1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. Islam Is Banned In America. Trump Is Right


President Obama is illegally, Unconstitutionally supporting his Muslim brothers and turning a blind eye to Islam by violating The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

You can find it here at; 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.. H.R.13342; Pub.L. 414;182 Stat.66. http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1952_immigration_and_nationality_act.html …

In Section 212 Chapter 2, Prohibits entry into America any IMMIGRANTS belonging to an organization seeking the unlawful overthrow of the federal government of the United States by force, violence and other unconstitutional means.

Those who refuse to Assimilate into our American Culture will create such huge tear in the Fabric of our Society that it will completely destroy everything we hold dear of this nation, and are why these laws and protections were put in place.

Anonymous - Torn US flag, 2010 - via Süddeutsche Zeitung

Islamic immigration would be illegal under this law. Why?

The Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam. To which are against our values and violate the Constitution. Muslims who attest to the Koran in their life’s guiding principle subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government.

Their Koran prevents them from Assimilating into our American culture…This is how they spread their Sharia Law.

Once their Populations hit 5% in their Host Country’s they begin to exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. Already there are being demands that we produce foot baths in schools, restaurants and businesses as well as Halal food products and they are only at 1.0% our population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.

They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply (United States ).

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world:

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act does state that Immigrants affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited”

Obama is violating the law by Allowing Muslims into America?

Islam, By Law, Is Prohibited From U.S. Immigration
http://www.fggam.org/2015/11/islam-by-law-is-prohibited-from-u-s-immigration/

There is no such thing as a Moderate Muslim, only Apostate ones!


There is no such thing as a Moderate Muslim, only Apostate ones, and there is no peace in the Religion of Islam, only a cult of death and ruination….

Both the Active Muslims and the Apostate Muslims are Dangerous in that the Apostate Muslim can rise up at any time and moment without warning and kill you and we cannot screen them. We cannot know their hearts, there are no blood test or series of x-rays nor questionnaires that can tell us when a dormant Muslim might rise up against us or which ones are dangerous to us….

So…The safest, surest, and, the most responsible steps would to be to treat them both as dangerous and life threatening…

I’ve recently seen a meme of a bowl of m&ms circulating the net that asked would you eat any of these if you knew that just one of them were poisonous, pretty straight forward question, but what a very powerful message…

We have family’s to consider and can ill afford to take chances with their lives, we had better stop this practice of surrendering ourselves to our sensitivities and start acting on our rights to Self Preservation, because we are at war with Islam and despite what you are told, there is no such thing as a MODERATE nor Peaceful Islam…

5367433291_b6a917c43d_z

Devout Muslims and Apostate Muslims present themselves in exactly the same manner, they both profess to be Muslims, they both claim to read from the same Koran and they both claim the other hijacked the others faith…

They’re either Muslims who are Practicing Quranic Law or, they’re Apostate Muslims.

And then there is the old tired argument that if they’re Apostates, then they’re not truly Muslims, but the problem with that is, that they are presenting themselves as MUSLIMS…

They are PLACING themselves under the INFLUENCE of the Koran and Islam and that makes them very very dangerous in that we cannot see or know what the underlining affects their teachings are having on them, nor can we know who is and isn’t a danger to us…

Which is synonymous to the bowl of m&ms I mentioned, how are we ever suppose to tell the difference and can we trust the Apostate Muslims won’t rise up later against us?

If you are a Muslim that Practices Quranic, Sharia Law, than you are Devout Muslim. You’re Not a Radical nor have you Radicalized Islam, and you certainly didn’t Hijack the Islamic Faith, You Are in fact a DEVOUT Muslim to your Quran and a loyal follower of your prophet Muhammad.

You are according to your Koran a Good Muslim, you are following the precepts and teachings that Muhammad had written down for you to die and kill for…

If You are a Muslim that does not adhere to Quranic Law than you’re an Apostate and many are irresponsibly and dangerously labeling them as MODERATES, of which, they are not. Matter of fact, they are even more dangerous because their actions are the most hidden.

Being either a Devout Muslim or an Apostate is in the same manner that one is either a Devout Christian or an Apostate.

You are either Practicing the precepts of your Faith or you’re ignoring them…..One Or the Other, but not Both.

These Devout Muslims who are killing and destroying everything and one in sight who doesn’t submit to their Quranic teachings are in fact PRACTICING MUSLIMS, they are DEVOUT Followers of QURANIC LAW as was intended by Muhammad for them to be, they are the Good Muslims….or simply put, they were then, as they are today, to be put to death immediately so that other followers not fall into their APOSTASY.

And…, this is the very reason they are spreading throughout the world today, to subvert, to subjugate and force non Muslims to submit to Sharia, and they are wrecking havoc on every Nation they migrate to and once their populations hits the 5% mark in their host country’s, then they become active cells.

Once their Populations hit 5% in their Host Country’s they begin to exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.

They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply (United States ).

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world:

Folks, there are no MODERATES in any religion or Faith, you ARE…,either Adhering to your faith, or, you’re NOT.

And the media and the Islamic appeasers today are making excuses for them by also being deceitful about who they truly are.

Cancer has either Active or Dormant Cells.

Islam acts in exactly the same manner that these life threatening Cancer cells act, you have one that is an active cell and another that is lying dormant, they are both Life Threatening to their Host (Victims).

Make no mistake, BOTH the Active and Dormant Islamic Cells are a Threat to us….

The one and only difference therebetween these two Islamic Cells are, is that one Islamic Cell is actively seeking out to destroy you and your family’s while the other is spreading quietly and lying Dormant and is waiting to destroy you…

Which makes the Dormant Cell that more dangerous, because you simply never know when it might become active and try to kill you…

“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.” –- Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’

And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Genesis 16:12

And I Proudly Profess That I Am A Proud Member Of Both The Self Preservation & Islamophobic Party’s Of America…

Self Preservation Party

ISLAM by Law is Banned and Forbidden within th4e United States…

Donald Trump is right to call for Islams Total Ban…

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act:

(The 1952 INA act to revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality; and for other purposes)

H.R. 13342; Pub.L. 414; 182 Stat. 66.82nd Congress; June 27, 1952.
http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1952_immigration_and_nationality_act.html

Islam, By Law, Is Prohibited From U.S. Immigration
http://www.fggam.org/2015/11/islam-by-law-is-prohibited-from-u-s-immigration/

Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG)

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

United States — Muslim 1.0%

Canada — Muslim 1.9%

Norway — Muslim 1.8%

► At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%

Germany — Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%

► From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply (United States ). At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world:

France — Muslim 8%

Philippines — Muslim 5%

► When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons):

India — Muslim 13.4%

Israel — Muslim 16%

Russia — Muslim 10-15%

► After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

► At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

► From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%

Qatar — Muslim 77.5%

Sudan — Muslim 70%

► After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Egypt — Muslim 90%

Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%

Iran — Muslim 98%

Iraq — Muslim 97%

Pakistan — Muslim 97%

Syria — Muslim 90%

► 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’, the ‘Islamic House of Peace.’ There is supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%

Somalia — Muslim 100%

Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

Since 1947 they have Slaughtered nearly 15 million of their very own Followers….And you want to trust them with your Families….Really?

So…We Must Ask Ourselves.

Can A Good Muslim Be A Good American.

Theologically – no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia

Religiously – no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally – no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically – no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..

Politically – no.Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically – no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )

Intellectually – no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually – no. Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’ the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation. … Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. – – – They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

Fact; There is absolutely no such thing as a moderate Muslim, only Apostate ones…. Fact; There is no religion of peace in Islam, only a cult of death and ruination.


Fact; Muslims, Practicing [Quranic] Muslims are taught from birth to kill anyone not like themselves….

Since Muhammad, it is estimated they have slaughtered over 250 million non Muslims in the name of Allah and 15 million of their own people just since 1947.

tsarnaev-brothers

No Nation, Country, Island, or Continent upon Gods green awesome or their Natives are safe from those Practicing Quranic Law…..Every single place that these people migrate to is put to ruination, their economies, heritages and traditions and history are forever changed…Nothing but nothing survives chaos, nothing can come from out of it unchanged….

The only solution to ridding oneself of cancerous cells are to eradicate them, to ether destroy or remove them entirely…

There is but one difference therebetween the Quranic Practicing Muslims and the Apostate Muslims….The Apostates are Dormant cells, whereas the Quranic Muslims are active…..

And when you destroy cancer, you destroy both the active and dormant cells….

Its called the Right For Self Preservation…We have a right to preserve our way of life, our children’s lives, our family’s lives and our neighbors lives….

We have a God given right to meet violence with violence.

Can A Good Muslim Be A Good American….

hasan

Theologically – no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia

Religiously – no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally – no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically – no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..

Politically – no.Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically – no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )

Intellectually – no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually – no. Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’ the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.

38448_144121665604229_5406706_s.jpg

Therefore, after much study and deliberation….
Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it’s still the truth.
You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

Shockingly barbaric massacre of Syrian soldiers and families by U.S.-backed anti-Assad Regime Islamic jihadists WARNING: Very Graphic


Shockingly barbaric massacre of Syrian soldiers and families by U.S.-backed anti-Assad Regime Islamic jihadists WARNING: Very Graphic.

These massacres were committed in rural Idlib in two little villages. According to several sources, 7 Syrian soldiers who were taken hostage by terrorists, were brutally slaughtered alongside with their families.

LiveLeak This savage massacre took place in the village of Qmenas, Idlib. The terrorists run over the checkpoint and mutilated the corpses after executing/beheading them.  The other massacre took place in Sarmeen, Idlib.

Warning

 

With Iraq on the Brink, a New Sunni Insurgency Emerges || by Jonathan Spyer


20 Years Middle East Forum
Capture

Largely ignored by the global media, Iraq today stands on the brink of a renewed Sunni insurgency. The emergent insurgency in Iraq is following the same sectarian pattern as the civil war in Syria and the growing violence in Lebanon. It also involves many of the same local and regional players.

The rising violence in Iraq is not, however, simply the result of a spillover from the Syrian war. It derives also from internal Iraqi dynamics. But these are themselves in significant ways comparable to the Syrian and Lebanese situations.

Over 9000 people were killed in fighting in Iraq in 2013. This is not yet up to the levels of violence just prior to the surge, in the very worst days of the insurgency against U.S. forces and the sectarian bloodletting that accompanied it. But it’s the highest since 2007. This year, more than 2000 people have already lost their lives as a result of political violence in Iraq.

As of today, a coalition of Sunni insurgent groups control the city of Fallujah in Iraq’s Anbar province west of Baghdad. The city of Ramadi remains partially in insurgent hands, though its southern districts have been re-conquered by government forces in recent days.

Nor is the violence confined to Anbar province. Rather, car bombings have become a near daily occurrence in Baghdad, and insurgent activity against Iraqi security forces and non-Sunni civilians is taking place in Nineveh, Mosul, Kirkuk and elsewhere in areas of high Sunni Arab population.

So who are these insurgents, and why have events in Iraq reached this crisis point?

Read More Here:  http://www.meforum.org/3799/with-iraq-on-the-brink-a-new-sunni-insurgency

Ahrar-ul-Hind suicide assault team attacks courthouse in Islamabad || By Bill Roggio


ISL
Image added by Jericho777

The newly formed Ahrar-ul-Hind claimed credit for a suicide assault today at a courthouse that killed a judge and 10 other people in Pakistan’s capital of Islamabad. The attack took place after both the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan and the Pakistani government announced over the weekend that they would suspend attacks against each other.

Two Ahrar-ul-Hind suicide bombers armed with weapons and hand grenades attacked the court, and killed judge Rafaqat Awan, a female lawyer, and nine others. Thirty more people were wounded in the assault, which may have been designed to free a prisoner who was brought to court to face trial.

 

SPECIAL REPORT ON JAMAL BADAWI || Vallerie Price | Courtesy: Act For Canada


Image

Three weeks ago, ACT! For Canada sent out a special report on the National Council of Canadian Muslims (formerly CAIR-CAN) so you would understand the make-up and the goals of this organization.

Below is another special report prepared by PointdeBascule on Jamal Badawi. Not only was he a major pillar of CAIR-Canada in the last decade, his importance and influence is emphasized by the fact the he also headed, still leads and currently influences the direction of many top Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States and Canada. When Badawi was sharing his leadership position at CAIR-Canada, he also was on the Board of Directors of other organizations that funded or openly defended Hamas, a known terrorist organization.

When the organization changed its name to the National Council of Canadian Muslims, Badawi’s name disappeared from its list of administrators. No formal notice seems to have been published to announce his departure.

Excerpt from the report:

A 1991 internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum established (point 20) that Jamal Badawi is a leader of the North American Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure. Badawi’s name also appears in a 1992 Muslim Brotherhood leadership phonebook. Both documents were produced for evidentiary purposes in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial that led to the conviction of all those who were accused of terrorism financing.

The memorandum also encourages Muslim Brotherhood supporters to destroy the Western civilization from within. Jamal Badawi’s incitement to Muslim judges and civil servants not to apply current legal provisions incompatible with sharia actively contributes to the realization of this plan:

Point 4.4 of the 1991 memorandum The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

This report demonstrates that we need to pay attention to the non-violent aspect of Jihad. Badawi explains how to use the legal system to further the “civilizational” jihad by “sabotaging” from within the very institutions that serves to protect our freedoms.

Please take the time to read this in-depth report so that you will further

understand a different aspect of the real story behind the NCCM.

 

 

 

logo

 

Jamal Badawi – Main Sunni Muslim leader in Canada incites Muslim judges and civil servants not to apply current legal provisions that are opposed to sharia

 

http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/articles/10003320-badawi-sunni-leader-canada-incites-judges-civil-servants-not-apply-legal-provisions-opposed-to-sharia.html

 

Écrit par Point de Bascule on 21 Février 2014. Posted in Articles par Point de Bascule

Version française ICI

http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/images/data/images/Personalites/badawi%20cair-can%20report%202007.jpghttp://pointdebasculecanada.ca/images/data/pdf/cair-can_2007.pdf

Short profile of Jamal Badawi published in CAIR-CAN’s 2007 annual review  when he was a director of the organization.

From 2001 to 2013, Jamal Badawi has been a CAIR-CAN director. When the organization changed its name to the National Council of Canadian Muslims, Badawi’s name disappeared from its list of administrators. No formal notice seems to have been published to announce his departure.

In April 2012, then CSIS director, Richard Fadden, stated that the main threat to Canada’s safety comes from Sunni Islamist extremism. Mr. Fadden was referring to the terrorist threat. Jamal Badawi’s incitement to Muslim judges to disregard their code of ethics is a reminder that the Islamist threat is not limited to terrorism but includes non-violent activities of infiltration carried out notably within government agencies.

Badawi’s incitement to favor sharia over Canadian laws is also aimed at Muslim civil servants who are authorized to enforce legal provisions (police officers, Crown prosecutors, immigration officers, income tax employees, school administrators, human rights Commissions members, etc.)

 

SUMMARY

PART 1 – Jamal Badawi: “He [A Muslim] can use his judicial discretion to achieve the greatest amount of justice as compared to a non-Muslim or a person who does not believe in Shariah.”

PART 2 – A Muslim Brotherhood’s internal document identifying Jamal Badawi as one of its leaders advocates “destroying the Western civilization from within”

PART 3 – The alarm bell should ring at CSIS and elsewhere when the main Sunni Muslim leader in the country quotes Ibn Taymiyya to determine how Muslims should behave in Canada

PART 4 – Jean-François Revel about the vulnerability of Western democracies against an internal enemy


PART 1 – Jamal Badawi: “He [A Muslim] can use his judicial discretion to achieve the greatest amount of justice as compared to a non-Muslim or a person who does not believe in Shariah.”

Jamal Badawi is the main Sunni Muslim leader in Canada if we consider the number of organizations that he currently leads, has led and influences in the country, as well as the positions that he occupies in major international Muslim organizations. Badawi and the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual guide Youssef Qaradawi are members of the European Council for Fatwa and Research based in Dublin (Ireland), an organization that strives to impose a parallel legal framework to Muslims living in Europe.

During an interview whose date is not specified but that was first archived by Web Archive in 2002, Badawi addresses the political involvement of Muslims living in North America (Muslim participation in North American politics). In this interview, Badawi encourages Muslims to take part in the various facets of political life, including the administration of justice, although many laws currently enforced are opposed to sharia, he remarks.

Badawi even encourages Muslims to become judges in the non-Muslim societies where they live. He quotes Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) in order to justify his position. Although Ibn Taymiyya is recognized as an ideologue of armed jihad, he nevertheless took into consideration that, in certain circumstances, violent methods are not always the most effective to further the implementation of sharia in a non-Muslim environment. Like the Islamists today, in his time Ibn Taymiyya was able to consider the situation on the ground and the weaknesses of his own side in given circumstances. This is what led him to advocate that Muslims should accept to become judges in non-Muslims societies in order to limit the scope of non-Islamic laws.

Badawi states that a judge who does not believe in sharia and fully applies non-Islamic laws “bring[s] greater harm to people” than a Muslim judge who uses his own judicial discretion and does not apply provisions of current laws that are opposed to sharia. Badawi’s call constitutes nothing less than an incitement to Muslim judges currently on the bench in North America to disobey their code of ethics. Not applying provisions of laws that are incompatible with sharia is only the first step to applying sharia rules themselves, of course.

In his interview, Jamal Badawi also alludes to the leeway that a high-ranked civil servant had in pre-Islamic Egypt. The implication is clear: Jamal Badawi encourages not only Muslim judges but also Muslim civil servants operating in governments not ruled by sharia to take advantage of their position for not applying provisions of laws that are opposed to sharia. Police officers, Crown prosecutors, immigration officers, income tax employees, school administrators, human rights Commissions members, and others come to mind.

In recent years, Tarek Fatah and security expert David Harris reported three cases of unacceptable behaviour by Muslim police officers towards anti-Islamist Muslims. In a National Post article entitled Some death threats don’t count, Tarek Fatah reported that after he and Tahir Gora, another anti-sharia Muslim, complained about death threats they were getting from Islamist websites, they were interrogated by Muslim investigators who showed little interest despite the mountain of evidence.

Tarek Fatah concluded that “The Toronto police, in their wish to promote an image of diversity and outreach, have dedicated themselves to serving and protecting the radical Islamist elements within our city.”

In a chapter of a book dedicated to the Islamist threat (pp. 219-220), David Harris reports the case of Homa Arjomand. This anti-Khomeini activist living in Canada is originally from Iran. She was once confronted by an Iranian-born Ontario police officer who told her in Farsi that she was not allowed to demonstrate against the Iranian regime. Although, she asked him to speak English so that the other people accompanying her could eventually testify, he refused. Harris adds that Homa Arjomand “is concerned about the security implications of this and about the extent to which Islamists may have infiltrated Canadian police and security agencies that limit their screening of police recruits largely to checking criminal records.”

While this article is being published, Jamal Badawi’s interview by Samana Siddiqui is still available on its original websiteSoundVision.com. It is also archived on Web Archive and Point de Bascule.

According to her LinkedIN profile, the interviewer Samana Siddiqui graduated in journalism from Concordia University (Montreal) in 1996. In 1999, a woman with the same name was listed in the Quebec Registry of Enterprises (File 3346439360) as an administrator of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Montreal). CAIR-Montreal was registered in January 1997, struck off the Registry in May 1999, replaced by CAIR-Ottawa, and by CAIR-CAN in 2000. Samana Siddiqui still works for the Islamist organization Sound Vision but does it now from Chicago.

Here is the portion of the interview in which Jamal Badawi answers a question about the opportuneness for Muslims to take part in the political process in non-Muslim countries.

Samana Siddiqui’s question to Jamal Badawi

“So would you say there are some rules or some boundaries perhaps in Islamic jurisprudence which could help us find an answer to whether or not Muslims should participate in the political process in our context of a non-Muslim society?”

“Particularly, I mean those Muslims who object to participating, and scholars who object often argue that number one, not only is it a non-Islamic state but this non-Islamic state often makes policies and perpetrates policies against Muslims in other parts of the world. I think the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, in the case of the United States, is a very good example.”

“How can we reconcile, for example participating in the political process of a state which is enforcing a deadly embargo on fellow Muslims?”

Jamal Badawi’s answer

[…] “[T]here is no denial on the basis of the Quran and Sunnah that one has to weigh the harms or benefits just like when the Quran speaks about drinking or intoxication. Wa ith ma huma akbaru min naf ayma. There is benefit, there is harm, but the harm is greater than the benefit.”

“So the idea of weighing harms and benefits of any particular decision is a very legitimate rule of Shariah. To give a little bit more detail on that: what happened when one thing has to take place, in other words, you’re given two choices. You have no third choice. One of them would bring more harm. The other would be harmful but the harm would be less.”

“Obviously, the sensible rules of Shariah here is to accept lesser harm to end a greater harm.”

[…] “One of the great scholars of Islam, actually many give him the title of Shaikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyya […], while some people might consider him to be conservative on some issues, in fact he has been so open-minded to the point that he gave a verdict when he was asked.”

“He said suppose the enemies of Islam invade Muslim lands and rule according to their own law. In other words, they frustrate the application of Shariah, and they’re ruling according to their own secular non-Islamic or maybe anti-Islamic type of laws. And then they go to a Muslim to serve as a judge. Should he accept the position or not? I would not tell you how Ibn Taymiyya answered that question, but I can tell you what some people today might say. What do you think they would say?”

“They would say how come? If he accepts, he would be a Kaffir. He would be outside of Islam. Why? Because he accepts to be the implementor, as a judge, of a law other than the law of Allah, knowingly. He should refuse.”

“But do you know what Ibn Taymiyya said? He said that he should accept. Do you know the reason he gave?”

“He said, all right, under the circumstances, the presence of a Muslim judge who fears Allah, even though he cannot control, of course, the law, that’s beyond his ability, but his presence in his position, is more likely in comparative terms, to bring greater justice because you know any judge can use his own judicial discretion. There is some area of flexibility. He can use his judicial discretion to achieve the greatest amount of justice as compared to a non-Muslim or a person who does not believe in Shariah or does not fear Allah, he could be an oppressive judge following the system fully and wholeheartedly, who would even bring greater harm to people.”

For Badawi and Ibn Taymiyya, “greater justice” means more conformity to sharia, and “an oppressive judge” is a judge who follows “fully and wholeheartedly” a legal system incompatible with sharia.

After the appointment of the first Muslim judge in Maryland (District Court), Nihad Awad, the Hamas-linked and Washington-based Council on American Islamic Relations Executive Director, stated that the “appointment shows that Muslims are entering and having a positive impact on every level of American society.”

Considering Jamal Badawi’s statements on the way he wishes Muslim judges to carry out their responsibilities in North America, and considering the links between Awad and Badawi, it is legitimate to be on our guard when one of them or their allies welcome the appointment of a Muslim judge.

A fatwa written by Ibn Taymiyya entitled “The permissibility [for a Muslim] of assuming public office in an unjust [non-Muslim] state” has been added by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual guide Youssef Qaradawi to his book Priorities of the Islamic movement in the coming phase. This book details many principles behind the gradualist approach adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood to penetrate the Western societies where its members began to settle in the fifties.

 
PART 2 – A Muslim Brotherhood’s internal document identifying Jamal Badawi as one of its leaders advocates “destroying the Western civilization from within”

A 1991 internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum established (point 20) that Jamal Badawi is a leader of the North American Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure. Badawi’s name also appears in a 1992 Muslim Brotherhood leadership phonebook. Both documents were produced for evidentiary purposes in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial that led to theconviction of all those who were accused of terrorism financing.

The memorandum also encourages Muslim Brotherhood supporters to destroy the Western civilization from within. Jamal Badawi’s incitement to Muslim judges and civil servants not to apply current legal provisions incompatible with sharia actively contributes to the realization of this plan:

Point 4.4 of the 1991 memorandum The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Tariq Ramadan is another popular and influential Muslim Brotherhood leader. In recent years, he referred to the same project of Islamic conquest in front of supporters in the U.S. and Canada.

In 2011, in Dallas, he stated that “It should be us, with our understanding of Islam, our principles, colonizing positively the United States of America.” In December 2013, at the Reviving the Islamic Spirit in Toronto, he said that “We are not here to be accepted. We are here to change the society.”

The arrival of Muslim judges and civil servants committed to Jamal Badawi’s idea of preventing the application of laws contrary to sharia constitutes an effective means to implement the project of conquest and colonization described by the 1991 memorandum and Tariq Ramadan.

Like Jamal Badawi who spoke about Muslim judges, Tariq Ramadan has also addressed the importance for Islamists to penetrate the legal system of non-Muslim countries, such as Canada. In an interview given to the Egyptian periodical Egypt Today in 2004, Ramadan described the Canadian legal framework as “one of the most open in the world.” He suggested to Islamists to capitalize on this feature to subtly and gradually introduce rules of sharia in Canada. At the time, Tariq Ramadan strongly urged Islamists operating in Canada not to openly mention their commitment for sharia: “The term shariah in itself is laden with negative connotations in the Western mind,” said Ramadan. “There is no need to stress that. […] For the time being this is not how we want to be perceived,” he added.

In the same interview, Ramadan criticized the “lack of creativity” of the Islamists who openly invoked sharia in the early 2000s when they demanded an Islamic arbitration of family conflicts amongst Muslims in Ontario without foreseeing that their request would be met by a strong opposition in Canada.

The recognition by Ontario’s authorities of sharia principles in family law would have constituted a dangerous legal precedent. It would have eventually affected all Canadian jurisdictions. Conscious of this reality, Fatima Houda-Pepin, a member of the Quebec National Assembly, presented a motion condemning the introduction of sharia in family law in Ontario and had it unanimously adopted by Quebec parliamentarians on May 26, 2005.

In 2004, Tariq Ramadan thus not condemn the Islamists’ project of introducing sharia law in Ontario. He criticized the open approach without dissimulation that they adopted to do so. In 2013, in front the Islamic Association of Greater Detroit, Tariq Ramadan said that “jihad is the way we implement sharia”. This definition has the advantage of including the violent facet of jihad and its non-violent facet associated with infiltration.

PART 3 – The alarm bell should ring at CSIS and elsewhere when the main Sunni Muslim leader in the country quotes Ibn Taymiyya to determine how Muslims should behave in Canada

When he encourages Muslims to become judges in non-Muslim countries, Jamal Badawi demonstrates his respect towards Ibn Taymiyya by calling him a “Sheikh of Islam.” In recent years, other Muslim leaders, such as Osama bin Laden (p. 249) and Youssef Qaradawi in his book Priorities have used the same title to show their respect.

IBN TAYMIYYA – AN HISTORICAL PRECEDENT TO MODERN ISLAMISTS

Islamists and anti-Islamists alike acknowledge the importance of Ibn Taymiyya as scholar. Daniel Pipes agrees with the idea that today’s Islamists “didn’t appear in a vacuum.” He presents Ibn Taymiyya, who died almost seven hundred years ago, as an historical precedent to modern Islamists.

ARMED JIHAD

Aside from his position on Muslims who should accept to be appointed judges in non-Muslim societies in order to limit the reach of non-Islamic laws, Ibn Taymiyya is mostly known as the ideologue par excellence of armed jihad. A report submitted by a group of experts to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in 2013 presents Ibn Taymiyya as the “author of the key jihadi text, The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad.” An English translation of this text is available and large excerpts have been reproduced in an easily accessible compendium of texts on jihad : Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam by Rudolph Peters (Princeton, Marcus Wiener, 2008).

In his text, Ibn Taymiyya refers to Koranic verses 2:193 and 8:39 and stresses that “Whoever has heard the summons of the Messenger (Muhammad) and has not responded to it, must be fought, until there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely.”

Today, this principle is still being invoked by Islamists to justify the imposition of sharia on non-Muslims.

In these circumstances, the invocation of Ibn Taymiyya by Jamal Badawi, the most important Sunni Muslim leader in the country, to determine how Muslims should behave in Canada should trigger an alarm bell in Canada’s security agencies.

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATIONS

Ibn Taymiyya also defended genital mutilations of women as a method to reduce their sexual excitement. Sheema Khan, the founder of the Islamist lobby CAIR-CAN (renamed the National Council of Canadian Muslims in July 2013), mentioned this fact in an article published by the Globe and Mail on April 21, 2010:

Ibn Taymiyya advocated female circumcision, ruling that “its purpose is to reduce the woman’s desire; if she is uncircumcised, she becomes lustful and tends to long more for men.”

Sheema Khan resigned (p. 11) her position as CAIR-CAN founding Chair in 2005. CAIR-CAN’s annual reviews show that, from 2001 to 2005, Sheema Khan and Jamal Badawi were together on the organization’s Board.

ASSASSINATION OF CHRISTIAN MONKS LIVING IN MUSLIM TERRITORIES

Ibn Taymiyya also promoted the killing of Christian monks who do not live secluded and maintain contacts with Muslims living in the vicinity of their monasteries. In his fatwa, the “Sheikh of Islam” quoted numerous Muslim scholars who lived before him and considered monks like “Imams of unbelief” who are guilty of leading Muslims away from “the true religion.”

In 1996, European media gave a large coverage to the killing of seven Roman Catholic Cistercian monks (known asTrappists) who were living in a monastery in Tibhirine (Algeria). Shortly after this dramatic event, an old fatwa written by Ibn Taymiyya was translated from Arabic into French by a Belgian convert to Islam named Yahya Michot who used the pseudonym of Nasreddin Lebatelier. His real identity was established only later. At the time, Michot led an organization linked to the Muslim Brotherhood in Belgium.

The French daily Le Monde described the translation of the fatwa and Michot’s presentation as “a justification of the assassination of Christian monks, an acquittal pure and simple of the assassins, those of the GIA [Algerian Armed Islamic Group] or those who handle them, based on legal expert Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), one of the Islamist literature’s favorite authors.”

At the same time, the British periodical The Tablet (text – scan) reported that Lebatelier/Michot’s comment established a connection between the Algerian terrorist GIA group’s communiqué 43 justifying the murder of monks and Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa on the subject.

After his identity was revealed, Yahya Michot withdrew from circulation copies of his booklet containing his own comments about the kidnapping and the murder of Algeria’s monks that had been commented by Le Monde and The Tablet. Later, Michot republished the French translation of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa without establishing a link with the 1996 murders of monks in Algeria this time.

In spite of his background, Yahya Michot is considered a valid interlocutor by many Christian organizations involved in interfaith dialogue. The St. Thomas University in Minnesota, for example, mentions his participation, as well as Jamal Badawi’s, to interfaith activities on its campus. The naiveté of Christians involved in ecumenism or interfaith dialogue with Muslim Brotherhood operatives and their supporters is without limits.

For the Muslim Brotherhood, interfaith dialogue has always an ulterior purpose. In an interview given to a Qatari newspaper, MB spiritual guide Youssef Qaradawi stressed that “We only carry out dialogue with them [Christians] in order to find common grounds that serve as a basis for further action.”

In this interview and in his book Priorities, Qaradawi mentions four of these “further actions” that justify interfaith dialogue with Christians:

1.   Improving the image of Islam;

2.   Converting Christians;

3.   Rallying Christians against Israel;

4.   Discouraging Christian leaders from supporting fellow Christians involved in conflict with Muslims. Qaradawi mentioned specifically Sudan and the Philippines.

Jamal Badawi is a close collaborator of Youssef Qaradawi, notably at the European Council for Fatwa and Research and Yahya Michot has endorsed the book Priorities in which two of the above objectives are listed as a “must-read […] for anyone interested in modern Islamic thought and activism of the via media [the middle way]”. Youssef Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood describe their doctrine as one of “the middle way” although it leads them to justify the assassination ofapostates from Islam and homosexualsfemale genital mutilations, to describe Hitler as “Allah’s envoy who came to punish the Jews for their corruption,” etc.

MENTOR OF SAUDIA ARABIA’S FOUNDER

Ibn Taymiyya was also the intellectual guide of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792). An alliance between Wahhab and the Saud family led to the establishment of Saudi Arabia. At the time, Muhammad ibn Saud (1710-1765) provided the military means required to enforce the implementation of Islamic principles promoted by Wahhab and, before him, by Ibn Taymiyya.

Today, Saudi Arabia propagates its Wahhabi doctrine by funding mosques and schools in the non-Muslim world, by disseminating jihadi literature, etc., as prescribed by Ibn Taymiyya. For a long time, Saudi Arabia used the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) as a relay to radicalize Muslims in Canada. On February 2, 2012, the Canada Revenue Agencyrevoked WAMY-Canada’s charitable status after it discovered that it had funded an organization linked to Al-Qaeda. In the past, WAMY transferred funds to the Dar al-Iman school in Montreal and to the Muslim Association of Canada, the main Muslim Brotherhood front in Canada. This is also WAMY that sponsored the launch of the Reviving the Islamic Spiritconventions that are organized in Toronto on an annual basis since 2003 and that feature speakers linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. A list of money transfers made by WAMY to Canada-based Muslim organizations is available on Point de Bascule.

OTHER FACETS OF SHARIA ADDRESSED BY IBN TAYMIYYA

Many other aspects of sharia were studied and commented by Ibn Taymiyya.

While Christians are being persecuted in the Muslim world and their churches are being vandalized and sometimes demolished, Raymond Ibrahim examined one of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwas that is frequently used as a justification by today’s Islamists. Ibn Taymiyya stressed that “Wherever Muslims live and have mosques, it is impermissible for any sign of infidelity to be present, churches or otherwise.”

Andrew Bostom commented another of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwas that states “If a male unbeliever is taken captive during warfare or otherwise, eg., as a result of a shipwreck, or because he has lost his way, or as a result of a ruse, then the imam may do whatever he deems appropriate: killing him, enslaving him, releasing him or setting him free for a ransom consisting in either property or people. This is the view of most jurists and it is supported by the Koran and the Sunna.”

Tarek Fatah wrote a message on Twitter to draw the attention on a fatwa by Ibn Taymiyya advocating the superiority of Arabs over other Muslims.

Another of Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa rules that Alawites (a Muslim minority to which current Syrian president Bashar al-Assad belongs) “are greater infidels than Christians, Jews, and idolaters.” Over the centuries, this fatwa has frequently been used as a justification by the Sunni majority to persecute its Alawite minority.

PART 4 – Jean-François Revel about the vulnerability of Western democracies against an internal enemy

In 1990, in a speech given in Algeria that was the base for his book Priorities, the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual guide Youssef Qaradawi encouraged Muslims living in the West to partially give up their interest in applied sciences in order to get more expertise in fields that have a more direct influence on public opinion, such as journalism, law, etc. Almost twenty-five years later, numerous Islamist sympathisers operate in very sensitive positions in the media, Western government agencies, etc. Jamal Badawi’s incitement to Muslim judges and civil servants not to apply current legal provisions that are opposed to sharia must be examined in this context.

At the beginning of the eighties, Jean-François Revel dedicated his essay How democracies perish to describe the threat posed by the USSR’s ideological and material penetration in the West. Today, Islamists operating in the West present a threat similar in nature as they try to channel the large Muslim immigration to further their totalitarian program. These Islamists are also frequently subsidized by Western governments who believe that, by doing so, they promote “the integration of new immigrants.”

The first chapter of Revel’s book explains how the openness of Western societies and their acceptance of a legitimate political opposition make these societies vulnerable to those who wish to destroy them from within.

Although they aimed at curbing the communist threat, Revel’s remarks are still useful today to enlighten us on the characteristics of democracies used by Islamists to advance their own totalitarian program.

“Democracy tends to ignore, even deny, threats to its existence because it loathes doing what is needed to counter them. It awakens only when the danger becomes deadly, imminent, evident. By then, either there is too little time left for it to save itself, or the price of survival has become crushingly high.”

(…) “Paradoxically, democracy offers those seeking to abolish it a unique opportunity to work against it legally. They can even receive almost open support from the external enemy without its being seen as a truly serious violation of the social contract.”

“The frontier is vague, the transition easy between the status of loyal opponent wielding a privilege built into democratic institutions and that of an adversary subverting those institutions. To totalitarianism, an opponent is by definition subversive; democracy treats subversives as mere opponents for fear of betraying its principles.”

“What we end up with in what is conventionally called Western society is a topsy-turvy situation in which those seeking to destroy democracy appear to be fighting for legitimate aims, while its defenders are pictured as repressive reactionaries.”

Further reading

Point de Bascule: File Jamal Badawi

Point de Bascule: File Youssef Qaradawi

Point de Bascule (November 11, 2010): While the movie Of men and gods is being released: How does Koranic exegesis justify the murder of monks (En marge du film Des hommes et des dieux : Comment l’exégèse coranique justifie le meurtre des moines)

 

cid:image003.jpg@01CF32DA.DB64F640

 The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.

This newsletter is not the official newsletter or communication of ACT! for America, Inc. This newsletter is independently operated by ACT! for Canada named on this communication. The statements, positions, opinions and views expressed in this website, whether written, audible, or video, are those of the individuals and organizations making them and do not necessarily represent the positions, views, and opinions of ACT! for America, Inc. or ACT! for Canada, its directors, officers, or agents.