Who is Sheik yer’mami?

Shem, Winds of Jihad Vice President and resident cartoonist, is presently in charge of editing and moderating this blog. Thank you all for news-feeds and contributions and your support. Sheik yer’mami will be saddling the camels and head off on a short expedition to the Middle East. I will keep you posted…
*

Yes: We know this page is outdated and needs to be reconstructed! Bear with us: in the meantime please go to our educational site:

* Robert Spencer:

If you speak honestly and accurately about the Islamic jihad doctrine and the Islamic supremacist agenda, and even confine your case entirely to quotes from authoritative Islamic sources and spokesmen, you will still be accused of “hating Muslims.” This is the constant refrain of apologists for jihad and their useful idiots in the West — and they constantly have recourse to it because they know that it is effective: it turns the Left and much of the squishy Right away from the message of the “hater,” regardless of how outlandish and unjust the charge is.

Myself, I don’t hate Muslims. I love Muslims. Telling the truth is not an act of hate. I am not “Islamophobic,” I am Islamorealistic. I tell the truth about Islam and work to defend Western civilization and society from the encroachments of a legal and societal system that oppresses Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Or visit our Islam site: here

For the Nutroots:

Multicultural Europe and its suicide

Finsbury Park Mosque, London 2002

Are you willing to defend your freedom?

*  Fight against sharia: “Sharia is Hate”

Unlike refugees from Nazism, or Communism, who hated Nazis and hated Communists, and wanted only to escape from them and, in many cases, to actively work against them, the so-called “refugees” or simply immigrants from Muslim lands bring with them, in their mental baggage, Islam itself. They do not realize that it is Islam, with its inshallah-fatalism and natural support for depotism as opposed to advanced Western democracy (for the belief-system locates legitimacy not in the expressed will of the people, but in the will expressed by Allah in the Qur’an, as glossed by Hadith and Sira). They carry the belief-system with them, and what is more, attempt – not without success — to spread it about, to make sure that the numbers of adherents of Islam grow and grow and grow. It is this Da’wa, and demographic conquest that is the result of fantastic, utterly unchecked Muslim migration, and the great disparity in birth-rates between Muslims (who often smuggle in plural wives, supported by Infidel taxpayers in their generous welfare payments), and the indigenous non-Muslims, that has, for example, caused the 15,000 Muslims in Holland in 1970 to become 1 million, or 5-7 million Muslims now to burden the educational and justice systems, and the welfare benefits, and the laic state, and social peace, in France, and England, and Germany, and everywhere that Muslims in large numbers have been permitted to settle — which has led, no clear-sighted Infidel can deny, to a situation far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous — and becoming more unpleasant, more expensive, more physically dangerous every day — for the indigenous Infidels.
This must stop. This suicidal policy cannot continue.

Guessing the religion of those who plant bombs, hi-jack planes, fire into crowds of civilians, take hostages and murder hostages is the world’s ultimate no-brainer. And yet our leaders, the media and many of us pretend there’s no connection between psychopathic killers and the religion which exalts the slaughter of unbelievers. Islam remains what it was at its beginning, a violent, expansionist faith that will tolerate no competitors. What other religion has the concept of jihad, the notion that if you die fighting for allah you get 72 virgins in paradise? Mohammed started by eliminating the competition, annihilating Jewish tribes in the Arabian Peninsula. More than a 1000 yrs later, it’s still business as usual for his successors. Is islam a religion of peace? Is there an Easter bunny? Can pigs fly? Calling for a war on terror is like trying to stop the bullets instead of stopping the people who are doing the shooting, decades of terror and they still dont get it. Any religious creed that promotes terrorism as a method for the conversion of infidels deserves only contempt and needs to be mocked, crushed, and expelled from the lands it has silently infiltrated. The war is, and needs to be identified without question, against islam and their numbers and attitude warrant exceptional attention…

Hugh Fitzgerald

*
So-called dialogue with the Islamic world and relativism regarding marriage, the dignity of women, and sexual equality in the name of multiculturalism is destroying European identity and doing away with womens rights.

Thursday, March 08, 2007
By Samir Khalil Samir

The ideology of multiculturalism, i.e. blind tolerance toward any culture and tradition, is destroying European identity and is above all doing away with human rights and, more specifically, women’s rights. A prime example is the increasing tolerance in European countries toward polygamy.

In theory, polygamy is prohibited in Italy and in Europe. But it increasingly happens, in the name of multiculturalism, that Muslim immigrants are registered as polygamists in the European continent: if a man is Muslim and married in his country of origin with 4 wives, we cannot but accept this as a given. All this goes against European laws and constitutions – which affirm monogamous families – but, in the name of a misplaced respect for cultures, any solution is deemed acceptable.

Tolerance for polygamy?

In Italy, some constitutionalists are suggesting, for the sake of letting people have it both ways, that only one wife be recognized as such, while the others are considered concubines: this would settle the situation of various Muslims who already have a wife in their country of origin and take another in Italy. Others think that a distinction could be made between civil marriage (at City Hall, with just one wife) and religious marriage in a mosque, where polygamous marriages could be celebrated. Naturally, to do this, they are proposing that the articles of Italian civil law, which affirm monogamy and the equality of men and women, not be read. A similar trend is spreading in Greece. In certain areas where Muslims are the majority, the government has accepted the principle that they manage themselves with their own norms. And so, in Athens, polygamy is prohibited, but in Muslim-majority areas, it is allowed, again in the name of cultural respect.

Multiculturalism is doing a lot of damage. Firstly to common sense: if a man is married in Senegal with a woman and in Italy with another, this cannot be defined as monogamy. A crime remains such whether it is committed in Italy or abroad. Such tricks are actually a way to suggest loopholes for polygamy. Thus, if an Italian wants to have more than just one wife, all he needs to do is to convert to Islam!

But multiculturalism is above all damaging to the dignity of women. Polygamy in Italy is prohibited in that it is contrary to the principle of equality between men and women. It would be useful to Islam too to affirm this principle. In Islamic society, in fact, women cannot be polygamous (only men have that “right”). The same is true for repudiation, which is permitted to a man, but not to a woman who, however, can ask her husband the favour of repudiating her. Affirming monogamy is thus the way forward on the path for an overall effort in favour of women’s rights.

The Imam of Vénissieux and women

To understand the humiliation in which women live in the Islamic world, I would like to recall a fact that sparked much debate in France. Last February 20th, the courts definitively rejected an appeal made by Imam Abdelkader Bouziane. An Algerian-national, Sheikh Abdelkader, imam of the mosque of Vénissieux, near Lyon, a polygamist and father of 16 (sixteen) children (14 of which French citizens) had been living in France since 1980.

He had been ordered on February 26, 2004, to leave the country by Interior Minister Sarkozy, for his inflammatory speeches and for incitement to hatred, but the ordinance was not enforced. On April 20, following an interview in the “Lyon Mag” newspaper, he was again served an expulsion order for his statements against women, in particular for having said that “the Koran authorizes a Muslim, in certain cases, to beat his wife,” that women must subjugated themselves to their husband and were not equal to men.

On April 23rd, the administrative tribunal of Lyon suspended the expulsion ordinance and rejected the Interior Ministry’s request. The imam went back to France in May 22. On October 5, 2004, the State Council cancelled the expulsion suspension, and the next day the iman was again expelled to Orano in Algeria. On June 21, 2005, the Lyon court declared him once again free, but on October 14, he was convicted in absentia. The imam filed an appeal, but on February 6, 2007, the courts definitively rejected his case.

The “Régards de femmes” Association of Lyon, which had sued the imam, declared: “The right to dignity, to respect, to the integrity of her body belongs to every woman in France. It will not be possible from now on to legitimize violence against women on the pretence of religion.”

The Imam’s interview

here are a few extracts of the (famous) interview with Sheikh Abdelkader on the male-female relationship.

In your opinion, are women equal to men?

No. For example, women do not have the right to work alongside men, as they [women] could be tempted by adultery.

Must women necessarily be subjugated to men?

Yes, because the head of the family is always a man. But he must be fair to his wife: he must not beat her for no reason, nor consider her a slave.

Is this why you are favourable to polygamy?

Yes, a Muslim can have more than one wife. But not more than four! Plus, there are conditions.

But why can women not have more than one husband?

Because no one would know who fathered the children!

Are you in favour of the stoning [1] of women?

Yes, because beating one’s wife is allowed by the Koran, but under certain conditions, in particular if she betrays her husband. Please note however: the man does not have the right to beat her everywhere: not on the face, but in the lower parts, her legs, her stomach, her bottom. He can beat her vigorously so as to induce fear, so that she does not start again!

The Koran: wife beating is allowed

Various readers were up in arms, but in the end the imam defended himself saying that this is the Koran. And he’s right. If we open the Koran at Sura 4, verse 34, we can read:

“Men have authority over women due to the preference that Allah concedes to them over the other and because they spend their property [for women]; Good women are therefore obedient, guarding under secrecy that which Allah has preserved [sex]. [2] ; As for those on whose part you fear insubordination, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do nothing further against them; Allah is high and great.”

Last week on Al Jazeera, I heard another imam explain the four conditions for beating a wife: not on her face; without drawing blood; without breaking bones; not in the presence of children. If all this is insufficient, one must resort to extreme punishment, i.e. the man deprives his wife of sexual relations.

The Koran is also explicit on the question of the superiority of men to women; according to the Koran, Charter 2 (The Cow), Verse 228:

“Divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have priority to take them back during this time if they wish for reconciliation; and they [women] have rights equivalent to their duties, on the basis of good custom, but the men are superior. Allah is Mighty, Wise.”

The Italian edition published by the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy (UCOII) includes a long footnote (absent on the on-line version) on the phrase “but men are superior”:

“In a pitiful effort to standardize Islam to Western culture, certain modernist commentators have written that superiority has only to do with the right of men to repudiate their wife, a faculty which is not reciprocal. In reality, it is a much more important and fundamental matter for the maintaining of balance at the individual, family and social levels.

“Man and Woman are two complementary realities that exist unto each other. If this were not so, Allah (glory be to Him the Most High) would not have formed Eve from Adam’s rib, he would have furnished each gender with complete reproductive organs, etc., etc.

“The physical structure of men is capable of great exertion and significant exploits, that of women, of steady labour and great endurance of pain.

“Male sensitivity is entirely exterior, projected outside the realm of family and tends to become public and political. That of women is interior, careful of oneself, aimed at the protection of that which has been acquired and to the acquisition of simple means of sustenance and security.

“Male psychology is imaginative, creative, experimental, risk-loving, desirous of novelty, of affirming the Self, usually ample and superficial. That of women is concrete, traditional, risk-hating, desirous of certainty, of conserving what is “mine”, usually profound and limited.

“In the realm of family, the respect of the Laws of Allah and of the Sunna of the Messenger can create situations that require an affirmation of power that mortifies the complementarity of spouses. But apart from complementarity, there is the problem of leadership, in the family and in society, which does not mean predomination, oppression or the lack of recognition of female predominance in a number of sectors and circumstances. Allah (Glory be to Him, the Most High) assigns this management role to the male. It is an onerous and difficult task that men would often willingly do without, and for which he must respond before Allah.”

This apologetic comment, written by an Italian converted to Islam, mirrors the opinion of traditionalistic ulemas, avoiding their excesses. It assigns specific tasks to men and to women, tasks which are unchangeable because determined by God, which claim to correspond to the nature of one and the other. It is obvious that such a distribution of roles, established by God for eternity and valid for all times and cultures, is hardly compatible with Western mentality and is often incompatible with the laws and constitutions of Europe.

Conclusion

Is it possible to accept this teaching in the name of the respect for cultures and religious tolerance? This is the serious question faced by all Western countries.

I don’t know if the flag-wavers of multiculturalism realize how much human damage they cause. Actually, it is increasingly clear that so-called multicultural tolerance is only acquiescence to a subtle form of racism. In the name of cultural difference, in fact, everything is left to proceed on parallel tracks, without envisaging any progress, integration or betterment in the name of human dignity.

It is time for Europe to understand that religious law cannot prevail over civil law and that, above every form of tolerance, there is a country’s constitution. If this does not happen, Islam will be given carte blanche to colonize our customs.

NOTE :

1) The imam, who had lived in France for 24 years, did not understand the word “stoning”, which he understood to mean “beating”. Hence, his reply.

2) In UCOII’s translation, generally attributed to Hamza Piccardo (Imperia, 1994), the following note can be read “This is the ideal of the believing woman: ‘patient and modest.’ Says the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “The best of women is she who rejoices at your gaze, obeys you, guards her person and the property of the husband in his absence.”

Was Muhammad a Sex Maniac?

From the Hadith:

Muslim (8:3309) – Muhammad married Aisha at the age of nine.

Bukhari (62:18) – Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, wasn’t on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.

Muslim (8:3311) – The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad’s house (something to play with when the “prophet” was not having sex with her).

Bukhari (6:298) – Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her.

Muslim (8:3460) – “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she could sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?” Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an “older woman” instead.

Bukhari (4:232) – Muhammad’s wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it’s a wonder he found the time to slay pagans.

Bukhari (6:300) – Muhammad’s wives had to be available for the prophet’s fondling even when they were having their menstrual period.

Bukhari (62:6) – “The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.” Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally – and it isn’t hard to guess why.

Bukhari (5:268) – “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, ‘Had the Prophet the strength for it?’ Anas replied, ‘We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.’ ”

So let me summarize:

Even if we accept a 54 year old man marrying a child, raping captured (non-believing) woman what does that make him?

Even we accept the unacceptable, what do you call a guy who rapes captured women and sells them into slavery?

Even if we accapt all that, what do you call a guy who has sex with 14 women in one night?

Here’s more:

The Sex Life of the Prophet

Some of many jihad verses:

Qur’an:2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you , though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”

*
Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

*
Qur’an:8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

*
Bukhari:V4B52N44 “A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed.’”

*
Bukhari:V1B2N25 “Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah’s Cause.’”

Arguing, debating with Muslims:

They will say:

1. He’s taking verses out of context
2. He’s an Islamophobe/racist/bigot
3. He doesn’t know Arabic, and you can’t understand the Qur’an unless it’s in Arabic
4. He’s not an expert on Islam/he has no credentials
5. The Qur’an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand
6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?
7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?
8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims
9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics
10. He’s lying
11. If you prove him wrong from Qur’an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed
12. He has been refuted hundreds of times, and thoroughly discredited

Muslims are hopeless. They can’t debate because Islam doesn’t make sense. They are victims of a senseless indoctrination program that devours them and their perceived enemies. More

Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Not!

The day after 9/11, President George W. Bush made the absurd statement that Islam is a religion of peace.  Ponder the findings of a monumental study of the Islamic Trilogy, the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sira published in 2007.  The study was made by Bill Warner, director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam:

1. Of more than 153,000 words in the Koran, only 4,018 or 2.6 percent seem to express goodness to humanity, qualified, however, by obedience to Muhammad.
2. The words of Allah are only about 17 percent of the Islamic Trilogy, but the words and actions of Muhammad comprise 83 percent of the Trilogy.
3. About 20 percent of the most authoritative school of the Hadith is about jihad.
4. At least 75 percent of the Sira is about jihad.
5. There are 146 references to hell in the Quran, only 6 percent of which concern moral failings such as murder and theft.  The other 94 percent of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Muhammad, a political crime.

Warner concludes:  there is no benevolence toward good nonbelievers in Islam. Moreover, and, contrary to what Obama said in Cairo, there is no golden rule in Islam that restricts what Muslims may do to non-Muslims. This places a big question on Islamic monotheism

Open Season on British Women (The Opinionator)
Now that Europe has imported a 7th century values system and given it top priority, the continent’s women will need to remember to cover up.

Debating Islam (Answering Muslims)
A four-part video series of a debate between David Wood and Sami Zaatari. The subject is “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” (As usual, Sami’s job is to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with what is done in the name of Islam each and everyday).

Poll: Muslim Support for Terrorism Declines (Pew Research)
Muslims are less likely to support terrorism when THEY are the targets of such attacks. Thanks to recent al-Qaeda sprees in Islamic countries, bin Laden is barely pulling 50% approval ratings. Religion of Peace, indeed!

Child Rape and the Religion of Peace (CNN)
(Video) Parents express shock that their child is raped after being “married off,” but then tell the girl that she belongs to her husband.

Sex in the Islamic City (FrontPage Magazine)
An ex-Muslim explains why Muhammad’s religion has been so successful in motivating young Muslim men to become “martyrs.”

We are Losing Europe to Islam (TownHall.com)
As a side note – If Europe goes Muslim, then where will the Muslims who have “fled” there have to flee next?

Our “Ally” Islamabad (The Australian)
One of America’s best buddies is in the process of becoming the world’s first nuclear-armed Sharia state.

Jihad for Love (FrontPage Magazine)
A new film exposes the very real persecution of homosexuals under Islam that goes far beyond mere disapproval.

‘She Doesn’t Want to be Called an Uncircumcised Girl’ (LiveLeak)
Video of female genital mutilation. Seriously, does this look natural?

Britain Adopts Sharia (Chronicles Magazine)
A must-read piece from Srdja Trifkovic.

When Someone Says You Shouldn’t Watch Something. . . (JSOnline)
. . . react accordingly. In this case, the film in question is the excellent documentary, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West.

The al-Aqsa Myth (Europe News)
Just one more example of Islam’s attempt to borrow legitimacy from someone else’s religion.

(Joke) India vs. Pakistan at the UN (The Kashmir)
A bit of inside humor regarding the “disputed” region to which Pakistan lays claim.

Female Genital Mutilation in Eritrea (BBC)
Muslims in some parts of the world are beginning to realize that Allah wouldn’t have made the clitoris in the first place if he meant for it to be cut off. Women elsewhere. . . not so lucky.

Jordan’s Outreach to Hamas (JCPA)
The bonds of Islam are simply too strong to let a little thing like terrorism spoil relationships.

Gave Peace a Chance (Jerusalem Post)
A Peace Now activist in Israel reluctantly admits that his country has no peace partner in the Middle East.

No Longer One Law for All (Spectator)
“Sharia law is not compatible with English law or the principles of equality and human rights that it embodies.”

Fear and Fiction (FrontPage Magazine)
The story behind the story that was deemed too hot to handle.

Losing My Religion – Continued (Islam Watch)
The second piece to the story of a Muslim who decided that believing for the sake of believing wasn’t making much sense anymore.

From Magna Carta to Sharia: Britain’s Decline (Brussels Journal)
Labour has worked hard to give the cancer a foothold.

Islam and the Barbary Pirates (Islam in Action)
How did the Tripoli ambassador justifiy the plundering of ships and the enslaving of innocent people to Thomas Jefferson? Let’s just say the man knew his Qur’an.

Fleeing Malaysia (Islamist Monitor)
Only a few short years ago, the young country of Malaysia was held up as proof that a Muslim majority didn’t necessarily mean discrimination against other religions. Wonder what it means now?

Street Warfare in Denmark (The Opinionator)
More Islam – less peace.

Wildcatting for Allah (Max Flack)
Somalis in Colorado demand special privileges for themselves, but how do they treat other religions back home?

Islam at Face Value (Europe News)
A lot of insight into Islam can be gained from the first few verses of the Qur’an. Unfortunately, little of it is good.

The Hatred within Britain (The Telegraph)
These investigators were shocked to find that hatred exists within British mosques. Other than that, there’s nothing humorous in this article.

Honor Killings in Islam (FSM)
“What kind of an ideology causes a man to show no remorse for murdering his own daughter, but then rant and rave at being served ham sandwiches while in prison?”

Fighting for the Right to Incite Murder (Pajamas Media)
The Muslim Student Union is fighting hard to keep hate alive.

The Islamic Suicide Bomber

Dead Mumbai Headbanger

Imagine Dodger Stadium full of loud and whooping fans cheering on, not baseball, but your weekly stoning and flogging of adulterers, thieves and other errant citizens of southern California.

This is America under Islamic law, or Shari’a, a system that everyone should fear. Or so, Alan Kornman, director of the United American Committee (UAC) thinks. He continues to fundraise for a freeway billboard in Florida stating, “Shari’a Is Hate,” to educate America before it’s too late.

As Kornman argues, “under Shari’a law if you are accused of stealing, a hand and foot from opposite sides are amputated. If you are caught having an affair, the woman is stoned to death and the man is given 80 lashes. If you change religions, you can be charged under apostasy laws and given the death sentence by a legal Sharia court.”

The implementation of Shari’a is much more subtle than the quotation from Kornman suggests, however.

Through Shari’a, Islamists govern the private lives of individuals as well as regulate the social, political, and economic aspects of society. Islamism crosses national borders, with the final goal of asserting the Muslim ummah globally, with all non-Muslims as second class citizens. It is a totalitarian ideology, and Islamists do want to make Europe and the US Islamist states.

Don’t wait for floggings in your local neighborhood. Consider the following incidences:

1. Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing fares where would-be passengers are carrying alcohol because it is a sin to drink in Islam:

This first example exemplifies the lack of tolerance Islamists have for non-Muslims. It is one thing to believe drinking is a sin; it’s quite another to enforce your opinion on others. Muslims aren’t alone in this belief. Consider Mormons, who don’t drink coffee because of the caffeine. The problem is the belief that you have the right to impose your opinion on people of a different faith, or no faith at all.

The Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC), possibly fearing charges of discrimination, tried to compromise and approached Kahlid Elmasry of the Muslim American Society, who sided with the cabbies: “it is expressly stated transportation of alcohol for Muslims is against the Islamic faith, and therefore forbidden.”

But this is not an Islamic country. The Constitution governs us, not Shari’a. Therefore, Elmasry’s defense of the cabbies’ position reinforced their notion that Islamic law trumps American secular law.  In a later lawsuit, the cabbies lost and intend to appeal.

2. Niqabi fails to reveal face for ID purposes.

The second example concerns Muslim women and modesty. While there is no specific definition of what modesty entails in the Quran, Islamists increasingly demand the niqab, which covers a woman’s body, hair, and her face. Islamists refuse to concede that the niqab is not a requirement of Islam, but greatly debated among Muslims. Yet, when Americans raise security concerns, Islamists call them racist.

Consider, Sultana Freeman, a niqabi in Florida. She refused to remove her veil for picture identification purposes at the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) citing modesty. In reality, she mocks any reasonable person’s definition of modesty since ID pictures have nothing to do with attraction and sexuality, completely ignoring Florida’s right to identify its citizenry for the sake of public safety.  Such blind adherence to Shari’a rather than the laws of the state exemplifies the disdain Islamists have for non-Muslims wherever they may live as well as common sense.

3. Polygamy in America

United States are obligated to perform their duties within the limits of American secular law. Yet, some Imams, like Siraj Wahhaj, prefer to ignore American law where it conflicts with Islamic law. Wahhaj stated in Paul Barrett’s 2007 book American Islam* that, “If a man can have a hundred girlfriends, and it’s legal, I don’t say you can’t have more than one wife.”

Rather than explain what is wrong with men having multiple relationships, Wahhaj greenlights it under the guise of polygamy despite American law against it. This is because he only sees relationships from a usurious male perspective when he should be teaching men to see women as equals and partners. Moreover, he ignores a woman’s perspective entirely. Subsequent wives have no legal rights. Family problems, domestic abuse, combined with economic dependency, forces women to remain silent when issues arise.

Wahhaj also ignores the criminal fraud behind polygamy as well. The UK, Canada, like theUS, face welfare fraud every time polygamous marriages are made. Subsequent wives live in a marital household, yet can file for welfare as single women because they failure to register the marriage. The failure to register is not an accident. Polygamous couples know that if they file they will be arrested for violating local bigamy laws. Second, these couples realize the financial advantages given current welfare policy. Such fraud is occurring in the thousands and is a burden to all taxpayers.

It is time for policymakers to realize that Sharia is a system of hate and must not gain any influence in American society. It denigrates women, non-Muslims and the US Constitution. Policymakers must define the limits of religious accommodation in light of the Islamist agenda. Otherwise, democracy and true tolerance will be mere words with no meaning as Islamism spreads in the West.  The UAC billboard is a good start in bringing the danger of Sharia to the nation’s attention.

Greetings from sheik yer’mami!