• September 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
  • Truth about Islam and Shari’a law

  • Blog Stats

    • 109,945 hits
  • Must Read! Click Picture!

  • Must Read: click picture!

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 38 other followers

  • Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

    Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

  • We love & support Israel!!!

  • Get Educated & Educate Others!! Click the Picture!

    CLICK THIS PICTURE!!!

  • Key Strategies for the Counter Jihad!

    Click on image above - read about strategies!

The Real History of the Crusades


Posted by sharia unveiled on February 8, 2015

crusader-knights-templar-3-resized

by, Thomas F. Madden | Shoebat Foundation & Shoebat.com | h/t Bill Muehlenberg

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. The Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?

Osama bin Laden certainly thought so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.

Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a “teaching moment,” an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.

The threat of Islam
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

Understand the crusaders
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

What really happened?
Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? … Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
“Crusading,” Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an “an act of love”—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, “You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’”

The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors … unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? … And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood … condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?
The re-conquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was not colonialism but an act of restoration and an open declaration of one’s love of God. Medieval men knew, of course, that God had the power to restore Jerusalem Himself—indeed, he had the power to restore the whole world to his rule. Yet as St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached, His refusal to do so was a blessing to His people:

Again I say, consider the Almighty’s goodness and pay heed to His plans of mercy. He puts Himself under obligation to you, or rather feigns to do so, that He can help you to satisfy your obligations toward Himself. … I call blessed the generation that can seize an opportunity of such rich indulgence as this.
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and his Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.

All apologies
The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews’ money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.

Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:

Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. “Not for their destruction do I pray,” it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered … Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but “they only wait for the time of their deliverance.”
Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.

It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these “collateral damage.” Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.

crusaders-4-resized

The failure of the Crusades
By any reckoning, the First Crusade was a long shot. There was no leader, no chain of command, no supply lines, no detailed strategy. It was simply thousands of warriors marching deep into enemy territory, committed to a common cause. Many of them died, either in battle or through disease or starvation. It was a rough campaign, one that seemed always on the brink of disaster. Yet it was miraculously successful. By 1098, the Crusaders had restored Nicaea and Antioch to Christian rule. In July 1099, they conquered Jerusalem and began to build a Christian state in Palestine. The joy in Europe was unbridled. It seemed that the tide of history, which had lifted the Muslims to such heights, was now turning.

But it was not. When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.

When the Crusader County of Edessa fell to the Turks and Kurds in 1144, there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by two kings, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, and preached by St. Bernard himself. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continued growth of Muslim power but the certainty that God was punishing the West for its sins. Lay piety movements sprouted up throughout Europe, all rooted in the desire to purify Christian society so that it might be worthy of victory in the East.

Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were asked to sacrifice their wealth and, if need be, their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front, all Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin, the great unifier, had forged the Muslim Near East into a single entity, all the while preaching jihad against the Christians. In 1187 at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of ports held out.

The response was the Third Crusade. It was led by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa of the German Empire, King Philip II Augustus of France, and King Richard I Lionheart of England. By any measure it was a grand affair, although not quite as grand as the Christians had hoped. The aged Frederick drowned while crossing a river on horseback, so his army returned home before reaching the Holy Land. Philip and Richard came by boat, but their incessant bickering only added to an already divisive situation on the ground in Palestine. After recapturing Acre, the king of France went home, where he busied himself carving up Richard’s French holdings. The Crusade, therefore, fell into Richard’s lap. A skilled warrior, gifted leader, and superb tactician, Richard led the Christian forces to victory after victory, eventually reconquering the entire coast. But Jerusalem was not on the coast, and after two abortive attempts to secure supply lines to the Holy City, Richard at last gave up. Promising to return one day, he struck a truce with Saladin that ensured peace in the region and free access to Jerusalem for unarmed pilgrims. But it was a bitter pill to swallow. The desire to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule and regain the True Cross remained intense throughout Europe.

The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart.

The remainder of the 13th century’s Crusades did little better. The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. St. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was quickly outwitted by the Egyptians and forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem. He was a much older man in 1270 when he led another Crusade to Tunis, where he died of a disease that ravaged the camp. After St. Louis’s death, the ruthless Muslim leaders, Baybars and Kalavun, waged a brutal jihad against the Christians in Palestine. By 1291, the Muslim forces had succeeded in killing or ejecting the last of the Crusaders, thus erasing the Crusader kingdom from the map. Despite numerous attempts and many more plans, Christian forces were never again able to gain a foothold in the region until the 19th century.

Europe’s fight for its life
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. Not at all. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. One of the great best-sellers of the time, Sebastian Brant’s The Ship of Fools, gave voice to this sentiment in a chapter titled “Of the Decline of the Faith”:

Our faith was strong in th’ Orient,
It ruled in all of Asia,
In Moorish lands and Africa.
But now for us these lands are gone
‘Twould even grieve the hardest stone …
Four sisters of our Church you find,
They’re of the patriarchic kind:
Constantinople, Alexandria,
Jerusalem, Antiochia.
But they’ve been forfeited and sacked
And soon the head will be attacked.
Of course, that is not what happened. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a beachhead for his invasion of Italy. Rome was evacuated. Yet the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plan died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany, then, would have been at their mercy.

Yet, even while these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in human history. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The “Sick Man of Europe” limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.

From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.

Thomas F. Madden, is one of the top historians on medieval history and also on the Spanish Inquisition. He is an associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including The New Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.

Dr. Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs. The Crusades (Excellent Video)

Video courtesy of: Bill Warner (Thank you Bill)

Posted on 8 Feb 15 by Sharia Unveiled

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. What Barack Hussein Islama is trying to do again, to make Islam look ok and Christianity to look bad. The Crusades were actually the Roman Catholic Church (the ones that created Islam initially, until it got out of hand, just like the Muslim Brotherhood created ISIS until it got out of hand) going against the Muslims that were hellbent on killing everyone that did not believe the same way they did…so to defend themselves, the crusaders decided to kill EVERYONE that was not a Catholic…which included Jews and true Christians that did not believe what the Catholic Church conned off as being from Jesus.]

muslim_crusade conquests

Advertisements

ISIS Vows to Behead Obama Inside the White House (Video)


Posted by sharia unveiled on February 2, 2015

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. There was a picture in the article from Sharia Unveiled, but with my posting my re-bloged articles in facebook, I fear that if I had the picture showing, they would pull the post…so I left the picture out…

Finally, a positive message from ISIS…

by, Lori Lowenthal Marcus | The Jewish Press

ISIS, humiliated by the Peshmerga, threatens to behead Obama, turn the U.S. into a Muslim province, and destroy France and Belgium.

The barbarians from ISIS recently released another bloody video. This one shows several of their members standing beside an executioner-style black hooded man towering over a straight-backed Kurdish captive.

The filming takes place in the middle of a street in Mosul, Iraq. We know the words spoken in the video, thanks to the translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI.org.

In this, as in all the ISIS videos, the terrorists boast about their bloodthirsty deeds committed in the name of Allah, and promise still more bloodshed.

In this video, see below, the executioner promises that ISIS will come to America and cut off President Obama’s head, right in the White House. He also promises that ISIS will turn the United States into a Muslim province.

Video courtesy of: MEMRI and Today’s World News Channel

Then the ISIS executioner threatens France and Belgium, warning them that ISIS will bring car bombs and explosives to their streets. He also threatens to cut off the heads of the French and the Belgians.

But his greatest ire is directed at Masoud Barazani, the president of the Kurds. His voice grows louder still, and he shouts out his threat to Barazani, whom he calls a dog, saying ISIS will behead him and throw him onto the trash bin of history.

It is no surprise that ISIS feels the greatest enmity for the Kurds. The Kurdish fighting force, the Peshmerga, have been fighting the ISIS forces with superhuman dedication and focus for months.

The Kurds finally regained control over Kobane, a previously Kurdish-ruled city, driving out the barbarians from all neighborhoods in the that city. The victory occurred on Monday, Jan. 27, the day after this video was made, but the tide had begun to turn earlier.

Once ISIS was routed from Kobane, Barazani said that it was “a great honor for the Kurdish people that they stood along 1,500 kilometers in the face of the most brutal terrorist organization and defeated it. This victory is the victory of humanity over the savagery of terrorists.”

And then, as if to prove Barazani’s point, the ISIS executioner says: “We will institute the laws of Allah, may he be exalted and praised.” He then turns his focus back to the Kurdish soldier at his feet, upon whose head the executioner kept his hand, throughout the speech.

“This is the fate of one of your soldiers, and every time you launch a missile, we will send you back the head of one of your soldiers.”

At the end of the original video  – this is excised from the version, below – the executioner beheads the Kurdish soldier at his feet.

The Peshmerga forces have already begun their assault on the ISIS stronghold in Mosul.

Posted on 2 Feb 15 by Sharia Unveiled

Islamic Tribunal Confirmed in Texas,US: Sharia Law Now Being Implemented as Judicial Process


 islamic-tribunal-in-dallas-texas-1

Islamic Tribunal of Texas. (Dallas, TX. Headquarters) Photo courtesy of: Breitbart 

by, Bob Price | Breitbart | h/t F. Peter Brown | Center for Western Journalism

An Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law in Texas has been confirmed by Breitbart Texas. The tribunal is operating as a non-profit organization in Dallas. One of the attorneys for the tribunal said participation and acceptance of the tribunal’s decisions are “voluntary.”

Breitbart Texas spoke with one of the “judges,” Dr. Taher El-badawi. He said the tribunal operates under Sharia law as a form of “non-binding dispute resolution.” El-badawi said their organization is “a tribunal, not arbitration.” A tribunal is defined by Meriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a court or forum of justice.” The four Islamic attorneys call themselves “judges” not “arbitrators.”

El-badawi said the tribunal follows Sharia law to resolve civil disputes in family and business matters. He said they also resolve workplace disputes.

In matters of divorce, El-badawi said that “while participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He compared their divorce, known as “Talaq,” as something similar to the Catholic practice of annulment in that the church does not recognize civil divorce proceedings as ending a marriage.

He also said there is a difference between how a man and a woman can request a divorce under their system. “The husband can request the divorce directly from the tribunal,” El-badawi stated. “The wife must go to an Imam who will request the divorce for her.” He called it “two paths to the same result.” The practice of Khula is the process where a wife can initiate a divorce proceeding and where the husband can agree to the divorce in exchange for a financial compensation. It appears the wife must agree to give up any claim to the “dower” that was not already paid or to return it if it has already been paid. Once the financial issues are resolved the husband can then proclaim the Talaq (divorce).

El-badawi said they follow Texas family law when it comes to child support, visitation, and custody. He said that in most cases, custody of children is awarded to the mother.

Breitbart Texas asked what happens when there is a conflict between Sharia law and Texas law. El-badawi said most of the time, the laws are in agreement. When pushed further he admitted that, “we follow Sharia law.” However, he explained, “If the parties are not satisfied with the tribunal’s decision, they do not have to accept it and they can take the matter to Texas civil courts.” He did not say what the social ramifications of rejecting the “judge’s” decision would be.

The website for the Islamic Tribunal states, “The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers.  Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment.”

It goes on to state, “It is with this issue that Muslims here in America are obligated to find a way to solve conflicts and disputes according to the principles of Islamic Law and its legal heritage of fairness and justice in a manner that is reasonable and cost effective.”

In explaining Sharia law, the website states, “Stoning adulterers, cutting of the hands, polyandry and the like (all can be traced in the relevant literature and can be explained in their Islamic legal mentality and rational context in fairness and justice), are mainly a part of Islamic Criminal Law.  In fact criminal law within Islam only makes up a fraction of the Shari’ah.  It is unscholarly and unfair to generalize that type of understanding, that is Criminal Law, to compromise the whole of Islamic law if we stick to speaking in technical terms.”

The website lists four “judges:” Imam Yusuf Z.Kavakci, Imam Moujahed Bakhach, Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh and Dr. El-badawi. It states the Islamic Tribunal resolves business disputes, divorce (Talaq) cases, community problems, serious family problems, and Khula.

El-badawi restated several times that participation in the tribunal is voluntary. However, he would not discuss what happens to someone who did not follow their rulings.

– – –

Here is an ‘enlightening’ video of Chris Matthews attacking concerned Americans from Texas just one year ago…and calling sharia law in America ‘..non-existent..’ Ugh, what a blind, ignorant liberal fool.

Posted on 1 Jan 15 by Sharia Unveiled

Obama and U.N. to start bringing 9,000 Syrian Muslims to U.S. in 2015


Posted on by creeping

boiling-frog

While all eyes are fixed on Obama-created diversions such as amnesty for illegal immigrants, race-baiting rioting and pork-laden spending bills, the U.N. is sending thousands of Muslims to America. As we warned you here, here and here. Jihadist and sharia-supporters abound.

The U.S. State Department announced this week that the first major contingent of Syrian refugees, 9,000 of them, have been hand-selected by the United Nations for resettlement into communities across the United States.

The announcement came Tuesday on the State Department’s website.

WND reported in September that Syrians would make up the next big wave of Muslim refugees coming to the U.S., as resettlement agencies were lobbying for the U.S. to accept at least 75,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years.

Until now, the U.S. had accepted only 300 of the more than 3.2 million refugees created by the Syrian civil war in which ISIS, El Nusra and other Sunni Muslim jihadist rebels are locked in a protracted battle with the Shiite regime of Bashar al-Assad.

But the U.S. government has been the most active of all nations in accepting Islamic refugees from other war-torn countries, such as Iraq, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Now, the Syrians will be added to the mix. They are cleared for refugee status by the U.N. high commissioner on refugees (UNHCR), who assigns them to various countries. Once granted refugee status by the U.N. they are screened by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for any ties to terrorist organizations.

The State Department announcement makes it clear that the 9,000 refugees represent just the beginning of an extended program to accept more Syrians.

“The United States accepts the majority of all UNHCR referrals from around the world. Last year, we reached our goal of resettling nearly 70,000 refugees from nearly 70 countries. And we plan to lead in resettling Syrians as well,” the statement reads. “We are reviewing some 9,000 recent UNHCR referrals from Syria. We are receiving roughly a thousand new ones each month, and we expect admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond.”

The United States, with its commitment to accepting 70,000 displaced people a year, absorbs more refugees than all other countries combined. This number is understated, however, as once refugees get to the United States they are placed on a fast track to citizenship and are able to get their extended families to join them in the states under the government’s Refuge Family Reunification program.

The State Department works to place refugees in 180 cities across 49 states.

Click here to view the database containing all 180 cities accepting U.N. refugees for resettlement.

Despite the large numbers, the U.S. has come under criticism from aid groups for its pace in taking in refugees from the Syrian war, which is by far the largest refugee crisis of recent years, reported Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch.

U.S. officials say the resettlement program has moved slowly because the United Nations refugee agency, which they look to for referrals, didn’t begin making recommendations until late last year. And the United States takes 18 to 24 months on average to carefully vet each applicant to make sure he or she poses no security risk.

Muslim countries in the Middle East have so far not stepped up to permanently take in their Islamic brothers and sisters although the temporary refugee camps to which the Syrians have fled are in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.


Refugee Resettlement Watch – who has been documenting the immigration threats and problems destroying U.S. sovereignty for several years now – also has a map of where might those Syrians be going.

RRW also has a list of states where nearly 10,000 mostly Muslim refugees were resettled in first 2 months of fiscal year 2015.

Wealthy Muslim nations already ruled by sharia aren’t taking any Syrian so-called “refugees”.

Posted on 13 Dec 14 by Creeping Sharia

The Vatican – Hitler – USA and Islam


This shows partially about the Vatican, Hitler, the US and Islam…a couple of similarities….

You need to watch this short video clip CLICK HERE

A lot of research done to show, once again, that Islam was created initially by the Vatican, and then it went out of control (satan is powerful) then the Vatican waged war against it’s beast, known as the Crusades.

The Pope and Islam

The Church’s relationship with the Muslims
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church #841

ObamaLogoNotice the logo for Obama’s campaign on the left here. It depicts the Sun rising over the ultimate symbol of the West, the flag of the United States! Is this why we have so many pictures and websites speaking of Obama as Messiah all over the world now? Is this why we have a Muslim Mafia in the USA right now? Is this why the Vatican is helping to spread tolerance towards Sharia law all across the globe? Is this why even though Muslims continue to commit bloody acts of violence they are still offered all sorts of benefits in the new world order that will allow for Sharia law to be implemented everywhere, and those that commit such crimes are completely ignored?arafat-kiss One major example has to be the World Trade Center debris which was quickly hauled off and buried to prevent an in depth investigation, as were the most recent events in Fort Hood and other crimes of Islam. It’s almost as if they have a license to kill today. Is this why Muslims are burning Christians alive inside their own churches around the world without fear of punishment? Is this why Obama’s speeches bolster sales of the Muslim Koran and inspire Islam prayer rallies almost every time he speaks?

Rome has invented Islam for the very same reason they invented Hitler’s 3rd Reich. In fact, I believe this is why Yemen’s al-Qaeda is calling for jihad against Jews, Christians as we speak. The killing is about to get much worse than just 165,000 Christians a year.

By the way, just so you know, Obama is actually no more a Muslim than he is a Christian. He is more about the power aspect of things like anyone else in D.C. To prove this as fact, like all those in D.C., he knows bowing to the Pope is very advantages to his career. Even Islam itself knows bowing to the Pope will bless you politically. (Notice Yasser Arafat bowing to Pope John Paul II on right) Why else would there be talk of Obama following after Tony Blair and others to convert to Catholicism? Will he do it? Time will tell. In any event, these leaders are clearly power crazed, and they know Rome holds the ultimate key to global success. Especially since the New World Order was their baby to start with. Little do they know their power is fleeting and it will only last until Rome burns as ‘real prophecy’ predicts is to occur very soon. (See Revelation 18:9,18) These political leaders have been deceived by Satan to think they can change that prophecy as is evident in their attempts to violently remove Christians from the planet. And yes, that too was prophesied by the way. It’s called the little time of trouble that precedes the plagues they are soon to receive as their just deserts.

Bottom line is this. Prophecy says the Vatican is home to Antichrist. That being the case, Rome must be able to attack Christians all over the world and force men of all religions to bow Satan and receive the mark of the beast. But the Vatican needs to play the moral card so as to act as if they are Christians. This is why they used Hitler in his day to kill millions of Jews as well as Christians. This is why they have altered all the history books they could reach to hide what they did during the Inquisitions to 500,000,000 Christians. And this is why they needed to create a religion that everyone on earth accepts as being evil and out of control. Rome can use the Muslims to do their bidding as they did with Hitler while at the same time act as if they are appalled by their acts. This is the perfect scenario for them to get their agenda met. They can stand before the people as moral while killing them and their children wearing the mask of an Islamic terrorist.

The stage is set, the players are on their mark, and the Christians are in the targets. That being said, are you ready? ARE YOU SURE!? 

I have been told by a devout Muslim in Dearborn, Michigan, as well as read articles and watched interviews by two ex Jesuit priests that worked in the Vatican, that the Roman Catholic Church wrote the Qur’an…here is a video that verifies that…

A lot of this info was received from under the section named RCC EXPOSED

Intel Report Confirms NYC Ax Attacker Was a Muslim Jihadist With Connections to ISIS and al-Qaeda


Posted by sharia unveiled on November 11, 2014

nyc-ax-attacker-1

CCTV footage of Muslim attacker.

by, Catherine Herridge | FNC

The suspect in the Oct. 23 hatchet attack on two New York City cops had been searching online for jihadist propaganda and foreign terror organizations — as well as information on martyrdom and suicide bombings — in the weeks leading up to the assault, according to a city counterterrorism bureau intelligence assessment obtained by Fox News.

While initial reporting from unnamed sources suggested Zale Thompson may have been motivated by anti-government or black power sentiments, the four-page document provides new details that speak to Thompson’s self-radicalization. They show his online obsession with the “message” of terror groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

The intelligence assessment, further, said he “may have held a long-standing interest in violent jihad.”

Video courtesy of: America Now

A preliminary analysis by the NYPD of approximately 277 online search terms by Zale Thompson in the weeks leading up to the attack revealed multiple references to ‘jihadist’ materials,” the assessment states. “Thompson used internet search engines to query specific terms including but not limited to ‘lone wolf,’ ‘jihad,’ and ‘jihad against the police’.”

The investigation is ongoing, and the report says “there is no evidence that Thompson conspired with other individuals to carry out the attack” — but it adds that his Internet searches were focused on known terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, its affiliate in Somalia known as al-Shabaab, and the Islamic State. It also documents 58 search terms from Thompson’s electronic records that range from “jihad against the infidels” to “fatwa against americans” to “death to America in Arabic.”

The search history with terms such as “is Saudi Arabia a member of the United Nations” and “Saudi Arabic 69th general assembly un” also suggests Thompson may have considered targeting the annual U.N. conference and Saudi dignitaries.

The intelligence assessment includes an evidence photo from the crime scene where Thompson appeared to stalk the rookie cops, attacking them with the hatchet — before he was shot dead. A second ax and hunting knife from the suspect’s home were also pictured.

Officer Kenneth Healey, 25, suffered a severe head injury in the attack, and Officer Joseph Meeker, 24, was injured in the arm. Both are rookie officers.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., current member of the House Intelligence Committee and a former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, noted that NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton said the attack was terrorism soon after it happened. King said the assessment was pulled together and shared with police across the country after a similar ax attack in Washington, D.C. He said the document shows “it was not just one deranged person, but he was obsessed with Islamic terrorism.”

“This was jihadist inspired. Plain and simple,” said Frank Cilluffo, associate vice president and director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute of George Washington University. “He had so many search terms in this respect, I think it would be very difficult to suggest that it’s anything but.”

The intelligence assessment says there is no known link between the New York attack and the one in Washington on Oct. 31 — where the suspect swung an ax into the window of a police cruiser — but suggests the pattern of attacks on military and law enforcement, including recently against Canadian soldiers, cannot be ignored.

“As I understand it, NYPD is already instituting new actions, and new steps where instead of patrolling alone, they are going to have group patrols, and stay together even, even simple measures such as having lunch. They are hoping that people will stick together, so you can have two eyes and ears on potential threat,” Cilluffo said.

King said ISIS is recruiting individuals on the margins of society. “It shows the real necessity of having surveillance in neighborhoods,” he said. “It may not have prevented this attack. But the best way for the police to find out in advance about these potential threats is through informants and people in the community.”

 

source

Posted on 11 Nov 14 by Sharia1 Unveiled

Muslim Jihadists Call for the Murder of Navy Seal That Killed Osama bin Laden


Posted by sharia unveiled on November 9, 2014

navy-seal-robert-oneill-1

U.S. Navy Seal Robert O’Neill

by, Sydney Morning Herald

Muslim militants have threatened to kill a former US Navy SEAL who says he fired the fatal shot that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Robert O’Neill, 38, told the Washington Post on Thursday he shot bin Laden in the forehead.

Jihadists have reportedly issued a death threat against him following the revelation.

In postings on Twitter and the al-Minbar Jihadi Media forum, pictures of O’Neill had been distributed and messages in Arabic and English urging revenge, said SITE, a group which monitors jihadist websites.

“One jihadist wrote in Arabic, for example, ‘We will send the picture to the lone wolves in America, this Robert O’Neill, who killed Sheikh Usama bin Laden…’,” SITE said.

Another posted in both languages said, “To our loved ones among the Muslims in the United States of America, this is your chance for Paradise, the width of which is the heavens and the earth,” SITE added.

The former commando said he decided to come forward ahead of planned media appearances next week when his identity was disclosed by a website operated by former SEALs.

The revelation was in protest at O’Neill’s decision to reveal his role in the raid on bin Laden’s hideout in the Pakistani garrison city of Abbottabad.

The highly decorated Montana native told the Post he was near the head of the column of US soldiers, adding that at least two other SEALs fired shots.

The newspaper said two SEAL team members had corroborated his identity.

O’Neill is set to appear in a documentary on the Fox network next week.

At bin Laden’s compound, O’Neill was located in the number two position for the attack.

Bin Laden briefly appeared at the door but the SEAL in front of O’Neill apparently missed his shot.

“I rolled past him into the room, just inside the doorway,” O’Neill said.

“There was bin Laden, standing there. He had his hands on a woman’s shoulders, pushing her ahead.”

O’Neill said he could clearly identify bin Laden through his night-vision scope, despite the darkness – and fired.

The onetime SEAL said it was clear bin Laden was dead as his skull was split.

O’Neill is the second member of the elite unit involved in the bin Laden raid to go public, in a move which has dismayed military brass and serving SEALS who maintain a fierce, Omerta-like code of silence.

Matt Bissonnette published his account No Easy Day in 2012 under the pseudonym Mark Owen.

Posted on 9 Nov 14 by Sharia Unveiled

%d bloggers like this: