Say, what did she say?
Clearly Bill Clinton wasn’t just the nation’s first Black president. He was also its first Muslim president. ~
Say what!
Obama Appointee Claims Sharia Law Is Superior to American Law - Claims Founding
Fathers Were Inspired By The Quran
Source:
United States Defense League
 |
| Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri |
Obama has announced the appointment of Azizah al-Hibri to the United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom. Al-Hibri (full name, Azizah Yahia
Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri) is a Muslim professor and the granddaughter of a
Sheikh, who claims that the Koran inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founders and
that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one
because it accepts blood money from murderers.
Appointing a Muslim scholar to a commission on international religious freedom
is only justifiable if that scholar recognized that much of the injustice in the
world originates from Islamic law. But Al-Hibri has made her career whitewashing
Islamic law and even presenting it as superior to American law.
While she
has been called a reformer, her call in 2001 for a return to the fundamentals
echoes Wahhabi rhetoric. Rather than examining the incompatibilities of Islamic
law and the modern world, and urging the appropriate adjustments, as genuine
reformers have done, Al-Hibri instead builds myths that uphold the Islamist
agenda.
According to Al-Hibri “Islamic fiqh is deeper and better than
Western codes of law”. She favorably compares Saudi Arabia’s willingness to
accept blood money bribes to excuse a murder, to the “impersonal and powerful”
American justice system.
Al-Hibri is often billed as a Muslim feminist,
but she is equally hypocritical on women’s rights. Rather than conceding that
Islamic law discriminates against women, she whitewashes its discriminatory
treatment of women, arguing that guardianship is meant to protect “inexperienced
women”.
Rather than trying to bring Islam in line with the modern world,
Azizah Al-Hibri pushes for the modern world to be brought in line with Islam.
Rather than reforming Islam, it is America that she would like to reform to
Islamic standards.
Placing a woman who believes that American law is
inferior to that of the Koran on an American commission to promote international
religious freedom perverts the purpose of the commission and promotes religious
tyranny instead.
Given a forum to call for reform, Al-Hibri unerringly
insists that there is nothing to reform. At the UN, Al-Hibri expressed outrage
that the Koran, which “established acceptance of others, now needed to be
defended” and insisted that Islam “guaranteed freedom of
thought”.
Listening to her defend Mohammed’s tyranny as an early form of
democracy at the UN is a reminder of the era when Soviet representatives to the
UN angrily defended their record on human rights and insisted that there is no
freedom outside of Communism.
In Al-Hibri’s distorted history, the wave
of genocides and conquests that turned the multicultural Middle-East into a
desert of brutality governed by minor variations of Islamic ideology, was
actually a wave of enlightenment. The massacres of the region’s Jews and the
purge of all other religions from the area never occurred in Al-Habri’s history
book.
Revisionist history of this kind would be dangerous even if it were
not coming from a woman in a position to influence opinion leaders.
The
twin approaches of the Islamist narrative may be described as the Caliph Omar
bridge. When the Muslim armies of the Caliph reached the great Library of
Alexandria, he decreed that it should be burned, for if the library’s scrolls
held the same ideas as the Koran they were redundant, and if they opposed the
Koran, they were heretical.
While some Islamists attack the United States
Constitution as a heretical document and Western Civilization as worthless–
others more cleverly represent the Constitution as an inferior version of the
Koran and Western Civilization as derivative of Islamic civilization. Either way
they must burn along with the Library of Alexandria.
But the second
approach is more seductive. Rather than launching a direct attack, it seeks to
construct a bridge that connects Islam and the West. But the structure of the
bridge is only a more insidious form of attack.
These bridge builders
don’t come bearing a torch, rather an argument that since American law is
derived from Islam, it must ‘revert’ to the higher standards of Islamic law. By
contrasting the reality of American law with an ideal version of Islamic law
that does not exist anywhere in the world, they manage to make the system that
protects human rights seem shabby, while the system that represses women and
minorities appears noble and righteous.
That is the kind of revisionist
history that Al-Hibri traffics in, creating a noble Islamic creed contrasted
with a flawed American system.
Al-Hibri appears to transmute the rhetoric
of Islamism into sweet music to progressive ears, and her associations only
reinforce that image. She served on the advisory board of Alamoudi’s American
Muslim Council, defended it in print against accusations of extremism and made
joint appearances with Alamoudi even after his statements in support of
terrorism.
In 1995 she even testified at a congressional hearing against
the Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Act’s ability to cut off funds to terrorist
groups, because, “it gives the President the ability to designate, with no
effective recourse, certain groups as terrorist”.
The America Muslim
Council, whose national advisory board Al-Hibri sat on, had reason to fear that
portion of the act. Some years later the AMC would be caught encouraging
donations to the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation, both
charities affiliated with terrorists.
In the early days of 2001, Al-Hibri
traveled to the Afghan border and criticized the Western press for
“sensationalizing” Taliban atrocities and using them “as an opportunity to
attack Islam”. After the attacks of September 11, she cautioned against bombing
Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets during Ramadan. And that same year she defended
Wahhabism as part of Islam’s “religious diversity” and its “marketplace of
ideas”.
Al-Hibri appeared at an ISNA panel two months ago to call on
Obama to stand up for Muslims against their American critics. And her insistence
that no Muslim country practices true Sharia law appears to echo a familiar
Islamist slogan. When the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed bringing Sharia to
the UK, Al-Hibri gave an approving quote. Last year at the Congressional Muslim
Staffers Association she called for a “a council of scholars” to serve as a
central authority on Islam for the United States.
Azizah Al-Hibri’s
feminist credentials rest heavily on Karamah, an organization of Muslim women
lawyers, primarily funded by her brother Ibrahim El-Hibri and nephew Fuad
El-Hibri’s “El-Hibri Charitable Foundation”.
The El-Hibri clan are a
curious footnote in the War on Terror. Ibrahim El-Hibri had made a fortune doing
business with Saudi Arabia. His company dominates the manufacture of the anthrax
vaccine and suspicions have been raised by the Wall Street Journal about leaks
from their company into the hands of terrorists. Regardless of all that, there
is something ironic in Azizah Al-Hibri’s feminist organization being funded by
her brother’s charitable trust with a board of trustees that includes two male
members of the family, but not her.
Another donor to Karamah was Prince
Alwaleed bin Talal of the famously progressive Saudi royal family. A kingdom
well known for promoting feminism and women’s rights, which no doubt in between
banning women from driving cars and distributing such feminist tracts as “Women
Who Deserve To Go To Hell” funds organizations that empower women. Rather than
organizations that put a faux feminist face on the Islamic repression of
women.
Yet the oddest moment in Al-Hibri’s career of promoting Islamic
law in the United States may have come when before Clinton’s impeachment
proceedings, she actually wrote an article discussing how a sitting President of
the United States might be tried under Islamic law.
“Had the President
been testifying in an Islamic court, he would not have been placed in this
terrible predicament in the first instance,” Al-Hibri wrote. As an added bonus,
to Bill, she added that under Islamic law, it would be his accusers “would be
punished for committing the crime of qathf”.
In a further reminder of the
Islamic commitment to freedom of speech; “Others who violated his privacy and
broadcast his behavior are guilty and, if not repentant, are punishable.” We can
only guess if this involved stoning Matt Drudge.
Al-Hibri went on to
point out that four witnesses to the crime were lacking. The same law that makes
it so easy for gang rapists to accuse their victim of adultery, while leaving
her helpless to defend against the charges.
Then she wrote, “Coming from
a religious background, the President may have understood the religious
significance of penetration and hence avoided it.”
Clearly Bill Clinton wasn’t
just the nation’s first Black president. He was also its first Muslim
president.
At no point in this surreal article did Al-Hibri acknowledge
that adultery is a crime punishable by death or vicious corporal punishment in
much of the Muslim world. Instead she used a congressional investigation into
presidential malfeasance to misrepresent Islamic law, which lashes or stones
adulterers to death, as a more liberal code.
What can such a woman offer
to the cause of international religious freedom? Only Obama and Bill know.
____________________________________
Bonus Video...one of the least watched videos on
YouTube whereas it should be watched by every American, or at a minimum, all those looking for a job.
