‘A Pakistani-American, Zahid Quraishi, has been nominated for a federal judge position in the US District Court by President Joe Biden. On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing for the first Muslim federal judicial nominee.
Given the numerous ways Islamic doctrine conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, the Senate Judiciary Committee should have questioned Quraishi about his religious beliefs. Instead, the Committee used its time to sing Quraishi’s praises and list his accomplishment.
Liberato.us supplied Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a Sharia tip sheet and questions listed below to ask Zahid Quraishi. Will the GOP demand answers from the federal judge nominee concerning his Islamic beliefs, or will they fear being called “islamophobic”? The term Islamophobia was invented in the 1990s by a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood to help export blasphemy laws to the West.
Questions for the First Muslim Federal Judicial Nominee
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the first Muslim federal judicial nominee is set for Wednesday, April 28th. Zahid Quraishi, if confirmed, would become a federal judge for the U.S. District of New Jersey.
Given the numerous ways Islamic doctrine conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, Quraishi should be asked the following questions (which have been provided to the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee) at the hearing:
It has been reported you are a Muslim. While there is no religious test for federal office, the Senate and the American people are entitled to know whether your religious beliefs are compatible or incompatible with U.S. law — the law which, if you are confirmed, you will be asked to swear to uphold. As a preliminary question, do you as a Muslim affirm and adhere to Islamic doctrine from the Quran, hadith, and other authoritative Islamic sources?
Islamic doctrine holds that sharia law should be the supreme law of the land throughout the world. It further holds that sharia law is divine in origin and thus superior to any human-made law, including the U.S. Constitution. If confirmed, you will be asked to swear an oath you will uphold the U.S. Constitution, which by virtue of its Article VI, is the supreme law of the land. Do you renounce the portions of Islamic doctrine calling for the supremacy of sharia law and the subjugation of all human-made law to sharia law?
Islamic doctrine holds that jihad is the means by which the supremacy of sharia law is to be achieved. Do you renounce the portions of Islamic doctrine calling for jihad to achieve sharia supremacy?
What role, if any, should sharia law play in federal cases? In family law?
Will you go on record now and state that our First Amendment right to freedom of speech gives the right to anyone in the United States to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and will you also go on record now and state that you support and defend anyone’s right to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and that you condemn anyone who threatens death or physical harm to another person who is exercising that right?
Our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in the United States. As part of that freedom, anyone in the United States has the right to join or leave any religion or have no religion at all. Will you go on record now and state that you support and defend the idea that in the United States, a Muslim has not only the freedom to leave Islam, but to do so without fear of physical harm, and will you also go on record now and state that you condemn anyone who threatens physical harm to a Muslim who is exercising that freedom?
According to the words of Allah found in Quran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft. But our U.S. Constitution, which consists of man-made laws, has the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment such as this. Do you agree with Allah and your prophet Muhammad that amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft in the United States, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad?
According to the words of Allah found in Quran 4:3, Muslim men are allowed, but not required, to be married to up to four wives. Being married to more than one wife in the United States is illegal according to our man-made bigamy laws. Do you agree with Allah that it is legal for a Muslim man in the United States to be married to more than one woman, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting bigamy are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah?
Do you affirm or renounce the following from Islamic sources and scholars:
- “the worst of all the moving creatures, in the sight of Allah, are those who reject Faith and do not believe” (Quran verse 8:55)?
- the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man’s in court (various sources collected here)?
- the non-recognition of marital rape?
If confirmed, would you enforce U.S. antiterrorism laws against your fellow Muslims accused of violating those laws (e.g., providing material support for terrorism — 18 U.S. Code § 2339B)?
Are you a member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)?
Do you agree with AMJA that
- Muslims should not work in American law enforcement?
- Muslims should not be “pleased with a legal system that does not come from Allah”?
- Muslims should seek justice in Islamic courts, not secular courts?
SEEN AND AGREED:
Steve Amundson – Counter Jihad Coalition
David J. Baldovin, Special Agent (ret.), FBI, Tennessee
Richard Roy Blake – Thornton,. Colorado
David Bores, LTC (US Army Ret)
Gladys H Fuentes-Citizens Assembled; American Patriot Community – Miami Fl
Wm Gawthrop, PhD
Carl Goldberg – Arizona
Dan Hromada – Cleveland, Ohio
Stephen M. Kirby, PhD
Mike Ramirez, San Antonio, TX 78250
Roger Russin – Citizens Assembled – Miami FL
James M. Simpson, Author
Mary Wierbicki, The United West
Chris Wright – Sharia TipSheet – Liberato.US’https://rairfoundation.com/where-is-the-gop-demand-the-first-muslim-federal-judicial-nominee-answer-these-questions/
Australia seems to be in a rush to catch Europe and the UK in punishing people for speaking what they believe to be true. For example: ‘Television host Sonia Kruger has become a poster girl for Far-Right groups in Australia after a vilification complaint was made against her when she called for an end to Muslim migration.
The groups claim the case against Kruger is an attack on free speech, and believe she is being persecuted for speaking her mind when she said during a segment on Channel Nine’s Today program in 2016 that there was a correlation between the number of terror attacks in a country, and the number of Muslim people who lived there.
“Personally I would like to see [Muslim migration] stopped now for Australia. Because I want to feel safe, as all of our citizens do, when they go out to celebrate Australia Day,” she said during the segment.
Muslim man Sam Ekermawi filed a racial vilification complaint against Kruger, which the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal recently ruled will be given a full hearing.
What is unlawful vilification
Unlawful vilification is inciting hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person, or group of people, because of an attribute like their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexuality or gender identity.’ http://discriminationclaims.com.au/i-stand-with-sonia-tv-host-poster-girl-for-far-right/
This is the television spot that got Sonia into all this trouble.
Well, exactly what is vilification?
‘Definition of vilification
Vilification is inciting hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person, or group of persons, because of their race, religion, sexuality, or gender identity, by a public act.
Race can include a person’s colour, ethnicity or nationality, descent or ancestry.
Religion includes a belief system or the absence of a belief system.
Sexuality means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality.
Gender identity means that a person identifies as a member of the opposite sex by living or seeking to live as a member of that sex, or is of indeterminate sex and seeks to live a member of a particular sex.
A public act is any form of communication to the public, such as speaking, writing, printing, displaying notices and messages on the internet and social media.
It also includes conduct observable by the public, including actions, gestures, wearing or display of clothing, signs, flags, emblems or insignia.
Incite means to urge on, stimulate or prompt action.
Hatred is an extreme or intense dislike or detestation.
Contempt is the attitude that someone is worthless or of little account, that involves looking down upon or treating that person as inferior.
Ridicule is to make fun of, deride or laugh at.’ http://discriminationclaims.com.au/vilification/
Now, consider the following which occurred under a Federal Labor Government in 2012.
‘ONE of the Muslim world’s best-known and most successful motivational speakers, Tareq Al Suwaidan, is about to start another tour of Australia, following a sell-out visit two years ago… His opening address, this Saturday, will be at the Robert Blackwood hall at Monash University in Melbourne, before further lectures in Melbourne and Sydney, finishing on June 18… Dr Suwaidan – who lectures in English in Australia – is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait, and general manager of Al-Resalah (The Message), an Arabic language satellite TV station funded by Prince al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia…. In an interview for Al-Quds, a TV station affiliated with Hamas, he said 10 weeks ago: “I can change the positions of some Westerners, but at the end of the day, power lies with the politicians, who are influenced by two things only: money and the media, both of which are controlled by the Jews. “So we must not rely on Western aid or on Western popular sympathy. These are minor things. We rely upon Allah and then upon our armed resistance in obtaining our rights.” He said his foremost cause is that of Palestine and Jerusalem. “The most dangerous thing facing the Muslims is not the (Arab) dictatorships. The absolutely most dangerous thing is the Jews. They are the greatest enemy.”‘ https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/go-to-monash-uni-for-another-lecture-on-the-enemies-of-allah/news-story/6342761cdc7724ed9ca0a3c32e78c897
Sadly, in Australia the freedom of speech is only for a few; so it seems.
What else is new? Well, ‘The newest Democratic congressional candidate in Massachusetts, Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, is a prominent official of not one but two Islamist groups: Jamaat ul-Fuqra and the Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR).
- Jamaat Ul-Fuqra, which now goes by the name of Muslims of America (MOA), is a jihadi cult that is currently under federal investigation. Amatul-Wadud has long been an advocate for Fuqra and serves as the group’s “general counsel.”
- CAIR has been identified by the Justice Department as a Hamas-linked entity of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Clarion Project was the first to report on Amatul-Wadud’s political aspirations when she expressed her intentions to eventually become the governor of Massachusetts.
Now, the 44-year old attorney just announced that she’s running in the Democratic primary for Massachusetts’ 1st Congressional District, challenging Rep. Richard Neal, who has held the seat since 1988. The media coverage has focused on her status as an attorney in Springfield and that she is a four-year member of the Commission on the Status of Women.
Nowhere does her campaign website mention her official involvement with Muslims of America/Jamaat ul-Fuqra or the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Her business website does identify her as the “counsel” to the “Islamberg” commune that serves as MOA’s national headquarters. An obvious decision was made to omit that from her biography.
Media coverage of her candidacy also failed to report on these affiliations. In fact, she was practically endorsed by Amanda Drane, a reporter for the Berkshire Eagle, who called her a “champion of marginalized communities.”
CAIR also promoted her candidacy in its national newsletter, leaving out her long-time affiliation with MOA/Fuqra. CAIR-Massachusetts’ website only makes a vague reference to her being a “general counsel for a New York Muslim congregation.”
As of the publication date of this article, none of MOA’s official websites or social media pages have acknowledged her candidacy.
She is running as a Democrat and not with MOA’s Islamic Political Party of America. The status of that party is unclear.
Fuqra/Muslims of America
The criminal history, terrorist attacks and secretive and paramilitary nature of Fuqra/MOA have long been documented. MOA claims to have 22 “Islamic villages” across the country. The U.S. government recently confirmed that there are ongoing investigations into MOA.’ https://clarionproject.org/slamist-extremist-group-member-announces-run-congress-massachusetts/
Only Islamists get by with this kind of stuff!
Can you tell this guy is HAPPY Donald Trump is President-elect?!