THE CREEP OF SHARIA LAW INTO THE WEST

THIS IS A CHAPTER FROM AN UPCOMING book: Sharia Law for Non-Muslims. The book was designed to be short, only 48 pages. Many people do not want to know anything about Islam, but experience shows that they may have an interest in Islamic law. Since it doesn't make any difference which part of a rope you pick up first, Sharia law is a great way to start learning about the true nature of Islam.

CHAPTER 1

Sharia in Europe Today

When you study Islam in Europe today, you are seeing America in 20 years. Why? The actions by Muslims in Europe are based on Sharia law, the same Sharia law that is beginning to be implemented in America today.

Traffic cannot move in London streets as Muslims commandeer the streets to pray-a political result based on Sharia law.

Entire areas of Europe are no-go zones for non-Muslims, this includes the police. These are Islamic enclaves where only Muslims live. The Muslim-only policy is based on Sharia.

In England an Anglican bishop calls for the rule of Islamic law for Muslims. The bishop is obeying Sharia law.

In the schools only Islamic approved texts can be used. This is based on Sharia law.

Christians may not speak to Muslims about Christianity nor may they hand out literature. This is a political result based on Sharia law enforced by British courts.

Rape by Muslims is so prevalent that Sweden has forbidden the police to collect any data in the investigation that would point to Islam. Rape is part of Islamic doctrine as applied to non-Muslim women.

In London mass demonstrations by Muslims call for the end of British law and Sharia law to rule all people. This political action is based on Sharia.

In some English hospitals, during Ramadan fast (an Islamic religious event) non-Muslims cannot eat where a Muslim can see them. The submission of non-Muslims is based on Sharia law.

At British hospitals, Muslim women are treated only as Sharia law demands.

If a Dane says that he is proud to be Danish near a Muslim, it can be seen as hate speech and racism. This is in accordance to Sharia law.

Sharia in America Today

Here are current and historical events in America that are driven by Sharia law:

On September 11, 2001 jihadists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center. This was in compliance to the laws of jihad found in the Sharia law. The attack was a political action based upon a religious motivation.

All textbooks in America must be approved by Islamic councils that are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is in accordance with Sharia law.

American employers and schools are met with demands for time and space to do Islamic prayer. These demands are based on Sharia law.

The American banking system is becoming Islamicized with Sharia financing. Our banking system indulges in Sharia financial law and does not know the rest of Sharia law.

Universities are asked to close swimming pools and other athletic facilities to be used for Muslim women.

Hospitals are being sued for not having Sharia compliant treatment.

No course at the college level uses critical thinking in the history and doctrine of Islam. Under Sharia no aspect of Islam may be criticized.

Muslim charities give money to jihadists, as per Sharia law.

Muslim foot-baths are being installed in airport facilities, using tax money. This is in accordance with Sharia law.

American prisons are a stronghold of proselytizing for Islam.

Workplaces are being made Islamic worship sites through special rooms and time off to pray. This is in accordance to Sharia law.

Islamic refugees bring all of their wives for welfare and medical treatment to America. Authorities will not act even when presented with evidence. Polygamy is pure Sharia.

We are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to implement constitutions that have the supremacy of Sharia law as their first article.

Why Do We Need to Know Sharia?

ISLAMIC SCHOLARS CLAIM: Islamic law is perfect, universal and eternal. The laws of the United States are temporary, limited and will pass. It is the duty of every Muslim to obey the laws of Allah, the Sharia.

SHARIA: Sharia is based on the principles found in the Koran and other Islamic religious/political texts. There are no common principles between American law and Sharia.
Under Sharia law:

There is no freedom of religion

There is no freedom of speech

There is no freedom of thought

There is no freedom of artistic expression

There is no freedom of the press

There is no equality of peoples-a non-Muslim, a Kafir, is never equal to a Muslim

There are no equal rights for women

Women can be beaten

A non-Muslim cannot bear arms

There is no equal protection under Sharia for different classes of people. Justice is dualistic, with one set of laws for Muslim males and different laws for women and non-Muslims.

Our Constitution is a man-made document of ignorance, jahiliyah, that must submit to Sharia

There is no democracy, since that means that a non-Muslim is equal to a Muslim

Non-Muslims are dhimmis, third-class citizens

There is no Golden Rule

There is no critical thought

All governments must be ruled by Sharia law

Unlike common law, Sharia is not interpretive, nor can it be changed

THE SOLUTION
This book uses a fact-based approach to knowledge that uses analytic or critical thought. When you finish reading, you will know what Sharia law is. More importantly you will know why Sharia is what it is. You will understand how Sharia "works" and why it cannot change. For the first time, you will understand Islam. It will all make sense.

The Three Views of Islam

There are three points of view in dealing with Islam. The point of view depends upon how you feel about Mohammed. If you believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer. If you don't, you are a nonbeliever. The third viewpoint is that of an apologist for Islam. Apologists do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but they try to be tolerant without any actual knowledge of Islam.

Here is an example of the three points of view—in Medina, Mohammed sat all day long beside his 12-year-old wife while they watched as the heads of 800 Jews were removed by sword. Their heads were cut off because they had said that Mohammed was not the prophet of Allah. Muslims view these deaths as necessary because denying Mohammed's prophet-hood was an offense against Islam and beheading is the accepted method of punishment, sanctioned by Allah.

Nonbelievers look at this event as proof of the jihadic violence of Islam and as an evil act.

Apologists say that this was a historic event, that all cultures have violence in their past, and no judgment should be passed. They have never actually read any of Islam's foundational texts, but still speak authoritatively about Islam.

According to the different points of view, killing the 800 Jews was:

A tragedy

A perfect sacred act

Another historical event. We have done worse.

There is no "right" view of Islam, since the views cannot be reconciled.
This book is written from the nonbeliever point of view. Everything in this book views Islam from how it affects non-Muslims. This also means that the religion is of little importance. A Muslim cares about the religion of Islam, but all nonbelievers are affected by Islam's political views.

This book discusses Islam as a political system. There is no need to talk about Muslims or religion. Muslims are people and vary from one to another. Religion is what one does to go to Paradise and avoid Hell. It is not useful nor necessary to discuss Islam as a religion. But we have to talk about Islam in the political realm, because it is a powerful political system.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam

ARTISTS FEARFUL TO ADDRESS ISLAM

Britain’s contemporary artists are fêted around the world for their willingness to shock but fear is preventing them from tackling Islamic fundamentalism. Grayson Perry, the cross-dressing potter, Turner Prize winner and former Times columnist, said that he had consciously avoided commenting on radical Islam in his otherwise highly provocative body of work because of the threat of reprisals.

Perry also believes that many of his fellow visual artists have also ducked the issue, and one leading British gallery director told The Times that few major venues would be prepared to show potentially inflammatory works.

“I’ve censored myself,” Perry said at a discussion on art and politics organised by the Art Fund. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Perry’s highly decorated pots can sell for more than £50,000 and often feature sex, violence and childhood motifs. One work depicted a teddy bear being born from a penis as the Virgin Mary. “I’m interested in religion and I’ve made a lot of pieces about it,” he said. “With other targets you’ve got a better idea of who they are but Islamism is very amorphous. You don’t know what the threshold is. Even what seems an innocuous image might trigger off a really violent reaction so I just play safe all the time.”

The fate of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker who was murdered by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after he made a film portraying violence against women in Islamic societies, is the most chilling example of what can happen to an artist who is perceived to have offended Islam. Perry said that he had also been scared by the reaction across the Islamic world to Danish cartoons deemed anti-Muslim in 2006 and by the protests against Salman Rushdie’s knighthood this year.

Across Europe there is growing evidence that freedom of expression has been curtailed by fear of religious fundamentalism. Robert Redeker, a French philosophy teacher, is in hiding after calling the Koran a “book of extraordinary violence” in Le Figaro in 2006; Spanish villages near Valencia have abandoned a centuries-old tradition of burning effigies of Muhammad to mark the reconquest of Spain, against the Moors; and an opera house in Berlin banned a production of Mozart’s Idomeneo because it depicted the beheading of Muhammad (as well as Jesus and other spiritual leaders).

Read it all, and don’t neglect the comments. That’s where the REAL story exists.

FROM MANIFESTO TO MILLER

Dateline Setember 22, 2003. It's a quiet Monday morning after a long hard Sunday of politics as usual here in Washington DC. A perfect time for some outlawed flying wedge Rabelaisian armchair quarterbacking. Time to bring out the chains and the chalk to rebuke the perennial dishonesty and phony aggression of the old orders who delight in honoring themselves on the vote-grinding gridiron at the expense of the far greater number of citizens who neither vote for them, nor join their hail mary parties of ideology run amuck.

Let's start by clearly articulating the two questions this website imagines itself eager and keenly shaped to explore. First, cutting to the brutal heart of the political beast, let's ask ourselves to define this summarily dismissed radical middle, or as some prefer, progressive centrist position in American politics. Strategists from both sides of the political divide often describe the huge chunk of independent voters they seek to persuade to their side of the scrimmage line as the "mushy middle" or the "wishy washy" centrists. Isn't that just sweet...

It seems to me that career politicians (and nearly ALL are, in one form or another, nee the lobbying industry) float about in the backfield, saying one thing, then doing another, whining and dining themselves on each other's mistakes, special perks, and class privileges, busily tilting the playing field, first this way, then that, with laws written by THEM (and their friends in feverish industry) for THEM (and their friends in feverish industry), all the while making exquisite excuses for themselves any spare moment when not ceremoniously blaming each other.

To dub the so-called "great unwashed" independent voter mushy or wishy washy is about as vulgar a criticism as the political tongue can muster, clearly revealing their disdain for they cannot take for granted. Except when those finely attired impresarios are calling us sinners and lawbreakers who particpate in foul and soon to be if not already illegal activities and events they would never, or of course, would readily repent of as soon as they are caught. Why would anyone as proud as a politician well-trained in exploiting every weakness of an opponent while flattering them to their face want to sully his record with a vote from these filthy sinners and armchair idiots who can't be bothered to vote unless they every generation or so truly hear a profoundly truthful package with which they can agree, is beyond me - something to do with the innate hypocrisy of the polling booth, I suppose.

Have I answered the original question of what exactly is the position of the radical middle? No, I have not. Because I cannot group together millions of people into a single category with a single phrase or page yet when I am only just beginning to understand the quest for honesty in politics myself. When 50% of the qualified electorate refuse to vote for its own leadership, something is wrong with the system. Should we blame the system, or should we blame the self-indulging manipulators of an experimental system which continues to draw millions to its shore every year from farflung places, millions of displaced pilgrims hungering and thirsting for a renewal of life still encouraging in context only to discover that the words they hear and read are far from the practices they find once they get here. America has lost her way.

I personally blame the two political parties who have put ideology and personal gain ahead of the truths of our founders. Yes, the world has changed, both for the better and for the worse, since these documents were composed, and while we do not wish to apotheosize and fossilize the works of the American founders in the same the tragic way some have done to some ancient Jewish writings, clearly, freedom is not for the few at the expense of the many, such as is evident from both sides of the aisle these days. Despite what the occasional down wind heckler says, the differences between the two political parties are stark, if only because as soon as one party takes up an issue or reclaims an inch of political turf, the other side immediately devises a linguistic strategy in opposition, crowing accusations of foul play and unsportsmanlike conduct, and concensus is again thwarted.

Thus such is the work that leaves ideological contradictions strewn all around the grounds like so many branches after a wind storm. Whole ideas swap parties rather than become fodder for common sense. Polarization strategy therefore keeps the game clearly in the hands of the political playcallers, the experts, the dreary tin soldiers of representative democracy, and not in the daily lives of individuals who have the guts and responsibility to cherish their constitutional freedoms more than the sudden death polite tomfoolery of political football.

Perhaps another manifesto entry another bright day will host a working list of the most obvious contradictions holding sway within each of the two major parties that operatives trot out for public consumption shelling us with ridiculous hypocrisies, blatant lies, and blind eye's turning on any given Sunday. Oh, the woes of 21st Century America stumbling toward the goal line with fewer and fewer hometown fans each year cheering...

Tis very sad indeed. But I love my country, for where else am I to go, and I would love nothing better than to stop this schizoidphrenic madness in its tracks, change the world into that kinder gentler new world order once promised, and call it a life worth living, but I am but a single voice in a nation of wall to wall wilderness. Where else am I to go, where else on this whirling oppressive planet aspires to those lofty ideals which seem to be wrecking America? China? Saudi Arabia? Argentina? Israel? An evaporating Europe? No, America is the world's greatest hope. Thomas Paine, in my view—the very first American in the ideological sense—penned that sentiment while also dismissing the powdered wig patriots of his own generation as somehow missing the point. And I still believe him, and dare hope for a rescue from the "trans-civilized" wolves now "guarding" the restless herds of America.

Thus secondly, we must now ask how might one expect this "muddled" independent perspective to impact American policy, both domestic and foreign in the unsuspecting future of a nation birthed on the concept of freedom for all and yet a nation seemingly bent on destroying itself in the polarizing process of excess practiced by those well-to-do's long-accustomed to wearing the threadbare wardrobes of empire, local or otherwise, that is to say, those political rainmakers nested comfortably in the rigeurs of the right and the left.

Ever since I first postulated the term "Radical Middle" as best describing the pinwheel of history I spent decades trying to parse, in the late Nineties, I meant it word for word. The middle. The straight. The honest. The populist tradition resurrected, come back alive to war against the threat of extinction by the fictions of the two extreme political wings who each rest on laurels of figurative idealism and choice rather than the real observations and choices of one's own daily circumstances. Radical, as meaning to "take back" the truth from those who live only to propigate superstitions and the public lie, lining their own pocketbooks the whole way. Those who have warred against observable truth must be defeated. The truth of our condition must be merged with the truth of our aspirations.

The only common ground is the middle ground, the narrow way of personal freedon, personal responsibility. To speak of the American people as a whole entity is to speak, and use political language in a socialist context, as if all Americans are in the same boat, as if this were ever true, despite the mighty words penned by Jefferson in the earliest works of American idealism. Does this socialist context betray our true American porridge of hard work, sowing and reaping, trustworthy stewardship, good neighbors to the end? This socialist context can easily become the tricky and dangerous curve on the crowded highway of rugged individualism. Yet, we cannot ignore this context, nor diminish the contradiction in fettered worn-out political cliches. We must look to history and reality for a hint, then a litmus test of our true nature as Americans desiring to remain true to the American ideal.

We must look seriously and diligently, searching every crag and corner of our souls for hints. However, I must now defer to other pressing personal matters, and yet shall return to this topic with the urgency of necessity.

For this is the Scenewash Project Manifesto. Or lampshades of a different color.

Dennis Miller for prez, anyone?

Hmm... now that's a serious thought worth a few strokes on the keyboard, just for kicks. Not that I've heard anything of the sort brewing in the circles of no return. But since Arnold's loopy campaign has silenced no one concerning the impossible dream, would the obligatory pressures, courtesy of the media jackels and political bandits clamouring for blood be too much for even this obstentatiously bright fellow, originally from Pittsburgh?

I mean, step aside Arnold Swartzennegger, Henry Rollins and Jello Biafra. What with this new Robin Williams movie—MAN OF THE YEAR—about a late-night political talk show host running and winning the American presidency due out soon, this phenonmenon may very well become our future, and its name is Dennis Miller. Remember, who said it first.