Muslims Captured and Enslaved Hundreds of Americans

The following passages are excerpted from the excellent book, The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805, by Richard Zacks:

In 1801, just after the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson, Tripoli had become the first country ever to declare war on the United States. The ruler, Yussef Karamanli, had ordered his Janissaries to chop down the flagpole at the U.S. consulate to signal his grave displeasure with the slow trickle of gifts from America. Jefferson, when he learned the news, had responded by sending a small fleet to confront Tripoli and try to overawe it into a peace treaty.

For more than two centuries, the Barbary countries of Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli (now called Libya) had been harassing Christian ships, seizing cargo and capturing citizens. Algiers once boasted more than 30,000 Christian slaves, including one Miguel Cervantes, before he wrote Don Quixote. European powers in the 1500s and 1600s fought ferocious battles against Muslim pirates like Barbarosa. However, over time, a cynical system of appeasement had developed. The nations of Europe paid tribute — in money, jewels, and naval supplies — to remain at peace. England and France — in endless wars — found it cheaper to bribe the Barbary pirates than to devote a squadron to perpetually trawling the sea off Africa. At its core, expediency outweighed national honor.

When the thirteen American colonies split off from mother England, they lost British protection. The United States found itself lumped in the pile of potential Barbary victims, alongside the likes of Sardinia and Sicily. (From 1785 to 1815, more than six hundred American citizens would be captured and enslaved. This nuisance would prove to be no mere foreign trade issue but rather a near-constant hostage crisis.)

In colonial days, preacher Cotton Mather had described Barbary slaves as living for years in dug-out pits with a crosshatch of bars above... Galley slaves also lived to tell of being chained naked to an oar, forced to row ten hours at a stretch. Slaves, facing forward, pushed the forty-foot-long oars by rocking back to near horizontal, as though in a grotesque limbo contest, and then lurching with full strength, again and again. During hard chases, they were sustained by a wine-soaked rag shoved in their mouths...

Rituals varied, but in one account (of a North African slave auction) an American stated that after being purchased: "I was forced to lie down in the street and take the foot of my new master and place it upon my neck." Another described being forced to lick the dust along a thirty-foot path to the throne of the [king] of Algiers (now called Algeria).

John Foss survived captivity in Algiers, and his popular account ran in several American newspapers in the late 1790s, fleshing out the nightmare. He wrote of prisoners (Americans who had been captured on American ships and enslaved) routinely shackled with forty-pound chains, forced to perform sunrise-to-sunset labor ranging from digging out sewers to hauling enormous rocks for the harbor jetty. He matter-of-factly described the most common Barbary punishment for light infractions: bastinado of 150 strokes: "The person is laid upon his face, with his hands in irons behind him and his legs lashed together with a rope. One taskmaster holds down his head and another his legs, while two others inflict the punishment upon his breech (his buttocks) with sticks, somewhat larger than an ox goad. After he has received one half in this manner, they lash his ankles to a pole, and two Turks (Muslims) lift the pole up, and hold it in such a manner, as he brings the soles of his feet upward, and the remainder of his punishment, he receives upon the soles of his feet."

In 1803, Tripoli captured the Philadelphia. The Americans onboard the beautiful 1,200-ton American frigate were captured too, most of them enslaved.

The loss of the Philadelphia and its 307 crewmen and officers on Kaliusa Reef in Tripoli harbor marked a national disaster for the young United States. The Bashaw (king of Tripoli), a wily and worthy adversary, would set his first ransom demand for the American slaves at $1,690,000, more than the entire military budget of the United States.

Navy officers like the fierce Captain John Rodgers would beg for the chance to attack Tripoli to avenge and free his comrades; diplomats such as Tobias Lear, a Harvard graduate, yearned for the glory of negotiating their release. But the man who would one day speed their freedom more than all others was a stubby disgraced former army officer...

Here's a quote by William Eaton (the stubby former army officer): "If the Congress do not consent that the government shall send a force into the Mediterranean to check the insolence of these scoundrels and to render the United States respectable, I hope they will resolve at their next session to wrest the quiver of arrows from the left talon of the American Eagle...and substitute a fiddle bow or a cigar in lieu."

Eaton also said, "Let my fellow-citizens be persuaded that there is no borne limit to the avarice of the Barbary princes; like the insatiable grave, they can never have enough. Consign them the revenues of the United States as the price of peace, they would still tax our labors for more veritable expressions of friendship. But it is a humiliating consideration to the industrious citizen, the sweat of whose brow supports him with bread, that a tithe from his hard earnings must go to the purchase of oil of roses to perfume the pirate's beard!

"It is true that Denmark and Sweden (and even the United States, following their example) gratuitously furnish almost all their materials for ship-building and munitions of war; besides the valuable jewels and large sums of money we are continually paying into their hands for their forbearance, and for the occasional ransom of captives...Without these resources they would soon sink under their own ignorance and want of means to become mischievous. Why this humiliation? Why furnish them the means to cut our own throats?"

After the crew of the Philadelphia was enslaved, the captives were hoping the U.S. government would pay their ransom and bring them home.

Everyone knew that ransom might take months or years, but they also knew that there existed a simple way for the men to become free immediately, and that was to convert to Islam. Less than three weeks into captivity, John Wilson, a quartermaster born in Sweden, decided to "turn Turk" (convert), as did Thomas Prince, a seventeen-year-old from Rhode Island. Three more Americans would follow them.

The officials of Tripoli, who encouraged and allowed the religious conversion, took the matter seriously. Since the Koran forbids Muslims from enslaving Muslims, a conversion meant freedom from slavery. As Ray put it, "Thomas Prince was metamorphosed from a Christian to a Turk." His choice word metamorphosed was quite apt. Not only did the ritual involve words of faith and promises to perform new rituals, but also a change of clothes and that inevitable loss of foreskin. While circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran (as it is in the Old Testament, Genesis 17:11), the rite became sanctified by Muslim theologians as far back as the seventh and eighth centuries.

The main story of the book is that William Eaton and seven U.S. Marines organized and led a group of thousands of enemies of the king of Tripoli and captured the second biggest city in the country, making the king willing to negotiate a treaty and return the captured Americans. A few years later, the American navy became powerful enough to put a permanent end to the Muslim capture of American ships in the Mediterranean.

The above (except what is in italics) was excerpted from the book, The Pirate Coast, by Richard Zack. Without ever saying it explicitly, these excerpts demonstrate that aggression toward Western nations in the name of Islam is not a modern phenomenon, and is not caused by recent grievances. Modern grievances used to justify violence are pretexts, used since Mohammad's time (read more about that here). The reason Thomas Jefferson knew this is because he read the Koran.  

If you would like to share the excerpts above, we've posted these same passages on Inquiry Into Islam (to make it easier to share). Use this link: Hundreds of Americans Were Captured and Enslaved. 

Why Are People Suspicious of Muslims?

I loved the comment below by Robert Spencer. He said basically, "You've got to be kidding me if you think people are angry at Muslims and suspicious of them because people like us are critical of Islamic doctrine. Has it ever occurred to them that people may be angry at Muslims and suspicious of them because of..."

"Osama bin Laden? Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist? Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist? Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist? Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who murdered a soldier at a Little Rock Army recruiting center? Adam Gadahn? John Walker Lindh? 9/11? The London jihad bombings? The Madrid jihad bombings? The Mumbai jihad bombings? The Beslan jihad massacres? The Bali jihad bombings? The thousands of jihad attacks that have taken place around the world since 9/11? Not to mention the arrogance and dishonesty of "peaceful" Islamic spokesmen like the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, his unctuous and glaringly insincere wife Daisy Khan, Honest Ibe Hooper, and Zead Ramadan himself? And so many others."

Seeing More Headscarves

When I was a kid, I never saw Islamic-style headscarves worn by anyone in my town. I first saw one a few years ago. Now I see them all the time. And it bothers me. Does that make me a racist?

People all over the free world are seeing the same thing, and are feeling disturbed by it. Concerned. Frightened even. Does that mean we are xenophobic bigots? The answer is no. I'm sure there are racist xenophobes among us, but for those of us aware of Islamic ideology and Islamic history, the reason we are uncomfortable with a growing number of Muslims in our midst is simple and reasonable: It has traditionally spelled doom for the existing culture. Islam annihilates cultures.

Islamic headscarves are indicative of ideology. If a Muslim woman believes in Islamic ideology, she will wear a headscarf. A headscarf is one of the few publicly visible signs of Islamic devotion. And if she believes in Islamic ideology, she will probably have lots of children and indoctrinate her children with the ideology too (Islamic texts encourage fecundity and indoctrination). And Islamic ideology is dangerous to non-Muslims. The higher the percentage of Muslims in a given population, the more dangerous they are (because of Islam's rule of numbers).

But I'm not a bigot or a xenophobe, and here's how I can tell: When I see a Hindu woman in a headscarf, it doesn't bother me a bit. Hindu ideology is not dangerous to non-Hindus. When I see a Buddhist monk, I don't feel concerned. If I saw a growing number of Buddhist monks in my town, it wouldn't bother me at all.

And I'm not a racist. If I saw more and more Japanese people in my town, it wouldn't disturb me at all.

It's the ideology. Anyone who understands what it says in Islamic texts should be concerned at the growing number of Muslims in our midst.

No One Would Listen

If you haven't read the powerful book, Night, by Elie Wiesel, you really should. It is his account of what happened to him during WWII. He was a young teen living in a small village in Hungary when, in 1942, the Hungarian police arrived to announce that all foreign Jews had to leave. The police loaded them all into trains and took them away.

The people in the town were disturbed, of course. It was a sad day. But after a few months, the memory began to fade, and life eventually returned to normal. They felt they were far enough removed from the war that it would end before it ever came to their remote village.

Then one day, one of those foreign Jews found his way back to the village. His name was Moishe. He was an old man, but the young Elie Wiesel had known him fairly well. Moishe had an extraordinary story to tell. He said when the trainload of Jews crossed the border into Polish territory, the Gestapo loaded them into trucks and took all the Jews into a forest where they were forced to dig huge trenches, and then they were all shot! Moishe himself was shot in the leg and left for dead. But he escaped and had been struggling to get back to the little village so he could warn people of what happened. He was urging everyone to flee; to get away before the Germans came.

He went "from one Jewish house to the next," wrote Elie Wiesel, "telling his story..." And he repeatedly and urgently told his story at the synagogue.

But nobody believed him.

They thought he must have lost his mind. Why would the Germans just kill Jews like that? Germany was a modern, industrialized, enlightened country. They wouldn't simply murder people so heartlessly and for no reason. Moishe must have lost his mind.

Moishe was insistent. He begged people to listen to him. He cried. He pleaded. But not one person believed him. They didn't want to believe him, and that's a formidable barrier to communication.

Our message — that what is written in Islamic texts is dangerous to non-Muslims — is also something many people do not want to believe. The implications are too heavy. The people of Elie's village didn't want to contemplate what it would mean if Moishe's story was true. It would mean tragedy and heartache and a loss of faith in humanity. It would mean a drastically different future for everyone. If they believed Moishe, the wise course of action would be to immediately pack up or sell everything they own and move somewhere they'd never been before. They'd have to start over. The journey would be fraught with uncertainty and danger. Most of them had lived their whole lives in that little village.

But they had another option, didn't they? They could explain away Moishe's terrifying story. They could decide there must be some other explanation.

That's what we run into also, isn't it? People are desperately trying to explain it away. If it's true that the doctrines of Islam are dangerous to non-Muslims, we should all drop what we're doing and address it. What's the point of going on about our lives, as they did in Elie's village, if it will all go terribly wrong in a few years? No, there would be no return to normal. If someone truly and fully grasps the real situation, they're in a whole new world, and the "important goals" they were busy trying to accomplish up until now would be abruptly abandoned in order to handle this new (and far more pressing) reality.

But they have another option, don't they? They can decide there must be some other explanation. You must not understand it correctly. You must be taking the Koranic passages out of context. Muslims who believe in Islamic doctrines must be a very small minority. There must be some other explanation.

I invite you to read Night and think about this: What would you have done if you were in Moishe's situation? Do you think you could have gotten someone to believe you? How would you get through to people? Or would you have given up, as Moishe did, and leave them all to their fate?

In 1944, the German Army arrived at Elie's village and immediately initiated new policies to limit freedoms for Jews. The noose closed in tighter and tighter, one policy at a time, until one day all the Jews of the village were imprisoned in a ghetto and ordered to board the transport trains. People were terrified. What did this mean? They were busy in Elie's house frantically packing up food for the trip when Moishe came up to the front door and shouted, "I warned you!" Then he turned and left without waiting for anyone to respond.

It was too late to do anything about it. They were transported to Auschwitz, and all of them suffered terrible, unbelievable physical and psychological torment. Most of them ended up dead.

If Moishe had been able to make people believe him, everyone in the village would have had plenty of time to flee.

Let's not repeat the same mistake. Let's get through. Not with force. Not with crying or pleading or intensity. Let's find out what allows our message to penetrate, and let's use it with ever-growing skill. If you need help, it is available here: Tools.

Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence.

In July, Orthodox Muslims Were Urged to Start Forest Fires

On July 26, 2020, the Al-Hayat Media Center uploaded an animated video titled "Incite the Believers" to its Telegram channel. The narrator called upon Muslims living in non-Muslim lands to avenge their Muslim brothers using whatever weapons are available to them and to carry out jihad. Follow the link below if you want to see the video.

The narrator of the film said Muslims should use commonly available items to carry out their attacks and specifically gave the example of fire. He elaborated that fires such as forest fires have killed many non-Muslims and caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. The video encourages Muslims to start fires in a fashion that doesn’t draw attention to themselves and to dispose of all forms of evidence as they leave. The video urged viewers to set fire to forests, factories, agricultural fields, and buildings.

The video showed a man marking a location in California on a map to set ablaze.

The above is excerpted from a longer article at MEMRI. Read the whole article and watch the video here:

Pro-ISIS Media Center Urges Muslim In The West To Set Forests, Factories, Agricultural Fields, And Buildings On Fire

MEMRI translates television and video clips from the Muslim world into English.

Read more about the video from Homeland Security Today:

ISIS Video Urges Arson as ‘Five-Star’ Terror Tactic, Shows California Burning

According to Wikipedia, the Al-Hayat Media Center is the media wing of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It was established in mid-2014 by ISIS, which targets Western audiences and produces material in English, German, Russian and French. Read the Wikipedia page: Al-Hayat Media Center.

This call to destroy the non-Muslims is consistent with Islam's Prime Directive.

The Conditions Of 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.

Books

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.

Stabbing for Allah

The attackers are hailed as brave heroes, with a youth soccer tournament named for Muhannad Halabi, who murdered two Israelis, wounding the wife and two-year-old son of one in a stabbing in Jerusalem in early October. Some terrorists, killed by Israeli security forces and police either during or in the immediate aftermath of their attacks, are revered as shahids (martyrs) and have had streets and squares named in their honor.

The bloody toll to date includes a dozen dead and at least 19 seriously wounded in 59 separate stabbing attacks, mainly in Jerusalem. Some 72 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces, including 45 who Israel said were involved in attacks and another 27 Palestinians killed in clashes between stone-throwers and security forces.

The latest attack came on Friday afternoon, when a Palestinian stabbed an Israeli outside a supermarket in Sha’ar Binyamin “injuring him severely,” according to local authorities.

The above is quoted from an article by Paul Alster. Read the whole article here: Blade of Jihad.

No Syrian Refugees to the U.S.

We now know that at least one of the terrorists responsible for Friday's slaughter in Paris arrived as a Syrian refugee. The Obama Administration has already begun allowing Syrian refugees to our country, and has plans to bring up to 100,000 more. As the Paris attack has proven, these refugees are un-vettable. They will not only pose a serious security risk to our nation, but they will also tax the already overburdened U.S. financial and physical infrastructures

The United States is a compassionate nation, but we must learn from the refugee disaster that is now taking place in Europe and elsewhere. We must learn from Paris. This is a dangerous time, and American citizens must be ready to take action to protect the country -- now.

If you have not done so already, please take a moment today to sign our Open Letter to the leadership of the U.S. House and Senate, expressing strong opposition to the Administration’s plans to bring Syrian refugees to the U.S.

A refugee invasion is currently taking place in Europe and transforming the continent into Eurabia right before our very eyes.

Each day we see more of the devastating impact that hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees are having in welcoming countries. Many of these “refugees” are neither Syrian nor refugees. Many of them do not even speak Arabic, cannot tell you where they came from in Syria, and have no official documents. They make up their own names and there is no way to accurately vet them.

They are Afghans fleeing the Taliban; Eritreans fleeing their own oppressive government; and many thousands more hail from Iraq, Pakistan, and sub-Saharan Africa.

And to top it all off, ISIS has declared that they have already smuggled 4,000 of their members into Europe as refugees. The Paris attack has proven that this is indeed happening.

Areas housing the refugees have seen an increase in refugee rape, theft, gang activity, intimidation, and organized crime. German media are now reporting that thousands of these so-called “refugees” have already disappeared and are now in Germany -- unaccounted for.

This is but a foreshadowing of what will take place in our nation soon, if our government is foolish enough to follow suit – and President Obama and his Administration already have announced plans to increase the number of refugees accepted by the U.S. to at least 100,000 next year.

Click HERE to see information about terrorists who came to the U.S. as refugees, only to commit terror attacks against Americans - including the Tsarnaev Brothers/Boston Bombers.

We must stop this insanity. If the citizens of this nation band together to speak a resounding “NO” to our elected officials – we can.

But we need your help.

ACT for America has successfully stopped other out of control policy trains by using the petition as a tool, gathering over 100,000 signatures.

There is power in numbers.

Please take just a few minutes of your valuable time, RIGHT NOW, to sign our Open Letter to the U.S. Congress – expressing your strong opposition to allowing ANY Syrian refugees into the United States.

Your name, along with tens of thousands of others who sign this Open Letter, will be hand delivered to the leadership in the U.S. Congress by our Director of Government Relations. They will receive our message, loud and clear.

Silence and inactivity by the American grassroots will turn the U.S. into the same refugee nightmare that Europe and other nations are currently experiencing – a situation that won’t be easily rectified.

We must say “NO” NOW! We must stop any effort to bring tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into the U.S. – NOW – before it’s too late.

You can help make a difference by signing our Open Letter.

And, if you haven’t already, please join our growing Refugee Resettlement Working Group, so you can learn more about what you can do back home in your community to address this dangerous issue.

Our Working Group just held an important conference call with U.S. Representative Brian Babin, who has introduced legislation to stop Syrian refugees from coming to the United States. The Working Group will be actively supporting this bill and others like it, and will be working on other important tasks as well during the days ahead – all geared toward stopping this flood of refugees.

Please sign our Open Letter TODAY and forward this important message to everyone you know.

And always remember, if EACH of us does just a little, TOGETHER we can accomplish a lot.

Thank you.

Always devoted,

Brigitte Gabriel

Ben Carson Correct on Sharia Law

The following was written by Ramachandra B. Abhyankar and published in the reader's forum of the Tribune Star here.

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson recently made the following statements:

• “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country.”
• “I can support a Muslim who denounces Sharia law.”

Dr. Carson has raised the debate to a higher level, by speaking the truth.

Muslim theologian Abul Ala Maududi, in his book, “Towards Understanding Islam” explains that a practicing Muslim must follow both, “Din” (religion, consisting of the five pillars of Islam) and Sharia (Islamic Law). Sharia (Islamic Law) plays a central role in Islam. Former Muslims Solomon and Al-Maqdisi, in their book, “The Mosque Exposed” explain that there is no personal relationship between man and Allah in Islam, and that worship in Islam is to uphold “Allah’s will” which is Sharia, and if opposed, makes Jihad necessary.

Muslims enjoy equal rights with all in non-Muslim countries, where they are in a minority. But when they are in a majority, as in the countries of the Islamic world, they use Sharia Law as a weapon to deny equal rights to non-Muslims, and to violate the human rights of non-Muslims. Dr. Carson has not condemned the religious component of Islam. Dr. Carson has only condemned that component of Islam which Muslims use to deny equal rights to non-Muslims, and to violate the human rights of non-Muslims, when Muslims become the majority, as in countries of the Islamic world.

— Ramachandra B. Abhyankar, Terre Haute

Candy Crush, Highway Safety and Islam

My wife enjoys playing the computer game Candy Crush. The game designers repeatedly thwart her achieving a “higher level” and added insult to injury by building a mandatory 20 minute “wait” period before she continues her “quest” to achieve “Candy Queendom”. I was envious the game had more control than I did. I wondered if there was an app I could install on her phone for the purposes of a 20 minute timeout that would apply to dealing with me but so far no such app exists.

Stay with me, I’m getting to the connection with Islam.

After several months I noticed that the “mandatory” breaks were occurring less often and assumed she was finally achieving Candy Crush Paradise. When I inquired she proudly said, “Nope, I just move the date/time on my IPAD settings up; I fool the game and play on as if nothing is wrong.”

Wow! I was very proud of my non-IT spouse jury-rigging her IPAD to accomplish her end goal. I asked what I thought would be innocuous question, “Do you think by changing the date on the IPAD you are cheating?” She replied in a superior manner, “Of course not, don’t be silly. I’m not going to let a game-manufacturer determine when I wish to play this game….are you serious?” Actually, yes and no.

Continuing my shallow defense of Candy Crush I told her that when she downloaded the game she agreed to the standard “terms and conditions” agreement. Didn’t she feel obligated to abide by these rules? I was immediately given the “stink-eye’ every husband fears fully understanding any further cross-examination would result in some other form of “candy crush” and it wouldn’t be on a computer.

While most US peace-loving, patriotic Muslims are respectful toward non-Muslims, the reality is a significant number (here and here for US Muslims, worldwide surveys here….1+ billion) voice violent sentiments and see nothing wrong for the enforcement of Shariah law over US law. While the majority of respondents were peaceful in the US survey (not the case worldwide), the peaceful Muslim is irrelevant, just as the “safe driver” on the road is irrelevant to me when I’m driving.

It is the drunk driver, the distracted driver, the sleep deprived driver that is relevant. They threaten my life or those of my family. Criticism of the drunk driver or the texting soccer mom is never countered with “most drivers are safe and aren’t a threat” argument. Yet with Islamic violence against Muslims and non-Muslims this is the standard argument. Passage of laws against drunk driving or banning cell phone usage is acceptable yet the weapon of political correctness is used to thwart the mere mention of lawful and reasonable actions against those elements of Islam that threaten non-Muslims and other law-abiding Muslims.   

A patriotic, friendly, secular Muslim may abide by society’s “terms and conditions” but at a time of their choosing using the logic of Islam/Muhammad’s laws of abrogation and taqiyya, a “peace-loving” Muslim may “reset the game”, ignore the “terms and conditions” of western values and apply Shariah law. This Islamic lens of the “ends justifies the means” is incomprehensible to Western leaders who fail to understand Islam’s basic tenets.

No wonder the acts of a formerly peaceful Muslim who suddenly commits horrific acts of violence while shouting “Allah Akbar” is written off as being “radicalized”. The underpinnings of political Islam which fully justify the violent actions are left unsaid and substituted with politically correct terms like “lone wolf”, “extreme Islam” or “violent extremism”.

Being able to reset the rules, laws and acceptable behavior (under Shariah) is a game changer (no pun intended). Why do more Muslims not speak out about this? The price is too high and besides, why attempt to explain away violent behavior as being non-Islamic when there are enough non-Muslim apologists who do it for them?

Getting behind the wheel and determining which of the drivers on the road is unfit to drive parallels the dilemma non-Muslims and even Muslims face when determining which Muslim is likely to be the next terrorist. Who can tell when a peaceful Muslim will “reset their clock” and decide to follow the path Muhammad did while in Medina? Fortunately the majority don’t follow that path but how many of us will turn off our car’s airbags or not fasten their seatbelt because there are no threats on the next trip?

When our political and military leaders show the courage to speak honestly about the root causes of Islamic terrorism will true peace-loving Muslims and non-Muslims find hope for the future and a way out of the violence attributed to political Islam.

Author: Chase Beckett

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.

MODEL LEGISLATION:

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

BE IT ENACTED BY THE [GENERAL ASSEMBLY/LEGISLATURE] OF THE STATE OF [_____]:

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
www.securefreedom.org

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

________________________________________

AMERICAN LAWS FOR AMERICAN COURTS
LEGISLATOR BRIEF TO ACCOMPANY SAMPLE ALAC BILL

“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.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/05/zombie-muhammad-atheist-who-was-attacked-by-angry-muslim-wants-shariah-ruling-judge-kicked-off-the-bench/

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.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=124

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
act4ourcountry@gmail.com

________________________________________

GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT

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.

Floridafamily.org
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:

• American and Florida Laws for Florida Courts
• American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts
• American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts
• American and Arizona Laws for Arizona Courts
• American and Kansas Laws for Kansas Courts
• Alabama Votes To Ban ‘Foreign Laws’
• Mississippi Votes To Ban Foreign Laws

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)


TOP 10 RECIPIENTS OF ARAB-MUSLIM CASH:*

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

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.

The Story of Mohammed

More people need to understand that the Muslims doing bad things in the name of Islam are not distorting Islamic texts, but are following them faithfully. Our fellow non-Muslims need to understand that the problem is not that some crazy people use Islamic texts to justify whatever they want to do. The problem is the ideology itself. Specifically, the problem is the Islamic texts themselves. The teachings are dangerous to non-Muslims.

One of the best ways to help people understand this is to talk about Mohammed. Since it says in the Koran 91 times that Muslims should follow Mohammed's example, understanding Mohammed is a quick and easy way to understand Islam. I'd like to introduce you to a great resource to help you help others learn about Mohammed. It's a book entitled, The Story of Mohammed by Harry Richardson. You can read the book online here for free. You can download a PDF of the book here. And you can buy the book for six dollars here so you can share it with your friends and family.

Why would a non-Muslim want to read the story of Mohammed? On Harry Richardson's blog, he gives this answer:

Mohammed’s story is the most incredible story never told. It is said that truth is stranger than fiction and honestly, NO ONE could have made this up. There are battles, murders, intrigues, rapes, assassinations, torture, intimidation, and much much more. Along the way Mohammed invented Jihad, the most effective system of conquest ever devised.

Mohammed’s life story is also the key which unlocks the complexities and confusion of the Islamic religion itself. By understanding his story we quickly gain a clear insight into Islam and the incredible importance this subject holds for our future.

This amazing book pulls no punches and brings the subject to life in a way which is both fascinating and informative. Rather than looking at Islam through a prism of Western (and by default, Christian) perspective, it examines the Islamic perspective itself.

In doing so it illuminates the contrast between Western and Islamic ethics and beliefs in plain and simple language which makes it a delight to read.

There are no apologies, no excuses and no pretending. This is not Islam as we want it to be, this is Islam as it really is.

You need to read this book now because in today’s world, this information is vital.

What Does It Mean When a Woman Wears a Muslim Headscarf?

The following was written by the liberal Canadian philosophy professor, Elsa Schieder, PhD, reprinted with her permission:

I've been experiencing a big personal change, to do with seeing a woman wearing the Muslim headscarf. I used to have no response. Now every time I see this, I ask myself: "Just what does she believe?"

Like most Western people, I've learned to be very accepting — and even appreciative — of different styles of dress, food, music. So I used to have no response to the Muslim headdress, the hijab. It was just — you do your thing, I do mine. My response was to the color, the style — in other words, I responded as if this were a fashion item.

That has been changing. In fact, this change has lagged far behind my learning about Islam. Perhaps shockingly, it's taken me years to respond more fully to the Muslim headscarf.

There's more than one reason for this. First, I used to see few headscarves in my home city. Then, there used to be less Muslim persecution of Christians worldwide. There was also no group declaring an Islamic caliphate, rampaging from one Middle Eastern area to the next.

Most of all, my sense is that it's taken a long time for it to sink in that I'm seeing women walking around advertising that they're part of a religion that seeks world domination, that seeks the destruction of my culture and way of life, that views all non-Muslims as filthy Kafirs — to be deceived, beheaded, crucified, plotted against, terrorized, humiliated, according to the Quran, which they believe is true — or what are they doing, wearing the Muslim headscarf?

Do most non-Muslims in the West respond with hostility, aversion, fear to women advertising their adherence to such an ideology? A Canadian journalist put on the Muslim headdress for a few days in order to record the prejudice Muslim women experience — and found that she was treated more positively than without it! (She saw this as a sign of racism — that people were not entirely neutral to the headdress, and instead cared to show they were tolerant and accepting! Oh well, what can you expect from the politically correct.)

I'm asking: Does it make any sense to be extra nice to someone belonging to a religion that has, as a goal, the destruction of my society? That views people like me as inferiors who are to be made to pay a special tax? That believes no one is to talk of any non-Muslim religion to Muslims? That approves of the murder and rape of non-Muslims, the enslavement of non-Muslims, the murder of gays, the inferiority of women?

No one has asked me to respond to people wearing the Nazi swastika as if this were meaningless, to people chanting Sieg Heil as if this were a quaint cultural artifact.

So what the blinkety-blank is going on here? It's vital to respond to what is happening. If we don't respond to, say, a lion prowling our way, we're much more likely to end up as lion supper.

That has made me sit down and create a handout. You'll find it at the bottom of the page. You're very welcome to download, print and distribute. You can also send it.

It starts:

A woman is wearing
a Muslim headscarf.
What does it mean?

For me, connecting the headscarf to what it stands for has changed everything. In fact, it melted something frozen inside me. It's only natural to connect something to what it stands for. A flag. It stands for something. If we respond positively or negatively, this is because of what we see the flag stands for.

Likewise with the Muslim headdress, the hijab.

The next thing. It's vital to get the word out.

The natural response of non-Muslims to the Muslim headscarf is recoil. It stands for something more dangerous than AIDS, than Ebola.

Most of us have had our senses numbed.

All the best to a world awakening to the reality of Islam and to taking appropriate action.

Again, if this suits you, you're welcome to download the handout below. It's a one-page two-sided handout.

All the best,

Elsa

See, download, or print the PDF handout here: A woman is wearing a headscarf. What does it mean?