The fanatical group Islam4UK has announced plans to hold a potentially incendiary rally in London later this month.
And it is calling for a complete upheaval of the British legal system, its officials and legislation.
Members have urged Muslims from all over Britain to converge on the capital on October 31 for a procession to demand the full implementation of sharia law.
It’s bad enough that one of Obama’s team members thinks “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.” Now we have another one who says sharia is just misunderstood:
Dalia Mogahed, Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, appeared on British television last week, where she said: “Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.” How have we misunderstood Islamic law? We have associated it with “maximum criminal punishments” and “laws that… to many people seem unequal to women.” The Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified,” said Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs; most Muslim women worldwide, she said, associate it with “gender justice.”
Mogahed, a member of the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, made her defense of Sharia on a TV show hosted by a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. This is an international organization that is banned as a terrorist group in many nations, and which is openly dedicated to the worldwide imposition of Sharia and the destruction of all governments that are constituted according to any other political philosophy — including Constitutional republics that do not establish a state religion.
On the show with Mogahed were two Hizb-ut-Tahrir who repeatedly attacked “man-made law” and the “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” one encounters in Western societies. They said Sharia should be “the source of legislation.” Not “a” source. “The” source.
Mogahed, for her part, offered no contradiction to any of this. Should an adviser to the President of the United States really have given her sanction to such a group? Apparently she has no problem with its goal, since instead of defending the American system of government, she maintained that Sharia was popular among Muslim women: “I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.”
What forms of sharia law shall we implement here in America? How about the power of a woman’s testimony:
For example, in Saudi Arabia, a women’s testimony in court is worth half that of a man’s testimony, according to a Human Rights Watch report in 2002.
Under the so-called zina (fornication) law in Pakistan, extramarital sex is punishable by public whipping or even stoning to death.
If a woman is raped, she runs a high risk of being charged with zina, particularly if she becomes pregnant. In order to prove an absence of consent, however, a woman is required to provide four witnesses to the rape, a near impossible task.
Perhaps Koh and Mogahed would like to see the beating of women legalized:
The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)
Or the penalty for homosexuality? Is that part of sharia going to be implemented under the new Obama justice system:
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: “When a person commits an abominable act, like homosexuality, for example, or lesbianism, in the case of women’s parlors – this constitutes ‘spreading corruption in the land,’ and should be punished by death.”
Moderator: “Other than life imprisonment and the death sentence, what can be done?”
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: “According to Islamic law, a homosexual should be thrown from a tall building.”
Moderator: “What would you do with them?”
Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: “To be honest, death is too good for them. They should be gathered in a public place, to be flogged and tortured, so the truth about these people is made clear and they serve as a lesson to others, because they are an epidemic plaguing society.”
Clearly we are just misunderstanding the sharia position…right?