Last weekend, Lance Silver and Andrew Palashewsky attended a conference on Islamic concepts of justice at the University of Pennsylvania. They then prepared the following report on what they had witnessed, and requested that it be publicized as widely as possible.
Muslim Obligations in Promoting Justice in America
By Lance Silver and Andrew Palashewsky
This past Saturday evening, Feb. 22nd, the University of Pennsylvania Law School hosted the “Eighth Annual Muslim Law Students Conference,” on the topic of “Muslim Obligations in Promoting Justice in America.” Our interest in Islamic law as American citizens is to learn first-hand exactly what Muslim American law students are being taught.
The fairly innocuous and well-meaning title of the program masked the true intent, which we believe is to lull the audience and our society into a false sense of complacency regarding the real aims and effects of Islamic incursion in our society — which Maj. Stephen Coughlin [pdf] covers in his must-read thesis, “To Our Great Detriment.”
We were greeted with “As-Salamu ’Alaykum” (peace be upon you) upon entering the conference and by each speaker, prior to presentation. What a comforting greeting. I responded with “Aslim Taslam.”
As is typically the case, conference attendees were highly educated and polite. This was a high-end mix of people who are difficult to fault on any personal level.
The attendees, primarily American and foreign Muslim law students, as well as a few foreign lawyers, presented a mixed canvas racially, yet each person was culturally Islamic and a member of the ummah, the global body of believers. The speakers and each future American lawyer we spoke with advised us that Islam has been misinterpreted for 1,400 years. Isn’t that amazing? As if we had no ability to study the history of Islam from both Muslim and non-Muslim sources on our own.
We are authoring this report in response to what we believe is attempted hoodwinking, enabled by the practice of Taqiyya and Kitman, forms of lying encouraged in Islam, if such lying is deemed to be useful for the spread of Islam. No other religion/culture encourages its adoption by lying. But, because Islam is also a political theory that embodies military notions, the ability to further aims by deception is enshrined in the Qur’an and in Shari’ah, as it would be on the battlefield. The intended recipients of this mendacity were not only us, but the attendees and the law school itself.
The first speaker, Professor Faisal Kutty, presented us with a bogus definition of the terms “jihad” and “Islamophobia.” He spoke of jihad, as if it were apple pie with vanilla ice cream, splitting the term jihad into its normative components — the “Lesser Jihad,” meaning defensive or offensive military struggle, and the “Greater Jihad,” meaning, personal struggle for good against evil. He downplayed to relative insignificance the importance of the military meaning of Jihad, ignoring the vast majority of references in the Qur’an on Jihad, compelling Muslims to wage a military struggle as the Sixth Pillar of Islam.
Jihad is offensive. Duplicity and deception as tactics to throw off the opponent are inherent in Islam, and that’s why Islam states that jihad is purely defensive. In fact, jihad was (and is still) used as the normative call to action in the military conquest of vast tracts of formerly Christian, Jewish, Hindu lands within 100 years of its founding by Muhammad. That empire still stands in terms of the Islamic culture it forced on the conquered Nations and cultures.
The reality of jihad is that Islam considers itself to be supremacist and must triumph, be victorious, over all other religions and cultures. Islam compels Muslims to spread Islam to all corners of the earth, first by invitation, Aslim Taslam, which means, “Submit and Be At Peace.”
And, if that isn’t effective, then by the sword or forcing subject people to accept Dhimmi status. Living in dhimmitude relegates subjects to second-class status, with vastly diminished rights, including no right for the Dhimmi peoples to defend themselves. Muhammad conquered many with that simple statement, Aslim Taslam, which was intended to strike terror into the hearts of those offered the choice, and it did. This is the beginning of the Muslim Mafia mentality, perfected by the Ikhwan, Wahhabis, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.
Likening it to the Mafia is no facile rhetorical device. Islam offered three choices to the “people of the book”: Convert, Pay the Jizyah tax or lose the right to life and property. So when Islam characterized this choice as the benefit of protection, one must ask, protection from whom? Obviously, the answer is protection from Islam, which reserved the right to take life and property if the conditions of conversion or the payment of the Jizyah tax were not met. How different is this from the Black Hand extorting protection money from the neighborhood grocer?
If Islam does not succeed in becoming the world’s only true religion, then Muslims will not have fulfilled Allah’s commands in the Qur’an. Thus, Muslims are obligated to proselytize Islam throughout the world through da’wa and Jihad. Whether violently or nonviolently, this is accomplished with 100% impunity from Allah, as per the Qur’an. One could make the comparison with Christianity being a proselytizing religion, but Christianity as found in the Gospels does not allow the use of violence to spread the faith, whereas Islam specifically does. Muslims may quote the Koran saying, “There is no compulsion in religion.” But, that statement is superseded and abrogated by later statements in the Koran that enthusiastically endorse violent compulsion in the spread of Islam.
Professor Faisal Kutty went on to make further incredible claims, saying that terrorism had only killed five people in the last ten years. In this, presumably he was referring to within the US, and ignoring events such as Major Hassan’s slaughter of fellow military personnel at Fort Hood, Texas. But he also ignored the more than 10,000 terror attacks worldwide in the last 10 years, almost all committed by Muslims, and in which, ironically, many of the victims were fellow Muslims. Thousands of Christians, Jews and Hindus were victims as well.
He also claimed that the popular definition of jihad is only accepted by the Taliban and by al-Qaeda, stating that they had sought to reinterpret the historical meaning of jihad to support their violent means. In this he ignored 1,400 years of written teaching on Islam readily available from Muslim sources, as well as established treatment of jihad in recognized Sharia sources such as The Reliance of the Traveller, Shafi’i Shari’ah, Section O9.1, Page 600 — Justice-jihad.
Lecture number two was delivered by Amara Chaurhry-Kravitz, a secular female Muslim lawyer, who detailed her experience with Arab/Muslim Civil Rights in the Arab/Muslim community, pointing out that the profiling was cultural, not racially based, because Islam is a culture not a race. She spoke of her work representing women and LGBT victims, seeming to suggest the many violations known to occur within the community against women in child custody, domestic violence and inheritance rights.
We further “learned” from Ms. Chaurhry-Kravitz, who locally represents CAIR, how absurd it is that her organizations, Council American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) should be associated in the popular mind with terrorism. She made light of the Holy Land Foundation Trial, and their being named unindicted Muslim Brotherhood co-conspirators.
In this she purposefully ignored the fact that ISNA, CAIR and the Muslims Students Union are all organizations founded by the Muslim Brotherhood.
She also blithely dismissed the dangers of Shari’ah, by suggesting that efforts to import Shari’ah only relate to matters of family disputes and inheritance rights. If that were so, no one would care about Shari’ah, likening its presence in the US to Jewish Halacha adjudication and Catholic Canon courts’ judging on the annulments of marriages.
It is precisely Shari’ah teaching about Jihad, the killing of apostates and Ridda blasphemy laws as well as the definition of Democracy as blasphemy that raises the most profound concern. These violations of our Bill of Rights, along with others, are what make Shari’ah incompatible with a representative free Democracy and our constitution, but these were not even hinted at in the lecture.
She attempted to define what constitutes Muslim racial and civil rights profiling, giving examples of harassment of Muslims “flying while brown.” Of course, Muslim racial profiling flies in the face of reason as she herself had acknowledged, because Islam represents a culture not a Race.
She went on to define Islamophobia as an irrational fear of Islam, as if it weren’t a real concern. It’s real enough to Hindus, Jews, Coptic Christians, Maronite Christians, Sudanese and Nigerian Christians etc. How is Islamophobia irrational, as we daily read about murderous attacks on innocent populations?
Just this past Feb 25th, 2014, fifty-nine children were hacked to death and burned in Nigeria. And what about Sudanese, Egyptian Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi and Libyan Christians, all of which have suffered extreme oppression, from sporadic massacres to outright genocide?
Lecture number three was by a Muslim women’s lawyer, Fatina Abdrabboh Esq., experienced in Arab civil rights violations by Muslims against other Muslims, in the Arab Muslim community and out of that community. She, somewhat uncomfortably, spoke of the many violations within the community against women, without making the connection that the violations often appear to be a result of the conformity to Shari’ah Law within Muslim society.
Our fourth and final lecture was by Professor Ramzi Kassem, defender of prisoners’ rights in Guantanamo Bay and in other “black sites,” where jihadists are interred without due process, by renditions. He painted a picture of the US as a Stalinist state where the organs of internal security were violating every Muslim’s privacy rights by the recruiting of informers and fishing expeditions.
Professor Kassem decried the use of classified evidence that, if fully released to the defense counsel, would have identified intelligence assets, instead twice mentioning an unidentified Israeli agent as being the witness against a particular detainee. This, of course, was code for US investigations working at Israel’s direction. Needless to say, he did not mention that the majority of Gitmo detainees that have been released have gone right back to the battlefield as jihadists and terrorists. Many have subsequently died in these actions. So we were listening to a smooth, well mannered, handsome lawyer, who in fact is in the business of representing terrorists and duplicitously dealing in Taqiyya and Kitman.
In sum, the conference presenters described Islamic concepts of Justice in an almost Marxist model of oppressors and the oppressed. Because Muslim concepts of justice exist only under Shari’ah, satisfying their requirements would necessitate legalizing Shari’ah in America. We believe that the presenters were, therefore, at best engaged in Political Correctness, or at worst in Stealth Jihad in America.
Shari’ah Law and its compelling actions originate primarily from the Qur’an, with influence from other Islamic dogma and doctrine. Shari’ah is expected by Muslim authorities to be central to a Muslim’s existence. This BBC program is an example of da’wa-jihad.
We recognize that of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims, not all Muslims wish to live under the strictest norms of Shari’ah and, perhaps, a majority do not. However, a significant minority which, incidentally, is the minority willing to use guns, violence and savagery to enforce Shari’ah, remains in position to call the shots. Muslim moderates, therefore, are for the most part too weak to do anything other than delude themselves in Political Correctness or, in rare cases where it is possible in the West, attempt to reform Islam by re-interpreting Shari’ah. This holds no doctrinal currency. Where Islam is strong, these efforts are easily silenced by Ridda, or blasphemy laws. Furthermore, Islam can never be reformed by Political correctness from America. If it is to ever be reformed, It must happen in Mecca, Medina, Qum and Al-Azhar in Egypt, as well as on the battlefield where the neck-cutters are strongest.
If Jihadists and their supporters (based on polls taken) represent 20 % of the world’s Muslim population, that would number approximately 300,000,000 people globally. That is roughly equal to the entire population of the USA. A similar percentage of the US Muslim population would result in 60,000 Jihadists and supporters among American Muslims.
After absorbing the four presentations with our existing knowledge of Islam and Shari’ah, we feel obligated to reach out to you with what the present-day of Islam in America involves and what future it has planned for itself. This future is unfolding now!
The present-day representative of Islam in America is CAIR, which, along with the financier, Saudi Arabia, is waging Lawfare in America to harass and discourage critics of Islam through frivolous lawsuits. Lawfare is a constant threat for counterjihad activists and a challenge for America in dealing with Islam/Shari’ah.
Ultimately, we believe these activists envision a future where the conflict between Islam and our Constitution in the USA would be resolved through the adoption of Shari’ah into American Law and American Courts.
Our incredible country, the United States of America, was founded primarily upon Judeo-Christian culture and values, which birthed our Constitution and our Bill of Rights as a guide to the limits of governance. It is the Law of the Land. The Constitution is not a progressive tool. It represents our unalienable rights and natural law as articulated in the Old and New Testaments. Only the Judeo-Christian tradition holds all people to be fundamentally equal (in metaphysical importance) with each life having transcendent value as a gift from God. That value cannot be removed even if someone takes your life.
Either we Americans move ahead on a delusional and suicidal path of adopting ideologies inimical to our historical values and laws in order to avoid confrontation, or we abandon political correctness and ignorance about Islam and Shari’ah and stand ready to confront it.
We Americans must exhibit the fortitude to say to Islam, and its many millions of ignorant, delusional, useful idiot apologists, that Islam represents an existentially deadly “Clash of Civilizations,” against our the Constitution of the United States, Judeo-Christianity, Hinduism and all non-Islamic cultures.
We cannot live with that threat without legislating against Shari’ah and making it 100% clear that the Constitution of The United States of America is the law of our land. We must all assume the Oath that all Government, military and law enforcement members take, “to protect and preserve the Constitution of the USA against all enemies outside our borders as well as the Trojan Horses within.”
Each year, a new cadre of Muslim lawyers in American Law Schools graduate. Do these Muslim lawyers graduate to represent Islamic culture and Shari’ah in America or to represent American culture and our Constitution?
Just recently The Holy Land Foundation and its lawyers — some Muslim and some not — have made a bid to vacate the trial outcome, which Steven Emerson says, “strains credulity.”
A Civilizational battle rages in America. Concerned yet?
— Lance Silver and Andrew Palashewsky