Breitbart Report: Texas Islamic Tribunal Dispenses Shariah Law

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Texas-Muslims-Islamic-Tribunal-Shariah-Law/2015/01/27/id/621054/

Breitbart Report: Texas Islamic Tribunal Dispenses Shariah Law




Tuesday, 27 Jan 2015 04:35 PM

By James Morrison

A form of Islamic law has taken force in Texas, right next door to Louisiana where Gov. Bobby Jindal has warned of Muslim immigrants who refuse to adopt Western culture.

An Islamic Tribunal of four attorneys is operating in Dallas where it issues voluntary rulings on civil disputes, Breitbart Texas reported Tuesday.

Taher El-badawi, one of the lawyers who call themselves "judges," told the conservative website that the tribunal applies Shariah law to litigants who voluntarily accept their rulings on disputes involving family and business issues.



He cited divorce as an example of the need for a ruling by Shariah jurists.

"While participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal," El-badawi told Breitbart Texas.

He conceded that Islamic law treats men and women unequally. A man can come directly to the tribunal for a divorce, but a woman seeking to end her marriage must go to a religious leader, or imam, who will bring her case for divorce to the tribunal, he said.

El-badawi added that litigants who are dissatisfied with the rulings of the tribunal can take their cases to Texas civil courts. But, the Islamic Tribunal warns on its website that American justice is expensive.

"The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers. Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment," the tribunal says.

The news of a functioning Shariah court in the United States comes as Jindal is making news by warning about the threat of Muslim immigrants who refuse to assimilate into Western culture.

"In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of Shariah law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home," Jindal said last week in a speech in London.

"It is startling to think that any country would allow, even unofficially, for a so called 'no-go zone.' The idea that a free country would allow for specific areas of its country to operate in an autonomous way that is not free and is in direct opposition to its laws is hard to fathom."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Texas-Muslims-Islamic-Tribunal-Shariah-Law/2015/01/27/id/621054/#ixzz3Q5R6swCP

This is how they do it-- is how they did it in Britain, when step at a time until the bucket tips over! When it tips its already too damn late! That's how these ffing vermin operate.. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

This is how they do it-- is how they did it in Britain, when step at a time until the bucket tips over! When it tips its already too damn late! That's how these ffing vermin operate.. -Tyr

The thing that the US cities/counties/states must do is refuse to allow separate tribunals to function. When that is given up, sovereignty is ceded, that has been tried and failed in Europe.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The thing that the US cities/counties/states must do is refuse to allow separate tribunals to function. When that is given up, sovereignty is ceded, that has been tried and failed in Europe.

I suspect that the Federal government will come in to "rescue" the muslims should that happen. Same as they did to "rescue" the illegals in Arizona when the correct action was taken by that state.
Globalists control our Federal government now and those globalists have an alliance with the muslims. Sad but true.
That globalist influence is how the mass immigration into Britain took place, was promoted and eventually gave them their Sharia courts.

Exactly what I was speaking about three years ago in this thread that got so much criticism.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36912-I-take-my-stand-you


Islam: the only religion that will kill you for not appreciating /bowing to it- and then claim that you're the one with the phobia!!!

[fj1200]

...the tribunal applies Shariah law to litigants who voluntarily accept their rulings on disputes involving family and business issues.

This is how they do it--

Arbitration/mediation by another name.


I suspect that the Federal government will come in to "rescue" the muslims should that happen.

Are you hoping that SCOTUS will come to the rescue and rescind gay marriage?

[jimnyc]

Arbitration/mediation by another name.

Almost always, arbitration/mediation in the USA fits within the laws/guidelines of the US laws. This isn't the case with Shariah. Also, it started with stuff like this in Europe, and now we see entire neighborhoods literally ran by Muslims and others forced out and such. Whether voluntary or not, it should be based strictly on the law of the state they are in, or federal law. We all know women are often treated like property, and when Shariah is used to make family based decisions, women far too often get screwed.

I've used marital arbitration before, and I could not have done so to do an end around on US law. I say let them have "arbitration" or whatever they want to call it, even let it be ran 100% by Muslims - but any "law" used must not run in conflict with US law.

[fj1200]

Almost always, arbitration/mediation in the USA fits within the laws/guidelines of the US laws. This isn't the case with Shariah. Also, it started with stuff like this in Europe, and now we see entire neighborhoods literally ran by Muslims and others forced out and such. Whether voluntary or not, it should be based strictly on the law of the state they are in, or federal law. We all know women are often treated like property, and when Shariah is used to make family based decisions, women far too often get screwed.

I've used marital arbitration before, and I could not have done so to do an end around on US law. I say let them have "arbitration" or whatever they want to call it, even let it be ran 100% by Muslims - but any "law" used must not run in conflict with US law.

I believe your blanket statement is incorrect. And I agree with the last.

[jimnyc]

I believe your blanket statement is incorrect. And I agree with the last.

None of this looks very well for women, based on Shariah, especially with family law, like I stated. And this was just a 10 second search to show what Wiki had. The way Islam and Shariah treat women is absolutely deplorable.

-----

Women
Main articles: Women in Islam and Islam and domestic violence
Domestic violence

Many scholars[16][194] claim Shari'a law encourages domestic violence against women, when a husband suspects nushuz (disobedience, disloyalty, rebellion, ill conduct) in his wife.[195] Other scholars claim wife beating, for nashizah, is not consistent with modern perspectives of the Quran.[196]

One of the verses of the Quran relating to permissibility of domestic violence is Surah 4:34.[197][198] In deference to Surah 4:34, many nations with Shari'a law have refused to consider or prosecute cases of domestic abuse.[199][200][201][202] Shari'a has been criticized for ignoring women's rights in domestic abuse cases.[203][204][205][206] Musawah/CEDAW, KAFA and other organizations have proposed ways to modify Shari'a-inspired laws to improve women's rights in Islamic nations, including women's rights in domestic abuse cases.[207][208][209][210]
Personal status laws and child marriage

Shari'a is the basis for personal status laws in most Islamic majority nations. These personal status laws determine rights of women in matters of marriage, divorce and child custody. A 2011 UNICEF report concludes that Shari'a law provisions are discriminatory against women from a human rights perspective. In legal proceedings under Shari'a law, a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s before a court.[211]

Except for Iran, Lebanon and Bahrain which allow child marriages, the civil code in Islamic majority countries do not allow child marriage of girls. However, with Shari'a personal status laws, Shari'a courts in all these nations have the power to override the civil code. The religious courts permit girls less than 18 years old to marry. As of 2011, child marriages are common in Middle East, accounting for 1 in 6 all marriages in Egypt and 1 in 3 marriages in Yemen. Rape is considered a crime in all countries, but Shari'a courts in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia in some cases allow a rapist to escape punishment by marrying his victim, while in other cases the victim who complains is often prosecuted with the Sharia crime of Zina (adultery).[211][212][213]
Women's right to property and consent

Sharia grants women the right to inherit property from other family members, and these rights are detailed in the Quran.[214] A woman's inheritance is unequal and less than a man's, and dependent on many factors.[Quran 4:12][215] For instance, a daughter's inheritance is usually half that of her brother's.[Quran 4:11][215]

Until the 20th century, Islamic law granted Muslim women certain legal rights, such as the right to own property received as Mahr (brideprice) at her marriage, that Western legal systems did not grant to women.[216][217] However, Islamic law does not grant non-Muslim women the same legal rights as the few it did grant Muslim women. Sharia recognizes the basic inequality between master and women slave, between free women and slave women, between Believers and non-Believers, as well as their unequal rights.[218][219] Sharia authorized the institution of slavery, using the words abd (slave) and the phrase ma malakat aymanukum ("that which your right hand owns") to refer to women slaves, seized as captives of war.[218][220] Under Islamic law, Muslim men could have sexual relations with female captives and slaves without her consent.[221][222] Slave women in Sharia did not have a right to own property, right to free movement or right to consent.[223][224] Starting with the 20th century, Western legal systems evolved to expand women's rights, but women's rights under Islamic law have remained tied to Quran, hadiths and their faithful interpretation as Sharia by Islamic jurists.[222][225]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Women

[darin]

litigants who voluntarily accept their rulings on disputes involving family and business issues.



This is VERY CLOSE to Judge Judy, Judge Xxxxxxx, and so on.

It's a private (civil) transaction adjudicated by a person of their choosing.


This is a non-issue.

[jimnyc]

This is VERY CLOSE to Judge Judy, Judge Xxxxxxx, and so on.

It's a private (civil) transaction adjudicated by a person of their choosing.


This is a non-issue.

Only that JJ runs in accordance with US based law. If there was a divorce, I'm confident it wouldn't discriminate against women on the law itself, which Shariah does, in quite a few aspects of law where women are involved.

If arbitration (one of them themselves stated this was not arbitration and that they are judges, as it's a tribunal), if this arbitration fits under US law, then I have no issue with it. But even a cursory look over Shariah law shows many things that run against US law. The way women are treated within Shariah law and the way men are treated - 2 different ways, literally. That's not equality. And while "voluntary", I wonder how many women will end up at these tribunals based on fear.

[darin]

its dismissing any LEGAL claim and agreeing to abide by another's decision outside of the legal system.

[fj1200]

None of this looks very well for women, based on Shariah, especially with family law, like I stated. And this was just a 10 second search to show what Wiki had. The way Islam and Shariah treat women is absolutely deplorable.

I don't disagree but you made a blanket statement which is incorrect. But it sounds like Sharia isn't too far removed from the "Greedy B*" argument that was used against a woman who was (possibly) treated less than equitably than the husband.


Only that JJ runs in accordance with US based law. If there was a divorce, I'm confident it wouldn't discriminate against women on the law itself, which Shariah does, in quite a few aspects of law where women are involved.

If arbitration (one of them themselves stated this was not arbitration and that they are judges, as it's a tribunal), if this arbitration fits under US law, then I have no issue with it. But even a cursory look over Shariah law shows many things that run against US law. The way women are treated within Shariah law and the way men are treated - 2 different ways, literally. That's not equality. And while "voluntary", I wonder how many women will end up at these tribunals based on fear.

You haven't shown that these decisions run counter to US law. Any arbitration or mediation is subject to US law as well as a contract meeting the legal requirements of a contract.

[gabosaurus]

Taher El-badawi, one of the lawyers who call themselves "judges," told the conservative website that the tribunal applies Shariah law to litigants who voluntarily accept their rulings on disputes involving family and business issues.

Why is anyone worried about this?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

None of Sharia law fits with our Constitutional system of Laws...
Sharia law places man as absolute Lord and Master over females from birth until death!!!
Sharia law is Koranic law and the Koran can not be trumped according to its brain-dead, slavish , vermin followers.
Sharia law does not have within its guidelines the premise that man and woman are equal.
Thus no judgment by a sharia anything, be it called arbitration can be or will be fair or just.
As such our Constitution voids the legality of any such system being employed in our nation.
Think not, then you know very little to nothing about our Constitution IMHO...
I see repeatedly on these political forums Americans speaking up for Sharia law and the idiocy of Islam
and always its from a position of abject ignorance IMHO..
MOST HAVE NOT A DAMNCLUE WHAT ISLAM IS, DOES AND ALWAYS DESIRES TO DO!
It is like cheering on a mass murderer and making excuses why its ok for the killing to continue..
Sheer lunacy in my opinion..
I oppose Islam with all that I am, with every molecule in my body.
I will fight and die if need be to continue that opposition.
Islam is pure evil on earth , operating under its master's(Satan) will .. A fact..
They had better FEAR ME!!!!!!!! -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You haven't shown that these decisions run counter to US law. Any arbitration or mediation is subject to US law as well as a contract meeting the legal requirements of a contract.

ANY SHARIA LAW SYSTEM ALLOWED IN THIS NATION IS TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL FROM THE START.
This nation has a system of laws and a Rule of Law , no need for Sharia which is pure religious law.
It doesn't matter what people agree to. Why, then I could agree with my current wife to have three wives and it'd be ok---right ?
No, you say. Because that would be you and others disregarding current U.S. LAWS.
CORRECT AND THATS EXACTLY WHAT SHARIA LAW IS--A SYSTEM TO IGNORE CURRENT U.S. LAWS AND U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM SET UP BY CONSTITUTIONAL GUIDELINES.
It is a system that negates and voids out the Constitution, and that's illegal.
I do not give a damn that we have people wanting that!! It is still whole unconstitutional from the first to the last of it..
It is a usurping of our Constitution by religious decrees based upon Koranic law!!!
Thus it must not ever be allowed and those that sing for it are abject fools in my opinion..--Tyr

[fj1200]

None of Sharia law fits with our Constitutional system of Laws...


ANY SHARIA LAW SYSTEM ALLOWED IN THIS NATION IS TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL FROM THE START.

Incorrect blanket statements.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Incorrect blanket statement.
Bullshit....its a system that supplants laws based upon our Constitution , thus its unconstitutional regardless of how many ffing dumbasses want it..
Regardless of how many fools cry it is ok..
How about we just let every religion set up its own system of justice in this nation or is Islam the very, very special animal to be appeased ??
Seems your level of appeasement knows no damn bounds when it comes to appeasing these ffing murdering vermin!
Why is that fj???
Are you that much of a ffing coward????--Tyr

[fj1200]

It doesn't matter what people agree to. Why, then I could agree with my current wife to have three wives and it'd be ok---right ?
No, you say. Because that would be you and others disregarding current U.S. LAWS.
CORRECT AND THATS EXACTLY WHAT SHARIA LAW IS--A SYSTEM TO IGNORE CURRENT U.S. LAWS AND U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM SET UP BY CONSTITUTIONAL GUIDELINES.

It does matter what people agree to but your example runs counter to my statement. You can't have three wives because US law says that you can't. Even though you post something in all caps doesn't make it true, the OP shows an example of arbitration and arbitration is completely legal and Constitutional.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am done with being nice to Islam appeasers ffkk them all says this American...
people too damn stupid to recognize the enemy in our midst and go about defending the damn stinking vermin can kiss my ass!
This nation is being destroyed by their damn puppet and we have fools defending them!!
FFK THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fj1200]

Bullshit...

:rolleyes: Please point out where I suggested that every religion be allowed to establish their own system of justice?

[LongTermGuy]

`Islam is a cult....Political correctness makes it a religion for NOW........why haven't those leaning to the left learned anything concerning islam and its past history and "its" Laws....? *The proof is out there which we all see daily.`

[Thunderknuckles]

Well, at least he got his part right:
"The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers."

[fj1200]

`Islam is a cult....Political correctness makes it a religion for NOW........why haven't those leaning to the left learned anything concerning islam and its past history and "its" Laws....? *The proof is out there which we all see daily.`

And here I thought it was the belief in a higher power that made it a religion. :dunno:

[gabosaurus]

Some people consider the Mormons a cult. Can we abolish them as well?

[LongTermGuy]

`Cult of Islam is no "higher power".....only submission and death...are its goal...Yet the left continues to compare it to present day real religions ....interesting....`


``Considering Islam's bad record on human rights (see Sudan) on women's rights (see Afghanistan/Pakistan), its belief in a real God, its belief in a holy scripture, its history of 1,400 years of warfare, conquest, forced conversions, persecution of minorities; you'd think, the political left would loath the sound of the call to prayer or the sight of a minaret, like they do the Christian cross and the memory of Jerry Falwell.
What is it that the American left sees in Islam that makes them defend it with the passion?``

Convergence of Islam and the Left
``Islam believes if all humanity submits to Mohammed's revelation, then there will be peace. Radical Islam proclaims that until all the world submits, peace for any in non-Islamic society will not be allowed. Furthermore, Islamic societies are driven by top-down, non-democratic means. The elites make the social decisions, for everyone else those decisions amount to the will of God. The political left loves this kind of societal organization because only in this way can their goals be achieved.``



http://ezinearticles.com/?New-Take---Why-the-American-Left-Loves-Islam&id=4948706

[fj1200]

`Cult of Islam is no "higher power"....interesting....`


``Considering Islam's bad record on human rights (see Sudan) on women's rights (see Afghanistan/Pakistan), its belief in a real God, its belief in a holy scripture...

Your own link disagrees with you... interesting...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your own link disagrees with you... interesting...

So Islam is not a quasi military, political, religious movement eh?
And no its not a religion as most of the world understands that term. It is a cult that embraces foremost the overall concept of world domination rather than
service to the True God, the One God. It is a perverse copy of religion. --Tyr

First, It expand by the sword, in 1400"+ years, its armies conquered entire nations and murdered a conservative estimate of 250 million + people.--Tyr



link--
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/understandingislam/IslamHistory0212.aspx


http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/understandingislam/IslamHistory0212.aspx

CBN.com – I was very disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article, adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the Crusades in history. What makes it even worse, the article hides its views under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam."

Let me explain.

The opening heading states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.

To give just a few examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

A different type of bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the Avars came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China respectively in the fifth through the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the Avars, by this siege, were one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other, perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern empire fell relatively easily to the Muslims.

But let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally false.

Let us review the Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

You will note the string of adjectives and may have some objection to my using them. They are used because they are the absolute truth. Anyone denying them is a victim of PC thinking, ignorant of history, or lying to protect Islam. Let us take each word separately before we proceed further in our true history of the relationship between the Christian west and the Islamic east.

Imperialistic

The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."


Second, it sets up mini- territories in host nations, defies local police and central government completely.--Tyr




http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/30/mark-steyn-on-europes-no-go-zones/

Steyn makes a crucial point about how Islamization thwarts the healthy assimilation process of immigrant communities, leaving them permanently alienated from host cultures they perceive as weak and spiritually unsatisfying. The resulting “hole in the heart,” as Steyn describes it, is a void radical Islam eagerly rushes forward to fill. The degree of alienation present in these no-go zones is horrifying. We can debate what percentage of a community’s population is accurately represented by the angry and dispossessed people who make outsiders reluctant to travel into a hostile district, but the practical result, no matter how informally it might be understood, cannot be erased with happy thoughts or media spin.

In his decade-old book America Alone, Steyn related an incident that illustrated the informal, but very real, understanding that non-Muslims are not welcome in certain Muslim-dominated districts:


When Martine Aubry, the Mayor of Lille, daughter of former Prime Minister and EU bigwig Jacques Delors and likely Presidential candidate in the post-Chirac era, held a meeting with an imam in Roubaix, he demanded that it take place on the edge of the neighborhood in recognition that his turf was Muslim territory which she was bound not to enter. Mme Aubry conceded the point, as more and more politicians will in the years ahead.

Steyn quoted another passage from America Alone with a certain no-go flavor in a blog post on the day the Charlie Hebdo killers were brought down by French police:


Four years after 9/11, it turned out there really is an explosive “Arab street,” but it’s in Clichy-sous-Bois. Since the beginning of this century, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They’re losing that battle…

If Chirac, de Villepin and co aren’t exactly Charles Martel, the rioters aren’t doing a bad impression of the Muslim armies of 13 centuries ago: They’re seizing their opportunities, testing their foe, probing his weak spots. If burning the ‘burbs gets you more “respect”, they’ll burn ‘em again, and again. In defiance of traditional immigration patterns, these young men are less assimilated than their grandparents. And why should they be? On present demographic trends, it will be for ethnic Europeans to assimilate with them.

The tendency of Western authorities to pretend Islamist tendencies are an insignificant ripple in the deep pool of peaceful Islamic thought was indicted by Steyn in that January 10 blog post: “The louder the perpetrators yell ‘Allahu Akbar’ and rejoice that the Prophet has been avenged, the louder M Hollande and David Cameron and Barack Obama and John Kerry and the other A-list infidels insist there’s no Islam to see here. M le Président seems to believe he can champion France’s commitment to freedom of expression by conscripting the entire nation in his monstrous lie.” The subsequent push by French politicians and American editorial writers to pretend the banlieues don’t exist fits neatly into that thesis.

The subject of no-go zones came up last week, during one of Steyn’s regular appearances on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show:


I’ve walked around the East End. I’ve walked around, for example, past what used to be a famous gay pub on, just off the Commercial Road that is no longer there, where what they call the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets is, now holds sway. A couple of years ago on Holocaust Memorial Day, a group of Jews were touring the old Jewish West End, where fellows like Lionel Bart, the composer of Oliver, came from. And they were greeted by youths of a certain persuasion who pelted them with stones, and a Canadian tourist and an American tourist wound up being taken to the hospital. That’s Jews stoned on Holocaust Memorial Day in the East End of London.

Likewise, there are no-go zones in parts of Birmingham in the Midlands, where in nothing flat, a city that was 0% Muslim 50 years ago now is 22% Muslim. They’re the demographic energy in the city. A senior British police officer was talking about this. He was saying, he wasn’t calling them no-go zones. He was putting it in a sort of positive way, that these communities prefer to police themselves, as it were. And that’s why we just leave them to get on with it. And one consequence of that is that nobody who isn’t a member of those “communities” likes to go there. But those no-go zones are not as advanced as they are in France, but they are real and they are growing in British cities.

They’re true in Sweden. I walked through Rosengard in Sweden. And I was warned by the two lovely, leggy Swedish blondes I was having a cup of coffee with twenty minutes earlier not to go there at dusk. And you go there at dusk, and it’s all fiercely bearded young men and covered women who came from Muslim countries where they didn’t have to be covered, but they emigrate to Sweden, and suddenly, not to get into any trouble from those bearded, young men, they’re forced to go covered. Those no-go zones are real in almost every country in Western Europe now.

But we’re supposed to believe they’re not real, because they don’t have big “KEEP OUT OR DIE, INFIDEL!” billboards denoting their perimeter, and they’re not labeled “Muslim No-Go Zone #23″ on the official maps of major European cities. The whole debate turned into one of multi-culturalism’s frequent “I See Five Lights” tests, where we’re supposed to signal our submission to intellectual torture by formally disavowing the evidence of our lying eyes. It’s not likely to prove an effective antidote against an aggressive ideology whose appeal flows from conquering weaker cultures. Conquerors do not regard the willfully blind as difficult opponents.

One other location that should be highlighted on any map of no-go zones is Rotherham, in South Yorkshire, England. Rotherham was more precisely a didn’t-go zone. Over 1,400 girls, as young as 11 years of age, were sexually abused in Rotherham over the course of 16 years by a “grooming gang” of mostly Pakistani Muslim men. (In fact, the UK Daily Mail reports that, as more victims keep coming forward, Labour MP Sarah Champion recently said she thinks the final total will be well over 2,000.) The girls were threatened with harm, and harm to their families, if they spoke out… but some of them did contact the authorities, only to be roundly ignored due to politically-correct blindness. The fear of being called out as racist or bigoted paralyzed local authorities.

Even after a bombshell report made the dimensions of the Rotherham horror clear – including gang rape, human trafficking, and such disciplinary measures as dousing a young girl with gasoline and threatening to strike a match unless she kept quiet – resignations and reprimands came at an agonizingly slow pace. In fact, the Daily Mail quotes one of the victims saying in December that she thinks the grooming gangs are still in business, perhaps worse than ever, but slightly more circumspect about hiding their activities from marginally less blind authorities. “I’m still seeing my abusers driving young girls in their car. They’re untouchable,” she complained, adding that six months after the scandal broke, “we’ve had no arrests, we’ve had no charges, evidence is still being lost.”

The refusal to assimilate ultimately requires a certain degree of indulgence from the host society. Insularity is difficult to enforce against a confident surrounding culture. The legal principles and economic policies of a nation have a great deal to do with how directionless and alienated young people from all racial and cultural backgrounds feel. There are no-go zones and won’t-go splotches of politically correct blindness on the map because they are tolerated, and that won’t change if politicians and the media insist on ignoring the

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Previous post continued to educate those that speak from ignorance on the subject..
That bring up the puny numbers killed in the Crusades while ignoring the history of Islam. -Tyr



http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html#historical

3. After the initial Muslim expansion
• The Islamic assault on Hindu India ◦Islamic invasion of India (and here)
◦ Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, K.S. Lal, 1973, estimates 80 million Hindus killed by jihad in 1000 to 1525.



•Muslim destruction of pre-Muslim and non-Muslim heritage


•The Hashshashin (8th to 14th centuries).


• Christendom v. Islam ◦The Crusades, 1095-1291.
◦Jihad begot the Crusades by Andrew G. Bostom. It would be wrong to whitewash the democide of the Crusades. But it would be equally wrong to whitewash the centuries of jihad and persecution of Christians that preceded them.
◦ Islamic persecution of Christians in the Middle East before the Crusades, especially in Jerusalem.



• The butcher Tamerlane (died 1405) killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children for Islam. ◦ Killing from Qur'anic Piety: Tamerlane's Living Legacy by Andrew G. Bostom



• The long history of beheading in Islam ◦ The beheading of Nick Berg led to some discussion of the long history of cutting heads off in Islam.
◦Chopping Heads by Amir Taheri
◦ The Sacred Muslim Practice of Beheading by Andrew G. Bostom
◦Question Authority - The Quran mentions beheading. Why does the U.S. press claim otherwise? by Lee Smith, July 1, 2004.




May 31, 2014

The Greatest Murder Machine in History

By Mike Konrad


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/the_greatest_murder_machine_in_history.html#ixzz3Q PWBKeaK
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

When one thinks of mass murder, Hitler comes to mind. If not Hitler, then Tojo, Stalin, or Mao. Credit is given to the 20th-century totalitarians as the worst species of tyranny to have ever arisen. However, the alarming truth is that Islam has killed more than any of these, and may surpass all of them combined in numbers and cruelty.

The enormity of the slaughters of the "religion of peace" are so far beyond comprehension that even honest historians overlook the scale. When one looks beyond our myopic focus, Islam is the greatest killing machine in the history of mankind, bar none.


The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. -- Will Durant, as quoted on Daniel Pipes site.

Conservative estimates place the number at 80 million dead Indians.


According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). -- Koenrad Elst as quoted on Daniel Pipes site

80 Million?! The conquistadors' crimes pale into insignificance at that number. No wonder Hitler admired Islam as a fighting religion. He stood in awe of Islam, whose butchery even he did not surpass.

Over 110 Million Blacks were killed by Islam.


... a minumum of 28 Million African were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people. -- John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue

Add just those two numbers alone together, and Islam has surpassed the victims of 20th-century totalitarianism. However, it does not end there. Add the millions who died at the hand of Muslims in the Sudan in our lifetime.

Much of Islamic slavery was sexual in nature, with a preference for women. Those men who were captured were castrated. The mulatto children of the women were often killed, which explains why Islam was not demographically shifted towards the black race, unlike slaves in the West, who bore children to breed a mestizo class. Add in those dead children; and we arrive at well over 200 million.

Remember that in the 7th century, North Africa was almost totally Christian. What happened to them?


By the year 750, a hundred years after the conquest of Jerusalem, at least 50 percent of the world's Christians found themselves under Muslim hegemony… Today there is no indigenous Christianity in the region [of Northwest Africa], no communities of Christians whose history can be traced to antiquity.-- "Christianity Face to Face with Islam," CERC

What happened to those Christian millions? Some converted. The rest? Lost to history.

We know that over 1 million Europeans were enslaved by Barbary Pirates. How many died is anybody's guess.


...for the 250 years between 1530 and 1780, the figure could easily have been as high as 1,250,000 - BBC

In the Middle Ages…


…many slaves were passed through Armenia and were castrated there to fill the Muslim demand for eunuchs. -- Slavery in Early Medieval Europe.

The same practice ran through Islamic Spain. North Europeans captured from raids up to Iceland, or purchased, were butchered in the castratoriums of Iberia. Many died from the operations that ran for centuries.

The number of dead from the Muslim conquest of the Balkans and Southern Italy is unknown, but again the numbers add up, surely into the millions over the centuries. Don't forget the 1.5 million Armenian Christians killed by the Turks during WWI. We do know that over five centuries, vast numbers of Christian boys were kidnapped to become Islamic Janissary mercenaries for the Turks. Add those in, too.

Muslims prized blonde women for their harems; and so enslaved Slavic women were purchased in the bazaars of the Crimean Caliphate. In Muslim Spain, an annual tribute of 100 Visigothic [blonde] women was required from Spain's Cantabrian coast.


For decades, 100 virgins per year were required by the Muslim rulers of Spain from the conquered population. The tribute was only stopped when the Spaniards began fighting back -- Jihad: Islam's 1,300 Year War Against Western Civilisation

Add in the death toll from the Reconquista and the numbers climb higher.

Research has shown that the Dark Ages were not caused by the Goths, who eventually assimilated and Christianized:


…the real destroyers of classical civilization were the Muslims. It was the Arab Invasions... which broke the unity of the Mediterranean world and turned the Middle Sea -- previously one of the world’s most important trading highways -- into a battleground. It was only after the appearance of Islam... that the cities of the West, which depended upon the Mediterranean trade for their survival, began to die. -- Islam Caused the Dark Ages

Add in those unknown millions who died as a consequence.

How many know the horrors of the conquest of Malaysia? The Buddhists of Thailand and Malaysia were slaughtered en masse.


When attacked and massacred by the Muslims, the Buddhists initially did not make any attempt to escape from their murderers. They accepted death with an air of fatalism and destiny. And hence they are not around today to tell their story. – History of Jihad.org

We may never know the numbers of dead.


After Muslims came to power in the early 15th century, animist hill peoples eventually disappeared due to their enslavement and ‘incorporation’ into the Muslim population of Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, and Java via raids, tribute and purchase, especially of children. Java was the largest exporter of slaves around 1500. -- Islam Monitor

In the same manner, Islam arrived in the Philippines. Only the appearance of the Spanish stopped a total collapse, and confined Islam to the southern islands.


The coming of the Spanish saved the Philippines from Islam, except for the Southern tip where the population had been converted to Islam.-- History of Jihad.org

Again, the number of dead is unknown; but add them to the total.

The animist Filipinos were eager to ally with the Spanish against Islam. In fact, much of Southeast Asia welcomed the Spanish and Portuguese as preferable to Islam.


...from the 17th century successive Thai kings allied themselves with the seafaring Western powers – the Portuguese and the Dutch and succeeded in staving off the threat of Islam from the Muslim Malays and their Arab overlords.-- History of Jihad.org

A few galleons and muskets were not enough to conquer Asia. Islam had made the Europeans initially appear as liberators; and to a certain extent they were. Who were the real imperialists?

Even today...


...Malaysian Jihadis are plotting to transform multi-ethnic Malaysia into an Islamic Caliphate, and fomenting trouble in Southern Thailand.-- History of Jihad.org

Add this all up. The African victims. The Indian victims. The European victims. Add in the Armenian genocide. Then add in the lesser known, but no doubt quite large number of victims of Eastern Asia. Add in the jihad committed by Muslims against China, which was invaded in 651 AD. Add in the Crimean Khanate predations on the Slavs, especially their women.

Though the numbers are not clear, what is obvious is that Islam is the greatest murder machine in history bar none, possibly exceeding 250 million dead. Possibly one-third to one-half or more of all those killed by war or slavery in history can be traced to Islam; and this is just a cursory examination.

Now consider the over 125 Million women today who have been genitally mutilated for Islamic honor's sake. In spite of what apologists tell you, the practice is almost totally confined to Islamic areas.


New information from Iraqi Kurdistan raises the possibility that the problem is more prevalent in the Middle East than previously believed and that FGM is far more tied to religion than many Western academics and activists admit. – “Is Female Genital Mutilation an Islamic Problem?” ME Quarterly




Once thought concentrated in Africa, FGM has now been discovered to be common wherever Islam is found.


There are indications that FGM might be a phenomenon of epidemic proportions in the Arab Middle East. Hosken, for instance, notes that traditionally all women in the Persian Gulf region were mutilated. Arab governments refuse to address the problem. -- "Is Female Genital Mutilation an Islamic Problem?" ME Quarterly

Remember that this has gone on for 1400 years; and was imposed on a population that had been formerly Christian or pagan.

FGM is practiced on large scale in Islamic Indonesia; and is increasing.


...far from scaling down, the problem of FGM in Indonesia has escalated sharply. The mass ceremonies in Bandung have grown bigger and more popular every year. -- Guardian

The horrified British author of that Guardian article is still deluded that Islam does not support FGM, when in fact it is now settled that FGM is a core Islamic practice. Islamic women have been brainwashed to support their own abuse.


Abu Sahlieh further cited Muhammad as saying, "Circumcision is a sunna (tradition) for the men and makruma (honorable deed) for the women." -- “Is Female Genital Mutilation an Islamic Problem?” ME Quarterly

What other tyranny does this? Not even the Nazis mutilated their own women!


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/the_greatest_murder_machine_in_history.html#ixzz3Q PW5x5PN
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is how they do it. Turn host nation's own government against free speech, at least any free speech that is critical of their slimy maggot infested asses!
Think this will not be coming here ??
Wake up, its already been proposed to give very special protections to these damn vermin!
And the Obama wants to tag Islam as a race in the next census!
Insanity prevails as our nation grovels at the feet of these filthy pieces of human debris..
Linked story below show how they angle to get such protection that people are made to be afraid of speaking anything negative about the pieces of walking talking shit..
I'll stomp living hell out of anybody that ever tries to stop my freedom of speech on my warning about these filthy ffkking animals.. -Tyr


http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11757862.display/

Police seek man over derogatory Islam slurs on bus


First published Thursday 29 January 2015 in News
Last updated 02:46 Friday 30 January 2015 .



POLICE wish to speak to this man (right) after derogatory comments about Islam were made on a bus.

The incident, described as a public order offence by police, allegedly happened on the 576 Halifax to Bradford bus, between 10pm and 10.20pm on Thursday, January 8.




The man is said to have got on the bus and sat directly behind an Asian man, before muttering his comments.

The suspect is described as white, aged 40 to 50, about 5ft 8ins tall, and was wearing a black woolly hat and black jacket that may have had a bit of red on it.

[fj1200]

So Islam is not a quasi military, political, religious movement eh?

No, Islam is a religion. It doesn't appeal to me but...


Previous post continued to educate those that speak from ignorance on the subject..
That bring up the puny numbers killed in the Crusades while ignoring the history of Islam. -Tyr

Setting up your own strawman to burn down? Interesting.


This is how they do it. :blah:

I guess it's hopeless to ever expect a thread to actually remain on topic. Don't like how it's going? I guess ranting in a completely different direction is the way to go. :dunno:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No, Islam is a religion. It doesn't appeal to me but...


Yet you defend it so damn often and with such gusto! ;)--Tyr



Setting up your own strawman to burn down? Interesting.


No, shining light on muslim lies and propaganda, the stuff you seem to fully support.-Tyr



I guess it's hopeless to ever expect a thread to actually remain on topic. Don't like how it's going? I guess ranting in a completely different direction is the way to go. :dunno:


So what's not on topic? Islam is the topic -- as in "Islamic Tribunal Dispenses Shariah Law ".
So pray tell how is my discussing Islam and its campaign to murder and enslave we infidels not on topic!?--Tyr



I advise you to quit while you are only this far behind.
Any more and you'll get blasted a thousand feet deep I predict. -:laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The thing that the US cities/counties/states must do is refuse to allow separate tribunals to function. When that is given up, sovereignty is ceded, that has been tried and failed in Europe.

Kat, doesn't matter about repeated evidence of past failures-because the libs/leftists always think next time they'll get it right! Communism has MURDERED WELL OVER HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE! POINT THAT OUT TO A DAMN LEFTIST/SOCIALIST AND THEY SAY, THATS OF NO CONSEQUENCE, NEXT TIME WE'LL GET IT RIGHT.
In short, they are mad, raving deluded fools operating under a disguise of enlightenment!
That's the trap they set, they teach that their so-called enlightenment is the Hold Grail.
History repeatedly show it to be about power madness, death and destruction instead!-Tyr

[fj1200]

Wishful thinking-Tyr

;)

Rather than fixing your mess of a quoting job.

1. I don't defend Islam, I point things out and ask questions.
2. Same crap different thread.
3. No, Sharia in Texas is the topic. Of course it's just another excuse for another of your rants.
4. How can I be "far behind" when you're not even on topic. :dunno:

[Trigg]

I don't have a problem with this IF the people understand that this is voluntary and they are protected under US law. I would worry that some of the recent immigrants don't understand that they don't have to follow the sharia, especially the women who tend to get the short end of the stick in their home countries.

The Amish around here live very separately from the general population and alot of their disputes are handled within the church.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

;)

Rather than fixing your mess of a quoting job.

1. I don't defend Islam, I point things out and ask questions.
2. Same crap different thread.
3. No, Sharia in Texas is the topic. Of course it's just another excuse for another of your rants.
4. How can I be "far behind" when you're not even on topic. :dunno:


Really(?) , what a cop-out.
Don't answer then but this cop-out is pathetic.


Rather than fixing your mess of a quoting job.

1. HA, your defense of Islam is plain to see by any not blinded here.
2. Same bullshit from you.
3.Sharia law is Koranic/muslim law and that is the topic= muslims. You cry anytime I speak ill of the ffing maggots yet you scream you don't defend them,== laughable !
4. Again, topic is muslim Sharia law as there is no other Sharia except=muslim sharia.
So you cry , don't speak about the muslims of their religious habits! Their murdering deeds --get real .. Muslims are the topic --as Sharia does not exist without them!
Stop your damn cry-babying . It is pathetic..-Tyr

[fj1200]

Really(?) , what a cop-out.
Don't answer then but this cop-out is pathetic.

Have some respect for your fellow posters and make it readable.


1. HA, your defense of Islam is plain to see by any not blinded here.
2. Same bullshit from you.
3.Sharia law is Koranic/muslim law and that is the topic= muslims. You cry anytime I speak ill of the ffing maggots yet you scream you don't defend them,== laughable !
4. Again, topic is muslim Sharia law as there is no other Sharia except=muslim sharia.
So you cry , don't speak about the muslims of their religious habits! Their murdering deeds --get real .. Muslims are the topic --as Sharia does not exist without them!
Stop your damn cry-babying . It is pathetic..-Tyr

1. You think anything that doesn't mindlessly rant against all things Islam is "defense." :rolleyes:
2. Meh, I don't start 300 threads that all say the same thing, or end up saying the same thing anyway.
3. You know those 300 threads? Yeah, I ignore most of them so your claim is BS. There is legitimate criticism of Islam and you lose credibility when you do nothing more rant repetitively.
4. Islam is always the topic to you, the specific topic here is Sharia in Texas. Saying Muslim Sharia is redundant.
Why don't you learn how to have an intelligent conversation and discuss topics that you bring up. Any time you get push back on another rant thread you whine like a Brit. ;)

[fj1200]

I don't have a problem with this IF the people understand that this is voluntary and they are protected under US law. I would worry that some of the recent immigrants don't understand that they don't have to follow the sharia, especially the women who tend to get the short end of the stick in their home countries.

I think that should go without saying.


The Amish around here live very separately from the general population and alot of their disputes are handled within the church.

What!!! But, but, but, unconstitutional. :poke:

[Trigg]

I think that should go without saying.



What!!! But, but, but, unconstitutional. :poke:

It SHOULD go without saying, but with new immigrants with only a passing understanding of English and possibly no understanding of their rights. It bears repeating.