“Forbes Magazine is promoting Iran as one of ‘The 10 Coolest Places to Go in 2017’, based on a review by Melissa Biggs Bradley, founder of the travel website Indagare…’Visitors to Iran understand that they must adapt to Sharia law and customs, under which alcohol is strictly forbidden and women must wear hijabs…..’”
Forbes forgot to mention a few more of Iran’s attractions: acid attacks on women to enforce Sharia dress codes; the devaluation of a woman’s life, such that if she dies accidentally, her family will receive only half the legal compensation than given for a man; the devaluation also of a woman’s testimony in court, as worth half that of a man (as per Qur’an 2:282); public lashings for certain offences and death by stoning for women convicted of adultery; executions at a rate of over 800 per year, mostly for drug offenses; the honor killing of women, while the regime looks the other way; and heavy fines and jail sentences for women who do not wear the hijab. Also, if you happen to be a journalist and/or a peace activist, or have done anything whatsoever to upset the regime, you may be detained at the airport and jailed in Evin Prison on trumped-up charges. There, electrocution, brutal beatings, rape and drug-induced confessions and hangings are common.
Indagare’s Biggs Bradley – a woman to boot – also “credited the nuclear deal brokered by the Obama administration and others in the West for the increase in tourism in Iran.”
Shame on Forbes in featuring this advertisement for tourism in Iran, and for including in it praise of the nuclear deal: Obama took advantage of this pact to released at least $100 billion to Iran, which it is using to finance jihad terrorism.
Source: for MORE
Most people in North America and Western Europe cling to a very dangerous belief: that people are really all the same, that people everywhere want the same things, that people everywhere have the same values. And the things others want and value are the same things that we want and value. This is the great Western humanistic delusion: that everyone is the same, and everyone is like me.
Historically, people saw their encounters through a loyalty and pride in his or her family, clan, tribe, caste, class, nation, religion, and race, and to have suspicion and disdain for those of other families, clans, tribes, castes, classes, nations, religions, and races. Uniquely, in the West, after the Enlightenment, the idea of the “in” group broadened and broadened over time, so that by the second half of the 20th century, identity was increasingly with all of humanity. Anthropologists rejected race as a legitimate scientific category.
The positive side of the new framework of “all of humanity” can be seen in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgated by the United Nations, and endorsed by most countries of the world. However, Saudi Arabia abstained from the ratification vote.
“Saudi Arabia’s stated reservations to the Universal Declaration were that its call for freedom of religion violated the precepts of Islam, and that the human rights guaranteed by the Islamic-based law of Saudi Arabia surpassed those secured by the Universal Declaration.”
In 1984, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the Declaration was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition” that could not be implemented by Muslims without conflict with Sharia.
On June 30, 2000, members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, an alternative document that says people have “freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah.” The Islamic Cairo Declaration excludes many of the rights inscribed in the U.N. Universal Declaration, such as the rights of free speech, of religion, and of marriage by free choice. In other words, to the OIC, whatever is inside sharia is a human right; whatever is not inside sharia is not a human right.
This framework of inclusion of all humanity by the West and its allies is seen in immigration policies opening Western countries to people everywhere; in the embrace of multiculturalism by Western governments, and in the laws liberal democratic countries passed that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, race, nationality, or other external characteristics.
Source: for MORE
It is time to stand up for American rule of law and individual rights for all. And Montana is doing just that. This is Montana’s version of an anti-Sharia law bill, modeled off similar legislation that has passed in Louisiana, Kansas and Tennessee.
This should be the proverbial no-brainer. And yet the fact that such laws are met with so much resistance, both overt and covert, indicates how very needed they are.
How can anyone oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties? We now have groups that has ever come to this country with a ready-made model of society and government they believe to be superior to what we have here and are working to institute it.
For example, Islamic law contravenes American freedoms in numerous particulars.
We have seen sharia law in New Jersey. Back in July 2010, a Muslim husband raped his wife, and the judge determined that no sexual assault occurred because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex on demand from their husbands. Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court was not allowed to stand—this time. But there have been over a hundred cases of Sharia jurisprudence in the US, and Jeffery Mittman of the ACLU has testified that “all have been overturned by a higher courts, therefore there is no problem since the American constitutional system worked.” Of course, this begs the question of why should this have happened in the first place. Secondly, it is simply not true that all cases have been overturned. In fact, there are cases in California and Maryland in which trial courts were overturned by appellate courts, the latter of which turned the blind eye to the threat from sharia.
The irony is that the ACLU would oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties.
Source: for MORE
Professor Katherine Bullock from the University of Toronto said:
from an Islamic point of view this absolutely nothing radical about wanting Caliphate or wanting Sharia. These are completely normal traditional points of view.
Bullock is right. Normative Islam is political Islam. One need only look at Islamic states to understand the nature and centrality of the Sharia in them. Every Muslim knows this, including those Muslims who were persecuted and killed throughout history trying to reform Islam. The Islamic Supreme Council of America certainly knows it:
Shariah stands for the normative order that Muslims have developed as an Islamic way of life….. Modern Muslim jurists often define Shariah as revealed or divine law in order to distinguish it from fiqh, the jurists’ law, which is jurists’ interpretation of Shariah.
Necessities are matters that worldly and religious life depend upon. Their omission leads to unbearable hardship in this life, or punishment in the next….The Shariah protects these necessities in two ways: firstly by ensuring their establishment and then by preserving them.
The problem begins when Sharia starts creeping into the West, as it is now in the form of attacks upon the freedom of speech, and attempts to shut down criticism of Islam and Muhammad, as such criticism is forbidden under the Sharia. Sharia is also advancing by means of victimology narratives (“Islamophobia”) and deliberate attempts to foster ignorance about Islam among Western non-Muslims.
Dr. Ingrid Mattson, a Canadian convert to Islam and the London and Windsor Community Chair in Islamic Studies at Huron University College at Western University in Canada, echoes similar views about the Caliphate and admits that she would like to see the Western culture becomes a little more Islamic.
Mattson has abundant company in that desire among all the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in the U.S. and Canada, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), of which she is a former president.
Source: for MORE
Source: for MORE