Andrew C. McCarthy: American Taxpayer, Financial Jihadist

"Thanks to our takeover of AIG, we now are involved in Islamic finance."

That first sentence of the article hit like a ton of bricks after Obama's endorsement of the near Ground Zero Islamic Mosque on Friday night.

When is the national media going to cover Obama as the first Arab American President and the fact that he supports Muslims whose religion is Islam over the United States? If it is not clear now, it never will be. The speech to the Muslim world, the bowing to the Saudi King, and the list goes on so guess we should not be shocked by this revelation on AIG but frankly we are stunned!

Andrew C. McCarthy
August 14, 2010 4:00 A.M.

American Taxpayer, Financial Jihadist

Thanks to our takeover of AIG, we now are involved in Islamic finance.

It is “financial jihad,” explained Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s sharia compass — and the man Feisal Rauf, the brains behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque, admires as “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” It was 2002 and Qaradawi, who endorses suicide bombing and the targeting of American personnel operating in Islamic countries, was giving a lecture on the need to use the international financial system to support Islamist goals — like Hamas’s war to destroy Israel.

The financial jihad has now achieved its greatest coup so far: It has co-opted the U.S. government as a partner. In fact, if you would like to see a contributor to the jihad, have a look in the mirror. Thanks to the Obama administration, every one of us is complicit. The bailout bonanza made each of us an owner of American Insurance Group (AIG). Under the stewardship of its real CEO, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, AIG proudly runs the world’s most lavishly funded sharia-compliant insurance business — and it is desperately trying to convince a federal court in Michigan that no one should have a problem with that.

Sharia-compliant finance (SCF) is now a thriving American industry. Sharia is Islam’s authoritarian legal framework. It aspires to control not merely spiritual life but all aspects of society, including economic matters. The purpose of SCF is to advance that mission in two important ways.

First, SCF legitimizes the incorporation of sharia into our legal system, despite the fact that many features of Islamic law are anti-constitutional. That is, once sharia governance is accepted in principle, Islamists shrewdly figure the skids are greased for imposing sharia tenets on other aspects of our national life (e.g., domestic relations, employment matters, criminal law, etc.). Second, because sharia is a discriminatory system, SCF promotes Islamist ideology and enriches Muslims at the expense of non-Muslims by controlling investments and “purging” interest.

Companies that practice SCF, including AIG, retain advisory boards of sharia experts. These boards, which often include Islamist ideologues, tell the companies which investments are permissible (halal) and which are not (haram). AIG’s “Shariah Supervisory Committee” includes a Pakistani named Imran Ashraf Usmani, who is the son and student of Taqi Usmani, a top cleric (a “mufti”) and a globally renowned sharia-finance authority. The mufti is author of a book that features a chapter urging Muslims in the West to engage in jihad against the countries in which they live.

In the insurance business, those who purchase policies pay premiums, which insurers like AIG then invest. To be sharia-compliant, investments must not be made in enterprises Islam forbids, e.g., finance (because it makes money off interest, which sharia prohibits), pork, gambling, alcohol, etc. Sounds harmless enough . . . except forbidden enterprises would also include businesses that support or otherwise work with the U.S. armed forces. Islamists consider our military to be an “infidel force” that is “at war with Islam.”

Because sharia bars interest (although it permits “profits” that Islamic authorities, in their infinite wisdom, deem reasonable), SCF requires that investments be constantly monitored and that any interest payments be purged. This is done by skimming off a percentage that is then channeled — at the direction of the advisory board — to an Islamic “charity.” Of course, as no one knows better than the Treasury Department, many such charities are merely fronts for the financing of terrorist organizations. This is not an accident. When Sheikh Qaradawi speaks of “financial jihad” as an Islamic obligation, he’s not kidding: In Islamist ideology, funding those who “fight in Allah’s cause” — e.g., Hamas — is one of the eight categories of permissible zakat, the Muslim obligation of almsgiving.

So, an American company that practices SCF is, wittingly or not, advancing the jihadist agenda: It will deny financing to enterprises that help our military combat terrorists while running the risk that its sharia advisers will steer funding to those same terrorists. That aside, the portrayal by President Obama and others of zakat as “charitable giving” is a misconception. According to the most influential Islamic authorities, zakat can be given only to Muslims. It is not an extension of one’s hand to the world’s most needy; it is an insular duty to fortify the ummah, the notional Islamic nation. Consequently, the purging of interest is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from non-Muslims to Muslims.

Read More at: National Review

You Tube -- Three Things About Islam

Please watch this video for more information about Islam:

How Does Sharia Law Affect Women?

That is a question Americans should be asking after the August 9th issue of Time Magazine hit the stands. The cover is enough to make you cringe and then you learn that her nose and ears were cut off on the order of the local Taliban Commander. The crime: fleeing the home of her husband after being beaten and enslaved. Her nose and ears were cut off by her husband and brother-in-law.

This is a follow up to yesterday's article on the building of mosques in America and the political correct politicians who see nothing wrong with Sharia law. Too many times we have heard Sharia law does not conflict with the Constitution, but that is a lie. It conflicts big time. In the United States under our Rule of Law, the husband and brother would be charged with a crime for doing this to his wife.

Mutilations like Aisha's are far from the worst that can happen to women under Sharia law; the United Nations estimates that at least 5,000 women are murdered every year in "honor killings" by Muslim family members aggrieved by a wife or daughter thought to have disgraced her kin. As Fox News' recent reporting has made clear, such crimes happen in America, too, and will likely become more frequent occurrences as Muslims here demand, as their co-adherents already are in Britain and on the continent, that they be allowed to live under Sharia separate from the established civil law.

Will Obama agree to them living under Sharia Law in this Country and not prosecture the people who kill or maim woman in the name of Islam? Will Eric Holder at the DOJ turn a blind eye to these kills. We have already had killings in this country. Are we going to have more because a woman didn't do what she was told under Sharia Law?

It is time to stop this nonsense of liberals led by Obama trying to convince the rest of us that we have nothing to fear from the Muslim religion. What other religion advocates mercy killings against woman who disobey and don't want to be treated like slaves or flies planes into buildings to kill people in the name of Allah?

Read this article from Mark Tapscott, Editor of the Examiner, and ask yourself why we are allowing huge Mosques to be built in the United States when Sharia Law advocates mercy killings. It is time to end political correctness as the Muslims who adhere to Sharia Law are the ones who want to kill Jews and Christians. How many Muslims do not follow Sharia Law? That is a question that needs an answer.

Desperate stakes for women under Sharia
Examiner Editorial
August 10, 2010

The cover of the Aug. 9 issue of Time Magazine shows a photo of Aisha, an 18-year-old Afghan woman whose nose and ears were cut off in 2009 under orders from a local Taliban commander as punishment for fleeing her husband’s home. (Jodi Bieber, Institute for Time Magazine/AP)

It is impossible to view Time magazine's cover photograph of Aisha, an 18-year-old Afghan girl whose nose and ears were severed by her husband and brother-in-law on the order of a Taliban commander, without shuddering in recoil. Her "crime" was nothing more than fleeing the hellish home of in-laws who had beaten and enslaved her. That Aisha's only recourse in the face of such abuse was to run and hide is testimony to the reality that, in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world that Sharia law prevails, women are at best second-class citizens. Sharia is the vehicle by which the most oppressive tenets of extreme Islamic religion become the civil law of any society on which it is imposed. In many such places, daily life for women and girls remains today much as it was a millennium ago -- the unrelieved tedium, oppression and drudgery of chattel.

It would thus be a terrible mistake to dismiss Aisha as a nightmarish exception to the rule. As Examiner columnist Diana West noted Sunday, "similar scenarios play out beyond the wilds of the Taliban zone wherever Sharia culture flowers, an expanding zone that now includes urban centers of the Western world from Berlin to London to Atlanta to Calgary." ...

It is no coincidence that renewed attention is being paid to the plight of Aisha and other Muslim women, even as we learn that 10 medical missionaries with a Christian charitable organization, including six Americans, were slaughtered last week in a remote area of northeast Afghanistan while returning from a mercy mission giving medical and dental care. The Taliban murdered them for allegedly speaking about Christianity, a charge the sponsoring organization vigorously denied. Such barbarities remind us that no place must be given for moral equivalence on these issues.

If our civil law doesn't permit Mormon polygamy, Fundamentalist snake handling or Christian Scientist denial of medical care for children, even less can it tolerate Muslim mutilation and murder of women. Those who can't -- or won't -- see the difference between a murderous intolerance and the intolerance of murder should be pitied and ignored.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Desperate-stakes-for-women-under-Sharia-1008710-100300154.html#ixzz0wCwlvCEj

Frank Gaffney: Coming to Grips with Sharia (Muslim Law)

The American people are being subjected to spin and lies about Sharia not the truth by Obama and his Administration, along with Democrat leaders of Congress, local elected officials like Mayor Bloomberg of NYC, academia, and financial institutions for starters. All these people are trying to whitewash Sharia claiming it is not counter to the Constitution. That makes us ask if they don't understand the Constitution or they don't understand Sharia because the two are not compatible by any stretch of the imagination. Why won't these people/media tell the truth about Sharia? Political correctness is going to get us killed.

Unfortunately, too many Americans still remain unaware of the magnitude of the danger we face from Shariah. Worse yet, their ability to comprehend this threat, let alone respond appropriately to it, is being seriously disserved by people who know better - or should. Specifically, the public is being seriously misled by 1) some journalists and politicians who are obscuring the true nature of Shariah and 2) Shariah practitioners who engage in deliberate deception to facilitate the penetration of their doctrine into Western societies.

This paragraph from the article leads us to wonder how many in the media/government actually favor Muslims over Christians/Jews? It is mind boggling that these so-called leaders try to put a guilt trip on the rest of us for not wanting Islamic Mosques built. It is not working because most Americans understand what the Islamic faith is all about -- their goal to to turn everyone Muslim or they prefer you were dead. They leave no room for other religions but yet our political and some church leaders want Americans to embrace their Islamic religion as just another church. Last we checked new Christian churches that have been formed, did not want to kill us. The terrorists are not called Islamic Jihadists for nothing even though that is not considered words to be used by this Administration.

Americans across this country are struggling to understand the true nature of the threat we face from Shariah. They are entitled to straight talk about the extent to which it is being insinuated, promoted and legitimated not only in mosques but by financial institutions, banks, academic institutions and government agencies. Those who fail to provide such unvarnished truths are part of the problem, and should be treated accordingly.

The controversy surrounding the building of the Islamic Mosque near Ground Zero has taken a new twist as it has come to light that Con Ed owns half the building which was information not given to the people making the decision. Why did the Muslims hide the fact they didn't own the entire building? Will NYC now make the application process start all over again or will they whitewash it and give permission to build? What are Bloomberg and the City Council of NYC thinking with allowing this Mosque so close to Ground Zero. The hijackers on 9/11 all were Muslim and now NYC wants to build this huge mosque near Ground Zero and actually break ground for it on 9/11? The 3rd term of Bloomberg is turning into a disaster.

Anger is building across America at the boldness of Muslims in America with these mosques and it is not helped by Obama who favors them and covers for what any of their members might do like Major Nidal Malik Hasan who went on a killing spree on Fort Hood, Texas. He is still drawing military pay and benefits while awaiting trial for the murders. This Administration and the media did their best to keep the fact he was a practicing hard liner Muslim from the American people. He had been turned in for his interaction with patients but the Army and their political correctness failed to act.

Why are communities allowing these mosques to be built? There is a mosque near the University of Oklahoma where the 'lone' suicide bomber attended who tried to blow up our football stadium. To this day the 'real' facts are still missing in the case. The local mosque at that time had TV cameras watching people going by, yet by all accounts there was no surveillance of the mosque. This 'lone' person with a Pakistani roommate had enough bomb making chemicals in his apartment that the local PD took 18 trips to the bomb disposal dump so not to blow up a city block. When they detonated the bomb, windows rattled five miles away. Yet we were supposed to believe he really wasn't dangerous and didn't try to blow up the stadium.

Local media had one source but they could not get a second source to go on record so the spin of the Government stood. If they expect anyone in this area to swallow the 'religion of peace' mantra, think again. This is the second instance with Government cover-up of bombings this area has experienced -- the first was with the Murrah Building blown up by McVeigh/Nichols/Others. FBI in both instances were selective in what they investigated. The 'lone' bomber in Norman they tried to tell us had left a suicide note on his computer they found three weeks after he was blown up.

The same BS meter is going off about these mosques they are trying to build around the Country with what has already happened in Oklahoma. Obama said we were one of the largest Muslim countries -- maybe that was wishful thinking for the future.


Is it true that Obama is Muslim even though attending Rev Wright's Church of Christ which was a cover for Muslims in Chicago wanting to pretend their were Christian? Did the media bother to follow up? NO -- they allowed Obama to throw Rev Wright under the bus with little comment. When Obama bowed to the Saudi king, the media still had little comment. What is the media hiding from the American people about Obama's Muslim background?

Read this article from Frank Gaffney and ask yourself what is wrong with the leadership of this Country including with Mayor Bloomberg. Shame Rudy is still not the Mayor because this would not be happening. Rudy refused a check from a Saudi prince after 9/11 while Bloomberg refuses to check the source of the Muslim funding for the mosque. That's the difference between a real leader -- Rudy and someone who will bow to the Muslims and whatever they want to do -- Obama and Bloomberg.

Coming to grips with shariah
Center for Security Policy Aug 09, 2010
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Suddenly, it seems, everyone is talking about Shariah. In particular, growing controversies over proposed mosques at Ground Zero and other sites are becoming powerful "teaching moments" - raising awareness about the repressive theo-political-military-legal doctrine that animates the builders and that their fellow adherents seek to impose on the entire world.

This is a most welcome development in light of the grave and growing threat posed by this agenda and the concerted effort being made - here and elsewhere, through violent jihad and the stealthy kind - to realize that goal.

(snip)

As an example of the former, consider the article that led the New York Times front page on Sunday entitled "Battles around Nation over Proposed Mosques." It accurately reported that Americans from the Ground Zero neighborhood in Lower Manhattan to San Bernardino are expressing growing concern about Muslim mosques that "seek to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic Shariah law."

Yet, the Times proceeded to dismiss the idea that such mosques are a problem. It cited "interfaith groups led by Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, rabbis and clergy members from other faiths [who] have defended the mosques." One such individual was quoted as saying that the opponents "have fear because they don't know" those involved in such mosques.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg went even further last week declaring that those critical of the construction of a permanent symbol of Shariah adherents' victorious destruction of the World Trade Center "ought to be ashamed of themselves" for being intolerant. Moreover, he categorically rejected the idea that it was reasonable, let alone necessary, to determine the source of funds for the $100-plus million mega-mosque near Ground Zero.

In other words, the Mayor seemingly is indifferent to whether the funding for the mosque sponsored by the Cordoba Initiative (named for the capital city of the Moorish conquerors of Spain and the site where they triumphally transformed a Catholic church into a massive mosque) might be the Saudis, with their version of Shariah known as Wahhabism.

This cavalier attitude is absolutely stupefying insofar as two years ago this month, the New York Police Department issued a report warning that Wahhabi mosques in America were incubators for "homegrown" Islamic radicals.

The Mayor has a duty to know a lot more than he evidently does about Shariah. He certainly has an obligation to figure out whether - as is true of, by some estimates, 80% of the mosques in America - the Ground Zero Mosque is going to fit the profile of a Wahhabi-associated facility.

The challenge of assuring public awareness of the Shariah threat would be hard enough if the only impediment were ill-informed politicians and journalists. Matters are made much worse by the skill with which Shariah's adherents dissemble, or simply lie.

For example, the New York Times article cited Camie Ayash, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Tennessee - the sponsors of a proposed 52,000 square foot mosque that has precipitated an intense local backlash. It reported that Ms. Ayash "lamented that people were listening to 'total disinformation' on Islam." She then engaged in a classic example of real disinformation - or what Shariah calls taqqiya - claiming, "There's no conflict with the U.S. Constitution in Shariah law."

Now, even the most superficial review of Shariah shows that statement to be preposterous and misleading. In fact, among other Constitution-affronting features, Islamic law prohibits democratic law-making. It requires the replacement of constitutions and governments like ours with a global theocracy governed by Islamic law. It brutalizes women and otherwise treats them as second-class citizens and authorizes the murder of homosexuals and apostates.

Shariah is, in short, wholly incompatible with our legal system, freedoms and way of life.

Read More at: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18487.xml

NOTE: Our emphasis added