February 23, 2015

American Laws for American Courts

American Laws for American Courts was crafted to protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shariah Law.

Why American Laws for American Courts?

Some 235 years ago, America’s forefathers gathered in Philadelphia to debate and write a unique document. That single-page document announced the formation of a new country—one that would no longer find itself in the clutches of a foreign power. That document was the Declaration of Independence. Eleven years later, many of those same men gathered again to lay the foundation for how the United States of America was to be governed: The US Constitution, a form of government like no other by the people, of the people and for the people.

For more than two centuries, hundreds of thousands of courageous men and women have given their lives to protect America’s sovereignty and freedom.

American constitutional rights must be preserved in order to preserve unique American values of liberty and freedom. State legislatures have a vital role to play in preserving those constitutional rights and American values of liberty and freedom.

America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems, particularly Shariah Law. Included among, but not limited to, those values and rights are:

  • Freedom of Religion
  • Freedom of Speech
  • Freedom of the Press
  • Due Process
  • Right to Privacy
  • Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Civil and Criminal Law Serve as the Bedrock for American Values: We are a nation of laws.

Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines, including Shariah law principles, are finding their way into US court cases.

Reviews of state laws provide extensive evidence that foreign laws and legal doctrines are introduced into US state court cases, including, notably, Islamic law known as Shariah, which is used in family courts and other courts in dozens of foreign Muslim-majority nations .

These foreign laws, frequently at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, typically enter the American court system through:

  • Comity (mutual respect of each country’s legal system)
  • Choice of law issues and
  • Choice of forum or venue

Granting comity to a foreign judgment is a matter of state law, and most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state.This doctrine, the “Void as against Public Policy Rule,” has a long and pedigreed history.

Unfortunately, because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws, including as an example, Shariah, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices – first to know what Shariah is, and second, to understand that granting comity to a Shariah judgment may be at odds with our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.

The goal of the American Laws for American Courts Act is a clear and unequivocal application of what should be the goal of all state courts: No U.S. citizen or resident should be denied the liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed in our constitutional republic. American Laws for American Courts is needed especially to protect women and children, identified by international human rights organizations as the primary victims of discriminatory foreign laws.

By promoting American Laws for American Courts, we are preservingindividual liberties and freedoms which become eroded by the encroachment of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as Shariah.

It is imperative that we safeguard our constitutions’ fundamentals, particularly the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the sovereignty of our Nation and its people, and the principles of the rule of law—American laws, not foreign laws.


AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution.


The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

The [general assembly/state legislature] fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, and also recognizes that this right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[1] As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals For the purposes of this act, foreign law shall not mean, nor shall it include, any laws of the Native American tribes in this state.

[2] Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[3] A contract or contractual provision (if severable) which provides for the choice of a law, legal code or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the law, legal code or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[4]A. A contract or contractual provision (if severable) which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any law, legal code or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[4]B. If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency or similarly binding proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions of the non-claimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be denied.

[5] Without prejudice to any legal right, this act shall not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or the United States.

[6] This subsection shall not apply to a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State. This exemption in no way grants permission for any otherwise unlawful act under the guise of First Amendment protection.

[7] This statute shall not be interpreted by any court to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party to the extent that such treaty or international agreement preempts or is superior to state law on the matter at issue.

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases
Version 1.4 / June 21, 2011 (PDF, 635 pages, 2.4 MB)

The Center for Security Policy’s report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.

These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.

The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases.

Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections.

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of several cases in which the court’s application of Shariah law appears to be in direct conflict with Constitutional liberties and the public policies of the state.

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases
Version 1.4 / June 21, 2011 (PDF, 635 pages, 2.4 MB)

NOTE: In the fifty full-text published court cases, the highlighted search terms are included for the reader’s convenience.

For more information, contact the Center for Security Policy

To schedule an interview, contact:
David Reaboi dreaboi@securefreedom.org (202) 431-1948 or (202) 835-9077



“I support the principle of American Laws for American Courts, to ensure that no American citizen or resident is denied, as a result of the enforcement of foreign law, the liberties, rights and privileges guaranteed by state public policies and the U.S. Constitution.”

(Courtesy, American Public Policy Alliance)

Why do we need ALAC (American Laws for American Courts)?

For decades, through the misuse of comity, American courts have improperly applied foreign laws, causing harm in many cases, especially to women and children who have immigrated here to escape the harsh and discriminatory laws of their homeland. Since most states lack a statute that defines the state’s public policy on the application of foreign laws in state courts, the goal of ALAC is to ensure that all of our residents reap the benefits of the American legal system by reinforcing our U.S. laws. Furthermore, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists aggressively promotes sharia law. According to its website, its purpose is to serve “the growing need of an Islamic jurisprudence to Muslims in the west.” A look at the 85 sharia courts in Great Britain will make obvious the need for us to be proactive.

Most of the cases with which ALAC deals concern themselves with matters of family law. ALAC does not:

Apply to a business that contracts to subject itself to foreign law;

Interfere with the exercise of religion as per the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;

Conflict with any treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party.

There are hundreds of cases in which foreign law which conflicts with U.S. law has been invoked. For detail on many of these cases, please see: http://www.shariahinamericancourts.com. As U.S. citizens become increasingly aware of the influence of foreign law on the outcome of legal proceedings, public support for ALAC has grown tremendously. Six states thus far have passed ALAC, all of them by most impressive majorities:

AZ: ?

KS – Senate: 33-3; House: 120-0

OK – Senate: 40-3; House: 85-7

LA – Senate: 33-3; House: 94-0

TN – Senate: 32-0; House: 96-0

NC – Senate: 31-2; House: 75-37

MS – 116-1

To date, ALAC has not been challenged in any state in which it has been passed, and about twenty more states are considering instituting ALAC. Additionally, some Muslim groups (such as AILC) have publicly supported ALAC as have many distinguished members of the military and intelligence communities.

Three sample cases invoking foreign law:

The first case is S.D. v. MJR, a Moroccan couple (married in Morocco), whose case was tried in NJ in 2010. While the wife was pregnant with their child, she claimed that the husband repeatedly raped and abused her physically, claiming that these behaviors were acceptable under sharia law. The results of the physical abuse were verified through pictures taken by the Prosecutor’s office and hospital personnel. The wife was seeking a restraining order.

In his testimony, the couple’s imam confirmed that, in Islam, a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, though he acknowledged that in NJ non-consensual sex is considered rape.

The trial court judge refused to issue a restraining order on the grounds that the husband was behaving according to his beliefs, and had no criminal intent. Instead, the judge ordered the husband to have no further contact with the wife.

Almost thirteen months later, the appellate court decided in favor of granting the restraining order.


The second case began in October of 2011 in PA, when a man marching in an atheists’ parade costumed himself as a “Zombie Muhammad.” A Muslim onlooker took offense and attacked the Zombie Muhammad, tearing his sign off and pulling at his beard.

The PA judge handling the case, Mark Martin, dismissed the case for lack of evidence despite the video taken of the attack and the on-the-scene confession to police by the Muslim attacker. Before the dismissal of the case, however, the judge dressed down the victim for six minutes regarding his lack of sensitivity to Muslims while holding up a Quran! Furthermore, the judge refused to allow the video into evidence, claiming that he had heard enough and there were two conflicting stories.

Since the trial, the victim has received 471 verifiable threats.


A third case concerns the custody of the minor daughter of a Pakistani couple. The mother fled Pakistan with her daughter and settled in MD, keeping their whereabouts hidden from her husband. The husband took the custody matter to a Pakistani court, which notified the mother of the upcoming trial. The mother elected not to travel to Pakistan as she was in an adulterous relationship in the U.S. and could therefore be sentenced to punishment or death; additionally, the mother may have recognized that her chances of winning custody in Pakistan were exceedingly slim. The mother was represented by her father and legal counsel but was not there herself to present her testimony. The daughter was not represented by counsel either. The Pakistani court decided in favor of the father being granted custody.

That trial was followed by a trial in a MD court, which granted comity to the Pakistani decision, holding that the Pakistani court had decided, as would a MD court, in the best interest of the child, citing, among other things, that the child should be brought up in her culture and religion of origin. Also, in Pakistan, the father is considered the “natural guardian.” The child’s lawyer did not appear due to confusion regarding schedules; the child, therefore, was again unrepresented.

At the appeals level, the trial court verdict was again affirmed. Although the mother complained of the father’s abuse of alcohol and drugs and his subsequent bad temper, and despite the fact that the daughter was afraid of her father and wanted to stay with her mother, the fitness of neither parent was ever brought up.

To sum up, lives have been adversely affected by the application of foreign laws by U.S. state courts. That pattern of reliance upon foreign law stands to become even stronger and more frequent as our immigration rate continues to grow and as the American Muslim Jurists Association gains in numbers and political clout. This situation can be rectified by the passage of a bill which effectively changes nothing, but merely makes clear that only U.S. laws may be considered in American court cases. Please help us to help those who have immigrated here in the hope of experiencing the freedom and justice we afford our citizens. Please co-sponsor American Laws for American Courts. Thank you!

South Central CT Chapter
ACT! For America



Florida Governor Rick Scott approved on Monday, May 12, 2014 legislation titled Application of Foreign Law in Courts (SB 386) which would prohibit Florida courts from considering some provisions of Sharia and other foreign laws.

The full senate amended SB 386, titled it Application of Foreign Law in Courts and voted 24 to 14 to approve the new language on April 28, 2014 session. The house voted 78 to 40 in favor of the amended senate version SB 386 titled Application of Foreign Law in Courtsduring the April 30, 2014 session.

Florida became the eighth state to prohibit state courts from considering foreign laws.

Email: ffa@floridafamily.org

Florida Family Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105
Telephone 813-264-5888


American Laws for American Courts has passed into law in the following states:
Click here to view accurate updated map of states that have passed American Laws For American Courts


Below may be one reason the Islamists are getting ahead of us:

Traitors within the U.S. Senate & Congress
By: Dave Gaubatz
14 Oct 2013

Almost 5 years ago my team and I conducted first-hand research in CAIR National (Muslim Brotherhood). Our book, ‘Muslim Mafia’ was released in 2009. In our book we named ‘names’. The names we mentioned were often confirmed traitors of our U.S. Constitution and they were U.S. Senators and Congressmen. Some are still in office and some are not.

I want to refresh Americans minds about who these people are and to encourage you to demand they leave office or if they have been voted out, to never return.

The following are Senators and Congressmen who vocally support the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR) and their hate and violence filled Islamic ideology. CAIR sponsors Islamic based terrorism against innocent people worldwide and they are working and living in Washington DC. This is sad, but it is even much sadder our American leaders are in bed with the enemy.

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD)

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA)

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI)

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-IL)

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL)

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA)

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)

Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)

Rep. Albert L. Wynn (D-MD)

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)

Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA)

Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA)

Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA)

Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-MD)

Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA)

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)

Rep. James P. Moran (D-VA)

Rep. Nick J. Rahall, II (D-WV)

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)

Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD)

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Rep. Andre Carson, (D-IN)

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)


1. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) … $16,970

2. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) … $15,000

3. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) … $14,000

4. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)… $12,500

5. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) … $12,000

6. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) … $8,500

7. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) … $8,000

(tie) Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) … $8,000

8. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI) … $7,000

9. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) … $6,000

10. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) … $5,000

Presidents and Commanders in Chief who are aligned more with Sharia law than with our U.S. Constitution are:

  • Jimmy Carter
  • Barack Hussein Obama 

* Contributions from Arab American Leadership PAC, National Association of Arab-Americans PAC, and National Muslims for a Better America PAC; 2000 – 2008 elections cycles.

Many people who are devoting parts of their lives to educating innocent Americans about the truth of the Islamic ideology and terrorist organizations such as CAIR often feel we/they are fighting an uphill battle. I stress to all that there are more honest, ethical, and law abiding Americans than CAIR has scattered around the globe. CAIR has only 5133 members in America.

Many are asking how can they have so much media and political power having so few members? The answer is simple. Saudi Arabia puts millions of dollars into our colleges, high schools, libraries, the pockets of politicians, our media, and into such terrorist organizations as CAIR.

The result is money talks. We have a tough road ahead, but I have faith in ‘True Americans’.

In my professional opinion, and based on my hundreds of hours analyzing our national security, I adamantly believe the persons I mentioned above are traitors to America.

It is important to point out that the above information and much, much more damaging information pertaining to the politicians I have discussed is presented in ‘Muslim Mafia’. After almost five years these politicians have never disputed the accuracy of ‘Muslim Mafia’. Not one has sued me for slander of them. As with CAIR National I have no problem swearing under oath about anything I have ever written or said. CAIR knows this and they are very frightened we will release the other 11,000 plus documents when our court case is complete and the judge gives the nod.

-P.David Gaubatz

February 22, 2015

The Seven Characteristics of Loser Nations

The following was written by William Hamilton, Ph.D.

In the Spring, 1998, issue of Parameters, the journal of the U.S. Army War College, Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, USA (Ret.), listed the seven characteristics of what Colonel Peters calls: “The Loser Nations.”

By losers, Colonel Peters means those nations where mostly illiterate people live in poverty, suffer from a lack of health care, wholesome food, clean water and sanitation. Here’s the list:

1. Restrictions on the free flow of information.
2. Subjugation of women.
3. Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
4. The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
5. Domination by a restrictive religion.
6. Low valuation of education.
7. Low prestige assigned to work.

February 21, 2015

The Conditions Of Omar

Caliph Omar
Greg Hamilton came up with another brilliant idea (to see more of his ideas, subscribe to Malsi-Tung). Hamilton lives in a very Muslim area in Britain and he rides the train a lot. He wanted a way to educate his fellow non-Muslims about Islam without endangering his life. His solution is ingenious: To simply wear a button that says, "Enjoy the conditions of Omar." It is such an innocent message, and somewhat ambiguous. Certainly nothing to get riled up about, even for a Muslim.

Of course, most people won't know what it means. But most people can Google it, and the curious will. What they'll find is eye-opening.

Ideally, they will find the web site Hamilton has created. If enough counterjihad sites link to it, like I am about to do, his site will rise to the top spot on a Google search for "conditions of Omar." His site is here. And this is what it says:

Dear Reader,

The Pact of Omar was a treaty drawn up between Muhammad’s successor Caliph Omar and the conquered Christians and Jews in his domain. The Pact was based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people. It set out the rules Christians and Jews had to abide by in order to be protected from further jihad attacks. This pact formed the basis of the Conditions of Omar.

Verse 9:29 of the Koran sets out the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. It says,

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

In Islamic parlance “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews — they have a book (other religions at the time didn’t have a book). Under conquest they had a third choice other than conversion to Islam or death; this was to live under Sharia as inferior people suffering various humiliations, one of which was the jizyah, a tax levied only on non-Muslims. The non-Muslims are known as dhimmis (pronounced dimmees).

The relationship that the Conditions set up has the following characteristics:

  • Jihad violence is held off (like a dragon on a chain) as long as the dhimmis do not breach the Conditions
  • If the Conditions are breached (even by one dhimmi) the jihad violence is resumed against any or all of the dhimmi community
  • Dhimmis therefore lived in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear. Each dhimmi and the dhimmi community as a whole faced a perpetual concern lest anyone breached the Conditions and brought about catastrophe

Other than paying the non-Muslim poll tax or jizyah what conditions had to be kept?

Dhimmis were forbidden from:
  • Criticizing or mocking Islam or Muhammad. Only praise for Islam and Muhammad was allowed
  • Criticizing the Conditions of Omar: the very conditions of subjugation under which they lived
  • Testifying against a Muslim in court
  • Studying Islam - thus keeping them ignorant of its teachings
  • Cursing a Muslim
  • Raising a hand against a Muslim, even in self-defense, on pain of having it amputated
  • Displaying their religious symbols

These are only a sample of the Conditions, chosen to highlight why they are relevant today — which I will come to later. There were geographical and historical variants on the Conditions but they all held to the same theme — the humiliation and subjugation of non-Muslims and the maintenance of multiple forms of discrimination against them.

The Conditions also worked in conjunction with each other. For example, if a Muslim accused a Christian of a capital offence, such as trying to convert a Muslim, the Christians’ own testimony was not valid in their defence.

Dhimmis were ‘protected’ as long as they met the Conditions. If a dhimmi community (or any member of it) broke the Conditions it was the duty of the local Muslim community to restart the jihad against them.

A key outcome of this scenario is the desire of non-Muslims to avoid confrontations with Muslims and to police one another to prevent deviant individuals destroying the ‘protection’ of the Conditions.

Pakistan is a Muslim country where the Conditions of Omar are operating to some degree today. In March 2013, because one Christian was accused of blasphemy, some 3,000 Muslims attacked the Christian Joseph Colony of Lahore, burning two churches and 160 Christian homes.

In 2009 in Gojra, eight Christians were burned alive, 100 houses looted and 50 homes set ablaze after another blasphemy accusation.

We can see why dhimmis live in a state of perpetual concern for the potential impact of their personal actions on their whole community.

May 5th 2014, Bangladesh, a 3,000 strong Muslim mob attacked Hindu households and a temple after two youths were alleged to have slandered the ‘prophet’ Muhammad on Facebook.

These are just a few examples to show how the Conditions are applied in practise and that they are still active today. Islam as a body of belief has never discarded them and never will because, realistically, it can’t. You can read many more examples of the Conditions in action today if you look up Raymond Ibrahim’s Bulletin of Christian Persecution online. His book, "Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christianity" is also very informative.

You might like to believe that the application of Islamic law or Sharia is receding. It isn’t. Over the last 60 years Sharia worldwide has been extending and intensifying. See here.

And that brings us to the here and now.

Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries have brought Sharia with them. The Conditions of Omar are simply a subset of Sharia which sets out how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims under conquest.

You might well say that what Muslims do to Hindus or Christians or other non-Muslims in Bangladesh or Pakistan is none of our business. That is called the death of conscience.

You might well say that we have not been conquered. That is only partly true. A process of conquest is underway.

The Conditions of Omar are being established today right under our noses. They may not be coming about because we are under occupation but they are being established as norms of behaviour. Sometimes we are imposing the Conditions on ourselves as a gesture of goodwill or to prevent discrimination; sometimes we are imposing them due to fear of jihad terrorism or angry rioting; sometimes they are established by default.

One of the subtle ways we are surrendering to the Conditions is by policing what non-Muslims can say about Islam and Muslims. See this example.

Anyone living among Muslims today knows that being openly critical of Islam or Muhammad is risky. Plenty of examples have set the precedent: in 2004 Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a film critical of Islamic attitudes to women; in 1989 Salman Rushdie was forced into hiding after writing The Satanic Verses, his Japanese translator was murdered; in 2004 the Danish cartoons episode erupted in which 162 people around the world were killed during protests, again demonstrating how some Muslims will kill people totally unrelated to the ‘offence'.

These are a small selection but they point to two clear principles: (1) the author of something considered critical of Islam is liable to be killed; (2) anyone can be killed in revenge against the non-Muslim world. Both of these conform to rules set out in the Conditions.

As a result of such actions and threats most publications refused to print the cartoons. Public figures came to the defence of a religion they knew nothing about. Those seeking to rock the boat further by printing the cartoons became the targets of the condemnation of their fellow non-Muslims rather than the Muslims threatening violence.

Again, this conforms to the Conditions and the behaviour of dhimmi populations who feel vulnerable and threatened. The dhimmi populations turn to self-policing in order to prevent deviant individuals triggering violence from Muslims. This strategy buys into the idea that it is entirely up to non-Muslims to refrain from behaviour which upsets Muslims — a dhimmi outlook.

The principle has become established that non-Muslims should not confront Muslims about their behaviour or their beliefs. Only praise of Islam is allowed. This is submission – especially in view of the fact that Islamic beliefs call for the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.

In the UK and many European countries legal measures have also been put in place to suppress critical voices about Islam. The Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 makes it an offence carrying a two year prison term for: “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.”

Now how do you prove intent here? Is trying to warn one’s fellow citizens about the divisive and supremacist nature of a religion the same as stirring up hatred against followers of that religion? If so, there is no way to reasonably warn against such a religion. And who would benefit from that? …Not the intended victims, obviously.

Make no mistake; this is happening around you now. Paul Weston, a prospective Member of the European Parliament, was arrested outside the Guildhall, Winchester on April 26th 2014 for quoting Winston Churchill’s damning assessment of Islam. He was charged under the terms of the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 for racially and religiously aggravated harassment.

The incident described above is yet another example of the dhimmi relationship in action. Behind all the waffle about discrimination and protecting minorities there is something which explains all the rationalisation taking place: fear. Fear of Muslim violence directed at anyone and everyone for offences against Islam.
You will find the word ‘Islamophobia’ used to describe those who are critical of Islam. What does it mean?

It doesn’t really mean anything; it’s designed as an intimidating word to enforce dhimmi behaviour. It carries a cocktail of messages which have certain key aims:

  • Phobia suggests an irrational and exaggerated fear with no basis in reality. Fear is a negative reaction and under the Conditions only praise for Islam is allowed
  • The word also suggests dislike or hatred of Islam. This is also a negative reaction and under the Conditions only praise for Islam is allowed
  • Thus if you are positive about Islam you are a good person; but if you are negative about Islam you are a bad person. This creates a reluctance to find out more about Islam and discover what you really think about it. This fosters ignorance of Islam which is another requirement of dhimmis under the Conditions

I have tried to give you some understanding of what the Conditions of Omar are, how they are applied in Muslim controlled countries, and how they are being established in non-Muslim countries.

Why on earth should you enjoy the Conditions of Omar?

Given the reluctance of most people to face anything unpleasant, the invitation to enjoy is simply an enticement to get your attention. But it is also more than this.

The 20th century Muslim theorist Syed Qtub said that the only freedom that should be supported was the ‘freedom’ to choose Islam. Non-Muslims under the Conditions of Omar would be gradually stripped of their freedoms so that they were left with only one: the freedom to choose Islam. He said, with a completely straight face, that non-Muslims should enjoy this erosion of their freedoms.

Also, in today’s climate only praise of Islam is allowed. The statement is an expression of what it seeks to change. It’s meant ironically.

The statement is also designed to arouse your curiosity but to do so in a way that cannot be construed as ‘hate speech’. It is positive in mood, though the irony becomes clear later. It is in itself inoffensive but it carries an important message.

In accordance with the Conditions, your ignorance of Islam is required. In today’s world ignorance and silence about Islam are both forms of submission. ‘Dumb’ is a word that encapsulates both ignorance and silence. We are being made dumb and submissive.

The Conditions create a system of gradual enslavement and what the system most needs to succeed right now is your ignorance and silence about Islam.

Finally, you can enjoy the Conditions of Omar by resisting them. Open your eyes to where we are and accept that this is your place in history and do what is right. Many of those in the Greatest Generation who fought Nazism felt it was the best part of their lives. All non-Muslims now have the opportunity to fight for their cultures and their civilisations.

Fighting great evils puts us in a different moral space; we learn more about real human values like courage, truth, and goodness. By standing up to barbarism in defence of higher values we become minor heroes.

Even now, when Muslims are unleashing huge persecution against Christians and other non-Muslims, there is a reticence and dread of offending. There is a posture of apologising and appeasement, of trying to identify what it is in ourselves that is displeasing. All the while the driving force of jihad is ignored.

In the face of such obvious evil, is wearing a badge saying “Enjoy The Conditions Of Omar” too much to ask? By so doing you will act as a signpost that directs others to this webpage.

For your badge you can use our online SHOP or you can right click on the image above and select "Save image as" and save it to a location on your computer. You can then send it to any online maker of button badges. If you have the equipment you can even make them yourself.

So, what's the point?
  • To spread the word about Islam's stance towards non-Muslims. Most non-Muslims are hopelessly ignorant of the Islamic worldview. They mistakenly assume that it shares the characteristics of other religions. Where they are generally positive about religion they assume that Islam must be a force for good. Where they are negative about religion they assume it is no worse or better than any other religion.
  • To open people's eyes to the prison being erected around them. A climate has already been established in which opposition to Islam is framed as a crime. Sharia prohibitions against criticism of Islam and Muslims may not yet be directly applied but they are already indirectly applied by bogus "hate crimes"; "racism" — which is completely absurd since Islam is not a race and opposition to it cannot therefore be racist; and "Islamophobia" which is already gaining currency as a moral offence even though nobody can define it.
  • To raise awareness that the Sharia prohibitions against non-Muslims defending themselves against Islam and Muslims are already being implemented. Criticism and mockery of Islam are forms of self-defence in today's circumstances but people have lost their jobs or been imprisoned as a result of their opposition to Islam and Sharia. This is a less draconian parallel to having one's hand amputated since one's livelihood is cut off.
  • To raise awareness that an oppressive silence has taken hold; a silence that is the fruit of ignorance maintained by fear. There are plenty of things we could wear on a badge or T-shirt but would we get away with it? How about this: "Don't be fooled by Islam — Jihadwatch" or "Don't let Islam ruin your day." Apart from the problem of aggressive responses there's the problem that any statement of this type is seen as "hate" (an abstract thing which apparently is always bad) and the wearer's credibility is downgraded. Whatever he/she is saying is effectively locked behind an invisible wall of emotional fallacies. "Enjoy The Conditions Of Omar" teases the viewer's curiosity in a non-threatening way.
  • And lastly, there is only one thing left to say to those who refuse to heed the warning: Enjoy the conditions of Omar.

Resources to help you

Your first battle is to reduce your own ignorance and to clear a path through all the misinformation being spread to mislead you. You can do this very easily by studying the many good resources available to you online. Here are a few:

www.InquiryIntoIslam.com has many informative articles and analyses of Islamic doctrine, history, contemporary issues, as well as primers for the novice.

www.PoliticalIslam.com has lots of resources on primary Islamic doctrine and the teachings of Muhammad.

www.JihadWatch.org gives insight into the Islamic justifications for current events including terrorism, persecution, and subversion.


Mark Durie – The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude, and Freedom. This will help you understand the worldview created by Islam, the way Islamic doctrine works as a comprehensive system, and how it has affected non-Muslims throughout its 1400 year history

Robert Spencer – The Truth about Muhammad. This will help you understand the character of Islam’s founder and how Islam itself so closely reflects his character.

Read the Koran. You will soon get to see the tenor of it, with its constant denunciations of nonbelievers and the terrors awaiting them.

The Centre for the Study of Political Islam has a series of books that are particularly helpful.

Raymond Ibrahim – Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christianity.

Read the biography of Muhammad known as the Sira. This will show you what the primary Islamic sources say about the ‘perfect model of conduct’.

Once you have attended to your own ignorance your next battle is to break the great silence in whatever way you can. If all you feel able to do is wear a badge saying “Enjoy The Conditions Of Omar” that is a lot more than most of your sleeping contemporaries, and it will point more people to the truth about Islam and its project of universal submission.

Get yourself a badge or tee shirt with the design on it here: Conditions of Omar shop.