Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia Law is Bad for all Societies

By James Arlandson

Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.

But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?

This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.

Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:

First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.

Second, each of these ten reasons has a back—up article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.

Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.

Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity.

‘Islam’ in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars.

Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.

In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.

In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor ‘criminal’ was brought to Muhammad who became angry:

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad’s presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?

The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.

It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.

Here is the article that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic verses on drinking and gambling. It analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings.

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no.2127:

‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual ‘crimes’ may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women’s social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars.  In Iran, the lawoppresses women. For example, women’s testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longerarticle has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law (scroll down to ‘Further discussion’).

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.

In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiancee.

In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man’s eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.

The Quran says:

5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and  wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur’an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.

The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.

Please go here for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings.

Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates.

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.

A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.

The Quran says:

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief’s hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

If the reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting article or this shorter one.

6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.

The Quran says:

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.

See this short article for details on another example of Muhammad’s use of torture.

Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

For more information on Muhammad’s brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it, go to the back—up article.

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’

These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . .

‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done’ (Abu Dawud no. 4447).

This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, ‘Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.’ In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad’s cousin and son—in—law] had two peopleburned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supportingarticle. This longer one has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to ‘Supplemental material’).

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.

The Quran says:

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s law]. (Hilali and Khan).

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.

The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty—five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.

Adultery:

In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:

An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.

She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet’s words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

Here is the back—up article that supports this fourth reason.

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia’s vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

Here are the classical legal rulings.

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’; (4) holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.’

It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ head.

The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible  about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.

Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one’s position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.

How confident was Muhammad (and today’s Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

For the supporting article that analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics, click here.

2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi’ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article in no. three, above), whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.

See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.

Here are the articles that support reason no. two.

This is a short, but full article on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.

Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll down to ‘The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates’).

This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.

And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.

Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?

What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may ‘marry’ the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son—in—law, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced ‘charity’ or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.

For an analysis of the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades, click here.

For the supporting article of reason no. one, please go here.  It also has a segment on the differences between jihad in Islam and the wars in the Old Testament. Another article on that topic can be read here.   There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic.

Therefore, Islam is violent—unjustly and aggressively.

Conclusion

The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform? But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad’s example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this?

In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 1600—1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are.

Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.

Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.

One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada.  Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courtingAustralia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.

It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.

Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.

Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.

James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com

Supplemental material:

In private emails to me or on websites, Muslim apologists (defenders) claim that the Islamic way of dealing with vices is superior to the western way, even in Islam’s punishments like flogging and stoning. It is true that the West is filled with decadence, but are Islamic countries pure and pristine through and through, as these Muslim apologists imply? To anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. Alcohol and other intoxicants and gambling serve as test cases.

This article says that Bahrain, an island and independent sate that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway, provides a ‘breathing lung’ for Saudis because this Islamic island allows the free flow of alcohol and a night life. The words ‘breathing lung’ in Bahrain mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge.

This article discusses the smuggling of alcohol in Saudi Arabia and says:

“Western analysts note that alcohol smuggling of the magnitude underway in Saudi Arabia —— perhaps tens of millions of dollars’ worth of illegal merchandise annually —— would likely involve the complicity of Saudi customs agents and perhaps a higher—level patron.”

This article reveals how Iranians get around the official ban on alcohol, like beer and vodka and other intoxicants, like opium. A black market has sprung up—just like the one in America during Prohibition.

This article says that even though the Taliban, the tyrants who formerly ruled Afghanistan, outlawed the growth of poppies, which are the source of opium, the leaders of the Taliban may have profited from the drug trade. The new and democratic government has a hard time keeping this drug under control.

This article says that authorities in Turkey threaten to imprison online gamblers, and this pagelinks to a report (scroll to the second one) that discusses how Turkey must deal with the problem of monetary interest, alcohol, and gambling. It is revealing to see how Muslim religious leaders try to squirm out of Quranic laws against interest, in order to help Islamic financial institutions make money.

The purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime underground.

Comments

I tried to bring up Sharia law on a forum. Its very hard to get others to understand the oppression muslem people have been going through, and that many have suffered greatly striving for change. The video The Roses of Iran, on youtubes is a very good starting place. This to me is the single most important issue in understanding that declaring war with the middle east instead of working carefully to help people establish basic human rights and dignity, equality, and separation of religion and state, which should be secular. This should be a world wide goal.

History TextBooks Promoting Islam

One of the projects our chapter has undertaken is collecting public school textbooks and reviewing their treatment of Islam with the ultimate objective of taking their findings to the State Board of Education and demanding changes be made.

A new report by the American Textbook Council reveals why such a project is so necessary. This is an excellent illustration of how research is necessary to expose the facts, but follow-up action is necessary to ensure that the research leads to changes.

The fawning, distorted version of the history of Islam in these textbooks can be summed up from this question and answer found in one book:

“Q: How did the caliphs who expanded the Muslim Empire treat those they conquered? A: They treated them with tolerance.”

What utter nonsense! This would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic and dangerous. To completely re-write history so as to ignore the 270 million who have died at the hands of Islamic subjugation is unconscionable.

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

History textbooks promoting Islam
New report says Muslim activists
‘succeeding’ in expunging criticism
Posted: May 10, 2008 12:30 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh

WorldNetDaily

History textbooks being used by hundreds of thousands of public school students across the U.S. are blatantly promoting Islam, according to a new report by an independent organization that researches and reviews textbooks.

WND has reported several times on issues involving the promotion of Islam in public school texts, including a recent situation in which California parents complained their children were being taught that “jihad” to Muslims means “doing good works.”

The new report is from the American Textbook Council, which was established in 1989 as an independent national research organization to review social studies textbooks and advance the quality of instructional materials in history.

In the two-year project, whose report was authored by Gilbert T. Sewall, the ATC reviewed five junior and five high school world and American history texts, concluding:

“Many political and religious groups try to use the textbook process to their advantage, but the deficiencies in Islam-related lessons are uniquely disturbing. History textbooks present an incomplete and confected view of Islam that misrepresents its foundations and challenges to international security.”

The report finds that the texts present “disputed definitions and claims [regarding Islam] … as established facts.”

“Islamic activists use multiculturalism and ready-made American-made political movements, especially those on campus, to advance and justify the makeover of Islam-related textbook content,” the report continued.

“Particular fault rests with the publishing corporations, boards of directors, and executives who decide what editorial policies their companies will pursue,” the report said. Reviewed were:

  • Medieval and Early Modern Times by Jackson J. Spielvogal
  • Medieval to Early Modern Times by Stanley M. Bernstein and Richard Shek
  • World History: Medieval and Early Modern Times by Douglas Carnine, Carlos Cortes, Kenneth R. Curtis and Anita T. Robinson
  • Medieval and Early Modern Times by Dianne Hart
  • History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond by Bert Bower and Jim Lobdell
  • World History: The Modern World by Elizabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Esler
  • World History: Modern Times by Jackson J. Spielvogel
  • America: Pathways to the Present by Andrew Cayton and others
  • The American Vision: Moder Times by Joyce Appelby and others and
  • The Americans: Reconstruction to the Twenty-first Century by Gerald A. Danzer

The report noted that several of the textbooks have found harsh critics among parents and others, and “History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond” published by the privately held Teachers Curriculum Institute has been criticized repeatedly.

In Lodi, Calif., parents “were not objecting to a word or two that they took out of context but to a textbook long on chapters filled with adulatory lessons on Islam.”

This was the same book cited by parents who contacted WND with their concerns about such indoctrination.

A parent whose child has been handed the text in a Sacramento district at that time accused the publisher of a pro-Muslim bias to the point that Islamic theology has been incorporated into the public school teachings.

“It makes an attempt to seem like an egalitarian world history book, but on closer inspection you find that seven (not all are titled so) of the chapters deal with Islam or Muslim subjects,” wrote the parent, whose name was being withheld, in a letter to WND.

“The upsetting part is not only do they go into the history (which would be acceptable) but also the teaching of Islam,” she said. “This book does not really go into Christianity or the teachings of Christ, nor does it address religious doctrine elsewhere to the degree it does Islam.”

She said the book’s one page referencing Jews “is only to convey that they were tortured by Crusaders to get them to convert to ‘Christianity.’ (It fails to mention that the biggest persecutors of Jews throughout history and still today are Arab Muslims). It gives four other one-liner references to the Jews being blamed for the plagues and problems in the land. It does not talk about the Jews as making a significant impact on the culture at large.”

Bert Bower, founder of TCI, told WND at that time not only did his company have experts review the book, but the state of California also reviewed it, and has approved it for use in public schools.

“Keep in mind when looking at this particular book scholars from all over California (reviewed it),” he said.

One of those experts who contributed to the text, according to the ATC, which earlier released a scathing indictment of that specific project, was Ayad Al-Qazzaz.

“Al-Qazzaz is a Muslim apologist, a frequent speaker in Northern California school districts promoting Islam and Arab causes,” the ATC review said. “Al-Qazzaz also co-wrote AWAIR’s ‘Arab World Notebook.’ AWAIR stands for Arab World and Islamic Resources, an opaque, proselytizing ‘non-profit organization’ that conducts teacher workshops and sells supplementary materials to schools.”

The newest report cited the same issue raised by parents.

“In a passage meant to explain jihad, they encountered this: ‘Muslims should fulfill jihad with the heart, tongue, and hand. Muslims use the heart in their struggle to resist evil. The tongue may convince others to take up worthy causes, such as funding medical research. Hands may perform good works and correct wrongs,'” the new report said.

The ATC report noted a complicating factor is a ban in California, to whose standards most textbook publishers align their work, on “adverse reflection” on religion in school.

“Whatever ‘adverse reflection’ is, such a mandate may be conceptually at odds with historical and geopolitical actuality,” the study said.

“None of this is accidental. Islamic organizations, willing to [provide] misinformation, are active in curriculum politics. These activists are eager to expunge any critical thought about Islam from textbook and all public discourse. They are succeeding, assisted by partisan scholars and associations… It is alarming that so many individuals with the power to shape the curriculum are willfully blind to or openly sympathetic to these efforts,” the report said.

Read the full article at WorldNetDaily.

Jihad and the Growing Surrender of American Counterterrorism

September 18, 2008

Jeffrey Imm
Anti-Jihad League of America

http://anti-jihad.org/blog/2008/09/jihad-and-surrender/

In the “stealth Jihad” war of ideas over the past year, one American institution after another has signaled its willingness to surrender to the advocates of Islamic supremacism — our homeland security, our military, and our law enforcement. Islamic supremacist groups have “guided” such American government organizations to create a “terror lexicon” that excludes “Jihad,” to promote“progress” over “liberty,” to blackball those who would confront the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic supremacists, to “train” our law enforcement, and to openly promote engagement with Islamic supremacist organizations as part of counterterrorism tactics.

Six months ago, the growing surrender in the war of ideas by America’s counterterrorism community was seen by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) memorandum endorsing theDHS “terror lexicon” prohibiting the use of the terms such as “Jihad,” “Islamist,” “mujahedeen.” This milestone was part of a trend that has been growing for nearly two years. Since the November 2006 mid-term elections resulting in a Democratic Congressional majority, a growing number in counterterrorist organizations have been moving towards promoting analysts that support negotiations, rather than confrontation, with Islamic supremacists. The belief among some is that, should the Democratic Party win the presidency, a new Democratic administration would seek such“engagement” policies. As the presidential campaign has heated up, this emphasis has accelerated in some counterterrorist organizations, which fear ending up on the outside looking in.

However, over the past seven years, a vacuum of strategic war planning on Islamic supremacism by the U.S. military, intelligence, and executive branch (seen in today’s “war on extremism”) has made America increasingly dependent on what little strategic thinking that has been available from the counterterrorism community. The growing surrender of counterterrorism groups to the policies of appeasement and “engagement,” legitimizing Islamic supremacists, undermines one of the last remaining “strategic voices” on Jihad. Increasingly, the numbers are shrinking in counterterrorism communities who seek confrontation against Jihadists and Islamic supremacists; some voices are being marginalized and silenced. This growing surrender will require average American citizens to increase their activism in demanding that their government representatives confront Jihad and Islamic supremacism.

September 23 will mark yet another milestone in the growing surrender of America’s counterterrorism organizations, as Capitol Hill will be used to promote the ideas of those who think America should “engage” with Islamic supremacist groups.

Using Capitol Hill to Promote Appeasement of Jihad and Islamic Supremacism

One day after the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Counterterrorism Blog announced a panel discussion to be held on 10 AM at September 23, 2008 at a U.S. Capitol building facility in Washington, D.C. (2255 Rayburn House Office Building). This discussion will provide a platform for Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank to promote their views that by engaging with Islamic supremacists and Jihadists, the West can dissuade them from pursuing Al-Qaeda-style terrorism.

Peter Bergen is associated with the New America Foundation and Paul Cruickshank is a contributing expert for the Counterterrorism Blog; both are also research fellows with the New York University’s Center on Law and Security.

The September 23 meeting entitled “The Jihadists’ Revolt Against Al Qaeda” is being co-sponsored by the Counterterrorism Blog and by the New America Foundation (described by Washington Post writer David Ignatius in February as “a liberal think tank.”) The meeting is to discuss Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank’s New Republic (TNR) June 2008 article “The Unraveling,” where they ostensibly argue that there is a “jihadist revolt against Bin Laden.” This is the basis for their argument that engagement with Islamic supremacists and anti-Al-Qaeda Jihadists will make “America safer,” and that in a war of ideas with Islamic supremacists, “it is their ideas, not the West’s, that matter.”

Per my July 16 response to their New Republic article, Bergen and Cruickshank use the example of Sayyid Imam Al Sharif’s (aka “Dr. Fadl”) rejection of Al-Qaeda as justification for such a policy. What they don’t report is the rest of the story on Al-Sharif. In fact, Al-Sharif continues to support Jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq, where American soldiers are in harm’s way, and Al-Sharif continues to support Jihad against Israel. Bergen and Cruickshank also don’t report Al-Sharif’s continued support for Islamic supremacism and the Taliban, where he states: “Jihad in Afghanistan will lead to the creation of an Islamic state with the triumph of the Taliban, God willing.” Al-Sharif’s support of Jihad is for the same Taliban that supported Bin Laden’s 9/11 Jihad training camps, the same Taliban killing American soldiers today, and the same Taliban that seeks a global Islamic caliphate. Al-Sharif is the type of Jihadist that Bergen and Cruickshank think will make “America safer.”

Such dangerously misleading information about the Jihad-supporting Al-Sharif has found its way into American government initiatives as well. On July 31, the Washington Times published an article (ironically titled “War of Ideas”) where it interviewed James K. Glassman, the new undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Mr. Glassman was proud of his efforts within the government to promote Jihad-supporting Al-Sharif as an example of programs to “push back against violent extremist ideology.” In the July 2008 issue of the West Point Combating Terrorism Center Sentinel, counterterrorist Michael Jacobson also cited Al-Sharif to our fighting men and women as an individual who had written a book “rejecting al-Qa’ida’s message and tactics.” But while describing Al-Sharif’s concerns about not wanting to harm “innocent people,” Mr. Jacobson fails to mention in his West Point article that Al-Sharif calls for Jihad against our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Click here to continue reading this article.

Rest In Peace Great Britian

Yesterday I mourned, and today I vow to fight against Sharia Law forever from setting its hideous, oppressive, brutal foot on American soil. I learned yesterday that Great Britain has adopted and recognized Sharia Law as a legitimate and recognized court of law in that piece of land that was their nation. Words can not describe just how incompatible Sharia Law is with the West, and how much it embodies all the evil that we are fighting in this world. Great Britain has fallen, a nation which had a form of government that we largely based the American system after. I serve in several capacities in life where I had to take an oath to defend the Constitution, and never has there been a time before in my life where that oath has meant more than it does today.

Send your letters of condolences to British officials/ambassadors in America today, and be prepared to aggressively defend our own Constitution in the fight of your life now and forever from this grave threat to its existence.

Join me, and take a vow to never submit.

Jesse Petrilla
Founder, United American Committee
http://www.UnitedAmericanCommittee.org

This could never happen in the U.S. Really!!

In our “Important Happenings” email earlier this week Act! for America included Brigitte Gabriel’s scheduled appearance at the Norfolk Naval Base Navy Exchange in Norfolk, Virginia for today, Saturday, September 20th.

We were informed yesterday that the top brass at the naval base ordered the event cancelled. While we do not have specific details, it appears that the decision to cancel was made after pressure was exerted amidst concerns about offending Muslims.

The commentary below discusses how the American counterterrorism community is increasingly surrendering in the war of ideas to Islamic supremacists. In effect, we are following the same path Great Britain has trod over the past three decades, a path that led to last week’s stunning announcement that Great Britain has now officially adopted sharia law and sharia courts.

Every time a decision in America is made that suppresses critique of Islam out of fear of giving offense to Muslims, such as the decision to cancel Brigitte’s appearance at the Norfolk Naval Base, Islamic militants are empowered and emboldened and our nation takes one more step down the failed path Great Britain has already traveled.

At the end of the commentary below we read:

“The silence of many of the 300 million American people has convinced a number of career counterterror analysts that you already have surrendered. Prove them wrong.”

That is what we MUST do. We must prove career counterterror analysts, weak-kneed politicians, and radical Islamists, that we WILL rise in defense of our security and our values. Two ways you can do that today:

If you haven’t already done so, get a copy of Brigitte’s new book by clicking here;

Now, read the following post “Jihad and the Growing Surrender of American Counterterrorism.” Hopefully you will awaken to the threat we face.

U.N. Scheme to Make Christians Criminals

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Shariah-following Islamic nations demanding anti-‘defamation’ law

Oringinally Posted: July 10, 2008 2:00 am Eastern By Bob Unruh


Dozens of nations dominated by Islam are pressing the United Nations to adopt an anti-“defamation” plan that would make Christians criminals under international law, according to aUnited States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide.

“Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry,” the American Center for Law & Justice said yesterday in announcing its petition drive.

The discrimination is “wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called ‘Combating Defamation of Religions,'” the announcement said. “We must put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith that attempts to criminalize Christianity.”

(Story continues below)

The “anti-defamation” plan has been submitted to the U.N. repeatedly since about 1999, starting out as a plan to ban “defamation” of Islam and later changed to refer to “religions,” officials said. It is being pushed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference nations, which has adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, “which states that all rights are subject to sharia law, and makes sharia law the only source of reference for human rights.”

The ACLJ petition, which is to be delivered to the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, already had collected more than 23,000 names in just a brief online existence.

The ACLJ’s European division, the European Center for Law & Justice, also has launched its work on the issue. It submitted arguments last month to the U.N. in opposition to the proposal to institute sharia-based standards around the globe.

“The position of the ECLJ in regards to the issue of ‘defamation of religion’ resolutions, as they have been introduced at the U.N. Human Rights Council and General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression,” the organization’s brief said.

“The ‘defamation of religion’ resolutions establish as the primary focus and concern the protection of ideas and religions generally, rather than protecting the rights of individuals to practice their religion, which is the chief purpose of international religious freedom law.”

“Furthermore, ‘defamation of religion’ replaces the existing objective criterion of limitations on speech where there is an intent to incite hatred or violence against religious believers with a subjective criterion that considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech,” the group continued.

Interestingly, in nations following Islam, the present practice is to use such laws to protect Islam and to attack religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution, the brief noted.

“What should be most disconcerting to the international community is that laws based on the concept of ‘defamation of religion’ actually help to create a climate of violence,” the argument explained.

For example, just two months ago an Afghanistan court following Islam sentenced to death a 23-year-old apprentice journalist who had downloaded an article from an Iranian website and brought it to his class, the ECLJ said. Other instances include:

  • Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions of vague allegations of “subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt” for comments in his book, “America Alone,” the group said.
  • In Pakistan, 15 people were accused of blasphemy against Islam during the first four months of 2008, the organization said.
  • Another Pakistani man sentenced to life in prison for desecrating the Quran was jailed for six years before being acquitted of the charge.
  • In Saudi Arabia a teacher was sentenced to three years in prison plus 300 lashes “for expressing his views in a classroom.”
  • In the United Kingdom, police announced plans to arrest a blogger for “anti-Muslim” statements.

  • In the United States, a plaintiff sued his Internet service provider for refusing “to prevent participants in an online chat room from posting or submitting harassing comments that blasphemed and defamed plaintiff’s Islamic religion.”

The ECLJ said, “The implementation of domestic laws to combat defamation of religion in many OIC countries reveals a selective and arbitrary enforcement toward religious minorities, who are often Christians. Those violations are frequently punishable by the death penalty.”

The newest “anti-defamation” plan was submitted in March. It specifically cites a declaration “adopted by the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers” at a meeting in Islamabad “which condemned the growing trend of Islamophobia and systematic discrimination against adherents of Islam.”

It also cites the dictates from the OIC meeting in Dakar, “in which the Organization expressed concern at the systematically negative stereotyping of Muslims and Islam and other divine religions.”

It goes on to cite a wide range of other practices that “target” Islam, but does not mention any other religions, and urges all nations to provide “adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion.”

According to published reports, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights’ 53 members voted to adopt the resolution earlier this year, with opposition from the United States and the European Union.

At the time, Cuba’s delegate, Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, said: “Islam has been the subject of very deep campaign of defamation.”

“They’re attempting to pass a sinister resolution that is nothing more than blatant religious bigotry,” the ACLJ said in its promotion of its petition. “This is very important to understand. This radical proposal would outlaw Christianity … it would make the proclamation of your faith an international crime.”

“In his recent dissent on the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo Bay, Justice Scalia said, ‘America is at war with radical Islamists.’ Never has this rung more true than today. Never have Christians been more targeted for their religious beliefs. And never have we faced a more dangerous threat than the one posed by the OIC,” the ACLJ said.

On the Grizzly Groundswell blog, the author described the situation as, “The United Nations: 160 cannibals and 17 civilized people taking a majority vote on what to have for dinner.”

The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.

“This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions,” said the statement from Leonard Leo. “We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion.”

Source: WORLD NET DAILY


Britain Adopts Islamic Law, Gives Sharia Courts full Power to Rule on Civil Cases

From
September 15, 2008
Abul Taher

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

Countering an EMP Attack


Iran’s drive to acquire deliverable nuclear weaponry is a threat not only to Israel, it’s a threat to us. As we reported in a story to you several weeks ago, the threat of a nuclear weapon being used by Iran to create an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack is very real and could have a devastating impact on our economy and national security. The commentary below discusses efforts to counter the threat of an EMP attack. 
 

The next President is going to have to face the Iranian nuclear threat head-on, as it now becomes increasingly apparent that Iran will acquire nuclear weaponry within the next five years. 

Were a successful EMP attack launched against the United States, it is likely that we would look back on today’s economy with longing. Disruptions to our communications and energy infrastructure caused by an EMP attack could be mammoth, with a corresponding collapse of our economy and significant compromising of our national security infrastructure. 

ACT! for America does not endorse candidates, but as we Americans choose our next President it is incumbent on us to answer this question: 

Between Barack Obama and John McCain, who has the best combination of experience, knowledge of foreign policy, and proven fortitude to make the excruciatingly difficult decisions that will have to be made if Iran cannot be “persuaded” to halt its nuclear weapons program? 

For as much as we should be doing everything possible to protect ourselves against an EMP attack should it happen, the best protection is to prevent a nuclear-delivered EMP attack from ever occurring in the first place. And that means not allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weaponry. 

 

The Pentagon is studying ways of countering the threat of an electromagnetic pulse attack. 

By Patrick Chisholm 

http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=1185 

Amid increasing reliance on computer networks and other electronic technology and the rise of new and technologically sophisticated potential adversaries, military officials are taking a renewed look at ways of countering the threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. 

During the Cold War, the possibility of an EMP attack was a prominent concern for U.S. defense planners. In such an attack scenario, a nuclear bomb is exploded miles—typically hundreds of miles—above the target area. The explosion generates an EMP that disrupts or destroys electronic devices everywhere in the target area, which could include an area as large as the continental United States. 

With the downfall of the Soviet Union, the threat of EMP from that part of the world has greatly receded. However, since the end of the Cold War, new EMP vulnerabilities have emerged, the most obvious of which is terrorism. As a 2004 report by a panel of experts warned, terrorists or other adversaries could launch an EMP attack without having a high level of sophistication, such as through a short-range Scud missile. Also of concern are non-nuclear, small-scale E-bombs that target localized areas. (See MIT, Volume 8, Issue 8, page 8.) 

The EMP generated from nuclear and E-bombs could pass through protective cages that shield electronics and critical infrastructure against lightning and other electromagnetic interference (EMI). And a byproduct of EMPs is said to be huge magnetic fields that collapse, generating a massive power surge that would render many electronic devices inoperable. 

Newly nuclear-armed nations pose another EMP threat. If countries such as Iran and North Korea do not already have nuclear weapons and E-bombs, they could be well on their way to acquiring them, analysts say. Iran has conducted flight tests of its Shahab III medium-range missile. The missiles reportedly were deliberately exploded at high altitude, and were deemed by the Iranian government as successful tests. One interpretation points to the possibility of plans for EMP. 

A second major development since the end of the Cold War is the U.S. military’s widespread use of and dependency on computers and other electronics for weapons systems, command and control systems, and business process systems. The push toward network-centric warfare—from command centers stateside down to soldiers in the field—means that dependency on electronics will only intensify. 

Military Standard

These new vulnerabilities to EMP raise the question of how well the Department of Defense is prepared for such an attack. The answer, observers say, is mixed and difficult to discern, because information regarding which U.S. military systems are hardened against EMP is classified. However, clues suggest that more resources could be devoted to EMP hardening than is currently the case. For example, many EMP testing facilities have been closed since the end of the Cold War, according to William A. Radasky, president of Metatech Corp. and an expert on protecting electronics from EMP. 

In addition, the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory of the Army Corps of Engineers used to investigate materials and processes for EMP shielding applications. But, according to a spokesman, “All the money for that research dried up after the Berlin Wall came down.” 

Literature warning about the dangers of EMP conveys the impression that an EMP would ruin every electronic device in the target area. It is less frequently pointed out, however, that most electronic components enjoy some built-in protection from electromagnetic interference, albeit not necessarily from EMP. Government standards require such protection. 

To be sure, commercial EMI standards are probably too weak to protect against an EMP. But military standards are much stronger than commercial standards because of the more hazardous environments that military electronics are exposed to. Along with protecting against the various electromagnetic interferences that one encounters on the battlefield, some—but by no means all—military EMI standards are designed to withstand EMP as well. The most common EMI standard is Military Standard 461 (MIL-STD-461). 

For military electronics, “We are typically trying to protect nearby radio communications or navigation receivers from being jammed by our equipment…. We are [also] trying to protect our own sensitive circuits against the fields from nearby radio or radar transmitters. “Shielding may also be needed for other threats, such as lightning or nuclear EMP,” according to Daryl Gerke and William Kimmel, principals at Kimmel Gerke Associates, an EMC consulting and training firm, writing in Interference Technology magazine. 

They continued, “Military equipment may be subjected to very high levels of RF energy (radar and radio transmitters), lightning and nuclear EMP effects. MIL-STD-461E, the key military EMC specification, addresses these multiple environments through a matrix of recommended requirements. For example, an electronic device used in a submarine will have different requirements than a device used in a helicopter.” 

A vulnerability arises, however, with the military’s increasing use of COTS devices in warfighting, C4I and business process systems. The key is to ensure either that those COTS items have been modified to comply with military EMI standards, or that, once those COTS items are acquired, they are housed in rooms or buildings that protect against EMP and other EMI. 

EMI Shielding

If electronics are not designed correctly or shielded properly, they can jam reception of television, radio and other telecommunications. Therefore, as mentioned above, electronic gear cannot be sold without having to meet some sort of regulations controlling the electromagnetic noise coming out of the device. In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets the regulations. Europe has even stronger regulations. 

EMI shielding is designed to both keep electromagnetic radiation from escaping from the device, and from getting into it. “Most of the regulations are aimed at keeping whatever noise that the box generates, by virtue of its operation, from getting out and affecting somebody else’s box or licensed radio or TV,” said Joe Butler, new business development manager at Chomerics, which manufactures EMI shielding materials. “However, given that there are all types of sources of electromagnetic radiation in the air, if you want your box to operate properly, you have to build it so that it’s protected from noise getting into it. So the shielding works both ways.” 

In EMI parlance, an electronic box may be anything from a cell phone housing, a laptop housing, a PC housing, or even housing for a large server rack. 

Click here to continue reading this article. 

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Confirms Existence of U.S. Brotherhood and Relationship with CAIR

An Egyptian blogger (SM) has conducted an interview with Mohammed Habib, the deputy leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in which he confirms the existence of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and that there is a “relationship” between the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Egyptian Brotherhood. According to the interview:

SM: Is there a Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.?
Mohamed Habib: I would say yes. There are Muslim Brotherhood members there.
SM: Then what are they doing there?
Mohamed Habib: No, there are already existing institutions; there are laws and a constitution that they operate under in order to have a role in serving the American society. They are part of the American society and they want to an active positive role in it, and a part of that is to spread a positive image of Islam along with its values, culture, history and teachings.
SM: This is naturally very important. Who represents you in the US?
Mohamed Habib: Well, there are there those who do represent us, who do that role.
SM: But it’s not CAIR, right? The Council for American Islamic Relations? Many people say that they are your front. Other people say that it’s ISNA. But back to CAIR, some people from the Muslim Brotherhood have denied having a connection with CAIR. Do they really represent you?
Mohamed Habib: Ehh, this is a sensitive subject, and it’s kind of problematic, especially after 9/11 …
SM: For them to say that there is a relationship between you two?
Mohamed Habib: Yes. You can say that.
Only ten days ago, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood website posted a statement denying that the group has any representation in the U.S. and also staing that it has “absolutely has no organizational links, ties, or associations with any of the Islamic organizations in the U.S.”, including CAIR which had it origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and is part of the “Palestine Committee” of the U.S. Brotherhood. CAIR, as well as all the other U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations have consistently denied any relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.
In another part of the interview, Habib blames the poor image of the Muslim Brotherhood partly on the “Zionist-American project” while also acknowledging the public relations effort mounted by the Brotherhood:
SM: The image of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. and in other western countries — while we aren’t going to say it’s a bad one — is not the image you would like to portray for yourselves.
Mohamed Habib: That’s true!
SM: Why do you think that is?
SM: Why do you think that is? Mohamed Habib: There are two parts to that. The first part is related to the tyrannical and oppressive regimes in our countries that try to project a mental image (a really scary and horrifying image) in the minds of the western world that we are against democracy, and freedom, and human rights in general. The other part is the Zionist-American project that upholds double standards and has a special agenda that contradict the interests of our Ummah, and thus finds in the Muslim Brotherhood an obstacle in the way of executing that agenda. Therefore, they unfortunately promote a very wrong and negative image of us. This forces us to act and try to communicate with think tanks and research centers, academics in universities, the people, and the media, whether the local or the international one.
Article printed from The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report: http://globalmbreport.com.