US Government Now Making You Dhimmis: Guess Who's Funding Jihad
Hint: Look In The Mirror

Could it get worse?

Yes, unfortunately, it can.

You're now a shareholder in AIG. And AIG is in turn engaging in "Sharia-compliant finance," indulging the whims of "sharia advisors" (many of whom are repellent Islamist ideologues).

And here's what that means in practice:

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.

Thanks to steevy.

More on the Mosque: If We Stop the Mosque Osama bin Ladin Wins or Something. Because, like, we wouldn't be supporting "moderate Islam" that builds Triumph Towers upon the bodies of 3000 dead.

This piece, also found at the above JWF link, is worth a read too.

One thing is certain: the mosque will now be a hot issue in the midterm elections and a litmus test for candidates across the country. It would serve Obama right if he loses his House and Senate majorities over his support.

There was a better way. It came from Gov. Paterson, whose offer to help the mosque developers find another location held the potential for a harmonious settlement.

But without even a serious conversation, they rejected the offer, reinforcing suspicion that provocation to the memory of 9/11 is part of the developers' plan.

It is self-evident that their professed aim, to build bridges across religions, can better be carried out in a spot not in the shadow of the murderous attacks by Islamic fanatics. Moving the mosque would help prove their motives are trustworthy and win a level of public support they won't get otherwise.

Paterson's offer called their bluff. While much about the project remains a mystery, we now know the developers are not the healers they say they are.
Having Obama in their corner doesn't change that. It only raises the stakes for him and America.

No, It's Not: Remember that old New Yorker cover, parodizing the right's supposed view of Obama and Wife?

It's not so funny now, is it?

posted by Ace at 01:08 PM

| Access Comments