By Daniel Pipes

A Scottish judge recently bent the law to benefit a polygamous household. The case involved a Muslim male who drove 64 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone – usually grounds for an automatic loss of one’s driving license. The defendant’s lawyer explained his client’s need to speed: "He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving licence he would be unable to do this on a regular basis." Sympathetic to the polygamist’s plight, the judge permitted him to retain his license.

Monogamy, this ruling suggests, long a foundation of Western civilization, is silently eroding under the challenge of Islamic law. Should current trends continue, polygamy could soon be commonplace.

Since the 1950s, Muslim populations have grown in Western Europe and North America via immigration and conversion; with their presence has grown the Islamic form of polygyny (one man married to more than one woman). Estimates find 2,000 or more British polygamous men, 14,000 or 15,000-20,000 harems in Italy, 30,000 harems in France, and 50,000-100,000 polygamists in the United States.

Some imams openly acknowledge conducting polygamous marriage ceremonies: Khalil Chami reports that he is asked almost weekly to conduct such ceremonies in Sydney. Aly Hindy reports having "blessed" more than 30 such nuptials in Toronto.

Social acceptance is also growing. Academics justify it, while politicians blithely meet with polygamists or declare that Westerners should "find a way to live with it" and journalists describe polygamy with empathy, sympathy, and compassion. Islamists argue polygamy’s virtues and call for its official recognition.

The Iranian harem as depicted by an Iranian.

Polygamy has made key legal advances in 2008. (For fuller details, see my blog, "Harems Accepted in the West.") At least six Western jurisdictions now permit harems on the condition that these were contracted in jurisdictions where polygamy is legal, including India and Muslim-majority countries from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia to Morocco.

• United Kingdom: Bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in jail but the law recognizes harems already formed in polygamy-tolerant countries. The Department of Work and Pensions pays couples up to £92.80 (US$140) a week in social benefits, and each multiculturally-named "additional spouse" receives £33.65. The Treasury states that "Where a man and a woman are married under a law which permits polygamy, and either of them has an additional spouse, the Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003 allow them to claim tax credits as a polygamous unit." Additionally, harems may be eligible for additional housing benefits to reflect their need for larger properties.

• The Netherlands: The Dutch justice minister, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, has announced that polygamous Muslim marriages should not be dealt with through the legal system but via dialogue.

• Belgium: The Constitutional Court took steps to ease the reunification of harems formed outside the country.

• Italy: A court in Bologna allowed a Muslim male immigrant to bring the mothers of his two children into the country on the grounds that the polygamous marriages had been legally contracted.

• Australia: The Australian newspaper reports "it is illegal to enter into a polygamous marriage. But the federal government, like Britain, recognises relationships that have been legally recognised overseas, including polygamous marriages. This allows second wives and children to claim welfare and benefits."

• Ontario, Canada: Canadian law calls for polygamy to be punished by a prison term but the Ontario Family Law Act accepts "a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid."

Thus, for the cost of two airplane tickets, Muslims potentially can evade Western laws. (One wonders when Mormons will also wake to this gambit.) Rare countries (such as Ireland) still reject harems; generally, as David Rusin of Islamist Watch notes, "governments tend to look the other way as the conjugal mores of seventh-century Arabia … take root in our backyards."

At a time when Western marriage norms are already under challenge, Muslims are testing legal loopholes and even seeking taxpayer support for multiple brides. This development has vast significance: just as the concept of one man, one woman marriage has shaped the West’s economic, cultural, and political development, the advance of Islamic law (Shari‘a) will profoundly change life as we know it.

By  Alex Alexiev

As news reports trickle in indicating that the overwhelming majority of American Muslims voted for Barack Obama, the Wahhabi/Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Muslim establishment can barely conceal its glee at the prospect of the Obama presidency opening vast new opportunities for radical Islam in America. Whether such hopes are realistic or not remains to be seen.  But, in the meantime, the outgoing administration with little fanfare and less notice has obligingly opened  yet another avenue for the Islamists to pursue their ultimate objective of imposing barbaric sharia law in America.

The event in question was a Treasury Department seminar held last week entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” The advertised purpose of the closed meeting was to provide Treasury regulators with objective information on Islamic Finance, a rapidly growing sector also known as Sharia-Compliant Finance (SCF). In reality, the seminar was little more than a government-sponsored promotion of the subversive Islamist agenda carried out under the Sharia Finance guise.

It couldn’t be any other way, given that not a single critic of SCF was invited and most of the "experts” present turned out to be Shariah finance promoters and practitioners with vested financial interests in the scheme and/or Islamist backgrounds or both.  

The participants heard from Talal DeLorenzo, an American convert and product of a jihadist madrassa in Pakistan who has played a leading role in half a dozen U.S. Muslim extremist organizations, apart from being a kingpin among international “sharia advisors.”  Then there was Rushdi Siddiqi, the founder of the Dow Jones Islamic Index Fund (IMANX), where he for years supervised the Sharia advisory board, including its chairman, Mufti Taqi Usmani, a jihadist fanatic who openly preaches violence against non-Muslims and advocates suicide bombing.

Also speaking was American Islamic banker David Loudon of Chicago’s Devon Bank, whose close associate, sharia confidant and fellow banker Salman Ibrahim, just disappeared with up to $80 million stolen from Sunrise Equities, the Islamic financial house he headed.  Last but not least, there was the estimable Harvard professor Samuel Hayes, a long-time fixture at Harvard’s Wahhabi-funded Islamic Finance Project, aka, King Fahd Chair of Sharia Studies. A key player at the yearly sharia finance propaganda forums at Harvard, Professor Hayes advises Arcapita Inc., an Islamic investment fund, in his spare time,  perhaps providing scholarly input to the company’s recent order to a Church’s Chicken franchise owner to stop selling pork.

Not surprisingly, the picture of Sharia finance that emerged from the presentations of these worthies was that of a God-ordained, socially-conscious, morally superior and more profitable financial system  that’s ready to replace its failed capitalist counterpart.  And, as if to make this picture even more idyllic and persuasive, the seminar was introduced by none other than the administrator of the $700 billion in government handouts to our currently nationalized banking system, Neel Kashkari.

What’s particularly disturbing about this picture is not only that it is completely bogus, but that Treasury, of all U.S. government institutions, ought to know that and not allow such Islamist propaganda to take place on its premises.  

So what exactly is sharia finance? To begin with, it is a concept that had not been heard of, let alone practiced in Muslim history, until invented by the venerated Islamist ideologue, Abul Ala Mawdudi ,more than half a century ago. It was designed to promote sharia and radical Islamism as a “complete Muslim way of life” and had little to do with economics and finance, about which Mawdudi knew nothing.  And it didn’t receive a practical expression until the 1970s when the first SCF banks were founded. In practical terms, SCF uses a variety of legal fictions, ruses and deceptions to conceal the fact that what it’s doing is conventional finance in bogus Islamic garb.
 
Since then, sharia finance has been closely linked with the rise of radical Islam in pursuing two related objectives: legitimization of sharia barbarism in the Muslim world and the West and financing extremism and terrorism. It is essential to understand here that sharia law is an immutable and indivisible doctrine that regulates each and every aspect of a Muslim’s life and, unless you believe in all of it, you are an apostate and subject to death.

Thus, if you believe in sharia finance, as a Muslim, you must also believe that it is your religious obligation to establish sharia worldwide by violent jihad, kill apostates, adulterers and homosexuals and discriminate against infidels and women among other sharia mandates. And, in that scheme of things, sharia finance is nothing less than “jihad with money” as the prominent terrorism advocate, Yousuf al-Qaradawi, has put it. The fact that much of Wall Street sees only the fat transaction fees part of it does not make it any less so.

And even a casual look at the record of sharia banking proves that beyond doubt. Three of the early Sharia institutions, Bank Al-Taqwa,  Akida Bank and BMI (Bait ul-Mal al-Islami) were not only involved in financing terrorism full time but were specifically set up for that purpose. The Treasury Department knows that very well because they were the ones that closed them down as terrorist entities.

The largest Islamic bank, the Saudi-controlled Islamic Development Bank (IDB), was no slouch either in this respect with the $1 billion Al-Aqsa and Intifada funds set up specifically for financing suicide bombers in Palestine. The same is also true of the three largest Islamic banking empires run by the Saudi billionaires and zealous Wahabbis,  Saleh Kamel, Prince Faysal al-Saud and Suleiman Abdul Aziz al-Rajhi , which have been suspected of terror financing for years but have always been able to get away because of America’s obscene deference for the Saudis.

Not even included in this troubling record are the huge amounts generated by Islamic banks through the obligatory zakat tithe, ‘purification’ of ‘unclean’ income that must be given away or the huge sums paid to extremist sharia advisors.  Worst of all, much of this huge financial windfall for Islamic extremism is now generated by Sharia finance in the West, making us a key sponsor of those that want to destroy us.

All of this is or should be well known at Treasury. The fact that none of it was even alluded to in a USG-sponsored seminar purporting to provide regulators with reliable information on Islamic finance is more than unconscionable: it is dereliction of duty.

WASHINGTON - Thou shalt - or shalt not - allow Seven Aphorisms to go on display in a public park along with the Ten Commandments.
    That’s the crux of a monumental Utah case going before the U.S. Supreme Court today.
    The dispute erupted after Pleasant Grove allowed one group to post a stone tablet of the Ten Commandments in the city’s Pioneer Park. A Salt Lake City-based spiritual group called Summum then tried to post a marker of its own guiding principles, but the Utah County city refused.
    Today, the justices will take up the standoff in a case that could set the standard for how cities across the nation deal with religious monuments and symbols in public squares.
    "This is an important case for cities all over the country," says Thomas Baker, a professor at the Florida International University’s College of Law in Miami who summarized the case for the American Bar Association. "The Supreme Court is going to revise the rules of access to public spaces and public parks."
    The case is the first to examine displays of the Ten Commandments since conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the court.
    The court is likely to revisit twin decisions in 2005 that ordered the religious message out of a courthouse in Kentucky but allowed it to remain on the grounds of the Texas Capitol.
Pleasant Grove argues that permitting Summum - a Latin term meaning "the sum total of all creation" - to erect its monument could force other cities either to put up any and all proposed markers or potentially toss their own memorials, tablets and statues.
    Summum counters that the city cannot discriminate against some religious symbols.
    If Pleasant Grove allows the Ten Commandments, the group says, the city must also permit the Seven Aphorisms, a list of principles that includes vibration, rhythm, and cause and effect that the group believes Moses also obtained on Mount Sinai.
    A federal judge in Utah sided with the city, but the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision.
    The two most recent commandments cases, in 2005, saw the nation’s high court split 5-4 on how to handle public displays, with Justice Stephen Breyer as the crucial swing vote.
    Baker says Breyer likely will be key to this case as well and that attorneys will focus their remarks his way.
    Pleasant Grove Mayor Mike Daniels, who flew to Washington to witness today’s oral arguments, said the city’s case is strong.
    "We have high hopes," he said. "I think they’ll rule in our favor."
    Interestingly, as the court hears arguments on whether posting the Ten Commandments in a city park opens it up to other religious or spiritual monuments, the justices will be facing a wall in the courtroom that includes a sculpture of Moses holding two tablets meant to symbolize the Ten Commandments.
    And the inside door leading to the courtroom includes an engraving of two tablets with Roman numerals representing the commandments as well.

Source

Images from a Saudi flag on a soccer ball are drawing complaints from Muslims in South Africa, host of the 2010 World Cup.

Saudi flag

By ERIC GORSKI
AP Religion Writer

You better watch out. There is a new combatant in the Christmas wars.

Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake," will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December. The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday.

In lifting lyrics from "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," the Washington-based group is wading into what has become a perennial debate over commercialism, religion in the public square and the meaning of Christmas.

"We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you," said Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group. "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."

To that end, the ads and posters will include a link to a Web site that will seek to connect and organize like-minded thinkers in the D.C. area, Edwords said.

Edwords said the purpose isn’t to argue that God doesn’t exist or change minds about a deity, although "we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people’s minds."

The group defines humanism as "a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity."

Last month, the British Humanist Association caused a ruckus announcing a similar campaign on London buses with the message: "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

In Washington, the humanists’ campaign comes as conservative Christian groups gear up their efforts to keep Christ in Christmas. In the past five years, groups such as the American Family Association and the Catholic League have criticized or threatened boycotts of retailers who use generic "holiday" greetings.

In mid-October, the American Family Association started selling buttons that say "It’s OK to say Merry Christmas." The humanists’ entry into the marketplace of ideas did not impress AFA president Tim Wildmon.

"It’s a stupid ad," he said. "How do we define ‘good’ if we don’t believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what’s good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what’s good, it’s going to be a crazy world."

Also on Tuesday, the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group, launched its sixth annual "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign." Liberty Counsel has intervened in disputes over nativity scenes and government bans on Christmas decorations, among other things.

"It’s the ultimate grinch to say there is no God at a time when millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Christ," said Mathew Staver, the group’s chairman and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. "Certainly, they have the right to believe what they want but this is insulting."

Best-selling books by authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have fueled interest in "the new atheism" - a more in-your-face argument against God’s existence.

Yet few Americans describe themselves as atheist or agnostic; a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll from earlier this year found 92 percent of Americans believe in God.

There was no debate at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority over whether to take the ad. Spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said the agency accepts ads that aren’t obscene or pornographic.

—————

Billboard: "Don’t believe in God? - You are not alone"

By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News

Here’s an unusual sign that the holidays are coming: just in time for Christmas, a group of atheists and freethinkers plan to sponsor 11 billboards in Colorado.

Against a blue sky backdrop, their billboard poses the question: "Don’t believe in God? - You are not alone."

COCORE, an umbrella organization of 11 groups ranging from the Boulder Heretics to the Humanists of Colorado, are spending $5,000 to post their message at 10 sites in Denver and one in Colorado Springs, for four weeks starting around Nov. 17.

The group wanted to put up signs in Fort Collins and Greeley, but a billboard company refused to carry the message.

While similar billboards have gone up in places like Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Kansas City, they are a first in Colorado, said Marvin Straub, a spokesman for COCORE.

Straub said the one sign in Colorado Springs was not meant to tweak religious groups in that area.

"Absolutely not," Straub said Tuesday, noting that there is a freethinkers chapter in Colorado Springs.

He said the primary goal of the campaign is to reach about eight to 14 percent of the population who tell pollsters that they are not religious.

A spokesman for Focus on the Family Institute in Colorado Springs said his organization has no problem with another group exercising its free speech rights.

"We’re thankful we live in a country where we have that freedom," said Del Packet, president of the Focus on the Family Institute.

But Packet added there has been a rise in hostility in recent years toward religious groups. He said Focus on the Family will also exercise its free speech rights to address public issues as well.

The Colorado billboard campaign comes at the time when the American Humanist Association has launched a bus and newspaper ad campaign in New York City and Washington, D.C., that asks, "Why believe in god? Just be good for goodness sake?"

The campaign drew criticism from Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who stated, "It is a shame that an organization that worships nothing would be forced to crib its ‘Holiday Campaign’ ad from a Christmas song about St. Nick."