Category Archives: Sharia Enforced

MEMRI Reports on Blasphemy Laws and Deaths

Special Dispatch No. 3159—Urdu-Pashtu Media Project

Human Rights Campaigner I. A. Rehman Examines Pakistan’s Controversial Blasphemy Law and Its Misuse Against Christians, Other Minorities

On July 19, 2010, two Christians, pastor Rashid Emmanuel and his brother Sajjad, were shot dead on the premises of a court in Pakistan’s Faisalabad city. The two had been accused of distributing blasphemous materials; a case had been filed against them under Section 295-C of the Pakistani Penal Code (PPP) for distributing handwritten pamphlets that contained blasphemous materials.

According to the report, the pamphlets carried two cellphone numbers which led to the brothers’ arrest, following a complaint lodged by one Khurram, who is believed to be member of the little known Tehreek-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool (Movement for the Prophet’s Dignity).

In another case, a 60-year-old woman, Zaibun Nisa or Zainab Bibi, spent 14 years in a Pakistani prison for an alleged act of blasphemy against the Holy Koran, though no court trial took place and no police case was filed against her. The Lahore High Court, which ordered her release after no evidence was found against her, expressed dismay over her long detention “without any trial.” The woman was also found to be mentally unstable.

The cases cited above have caused fresh concerns over Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws. One of them, Section 295-C, carries the death penalty.

In most blasphemy cases, Pakistan’s trial courts in Pakistan cannot deliver impartial judgments because of threats from armed religious groups, and sometimes even from vigilante policemen, who take it upon themselves to implement their own form of instant justice against the accused. The blasphemy laws have also attracted international attention, especially for their misuse against minority communities in Pakistan such as Christians, Hindus and Ahmadi Muslims.

Several human rights campaigners and members of minority communities have demanded changes in these laws. However, no Pakistani minister wants to risk his life by introducing such legislation.

Read the full report

Religious Freedom, or Religious Treason?

If you watch the news, you’ve no doubt heard about the raging controversy over the proposed thirteen-story Islamic cultural center and mosque, which if constructed will tower over ground zero. You haven’t heard this perspective.

Mayor Bloomberg claims that to prohibit the building of that Mosque is to sacrifice our cherished Constitutional freedoms – namely Freedom of Religion. I say by prohibiting the building of that Mosque, we are protecting our Constitution – especially Freedom of Religion.

At the height of the cold war, would America have allowed experts in Communism erect a world-class training center for Communist operatives a couple of blocks from the White House? And why not? TREASON.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason in part to consist of “… adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.[1]

If Islam was limited to our conception of religious practices like prayer and encouraging good behavior, Freedom of Religion would apply to Islam and there would be no objection to the proposed Manhattan Mosque. Unfortunately, prayer and morality describe only a part of Islam. There is a very strong political component to Islam, the doctrines of which amount to treason.

Syrian native, Dr. Wafa Sultan, migrated to the US and later became an outspoken critic of Islam. Sultan stated in a public debate, “I don’t believe Islam should be treated as religion.” She explained, “Muslims look to live under Sharia, not under the American Constitution…Trust me… I was very involved with the Muslim community in my first ten years here in the United States. I heard a million times that we are here to eventually replace American constitution with Islamic Sharia.”[2]

Imam Fiesel Abdul Rauf, the leading force behind the Manhattan Mosque, has defended his project as being a place where mutual understanding and respect can develop between Muslims and members of other faiths. Anyone knowledgeable of Sharia will recognize this lie. All four schools of Sunni Islamic law and the main schools of Shia Islamic law agree that a male former Muslim (apostate) should be executed.”[3] How can a Muslim ever find understanding and respect for a Christian when becoming one makes him deserving of the death penalty?

Interestingly, the ‘upstanding’ Imam Rauf has refused to sign a pledge issued over nine months ago repudiating authoritative Sharia on the required killing of X-Muslims.[4]Neither would he condemn Hamas.[5]

Typical of Muslim leaders in non-Muslim countries, Imam Rauf exercises a form of jihad called “taqiyya” (lying to deceive the enemy) when speaking to an American audience. Speaking in Arabic to a Muslim audience, Rauf said recently, “… an Islamic state can be established in more than a single form…a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general principles of Sharia that are required to govern.” He continued, “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.”[6]

The accusation of treason expressed in this piece is understandably hard to swallow. I ask skeptics to consider the honor killings, the execution of Dutch film-maker, Theo Van Gogh, the attacks of 9/11, and that terrorist acts committed by Muslims since 9/11 has topped 15,800. We cannot relate to Islamic ideology, but we must become educated. I could fill an entire page of this news paper with theological justification for treasonous behavior from authoritative Islamic sources and examples from Islamic history. Interested readers can peruse my blog at http://harrisonburg-VA.actforamericachapters.org.

Americans understand the evil of violent jihad – terrorism. We are still blind to other forms of jihad, which some have called, “stealth jihad” or “creeping sharia.” Stealth jihad is not fought with militant methods, using guns and bombs to cause terror among the enemy. Methods used by these Islamists include: infiltration of government, political activism, threatening law suits, public demands for special treatment, providing revisionist Islamic history for textbooks, the televised lies of self-proclaimed moderate Muslims, and so on. The ultimate goal of stealth jihadists is the same as the terrorists – the overthrow of the American Constitution. It’s treason.

We must wise up, get fed up, and then stand up against the advance of political Islam. Allowing the Manhattan Mega Mosque to tower over the sacred Ground Zero is to unleash the hellish cry over our great nation, “ALLUHA AKBAR!

[1] The Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon – Treason.  http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

[2] Video file: http://www.meforum.org/2534/moderate-islam-western-ally-myth

[3] A total of 8 sources in the freedom pledge confirm the truth of this statement:http://formermuslimsunited.americancommunityexchange.org/the-pledge/cover-letter-pledge/

[4] New York Post. Behind the Mosque: Extremism at Ground Zero. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/behind_the_mosque_yXUJDCpszRLF9dG1heLU1H?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME

[5] http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/imam-of-islamic-supremacist-mega-mosque-at-ground-zero-refuses-to-condemn-hamas.html

[6] posted on the prominent Arabic website, HadielIslam.comhttp://www.hadielislam.com/arabic/index.php?pg=articles/article&id=12025

Sharia Blasphemy Laws Enforced Against Opponents of NYC Mega Mosque

An article on Atlas Shrugs is reproduce in full below.

SIOA LAWSUIT AGAINST NYC: BLOOMBERG’S MTA REFUSES TO ALLOW 911 IMAGES: BANS GROUND ZERO BUS CAMPAIGN

Today we filed a lawsuit against the city of New York. Here is the complaint: Download Complaint–FDIvMTA–Filed_Stamped

The city has refused to run my SIOA “Preservation of Ground Zero” bus campaign.

It seems that Mayor Bloomberg invokes certain freedoms when it serves his 2012 agenda. Doing away with term limits wasn’t enough (which is why we are still suffering under his no-salt, no-transfat regime). He  is now widening his ayatollah-like power grab to imposing blasphemy laws (Islamic sharia laws) on the secular marketplace. Bloomberg’s frenzied Ground Zero mosque push may have inspired Al-Azhar clerics to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque, calling it a “a zionist plot.”

Last month, I signed a contract with CBS Outdoor to run a “Preservation of Ground Zero” bus ad campaign. The campaign was paid for in full.

Here is the ad I submitted:

Ground zero bus

The ad was refused. I asked on what grounds. CBS Outdoor told me that the city said that “images of 911 were not allowed.” I was floored. I said, “It is American history. How can it be banned? What about Pearl Harbor? Is that censored too?” I said, “On what grounds is 911 images banned?” It is unconscionable. Will of CBS said, “You can’t run the plane.”

I asked CBS/MTA to provide me with the guidelines for these seventh-century censorship restrictions. They never did. And so, with the help of talented and singular Big Fur Hat, I removed the plane and submitted this ad with the following note:

Will, Still waiting for the MTA guidelines. Please respond to my previous queries. Here is the new art …… please know that I strenuously object to you changing my artwork and my message in the process. It’s American history. I am floored. However, since you and/or the MTA are unwilling to change your position, I have no choice but to run the advertisement with your edits.

Ground zero noplane

CBS refused this ad as well. They said I had to remove the smoke. “The smoke?”

When I spoke to CBS’s representative concerning the second rejection of my Ground Zero bus ad, he said that the MTA “doesn’t want toassociate the new building with Ground Zero.” The showing of the burning buildings “hurts people.” “Hurts people?” I find bus ads proselytizing for Islam hurts apostates, are you going to take those bus ads down?

I said, “Are you saying images of the largest attack on American soil are censored? Are Pearl Harbor images censored? Gettysburg,too?”

He said, “The people behind the new building say it has nothing to do with Ground Zero.” I said, “So what? That’s what they say. Others think differently. You are telling me they have said it has nothing to do with Ground Zero. But they are on record repeatedly as saying they want it there for Ground Zero ‘healing’ and ‘outreach.'”

I said, “Who cares what they say, what do they (Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan) have to do with running my ad? They dictate what can and cannot run?”

He said, “It’s controversial.” I said, “How? Where are the guidelines that point to this, where are the guidelines that I have been asking for over a month? Give me the guidelines and I will adhere to them.”

He said “I have been having a hard time getting the guidelines out of the MTA.” I said, “A hard time? Aren’t they written somewhere or posted somewhere? What are they?”

I said, “Andw hat’s controversial? The ad merely says, ‘Why there?'” He said, “You are implying………..” I said, “Implying what? You are now going to tell me what I am thinking? Who is making these decisions? Who at the MTA or CBS is making these decisions? The MTA is a government agency — and you can’t provide me with guidelines but I am being held hostage to the capricious whim of some flak at the MTA? I am an advertiser. I bought and paid for an ad a month ago and you cannot point me to any substance or set of rules for the basis of ad rejection.”

I said, “I took out the plane as requested — now what’s the problem?” He said, “the flames.”  I said, “What would be ok? Just the towers alone?” He said yes. I said “OK, I will create another ad with just the towers.” He said, “Before you do that, let me run down the hall and ask if that’s OK.” I said, “With who?” He said, with “his VP.”

And so I took out the smoke and submitted this ad:

Ground zero bus ad no smoke

CBS, on behalf of the MTA, said, “Remove the plane.”

Will of CBS said he was “meeting obstacles” but he was “trying to help me.” He said, “Get me an ad a/s/a/p without smoke, without any flames — just the towers.

And so, I submitted another planeless ad, stating emphatically,

I object to this censorship, which is effectively editing the viewpoint I am attempting to express in my message, but if this is the only choice you are giving me, then run the ad without the plane. It’s a plane in the sky, far removed. Planes do fly in the sky.”

Ground zero bus last art

Needless to say, I am still awaiting approval from the MTA.

Today my legal team of David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise filed suit on our behalf against NYC.

The complaint against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority has now been filed. It alleges violation of FDI’s (and Pamela Geller’s and Robert Spencer’s) Free Speech rights under the First & Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

In essence, and it is laid out clearly in the complaint with clear illustrations in the exhibits, the MTA decided that it was going to accept the “viewpoint” of Imam Rauf and his Islamist co-conspirators – to wit, that their plan to develop the Ground Zero Mosque has nothing to do with marking the “victory” marked by the destruction of human life and property on 9-11. Literally, the MTA made it its business to decide which of many viewpoints it would deem politically correct speech for advertisements on its buses.

What makes this jihad against free speech so egregious is that the MTA has run any number of controversial religious andpolitical ads without batting an eyelid. But as soon as the Shariah-faithful cowed Mayor Bloomberg and the MTA into dhimmi-like submission, the First Amendment to the Constitution gave way to Shariah’s blasphemy laws. How long before the Mayor’s office begins issuing fatwas against those who dare counter the “noble and peaceful outreach” narrative?

Mr. Mayor and your colleagues at the MTA and the Landmark Commission: New Yorkers will not forget 9-11 and we will not be cowed into submission or silence. You might not want to hear our voices, but the federal courts will require you to listen. You claim the mantle of the Constitution as a basis for supporting a Shariah-Islamist mosque at Ground Zero, yet the MTA—a government agency of the City—cavalierly denies “infidels” freedom of speech. Enough is enough. (David Yerushalmi)