The World As One


For Decades Now the Drumbeat, the Lament, the Cry, the Brainwashing Has Been… “Let’s Create A World Where We Are One!”

Well, They’re Getting Their Desires After These Number of Decades…the World Is Becoming One Seething Cesspool of Sin, Abomination, Travesty, Tyranny, Decadence, Obsession, and Evil



Australian children to be sterilized without parental consent under new

eugenics law

Thursday, March 08, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Learn more:

(NaturalNews) If you have ever seen the famous 1975 movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, you likely recall several disturbing scenes in which mental health patients are given frontal-lobe lobotomies, or the iconic scene where actor Jack Nicholson’s character undergoes electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Today, these horrific forms of so-called mental health treatment are considered to be cruel relics of the past, but a new bill in Australia proposes that young children be given these treatments without parental consent, and even be permitted to undergo sterilization procedures without parental consent.
The Government of Western Australia’s Mental Health Commission (WAMHC) has basically conjured up a proposal for new mental health legislation that bypasses parental involvement in the mental health treatment process, and instead tasks children under age 18, and of any age, with making the decision about whether or not to be sterilized, or whether or not to have their brain tissue destroyed with psychosurgery procedures. If a “mental health professional” can convince children that they need such treatments for their own good, in other words, than Australia’s youngest members of society will be open game for the eugenicist agenda.
It almost sounds like the plot of a sick movie, but it is all true and fully documented right in the WAMHC Mental Health Bill 2011, which you can access here:

Eugenicists want to sterilize Australian children without ever telling the

kids’ parents

In the twisted minds of those who have seized positions of power all over the world, separating children from their parents and performing medical experiments on them in secret is a fully acceptable form of “medicine.” And this form of child abuse is exactly what WAMHC has proposed in its new mental health bill.
Pages 135 and 136 of the bill (pages 157 and 158 of the PDF) cover the issue of sterilization, explaining that if a psychiatrist decides that a child under 18 years of age “has sufficient maturity,” he or she will be able to consent to sterilization without parental consent. It also goes on to say that parents will never be notified that the sterilization procedure occurred, as only the “Chief Psychiatrist” will be privy to this information.
It sounds an awful lot like the euthanasia programs that emerged in Germany during the 1930s, when Nazis began secretly sterilizing individuals with physical or mental disabilities as part of “Operation T4” ( This eugenics program was later intensified, of course, when German physicians at Nazi death camps routinely sterilized men, women, and children, and later killed them, as part of the Nazi regime’s utterly revolting ethnic cleansing experiments (

Medical ‘authorities’ want to arbitrarily commit children to mental

institutions, indefinitely restrain them, and force them to undergo brain-

damaging procedures

All of this gets worse, however, with other language scattered throughout the bill that would allow psychiatrists to involuntarily and indefinitely detain children who are “suspected” of having a mental illness. And during their detainment, such children can be forced to comply with drug, restraint, and seclusion protocols, as well as be forced to undergo permanently-damaging procedures like psychosurgery or ECT.
Worse, those who would be permitted to detain these children in the first place, deemed as “authorized mental health practitioners,” are so loosely defined that virtually anyone could be authorized by the Chief Psychiatrist to abduct supposedly “mentally ill” children and commit them to mental institutions against their will and their parents’ will.

Mental Health Commission is only accepting comments on the bill until March 9, 2012

The language in Australia’s Mental Health Bill 2011 truly is horrifying, but not necessarily surprising. Similar efforts to undermine parental authority are taking place both in the U.S. and around the world.
California Gov. Jerry Brown, for instance, recently signed into law Senate Assembly Bill 499, which allows for children as young as age 12 to be vaccinated with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil, Hepatitis B, and various other sexually-transmitted disease (STD) vaccines without parental consent (
But our friends “down under” need your help today in spreading the word about this deadly legislation, and sending comments of opposition to Australia’s Mental Health Commission as soon as possible.
You can send your comments by email to:
You can send your comments by “snail” mail to: GPO Box X2299 Perth Business Centre, W.A. 6847 Australia
If you live in Australia, you can also contact the Mental Health Minister, the Health Minister, and your local Member of Parliament by visiting:
The deadline to submit a comment is March 9, so be sure to submit your comment before then. And remember, health freedom issues, whether domestic or abroad, eventually affect all of us if left unchecked. This is why it is important to combat tyranny and injustice anywhere and everywhere it may be found.

Link to beginning study in eugenics – a subject every person should become aware of in these times

Church of England Fears Proposed Law Will Mandate Same-Sex


By Jonathan Moormann , Christian Post Contributor
March 12, 2012

Although Prime Minister David Cameron has tried to assure British churches that any new same-sex marriage legislation will apply only to civil law, lawyers from the Church of England are arguing that the new legislation would force them to perform same-sex ceremonies in spite of their beliefs.

“If Parliament were in due course to legislate for same-sex marriage, as recently suggested by the Prime Minister, we would of course be in new territory,” said the General Synod of the Church of England in a recent paper.

The proposed legislation is expected to allow civil same-sex marriage ceremonies that could be held in state register offices or other “approved premises,” such as large homes.

Although members of Parliament have tried to craft legislation that would leave churches out of the same-sex marriage process, the Church of England is concerned that the pre-existing 2010 Equality Act will force them to either perform same-sex ceremonies or be subject to prosecution.

According to the church’s paper on same-sex marriage legislation, “A key relevant section is section 29 of the Equality Act which makes it unlawful for a person concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public to discriminate on various grounds, including sexual orientation.”

Should the same-sex marriage legislation be passed in its current form, both same-sex and heterosexual marriages could be considered the same “service to the public,” thus requiring churches to provide the service without regard for sexual orientation.

Archbishop of York Dr. John Sentamu has urged Cameron to not move forward with the legislation, calling it “an unjustified change.”

The archbishop also believes that the government may not be able to pass the legislation without the Church of England’s approval.

“It is not simply saying we have got to allow a civil partnership to happen,” he said. “They have got a problem because the definition of marriage is in the 1662 prayer book and Article 30 of the Church of England, which are both Acts of Parliament.”








EDITORIAL: Destroy all churches

Obama silent while Saudi grand mufti targets Christianity



The Washington Times

Friday, March 16, 2012

If the pope called for the destruction of all the mosques in Europe, the uproar would be cataclysmic. Pundits would lambaste the church, the White House would rush out a statement of deep concern, and rioters in the Middle East would kill each other in their grief. But when the most influential leader in the Muslim world issues a fatwa to destroy Christian churches, the silence is deafening.

On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.

This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.

The Obama administration ignores these types of provocations at its peril. The White House has placed international outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East. The region is a crucial crossroads. Islamist radicals are leading the rising political tide against the authoritarian, secularist old order. They are testing the waters in their relationship with the outside world, looking for signals of how far they can go in imposing their radical vision of a Shariah-based theocracy. Ignoring provocative statements like the mufti’s sends a signal to these groups that they can engage in the same sort of bigotry and anti-Christian violence with no consequences.

Mr. Obama’s outreach campaign to the Muslim world has failed to generate the good will that he expected. In part, this was because he felt it was better to pander to prejudice than to command respect. When members of the Islamic establishment call for the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing, the leader of the free world must respond or risk legitimizing the oppression that follows. The United States should not bow to the extremist dictates of the grand mufti, no matter how desperate the White House is for him to like us.


Egypt Constitution-Writing Committee to Include 50 Lawmakers

                By   Mariam Fam                                               

Mar 17, 2012 12:29

Egypt’s Islamist-dominated parliament voted to include 50 of its lawmakers in a 100-member panel tasked with writing a new constitution, with the remainder coming from other institutions.

The results were read by Mohamed Saad el-Katatni, speaker of the lower house of parliament, according to footage of the session posted on the Cabinet’s Facebook page.

“The proposal that has received the most votes is the one stating that 50 percent of the composition of the constituent assembly comes from within parliament and 50 percent from outside parliament, including all institutions, civil society institutions and public personalities,” el-Katatni said.

The makeup of the committee has been the focus of wrangling over the degree of influence Islamist groups will have shaping the constitution. The Muslim Brotherhood’s party alliance makes up the largest bloc in the recently elected parliament, followed by a Salafi alliance. Salafis are followers of an austere interpretation of Islam.

“You’re going to agree on 100 people, and then get those 100 people to agree on politically-charged issues that have created a lot of polarization in Egypt: the role of the military, oversight over the military budget, the role of religion in public life, the division of power between parliament and the president,” Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, said by phone.“That’s a challenge.”

Regime Critics

Secular politicians and those concerned that Islamist parliamentarians will dominate the committee have called for the inclusion of members from outside the legislature.

The Brotherhood and its party have tried to assuage such fears. Mohamed Morsi, chairman of the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, said in a statement last month that the group is“keen on the participation of all groups, institutions, parties and political and societal forces” in the drafting body.

Critics of the ruling military council have said they don’t want the charter drawn up while the generals are still at the helm, concerned they may try to influence the process and enshrine privileges for the armed forces.

Activists accuse the military council, which assumed interim rule fromHosni Mubarak, of mismanaging the transition and trying to hold on to power. The generals have said they will stay until a president is elected.

The presidential elections commission announced on Feb. 29 that Egyptians at home will vote for a new president on May 23 and 24, and that the final result will be announced on June 21.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mariam Fam in Cairo at



The following article is very disturbing. It is meant to be. If any reader is NOT greatly disturbed by the following article they need to go off somewhere quiet without distractions and search their soul and heart as to why they are here and what all this on earth is really about.
The following is a subject not discussed enough since it has become so ingrained into our demented, cruel, twisted, selfish, and evil society.

Aborted Babies Are Being Chopped Up And Sold To Researchers All Over

America With The Full Approval Of The Obama Administration

19 March 2012

Reprinted from The American Dream 



Did you know that aborted babies are being chopped up and sold to medical researchers all over America?  There is a federal law which is supposed to ban this practice, but it contains a gigantic loophole that abortion clinics are using to sell huge amounts of aborted baby parts to the scientific community.  The loophole in the federal law allows “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”  But there are no guidelines as to what those “reasonable payments” should be and the Obama administration is not about to start prosecuting abortion clinics.  So aborted baby parts from American babies will continue to be very quietly sold for profit to medical researchers and most Americans will never hear anything about it.  But future generations will look back in horror at what we allowed to be done right under our noses.

With the full approval of the Obama administration, one company in the United States has plans to inject aborted baby brain cells into the eyes of patients to see if that will help improve their vision.  The following is from a recent article on….

Scott Fischbach, the director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life uncovered the information showing a clinical trial approved by the Food and Drug Administration uses brain tissue from aborted unborn babies to treat macular degeneration. StemCells Inc. will inject fetal brain stem cells into the eyes of up to 16 patients to study the cells’ effect on vision.

As Fischbach correctly notes, a fetus must be at a certain stage of development before brain tissue can be harvested for this kind of research….

“StemCells Inc. is not using embryonic stem cells. A five-day-old human being at the embryonic stage does not have a brain, but a fetus at 10 or 20 weeks of development with visible fingers, toes and ears has a functioning brain,” said Fischbach. “Developing human beings in the womb are treated simply as raw material for laboratory experimentation by StemCells Inc. and other companies seeking to monetize aborted unborn children.”

But the harvesting of tissue and organs from aborted babies is definitely not new.  It has been going on for a long time.

For example, a recent article posted on describes the very big business that the Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle does in aborted baby parts….

It’s known within the research community as a top government distributor of fetal tissue. Last year the Puget Sound Business Journal stated the lab “in 2009 filled more than 4,400 requests for fetal tissue and cell lines.”

The lab’s grant records indicate it received $579,091 from the NIH last year. To date, it has retrieved the products of 22,000 pregnancies. According to a description the lab provided in its most recent grant applications, an increase in nonsurgical abortion methods has “created new obstacles to obtaining sufficient amounts of high quality tissue. To overcome these problems and meet increasing demand, the Laboratory has developed new relationships with both local and distant clinics.”

Once again, it is supposed to be against federal law to buy aborted baby parts from abortion clinics.  But this “problem” is avoided by taking advantage of the loophole that allows for “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”

An article posted on describes how this system works….

1) A baby parts “wholesaler” enters into a financial agreement with an abortion clinic in which the wholesaler pays a monthly “site fee” to the clinic. For this payment, the wholesaler is allowed to place a retrieval agent inside the clinic where he or she is given access to the corpses of children killed there and a workspace to harvest their parts. In most cases, this retrieval agent is an employee of the wholesaler. In other instances, the retrieval agent is a clinic employee who was trained by the wholesaler.

2) The buyer – usually a researcher working for a medical school, pharmaceutical company, bio-tech company or government agency – supplies the wholesaler with a list of the baby parts wanted.

3) When such orders are received by the wholesaler, they are faxed to the retrieval agent at the clinic who harvests the requested parts and ships them to the buyer via FedEx, Airborne or a similar common carrier.

4) These parts are “donated” by the clinic to the wholesaler who turns around and “donates” them to the buyer. The buyer then “reimburses” the wholesaler for the cost of retrieving the parts.

In the end, nobody is technically “buying or selling” anything but they all get what they want and a lot of money changes hands.

A number of years ago an abortion industry insider came forward with shocking details of how this organ harvesting operation actually functions.  The following is from a very eye-opening InvestigateDaily article….

It was an interview that shocked America. An Insider, spilling the beans on massive malpractice to a reporter on ABC’s 20/20. Only this time, it wasn’t Big Tobacco in the gunsights, it was the US abortion industry, exposed as harvesting the organs from aborted babies. According to former abortion clinic technician Dean Alberty, clinics were harvesting eyes, brains, hearts, limbs, torsos and other body parts for sale to the scientific market: laboratories wanting to test new drugs or procedures, or researchers trying to find the causes of genetic disorders or discover new ways of treating disorders like Parkinsons.

Sometimes babies actually survive the initial abortion procedure and workers actually have to kill the babies themselves before harvesting the organs….

Alberty worked for a Maryland agency called the Anatomic Gift Foundation, which essentially acted as a brokerage between universities and researchers seeking body parts, and the abortion clinics providing the raw material. Alerted by the clinics about the races and gestations of babies due to be aborted each day, AGF technicians would match the offerings with parts orders on their client lists. Alberty and his colleagues would turn up at the abortions that offered the best donor prospects to begin dissecting and extracting what they needed before decay set in.

“We would have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go in…[to] procure fetal tissue for research. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceuticals and universities were looking for. Then we would go and look at the particular patient charts—we had to screen out anyone who had STDs or fetal anomalies. These had to be the most perfect specimens we could give these researchers for the best value that we could sell for.

“We were taking eyes, livers, brains, thymuses, and especially cardiac blood…even blood from the limbs that we would get from the veins” he said.

Alberty told of seeing babies wounded but alive after abortion procedures, and in one case a set of twins “still moving on the table” when clinicians from AGF began dissecting the children to harvest their organs. The children, he said, were “cuddling each other” and “gasping for breath” when medics moved in for the kill.

You can read the rest of that shocking article right here.

So are you sick to your stomach yet?

This is a hard article to write, but the American people need to be confronted with the truth.  If we ignore the horrors going on right under our noses, then that would make us just like so many of the other nightmarish societies throughout history that we rightly condemn.

Sadly, most Americans don’t even realize that large numbers of consumer products on our supermarket shelves contain ingredients which have been cultivated using aborted human fetal cell lines.

This information is not hard to find.

But people do not like to talk about it.

There are price lists for human fetal tissue all over the Internet.  You can find one example right here.

So does it bother you that aborted babies are being chopped up and sold to researchers all over America?

Or are you perfectly fine with it?

The Obama Administration: All Your Privacy And All Your Stuff Belong To


18 March 2012

Reprinted from The American Dream



Did you know that the federal government claims that it can take away your constitutional rights any time that it wants to?  Over the past several decades, there have been an endless parade of laws and executive orders that have been slowly and methodically carving up our rights under the U.S. Constitution.  Most Americans are not even aware of the “creeping totalitarianism” that is happening.  Most Americans just trust the “authorities” when they tell us that certain things “must be done” in order to keep us all safe.  But even if we gave up all of our privacy, even if we gave up all of our liberties and our freedoms, and even if we gave the government all of our stuff they still would not be able to keep us safe.  It is inevitable that evil people are going to do evil things, and if you are counting on the Obama administration to keep you safe then you are being delusional.  Obama is not going to save us from anything.  But Obama will gladly take away our rights and our freedoms if the American people allow him to.  The Obama administration seems to have an endless lust for more power.  Sadly, if we do give away our rights it will have some very serious consequences.  If we freely give away all of the rights that we have been given under the U.S. Constitution it will be incredibly difficult to ever get them back.  Giving up liberty for security never works, and if we want to be worthy of being called Americans then we need to start standing up for the republic that our forefathers worked so hard to build.

An executive order that Barack Obama signed the other day is making headlines all over the nation. The title of the executive order is “National Defense Resources Preparedness” and it is actually an update of a series of previous executive orders.

The original “National Defense Resources Preparedness” executive order (EO 8248) was issued back in 1939.  This latest version is very similar to EO 12919 that was signed by Bill Clinton in June 1994.  However, several very important changes have been made in this new version.

For example, in Section 201(b) the words “under both emergency and non-emergency conditions” have been added.

So now the federal government can take control of all food, all energy, all health resources, all transportation resources and “all other materials, services, and facilities” in the country even if the United States is not experiencing emergency conditions.

Not that the Obama administration really needed to put that in there.  After all, the U.S. government has been operating under a constant state of national emergency since September 14, 2001.

So the Obama administration did not really need to include a new excuse for taking control of everything.  The existing “state of emergency” would probably work just fine.

If Barack Obama woke up one day and decided to exercise the powers in this executive order, he would be able to do pretty much anything that he wanted.  This executive order would essentially allow Obama to declare a state of martial law in the United States even during a time when no emergency was happening.

Just check out what Section 201 of the executive order allows the federal government to take control of….

Sec. 201.  Priorities and Allocations Authorities.  (a)  The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1)  the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2)  the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3)  the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4)  the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5)  the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6)  the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

So should we be worried?

Bush and Clinton did not exercise these powers.

Perhaps Obama will not either.

Yes, perhaps he will not.

But they are there.

And someday they will be used.

The Obama administration also continues to make shocking claims regarding our privacy.

According to the 4th Amendment, our homes are not supposed to be searched unless there is probable cause….

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But according to CIA director David Petraeus, the American people are willingly bugging their own homes by choosing to use modern gadgets, and the CIA plans to use these technologies to spy on you.  Petraeus recently said the following about the “transformational” impact these new technologies will have on the ability of the CIA to spy on the American people…

“Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters — all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing”

The kind of chips that Petraeus was referring to will soon be in nearly all new appliances.  As a recent Daily Mail article noted, we will soon see an “Internet of things” emerge where virtually every electronic device is connected to the Internet….

This week, one of the world’s biggest chip companies, ARM, has unveiled a new processor built to work inside ‘connected’ white goods.

The ARM chips are smaller, lower-powered and far cheaper than previous processors – and designed to add the internet to almost every kind of electrical appliance.

It’s a concept described as the ‘internet of things’.

Futurists think that one day ‘connected’ devices will tell the internet where they are and what they are doing at all times – and will be mapped by computers as precisely as Google Maps charts the physical landscape now.

But we are not going to have to wait for the future for the federal government to use the Internet to spy on us all.

As I have written about previously, the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. military and the Federal Reserve are all using Facebook and Twitter to monitor the American people.

If you post this article to Facebook and Twitter, multiple agencies of the federal government will have a record of it.

In fact, the truth is that every single phone call, every single email, every single Facebook post and pretty much every other kind of electronic communication that you can imagine is monitored by intelligence agencies.  Don’t ever assume that anything you say on your phone or on the Internet is private.

And now, even your ISP will be spying on you to make sure that you are not downloading any copyrighted material.

Yes, that is right.

A clandestine deal coordinated by the Obama administration will go into effect on July 12th.  The following is from a recent Raw Story article….

If you download potentially copyrighted software, videos or music, your Internet service provider (ISP) has been watching, and they’re coming for you.

Specifically, they’re coming for you on Thursday, July 12.

That’s the date when the nation’s largest ISPs will all voluntarily implement a new anti-piracy plan that will engage network operators in the largest digital spying scheme in history, and see some users’ bandwidth completely cut off until they sign an agreement saying they will not download copyrighted materials.

Word of the start date has been largely kept secret since ISPs announced their plans last June. The deal was brokered by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and coordinated by the Obama Administration.

So be careful what you are doing on the Internet.

Your ISP will be watching it all.

Even local police departments are “pushing the envelope” when it comes to surveillance technology.  For example, the NYPD is working on technology that will be able to see a gun inside your clothes from a distance of 80 feet away….

The reason that the NYPD is so interested terahertz waves is that they pass through nonconductive materials like clothes, but can’t penetrate metal — like, say, the steel in a semi-automatic pistol. That means if you scan someone, you can look for spots where a person’s natural terahertz radiation is blocked, most likely by a metal object.

The benefits for police officers are obvious. They can essentially sit back in a specially-equipped van and scan anyone they suspect of carrying a gun from a safe distance. Right now it only works from three or four feet away, but department spokesman Paul J. Browne told the New York Times that the NYPD — in coordination with the Department of Defense — hopes to increase its range to 25 meters, or 82 feet.

Unfortunately, there are dozens of other new technologies like this.  For 14 more examples of how the government is watching us, just check out this article.

Most Americans assume that these technologies will only be used against “terrorists”, but that simply is not the case.

For example, a man living in Burnsville, Minnesota was recently subjected to “electronic home monitoring” for not having the proper siding on his home….

A Burnsville man on his way to work was arrested and thrown in jail without bond, and then subjected to electronic home monitoring.

But it wasn’t for drugs or a DWI or some other major crime.

Burnsville city leaders say Mitch Faber’s dealings with the law all stem from his failure to properly put up siding on his house.

Yep, siding.

Sadly, the truth is that the United States is rapidly being turned into a high-tech Big Brother prison grid dominated by control freak bureaucrats who do not care about our liberties and freedoms.

This is not the way that America is supposed to work.

We are supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Ben & Jerry’s re-names ice cream flavor to support gay ‘marriage’ in


Christine Dhanagom Wed Mar 14 12:30 EST Homosexuality

March 14, 2012 ( – As the UK Government moves in the direction of legalizing same-sex “marriage,” Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream has launched a lobbying campaign in support of the move that includes re-naming one of their ice cream flavors.

British Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone announced last September that the government was committed to legalizing same sex “marriage” by 2015, and would launch a consultation regarding the issue this spring.

In anticipation of the consultation, which will begin later this month, Ben & Jerry’s announced yesterday that the flavor “Oh! My! Apple Pie!” will be called “Apple-y Ever After” in England. Its re-designed tub features a wedding cake decorated with rainbow stripes and topped with two groom figures.

“Since our humble beginning 34 years ago, Ben & Jerry’s has been an advocate for equal rights,” said a statement on the company’s website about the change. “We were one of the first companies in the US back in 1993 that widened our health & employment benefits umbrella to recognize unmarried domestic partners regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

The flavor change is only one part of an-all out campaign in support of re-defining marriage in England. The company is urging customers to contact their local member of Parliament, and has even posted contact information and a form letter on their website.

The suggested letter to members of Parliament urges the government to provide “equal access to marriage,” and calls the up-coming consultation an opportunity to bring British law “up to date with the society which we live in.”

Customers who visit the site are also encouraged to “marry” someone of the same sex through a new Facebook App which the company has launched in partnership with the gay rights group Stonewall.

The app is featured prominently on the Ben & Jerry UK Facebook page, and participants are promised “a chance of scooping a tub of your favourite flavour.”

While the campaign might mark the company’s most aggressive effort to re-define marriage, it’s not the first time that the notoriously left-wing ice cream giant has re-named one of its flavors in support of the gay agenda. Its “Chubby Hubby” flavor temporarily became “Hubby Hubby” in Vermont to celebrate the state’s legalization of gay “marriage” in 2009.

Ben & Jerry Ice Cream is also on the Life Decision International boycott list for its support of Planned Parenthood.

Veterans Outraged Over American Flag With Obama Image



Wednesday, 14 Mar 2012

By Marti Lotman


Image: Veterans Outraged Over American Flag With Obama Image

Nancy Hurlbert, chairwoman of the Lake County Democratic Party, rebuffed veterans who complained about the defaced American flag, even after they showed her the federal flag code banning such disrespect. She finally took it down, but didn’t promise not to put it back up.
Veterans in Lake County, Fla., are incensed that local Democrats hoisted an American flag with President Obama’s image in place of the traditional stars over their headquarters. The veterans denounced the modified banner as “a disgrace,” reports Fox News.
The veterans’ complaints finally prompted the Democrats to remove the flag from its perch under a customary American flag on the flagpole outside party headquarters in Tavares, Fla.
“It’s absolutely disrespectful,” said Jim Bradford, 71-year-old veteran who served during the Bay of Pigs invasion. “It’s totally ridiculous. To put somebody’s picture there, to me, it’s a disgrace to do that.”
Bradford sent pictures of the flag to fellow veterans and friends, and he delivered a copy of the federal flag code to Nancy Hurlbert, chairwoman of the Lake County Democratic Party.
“We read that to her, but she would not accept that,” Bradford said. “The discussion finally got a little bit heated.”
Hurlbert later removed the flag, which had been flying for several months without a complaint, and apologized for the incident, but didn’t indicate whether she would fly it again.
“What really upsets me is that the flag had apparently been flying for months and no one had done anything about it,” Bradford said. “I’ve got no hard feelings toward [Hurlbert], but people will be driving by there to make sure it doesn’t go up again.”
Read more on Veterans Outraged Over American Flag With Obama Image

Refuting Apologetics Over Islamic ‘Creative Lying’


March 16th, 2012


Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam recently forwarded me an article titled “Tawriya: Islamic Doctrine of ‘Creative Lying’? Response to Raymond Ibrahim,” appearing on a website called Muslim Debate Initiative, and written by one Shadid (“Severe”) Lewis in response to my recent exposition on the doctrine of tawriya. Although this response—poorly written, poorly argued—would normally be ignored, I address it for three reasons: 1) To date, it is the only rebuttal I have seen from a Muslim concerning tawriya; 2) Far from rejecting tawriya, it actually validates it (the author spends his time chasing red herrings, not disproving the doctrine); 3) It is a good example of the speciousness and sophistry employed by those who try to downplay or rationalize some of Islam’s more problematic doctrines, in this case, tawriya. (Note: Although Shadid’s original article is littered with grammatical and punctuation errors, in the interest of readability, I have corrected the more egregious when quoting him.)At the start, after informing readers that he “read the article of Raymond Ibrahim posted on and I just had to respond,” Shadid argues that tawriya really “means deliberate ambiguity rather than creative lying.” Discerning readers understand such euphemisms change nothing about the doctrine.

After I pointed out that most Muslim scholars (or ulema) are agreed that tawriya should not be used to commit an “injustice,” I added “‘injustice’ as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards.” To this, Shadid responds: “Says who? None of the sources he [me] cited said as only defined by Sharia. A commonly known wrong is a commonly known wrong just the same in Islam (stealing, cheating, murder, etc. is wrong and accepted as such in Islam).”

First, of course the Muslim authorities do not bother pointing out that they mean justice and injustice as defined by Sharia; that’s a given. Likewise, anyone familiar with Islamic law and doctrine—presumably Muslims like Shadid himself—know that many of Islam’s views on “right” and “wrong” do not agree with “universal standards.” One example: Islamic law holds that any Muslim who converts out of Islam and refuses to return is an apostate to be executed. Whereas in Islam, such executions are deemed “just,” from a Western point of view, which acknowledges religious freedom, they are unjust. In this context, then, it is “just” to use tawriya (lying) to enable the execution of an apostate.

Next, Shadid distracts the issue by making irrelevant points: “Sheikh Al-Munajjid, another source cited by the article’s author, said excessive use of puns leads to lying. So the claim that this [tawriya] can be used whenever and wherever is a lie in itself.”

Yes, at the very end of his fatwa, after giving many proofs validating tawriya, Munajjid warned that too much tawriya can “lead one to slip into a lie,” meaning that, by getting caught up in one’s own dissembling game, one can end up committing an actual lie—one that is not “technically” true, a criterion of tawriya—without realizing it. More to the point, saying that some ulema warn against using tawriya too much, does not change the fact that Islam permits lying through tawriya, and that it is up to the individual Muslim to decide how much is too much.

Shadid continues: “Al Munajjid said this [tawriya] is used for embarrassing circumstances. Yet the author would have us believe Muslims can use this to lie in business transactions, and to take peoples’ property and other commonly accepted wrong activities.”

Seems like Shadid is engaging in his own bit of tawriya here: yes, Munajjid did say tawriya can be used for embarrassing circumstances, but he mentioned embarrassment as an example of, not the sole justification for, tawriya. Rather, the two criteria he gave, and which I noted in my original article, are 1) that the words literally fit the alternate meaning, so that the lie is technically true, and 2) that there is a “legitimate need” (i.e., a Sharia compliant need).

Caught up in his own convoluted logic/tawriya, Shadid next contradicts himself: “Another source cited by the articles author which he ignores is: Al-Nawawi, who said the deliberate ambiguity [tawriya] is permissible if the need arises or a legitimate interest …”—there it is again, “legitimate interest.” In other words, Nawawi, just like Munajjid, is simply another Muslim scholar who confirms that tawriya is permissible if it serves a “legitimate interest,” i.e., if the lie enables something deemed “legitimate” according to Sharia.

Then there are Shadid’s ridiculous arguments:

Mr. Ibraham told us Muhammad is recorded saying “Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr” (Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).

However the source he cites clearly is Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30). Did you catch it? The source is about AL TAQIYYA not about TAWRIYA. And taqiyya deals with a situation only when a Muslim’s life is in immediate danger [not true] and they utter words of disbelief because they are threatened with being killed or tortured. Thus this citation does not support any proof for “creative lying.”

Apparently Shadid’s point is that any quote contained in a book that is not specifically devoted to the topic of the quote, is to be ignored. This is tantamount to saying “I reject any quote on jihad, regardless of the authority, unless it comes from a book with the word ‘jihad’ in its title. But if the title of the book is, say, ‘Islamic Law,’ or ‘War in Islam,’ then the quote on jihad is inadmissible.”

Better for you, Shadid, to address the actual quote itself—that your prophet’s mission was rooted in obfuscation, according to his own words—rather than quibble about the title of the book containing the quote.

Next he complains that I misrepresented a hadith when I wrote:

Muhammad said: “If any of you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [breaking wudu], hold your nose and leave” (Sunan Abu Dawud): ” Holding one’s nose and leaving implies smelling something offensive—which is true—though people will think it was someone else who committed the offense.”

According to Shadid:

Those familiar with this hadith can quickly see that Ibrahim has added his own conclusion about this hadith not endorsed by the Islamic position. No where is it taught that this hadith teaches for one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell.

Yet, he fails to mention that this hadith figures in the literature devoted to justifying tawriya, including Munajjid’s fatwa. And if this hadith does not teach “one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell,” then what is its significance, why does Muhammad teach to hold the nose, and why are the ulema referring to it in the context of tawriya? After all, wasn’t Shadid himself arguing earlier that tawriya is to be used only for “embarrassing” situations—and what’s more embarrassing than this?

In light of all the above, readers are free to conclude whether, as Shadid put it, my article on tawriya is “a clear example of how these haters just make up blatant lies to taint Islamic teachings and draw false conclusions based on their over zealous bias against Islam,” or whether Shadid’s entire rebuttal—which strains out a gnat while accepting that Islam permits lying—is itself an example of obfuscation.










Mainstream American Muslim Jurists’ Blueprint for Undermining

America’s Legal System

March 14th, 2012

by Andrew Bostom

Salah al-Sawy, mainstream AMJA “jurist”, expresses his patriotic views on US citizenship:

As for obtaining citizenships in light of circumstances of Muslims today who are residing outside the lands of Islam — on the condition that they do not accept indefinitely the law and legislation of that country and being indefinite belonging to the nation of the non-Muslim country so that they become loyal to all their allies and an enemy to all their enemies — and obtaining the citizenship is considered a required means in order to organize the affairs of Muslims who already live there while ensuring fulfilling vows and agreements between them and host countries, and exists due to urgent necessities and needs and this Muslim kept his loyalty to Allaah and His Messenger, then it would not be farfetched to say that it would be permissible.


Since all of the earth was bequeathed by Allah to “the best of humanity”—i.e., the Muslims (Koran 3:110)—the ancient, but timeless jihad war imperative is to render the entire globe “dar al Islam”—territory under Muslim suzerainty, and governed by Allah’s “law”, the totalitarian Sharia.  An explicit, if “legalistic” statement of this goal is the 1990 Cairo Declaration, or Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), re-named the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on June 28, 2011.

Now a 56 state collective which includes every Islamic nation on earth, the OIC, currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim umma (or global community of individual Muslims), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations (UN).  Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the US Bill of Rights, and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made as the best community [Koran 3:110] and which gave humanity a universal and well-balanced civilization, in which harmony is established between hereunder and the hereafter, knowledge is combined with faith, and to fulfill the expectations from this community to guide all humanity which is confused because of different and conflicting beliefs and ideologies and to provide solutions for all chronic problems of this materialistic civilization…Article 22: (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia. (a1) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia…Article 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia…Article 25: The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

These statements capture the indelible influence of the Islamic religious law Sharia—the Cairo Declaration claiming supremacy based on “divine revelation,” which renders sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus one can see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions gross limitations on freedom (i.e., abrogating freedom of conscience and speech, via “apostasy” and “blasphemy” laws), and legal inequalities inherent in the Sharia, and its Western human rights counterparts (the US Bill of Rights; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which guarantee freedom of conscience and expression, and do not refer to any specific religion or to the superiority of any group over another, stressing the absolute equality of all human beings before the law.

My colleague Translating Jihad has just rendered into English an Arabic-language paper published by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) in 2007, and presented at their 2008 careers conference in Houston. As he observes, aptly, in his introduction to the posting, “Credit goes to the Center for Security Policy for discovering this paper and bringing it to me for translation.”

The mission statement  of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) maintains the organization was, “…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities…” With regard to the Sharia, specifically, AMJA’s stated purpose is to “clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America.” AMJA is well-accepted by the mainstream American Muslim community.  The Islamic scholars affiliated with this group maintain influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. Translating Jihad compiled a list of some of their prominent members, including the names of universities and other organizations with which they’re affiliated, accessed from AMJA’s website:

  • Mohammad Naeem AlSaei, University of Texas, American Open University (AOU) (Virginia);
  • Waleed Basyouni, North American Imam Federation (NAIF) (Arizona), Texas Dawah Convention, AlMaghrib Institute (Texas);
  • Hatem AlHaj, Sharia Academy of America (Florida), Albert Lea Medical Center (Minnesota), NAIF, Islamic Jurisprudence Council of Minnesota;
  • Waleed Al-Maneese, Dar-al-Farooq Islamic Center (Minnesota), University of Minnesota, AOU, NAIF;
  • Muwaffak Al Ghaylany, Islamic Center in Grand Blank City (Minnesota), Shari`a Academy in America (Florida), NAIF:
  • Main Al-Qudah,  MAS Katy Center (Texas), AOU, Islamic American University (Minnesota), Al-Yarmook University (Iraq);
  • Salah Alsawy, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences (Virginia), AOU, Sharia Academy (Florida), Al-Azhar University (Egypt), Umm Al Qura University (Saudi Arabia); and
  • Muhammad Adam Alsheikh, Al Rahmah Mosque (Maryland), Sudanese courts.
  • Alsheikh, Al Rahmah Mosque (Maryland), Sudanese courts.

Notwithstanding this mainstream acceptance, including uncritical endorsement of its seventh annual American conference in Houston (October 15-18, 2010) to train American imams, AMJA has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates (here), “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”; here), or adulterers (by stoning to death, here), and condone marital rape. Even more ominously, another Arabic-language fatwa from AMJA’s Dr. Salah Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether “the Islamic missionary effort in the West … [was] to the point where it could take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:

The Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.

It is also of grave concern that AMJA, as an American organization, offers only grudging and conditional support to the fundamental notions of acquiring citizenship in, and swearing allegiance to, the U.S. and our Sharia-antithetical governing legal system. Responding to the query: “Is acquiring an American citizenship lawful or prohibited?” AMJA issued fatwa #77223:

As for optionally obtaining citizenship of a non-Muslim country it is definitely prohibited without a doubt, moreover it could be a form of apostasy or main means leading to apostasy because willingly accepting the laws of disbelievers and obeying it without any valid excuse or enforcement, or ignorance is considered a nullifier to Tawheed and Islam, as long as the proof has been established upon this person and the matter and its consequences are as I clarified. As for obtaining citizenships in light of circumstances of Muslims today who are residing outside the lands of Islam — on the condition that they do not accept indefinitely the law and legislation of that country and being indefinite belonging to the nation of the non-Muslim country so that they become loyal to all their allies and an enemy to all their enemies — and obtaining the citizenship is considered a required means in order to organize the affairs of Muslims who already live there while ensuring fulfilling vows and agreements between them and host countries, and exists due to urgent necessities and needs and this Muslim kept his loyalty to Allaah and His Messenger, then it would not be farfetched to say that it would be permissible.

Now, Translating Jihad puts what one might wish to deem as these circumscribed, “purely Islamic” rulings, in a more disturbing—and entirely unacceptable, seditious context. AMJA’s own words make plain the organization’s long term commitment to superseding the US legal code with its antithesis, a Sharia-based system.

As Translating Jihad notes in his introductory summary of the newly translated 2007 AMJA paper, it

…provides guidelines for American Muslims on what they can and cannot do vis-à-vis infidel legal systems. The paper makes clear that according to Islam, the only legitimate law is that which comes from Allah, and in fact authority to make laws rests with Allah alone. This renders every other legal system—including the American system—illegitimate.

AMJA’s paper acknowledges the existence of many Muslims under ‘infidel’ legal systems, and invoking the Islamic doctrine of darura—necessity—the paper provides guidelines describing how they should behave under these systems, as Translating Jihad notes,

…specifically addressing issues such as Muslims studying man-made law (i.e. non-Islamic law), Muslims governing under infidel legal systems, Muslims working as judges or lawyers or prosecuting cases in infidel courts, and Muslims granting powers of attorney to non-Muslims in disputes. Throughout the paper it is made abundantly clear that Muslims should view the American and other non-Muslim legal systems as infidel systems, and that they are only to participate in them in specific circumstances in order to benefit Islam and Muslims generally. They are specifically instructed to feel hatred in their hearts toward such infidel legal systems, and to do everything within their power to make the Islamic Shari’a supreme, even if that means engaging in deception in certain cases.

Below, using quotes from the AMJA paper, are illustrations which validate Translating Jihad’s summary assessment, and my concordant judgment that the ultimate goal—entirely consistent with timeless, ad nauseum reiterated Islamic doctrine—is nothing less than the eventual subversion of the American legal system to the Sharia.

  • The document’s opening rejection of even “colonial remnants” of non-Muslim, secular legal systems in Islamdom: …that many Muslim lands have been occupied by foreign powers, and have had foreign judicial systems imposed on them which are secular and which disallow the Shari’a from being used in court, or only allow it to be used for personal and family issues.
  • Reiterating the doctrinal basis for why non-Islamic legal systems are ultimately unacceptable: Various sources in the Qur’an and hadith attest to the fact that making it permissible to rule by other than that which Allah sent down is disbelief in Allah (kufr) and outside the pale of Islam…Quotes from Shaykh Ahmad Shakir, who claims that infidel colonialists have imposed un-Islamic laws on the Muslims, which in fact represent an alternate religion to replace Islam; laments that most Muslim countries have adopted godless European systems of governance..Quotes from Shaykh Salih bin Ibrahim al-Bulayhi (or al-Balihi), who calls ruling by other than that which Allah sent down to be disbelief in Allah (kufr); the only way to preserve the rights granted by the Shari’a is to govern by the Shari’a completely. These quotes from ancient and modern imams are sufficient to establish that governing by other than that which Allah sent down is major disbelief in Allah (kufr kabir), and departure from Islam.
  • The role of Muslims serving as judges in non-Muslim (including US) legal systems: It is permissible to work as a judge in an infidel nation or a nation which rules by infidel law, even if that leads to ruling by their law, if by so doing one is able to increase the good and decrease the bad as much as possible.  Among those who have stated this in classical times is the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him), and among contemporaries are the scholars of al-Azhar and Muslim Brotherhood leaders such as Hassan al-Hadyi and his son M’amun al-Hadyi, as well as ‘Abd-al-Qadir ‘Awda and others… Joseph (of Egypt) took charge in an infidel nation, and he wasn’t able to rule by all of the rulings of Islam. It cannot be said that he governed but did not judge, because the governor or ruler judges between the people. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya made it clear that the imamate is a type of judgeship. (Quotes from Imam al-Qurtubi, who elaborates on this interpretation of Joseph’s position in the government of Egypt as justifying ruling by other than that which Allah revealed, as long as he’s only there in order to improve things as much as he’s able, and not because he prefers infidel rule.)… Quotes from Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rahman ‘Abd-al-Khaliq, who says there is no basis in the Qur’an and Sunnah for saying that it is not permissible to work as a judge in an infidel nation, and also quotes from the story of Joseph in the Qur’an to support the idea that Muslims can work as judges in infidel nations. He also argues that if you’re going to say that Muslims can’t work as judges in infidel nations, then you might as well say they can’t work as engineers or teachers or anything else which supports the state. Says that it is among the worst sins to leave the affairs of Muslims entirely in the hands of their enemies..[As a concrete example] This position was also taken by Shaykh Muhammad Salim bin Muhammad ‘Ali bin ‘Abd-al-Wadud from what is now known as Mauritania. This Shaykh held several positions in the Mauritanian courts, through which he attempted to abolish the man-made law in the country, and replace it with the Shari’a, which he accomplished somewhat. To this day he continues to sit as the president of the Supreme Islamic Council, and also participates in several other Islamic organizations. …[Concluding observations most relevant to the US]…Muslims should be forbidden from being employed as judges in infidel countries or those ruled by man-made law, except in certain limited cases where they can rule by the judgments of Allah.. That he understand the Shari’a in such a manner as to be able to rule by it in every case brought before him, or at least as close as he’s able to from the cases brought before him. He also must in his heart hate the man-made law… He must also do everything in his power to enact laws that allow the Muslims to practice their Shari’a. He must keep it in his mind that he was not permitted to take this job except to serve Islam and Muslims. He must also choose the judicial profession which is closest to the Shari’a. ..That he judge by the rulings of the Shari’a as much as possible, even if by a ruse
  • Deferring to non-Muslim, “man-made” law under the doctrine of necessity (darura): The Muslim living in a non-Muslim country has rights and interests which will be lost if they are not referred to for judgment, and his opponent will reject them if he refers to the Shari’a for judgment. The Muslim does not have power in himself to enforce the law, however the man-made law obligates the police to intervene and enforce it. This is an oft-repeated scenario for Muslims living outside the land of Islam. If they are forbidden from referring judgment to man-made courts in these situations, they will be deprived of their wealth and rights, and subjected to whatever their enemies bring against them. The issue becomes even more important when it involves referring judgment to man-made law for cases involving the rights of Muslims as a whole. This situation can possibly be better understood by referring to the large institution set up to demand rights for Muslims and fight against anti-Muslim discrimination, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). (Quotes from 2003 CAIR report on its efforts in the US, written by Arab Affairs Director Alaa Bayoumi) It is a principle of jurisprudence that a general and public need brings the status of necessity. Therefore every issue which is needed by the Muslim general public is necessary and permitted.. Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Razaq ‘Afifi was asked about this issue:  “What is the ruling on courts which rule by man-made law?” He responded:  “If possible, one should not refer cases to them for judgment. However, if he cannot claim his right except by this means, there is no fault in it.” Shaykh Salih bin ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz Al al-Shaykh explained that this means: It is required for a Muslim to be hostile to courts which rule by man-made law, and to dislike them.; Do not freely choose to refer another to those courts for judgment. Doing this freely without compulsion is what Allah revealed:  “They want to refer to the tyrant for judgment.” Note that He said ‘they want’.; If you were wronged and you demand your rights which are guaranteed by the Shari’a, and you have no other recourse but to go to the man-made courts, and you have hatred in your heart for the courts, you are permitted to do so…To summarize the words of the scholars, it is permitted to seek recourse in man-made courts if the following three conditions are present: 1)You are unable to reclaim your rights in any other way, because your adversary refuses to refer the case to the Shari’a, or he refuses to execute the ruling of the Shari’a.; 2) You do not take more than the rights guaranteed to by the Shari’a; for if they ruled that you should receive more than your rights under the Shari’a, you do not take more than what you’re entitled to by the Shari’a from your adversary.; 3) At the time that you go to the court, you feel hatred for it in your heart.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply, please --- thank you.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes