World Wide Christian Persecution Increasing at Alarming Rate

The AntChrist Religion

Fox Doesn’t Air Jeanine Pirro’s Show Saturday Because of Her Remarks About Ilhan Omar

Fox Doesn’t Air Jeanine Pirro’s Show Saturday Because of Her Remarks About Ilhan Omar


In doing this to Pirro, Fox is validating the idea that there was something wrong with what she said. Yet the hijab is in many cases, if not most, indicative of adherence to Sharia, and Sharia does contradict Constitutional principles in numerous ways, including the denial of the freedom of speech and the denial of the equality of rights of women. So what is wrong with asking the question Pirro asked? It is increasingly taken for granted that it is “bigoted” and “Islamophobic” to utter the slightest critical word about Islam or about any Muslim individual or group. As this continues it will have numerous negative effects, including making it impossible to oppose jihad terror activity.

“Jeanine Pirro’s Show Won’t Air on Fox Saturday After Remarks About Ilhan Omar,” by Joshua Caplan, Breitbart, March 16, 2019:

The Fox News Channel will air a repeat episode of its documentary series Scandalous on Saturday instead of Jeanine Pirro’s weekly program —Justice with Judge Jeanine— following the conservative host’s recent remarks about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) use of a hijab.

Pirro is facing criticism after appearing to suggest on her program last Saturday that Omar wears a hijab in defiance of the Constitution. “Think about this: She’s not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from?” Pirro asked during her opening segment. “Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Pirro’s remarks came in response to Omar’s most recent antisemitic outburst, in which she suggested pro-Israel groups pressure members of Congress to pledge allegiance to a foreign country.

In a statement to Deadline, a Fox News spokesperson said the network would not comment on “internal scheduling matters.”

Fox News denounced Pirro’s comments last Sunday, saying in a statement: “We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly….

Fox Condemns Pirro for Asking if Omar is Pro-Sharia

Robert Spencer in FrontPage: Fox Condemns Pirro for Asking if Omar is Pro-Sharia


The fair and balanced network is now as unfair and unbalanced as the rest of them. My latest in FrontPage:

Breitbart reported Monday that the Fox News Channel “condemned host Jeanine Pirro’s remarks on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) use of a hijab and said the issue has been dealt with directly.” Sounds serious. But what Pirro actually said was something Fox should have been applauding, if it hadn’t already become just another establishment network.

Pirro said: “Think about this: She’s not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Predictably, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on Fox to fire Pirro. Like a shark, CAIR can smell blood in the water: instead of defending Pirro for asking a perfectly legitimate question, Fox immediately reacted as if Pirro had stolen Barack Obama’s parking space, denouncing Pirro’s words with stern self-righteousness: “We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. IlhanOmar. They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly.”

Pirro, issued a clarification, to little effect: “I’ve seen a lot of comments about my opening statement from Saturday night’s show and I did not call Rep. Omar un-American. My intention was to ask a question and start a debate, but of course because one is Muslim does not mean you don’t support the Constitution. I invite Rep. Omar to come on my show any time to discuss all of the important issues facing America today.”

Fox is increasingly slipping into the Leftist echo chamber. It is terrified of discussing these issues. A few years ago, Jeanine Pirro contacted me and was going to have me as a featured guest on a special show about Sharia. She was very excited about it, and all the arrangements were made to fly me in and get me set up in the studio. Then at the last minute, everything was canceled — it was clear that Fox executives had told her she was venturing into forbidden territory. They willingly kowtow to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s defamation campaign targeting foes of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women and others. But last night, Pirro ventured off the reservation again, daring to suggest that Ilhan Omar’s hijab showed her to be Sharia-compliant.

There is so much confusion on this issue, even among people who should know better. Media critic John Nolte tweeted: “Does a Jewish man who covers his head put the Torah above the Constitution? Does a Catholic woman who covers head put the Pope above the Constitution? What a stupid thing to say.”

No in both cases, because in both cases the headwear in question is not part of a larger system that is incompatible with Constitutional rule. However, the hijab is part of such a system, and that’s all Pirro was saying. Fox should not have rebuked her, but this is the age of pandemic cowardice, so it was likely unrealistic to expect anything else.

Ilhan Omar herself, not surprisingly, was happier with Fox News than she has probably ever been, and tweeted: “Thank you, @FoxNews. No one’s commitment to our constitution should be questioned because of their faith or country of birth.”

But that wasn’t really what Pirro did. Pirro suggested that Omar’s anti-Semitism came from Sharia. And indeed, Sharia is indeed inveterately anti-Semitic: the Qur’an demonizes the Jews in numerous ways. It depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

Sharia also mandates that women cover their heads:

“And tell the believing women to reduce their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which appears thereof and to wrap their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.” (Qur’an 24:31)

“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:59)

“Narrated `Aisha (the wife of the Prophet): `Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) “Let your wives be veiled” But he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi.’ Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam`a went out and she was a tall woman. `Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, ‘I have recognized you, O Sauda!’ He (`Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes).” (Bukhari 79.14.6420)

Wearing hijab is a sign that one accepts these imperatives. That is not necessarily true, as lots of women of all perspectives wear headscarves, but when a Muslim woman wears hijab, it’s reasonable to surmise that she accepts the Qur’an and Sunnah, the sources of Sharia. Sharia denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women, and the equality of rights of non-Muslims. Wearing hijab is a sign of adherence to Sharia.

So what did Judge Jeanine Pirro say that was wrong about Ilhan Omar? She asked questions that need to be asked. Fox should be apologizing to Pirro, not Omar.

slamic Sharia Law Terrorist Group Muslim Brotherhood in USA GOVT

Islamic Sharia Law Terrorist Group Muslim Brothrhood Inside The U.S. Govt.

Judge Jeanine on hijab wearing Islamic Sharia Law Congress Woman Ilhan Omar & USA Constitution

Muslim Workers Sue UPS For Discrimination

Muslim Workers Sue UPS For Discrimination 

By Sean Kelly  February 13, 2019 American Now

UPS Truck

A lawsuit was filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations on behalf of two Muslim workers against a Minnesota UPS branch after the employees were reportedly fired for needing to pray during the workday.

The lawsuit alleged the Atlanta-based company, as well as the Edina, Minnesota, staffing company Doherty Staffing Services, discriminated against several of its Muslim employees and violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, KAAL reported.

The workers claimed in the suit that before June 2014, they were allowed to engage in daily prayer outside of their breaks and during work hours. When a new operations manager took over, that policy changed. The new manager reportedly asked employees in a meeting to raise their hands if they wanted to pray.

“After most Muslim employees raised their hands, (the operations manager) stated that he wanted to replace all of the employees who had raised their hands,” the suit stated.

The employees claimed they were given one option if they wanted to pray during the day: They would have to leave and go home. They were also told that if they left, they would not be allowed to return.

“In general, most employees, when this happens, they just walk away,” Amir Malik, an attorney for CAIR, told KAAL. “They don’t complain, they don’t know their rights, they’re just trying to put food on the table, and companies feel they can get away with this. And we’ve seen multiple cases of this and it focuses a lot on low-skill jobs where they think that people don’t know their rights and they can be abused.”

UPS later issued a statement stating that they investigated and found no evidence to support the workers’ claims:

Both UPS and Doherty Staffing Services, a company that employs and manages the workforce at the UPS Mail Innovations facility in Mendota Heights, thoroughly investigated and found no evidence to support these allegations. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also found no cause for claims against UPS and dismissed the allegations.

Many readers criticized the workers for suing the company over their right to pray.

“Prayer for what?” one reader commented on the site’s Facebook page. “Simply wanting to disrupt the system that works to keep America going. That is their only objective; if I had to pray 5 times a day for no results, I’d find a new religion that works with the system that provides life for my family. They’d rather sue the employer and have a liberal judge give them a life’s pension.”

“It would seem to me that employers would have a letter of understanding on the subject of breaks and the responsible of the employees to adhere the the rules of of the employer and have the applicants sign it as a condition of employment,” another wrote.

“I guess maybe all Christians sometime are having a special problem in their life and might be at work and want to say a prayer,” another added. “I always know I can pray wherever I am I can pray silently to God and He hears me. I don’t have to go take a shower or be on my knees to pray. My God is not deaf or require a ritual before He will hear my prayer.”

Sources: KAAL  / Featured Image: MobiusDaXter/Wikimedia Commons / Embedded Images: Screenshot via KAAL

Google Approves App For Muslims To Report People Who Commit Blasphemy

on Dec 9, 2018

ByLaura Loomer

A new Android app has launched with the focus of allowing Muslims to report individuals who commit blasphemy, or insult Islam.

No, this is not a joke. The app, “Smart Pakem”, which launched in Indonesia last month at the request of the Indonesian government, will allow users and government officials to uphold Sharia law and target and report people who hold “misguided” beliefs in violation of Islamic law, which forbids insults of Islam, insults against the Prophet Mohammed, or the recognition of any other religion besides Islam.

Smart Pakem, Google's Islamic Blasphemy Law Reporting App
Smart Pakem

Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, with an estimated Muslim population of 207 million.T

Indonesia’s criminal code prohibits blasphemy, which is defined as “the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things”.

The Code’s Article 156(a) targets those who deliberately, in public, “express feelings of hostility, hatred, or contempt against religion”. The penalty for violating Article 156(a) of Indonesia’s criminal code is a maximum of five years imprisonment.

Rajan Anandan, who serves as the VP of Google in south-east Asia, has not shown any resistance to the app, which is available in the Google app store.

The National Secular Society (NSS) has since written to Anadan requesting the Google not stock the app in the app store, arguing that the app will have negative consequences for religious minorities and will further minimize freedom of expression.

According to Human Rights Watch, 125 people were convicted of blasphemy in Indonesia between 2004 and 2014. 23 additional people have been convicted since 2014.

Stephen Evans, who serves as the chief executive of NSS said said Google’s decision to stock the Sharia app was “incongruous with Google’s mission statement” and “runs directly contrary to the democratic ideals which Google says it stands for”. Evans also said the app will “normalize restrictions on freedom of expression in Indonesia and elsewhere”.

NSS, which works to repeal blasphemy laws around the world, strongly condemned Indonesia’s blasphemy law. 

“Indonesia’s blasphemy law is a morally unjustifiable tool of repression which should be repealed as soon as possible. While this law exists anyone who believes in free expression should make it as difficult as possible for the Indonesian government to enforce the law. Google has greatly benefited from the freedom to share information globally. We ask it and other multinational companies to consider whether they can in good conscience profit from the repression caused by governments’ crackdowns on free speech.”

Since the app’s launch in the Google app store, it has been flooded with one star reviews and criticisms by anti-Sharia and human rights advocates.

On November 29, 2018, investigative journalist Laura Loomer handcuffed herself to Twitter HQ in NYC after she was banned from Twitter for criticizing Sharia law. While handcuffed, Loomer argued “Twitter, Facebook, Apple, Google, Instagram, they are essentially upholding Sharia. Silicon Valley is essentially upholding Sharia when they decide to ban me for posting facts about Islam, when they decide to ban me for posting facts about Sharia law and criticizing an anti-Jewish Muslim Congresswoman.”


Read More about Silicon Valley Sharia here.

Laura Loomer is a conservative investigative journalist and activist. Originally from Arizona, Laura began her career working as an undercover journalist for Project Veritas from 2015-2017. She covers politics, anti-Semitism, immigration, terrorism, the Islamification of the West, and voter fraud. Loomer’s investigations have been broadcasted on every major national mainstream media outlet in the United States, as well as many international publications. Support Laura Loomer’s Independent Journalism here: to today.Follow Laura Loomer on Facebook.

Follow Laura Loomer on Instagram.

Sharia Law in America

I recently was engaged in an online debate with an individual who challenged me to “prove” that “Sharia law was being implemented in the U.S.” When I couldn’t do that within 10 seconds, he accused me of “baseless and infantile accusations” and walked away doing the happy dance.

What had happened was this: In defending our American way of life against those who would radically alter it, I posted a link to a website article by the Family Research Council titled “Islam, Shariah Law, and the American Constitution”. This article, in part, says the following:

“While our litigation and policy battles with the secular world keep our left flank occupied, the issue of Islamic theocracy amasses ominously on our rear flank. Immigrants from Muslim countries are moving in increasingly greater numbers to Europe and the Americas, many with the specific purpose of extending the “Abode of Islam”. For example, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a Sunni Muslim cleric and the head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, is quoted as saying:

“”Islam entered Europe twice and left it…Perhaps the next conquest, Allah willing, will be by means of preaching and ideology. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword…Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects.”” [Emphasis mine]

“Likewise, Omar M. Ahmad, Chairman of the Council for American Islamic Relations has said, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.” The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth. Similarly, Anjem Choudary, Head of Islam4UK, states: “Our objectives are to invite the societies in which we live to think about Islam as an alternative way of life…and ultimately, as well, to establish the Shariah on state level.” [Emphasis mine]

In posting this, I was accused of “fear-mongering”, and informed that my opponent’s little circle of Muslim friends (if they even exist) does NOT seek to implement Sharia law in the US as “I suggested”, (we’ll look at taqiyya later); and my motivation by posting the article excerpt was to “drum up fear about American Muslims”. After a bit more back and forth, he challenged me to “show us where US Muslim politicians, or any politician, are implementing Sharia here. It’s a non-issue.”

The answer to this challenge is a bit more subtle, but first let’s take a quick look at what “Sharia Law” is and examine a couple tenets of the Islamic belief system.

What is Sharia?

Sharia, or “the proper way” is believed by Muslims to be the divine will of Allah and derives from two authoritative sources: the Qur’an and the Sunna. The Qur’an is believed by Muslims to be the perfect and final expression of Allah’s will for mankind. Some verses are considered as authoritative sources for normative law. The second source is the Hadith – stories of Mohammed’s life and behavior which are also considered to be a legal and binding authority for how a Muslim must live. The legal and instructional parts of the Hadith make up the Sunna.

Over time, a system of legal jurisprudence based on the Qur’an and the Sunna has arisen and Sharia now encompasses all of Islamic doctrine and legal jurisprudence.

So, to be clear, Sharia is a legal system based entirely on the belief system of a religion. Sharia “…includes legally mandated, recommended, permitted, discouraged and prohibitive practices that are strongly biased against women, homosexuals and non-Muslims. Shariah provides a legal framework for violence up to and including legalized murder against apostates (people who have left Islam), homosexuals, blasphemers and especially women accused of various crimes…Shariah criminal punishments are extreme, including amputations and lashings for numerous crimes.” [1]

Because of the bias against certain persons including homosexuals, women and children, Sharia law is often at odds with the United States Constitution because it denies equal protection under the law and calls for cruel and unusual punishments. This is a growing problem, because of increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants from other countries, especially Muslim countries in turmoil.

Living Under Sharia

Islam requires complete submission to the will of Allah and that includes living one’s life in accordance with Sharia. Most Muslims in Muslim-majority countries believe that Sharia should be the law of the land, and Muslims in non-Muslim countries including European countries and the United States are increasingly demanding that Sharia be incorporated into the host country’s legal system and to have their cases adjudicated using Sharia legal jurisprudence. Many Muslims also believe that Sharia should apply to non-Muslims as well.

Because being Muslim means living under Sharia, it’s no surprise that when the numbers of Muslims in a community, city or region increase, so too do the calls to have Sharia apply in legal jurisprudence, hence the call to “implement” Sharia law. In fact, Muslims are prohibited by Sharia from accepting secular or local laws as being superior. For this reason, according to one source, “Muslim immigrants prefer their own judges and do not trust secular Western legal systems.”

In Europe, aspects of Sharia law relating to family court matters and finance have already been integrated into some nations’ legal systems. Sharia compliant banking systems are in existence, and Sharia courts have been introduced in some countries. Increasingly in some European countries, Sharia “shadow” courts are trying matters in an extralegal fashion, preempting the legally instituted courts of the country. This may not be a problem unless Muslim women and children do not have the option to opt out of this jurisprudence. Verdicts rendered in these courts may violate the legal foundations of the country and constitute human rights violations.

Sharia in America

To return to my opponent’s challenge, my research has not revealed any “US Muslim politicians, or any politician” who is “implementing Sharia here”. In fact, what I have found is that many courts are already applying Sharia law in the U.S., that there is a group of Muslim jurists who promote Sharia in the U.S., and that the Center for Security Policy has documented over 100 cases (of possibly thousands) where Sharia legal precepts have been applied and then overturned by higher courts because they violated the U.S. Constitution. Further, what I have found is that some American politicians are introducing legislation to exclude Sharia law from American jurisprudence.

The Center for Security Policy in their book “Sharia in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System” has identified 146 published appellate legal cases involving conflicts between Sharia and American law. These cases were a sample drawn from a population of thousands of unpublished cases. The disturbing finding of this study is that some judges are rendering judgments based on Sharia law even when those judgments are in clear conflict with Constitutional protections.

The significant findings from this study are:

“At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable to the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.

“At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable to the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

“Across the 146 cases there were 21 foreign countries from which Shariah-based legal conventions or decisions were brought to bear upon the case. Some case made reference to more than one country while others involved Shariah without reference to a specific foreign country.

“One Arizona case…was unique in having multiple conflicts of law. At the trial court level, the judge arbitrarily applied the foreign Islamic law of Morocco, even though the parties were neither Moroccan nor Muslims…”[2]

One of the cases presented in the book describes a Moroccan couple living in New Jersey. M.J.R., the husband, began physically abusing his wife, S.D. after three months of marriage. He also forced himself on his wife, engaging in non-consensual sex on multiple occasions. He told S.D. that “Islam allowed him to have sex with her any time he wished.”

The court in question refused to grant the woman a restraining order against her husband because the husband believed it was his religious right to rape his wife. The New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial court and ordered it to enter a final restraining order against the husband, finding the trial court in error for applying a religious (Shariah) concept in violation of New Jersey’s criminal code. (S.D. v. M.J.R., 2 A.3d 412 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010).

The remaining cases in the book cover instances of family law, commercial law and divorce proceedings where Sharia law was in conflict with American jurisprudence.

Given that the United States was founded upon the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence, it is disturbing that there are American universities and colleges offering courses and specialization in Sharia including law and business schools in addition to general courses.

There are several groups listed in one of the appendices to the book that support the study and promotion of Sharia in the United States, including:

Shariah Scholars Association of North America (SSANA)
International Society for Islamic Legal Studies
Islamic Law Students Association
The Association of American Law Schools, Section on Islamic Law
Karamah – Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights
Islamic Legal Studies Program, Harvard Law School
Cordoba University
North America Imams Federation
Finally, there is the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, a “…U.S.-based organization committed to the establishment of Shariah, especially for personal status and family law. Its…boards…include local Imams and Shariah authorities across America, as well as Shariah authorities from other countries.” [3] [Emphasis mine]

“AMJA is deeply rooted in local American communities, but also associated with international and U.S. Shariah authorities and Shariah institutions, and serves as a prolific website center for fatwas on many topics. AMJA also holds conferences and publishes proceedings. It is an active organization with significant reach both inside of the United States and internationally.”[3]

One reason many American politicians are bringing forward legislation to exclude Sharia law from American jurisprudence is because of AMJA’s position that in matters involving Muslims, Sharia law should take precedence over secular law.

This legislation is called “American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model legislation”. It was crafted to protect American citizens’ constitutional rights and prohibit the incursion of foreign laws and legal doctrines. Versions of legislation have been passed in Tennessee, Louisiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Alabama and Arizona. I would encourage Colorado to join this list.
Taqiyya and “Fear-Mongering”

In Islam, there is a concept known as “taqiyya” that provides a legal dispensation for a Muslim to lie about their faith. The concept is supposed to apply only when the person is under duress or threat, but other verses from the Qur’an and the Hadith support the view that Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. If my opponent’s friends truly exist, then it is quite possible that they are practicing taqiyya or may simply just not be very devout Muslims and are ignorant of what I have thoroughly documented above.

My opponent accused me of “fear-mongering”. If pointing out factual information about a well-known religion that is causing barbaric violence and terror around the globe is fear-mongering, then I am guilty as charged. What is amazing is that I am pointing out what the Muslims themselves believe and openly declare: they are intent on expanding the global reach of Islam, they are bound by their religion to do so by any means possible, once they reach sufficient numbers they grow more powerful politically, and the incursion of Sharia law into European and American jurisprudence is already well underway.

Are any American politicians trying to “implement” Sharia law? Not that I know of. Are there legal scholars, students, practicing Muslims and others trying to implement Sharia law in the U.S.? Yes, absolutely.

My Challenge to Progressives Who Defend Islam

Now that I have fully answered my opponent, I pose a question to him and to other like-minded Leftists in Colorado politics and elsewhere:

Why do you so passionately defend a legal system and the religion it is based upon that provides for:

No separation of church and state;
Criminalizes personal matters such as adultery, intoxicants and recreational games, apostasy, free speech, blasphemy, consensual sex between two adults, homosexuality, improper dress, music and art, and prohibits abortion after four months of pregnancy;
Legalizes what we would consider crimes such as domestic violence against women, disallows gender equality and oppresses women as second class citizens, allows for lying, polygamy and pedophilia, rape, religious discrimination (no cakes for you, gay couple!), slavery, terrorism, assassination and murder;
Imposes dangerous rituals such as mandatory fasting;
Allows for punishments including amputation, stoning, crucifixion, immolation, crushing heads with concrete blocks, drowning, and others;
Throws gays off of roofs then stones them to death;
Absolute obedience to the very Sharia law you defend

I Proudly Defend American Jurisprudence

While progressives may wish to embrace, defend, excuse, rationalize and otherwise dismiss as “fear-mongering” the threat to our way of life that Islam – in its openly self-proclaimed form – presents, I stand by these words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

I also stand by the words of the United States Constitution, including the First Amendment which prohibits the establishment of a state religion; the Eighth, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments; and the Fourteenth, which reinforces the concept of equal protection under the law.

By Richard D. Turnquist

November 23, 2015

[1] Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, Kindle location 352

[2] Ibid, Kindle location 300

[2] Ibid, Kindle location 1310