Its quite irrelevant whether judge Mark Martin is a Muslim or not: he ruled by sharia law, just like Christa D., a Germany judge in Frankfurt/M.  who ruled that a Moroccan husband had the right to beat his wife according to koranic law, the sharia.

Mark Martin is the real doofus. He is a disgrace to the American judiciary and should be removed from the bench. And his understanding of the First Amendment is so awful that he, in effect, has betrayed the Constitution by his enormous ignorance of it.

In FrontPage this morning I call for justice to be done to Judge Mark Martin in Pennsylvania:

The facts of the case are clear: Ernest Perce, a young atheist in Pennsylvania, marched in a Halloween parade dressed as “Zombie Muhammad.” A Muslim, Talaag Elbayomy, grew enraged when he saw Perce’s costume, and began choking him while trying to pull off the fake beard that Perce had glued onto his face. Perce went to the police, and so did Elbayomy – the latter under the mistaken impression that it was illegal in the United States, as it is in many Muslim lands, to insult or mock the prophet of Islam. Elbayomy was mistaken, of course: it isn’t illegal to mock Muhammad in the United States, but it may be soon, courtesy Judge Mark Martin, who dismissed the case against Elbayomy.

Martin claimed in a message trying to explain away his mishandling of the case that he dismissed the case for lack of evidence: “In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There were so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.”

Martin didn’t mention in his apologia that Perce was filming at the time Elbayomy attacked him, and the video evidence is quite clear. Nor did he mention that a police officer on the scene, Sgt. Bryan Curtis, backed up Perce’s version of events. Both the video and Curtis’s testimony give the lie to Martin’s claim that “I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him.”

Nor did Martin mention that he lectured Perce at length about how his Halloween costume outraged Islamic sensitivities, concluding: “And what you’ve done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I am a Muslim. I find it very offensive…You are way outside your bounds of first amendment rights.” Martin later denied that he was a Muslim, and so when he told Perce that he was one, he may have been speaking conditionally, as in, “If I were a Muslim, I, too, would find it offensive.”

However, despite the best efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and its increasingly compliant enablers in the Obama Administration, it is still not illegal to offend Muslims in the United States. In fact, it is only illegal to offend Muslims and Islam under Islamic law. In lecturing Perce at length about how he had “trashed” Muslims’ “essence” and then ignoring two important sources of evidence that proved the charge against Elbayomy, Martin was effectively enforcing Sharia in an American courtroom. For under Islamic law, Elbayomy would have been perfectly within his rights, and even to be commended, for choking Perce for mocking Muhammad. The only criticism that might have been leveled against him had this case been brought in Jeddah or Tehran was that he didn’t finish Perce off altogether.

Pamela Geller interviewed Perce, who articulated the implications of the ruling: “Martin’s decision effectively says that Muslims do not have to learn to accept blasphemy against their religion without violence. Yet when you are a citizen of the USA, you accept our Constitution. Free speech is our foundation.”

Indeed. With the OIC engaged in a years-long struggle to compel Western states to criminalize truthful speech about jihad and criticism of Islam under the guise of criminalizing “religious hatred,” Martin’s skewed and biased ruling is particularly ominous, especially insofar as it coincides with Sharia prohibitions on speaking ill of Muhammad, the Qur’an, and Islam….

There is more.

German politicians: Sharia law should be introduced in Germany – ‘good for integration’ (JW)

Sharia law, in a “modern form,” would be acceptable in Germany

Jochen Hartloff is a socialist and moron. He also looks the part:

German politicians once again make room for totalitarian barbarism:

Most politicians in Germany have gotten the message: The quickest way to spark a career-damaging controversy is to make a facile comment about Nazis or the Holocaust. Media critics and political opponents are quick to pounce.

But that isn’t the only way to attract unwanted attention, as Jochen Hartloff, the interior minister of the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate, found out this week. In an interview with the Berlin tabloid BZ, Hartloff said that Sharia law, in a “modern form,” would be acceptable in Germany. In comments published on Friday in the center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, he added that using the Islamic moral code “is certainly conceivable when it comes to questions pertaining to civil law.”

Hartloff, a politician from the center-left Social Democrats, made clear that he was referring specifically to family law issues such as divorce settlements and alimony, but also certain instances of contract law in which devout Muslims seek to avoid paying interest. Applying Sharia rules, he said, could help avoid hostility in such cases. ….

He was seconded by Stephan Mayer, a parliamentarian for the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats. Mayer, a legal expert, demanded Hartloff’s resignation. “It is inconceivable that a justice minister fosters such ideas,” he told Bild. “There is no room in Germany for Islamic law. The Sharia is barbarous and inhuman in all its forms.” …

Michael Frieser, expert on integration issues for conservatives in German parliament, said that Muslim justices of the peace could perhaps be used to prepare the groundwork for a civil law judgement. He told the Süddeutsche Zeitung that he has nothing against immigrants seeking judgements according to the legal systems they are used to. “That can ultimately serve the cause of integration,” he said.

The gray eminency of lesbians speaketh:

“Islamic law holds women in livelong servitude. They are daughters of a father, sister of a brother, wife of a husband. They have no rights. The implementation of sharia law in Germany is unthinkable”.

In German:

Die Frauenrechtlerin Alice Schwarzer machte indes bei “Focus Online” auf die Konsequenzen der Scharia aufmerksam: “Das islamisch geprägte Familienrecht hält Frauen lebenslang in Unmündigkeit. Sie sind Tochter eines Vaters, Schwester eines Bruders, Ehefrau eines Mannes. Es entrechtet sie weitgehend.” Darum sei die Einführung von Scharia-Gerichten in Deutschland “undenkbar”.

Islam ruined Pakistan, not U.S. aid:

• Imran Khan, Head of the Pakistani Tehreek-e-Insaf Party: US Aid Is Destroying Pakistan

Islam ruined Egypt, not U.S. aid:

• US-Based Egyptian Scholar Mamoun Fandy Blames US Aid for “the Ruin of Egypt” and Says: The US May Be Handing Egypt Over to the Muslim Brotherhood Just Like It Handed Post-Saddam Iraq over to Iran

Prison Bitch Wants Sharia

• Patrick Poole exposes “white trash Jihadi”, Devin Zentmyer. The Man behind Shariah4USA

“Secular Tunisians?’

• Secular Tunisians Fear Islamist Takeover… (can’t they fight it out?)

They’ll be back for more:

• Paris Hopes ‘Gift’ of Hangar Will Appease Street Prayers… (RoP)

And you thought there was no sharia in Australia?

Sharia Rules in Australia!

Aspects of Sharia law are being practiced across Australia.

Sheikh Moussaab Leghe, in Sydney’s West, presides over hundreds of Sharia divorces each year, and adjudicates on financial disputes.

According to the Sheikh, “This is Islam – Islam is to live your life in a happy way, in justice, in equity. Everybody is taking his share, (from the kuffar) everybody is happy and satisfied.”

Sheikh Moussaab Leghe offers Muslims Sharia law from his base at the Islamic Welfare Centre at Lakemba, in Sydney’s West.

“Well when you have women that are having their babies out of the marriage, some people they will say we need something to find a solution. And this is something,” said Sheikh Leghe.

Sheikh Leghe says he believes Australian law rules our land, though, like his predecessor, he does feel there is room for men to have multiple wives.

More stories from Today Tonight

• Burqa ban
• Halal takeaway

“Well the problem (is) with this thirteen per cent extra women in Australia.”

Its not your problem, Leghe. Its their problem.

“I don’t go for (polygamy), but I call the Australian law to give the women rights to find a man, when you have (less men than women).”

They have the rights women have in Australia.

According to News Limited columnist Miranda Devine, such ideas are “terribly disempowering of women, and very disruptive of our social fabric, for that reason.”

“I think it’s seditious. It undermines Australian law, and really, if we’re going to have separate laws and separate societies, we can only expect to have more division and more lawlessness,” said Vicky Janson.

Vicky Janson, and her husband Michael, live in the Melbourne suburb of Heidelberg West. They have joined a community group named The Q Society – aimed at stopping what they call the ‘Islamification of Australia’.

According to Vicky “it’s the way we’re meant to be treated. We are truly treated as second-class citizens. Under anything to do with Islamic law, women are not treated equally, non-Muslims are not treated equally.”

For some, the issue that’s causing concern and division is whether or not Sharia law can co-exist with Australian law, so that we still have one law for all.

In Britain, Islamic courts have operated for nearly four years under the Arbitration Act, and their rulings are legally binding.

Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s; a daughter can only inherent half as much as a son; guardianship of children automatically goes to the father; and men can summarily divorce their wife, while a woman must fight for a divorce, even if her husband is abusive.

“We don’t want it. We do not want Sharia law. It’s a system that has a completely different idea of what is right and wrong, what is good and evil, and it just undermines our democratic rule of law. We don’t want it,” said Vicky.

Right on, Vicky!

Bad news. I mean this is really bad. What kind of judge would make such a judgement?

Lets take a closer look: Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange the first African American woman to be sworn in as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma. She was also the first African American female elected to the Oklahoma Senate.  Miles-LaGrange was nominated by President William J. Clinton

A native of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Miles-LaGrange, received a certificate from the University of Ghana in Accra, Ghana, West Africa in 1973, and graduated cum laude from Vassar College in 1974. She then received her J.D. from Howard University in Washington, DC in 1977. There, she was an editor of The Howard Law Journal. [...]

Court blocks Oklahoma anti-Sharia law at behest of Hamas-linked CAIR

“The people…have ceased to be their own rulers” — Abraham Lincoln

Hamas-linked CAIR is thumping its chest at this victory over the popular will, and says: “CAIR says the ballot measure would infringe on the constitutional rights of ordinary Oklahomans — including the right to wear religious head scarves in driver’s license photographs, choose Islamic marriage contracts, implement Islamic wills, or to be buried according to one’s religious beliefs.”

But in this CAIR is, yet again, lying. The Oklahoma law forbids lawmakers from legislating for Oklahomans as a whole using Sharia rather than American law. It does not forbid private individuals from getting married or writing wills in any way they wish.

“Court order blocks Okla. amendment on Islamic law,” by Tim Talley for the Associated Press, November 8 (thanks to Jihad Watch):

OKLAHOMA CITY – A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order blocking a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange ruled Monday morning in Oklahoma City following a brief hearing. It prevents the state election board from certifying the results of Tuesday’s general election in which the amendment was approved by 70 percent of the voters….

It was issued in a lawsuit filed by the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. Muneer Awad said during the hearing that the law stigmatizes his religion.

Well, either Sharia is compatible with the U.S. Constitution or it isn’t. Now we shall have an opportunity to air that out in a public discussion.

*****

Gunning for Oklahoma: Law prof makes ridiculous claim that Sharia ban outlaws the Ten Commandments

Vicky Miles La Grange is not alone. She has support from other useful idiots:

The idea of the Oklahoma Sharia ban is to prevent judges from making decisions based on a legal system that contradicts the principles of American law in numerous particulars. Rick Tepker’s claim that the ban outlaws also the Ten Commandments is ridiculous for numerous reasons, including the fact that the Ten Commandments do not contradict the U.S. Constitution, while Sharia, with its discrimination against women and non-Muslim and its denial of the freedom of speech, most assuredly does.

Also, I rather suspect that nowadays if a judge invoked the Ten Commandments as a deciding factor in a ruling, the ACLU would immediately mount a challenge to the decision on Constitutional grounds — and I suspect that Rick Tepker would support that challenge. But his pro-Sharia stance here, and the mainstream media’s blitz against the Oklahoma law in general, is not actually based on knowledge of Sharia’s inhumane provisions, but on the prevailing political correctness and multiculturalism, and pervasive Muslim claim to victim status. “Law professor: Ban on Sharia law ‘a mess,’” from CNN, November 3 (thanks again to JW):

Oklahoma’s new ban on Islamic law poses potential legal hurdles.Oklahoma voters on Tuesday approved a measure that bans the application of Islamic law and orders judges in the state to rely only on federal law when deciding cases. State Rep. Rex Duncan, a Republican, was the primary author of the measure, which amends that state constitution.

For months, legal experts had lambasted the initiative as biased toward a religion and potentially harmful to local businesses that engage in commerce with international companies. It also presents potential constitutional law problems, experts say. Is Oklahoma’s state constitution now in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … “?

There has never been a previous case in the state in which Sharia law was applied, said Rick Tepker, the first member of the University of Oklahoma School of Law faculty to try a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tepker called the passage of the measure “a mess” with implications unknown until a case that challenges it arises.

“Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don’t cry,” he said. “I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin.”

Businesses that engage with international companies may also find the ban is a stumbling block, Tepker said. The ban also requires all state business to be conducted in English….

Earlier, we had this:

• Federal judge schedules hearing today on restraining order blocking Oklahoma’s Sharia ban

The enlightened progressives don’t see a problem with it. They think the enemy is One Nation:

Smear-job of the day

Just when you thought One Nation might be dead with the proposed departure of founder Pauline Hanson to England, their Victorian division has splashed out thousands of dollars for an ad in the Herald Sun to encourage new members to join and compete in the coming federal election.

VEXNEWS springs into action and manufactures your PC opinion for you…..

Meanwhile, KRudd keeps ‘em coming: Rudd doesn’t scare them, either

Andrew Bolt

Friends With Benefits

A boat carrying nine suspected asylum seekers and three crew has been intercepted near Ashmore Reef. (“Intercepted” is code for getting a red carpet reception….)

UPDATE

An migration agent’s advertisement in the Gulf News, read by members of the United Arab Emirates’ huge workforce of Pakistanis, Indians and Sri Lankans, advertises the most attractive things about Australia for potential immigrants and “refugees”:

The hubris! Does Jack Straw, this totally corrupt Labour hack, believe he is too smart to get caught?

Stephen Byers, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt were “stupid” to be caught offering to influence Government policy for money, Jack Straw has said.

(L-R): MPs Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt, Geoff Hoon

The Justice Secretary said the three Labour MPs have damaged the reputation of the Labour Party, but he insisted that no serving member of the Government was implicated.

The three former Labour cabinet ministers have been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party over allegations they tried to sway policy decisions by lobbying the Government.  More from the Telegraph, UK

David Miliband: Israeli cloning of British passports was ‘intolerable’

Once again, Miliband proves that he is indeed the dumbest Jew in England….

The British government is to formally accuse Israel of being behind the liquidation of Hamas murderer and arms dealer Mahmoud al-Mabhouh by a team of liquidators traveling on ‘cloned’ British passports

• Britain to expel Mossad’s man in London over Dubai assassination
• Israeli envoy ouster puts heat on Smith
• The Times of London has more on Israel’s reaction

MP quizzed by police after saying ‘wearing burkha was like having paper bag over your head’

I guess we all know that Britain’s police is in the bag….

Sharia Law Harms Muslim Women

Why is the West open to a discriminatory system that women’s rights activists in the Muslim world are working so hard against?

SHARIA law for Australia is being mooted again. The Australian Muslim Mission and Islamic Friendship Association of Australia are advocating its introduction, especially in relation to family and inheritance, as these would be “an advantage” for women whose civil divorce is not recognised in Muslim countries.

(The Australian)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=winu_C_X5mw[/youtube]

Thanks to Vlad Tepes, who also has this:

Anjem gets 24 hour guard at public expense.

• Frank Gaffney: Sharia finance is jihad with money
• Israel And The Turk: Ankara Has No Right to Preach Morality

Sharia “Law”- a sick joke!

UAE Sheikh acquitted of torture. Video below.

After Three Months, Calais Illegals Back Bigger than Ever…

Well done, France. About as useless as the UK in dealing with all this. Brilliant!

The destruction of the Jungle migrant camp in Calais aimed at stemming the tide of illegal immigration to the UK was a publicity stunt to ‘placate the British public’, it was claimed today.

The operation to bulldoze the squalid woodland camp was branded a ‘total failure’ by senior Calais aid worker Vincent Lenoir.

Three months after the Jungle was flattened and 278 migrants were arrested, there are now more than 400 illegal immigrants again massed on the Channel coast.

Read more: Daily Mail

• Spain Jails Five Muslims for Aiding Madrid Bombers…

Updated from Harry’s Place:

The blatant lies of Anjem Choudary

After finally being banned by our hesitant and often reactionary government, Anjem Choudary was invited on Newsnight last night to discuss the ban. What began has an attempt to discuss the idea of banning the various organisations he works under, soon descended into a slanging match between Anjem and fellow studio guest Maajid Nawaz. Throughout the ‘discussion’ Anjem refused to answer questions, told a number of blatant lies and just generally confused the viewers and himself with bizarre logic and incoherent statements.

Lie 1

• “Al Muhajiroun is not a HT offshoot” – ALM was set up by Omar Bakri who used to be the leader of HT in the UK and set up ALM after he had been expelled from HT

Lie 2

• “I was never with HT” – Anjem was an activist with HT for a number of years and met Bakri through HT lectures. I personally met him when he was with HT, as did many others including Maajid.

Lie 3

• I have never met Maajid Nawaz – Anjem represented Maajid in a legal case at Newham College in 1993 and they met again on the Big Questions last year.

Lie 4

• “I have not received any money from the government” – Anjem and his family of 4 have been living off state benefits for over 10 years.

Lie 5

• “We don’t believe in appealing against man made law” – Yet Abu Izzadeen (ALM member) lodged an appeal at the court of appeals in 2008.

Lie 6

• “Islam4UK got banned because it was exposing the Govt foreign policy” –  Islam4UK is working to bring convert Britain into a Caliphate under Shariah law and they support the Taliban and Al Qeada in places like Afghanistan. They also approve of terror tactics and praise terrorist attacks. It is not a lobby group that exists to highlight bad policy – there are many such lobby groups that have not been banned.

Lie 7

• “Britain is an apartheid system” – Anjem clearly does not know the meaning of this word. He lives freely in the UK, has the same legal rights as everyone else, is free to express his anti-western views, speak out against British Foreign policy and claim generous state benefits. As Maajid pointed out, he has not spent any time in jail and is regularly invited on various TV shows to express his views. Clearly, his organisation has abused these privileges to incite violence, support terrorism and spread fear and hate. As such they deserve to be banned.

Questions avoided

• “Are you on the dole?”
• “Will I (Maajid) be executed in Anjems version of the Khalifate?”
• “Is non-Muslim blood halal for you”

The debate was scrappy but it is impossible to have a clear and coherent discussion with someone like Anjem, who relies on shouting and talking over people as a tactic in debating. But by being evasive and deceptive, he has shown the viewers what most Muslims already knew – he is not a man guided by faith but rather a charlatan with neither principles or basic manners. He has no Islamic credentials, doesn’t understand Arabic and behaves like a playground bully.

I feel sorry for anyone who goes to his shariah court (in his bedroom) for a verdict on anything. How anyone can follow this guy or look up to him as a leader is completely beyond me.

By Andrew G. Bostom/The American Thinker

Related News:

“What is wrong with Sharia law? If someone steals…why is it wrong to cut off his hand?”

If someone in America points out that such punishments are part of Sharia, he is derided as an ignorant “Islamophobe.” But the Koran is clear: “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.” — Koran 5:38 More here>>>

During the autumn of 1843, in the heart of Istanbul, Turkey, Sir Henry Layard, the British archeologist, writer, and diplomat, witnessed the punishment mandated by Sharia (i.e., Islamic) Law for apostasy from Islam. He described this abhorrent spectacle as follows:
An Armenian who had embraced Islamism [emphasis added] had returned to his former faith. For his apostasy he was condemned to death according to the Mohammedan [Islamic] law. His execution took place, accompanied by details of studied insult and indignity directed against Christianity and Europeans in general. The corpse was exposed in one of the most public and frequented places in Stamboul [Istanbul], and the head, which had been severed from the body, was placed upon it, covered by a European hat.

Layard’s narrative demonstrates how in mid-19th century parlance, “Islamism” and “Islam” were synonymous, meant to be equivalent to “Catholicism,” “Protestantism,” and “Judaism” — not to radical or fundamentalist sects of any of these religions. Moreover, through at least the mid-1950s, scholars devoted to the formal study of Islamic doctrine and history were still referred to as “Islamists.”

Turkey’s current Prime Minister Erdogan, commenting in August 2007 on the term “moderate Islam” (frequently used in the West to describe his ruling political party, the AKP) stated, “These descriptions are very ugly. It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Erdogan’s displeasure is ironic, even somewhat humorous, given the contemporary Western apologetic obsession to recast the terms “Islamism” and “Islamist” to exclusively denote radical or immoderate Islam and its adherents. But the irony of Erdogan’s ire aside, artificial distinctions between Islamism and Islam, Islamist and Islamic are logically incoherent, obfuscating irrefragable truths about living Islamic dogma and its modern manifestations.

The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam“-- not “Islamism” — was drafted and ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic– not “Islamist” — Conference (OIC), a 57-state collective including every Islamic nation on earth. The OIC, currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim ummah (or global community) and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations.

Its preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC‘s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights. The preamble repeats a Quranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Quran 3:110): “Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …” The gravely negative implications of this  Islamic Law (Sharia)-based document (“There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia”) are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, while articles 19 and 22 reiterate Sharia principles stated throughout the document which clearly apply to the “punishment” — death for so-called  “apostates” — from Islam..

The Cairo Declaration — entirely consistent with Islamic law — also introduces unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women while sanctioning the legitimacy of dehumanizing, Sharia-compliant punishments, from flogging to mutilation and stoning.

And polling data from a rigorously conducted WorldPublicOpinion.org survey released April 2007 demonstrate that the Cairo Declaration’s Islamic law principles — antithetical to Western formulations of human rights — are embraced by the preponderance of the world’s Muslims. Fully two-thirds of a representative sample of 4,400 Muslims from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia desired the ultimate jihad conquest imperatives: to recreate a unified supranational Islamic state, or Caliphate, ruled by “strict application of Sharia.”

These quintessential goals of jihad were reiterated by the mass-murdering jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hasan as part of an erstwhile “medical grand rounds” given on June 27, 2007. Although Hasan merely reiterates salient aspects of classical jihad theory (see slides 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 49), this reality is understandably “shocking” to our willfully uninformed elites in the media, military, and government. Nidal Hasan’s presentation concludes, in full accord with classical Islamic doctrine regarding jihad war, (slide 49), “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please Allah, even by force is condoned by (sic) Islam.”

Unapologetic observations from 1950 by G.H. Bousquet, a great 20th-century “Islamist” scholar of the Sharia, contextualize these ominous trends. Bousquet described Islam itself as “as a doubly totalitarian system,” which “claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law … to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer.”