the money.

Unfortunately, this is no time for us to be diminishing awareness throughout the Free World of the various, grave dangers we face from adherents to Shariah's seditious program. London's Sunday Telegraph reported last weekend that a classified British government assessment has concluded there are "some thousands of extremists in the U.K. committed to supporting Jihadi activities, either in the U.K. or abroad."

Such extremists are said to be engaged in attack planning in the United Kingdom "either under the direction of al Qaeda, or inspired by al Qaeda's ideology of global Jihad" (read, Shariah). They may inflict "mass casualties" and constitute a "severe" threat to the Government Security Zone (including the Houses of Parliament and key executive offices) in the heart of London.

At such a moment, a federal judge in Oregon has held the law criminalizing material support for terror is unconstitutionally "vague." Taken together with the other manifestations of our capitulation, is it any wonder the champions of Shariah are convinced that "yes, they can" have their way with us? Who will disabuse them of this terrifying notion? We can, but will President-elect Obama lead the way?

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the founder, president, and CEO of The Center for Security Policy. During the Reagan administration, Gaffney was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy, and a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). He is a columnist for The Washington Times, Jewish World Review, and Townhall.com and has also contributed to The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, and Newsday.

Source: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=96B078C8-2E03-4160-B961-5DF6242D00C6

----

America Must Not Own a Sharia-Based Financial Business

Jeffrey Imm, Nov 12, 2008

As Americans we generally have choices as to what we own, especially when such ownership of financial support is against the values defined by United States as a nation. However, on November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department decided that they were going to use American taxpayer money to buy ownership in something against America's values of equality and liberty – by purchasing ownership in a company with a Sharia-Compliant Finance (SCF) based business.

As an American taxpayer, you are now a part owner in a business that promotes the Islamic supremacist Sharia ideology – whether you like it or not. Your tax dollars today are now being used for own part of a company with a Sharia-based business. This is the same Sharia ideology that was used by the Taliban in Pakistan today to murder a woman for adultery, the same Sharia ideology that was used to murder a 13-year-old girl last week who was raped in Somalia and the same Sharia ideology supported by the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Islamic supremacists around the world. It is an ideology that is against the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. It is an ideology that even the British courts have called "discriminatory."

But on November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve announced that "it will purchase $40 billion of newly issued AIG preferred shares," which, as AP reports, will give "taxpayers an ownership stake in the company."

The Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department apparently believe that American taxpayers owning part of company with a business that promotes an Islamic supremacist ideology that is against equality, against liberty, and in support of discrimination, is a good thing for the American taxpayer.

Do you want to own a Sharia-based financial business promoting Islamic supremacism?

I first wrote about this subject on October 3, 2008 in an article titled "America Must Not Bail Out Sharia Finance." In that article, I pointed out how on September 16, 2008 that the Federal Reserve extended an $85 billion loan to AIG and that the U.S. government was going to "receive a 79.9% equity interest in AIG." Less than a week after your government's September 16 bailout of AIG, AIG's Sharia-based business announced further expansion.

AIG's Takaful division has been selling Sharia-based insurance for over two years with a stated goal to sell such Sharia financial instruments in the United States. AIG SunAmerica, AIG Financial Services Corp, and other divisions of AIG also are dealers in Sharia mutual trusts.

Now part of this $85 billion loan to AIG (reducing it to $60 billion) has been converted into $40 billion of ownership of AIG stock – your ownership of AIG. AIG's business includes its Takaful Sharia-based insurance business, its divisions promoting Sharia finance and Sharia mutual trusts. You own it. That's where your tax dollars are going today.

The decision to buy this $40 billion of AIG stock was made based on the bailout authorized under the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (H.R. 1424). According to Section 104 of the legislation, "Financial Stability Oversight Board," it is the responsibility of the U.S. Treasury Secretary, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to ensure that policies enacted under this legislation are "in the economic interests of the United States."

How is it in the economic interests of the United States to own part of a corporation with a business based on promoting a discriminatory ideology, that is against equality, and that is against liberty? How is it in the economic interests of the United States to own part of business that supports an Islamic supremacist practice that has been used to fund Jihad?

Why wasn't the first priority of considering a bailout to AIG two months ago a prerequisite that AIG must first divest itself of its Sharia-based businesses that promote Islamic supremacism? Why should one dollar (let alone $85 billion) go to any company who owns a business that promotes a supremacist ideology? The federal government was not confronted on this in mid-September 2008. Now, the government has interpreted Americans' silence on issue to be acquiescence. So now, incredibly, today you as a taxpayer own part of an Islamic supremacist Sharia-based financial business. Do you want to? Do you think this is proper for American's tax dollars?

Moreover, this may not be the end of such absurdities by the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. On November 6, 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department featured a training class for government employees to learn more about Sharia Finance, entitled "Islamic Finance 101," which a coalition of groups and individuals against Sharia have protested.

Imagine if such "finance" dealings had involved any other identity-based supremacist ideology – white supremacist, black supremacist, Aryan supremacist. Can you imagine the U.S. government funding with your tax dollars a business promoting white supremacism or any other supremacist ideology? More troubling, could you imagine the U.S. federal government owning part of a business that promotes white supremacism or any other supremacist ideology? It would be a front page news story on every one of the major mainstream media outlets. There would be protests in the streets. There would be demands for the immediate resignation of those responsible.

But when your federal government purchases stock to own part of a business promoting Islamic supremacist ideology, it is not even a news story. There are no rallies. There are no demands for resignations. Such disgraceful, undignified silence is a dark day in America.

What type of federal government does America have that does not understand that supremacism is un-American? Fundamentally, absolutely, unequivocally un-American. What type of federal government does not understand that America was founded on and is based on the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty? What type of federal government leaders do we have that drive past the words hammered in marble that "All Men Are Created Equal," and don't understand the concept?

What American leaders and the American people must never forget is that the words "All Men Are Created Equal," does not come with any caveats or disclaimers. It is not "All Men Are Created Equal," except when it is inconvenient, unpopular, might upset supremacists, might raise the price of oil, or if we can just look the other way. The words are uncompromising. There is no Sharia exception, there is Islamic supremacist exception. There are no exceptions to the inalienable human right that "All Men Are Created Equal" - to all men and women. We hold these truths to be self-evident. We declare this as fundamental to the identity of the United States of America.

American human rights groups, American civil rights groups, and patriotic Americans everywhere have to take a stand on this latest disgrace. Our national honor has been besmirched long enough with those calling for "engagement" or "reconciliation" with Islamic supremacists. Now this latest indignity - American taxpayer dollars are funding the ownership of a company with a business in promoting Islamic supremacism.

We need to call for the following:

(a) The American people must call for the immediate freeze of all American taxpayer funds to AIG until it divests of its Sharia financial businesses.

(b) The American federal government must give AIG an ultimatum to divest itself of its Sharia business or the America federal government must divest all ownership in AIG.

(c) Those in the American federal government responsible for the bailout and purchase of AIG stock must resign, including the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board Chairman.

(d) Leaders in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives must lead a national investigation into Sharia-Compliant Finance (SCF) and Sharia financial businesses in America to end their ability to promote the Islamic supremacist ideology in America.

To that end, I ask you to support this petition that calls for the U.S. federal government to "end U.S. ownership" of Sharia-based financial businesses; the Anti-Jihad League of America will ensure that the Federal Reserve Board, the U.S. Department of Treasury, and our elected representatives see your support on this petition.

Fear No Evil.

[Postscript - sees also Sources documents for additional reading and background information.]

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Jeffrey Imm, formerly of the FBI, has his own counterterrorism research web site at UnitedStatesAction.com and is a part of the Anti-Jihad League of America.

Source: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1736/pub_detail.asp

---

Making Islamophobia Mainstream

How Muslim-bashers broadcast their bigotry

By Steve Rendall and Isabel Macdonald

A remarkable thing happened at the National Book Critics Circle (NBCC) nominations in February 2007: The normally highbrow and tolerant group nominated for best book in the field of criticism a work widely viewed as denigrating an entire religion.

The nomination of Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from within didn’t pass without controversy. Past nominee Eliot Weinberger denounced the book at the NBCC’s annual gathering, calling it “racism as criticism’’ (New York Times, 2/8/07). NBCC board president John Freeman wrote on the group’s blog (Critical Mass, 2/4/07): "I have never been more embarrassed by a choice than I have been with Bruce Bawer’s while Europe slept. . . . Its hyperventilated rhetoric tips from actual critique into Islamophobia."

Though it didn’t ultimately win the award, While Europe Slept’s recognition in the highest literary circles was emblematic of a mainstreaming of Islamophobia, not just in American publishing but in the broader media.

The term “Islamophobia” refers to hostility toward Islam and Muslims that tends to dehumanize an entire faith, portraying it as fundamentally alien and attributing to its followers an inherent, essential set of negative traits, such as irrationality, intolerance and violence. And not unlike the charges made in the classical document of anti-Semitism, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, some of Islamophobia’s more virulent expressions—like While Europe Slept—include evocations of Islamic plots to dominate the West.

Islamic institutions and Muslims, of course, should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny and criticism as anyone else. For instance, when a Norwegian Islamic Council debates whether gay men and lesbians should be executed, one may forcefully condemn individuals or groups sharing that opinion without pulling all European Muslims into it, as did Bawer’s Pajamas Media post (8/7/08), “European Muslims Debate: Should Gays Be Executed?”

Similarly, extremists who justify their violent actions by invoking some particular interpretation of Islam can be criticized without implicating the enormously diverse population of Muslims around the world. After all, reporters managed to cover the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh—an adherent of the racist Christian Identity sect—without resorting to generalized statements about “Christian terrorism.” Likewise, media have covered acts of terrorism by fanatics who are Jewish—for instance, the Hebron massacre carried out by Baruch Goldstein (Extra! 5–6/94)—without implicating the entirety of Judaism.

In works such as Orientalism and Covering Islam, cultural analyst Edward Said criticized an ideology that he argued treated peoples of the Middle East and Asia, particularly Muslims, as the “other”—inherently different from and inferior to the people of “the West.” It’s not hard to find support for his thesis in U.S. establishment journalism.

In reporting on an Iraqi family’s refusal to accept a cash payment after their son was shot dead by private U.S. security contractor Blackwater, the L.A. Times (5/4/08) emphasized that the “shooting and its aftermath show the deep disconnect between the American legal process and the traditional culture of Iraq,” explaining that “traditional Arab society values honor and decorum above all.”

Similarly, a New York Times news article (8/25/08) about the Afghan response to a U.S. military attack in Afghanistan that killed 90 civilians noted that bombings and house raids “are seen as culturally unacceptable by many Afghans who guard their privacy fiercely,” while the detention of hundreds of Afghans without trial was said to have “stirred up Afghans’ strong independent streak and ancient dislike of invaders.”

Why is it necessary to invoke cultural stereotypes to explain why you won’t accept an envelope full of cash after mercenaries kill your child? Or to explain quite normal opposition to being bombed, detained or aggressively searched? Because the widespread assumption in the U.S. media is that people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Muslim world, are fundamentally unlike Americans.

There are many varieties of Muslim-bashing on display in the media. One strain holds that Islam is inherently evil or violent—a “bloody, brutal type of religion,” as televangelist Pat Robertson put it (700 Club, 4/28/06). Robert Spencer, who has authored two New York Times bestsellers on Islam and is a frequent cable news guest, puts a scholarly face on Islamophobia, arguing that (Emory Wheel, 2/21/07) “jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute ‘Sharia’ worldwide . . . is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology.”

Islamophobes like Fox News and talk radio host Sean Hannity dwell on “the silence of moderate Muslims,” whom Hannity says (Hannity & Colmes, 7/13/07) are insufficiently “critical against those that would hijack their religion”—placing a burden on Muslims to take responsibility for extremist fringe elements of their religion that is not likewise applied to Christians. Also exemplifying this form of Islamophobia is CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck, who said to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress (Glenn Beck, 11/14/06). “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies”; on his syndicated radio show, Beck warned (Glenn Beck Program, 8/10/06):

All you Muslims who have sat on your frickin’ hands the whole time and have not been marching in the streets and have not been saying, “Hey, you know what? There are good Muslims and bad Muslims. We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head.” I’m telling you; with God as my witness . . . human beings are not strong enough, unfortunately, to restrain themselves from putting up razor wire and putting you on one side of it.

Another category of Islamophobia finds militant Muslims lurking around every corner and paints them as an existential threat to the U.S. and its allies. The documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West (2006), which has been a mainstay of David Horowitz’s “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,” describes “radical Islam” as a menace comparable to Adolf Hitler that, according to the film’s website, “is threatening, with all the means at its disposal, to bow Western civilization under the yoke of its values.” The film was distributed as a paid insert by many major newspapers to tens of millions of subscribers in electoral swing states in September 2008 (Editor&Publisher, 9/13/08).

Meanwhile, Daniel Pipes has warned of an Islamic threat to America posed by Muslim groups ranging from the college campus-based Muslim Student Associations to secular groups like the American-Arab Anti-Defamation League (Inter-Press Service, 2/24/05). Pipes, whose opinions have been featured in outlets from NPR to USA Today to Fox News, suggests (Middle East Quarterly, 3/8/06) a stealth takeover by an ill-defined “Wahhabi lobby” is in the offing, arguing (IPS, 2/24/05) that “in the long term . . . the legal activities of Islamists pose as much or even a greater set of challenges than the illegal ones.”

The “war on terror” has bolstered a class of Islamophobic self-proclaimed “Islamic terrorism experts,” such as NBC terrorism analyst Steven Emerson, who notoriously proclaimed (CBS News, 4/19/95) that the bloodthirstiness of the Oklahoma City bombing was “a Middle Eastern trait.”

Some strains of Muslim-bashing share a good deal in common with the racist pseudo-science of eugenics—most notably Mark Steyn’s writings about the “demographic decline” manifest in Europe’s growing Muslim population. Pipes struck a similar note with his warnings (National Review, 11/19/90) that “Western societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene” and that “Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

This range of anti-Muslim views finds its vehicles in a variety of online, radio and print outlets. Some of the harshest Muslim-bashing can be found in the right-wing blogosphere (Little Green Footballs, Front Page, WorldNetDaily, Gates of Vienna, Michelle Malkin.com, Daniel Pipes.org) and on the websites which link to these blogs and generate their own anti-Muslim content (Middle East Forum, Campus Watch, Jihad Watch, Militant Islam Monitor), as well as on right-wing talk radio, where hosts like Michael Savage rabble-rouse with overtly bigoted commentary like (Savage Nation, 7/2/07), “When I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see . . . a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children.”

Lengthy treatises that attempt to put a more scholarly facade on Islamophobia provide fuel for those fires. In addition to Bawer’s book, recent years have seen publishers like Regnery unleashing a number of successful books that are inarguably Islamophobic: Mark Steyn’s New York Times best seller America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (2006) and Robert Spencer’s two Times bestsellers, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (2005) and The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (2006), join other Muslim-bashing books from overseas, including Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan (2006) and Orianna Fallaci’s The Force of Reason (2004), that have thrived in the U.S. book market.

The Islamophobia generated in these backwaters finds its way into the mainstream, accessing a national platform and audience through such tributaries as the cable TV and radio shows hosted by Fox News’ Sean Hannity and CNN Headline News’ Glenn Beck. Islamophobic ideas get important institutional support through conservative newspapers such as the New York Post, which regularly publishes Pipes’ columns, and many more centrist papers carry internment apologist Michelle Malkin’s nationally syndicated column.

Together, these Muslim-bashing outlets constitute what is, in effect, a network. Funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a prominent right-wing foundation, Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum is connected to a range of other right-wing think tanks; its editors and editorial board include representatives from the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Founda-tion, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Pipes’ Campus Watch and Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch operate out of David Horowitz’s Freedom Center. Prominent members of this net- work also have official connections; Pipes, for instance, was appointed by George W. Bush to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003.

Muslim-bashers often have much more certainty than expertise, as exemplified by Alan Dershowitz (Boston Globe, 6/5/08), who traced “the beginning of Islamic terrorism in America” to the assassination of Robert Kennedy by Sirhan Sirhan—a Palestinian Christian. But whether its promoters’ fears are reality-based or not, Islamophobia is a force to be reckoned with.

Source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3648

--------------------------

Mosque fights for rights, but slurs Jews, West

 Centre backs women in UPS dress case, while other faiths are smeared online

John Goddard, Nov 12, 2008

A mosque asking that Canadian workplaces respect a strict Muslim dress code is at the same time disseminating slurs against Jews and Western societies, and warning members against social integration.

The Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque near Kipling Ave. and Rexdale Blvd. serves as the religious authority for eight Somali women complaining to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that UPS Canada Ltd. violated their religious rights at a sorting plant. The mosque, founded in 1990 and serving upwards of 10,000 people, preaches strict adherence to sharia, or Islamic law, and no compromise with the West.

Teachings on the mosque's website, khalidmosque.com, refer to non-Muslim Westerners as "wicked," "corrupt" and "our clear enemies."

Sometimes Jews are singled out.

"Is it permissible for women to wear high-heeled shoes?" begins one posting in question-and-answer format. "That is not permissible," comes the reply. "It involves resembling the Disbelieving Women or the wicked women. It has its origin among the Jewish women."

Modern pastimes are condemned.

"What is the ruling on subscribing to sports channels?" another question begins. "Watching some of the female spectators, when the camera focuses on them time after time" stirs "evil inclinations," the lesson reads. "Some (players) may not even believe in Allaah."

Mosque leaders refused repeated requests for an interview.

A disclaimer on the website says questions and answers do not necessarily reflect the mosque's views. But the About Us page says: "All questions and answers on this site (are) prepared, approved and supervised by (the mosque's imam) Bashir Yusuf Shiil."

The mosque's stand on the UPS case also appears contradictory.

In September, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal heard two weeks of testimony from eight mosque members alleging "Islamophobia" at the company's west Toronto plant. Three final days of testimony are scheduled for next week.

The eight women, who lost their jobs at UPS, say Islam dictates that they wear a full-length skirt for modesty. The courier company insists that any skirt be knee-length for safety, as workers climb ladders up to 6 metres high.

Under their skirt, the women wear full-length trousers but say they do not want the lower part showing in case the shape of the calf can be discerned.

The complaint originally centred on the company's use of temporary workers and uneven enforcement of its safety rules.

But the key question remains: Is UPS insisting on shorter hems for safety or is it violating religious rights by denying the women permanent jobs unless they conform?

So far, no Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque representative has attended the sessions, but the women cited the mosque as their place of worship and religious authority, and tabled a letter from its administration. "This is to certify that the religion of Islam requires all Muslim women to cover her entire body inclusive of the legs, arms, head, ears and neck," the letter reads. "As such, (the women) would not be able to wear pants as an outfit."

On the other hand, the mosque's website teachings forbid women to work outside the home in the first place. "It is known that when women go to work in the workplaces of men, this leads to mixing with men," one such posting says.

"This is a very dangerous matter," it reads. "It is in clear opposition to the texts of the Shariah that order the women to remain in their houses and to fulfil the type of work that is particular for her ...

"We ask Allah to protect our land and the lands of all Muslims from the plots and machinations of their enemies."

Two of the women making the complaint – Dales Yusuf, 46, and Nadifo Yusuf (no relation), 36 – said in an interview that they live in Canada now, and are free to pick and choose from Islamic law.

"We must work," said Dales Yusuf. "I'm a single parent raising my kids." Jacquie Chic, a lawyer with the Workers' Action Centre representing the women at the hearings, said neither she nor her clients were aware of the mosque's posted teachings. "I, the Workers' Centre and these women are concerned enormously about any expression of anti-Semitism or any other form of racism," she said.

Questions to the mosque about its teachings were met with evasiveness over three weeks.

Mosque chairman Osman Mohamed three times agreed to an interview and three times cancelled at last minute. Imam Shiil was said to be in Saudi Arabia and unreachable. Mosque administrator Abukar Mohamed confused matters further by appearing to agree with UPS, saying: "The Quran says women must be covered – it doesn't give you the specific clothes. But I am not a religious authority."

Source: http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/535278

----

Muslim hate preacher Bakri makes a mockery of UK law

November 12th, 2008

London, Nov 12 (ANI): Just days after Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced tough new measures to name and shame foreign-based extremists barred from UK, Muslim hate preacher Omar Bakri Muhammad has dodged the law to preach his warped views in the UK.

More than 200 Muslims attended a packed public meeting in Tower Hamlets and were told by organiser Anjem Choudary: We have a special surprise, a special treat for you. Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad will be joining us on a live feed from Lebanon.

As Muslims, we will not submit to any man-made law, any government, or any prime minister - Bush or Brown - or [to] Jacqui Smith. We submit to Allah, he added.

Choudary, who with Bakri led the fanatical Al-Muhajiroun organisation - notorious for its glorification of terrorism and the 9/11 attacks before its banning and dissolution in 2004 -warmed up the crowd, two Sundays ago, with his own inflammatory rhetoric.

Bakri, who was booted out of Britain after calling for the West’s downfall, addressed a meeting of young Muslims via a videolink from Lebanon, the Daily Star reported.

Bakri, who is on the UKs terror watch list, sidestepped the law by not appearing at the east London meeting in person.

Choudary, who had booked the council-run room in Tower Hamlets for the event, told the gathering that taking over the UK was their duty.

He said: It is our religious obligation to prepare ourselves both physically and mentally and rise up against Muslim oppression and take what is rightfully ours. We will not rest until the flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street.

He said there were only two types of proper Muslims those in jail and those who would shortly be in jail, and added we need to submit to the will of Allah.

The police and Home Office said they were unsure if allowing Bakri to address the four-hour meeting had broken laws. (ANI)

Source: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/muslim-hate-preacher-bakri-makes-a-mockery-of-uk-law_100118035.html

------

After mistrial, US jury mulls Muslim charity terror case

DALLAS, Texas (AFP) — A Texas jury was to begin deliberations Wednesday in the re-trial of a Muslim charity accused of being a front for Palestinian militants, in the largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history.

The major "war on terror" case, which ended in a mistrial, last year, involves the now defunct Texas-based Holy Land Foundation in Dallas, charged with funnelling more than 12 million dollars to Hamas.

The United States Justice Department vowed in October 2007 to retry the five former charity organizers in the Holy Land case, after jurors could not agree on verdicts on nearly 200 charges, and a new jury was seated in mid-September.

Over the past two months, the government has presented largely the same evidence, hoping to prove that Holy Land was created in the late 1980s to gather donations from deep-pocketed American Muslims to support the then-newly formed Hamas movement resisting the Israeli occupation.

Closing arguments in the re-trial wrapped up Tuesday afternoon in Dallas.

Defense attorneys say the charity did not support Hamas and operated legally to get much-needed aid to Palestinians living in squalor under the Israeli occupation.

Government prosecutors allege the foundation raised more than 12 million dollars for Hamas, but they do not accuse the charity of directly financing or being involved in terrorist activity.

Instead prosecutors say humanitarian aid was used to promote Hamas -- a multi-faceted Islamist political, social and armed movement which now controls the Gaza Strip -- and allow it to divert existing funds to militant activities.

"Hamas views the US as a cash cow," prosecutor Barry Jonas told jurors in closing arguments this week. "We should not want our country used as a support system for terrorists. Hamas exploits US law that encourages people to give to charity."

Defense attorneys say the chief reasons their clients are on trial are family ties.

Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' political leader in Syria, is the brother of defendant Mufid Abdulqader, a member of a Palestinian band that played at Holy Land fundraisers.

Meshaal's deputy, Mousa Abu Marzook, is a cousin of defendant Mohammad el-Mezain, a foundation co-founder, and is married to the cousin of defendant Ghassan Elashi, former Holy Land board chairman.

The brother of defendant Shukri Abu Baker, former Holy Land chief executive officer, is Jamal Issa, former Hamas leader in Sudan and its current head in Yemen.

A fifth defendant is Abdulrahman Odeh, Holy Land's New Jersey representative.

"For those who have been impoverished by politics and history and failed leadership, for all those generations of refugees that he helped feed and clothe and educate, Ghassan Elashi does not apologize for serving them," said attorney Linda Moreno.

"He knew the work of the Holy Land Foundation attracted enemies."

Defence attorneys also criticized the testimony of two Israeli officials, whom the American prosecutors relied on to help them prove that Holy Land's money benefited Hamas, as biased. Both Israelis testified under pseudonyms for security purposes, which defence attorneys said further eroded their credibility.

Holy Land was America's largest Muslim charity before it was shut down three months after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York. It is one of several Muslim organizations the Bush administration closed for allegedly raising money for overseas Islamic extremists.

Muslim charities that remain open have reported significant drop-offs in contributions because of fears of prosecution.

In two other high-profile cases in Florida and Chicago, charges of support of Palestinian militants have ended in acquittals or convictions on lesser charges.

The American Civil Liberties Union has said the case highlights serious flaws in terror financing laws which are too broad and effectively criminalize guilt by association.

Source: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDrMIUJUdkyFODD0hXp5Le5yf6Rg

----

URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-west/yes,-they-...-impose-sharia/d/983