Sean Hannity Does Not Understand the Threat of Islam in America

http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2012/05/sean-hannity-does-not-understand-threat.html

There is no such things as a right wing group, but there is an attitude among individuals that may be called right wing, and that attitude is sticking to the guns, no matter what information is out there,  and facts simply don't matter to them.  Apparently the writer of this article in the blog "Logan's warning" carries that attitude from time to time.

Here is my response to his blog picking on me, Imam Feisal and Islam.

First the bad part of the Sharia like chopping hands, or stoning the adulterer is not practiced anywhere but Iran, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.

Secondly it cannot be called Islamic when 53 other Muslim majority nations are not following it. Thirdly, No Muslim organization or a majority of Muslims in America want Sharia for public governance, but there are some who may want to use Sharia to resolve  differences between family members, just as Jewish Laws. Every American prefers to hear the clergy, counselor or friends to resolve a difference before they go to the court., similarly, for personal Muslims may use a psychologist, a friend or sharia guidance for justice. Sharia is an option for Muslims and not for others.

Fourthly, as a Muslim and Muslim representing many a Muslims, we stand up against "Sharia as practiced in those three nations" Justice is enshrined in American Laws and Muslims prefer Justice, that is the intent of Sharia law, even thought it is misapplied, misinterpreted and miscarried as it happens in any system.

Over the last two years I have been with Hannity, I have seen his sensibility in seeing facts. He sees Sharia of Saudi is not the same as Sharia as most Muslims understand. 

I am glad to see reason and rationality approach by Sean when he says, there are different interpretations, he clearly saw the difference and once he quoted again to some one on his show, "is this the Sharia interpretation Mike Ghouse talks about?" On the interview with Imam Feisal, Sean quoted me again and that caused the stir with the right wingers.

Mr. Logan, I hope you see another point of view, espoused by Muslims, if you do, check my article on “Sharia Not in America” published at Huffington Post and go to the site www.ShariaLaws.com for a range of articles on the topic. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/sharia-law-not-in-america_b_653250.html

Here is a response to the two verse quoted by you. Perhaps, misquoted or quoted from Muslim-right-wing translations or European translation since 1142 AD, which they never bothered to correct it as it suits the right wingers.


Response to 9:29 is at:

http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2010/03/quraan-2256-free-will-v-929-compulsion.html

9:33 (Asad) He it is who has sent forth His Apostle with the [task of spreading] guidance and the religion of truth, to the end that He may cause it to prevail over all [false] religion ("the only [true] religion in the sight of God is [man's] self-surrender unto Him". See also 61 : 8-9). however hateful this may be to those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God. 

Indeed the right wing Muslims interpret the “true religion” in the verse above in political terms, that of dominance and impositions.  It goes against the very essence of  Quraan which calls, to honor the people of the book and asserts God alone is the master of the Day of Judgment and that you have to back off judging others on their belief aspect.  Ironically,  the right wingers in all religions see things in similar manner. 

If our constitution were weak, or the right wing Christians were to be strong in America, they will “impose” God’s will as they interpret,  on all Americans like  forcing people against abortion,  beat up Gay people… bomb the abortion clinics, vandalize mosques, synagogues, Catholic Churches, Hindu, Sikh or Baha'i temples etc. They will make America nearly like Saudi Arabia which is a monarchy and cannot be called an Islamic nation.

Thank God for our constitution, and some day, I hope democracy permeates in those nations,  and I hope we support the people, when that happens, the majority of Saudis, or Iranians would behave the same as Americans – live and let live and mind your own business. The world would be a better place.

Mike Ghouse committed to build cohesive societies, where no human has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. More about him at www.MikeGhouse.net
# # #

Sean Hannity Does Not Understand the Threat of Islam in America

Sunday, 27 May 2012 05:39 Logans Warning

Sean Hannity: Kissing Islamic Ass!

Approximately three months ago I was on Twitter talking to a woman about Islam and the UK’s Anjem Choudary. She was a Twitter friend of Fox’s Sean Hannity, and tagged him in an effort to bring him into our conversation. I had stated that I will give Choudary one thing, he does know Islam. Now Hannity could have and should have minded his own business, but the Fox anchor could not help himself. He quickly charged into the conversation by taking a stand for Islam.

As you can see he made sure he capitalized the word “RADICAL”. So right off the bat Hannity is showing that he is either unformed on Islam itself, or does not have the courage to name the enemy. We proceeded to argue over whether Islam itself was the problem. At that point I sent him some Koran verse numbers to prove that Islam itself is the problem. That Islam calls for the dominance over non-Muslims whether we like it or not. On top of him defending Islam, he is also a Zuhdi (I’m selling America a bridge) Jasser supporter. I also sent him links proving that what Jasser is selling is not Islam. But Hannity took the easy way out and pretty much ignored them. Personally I think his ego is too overblown to ever admit he is wrong.

Koran 9:29 | { قَاتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلاَ بِٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ ٱلْحَقِّ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ ٱلْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُواْ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ }

Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam — from among of those who (min, ‘from’, explains [the previous] alladhīna, ‘those who’) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (‘an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, ‘compliantly’, or ‘by their own hands’, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam.

Koran 9:33 | { هُوَ ٱلَّذِيۤ أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِٱلْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ ٱلْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى ٱلدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ ٱلْمُشْرِكُونَ }

He it is Who has sent His Messenger, Muhammad (s), with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may manifest it, make it prevail, over every religion, all the religions which oppose it, even though the disbelievers be averse, to this.

Hannity ducked the verses, told me there are “different interpretations” and threatened to block me on Twitter.

I told him that is leftist talk, and asked him to show me just ONE version that does not call for the dominance over non-Muslims. Of course he did not respond.


He definitely did not like being challenged. But I was not going to bow to him because he is on TV. The truth is more important! The argument ended with Hannity ignoring all the facts I had sent him, and him stamping his feet as he stated he will NOT say Islam itself is the problem.

Then he blocked me.

I thought about posting this information when it happened, but wanted more ammunition. That ammo was sent to me last night. Sean had the ex-Ground Zero Imam Rauf on, and continued his Islamic ass kissing. Now I know some readers are thinking there is only so much he can say. Well that does not cut it anymore, and between the Twitter conversation and the following video we can see that he is passionate about defending Islam.

Hat tip on the video to SanFranCon.

Seans’ first mistake was reaching out to shake the hand of the Islamoconman. He is for Sharia Law, that makes him a clear enemy to America and deserving of no respect at all. At the 1:28 mark the Imam says “Islam is not the enemy of America.” Sean did not skip a beat and quickly agreed with him. Well Sean, Islam has been waging war on non-Muslims for 1400 years.

Muslim Hadith Book 019, Number 4366: It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.·

Maybe Hannity would like to explain the Koran verses above, or how about this one?
Koran 4:89 | { وَدُّواْ لَوْ تَكْفُرُونَ كَمَا كَفَرُواْ فَتَكُونُونَ سَوَآءً فَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ مِنْهُمْ أَوْلِيَآءَ حَتَّىٰ يُهَاجِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْاْ فَخُذُوهُمْ وَٱقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ مِنْهُمْ وَلِيّاً وَلاَ نَصِيراً }

They long, they wish, that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, so then you, and they, would be equal, in unbelief; therefore do not take friends from among them, associating with them, even if they should [outwardly] manifest belief, until they emigrate in the way of God, a proper emigration that would confirm their belief; then, if they turn away, and remain upon their ways, take them, as captives, and slay them wherever you find them; and do not take any of them as a patron, to associate with, or as a helper, to assist you against your enemy.

Nothing threatening there….
The Imam then goes on to apologize for some of his past statements, and Hannity actually believes him and basically thanks him. I guess Hannity missed the part about Mohammad instructing Muslims to lie.The Imam is using Sean as a tool of Islam, and he does not even know it.


At the 3:40 mark Hannity ignorantly brags that he separates “radical Islamists”, like the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, etc, from Islam. Right Sean, it is all just one big misunderstanding. What they are doing has nothing to do with Islam. If the situation were not so serious, his line of thinking would be comical in a Keystone Cops sort of way.





From there Hannity mentions faith, and is clearly respecting Islam as it being on equal footing with Christianity. The message of Jesus was one of peace, Mohammad on the other hand was a pervertedplunderer who enslaved people. Hannity has a lot of nerve implying they are both good religions, and then goes onto “peaceful” Muslims. For the most part “peaceful” Muslims are ones who are slowly taking over the West. The UK is a good example of that. Outside of the 7/7 attacks they are changing the country to suit Islam without firing a shot.

Moving on he talks about radio host Aaron Klein. For those who do not know he is also a Jasser supporter. Apparently there are a lot of big names in this who are living in a false comfort zone. “Muslims” will not resolve the threat to our future generations.


As if all that groveling were not bad enough Hannity says it was“horrible” when Pastor Jones burned the Koran. Talk about Islamic ass kissing! I did not think it was necessary for the Pastor to burn the Islamic hate manual. But the truth is that it deserves as much respect as Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and that is none.


Near the end of the video Hannity mentioned his “friend” Mike Ghouse. Mike is a so called “moderate” Muslim who made the mistake of responding to one of my emails. His attempted Islamocon was easily refuted, and he ran for the door. The link to this debate was also sent to Hannity. Of course he ignorned it. As I said, I don’t think his ego will allow him to admit he is wrong. He speaks of “extremists” wanting Sharia. But ignores the fact that Imam Rauf is openly pro-Sharia! In closing the Imam went on to sugar coat Sharia Law. Oh I forgot, Sean said there are “different interpretations”….the only problem is that he has not backed up his claim, and scholars such as Dr. Naik and those at Egypt’s Al Azhar freely admit that non-Muslims have less rights than Muslims under Sharia. Sean do you claim to know more about Islam than those scholars? I highly doubt it. Imam Rauf is playing you for the fool you are. Lose the ego and smarten up. The lives of your future generations are on the line here!
Sean can be reached HERE.
SOURCE: LOGANS WARNING

Tariq Ramadan: Shariah Law and U.S. Constitution

Tariq Ramadan: Shariah Law and U.S. Constitution Go Hand-In-Hand

By Yasmin Nouh Wed., Apr. 18 2012 at 3:42 PM

 

Categories: Gimme That OC Religion, Politics


A small group of about a dozen protesters gathered outside theEmbassy Suites in Anaheim where a prominent Muslim theologian was scheduled to deliver a lecture on Shariah - the Islamic legal code akin to canon law in Christianity or Judaic law in Judaism. The Islamic Shura Council of Southern California invited Dr. Tariq Ramadan, a professor of contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University and a man who was once banned from entering the United States. 

The protesters waved American flags and signs that read anti-Shariah slogans, reflecting a larger movement in America that currently calls for the ban of Shariah law. In two dozen states, politicians have introduced legislation prohibiting the courts from taking into account Shariah, which has problematic implications for Muslims. States like Tennessee, Louisianaand Arizona have passed bills that ban judges from consulting Shariah law, or any type of foreign and religious laws. South Carolina andFlorida legislatures are currently considering anti-Sharia measures. 

The two-year-long anti-Shariah battle has prompted Muslim organizations like CAIR andMPAC to decry the proposed bans as anti-religious freedom. In his lecture, Dr. Ramadan said there is room for Shariah to operate within the United States' common legal framework, just like there is room for Canon law and Judaic law. 

"Everything which is good in this country is our Shariah," he said to a crowd of more than 400 community members. "It's an integrative system. It's not a closed system coming to colonize others." 

"You'll find many things in the [U.S.] Constitution that are similar to Shariah," said Ramadan.  Shariah, more specifically, is a set of laws for Muslims related to family, marriage, creed, burial practices, ethics, morality, and punishments; anti-Sharia proponents mainly criticize the rulings on punishment, which Dr. Ramadan, along with other Muslim scholars, contend is in need of serious reform, and unjustly implemented in places like Saudi Arabia. 

Dr. Ramadan also noted that historically Shariah and Judaic law inspired European law. "When you have people approach you and say, 'You need to respect our system,' you can tell them that we are already inside," he said. "The problem is that we are ignorant of our own history." 

Many audience members welcomed his words, with frequent head nods and smiles when he delivered punchy points, but Dr. Ramadan is not welcomed everywhere. He is banned from six countries including Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. In 2004, the Bush administration invoked the Patriot Act to ban the Muslim academic from entering the United States. The State Department lifted that ban in January, 2010. Since then, Ramadan has honored multiple speaking engagements in the United States, including this year's spring tour where he has delivered speeches in Washington D.C., New York andMassachusetts, and will end at Berkeley.

The Swiss-born, Egyptian academic is the grandson of Hassan El-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; the once outlawed group now leads the Egyptian parliament. Ramadan's father, Said Ramadan, is attributed with bringing the Brotherhood to Germany where it spread throughout the rest of Europe.

Courtesy - http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/04/tariq_ramadan_shariah.php

Fear of Shariah law spreading

Published: Saturday, March 17, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.

When the Florida Senate failed to take a vote, proposed legislation to ban the use of foreign laws in state courts died.

The bill had passed the House easily, and the Senate sponsor plans to reintroduce it next year.

The question is why?

The answer seems to be fear that the Shariah law -- the Islamic law used in some Muslim countries -- will spread to the United States.

The legislation made no mention of Shariah law. The bill simply said state courts could not use foreign law when rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution would be violated. And foreign laws were only banned in domestic cases, such as divorce and child custody.

The ban would not have applied to businesses, or for that matter, criminal cases

But, while Shariah law was not mentioned in the bill it was obviously the target.

Some supporters of the legislation warned that, without such bans, the spread of Shariah law could signal a slow Islamic takeover of the world.

Others say, the rights of American women would be threatened if Shariah law was used in the courts.

Perhaps the best response to this legislation, and these fears, came from Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who said, "You might as well pass legislation to ban unicorns."

Opposition to the legislation also came from the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish group dedicated to defending the rights of Jews and others, as well as fighting anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice.

In this case that prejudice comes in the form of anti-Muslim.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, has said the only goal is to make sure only U.S. laws are used in state courts.

That begs the question of what other law would be used?

While judges have cited foreign laws as one of the precedents in a ruling, the rulings themselves have to be ground in federal or state law -- American law.

It is possible for Shariah law to be used informally in a family court case, such as divorce or child custody.

In those cases, the two people involved, and their lawyers, try to reach an agreement to present to the judge to avoid going to trial. That agreement can cover such things as how assets are divided, and who has custody of any children and visitation rights.

And, if a trial is to be avoided, the agreement must be made voluntarily by both people.

It is conceivable that the man and woman in the case could use Shariah law to reach a settlement.

Or they could use Jewish law.

Or they could use no law at all to decide what they think is best of themselves and their children.

But in any of these cases, the agreement will have to go before a Florida judge who is responsible, among other things, to make sure there are no violations of state law or constitutional rights.

As long as no laws are violated, how that agreement is reached is up to the two people involved in reaching it.

If the Legislature were to pass legislation banning the use of foreign laws, the result would be, as Hooper said, as effective as a ban unicorns.

Such a law would not be able to prevent two people from using Shariah law to reach an agreement on, say, custody of their children since that is not done in a courtroom.

And as long as the agreement conforms to American law, the judge can be expected to approve it.

The only thing this legislation would do is to demonstrate that at least some of our legislators are prejudiced.

That is not the kind of signal Florida should be sending to the rest of the world.
http://www.newschief.com/article/20120317/NEWS/203175003/1013/opinion?p=1&tc=pg 

Sharia Symposium: fear, phobias and facts

The name Sharia produces fears and anxieties and gratuitous malice towards fellow Americans. Our mission at America Together Foundation is to work for a society where no one has to live in discomfort, apprehension or fear of the other.

What frightens Americans about Sharia?

Guest speaker will lay out the fears and phobias that Americans hear in their daily lives.

What are your concerns?

Experts on Constitution law and the legislative process will explain what it takes to introduce a Sharia bill in the house, senate and the process it has to go through to the final approval by the president.

What is it really?

Nation’s most recognized Scholar Imams will explain.  

Your Questions
Your questions will be addressed by the Sharia and Anti-Sharia experts in the Q&A session.  We will boldly face the issues that pit one American against the other.  

It is just not Sharia; we have programs lined up about issues that divide us. As responsible citizens, it is our obligation to find sustainable solutions for a secure and prosperous America.

America Together Foundation is a non-profit organization committed to building a cohesive America, where no American has to live in anxiety, apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other.

Location and speaker names will be released soon.  

Co-chairs:

M.  Basheer Ahmed, M.D.,

& Mike Ghouse

Abe Foxman: Shout Down The Sharia Myth Makers

(Community Matters) “The threat of the infiltration of Sharia, or Islamic law, into the American court system is one of the more pernicious conspiracy theories to gain traction in our country in recent years.”

- proud & appreciative of Abe and ADL

Op-Ed: Shout down the Sharia myth makers

By Abraham H. Foxman · August 10, 2011

NEW YORK (JTA) — The threat of the infiltration of Sharia, or Islamic law, into the American court system is one of the more pernicious conspiracy theories to gain traction in our country in recent years. The notion that Islam is insidiously making inroads in the United States through the application of religious law is seeping into the mainstream, with even some presidential candidates voicing fears about the supposed threat of Sharia to our way of life and as many as 13 states considering or having already passed bills that would prohibit the application of Sharia law.

Louisiana and Tennessee were among the first to approve such measures. The bills were based on model legislation issued by the American Public Policy Alliance, an unabashedly anti-Muslim advocacy group that defends the legislation as seeking to “protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Sharia Law.”

When the legislation was introduced in the Tennessee state Senate in early 2010, the bill defined Sharia as a “legal political military doctrine and system adhered to, or minimally advocated by, tens of millions of not hundreds of millions of its followers around the world.” In defense of the bill, state Sen. Bill Ketron said it “deals solely with a single part of Sharia that is strictly political in nature,” and “in no way inserts itself into the religious laws of Islam.”

The language was nearly identical to that of similar bills considered in other states, some of which were thinly disguised in terms of protecting against “the application of foreign law.”

All of this anti-Sharia activity has come despite the complete absence of evidence of the unconstitutional application of foreign or religious law in our judicial system. It has also come with a great deal of political handwringing — and myth making — about the threat of Sharia overtaking this country. This has led, in turn, to a false perception among a growing number of Americans that Sharia is a very real threat to our way of life and constitutional freedoms.

In fact, these legislative efforts are the proverbial solution in search of a problem. The separation of church and state embodied in U.S. and state constitutions prohibits our courts from applying or considering religious law in any way that would constitute government advancement of or entanglement with religious law.

But the anti-Sharia bills are more than a matter of unnecessary public policy. These measures are, at their core, predicated on prejudice and ignorance. They constitute a form of camouflaged bigotry that enables their proponents to advance an idea that finds fault with the Muslim faith and paints all Muslim Americans as foreigners and anti-American crusaders.

It is true that Sharia is being used elsewhere around the world in dangerous ways. While Sharia law can address many daily public and private concerns, it is nonetheless subject to radical interpretation by individuals or groups who subscribe to a more puritanical form of Islamic jurisprudence. Some individuals try to interpret Sharia law for their own radical agendas. It raises more serious concerns when it comes to implementing Sharia law in its entirety, as can be seen with the examples of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Taliban. But that certainly doesn’t apply to America, where concerns about a “creeping Sharia law” are the stuff of pure paranoia.

If the hysteria over Sharia law continues to percolate through our political and social discourse, there is bound to be unintended consequences.

As we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, in an uncertain economy with millions of Americans still out of work, we also face the prospect of a political season in which more political candidates may be tempted to invoke this mythological threat in an effort to pander to bigotry and fear, and to score political points.

We stand at a crossroads in American society. We have the option of heading down a path toward a greater tolerance of anti-Muslim xenophobia and fear of the “stranger in our midst,” or we can rededicate ourselves to the ideal of an America that is open and welcoming to immigrants as well as minority groups who have been here for decades. Let us hope that the better nature of America will enable us to proceed down the second path and reject those who seek to divide us for political gain, or those who wish to stereotype and scapegoat an entire people because of their religious faith.

We should never diminish the very real threat of terrorism motivated by Islamist fundamentalism coming again to our shores. But as responsible, free-thinking Americans we must be careful to distinguish between the true threats to our freedoms, and identifying their sources, and those who loudly declaim against phantom threats that don’t really exist.

Abraham H. Foxman is national director of the Anti-Defamation League and author most recently of “Jews & Money: The Story of a Stereotype.”