Muslim Judge In Brooklyn Swears In Using Qu'ran - And Why It's A Problem

Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo, who was elected as a judge in Brooklyn's 7th Municipal District was sworn in today. She insisted on swearing her oath of office on the Qu'ran.

She's certainly not the first Muslim office holder in America to do so. Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) did it in 2006. She's not even the first Muslim judge. In 2013, Sheila Abdus-Salaam became the first black woman and first Muslim ever to sit on the Court of Appeals, New York's highest judicial body.

And Ms. Walker-Diallo is obviously a very devout Muslim.

So why is this problematic?

Swearing on the Qu'ran, the Bible or any religious text isn't a requirement to serve. The applicable law says only that someone elected to office must “swear or affirm” an oath, and it need not have any religious connotation at all. So Walker-Diallo was making a statement, one that bears thinking about.

Islam is unique in that it is a political ideology hidden inside a religion. And it mandates two codes of conduct,one towards Muslims and another towards everyone else. This is spelled out many places in the Qu'ran, for instance here: "Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another." - 48:25.

It likewise demonizes non-Muslims:

Qu'ran 4:101 - The unbelievers are your inveterate foe.
 Qu'ran 9: 73 - Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
Qu'ran 33:60 - Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell.
Qu'ran 98:51 - The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
Qu'ran 9:123 - O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard against evil.
Qu'ran 8:12 - I will cast fear into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore behead them and cut off all their fingertips.
Qu'ran 5:15 - O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as friends and protectors. Whoever turns to them as friends and protectors is one of them.


There's a lot more of this sort of thing throughout the Qu'ran, to the point where demonizing non-believers and exhortations of violence against them could even be called a main theme of the book. The Hadiths, containing the deeds and sayings of Mohammed according to his followers have even more of this type of material.

And these scriptures are the basis for sharia, a code that almost 60% of US Muslims say they would prefer to live under here in America according to the latest Pew poll. Sharia mandates death for homosexuals, inequality for women, and allows wife beating and clitorectomies according to the interpretation by all four Muslim fiqhs. It makes non-Muslims into dhimmis ('protected people') with no rights except to pay exorbitant taxes for the privilege of being allowed to live among Muslims as second class citizens. Dhimmis do not even have the right to testify in a court of law. Their entire existence is subject to the whim of their Muslim conquerors.

More importantly, sharia is not some dusty scriptural antique. Sharia and laws based on Sharia are being practiced in a large part of the world today.

But wait, there's more. The Qu'ran allows taqiyyah, which allows Muslims to lie to infidels to advance Islam.

Given these realities, is a Muslim judge - or any Muslim public official - whom swears an oath on a book that is diametrically opposed to our laws and the Constitution to be taken seriously? Could a judge who swears on the Qu'ran be expected to rule fairly in a case involving a Muslim defendant and say, a Jewish plaintiff? Or in one involving a custody case between a Muslim man and an infidel woman? Could a congressman who swears an oath on a Qu'ran be expected to adhere to that oath in the event of a conflict or disagreement with an Islamic nation? Or when it comes to voting on security policies designed to protect America from terrorist attacks emanating from Muslim nations? Which comes first, the Muslim umma or their oath of office?

In the case of Judge Walker-Diallo I would much have preferred an oath or affirmation without any religious book in preference to the Qu'ran. She was certainly within her rights to use a Qu'ran and at this point I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. There is and should be no test of faith in America to hold office. But as I've noted, Islam is unique among religions. Simply speaking, Islam does not play well with others.

And thus, this sort of thing bears very very careful watching.

Understanding the Islamic Bombing of the Boston Marathon

Pretty much all you need to know.

(H/T Louie Louie)

Muslim Rapist Wins Court Appeal Citing 'Cultural Differences'

 

Esmatullah Sharifi, 31, is an Afghan refugee who was given asylum in Australia and settled in Melbourne.

He was convicted of two counts of rape and given a 14 year non parole sentence.

The first rape was of an intoxicated teenager who had been separated from her friends outside a nightclub. Sharifi admitted driving around looking for a victim.

When he saw the victim, he pulled up, began talking to her and offered to drive her to the hotel where her friends had moved on to.

Then he drove off in a completely different direction. The teen became frightened and and texted her friends, but when Sharifi saw what she was doing, he took away her phone, drove to a dark, isolated street, put his hands around her neck and forced her to remove her clothes before raping her.

The second case involved a similar abduction and sexual assault of a woman on Christmas Eve, 2008, five days after Sharifi raped the teen.

The judge, Mark Dean in Melbourne, sentenced Sharif to 14 years of which he's going to have to serve a minumum of 11 years. He will likely be deported back to Afghanistan when he's served his sentence.

Except he may not serve his sentence at all.

He's been granted an appeal.

Sharifi's chief argument during his rape trials was that 'cultural differences' were responsible for the rapes and that, as a psychologist told the court he had an 'unclear concept of what constitutes consent in sexual relationships'.

Apparently this psychologist thinks kidnapping someone, forcing them to disrobe and then raping them while they're screaming 'no, no' is how dating is done is Afghanistan. Perhaps it is. At any rate, the courts have granted him an appeal on that basis.

The funny thing is that Sharifi's argument actually has some legitimacy, although it's no excuse for his actions.

As a product of Muslim culture, there is definitely a basis for Sharifi saying he's allowed to rape  non-Muslim women.

The Qu'ran is most definite that owning and using sex slaves is permissible:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands owns; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This, along with Mohammed's conduct as recorded in the Hadiths is the basis for Muslim polygamy.Mohammed took numerous sex slaves, in some cases after they had seen their parents or husbands murdered in front of them. Hence 'orphans'.

'What your right hand owns' refers to war captives and sex slaves, and every major Islamic fiqh has interpreted it in that way. Here's Qu'rannic commentator Maulana Bulandshahri on the subject:

During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph – an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr)

Notice the present tense, 'become' as opposed to 'became'. This view applies today and has never been abrogated in any way.

Moreover, since a number of prominent Islamic scholars and Qadis like the Muslim Brotherhood's Sheik Qaradawi and Egypt's Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni have declared that Muslims are waging jihad against Dar Harb, the infidel world in our present day, any infidel females a Muslim's 'right hand possesses are fair game:

.Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels….Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

(h/t, Jihad Watch)

Of course, it can even apply to Muslims if you have cooperative imams to declare them kufrs, non-believers. Just ask Muslim Bangladeshi women about the rape camps the Pakistani Army set up for them during the 1970's.

Even in Australia itself, Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali, Australia most senior Muslim cleric excused Muslim gang rapists in Australia saying that women who chose not to cover themselves were asking to be raped, referring to them as 'uncovered meat'. Even many decent Muslims objected to that one and called for al-Hilali's deportation, but he has a lot of support from others and is still there.

So when Sharifi says that as a Muslim, he's allowed to 'own' and use Kufr women as he pleases, he's simply telling the truth about what his religion has taught him.Perhaps Australia and other western governments that encouraged wholesale importation of Muslim refugees and immigrants and are experiencing a huge increase in these types of crimes as a result ought to have considered that and been a bit more careful whom they let in.

When the British ruled India, the commander-in-chief was a man called General Sir Charles James Napier. During his tenure, Hindu priests complained to him about the British suppression of their custom of suttee, the ritual burning of widows on the deceased husband's funeral pyre.

General Sir Napier's reply is worth remembering:

This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pyre. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. You follow your customs, and we shall follow ours.

Rather than being so careful to do the politically correct dance,to wallow in appeasement, it might be much more useful for the West to insist that any and all immigrants granted the privilege of living in their countries realize that it involves honoring the host country's laws and cultural norms as well.

Instead of wasting time and money on a ridiculous appeal based on 'cultural differences', Sharifi ought to serve his sentence and deported back to his home country of  Afghanistan forthwith.The same should apply to  anyone else who thinks his or her cultural beliefs give them a license to act in that fashion.

-selah-

Malaysia: 'Muslims Must Properly Oppress Those Uppity Infidels!'

Quran-9:29, Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Muslim leaders in Malaysia are quite perturbed at the rights they feel are being given to dhimmi non-Muslims in Malaysia and are calling for a 're-evaluation':

Former president of Islamic Da’wah Foundation Malaysia (Yadim), Datuk Nakhaie Ahmad, said treatment of non-Muslims must be based on the social contract agreed and pointed out that the government has been too gracious to the community.

“In attempts to get vote and support of non-Muslims, we have been very gracious in giving them their civil rights. Civil rights given to them includes the rights to vote, participation in politics, hold office, involvement in the military and so forth but we cannot just willingly give them everything."

Malaysia is officially an Islamic state. Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad declared it one a decade ago.

You may remember Mahathir...he's the one who received a standing ovation for a keynote speech on October 16th, 2003 to the Organization of Islamic Conference declaring that `Jews run the world', that the destruction of Israel was a goal towards a larger pan-Islamic caliphate, and that essentially, the US and Europe will only accept Islam as their master after their current masters, the Jews, are destroyed.

Apparently a significant part of Malaysia's Muslims are upset after there was a wide spread rumor of a Christian plot to make Malaysia more pluralistic and end it's status as an officially Islamic state:

“We cannot give them important government position as it is not allowed for non-Muslims to become ministers in a Islamic state. Head of military must also not be given to non-Muslims."

“Without thinking about the future of our country, we are so willing to give them everything. Granting them their civil rights must be balanced with Islamic preaching so they will understand justice in Islam and the Islamic system,” Nakhaie said.

Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement (Abim) deputy president, Dr Mohd Rumaizuddin Ghazali, also stressed that Malaysia must never become a secular state.

“This is why many non-Muslim politicians want to declare the country as a secular state because then the government will not have fund religious programmes."

“They are scared that if we accept Malaysia as an Islamic state then there are many implications which means that only Muslims have the right to lead the country,” he said.

Mohd Rumaizuddin added that the Malays are beginning to be trampled on and non-Muslims are starting to take advantage of the community.

“Because of politics, we are still not free after more than 50 years of independence,” he said.

Hizbut Tahrir Malaysia president Abdul Hakim Othman added the country’s constitution must be replaced as it has been stained by the colonial British.

"A Caliphate state is based on divine revelation. It is not a democratic or a theocratic state. It is only an Islamic state when the constitution is based on the Qu'ran and prophetic traditions,” he said.

Yes, apparently Malaysia's dhimmis need to learn their place.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Another Excellent Example Of Why The UN Mindset Is Useless...And Dangerous

A major story worldwide today had to do with the murder of 8 UN staff members in Northeast Afghanistan by a mob of the locals in Mazar-i-Sharif. Two of the victims were decapitated, and it's worth noting ( no one else in the media has) that all of the victims were non-Muslims.

The Afghans were stirred up by the local mullahs over the burning of a Qu'ran in Florida by two preachers. Apparently a crowd of them came pouring out of the Blue Mosque in Mazar-i-Sharif after Friday prayers and attacked the nearby headquarters of the United Nations.

They took weapons from the armed guards ( who either refused or had orders not to fire on the 'protesters'), shot the guards and several other UN staff down in cold blood...except for two, which they captured and decapitated, undoubtedly while screaming 'Allah Akbar!'

Remember, these were people who had interacted pleasantly with the local community, overseeing things like food, aid and medical care...and of course, scrupulous observance and kow towing to the local customs. In the end, what mattered was that they were infidels.

I found this piece by UN staffer Una Moore to be particularly illuminating:

The men who broke into the UN compound, set fires and killed 8 people weren’t Taliban, or henchmen of a brutal warlord, or members of a criminal gang. They weren’t even armed when the protests began –they took weapons from the UN guards who were their first victims.

Foreigners committed to assisting in the rebuilding of Afghanistan have long accepted the possibility that they might die at the hands of warring parties, but this degree of violence from ordinary citizens is not something most of us factored into our decision to work here.

Tonight, the governor of Balkh province, of which Mazar-i-Sharif is the capital, is telling the international media that the men who sacked the UN compound were Taliban infiltrators. That’s rubbish. Local clerics drove around the city with megaphones yesterday, calling residents to protest the actions of a small group of attention-seeking, bigoted Americans. Then, during today’s protest, someone announced that not just one, but hundreds of Korans had been burned in America. A throng of enraged men rushed the gates of the UN compound, determined to draw blood. {...}

This is not the beginning of the end for the international community in Afghanistan. This is the end. Terry Jones and others will continue to pull anti-Islam stunts and opportunistic extremists here will use those actions to incite attacks against foreigners. Unless we, the internationals, want our guards to fire on unarmed protestors from now on, the day has come for us to leave Afghanistan.

So according to Ms. Moore, the UN guards allowed a crazed mob - whom she calls 'protesters'- to break in, take their weapons and turn them on the guards and the people they were supposedly protecting, all without firing a shot? Heaven forbid they should defend themselves!

As far as her statement that she and her fellow 'Internationals' never expected 'this degree of violence from ordinary citizens' in Afghanistan goes, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

In the last decade alone, there have been numerous Bibles, Torah scrolls, churches, synagogues and Buddhist and Hindu shrines destroyed by Muslims in the name of Islam, as well as thousands of non-Muslims slaughtered...all without a word of complaint or condemnation from most of the Muslim world. Had she and her fellow 'Internationals' not heard of that somehow?

In fact, it doesn't even take real damage to Qu'rans to stir Muslims to violence in this fashion..remember how many people were killed over the fake Newsweek story a few years ago about a supposed Qu'ran flushing at Club Gitmo?

Many Muslims are absolutely lovely people ( and I link to some of them here on this site). But far too many Muslims seem to live in a state of barely suppressed rage, and if it was not something like Terry Jones and a Qu'ran bar-b-cue, it would be something else.

In one respect, I agree with Ms. Moore...it is high time we all got out of Afghanistan and allowed them to stew in their barbaric, 7th century miasma.

Res Ipsa Loquiter

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

'Thou Shalt Appease Islam' - NJ Qu'ran Burner Fired From His Job

Derek Fenton burned some pages from the Qu'ran at the Ground Zero Mosque protest and was quickly fired from his job with New Jersey Transit, where he'd worked for 11 years.

For those of you who know anything about civil service, the dismissal of an employee in a matter of two days without due process is absolutely unheard of. He apparently did not even receive a Skelly hearing, which is legally mandated.

Even more interesting is the tone of the article, which refers to Fenton as a 'radical' who performed 'a hate-filled display'...in what purports to be a straight news piece.

I wonder if the reporter, Pete O'Donohue would have referred to Pakistanis burning the American flag as radicals involved in a 'hate-filled display'?

The article also shows a clearly identifiable picture of Fenton, thus exposing him to reprisals from adherents of the Religion of Peace.

The ethics of Qu'ran burning aside, the reporter who wrote this has a job because of the First Amendment. It's a shame he apparently never learned to respect it.

That's what we've come to now.

UPDATE: Guess what? Either O'Donohue (or his editor) realized that they'd been busted for outrageous media bias. Within an hour after I saw this on Drudge, they scrubbed the story totally, eliminating any referenced to 'radical or 'hate-filled act'..and they deleted the comments onthe story that referred to those pungent phrases.

Nice going, Dino media...down the memeory hole. Next time I'll get a screen capture.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Justice Breyer- Maybe Protecting The Qu'ran Is Covered By 'Special Rights'

An amazing admission by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer..maybe burning a Qu'ran isn't covered by the First Amendment...

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?” {..}

“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think.And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Is Breyer planning on implementing laws against blasphemy...but only where Islam is concerned?

Given how the Court has reacted to things like submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine or desecrating Bibles, this is a Supreme Court justice essentially saying that in America, your right to be free of criticism of your religion and its artifacts likely depends on how violent you're willing to be in reaction to it.

Or maybe Breyer is really saying that Muslims have a disability and need to be treated differently than others?

Couldn't the the same standards applied to the Ground Zero Mosque, a place where people actually died? If Christians began threatening violence to stop it, is Justice Breyer saying that building the Mosque ought to be constitutionally prohibited?

Can you imagine how Justice Breyer would rule in a case involving Muslims threatening violence unless they got sharia courts in America ?

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Algeria Bans Qu'rans With Jewish Looking Cover

In the latest manifestation of Muslim tolerance, the Algerian government has officially banned and confiscated thousands of Qu'rans with a symbol resembling the Jewish Star of David on the cover.

According to the Algerian government, the symbol on the cover "is not in keeping with the general ethics of the state".

The United Arab Emirates-based Al-Bayan quoted an official from the Algerian Ministry of Religious Affairs as saying that a private businessman had imported the books from Egypt, while members of Algeria's parliament accused the religious affairs minister of negligence and "disrupting public order".

Next, of course, they'll be saying it's a Zionist plot.Which is absolutely hysterical when you reflect on the seething anti-Semitism rife in the Qu'ran.

Not that Algeria, like most Muslim countries needs an excuse for Jew hatred,even when there aren't any Jews there.

When Algeria got its independence from France in 1962, there was a Jewish community there of about 170,000 whose presence dated from pre-Roman times. One of the first things the new nation of Algeria did was to expel them en masse - after confiscating all their property, bank accounts and wealth, of course.

Needless to say, since they weren't 'Palestinians, no one at the UN displayed any interest or spent one dime on their welfare.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!