Ayatollah Mayzek loves Jochen Hartloff  for being a useful idiot:

The justice minister in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate has sparked outrage after proposing that Germany could permit Sharia courts, which operate according to Islamic law, to preside over some civil cases in the country.

A commenter nails it:

At some point, cultural understanding and cultural treason intersect. Jochen Hartloff is standing in the middle of this intersection and if he doesn’t get run over by freedom loving people, he will ultimately get run over my some Imam on the way to his Sharia court… which will then charge Hartloff for being a heathen who deserved to be run over for standing in the road in the first place.

In other news:

Parallel Museljustice , Sharia Courts in Germany

Muslim arbitration in Germany

Mediating disputes is an age-old tradition in the Arab world, which is also practiced in Germany. But experts warn of the danger of a parallel, Muslim judiciary.

Deutsche Welle

They do not wear black robes and most have not studied law at a university. Muslim arbitrators, also called justices of the peace, do not work in courts or law firms. Some are imams, who adhere to Sharia tradition. They act as a mediator in marriage and other family disputes. In an ideal world, they manage to de-escalate the situation and prevent further disputes.

Joachim Wagner, who has written a book on the topic called “Judges acting outside the law,” can see the positive aspect of that tradition, but his research has also yielded many negative examples.

Manipulating witnesses

Wagner sees the danger of a parallel judiciary

In an interview with DW, Wagner describes one of 16 cases he analyzes in his book. In that case, a man shoots another in the foot. Later, the victim’s brother takes revenge and shoots the perpertrator in the leg. Both cases go to court.

According to Wagner, Muslim mediators from Sweden and Germany are consulted, resulting in a watering-down of the original statements in the course of the lawsuit. The shooting in the foot is now seen more as accidental.

Wagner claims the case is a typical example of how statements change and lead to a wrong and unfair ruling. In the end, the German court handed down a sentence of nine months on probation – too lenient in Wagner’s opinion. If both the victims and the perpetrators had stuck to their original statements, the sentence would have most likely been harsher.

Question witnesses early

Wagner, who has a Ph.D. in law, came across many such cases while analyzing files and talking to police and defense attorneys. He noticed how readily the courts accept changes to original statements. The judiciary should therefore be stricter with witnesses, according to Wagner.

The German Bar Association is not worried about the issue

They should “give up their sluggish routine with regards to these mediation processes happening alongside criminal trials,” meaning that witnesses should be questioned by the judge much earlier, so that there is less time for manipulation of victims or perpetrators.

While Wagner is adamant about the dangers of what he calls a parallel Muslim judiciary, the German Bar Association is more relaxed about the issue.

“It’s not really something we get asked about a lot,” Spokesman Swen Walentowski said. “So, we suspect that people are making a mountain out of a molehill here.”

And, indeed, Wagner cannot back up his claims with reliable data. He did stress, however, that many witnesses, prosecutors, police and defense attorneys told him that what he described happened all the time. In fact one attorney told him that there was not a single trial that did not involve arbitration.

(source)

But of course, no illusions here. They follow the path of ‘gradualism’, you see. Ask Yusuf al Qaradawi, he’ll tell you all about it.

You can also look at the Islamically green pavements of Sarajevo: Green pavements deemed “provocation” to get an idea where Islam takes them.

thanks to Pamela for the tip.

Willie Climan’s war against the Christian Serbs continues to this day:

Remember this Clinton Moment Celebrating the al Qaeda Jihadists that massacred the Serbs with his help?

• See more photographs of the event

Mustafa Ceric, top dog of Bosnian Muselmaniacs, has launched a vicious smear campaign against his Serb counterpart, Republica Serbska President Milorad Dodik, declaring him a persona non grata and an “Islamophobe”.

“Turkey’s victory is our victory, as a Muslim country Bosnia cannot be considered separate from Turkey.”

BANJA LUKA — RS President Milorad Dodik says the leader of Bosnia’s Muslims, Mufti Mustafa Cerić, was “the main political figure among Bosniaks (Muslims)”.

The president of the Serb Republic (RS) deduced that this was “leading toward a creation of a Sharia state”.

“I have nothing against Bosniaks and Islam, I respect freedom of religion, but it is the desire of the Islamic Community in Bosnia-Herzegovina to direct political processes in the country that is completely unacceptable,” he said.

The president added that this community was attacking the RS and him personally, “to which I have a duty to react, as president and politician”.

This was Dodik’s response to announcements that came from the Islamic Community (IZ) in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that they would send a proposal to embassies of Islamic countries to declare him persona non-grata for his alleged activity to “spread Islamophobia”. 

“The IZ statement is a political pamphlet of the lowest kind. It’s proof that Mustafa Cerić is the leading political figure among Bosniaks, which is one step toward creating a Sharia state,” Dodik concluded.

More on Mustafa Ceric:

• “Governments must essentially buy the trust of Muslims…“
•  Mustafa Ceric is tied to the global Muslim Brotherhood
• Bosnia: Jihadist Leader Mustafa Ceric Calls For More Sharia …
• Moonbat Tony BLiar Promotes Islam in Beijing with Bosnian Grand …
• Mustafa Ceric —  Bosnian Muslims’ spiritual leader Reiss-ul-Ulema Mustafa Ceric has urged politicians not to comment on war crimes …..

Another terrorist Islamic scumbag, drug-runner, body-parts dealer is now PM of Kosovo: Hashim Thaci, former terrorist -current US-backed PM of Kosovo

The despicable Klintoons made it possible, that’s why the muselmaniacs built them monuments….

Gates of Vienna

Brainwashing the Schoolchildren of Toronto

The Islamists’ Enablers: The Western Sellout to Sharia Law (HNY)

There is no doubt that free speech, the bedrock of democracy and civilization, is under dangerous assault in many Western countries, by a variety of leading organizations and individuals who align themselves with Muslim institutions.

They all promote the fantasy of Muslim victimhood, and force the West to overprotect Muslims, to ignore their atrocities, and to surrender to their escalating demands.

Around the world, Muslims enforce non Muslims compliance and deliberate air-brushing of the extent and magnitude of the Islamic threat — from holy war, or Jihad, to the treatment of women under Islam. As approved by Sharia dictates, Muslims also try to forbid non-Muslims from speaking critically about Islam.

How do they accomplish this? They name anyone who engages in an honest examination of Islamic texts as a bigot, or full of hate, or call him an “Islamophobe.” Dissent brings trials for non-specific “hate-speech” crimes, as well as threats of riots, violence and boycotts. In many worst-case scenarios, Muslims kill non Muslims, as well as those brave Muslims who dare to defy mind-control and suppression.

Only a few days ago the courageous Lars Hedegaard was found guilty of so called “hate speech” for having made allegedly racist statements. Yet, Mr. Hedegaard has been telling the truth. He has been bringing to the public’s attention the appalling widespread Islamic ‘honor’ violence, in which family members are directed kill female relatives, reportedly to “restore family honor,” for “crimes” such as as being raped — often by a family member; the woman is always declared guilty, never the rapist — as well as for alleged adultery, even if there is no proof, but just “a feeling” the judges may have as in the recent case of Hena in Bangladesh. who was sentenced to 300 lashes, and during the lashings died.

* * *

During my thirty-two years of living in Syria, I have witnessed first hand countless acts of vicious violence and cruelty. As a practicing physician in Syria, I have seen and treated countless abused women who were severely beaten and raped with the tacit approval of Sharia and family “honor.”

Those victims I treated were of the same type of victims honor violence to which Mr. Hedegaard referred, and for which he is now being penalized by those who are supposed to be championing the same values we all hold dear in the West.

By suppressing the freedom to expose atrocities and cruelty against Muslim women, however, the West undermines their status as respected and valued citizens. Is this what government leaders seek to accomplish? Are Muslim women who suffer immensely under Sharia Law, including in the West, not worthy of government protection?

As a physician, I am alarmed at the coordinated effort by Islamists and their accomplices in the West to disrupt this basic right to freely express and expose what needs to be corrected.

The horrific attack on 9/11 has brought to light the recognition that no spot on Earth is immune to Islamism. My own personal stories — my opthamology teacher in medical school in Syria, for example, was shot and killed in front of us because he was teaching female students — apply to all of us.

As long as there are Muslims within our societies who promote Islamic Sharia Law and work tirelessly to apply it in our free societies, we need to be educated, vigilant and active in defending our liberties. It is one issue that all of us must be concerned about and strongly attentive to.

I am not here to incite anyone against Muslims. Please understand that Muslims are my people, and under any circumstances I wouldn’t be able to peel off my own skin and be anything else but a woman from a Muslim country and the Islamic culture. But I am here to unearth the true face of Islam as a hateful and intolerant ideology, including its treatment of women.

Osama Bin Laden is now dead and gone. But the harsh and intolerable Sharia Law he so faithfully practiced is alive and thriving. Bin Laden’s life and horrific actions are clear proof that Islamists are victims of an intolerable dogma that lures them away from their inherent common sense, and turns them into human beasts.

At a very early age, they are brainwashed to believe that Islam is bound to control the entire world, and that their mission on earth is to fight for the sake of this goal. For this, the end justifies the means — therefore humiliating, torturing or killing others is a divine mission.

Lara Logan, the CBS journalist who covered the recent Egyptian revolution broke the wall of silence on a program called “60 minutes,” by sharing the sexual violence that was inflicted on her as a female and a foreign journalist in the field. In her own words, she stated that the Egyptian mob who assaulted her “really enjoyed my pain and suffering. It incited them to more violence.”

For many Westerners this is a vivid view into the shocking treatment and continuous harassment of native women, as well as foreign women, in Egypt.

This practice persists due to Muslim inculcation of hostility to, and derision of, women. To add salt to wound, Muslims blame only the victim — for supposedly falling short of Islamic restrictions on dress and behavior and thereby “enticing” the men.

Unfortunately, in her interview, Logan submitted to the persisting political correctness, and was careful not to use the words “Muslim” or “Islam” with connection to the terrible sexual ordeal against her.

Let me share with you only few personal stories. These are tales which only affirm Lara Logan’s deplorable episode, and prove the pervasiveness of the abuse of women in the Muslim world.

My own niece was forced to marry her cousin when she was eleven and he was over forty. Her marriage was valid under Islamic Sharia because the prophet Muhammad married his second wife, Aisha when she was 6 years old and he was over fifty. My niece for many years was terribly abused and did not have the right to ask for a divorce.

She would escape from her husband’s house to her father’s, begging him; “Please let me stay here. I promise to be your maid to the last day of my life. He is so abusive; I can’t take this torture any more.” Her father would reply, “It’s shame for a woman to leave her husband’s home without his permission. Go back. I promise I will talk to him”

At the age of 28, my niece committed suicide by setting herself on fire; she left behind four children.

While working as a physician in Syria, I witnessed many crimes committed in my society in the name of Islam. Once, when I worked in a small village, a woman in her late thirties came to my office complaining of nausea, vomiting and back pain. An examination revealed that she was three months pregnant. As soon as I told her the news, she collapsed on the chair and began to scream, smacking her face, “I beg you doctor, I beg you to rescue me from the mess I’m in. My son will kill me. I don’t care about my life. I deserve to die, but I don’t want my son to dirty his hands with my blood.”

“What is wrong, Fatima?” I asked.

“My husband died five years ago and left me with four children. His brother rapes me every day in exchange for feeding my children. If he knew I was pregnant he would provoke my son, who is 15, into killing me rather than be exposed to public disgrace.”

I sent her to see a gynecologist. When she came back to see me about two weeks later, she looked gaunt, haggard and ill. “I came to thank you.” she said. “But they performed the operation to remove the fetus without an anesthetic. I didn’t have enough money to pay for the drugs to sedate me, so the doctor had to operate without them. The pain was unbearable. I nearly died”

As for my own story, my husband left for America a year ahead of me. When I submitted a request for passports for my children, the officer in charge refused to grant me one on the grounds that under the Islamic Sharia law I was not considered mentally fit to be the legal guardian of my children. He therefore asked me to bring a male from my husband’s family who would allow us to get my children’s passports.

No member of my husband’s family lived in our town except one of his cousins. He was an alcoholic, and because of his ill nature, my husband had never wanted to introduce him to me. To make a long story short, I went to his house and bribed him with fifty Syrian pounds which is equal to one dollar. As I left the immigration building, I couldn’t help thinking of the absurdity that we, women of the Muslim world are faced with: as a medical doctor, I wasn’t fit to be the legal guardian of my children, but a drunken man could control my entire destiny.

It is obvious that the teaching of my faith did not coincide with my basic rights, and for sure did not respect me as a professional woman. Under Islamic Sharia Law, for example, male Muslims are granted full control over their female relatives. A father can marry his daughter off at any age to any man of his choice without her consent.

Tragically, these accounts that I share with you, are not isolated stories by any means. They signify tragic stories of millions of other Muslim women all over the world, including here in Europe and in North America. On a daily bases, there are countless domestic abuses of Muslim women: rapes and honor killings which are frequently ignored by the so called “progressives,” who claim to be such big supporters of human rights..

Many in the establishment legally prosecute those brave people who dare to speak up and expose the dismal reality of violence against Muslim women, and the harsh reality of Sharia Law in general. Many people forbid our society from labeling the Islamic discrimination and maltreatment of women. Obviously, as we are presently witnessing, especially in Europe, the consequences for those who dare, are grave.

Accordingly, let me challenge those who are on the wrong side of history; how can a Muslim woman raise a fair-minded child when she is oppressed herself? Certainly, a male child who grows up watching his mother being treated with no respected, marginalized and abused, will almost inevitably have a distorted view that such behavior against women id permissible and normal; and be capable of the type of cruelty that was inflicted by the mob against Lara Logan. Is that not a dilemma which affects the West’s relationship with the Muslim world?

Sadly, Muslims and their enablers will keep defying those of us who dissent. We have a choice to make. We can continue to give in, or we can win people over by making it clear that our freedoms and our culture and our heritage will be protected — no matter what it takes.

In his show “Real Time” Bill Maher, an American comedian, stated last month: “Islam is the only religion that ‘kills you when you disagree with it. They claim: ‘Look, we are a religion of peace…and if you disagree we shall cut off your head.’” Maher predicts that “there are very few people who will call them on it.”

We are some of the very few who will call them on it. We are here with clarity and conviction to identify, to expose and, we hope, to marginalize the enemies of the free world. We are here to deter the destruction of our values by those who aspire to enslave us under the harsh and intolerable shackles of Sharia Law.

When a woman living under Islamic Sharia Law immigrates to a free Western country, it can become a complete transformative path, as happened to me. Now that I am free, I do not have to allow my rights to be abused by any religious or political authority. In the United States I am a person — equal to all others.

But how can we expect all other Muslim women in all parts of the free world to become emancipated when there are judicial institutions that help suppress their urge for freedom by punishing those who try to protect them, as happens to individuals like Lars Hedegaard, Geert Wilders, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Kurt Westergaard, Jesper Langballe, Ezra Levant, Rachel Ehrenfeld, Joe Kaufman and Mark Steyn among others? Too often, the West seems indifferent to its denigration by Islam. Times are difficult nowadays.

I, for one, do not take my rights for granted, and therefore I will continue to fight to protect these rights, not only for me but for all other Muslim women.

As citizens of the free world, we must have the moral aptitude to fight and protect our liberty by exposing the totalitarian abuse of Islam against women.

The enemy has both unwitting and malevolent allies. We are obliged to call on those who surrender to Islam’s oppressive doctrine, those who weaken all of us and unintentionally — or some deliberately — cause our decline.

We must realize that we are in a war. We must continue our unwavering resolve to serve as a buffer against the forces of evil. We cannot appease. We cannot compromise. We must recognize the enemies, and deter them at every pass.

We will not stifle our language. We will use the appropriate vocabulary to call things by their rightful name. We will continue to press for moral clarity, for open intellectual discourse with the precise definitions of our goals against their goals.

From now on, let us invoke the new terminology, “Truthphobes,” against those who call us “Islamophobes. “This is because their irrational fear of the truth is a detrimental factor for our survival as free people.

The bitter reality of Islam’s Sharia doctrine should not be ignored. Real victory can take place only in the spirit of genuine inquiry, transparency, and the fearless pursuit of truth. A culture that does not respect half of its population will never thrive and prosper.

Consequently, any attempt to make criticism of Islam forbidden and punishable by law is intolerable and will be strongly resisted by all people who love freedom.

When I was living in Syria, I cried often because I suffered. Now that I am free, I still cry, but for all other Muslim women over the world. I dream of a future when all Muslim women can savor a taste of my freedom. This is a dream that should be granted for all humanity and our job is to be unrelenting in pursuing that objective.

I challenge anyone responsible for the trial against Lars Hedegaard to reconsider the horrendous consequences of such preposterous allegations against him. Let us not revert to the Europe of the Middle Ages.

Let freedom of speech prevail.

Has anyone seen Tim McVeigh around lately? This must be his work. It couldn’t be the adherents of the Religion of Peace — that we know for sure.

“Bomb in a church in Central Java, Archbishop calls for calm,” by Mathias Hariyadi for Asia News, December 9 (thanks to JW): Yep, the infidels should remain calm. You don’t wanna cause a ‘backlash’ with the soldiers of Allah…..

“It is shameful that the US has renewed its ties with Kopassus when they continue to target churchmen and civilians merely for speaking out about the suffering of their people.”

“US-backed elite Indonesian forces target church members and civilians,” from Ekklesia, December 6 (thanks to JW:)

This should come as no surprise. Since Sharia is believed to be the law of Allah, if the state is not imposing it, individual Muslims may believe themselves to be perfectly within their rights, and indeed, doing a positive good, if they enforce it themselves. “Sharia vigilante violence rife in Aceh: report,” by Sen Lam for Radio Australia, December 6:

Indonesia: Stoning, caning now the law in Aceh - Jihad Watch

Muneer Awad’s opponents label him “a foreigner” trying to change Oklahoma’s laws.

Awad, 27, a recent University of Georgia law school graduate born in Michigan, says he’s standing up for the U.S. Constitution. “I’m trying to defend the First Amendment,” says Awad, director of Oklahoma’s chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

• No doubt Awad also defends the right of women to be stoned to death: Daily Mail

At issue is an amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution passed overwhelmingly on Election Day that bars judges from considering Islamic or international law in Oklahoma state courts. Awad sued, and last week a federal judge temporarily blocked the law from taking effect while she determines whether it violates the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits establishment of a state religion.

Although Oklahoma’s law is the first to come under court scrutiny, legislators in at least seven states, including Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah, have proposed similar laws, the National Conference of State Legislatures says. Tennessee and Louisiana have enacted versions of the law banning use of foreign law under certain circumstances.

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House, is pushing for a federal law that “clearly and unequivocally states that we’re not going to tolerate any imported law.”

Based on Quran

Islamic law or sharia, which means “path” in Arabic, is a code of conduct governing all aspects of Muslim life, including family relationships, business dealings and religious obligations. It is based on the Quran, or Muslim holy book, and the teachings of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Islamic countries operating under the guidance of sharia may have varying interpretations of the code.

Awad says the Oklahoma law would prohibit a judge from probating his will, written in compliance with Islamic principles, or adjudicating other domestic matters such as divorces and custody disputes involving Muslims.

Supporters of sharia bans, including Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, say Islamic law is creeping into U.S. courts.

Earlier this year, for example, an appeals court in New Jersey overturned a state court judge’s refusal to issue a restraining order against a Muslim man who forced his wife to engage in sexual intercourse. The judge found that the man did not intend to rape his wife because he believed his religion permitted him to have sex with her whenever he desired.

The case “presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts,” the appeals court wrote. “In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except (the husband) from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.”

Gaffney’s think tank recently published a book that argues jihadists who want worldwide Islamic rule try to establish sharia courts to weaken democracies. “I think you’re seeing people coalesce around legislation of the kind that was passed in Oklahoma,” Gaffney says.

South Carolina legislators proposed a resolution in April that says state courts “shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider Sharia Law” or other international laws.

In Utah, Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Republican from Salt Lake County, withdrew his bill to ban foreign law after he learned that it could harm banking and international businesses. “My bill was just too broad,” he says.

Wimmer says he’s concerned about “increasing amount of judges who continue to look to foreign law and foreign courts to make their decisions.”

“It’s not an issue in Utah,” he says, “but I wanted to make sure it doesn’t become an issue in Utah.”

‘Just fear mongering’

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, sees the laws as an indication of growing anti-Muslim sentiment. “I’ve never seen it like this, even after 9/11,” Hooper says. “In another time, this would be laughed out of the Oklahoma Legislature.”

Islamic principles are interpreted differently in different parts of the world, Hooper says. “We have not found any conflict between what a Muslim needs to do to practice their faith and the Constitution or any other American laws,” Hooper says. “We are, in fact, relying on the Constitution as our last line of defense.”

Americans have no reason to fear sharia law in America, says Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which advocates for religious freedom.

However, Lynn says he expects to see more attempts to ban sharia law regardless of the outcome in Oklahoma.

“It’s just fear mongering tinged with anti-Islamic sentiment,” he says.

Oklahoma’s attorney general will ask an appeals court to lift the injunction and allow the law to take effect.

Constitutional expert Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at University of California-Irvine, says the Oklahoma law won’t stand because it discriminates against one religion and violates the requirement for “full faith and credit,” which requires Oklahoma courts to enforce judgments from other states and countries.

“There is no blossoming of sharia law in Oklahoma,” says Randall Coyne, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. “There’s no risk of Oklahoma falling under the sway of sharia law or any other law other than American law for that matter. It’s fear mongering at its worst.”

Charter opens door to Sharia law recognition

THE issue of Sharia law and human rights is rippling around the world.

Peter Faris/The Australian

In the US state of Oklahoma, voters recently approved a proposal that forbids state courts from considering or using international laws, as well as Sharia, or Islamic law.

A US federal judge has suspended the certification of that change to the law because it might breach the constitutional rights of individual Muslims.

In Victoria, the Charter of Human Rights actually permits the use of international laws and judgments in applying the charter.

Section 14 of that charter provides for freedom of religion. The issue then arises, does this mean that Muslims are entitled to have Shariah law applied to them in the Victorian courts?

Obviously, Islam is a religion. Less obvious, but more important is that, unlike Christianity, Islam is a complete religion governing every aspect of the believer’s life, including law.

Shariah law is actually an integral part of the Islamic religious belief and, under the charter, must be protected and applied. Section 32(2) of the charter throws more light on the issue.

That subsection states: “International law and the judgments of domestic, foreign and international courts and tribunals relevant to a human right may be considered in interpreting a statutory provision.”

It is important to understand that there are “courts and tribunals” applying Shariah law to the 1.6 billion Muslims in the Muslim world.

In addition to that, the Islamic world has its own Human Rights Covenants — the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, 1990, which is intended to “serve as a general guidance for member states in the field of human rights”.

In the Cairo Declaration, it is made clear that all human rights derive from the Koran.

For example: “There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shariah” (Article 19(d)); “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this declaration are subject to the Islamic Shariah” (Article 24); and “The Islamic Shariah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration” (Article 25).

These human rights must be fully respected. Australian Muslims deserve no less.

Decisions on Islamic human rights must be relevant in deciding whether Shariah law is applicable in Victoria.

Quite obviously, those Islamic decisions powerfully state that Shariah law must be applied. The Victorian courts must consider these decisions under the charter, thus it makes it very likely that, at some stage in the future, Shariah law will be applied.

Further, there is precedent in Victoria through courts that are for the exclusive use of a minority group, in this instance Aborigines (known in Victoria as Kooris).

As a matter of principle, there is no difference between special courts that are racially defined (Koori courts) to those which are religiously defined (Shariah courts).

In fact, the Muslims have a much stronger case because their devoutly held beliefs actually include a legal system (Shariah).

It is this sort of process that the Oklahoma citizens voted against. In Victoria it is too late.

Peter Faris, QC, is a Melbourne barrister and media commentator

Related Links:

Rumor causes Muslim teenager to “punish” his younger sister with a belt  for flirting with boys at school

As the oldest male in the family, he had a duty to discipline her. Court heard the teen, who cannot be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, became angry over rumours about his sister and on Sept. 27, 2008, he struck her seven to eight times on the right arm and leg with his belt.

But not to worry, he will not get a conviction because he “pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon and says he wants to become a police officer.” (National Post) Update below the fold>>>

New Zealand court  rules by sharia: formally recognizes the legal status of Paki  guardianship:

In a landmark ruling the High Court has formally recognised Pakistan’s Islamic law, and allowed an 18-month-old boy to come to New Zealand.  The judgment by Justice Christopher Allan in the case of “MH” – as the child is now known – is the first by a New Zealand court to formally recognise the legal status of Pakistani guardianship.

Two days after he was born in Karachi, MH’s birth parents gave him to their close friends, Pakistan-born New Zealand citizens Iqbal Sharif and Sara Sami.  The Pakistan Family Court has issued a certificate of guardianship, formally recognising the donation.

Immigration New Zealand refused MH a visa, saying that what had occurred in Pakistan was not adoption as it was understood in New Zealand law. (No adoption in Islam since Muhammad screwed the wife of his adopted son)

But Pakistan does not recognise adoption.

In a closely argued ruling, Justice Allan considered Islamic law (Sharia) and ruled in favour of the adopted parents. (Hundreds, if not thousands more will follow/ed) (National)

Oklahoma Says No to Sharia

As Americans learn more about Islam, the aspect they find most objectionable is not its theology (such as whether Allah is God or not) nor its symbolism (such as an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan) but its law code, called the Sharia. Rightly, they say no to a code that privileges Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, and contains many elements inimical to modern life. (More from Daniel Pipes)

My sharia amore:

• UN censures Iran for human rights abuses, Iran’s “top human rights official” defends stoning

Makram M., a Swedish national of Tunisian origin, became the first “Swedish” suicide bomber in Iraq

The man, of Tunisian background, lived in Sweden and was married to a Swedish woman.

His Proud Wife & Mother of his Children sez: “What he has done is right. I’m proud of him.”

An Extremist Sharia Makeover

For the past month-and-a-half, the Islamic Society of Milwaukee (ISM) has been sponsoring a program attempting to whitewash the effect that Sharia law, if implemented, would have on American society. Teaching the courses was Zulfiqar Ali Shah, an individual tied to various radical Muslim groups, including a Hamas charity. Does the ISM really believe that a known extremist can put a good face on Sharia, and what does this say about those who advocate for Sharia?  (Joe Kaufman)

Afghanistan: Convert from Islam to Christianity arrested, tortured, faces trial for apostasy

But wait! I thought all the learned analysts had assured us that there is no death penalty for apostasy in Islam! Isn’t that right, Dr. Bassiouni? Mr. Kruse? Ms. Heagney?

Afghanistan’s U.S.-backed government has done this before. Remember Abdul Rahman?

“Mossa’s day in court,” by Mindy Belz in World Magazine, November 13 (thanks to JW)

Absolute insanity. Not one of our soldiers should have to die to establish “Democracy Under Sharia” – Mission Impossible  in a corrupt and hopeless land such as Afghanistan.

Pakistan: Christian woman sentenced to death for “blasphemy” (not to worry, the pope is onto it. If he cannot save her, who will?

The family of a Pakistani Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy is appealing the verdict with the Lahore High Court. Asia Bibi, a mother of two and field hand, was sentenced to death for allegedly making slanderous remarks about the Prophet Muhammad. (JW)

Update: “The campaign to confront the country’s blasphemy laws…is hampered by the danger of being accused of undermining Islam” (JW)

Religion of gun-fighting clerics

QUETTA, Pakistan — A shootout inside a mosque in southwestern Pakistan wounded 18 people Wednesday in a dispute over who should lead prayers for one of Islam’s most important holidays, police said. (Canadian Press)

Don’t judge this too harshly. After all, don’t we hear about shootouts in churches all the time, over who has to clean up after the potluck supper, or who gets to be head of the parish council? Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes, It’s Really A Religion of Peace Update: “Pakistan mosque shootout leaves 18 injured,” from the Associated Press, November 17:

A shootout in a mosque in south-western Pakistan, caused by a dispute over who should lead prayers on one of Islam’s most important holidays, has left 18 people injured, police said today.Followers of the two rival religious leaders pulled out weapons and began shooting after arguing over which one should start Eid al-Adha prayers at a small mosque in the Khuzdar district of Baluchistan province, Javed Ahmed, a police official, said….

And given the ever-present journalistic imperative to whitewash Islam, AP hastens to assure us that this is not the norm in a paragraph that would never find a counterpart in a story about a pedophile priest or money-grubbing evangelist:

Millions of people throughout Pakistan have been peacefully celebrating Eid al-Adha….

Oh, well, then!

Turkish Muslims Steal Sheep for Eid ‘Sacrifice’… (TROP)

Preempting sharia gives the soldiers of Allah and their useful idiots hissy fits:

Ban of Islamic Law in Oklahoma Renders a Quick Lawsuit

Opponents of the law see gaping constitutional problems with it. A lawsuit was filed Thursday in Oklahoma City federal court challenging the legality of the measure. Click here for the complaint, filed by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); here for the news release on CAIR’s plans.

The plaintiff, CAIR executive director Muneer Awad, said the law violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adding that it targets a particular religion. “Disfavoring Islam, or any religion, is a violation of the First Amendment,” Awad said. “Second, it renders all international treaties invalid in our courts.” (Wall Street Journal)

In wake of Oklahoma anti-Sharia vote, Muslims having a hard time getting their story straight

Asma Uddin argues here that the idea of Sharia coming to Oklahoma is absurd on its face, and so no anti-Sharia law is needed. But if that is true, then why is Hamas-linked CAIR bothering to go to the trouble and expense of suing to block the law? After all, a law against a non-existent threat may be silly, but if there is no need for the law in the first place, there is no need to sue to overturn it.

Also, note that Uddin speaks as if Oklahoma had outlawed Sharia as a matter of voluntary private arbitration. That is actually off the point, since the use of Sharia provisions in private arbitration doesn’t constitute the use of a law other than American law to legislate for Americans, which is what the Oklahoma anti-Sharia measure is all about.

“Caliphate on the Range? The Shariah Precedent in American Courts,” by Asma Uddin in the Huffington Post, November 6, via JW:

In wake of anti-Sharia vote, Muslims in Oklahoma claim victim status

“The bottom line: Muslims increasingly feel unwelcome, unwanted and viewed by their neighbors as un-American.” Well, there would be one easy way to take care of that problem: support the anti-Sharia initiative. They say that it’s fantastical that anyone would think that they have any plans to impose Sharia anyway, so why not declare open and wholehearted allegiance to the principles of the U.S. Constitution that are in contradiction to Sharia, such as the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights of all people before the law — instead of yet again claiming victim status?

“Oklahoma Muslims Unsure of Status After Shariah Referendum,” by Omar Sacibey for Religion News Service, November 4, via JW

Dumbles comments:

The Muslim reaction indicates that sharia is Islam and Islam is sharia.

“There are an estimated 30,000 Muslims in Oklahoma, which has 3.7 million residents.
“They describe themselves as well-educated, prosperous and attracted to Oklahoma’s **friendliness, slow pace of life and safety** {my emphasis – dda}.”

‘attracted to Oklahoma’s friendliness, slow pace of life, and safety’.

IN other words: the Muslims who went to Oklahoma did so because they thought Oklahoma would be a pushover. They mistook civility for weakness and cowardice and gullibility.

They thought wrong.