Thursday, March 23, 2017

Canada Passes Islamophobia Motion

Hat tip The Rebel and Vlad Tepes

Canada has just passed M103 a motion condemning "Islamophobia" (which they did not  define) and calling for "further steps".

This is a motion, not a law, but can curbs on actual free speech be far behind in Canada? Faith Goldy says that anti-semitism is much worse in Canada (as it is in the US), but no mention of anti-semitism is in the motion.

Refugee Center in Germany Goes Up in Smoke-Really

Hat tip Gates of Vienna

-Gates of Vienna

A refugee center in the German town of Moenchengladbach has been burned to the ground. Before you say it must be Neo-Nazis or Trump supporters, the person accused is a Somali guy who was one of the refugees.

No further details on the Somali guy other than given in the link, I am betting he is a refugee from Minneapolis.

Khizr Khan is Back in the News

This article first appeared in Eagle Rising.

Khizr Khan,the Pakistani-born the Muslim gentlemen, whose son was killed fighting on behalf of the United States and who spoke at the Democratic National convention and blasted Donald Trump, is once again back in the news. He canceled a scheduled speech in Toronto earlier this month saying that he had been "informed" that his ability to travel was under review.  That, however, is very questionable and has not been confirmed. Then he changed his story. He amended that to say that he didn't want to get involved in hassles and being profiled (as a Muslim)

Let me be clear. The Khans' son, Humayun Khan,  is a hero who gave his life for his country in Iraq. I have sympathy for any family that loses a son in war for our country. That includes the Khans. However, it was not President Trump who sent their son into harm's way.

In addition, Mr Khan, while he has the same right to speak as any other American citizen, is becoming a bit tiresome. I don't know what he had planned to say in Canada, but if he planned to criticize our president or our country on foreign soil (while he still has that right too) I would find it highly objectionable.

If Mr Khan has a passport, which I am sure he does, he has the right to fly anywhere he wants including out of the country. If our government is standing in the way, he needs to provide proof of that. Apparently, he can't so he amended his story. There is a big difference between anticipating hassles and having someone in the government tell you you may not be able to get on that plane.

Khizr Khan is a political and immigration activist (also his right). He has chosen to enter the political issues arena and therefore is fair game for criticism. No doubt he and his supporters will cry foul when he is attacked. Sorry, but he can't have it both ways.

London Attacker Positively Identified

Similar attempt thwarted in Antwerp

Scotland Yard has identified the London attacker as 52-year-old Khalid Masood, who had a previous record with police.

Meanwhile, police in Antwerp stopped a similar attack by a North African man driving a car with French license plates. He is identified as Mohammad R.

And from Infowars, here is a screen shot showing the happy reactions of some Al Jazeera readers to the London attack. I am not exactly a follower of Alex Jones, but this shows the sickness of many of Al Jazeera's readers and viewers (to say nothing about the Americans who work for or contribute to AJ).

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Germany Goes Insane

Image result for reinhard heydrich

Hat tip Vlad Tepes and Gates of Vienna

Today, Angela Merkel gave a speech in the city of Halle, which ironically is the birthplace of Reinhard Heydrich. Accordingly, a group calling itself the Merkel Jugend (Youth) greeted her with a march, banners, songs and "Heil Merkel" salutes.

Yes, the country is truly descending into madness. It seems every day is the Oktoberfest now. A few days ago, we reported on a 40-year-old German man in Dresden who was pushed onto the tracks by two Arab migrants who tried to prevent him from climbing back up. (He survived.) The two mopes were arrested, but incredibly, a judge has released them.

Such is life in Angela Merkel's Germany.

Sarah Lawrence Redefines the English Language

Hat tip College Reform

If you've got a kid attending Sarah Lawrence College in New York, you'd better hope they know Spanish, German, French or some other language because after four years, they won't be speaking English anymore.

"The guidelines go on to suggest the usage of “plural non-gendered pronouns to replace singular gendered pronouns,” even while acknowledging that the technique is “grammatically incorrect,” explaining that “when absolutely unavoidable” the “exception” can be acknowledged “in the note recommended above.”

You can't put a price tag on four years of this stuff.

Image result for jesse watters interviewing

"The capital of Kansas? Kansas City?"

The Incredible Hypocrisy of Susan Rice

Susan Rice, former ambassador to the UN under Obama and his national security adviser, has written an incredible op-ed in the Washington Post entitled, "When the White House Twists the Truth, We Are All Less Safe".

I kid you not.

Is this the same Susan Rice who went on all the Sunday news talk shows and assured the nation that the Benghazi attack was a protest gone awry over an anti-Islam video?

Was Trump Right About Being Bugged?

Rep. Devin Nunes is announcing he has uncovered information that the Trump transition team was caught up in intelligence surveillance.

"Members of the intelligence community "incidentally collected" communications from the Trump transition team during legal surveillance operations of foreign targets, a top Republican lawmaker said Wednesday afternoon.
House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said this produced "dozens" of reports which eventually unmasked several individuals’ identities and were "widely disseminated."
Of course, this must await further facts, but it appears to at least partially vindicate Trump on his claims though there is as yet no indication he personally was "monitored".

Unconfirmed: Multiple Sources ID London Atttacker as Trevor Brooks aka Abu Izzaden

Hat tip The Ralph Retort

-Ralph Retort

This is not yet confirmed officially, but multiple sources are reporting that the London attacker is someone well known to police and security services. He is an Islamic cleric named Abu Izzadeen aka Trevor Brooks, born in the UK.

La  Stampa, one of Italy's largest news outlets, is also identifying Izzadeen as the attacker.

"18.55- Il sospetto terrorista si chiamerebbe Abu Izzadeen (Trevor Brooks), imam di Clapton, un quartiere nella zona est di Londra e considerato un «predicatore d’odio». È un cittadino britannico di origini giamaicane, di 41 anni, nato il 18 aprile 1975 a Hackney, zona londinese confinante con Clapton. 

The suspect terrorist is named Abu Izzadeen (Trevor Brooks), imam from Clapton, a quarter in the east zone of London and considered a "hate preacher". He is a British citizen of Jamaican origin, 41 years old, born 18 April 1975 in Hackney. 

*Update: (Zero Hedge)  The above reports are being disputed since Brooks is reportedly still in a British prison.

This should be cleared up today.

Bombers of Sikh Temple in Germany Sentenced

Hat tip Vlad Tepes

In the US since 9-11, we have had a handful of attacks against Sikhs including a deadly attack by one gunman in Wisconsin. These attacks have been blamed on a mistaken assumption by the attackers that the Sikhs were, in fact, Muslims. That has not been positively confirmed. (The Wisconsin attacker died in the assault.)

In Germany, an Essen Sikh temple was the object of a bombing. The three perps have just been sentenced by an Essen court. They  are Muslims.

Terror Attack in London

The terrorist
-Vlad Tepes

A man described as in his 40s and "Asian" drove his car into a crowd of people outside of the Parliament building in London today. One woman is dead, a dozen people injured, and a police officer stabbed. The attacker was shot by police, and his condition is unknown.

In the UK, most "Asians" are people of South Asian descent, Pakistani, Indian, etc.

*Update: Four dead including attacker and one policemen.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

A Large Pizza and Hold the Pepperoni

                                                Image result for cartoon of arab with sword

Image result for pepperoni pizza
Haram pizza: Want a slice?

Here's the scene: A guy and girl in Denmark go to  a pizzeria. They order pizza and are eating it outside. One or both of them have pepperoni on their pizza. No problem, right? Wrong. That's when the pork police show up. Gates of Vienna has the report with a video and translation from a Danish article.

"of an ethnic origin other than Danish,"

(No doubt part of the Japanese crime wave sweeping Europe.)

Whose President?

-Daily Californian

This is a thought-provoking cartoon appearing today in the Daily Californian, campus newspaper of UC Berkeley. I guess there are different ways of interpreting it. I am guessing Gitika Nalwa, the cartoonist, meant it to suggest that the Trump supporter doesn't view the darker-hued and "undocumented" anti-Trump person as an American, and thus, is a racist.

To which I would reply: Of course Trump is not the latter's president. He is not an American citizen. Whether you sympathize with the young man or not, no American president is technically and legally his president. For one who is not in this country legally to wave such a sign is arrogant in the extreme just as the phrase "and unafraid" is arrogant.

The Enigmatic Mr Comey

I am having a real hard time figuring out James Comey, the director of the FBI. Once I was an admirer. After his back and forth performance during the Hillary Clinton email debacle, he left both sides confused including me. Now he comes forth again and muddies the waters on the current flap over the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the election.

Yesterday, Comey confirmed in his testimony before Congress that the FBI is investigating any possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians. As yet, no evidence has been found to indicate there was a connection. He also stated that there was no evidence as yet to show that the Russians were able to hack into the voting machines or affect the voting totals. He did say that the Russians attempted to hack into voter registrations.

Comey also stated that the FBI had no evidence of Trump being bugged by the Obama administration.

What Comey would not comment on is whether the FBI is investigating who leaked details of Americans (like Michael Flynn) being caught on electronic intercepts.

It is in the latter issue that we can safely say there is fire. If you want to discount the other allegations on both sides, you might be on safe ground. It is obvious, however, that somebody in our government leaked the Flynn story. That is a crime, and with a little effort, the FBI should be able to identify the perp(s). Whether they are Obama hacks, holdovers, or merely anti-Trump malcontents remains to be seen, but somebody violated the law. Flynn was almost certainly caught up in this when he spoke with a person who was being monitored under a FISA warrant (e.g. the Russian ambassador). As an American citizen, that information should not have been publicly divulged (unless he were subsequently charged with something as a result).

If I were a betting man, I would bet that when everything is settled, it is this story that will be a real scandal. Hopefully, someone will be charged. If it is not even being investigated, something is dreadfully wrong in Washington.

Richard Falk Causing a Stir in UK

Discredited US academic and anti-Israel activist Richard Falk is raising as stir in the UK after  release of his latest UN report accusing Israel of apartheid a report  that led to a rebuke by our  ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley and the resignation of the UN agency that sponsored it. At the London School of Economics, his speech was accompanied by anti-semitic screeds by his supporters in the audience.

As I write, Falk's scheduled speaking appearance at the the University of East London has been cancelled after protests. Some are asking the UK government to expel him from Britain.

Let me be clear. I am not an expert on British speech laws. I do not favor pressure being brought on universities or any other venue to cancel talks by controversial speakers. I regard Falk as a dishonest flake, but I would not censure him. Let his ideas be discredited in the arena of free speech and exchange of ideas. Personally, I would welcome the chance to listen to him speak and challenge him during q and a.

The Ouchies and the Oopsies

Hat tip The College Fix

Image result for germans invade polandImage result for hitler
"Ouch!"                                                               "Oops."

Remember when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 starting WW II? If only the Poles had said, "Ouch". If only Hitler had said, "Oops". We would have avoided the whole war.

At least that's the logic displayed by some empty suit at the University of Arizona who gets paid over $200,000 a year to dream stuff like this up.

"The correct way to tell a classmate he said something offensive is to say “ouch,” and his correct response, “oops.”

If our enemies wanted to create a nation of sniveling wimps who would never stand up to the bullies of the world, isn't this the perfect way? And what better instrument than our academic world?

Monday, March 20, 2017

Is Sharia Law Compatible With US Law?

This article first appeared in New English Review.

-New English Review

Currently, many states are attempting to pass-or have passed- legislation which would preclude other forms of law being incorporated into state law. To be specific, the particular law they are trying to avoid is Islamic law-sharia (though they must avoid specifically targeting Islamic law as opposed to those of other religions). Correspondingly, Islamic leaders in the US are trying to combat this trend and prevent said laws from being passed. On one front, Muslim leaders in the US are involved in a public relations drive to convince non-Muslims that sharia law is perfectly compatible with the US Constitution and US law. It is not, and it is very easy to prove it.

Sharia in Arabic means, "straight path". In the early time of Islam it referred to the straight path to water, life's necessity. Since Islam is designed to guide virtually every aspect of the believer's life, sharia is quite detailed. Its two main sources are the Qu'ran and the Sunnah (sayings, actions and approvals of the Prophet Mohammad). Its interpretation through the centuries has come from the learned Islamic scholars.

Much of sharia is benign and related to principles of how one worships, marriage, divorce, financial rights etc. There are also civil and criminal aspects and punishments for criminal violations. Aside from the obvious discriminatory details regarding women and non-Muslims, it is in the area of criminal punishments that sharia is most problematic.

This past weekend, I attended a day-long seminar presented by the (Islamic) Institute of Knowledge in Diamond Bar, California on the topic of sharia. This was the third such event I have attended. While the very capable presenters explained sharia well and defended it, they  included an explanation of the most problematical part of sharia, that is hudud sharia, which covers fixed punishments for "crimes against God". According to what was presented, there are 5 "crimes" included in hudud. (Hudud is plural of hadd, which means "boundary" in Arabic.)

1 Unlawful sex-which may be adultery involving married people having sex outside of marriage or fornication involving unmarried people. According to the Qu'ran, the latter is punishable by 100 lashes, and the former by stoning.

2 Accusing someone falsely of unlawful sex, which is punishable by 80 lashes.

3 Theft, which is punishable by cutting off the hand.

4 Drinking alcohol- 80 lashes.

5 Highway robbery, which is considered a more serious form of theft especially if it involves death. This form of robbery is punishable by death.

What the presenters attempted to do was quickly point out that the standards of proof for these crimes are extremely high to the point of making conviction and administering the above punishments almost impossible. For example, the adultery charge requires confession and 4 male witnesses (emphasis mine).

I could stop right here with my thesis that sharia is not compatible with US laws, but there is so much more. We have not even gotten to the "crimes" of apostasy and blasphemy yet. We were told Saturday that apostasy and blasphemy are not covered under hudud.  Well and good, but they are still out there. The subject of apostasy really only came up due to audience questions (mine), which had to be written on note cards and passed to the front hopefully to be selected. We were told that in a non-Muslim country, the decision to leave Islam is between that person and God. In a Muslim country, it was explained that the apostate would be given 4 chances to repent and return to Islam before any sentence could be carried out. It was also explained that even in Muslim lands, if a person left Islam quietly, they would be left alone, but if they "undermine the state or stir up trouble", they would be guilty of treason and the death penalty would apply. (I was told once by a Saudi lawyer that in his country, an accused apostate gets 3 chances to repent before being executed.)

So as not to engage in overkill, let's cut to the chase. It is irrelevant whether or not the standards of proof are ridiculously high. It is irrelevant whether or not a person gets the chance to repent. What is relevant is that in our country, we don't even have laws against drinking (adults), adultery or fornication. Nor do we have laws against apostasy or blasphemy. Yet under sharia law, these are considered crimes and merit either the death penalty or lashing. We must also reject any law that discriminates against women or against those who do not belong to a particular faith-in this case Islam. Furthermore, in modern (nation-state) times, treason is considered betraying one's nation-not one's religion.

These aspects of sharia are clearly not compatible with our values and our laws. Every person living in the US-Muslim or non-Muslim- is entitled to enjoy every single protection that our constitution offers. Properly drafted, laws that preclude any outside law (including sharia) from being considered or recognized in our own laws should be passed.

Selling Sharia

Image result for institute of knowledge in diamond bar

On March 18, I attended a day-long seminar on sharia law at the Institute of Knowledge (IOK), an Islamic center In Diamond Bar, California. The event was sponsored by the Council of Islamic Scholars and ran from 10:30 to 4:30 with an hour and half lunch break. There were approximately 75-100 people in attendance, overwhelmingly Muslims. The females in the audience sat on the left and the males on the right. At the beginning, the audience was asked not to photograph  or videotape (something about the fact that they were live-streaming the event). The presenters were sheikhs and chaplains at IOK, almost all American-born.

Here is the schedule of topics:

First session

Introduction to Sharia by Sheikh Shahid Ali and Sheikh Alia Dada

Second session: 

Objectives of Sharia

 Sheikh Osman Umarji and Sheikh Mustafa Umar

Third Session

 Misconceptions of Sharia: Furhan Zubairi:

Fourth Session 

Sharia in US- Sheikh Jamaal Diwan

Final Session

Panel Questions and Answers

Questions and answers were submitted by the audience using written cards passed to the front at the end of  some of the sessions and the final session involving the entire panel of speakers.

First session: Sh. Shahid Ali and Alia Dada

Shahid Ali is the director of outreach at the IOK. Alia Dada is a graduate of Al Azhar University in Cairo, the world's most renowned Islamic university.

Ali stated that sharia, which means the direct path (to water), is more than just Islamic law . He described the scope of sharia as being:

1 Religious practice

2 Civil/criminal laws, which includes the rights of people in matters such as marriage, dress codes and penal law. He added that penal law is the smallest fraction of sharia and he used a pie chart overhead to illustrate items such as worship, etiquette, belief, transactions and penal law. He compared it to talking about capital punishment in the US as being a tiny part of the whole scope of America.

As for sources of sharia, they are:

1 Koran, which is the direct word from God

Alia Dada added that less than 10% of the Koran-some 350 verses- is dedicated to "direct legal implications".

2 Sunnah (statements, actions and approval of the Prophet Mohammad)

3 Analogy (qiyas).

This refers to new laws as the world changes over time. An example would be a prohibition on marijuana. Since alcohol is prohibited in the Koran as an intoxicant, marijuana would also be prohibited for the same reason.

4 Consensus of scholars Of course, the obvious question stressed by Ali is how do you get all these scholars spread out all over the world to agree. That is handled by Fiqh councils in regions like the US, Asia, Europe etc.

It was also mentioned that there are disagreements and ambiguities. For example, is the language metaphoric or literal? What is the strength of proof? My question, which I sent up front, was if sharia were implemented in the US, would it apply only to Muslims or to everyone? That question was held for a later session.

Ali asked how sharia got such a bad name in the West and blamed the media (specifically Fox News). He added that, yes, Islam had capital punishment and added that Muslims don't hide that fact. He stated that you also find references to cutting off of hands and stoning in the Bible.

Second Session: Objectives of Sharia

Sh. Mustafa Umar, former imam of Anaheim mosque and Sh. Osman Umarji. Both are UC Irvine graduates . Umarji was a past president of the Muslim Student Union at UCI and graduate of Al Azhar University. He was also imam at the Islamic Center of Corona, Calif.

In this presentation, there were references to Islamic dress codes. Umar told  how the Prophet Mohammad had decided not to rebuild the Kaaba in Mecca as the Pagans had previously done. (The Kaaba was believed to have been built by Abraham.) Mohammad felt that it would be wrong to rebuild it. (That struck me as ironic considering the mosques built over previous churches and Jewish temples.)

There was also mention of "concessions from hardships"; that is, for example when Muslims are traveling and unable to completely fulfill the prayer requirements or are physically unable to kneel down.

The principal objectives were listed as:

Preservation of life, faith, intellect, lineage or honor, wealth. This is covered under the term, Maqasid (goals or purposes), which they cautioned Islamic jurists must fully understand in order not to make serious errors ( I am paraphrasing.)

My question was how apostasy fits into the 5 "preservations". Umarji answered that it fit into the preservation of faith and explained how apostasy could be considered as treason. The specific (and only example) he used was if a person feigned conversion to Islam in order to infiltrate and gain knowledge then leave the faith. Then, he added, death would be appropriate punishment. (Again, I am paraphrasing.)

Third session- Misconceptions of sharia

This was led by Furhan Zubairi, a director at IOK.  He was born in India and graduated from UC "Irvine. He began by showing a film clip of a movie entitled, " Escape: Human Cargo, which shows a mob scene in which a man's hand is amputated for some transgression. Zubairi told us that this was a common perception of Islam and sharia in the West. He said this contributed to an irrational fear that has led to several states passing anti-sharia laws to stop "creeping sharia", which he termed as ridiculous.  He referred to a misconception that sharia consists of harsh punishments specifically in reference to hudud sharia. Zubairi said that hudud (fixed punishments for crimes against God) was a tiny portion of sharia. Less than 20% of Islamic law is devoted to punishment, most of it is devoted to rules of worship, and 30% is devoted to civil matters. According to Zubairi, 5% is devoted to criminal law and less than that would be hudud.

Zubairi went to say that societies need a system of government and laws. All societies have both civil and criminal law.

Comment: Yes, but do laws have to be religiously-based?

Continuing, Zubairi said that criminal law in sharia concentrates on prevention, punishment, rehabilitation and forgiveness.

As for hudud, this, according to Zubairi, is based on the Koran and the Sunna. It is fixed and divinely ordained punishment.

Hudud is the plural of hadd, which means "boundary". There are 5 main punishments under hudud as explained by Zubairi.

1 illicit sex
2 falsely accusing one of illicit sex
3 theft
4 drinking alcohol
5 highway robbery

More in detail:

1 Illicit sex

There are two categories, according to Zubairi, adultery involving sex outside of marriage by one or both who are married, and fornication by unmarried persons.

According to Zubairi, the punishment for fornication is 100 lashes each, which is mandated in sura 24: verse 2.

Adultery is punished by stoning.

2 False accusation of illicit sex- 80 lashes per sura 24: verse 4.

3 Theft- Punishment is cutting off of hand per sura 5: verse 38.

4 Drinking- 80 lashes

5 Highway Robbery: death- especially if accompanied by killing.

Zubairi then addressed the question of how these punishments are carried out in practice.

A key here is the concept of God's mercy. As a result, there are three elements to consider:

1 Burden of proof, which is very high
2 doubt or the slightest ambiguity
3 Concealing private affairs. (Muslims should not be spying on the private affairs of others.)

First, the greater the crime, the higher is the burden of proof. It requires confession and 4 male witnesses. In addition, the confession must be done before the judge 4 separate times. Zubairi also said that a judge will actively lead the defendant away from his or her confession. This is based on an incident with the Prophet Mohammad in which a man came to him and confessed to adultery. Mohammad reportedly sent the man way repeatedly until the 4th time when the man again came and confessed his act. At that time, the man was stoned.

Zubairi also added that in cases of illicit sex, having four male witnesses is practically impossible. Zubairi also told of a pregnant woman who came to Mohammad and confessed to adultery. He sent her away until she had her child. When she returned and repeated the confession, he told her to go and care for the child. Later, after she returned and confessed again, the punishment (stoning) was carried out.

Interestingly, prostitution was not subject to hudud because of what Zubairi described as structural similarities between marriage and prostitution (exchange of money).

As for people who could not be convicted because of the high standards required,  judges have what he called "discretionary punishments", which were lesser punishments that could be meted out.

So, if such high standards existed, why have these punishments at all, Zubairi asked.  Deterrence.

Zubairi conceded that in the modern mind, these punishments seem cruel and barbaric. He then referred to a paper written by Georgetown Professor of Middle East Studies Jonathan Brown. (also of the Talal Canter for Understanding at Georgetown University). Brown stated  it  is all subjective and related to a person's culture. The Western world shows arrogance in that they feel they have reached the highest levels and that others are primitive. Brown asked why corporal punishment is considered barbaric but long prison sentences are considered normal. Zubairi brought up the outrage in the US years ago when an American college student was sentenced to caning for spray painting cars in Singapore. An overhead above asked, "Who defines cruel and unusual?"

Zubairi then went on a rant criticizing the US "Prison Industrial Complex" in which disproportionate numbers of blacks and Hispanics are imprisoned, He described it as "racist" and "unjust".  He also referred us to a book called, "The New Jim Crow".

Jonathan Brown has been the subject of recent controversy when he spoke in Herndon, Virginia and seemed to justify slavery and rape within Islam.

Session Four - Islam in the US

by Sh. Jamaal Diwan

I have met Diwan on previous occasions. He is a graduate of UC San Diego, comes from Canadian-Pakistani parentage, and studied at Al Azhar University. He was previously imam at the Irvine Islamic Center. He is currently a  chaplain with IOK and serves a similar function at UCLA, USC and other universities.

Diwan's talk was based on a paper by Dr. Sherman Jackson, who is the departmental chair at USC. It concerned a Muslim's identity in the US, the US Constitution, and Shariah. In summary, Jackson embraced the US Constitution, while still being fully committed to sharia and renounced violence
except in case of self defense. Rather than recount everything Diwan quoted  from the paper, "Who am I and What Do I Want as an American Muslim?", it can be accessed here (Alim Program).

Panel Q and A

The speakers then returned as a group and answered questions from the cards. Among them were:

"Do you see a future for sharia courts in the US?'

That was something that would have to be negotiated, answered Diwan.

"Would sharia apply to all people or only Muslims?" (my question).

It would depend on the issue. Financial matters would apply to all. Diwan added that different religious groups in fact have their own family laws.

One of my questions about blasphemy and apostasy was also addressed. Zubairi said that apostasy is not a hudud crime and would apply only in a country governed by sharia. In a non-Muslim country, it would be between the apostate and God. In my question about the compatibility of sharia and the US Constitution as to apostasy, blasphemy or adultery, he also said that if an apostate "undermines the state or stirs up trouble",  it would be considered treason and death could apply. He did not address blasphemy. Zubairi later stated that there is no death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy. He did not address adultery. Later, Zubairi seemed to want to clarify that in regards to apostasy, everyone had the right to choose. In a Muslim state, if a person quietly converts but does not proselytize or threaten the security of the state, there should be no problem. (I am paraphrasing.) Mustafa Umar told us that the idea of a nation-state is relatively new, and that people previously did not identify by a nation, rather by their religion. Thus, Muslim scholars considered leaving Islam as harming the land they lived in.

Comment: That strikes me as outdated today.

Another questioner asked, if under Trump, what if the "worst things" happen in the states (to Muslims). Mustafa Umar addressed this question by referring to state anti-sharia measures. He said if sharia were banned, Muslims couldn't pray in their homes or bury their dead according to Islamic tradition.

My reactions

I have no negative information as to any of the persons who presented. In all, they represented their cause well with some exceptions I could nit-pick (and will).Zubairi's comments about American prisons were not appropriate to the time and place. In addition, quoting Jonathan Brown is problematic given some of his recent comments and writings. Zubairi conceded that Islam had harsh punishments (for things that are not even considered crimes in the West), a fact that could have been brought out had the audience had a chance to present their questions orally. In this country, we don't lash people or put them to death for adultery, fornication, drinking, apostasy or blasphemy. Those are all covered in sharia. That point should have been a point of discussion. In fairness, one of the speakers stated that Muslims are commanded to obey the laws of the land.

In addition, the fact that the burden of proof for convicting people of such "crimes" strikes me as irrelevant. There is no room in Western jurisprudence for such a system. The fact that 95% of sharia
may be  benign is also irrelevant. It places woman at a lower level. The fact that 4 male witnesses were required for conviction of certain crimes was repeated many times. How can we fit that into our law?

In addition, I think Umar's predictions of what would happen to Muslims if anti-sharia laws were passed were exaggerated and alarmist. Of course, they can pray in their homes and in the mosque as many times as they like. It is the issues I pointed out above that cannot be exercised because they are in contravention to our laws. Muslims can live very well in the US without punishing apostasy, blasphemy, drinking or adultery.

Here's another question from another person who attended: If sharia is coming from God and is perfect, should it not supplant US law? That question was never addressed. It goes to the entire question of a separation between religion and the state.

Omar Barghouti Charged With Income Tax Evasion in Israel

Hat tip The Tower and the Israel Group

Image result for omar barghouti
"Heigh ho, heigh ho
It's off to jail I go"

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Omar Barghouti, a co-founder of the BDS movement designed to destroy the country that gave him resident status and allowed him to attend Tel Aviv University, has been charged with tax evasion based on his numerous speaking fees around the world.

I have seen this ingrate speak twice-at UC Irvine, where he refused to answer my question about where he was born, and at UC Riverside, where he was  presented as a "human rights activist". Well now we know that this great human rights activist has made a ton of money spreading his venom and lies.

Campus Republicans at SFSU Under Attack

Hat tip The College Fix

College Republicans at San Francisco State University, which is little more than a little fascist institution under the rule of President Les Wong and his gangs of pro-Palestinian Brown Shirts, have been forced to give up setting up tables on campus due to the harassment they face.

If ever a university deserved to have state funding taken away from them, it is SFSU.

Norman Finkelstein's Latest Speaking Gig: Brooklyn Public Library

Hat tip Campus Watch

The obnoxious ex-professor Norman Finkelstein has landed another speaking gig. It ain't much, but it puts food on the table, I guess. Plus it's easy commuting distance from his Brooklyn apartment. Norman is now appearing at none other than...drum roll, please....

The Brooklyn Public Library.

Yes, Folks, it's the worst thing to happen to Brooklyn since the Bums left for LA.

Personally, I could care less if Norm is going to break up the monotony at the BPL. To me it's just another chance for someone to challenge him and make him look like the man-child he is. Pushed hard enough, he will no doubt explode and rip up a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover.

If you have never seen Norman in action, here's a clip from 2010 when he took his charm offensive to the University of Waterloo. (Some claim this was his own personal "Waterloo".)

Here's my tip for those of you planning to go and listen to this boob: Take along a good book to read.