Muslims4Obama Islam does not mean peace

...you are mistaken Islam DOES NOT mean peace, that's a common Judo-Christian thought. Islam means submitt to Allah, a Muslim is one who submitts to the will of Allah.

amnadia91@aol.com

Read more ...

More support for violence from muslims4Obama

From writermom6@yahoo.com

I love peace, but in my study of jihad (I wrote a book--Islamic Jihad by Jamilah Kolocotronis, published 1990) I learned there is a time to negotiate and a time to fight. The days of negotiation are over.

Read more ...

Muslims4Obama blames Jews for the Iraq war

The following is from nagi.murshed@gmail.com

I agree with you Nadia.

Israelis/Jews are the main cause of Afghanistan and Iraq wars. 911 happened
"because of the Israeli occupation". Iraq war is for the protection of
Israel.

Israel is cancer in the Middle East.

Read more ...

Muslims4Obama continues support of violent Jihad

Sickening how open these people are about their support for terrorism the following post is from amnadia91@aol.com


this whole Muhammad, (peace & blessing of Allah be upon him) called for peace after jihad, yes..BUT it was after Jihad. Sura 4:104 says, " be not weak-hearted in pursuit of the enemy."...
While Sura 5:3, " the punishment of those who wage war aganist Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered (or crucified)....
That's what Allah (swt) said, on the matter.

Ishaq (a.s) reported that the Prophet (saw) , The Apostle prepared for war in pursuance of Allah���s command to fight his enemies and to fight the infidels who Allah commanded him to fight.Ishaq:280

That was a true and powerful quote by Gandhi, but I serve not the religion, beliefs nor teachings of Gandhi, I am no Hindu.

Thanks
Nadia Asiyah
this whole Muhammad, (peace & blessing of Allah be upon him) called for peace after jihad, yes..BUT it was after Jihad. Sura 4:104 says, " be not weak-hearted in pursuit of the enemy."...
While Sura 5:3, " the punishment of those who wage war aganist Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered (or crucified)....
That's what Allah (swt) said, on the matter.

Ishaq (a.s) reported that the Prophet (saw) , The Apostle prepared for war in pursuance of Allah���s command to fight his enemies and to fight the infidels who Allah commanded him to fight.Ishaq:280

That was a true and powerful quote by Gandhi, but I serve not the religion, beliefs nor teachings of Gandhi, I am no Hindu.

Thanks
Nadia Asiyah

Read more ...

The Campaign Against Sharia

The Campaign Against Sharia
By Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Last year, the UK began backing up Sharia judgments with the full force and authority of British civil courts. Now, a campaign has been launched to end the operation of all religious courts in Britain --- especially those operating under Islam.



Dubbed “One Law for All”, the campaign commenced not coincidently on December 10, 2008, the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Promoters of the No Sharia Campaign wanted to highlight the contrast between human rights and Sharia law.


In 2007, Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act of 1996 that he rightly believed he could take advantage of. Under this Act, Sharia courts could be classified as arbitral tribunals. Rulings issued in arbitration are binding by law so long as both parties consent. Siddiqi now heads the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which runs the British Sharia courts.


To date, British Sharia courts have heard over 100 cases issuing legally enforceable judgments. They deal with disputes involving divorce, inheritance and other civil issues as well as “small criminal cases” such as domestic violence. There is a network of five Sharia courts that have been conferred the full power of the judicial system through the county or high courts. Two additional such courts are planned. However, there is evidence that there are many more Sharia courts operating in the UK than those which have been publicly acknowledged.


Sharia courts have operated in Britain for years. But previously they relied on voluntary adherence to rulings and their judgments were not legally enforceable. Enforcement of Sharia court judgments took effect one year after the Archbishop of Canterbury caused a major controversy by declaring that formal recognition of Sharia law “seemed inevitable.” Numerous politicians have expressed concern that the formal backing of Sharia courts marks the beginning of a parallel legal system based on Sharia law, such as exists in Lebanon. Dominic Grieve, shadow home secretary, made clear that he considers the court enforcement of Sharia judgments to be illegal. He emphatically declared that British law is absolute and must remain so. Others agree that Sharia judgments should not be encouraged or enforced by the British courts.


There are numerous problems posed by the official backing of sharia judgements. First, arbitration is permissible only when both parties consent. Evidence shows that in some families and within the Islamic ummah (community), many women are intimidated into submitting to Sharia arbitration and are not truly there based on free will.


Second, the Sharia courts treat men and women very disparately. For example, in inheritance cases, they award the sons twice as much as the daughters. By contrast, British courts award sons and daughters equal amounts. Indeed, the enforcement of Sharia courts was defeated in Canada by Muslim women who complained that they came to Canada to escape the oppression of Sharia meted out in their countries of origin.


Third, the UK has been unsuccessful at integrating Muslims into mainstream society. Sharia courts undermine the efforts of moderate Muslims to assimilate, and make it more difficult for them to come to an understanding of Islam that is tolerant and pluralistic.


Finally, a Civita study demonstrates a correlation between Sharia courts and honor killings. While there is no evidence that the courts have ordered murders or beatings, the fact that men are given extreme rights and power over their wives and daughters creates a strong risk that the legitimized control contributes to the exercise of that control through violence.


The underlying principle in allowing parties to consent to arbitration is that they should have the freedom to contract. Parties who consent to arbitration waive their rights to a judge or a jury. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure that those who enter into such agreements are truly doing so voluntarily. When they do, arbitration is often a more efficient method to resolve disputes than engaging in long drawn out litigation in court.


Some Muslims argue that so long as there are Beth Din courts (Jewish religious tribunals), Sharia courts must also be permitted. However, there are some notable distinctions. Looking around the globe, there is no evidence that Jews are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others through violence or intimidation. Nor are they promoting the notion of Jewish supremacy. On the contrary, they don’t even believe in proselytizing to non-Jews, and explicitly adhere to the rule that they must abide by the official laws of the country in which they reside. By contrast, there are several radical Islamist movements that are working hard to spread Islamic supremacy through the use of terrorism, intimidation, litigation and disinformation campaigns. In many Muslim majority countries, Muslims and non-Muslims are deemed unequal, the latter being treated as second class citizens. Some of these nations are trying to expand their oppressive laws to other lands through creative legal instruments. A parallel legal system utilizing Sharia courts is likely to constitute one step toward expanding political Islam, rather than serving as the final request for a religious accommodation. Unlike other religions which adhere to the notion of separation of religion and state, Sharia law by definition, embodies a whole way of life. It merges the political and the spiritual. Its goal is to replace democracies with Islamic theocracies.


Finally, even if Sharia courts are permitted to engage in legally binding arbitration, the subject matter over which they are granted jurisdiction should be confined to civil matters. It is imperative that “small criminal matters” such as domestic violence, are limited to British criminal courts. A civil matter involves a wrong done by one private party to another, or a dispute between two or more parties on the issue of money or property. On the other hand, a crime is a wrong perpetrated upon the State. That is why a criminal case can land a murderer in jail, but does not require the murderer to provide restitution to the victim’s family. Criminals prosecuted and convicted for murder or theft go to jail in part to penalize the perpetrator, but also to protect society from the criminal who might do further societal harm if he were free. However, if a victim or victim’s family files a civil lawsuit for wrongful death or other wrongs committed, then the goal is to make the plaintiff whole if he wins his case. The remedy is usually financial compensation.


Therefore, in cases where a man commits a crime such as domestic violence, he not only harms his wife, but wrongs society and tramples on its values. In no case should he be let off with mere “anger management” classes, while the abused wife is encouraged to withdraw her police complaint. Yet, this is often the scenario when Sharia courts hear domestic violence cases.


The advocates of the No Sharia Campaign argue that One Law for All should apply --- and that law is a British secular law. They argue this on the basis of equality for all. They argue this on the basis that Sharia rights for some means less than civil rights for others. They argue this on the basis that in Sharia courts Muslim women will be treated as less than full human beings, worth half the value of their male counterparts. They argue this on the basis that human rights should prevail over the “rights” of religions or ideas. Accordingly, they are advocating that the Arbitration Act of 1996 be amended so as not to allow British court enforcement of any religious edicts.


The One Law for All campaign already has an impressive showing of support from prominent individuals such as Aayan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali is a former Dutch Parliamentarian who wrote the script for “Submission”, a documentary about the abuse of women under Islam. The producer of the film, Theo van Gogh, was murdered by radical Muslims who threatened that Hirsi Ali would be killed next. Additionally, numerous human rights organizations enthusiastically support the campaign against Sharia. They include the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, and others.


In this battle, let us hope that civil rights triumph over Sharia. Individuals have the right and the freedom to practice the faith of their choosing. However, society must be vigilant in ensuring that the faith of some is not imposed involuntarily on others or impinging on individual rights. Additionally, no belief system should be granted the legitimacy of British law if it usurps the democratic law-making process.


A win for the campaign against Sharia would be a win for human rights, and especially the rights of Muslim women in the UK who might otherwise have no choice but to suffer discrimination at the hands of Islamic jurists. More importantly, it would be a statement to those who hold a radical political ideology cloaked in the name of Islam, that Britain stands for freedom and equality, and will not appease those who seek to subvert it.

Read more ...

Muslims4Obama expect US to become Islamic

Slowly but surely the US will come to adopbt (sic) Islamic principals sooner or later.. inshaAllah

touretech@yahoo.com

Remember all these list are monitored by Obama's workers. Anything he opposes causes the poster to be banned by the moderator from the list.

Read more ...

Muslims 4 Obama support violence against President Bush

From the official Muslims for Obama email list from heavenearthsilver@yahoo.com

Bush has to be the Dummest POTUS ever...He has zero idea what "Throwing a Shoe" means in the Moslem World ! Should have knocked his damn head off !

Will Obama be willing to condemn this support for violence against the President of the United States by his radical Muslim supporters

Read more ...

Human Rights vs. Islamic Rights

Human Rights vs. Islamic Rights
By Deborah Weiss
Published in The American Thinker 12/11/08

Yesterday was the 60th Anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR). The UN planned a big celebration, presenting seven awards to international figures who have made a mark in the human rights field this past year. One of the awards was posthumously earmarked to Benazir Bhutto, an advocate for true democracy in Pakistan assassinated during her campaign for Prime Minister.

Great strides have been made in the progress for human rights since the UNDHR was drafted. Yet, several Islamic countries, most notably the 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), object. Instead, they are promoting the Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights for Muslim-majority countries. Two NGO's have filed an appeal to the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, arguing that the Cairo Declaration and the UNDHR clash. They have requested an official ruling.


The UNDHR came into existence after WWII. When the Nazi atrocities perpetrated upon the Jews came to light, the world community realized that the UN Charter was not sufficiently specific to protect human rights. In response, the UNDHR was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN on December 10, 1948. It consists of 30 articles which cover a broad range of rights including social, political, economic and religious. Though not legally binding, the UNDHR is considered a foundational document in international human rights law. It has inspired the development of 50 human rights instruments around the globe including international treaties, national constitutions, and regional human rights laws.


The bedrock beliefs embedded in the UNDHR are the inherent dignity and equality of all, as well as the right to liberty and the brotherhood of all humanity. The document omits any mention of specific religions, but presumes that all religions and cultures are equal. It promotes equality between men and women, and requires that the human rights of children be protected.


So, what's not to like? According to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, and the other countries comprising the OIC, the UNDHR fails to take into account the "cultural and religious context of Islamic countries". Indeed, in 1981, the Iranian Representative to the UN construed the UNDHR to be a "secular interpretation of a Judeo-Christian tradition which can't be implemented without trespassing on Islamic law." In June 2000, the OIC resolved to support the Cairo Declaration as an alternative.


So, what's the Cairo Declaration? The pre-cursor to the Cairo Declaration was the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, first proclaimed in the 1980's by the Islamic Council at the International Conference on the Prophet Mohammad and His Message. The document was rooted in the belief that Allah alone is the law giver and the source of all laws. It espoused that the State has an obligation to establish an Islamic order, and that all laws must be based on the Qu'ran and the Sunnah, as compiled by Muslim scholars, jurists, and representatives of various Islamic movements.


Many of these ideas were finalized in the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights (Cairo). 54 Muslim-majority countries signed the document that year. Many of these countries had abstained from the first vote on the UNDHR. The strategy of abstaining rather than voting in opposition to UNDHR, allowed these countries to uphold the false appearance of supporting human rights, while at the same time precluding a sufficient number of yes votes necessary for the UNDHR to pass.


How does Cairo stack up to the UNDHR? Cairo, unlike the UNDHR is anything but a religion-neutral document. On the contrary, it overtly asserts that Islam is superior over other religions, and that the Islamic ummah is the "best nation". It cites the Muslim community's role in guiding "a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies", and claims that Islam is the solution to man's "chronic problems of this materialistic civilization." It lists separate rights for men and women rather than advocating for general equality. It precludes the State from taking a life or perpetrating bodily harm except as allowed by Sharia (Islamic law). It entitles everyone to a State-funded Islamic education even if they are not Muslim, but refuses to fund education in any other religion. Freedom of expression is restricted by Islamic interpretation, and blasphemy is forbidden. Most ominously, Articles 24 and 25 assert that all interpretations of the so-called rights stipulated in the Cairo Declaration, must be interpreted through the eyes of Sharia law. Sharia is cited as the sole source of reference allowable for explanation and clarification of all articles in the Declaration. Therefore, the entire document and all the rights and freedoms contained therein, are in fact, limited to those which are in accordance with the Islamic Sharia.


In short, the Cairo Declaration is a religious document. It is not the rights of the individual that are protected, but the best interest of the Islamic Ummah (community). It pits Muslims against non-Muslims and discriminates against women. It allows stoning for adultery, amputation for theft, and the death penalty for blasphemy. Its freedom of religion does not include the freedom to leave Islam, and the proselytizing of other religions or of atheism is strictly forbidden. Freedom of expression and freedom to obtain information cannot be of a nature that weakens the faith of the Islamic society. It is no coincidence that many of the enumerated "rights" are not rights at all, but are actually limitations on rights and freedoms. Therefore, the Cairo Declaration cannot reasonably be interpreted as a declaration of human rights. It is more accurately a statement of obligations which are required to submit to the will of Allah.


The Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights holds a misleading title. By limiting the rights otherwise guaranteed by the UNDHR and confining rights to those permitted by Sharia law, the Cairo Declaration undermines the very rights it purports to protect. In a world where radical Muslims are at war with Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Christians in the Sudan and moderate Muslims in their own countries, the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, still insists that Islamophobia is one of the root causes of the world's violence and instability. Further, he claims that Israel is the world's main human rights oppressor.


The OIC diligently works to enforce oppressive measures in Muslim lands and expand Islamic supremacy around the globe. Yet, the OIC Secretary General still has the audacity to request that the 60th anniversary of the UNDHR be used to engage in dialogue with countries of "different viewpoints and religions" in an atmosphere of "mutual respect and tolerance." In other words, the OIC, arch enemy of human rights, is demanding tolerance for the intolerant, and respect for the disrespectful.


What is the reason that the OIC refuses to support the UNDHR? Does Islam conflict with fundamental human rights, basic freedoms and western values? Many moderate Muslims around the globe claim that it does not. But the leaders of the OIC insist that it does.

Read more ...

CAIR Reads AAH

Finally CAIR put a condemnation of the Mumbai attacks on their homepage. But of course their main focus was to demand India protect the Muslims in India from retaliation. And it only took them till December 2 to publicize it on the homepage of their website.

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=25607&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

Of course as its been several days since the attack its pretty clear that no one in India is planning on killing Muslims for this terrorist attack. But any condemnation by CAIR is just PR. Notice how they can never condemn a terror attack just because it kills non Muslims it always has to focus on Muslims as the real victims. Radical Islam is never to blame.

Heck I'm surprised they didn't just claim Mossad did it

Read more ...