President Obama s cavalier attitude toward the Brussels terrorist bombing (a Benghazi bump in the road) in addition to his detachment from and no-show at last November s Paris event of 41 world leaders revealing their solidarity against the Islamic jihadi terrorist attacks was a shame for all Americans. His aloofness should not come as a surprise.
He understands better than the majority of Americans that the afflict of jihadi terrorism has its roots in Islam. It discusses why he directed that training handbooks be purged of anything that connected Islam with terrorism. In addition, Mr. Obama s intentional obfuscation of the bibles of Islam, as discovered in the Koran and Shariah law, which drives jihadi acts of terrorism, has facilitated the spread of Islam and its supremacist ideology. It has assisted and abetted the enemy.
It puzzles the American public on the reasoning obtained from the Koran, Shariah law and the hadiths that drive jihadists to commit these acts of terrorism. The Islamic jihadists have actually been thoroughly indoctrinated in the core canonical beliefs of Islam as composed in the suras (chapters) of the Koran.
Using the term radical Islam to explain the jihadi terrorism implies that there is some moderate type of Islam. The Islamic leader of Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who supports the establishment of a worldwide caliphate, has repeatedly rejected allied efforts to depict Turkey as an example of moderate Islam. Islam is Islam.
While lots of progressives will say that Islamic supremacism is not the only way of interpreting Islam, they explain that there are millions of Muslims who reject Islam s supremacism and jihadi acts of horrors. This misses out on the point that the authoritative analysis by the scholars of Islam is actually drawn from the scriptures. Those who stray from this line of thinking are cast as racists or Islamophobic, a term invoked by the Muslim Brotherhood. We need to never forget the Muslim Brotherhood s creed, which is to ruin America from within by our own miserable hands and change our Constitution with Shariah law. Further, the senior jurist of the Muslim Brother hood, cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has actually stated that the Koran or Shariah law can not be changed to comply with changing human values and requirements. His view, is that the Koran and Shariah present the outright standard to which all human values and perform must conform.
As Andrew Bostom explains, Shariah supremacism with its despiteful bellicosity and bigotry continues to be, unfortunately, the predominant frame of mind of the world s Muslims. He specifies, based upon the most recent readily available details, that 77 percent of Muslims from the 5 largest Sunni Muslim populations (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria) and 83 percent of Shiite Iranians want Shariah as the law of the land. Even more, 91 percent of liberated Iraqis and 90 percent of Afghan Muslims support Shariah.
The late political scientist, Samuel Huntington, explained that Islam is entirely incompatible with Western culture and traditions. They can never ever exist side-by-side. Islam is at war with the West. It is a clash of civilizations.
Even Alexis de Tocqueville, the French thinker, commented after studying the Koran in 1838 that it not only motivates but regulates a holy war versus all infidels, along with the requirement for obeying the Prophet Muhammad. This what drives the Islamic State today; its members believe everything needs to be done as it was throughout the reign of the prophet.
Islam is not a religious beliefs of peace. Till the threat of Islam is comprehended, we will not be effective in defeating this opponent.
With all the ISIS atrocities dedicated, President al-Sisi of Egypt felt Islam was getting a bad image. On Jan. 1, 2015, speaking at the Cairo website of the Vatican version of Sunni Islamic spiritual education, at al-Azhar University, Mr. al-Sisi charged the leading Sunni clerics with reforming Islam, which has not taken place in over 1,300 years.
There should be no doubt that unreformed Islam is the opponent. America has to take the lead in resolving this enemy. The Islamic State is the current point of the spear which need to be thoroughly squashed. A movement should likewise be started to promote President al-Sisi s require a reformation of Islam to bring Islam into the 21st century.
A London law practice asserts it are yet to be spent for work they performed for Michael Jackson in the 2 years leading up to his death, reports the Hollywood Reporter.According to a state claim filed on Monday in California, Atkins Thomson Solicitors, which says it is owed over $200,000 (142,000) in charges, is taking legal action against entertainment attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain, executors of Jackson s estate, for breach of agreement.
Defendants have actually cannot honour Jackson s obligations under, and has actually materially breached, the arrangement with Atkins, and any indicated covenants therein, by failing to make the payments as required, composes Atkins lawyer Stanton L Stein in the grievance.
Covering services from 2007 through to 2009, Atkins claims the firm provided hundreds of hours of services to Jackson across almost a lots matters, and reportedly submitted a lenders claim for $204,204.36 in 2009. For lender liability issues don’t hesitate feel free to visit our Attorney. Atkins asserts offenders chose not to pay and rejected the invoice in December 2015. They now desire the amount apparently invoiced plus interest and the costs of the match.
The estate doesn t believe the lawyer s claim for work supposedly provided for Michael Jackson stands and we plan to contest this claim, stated Howard Weitzman, lawyer for the estate.
Since the death of Jackson, the pop icon s estate has dealt with a number of suits, with John Landis, the director of the Grammy acclaimed Thriller video, asserting in 2009 that Jackson cannot turn over his share of the benefit from the production. In 2012, both sides agreed to confidential terms involving earnings and rights on the 1983 promo.
The order said the court s action remained in line with its decision in June to momentarily block part of the Texas abortion law. The justices heard oral arguments because case on Wednesday.
The law in Louisiana is a 2014 procedure that needs all abortion providers to have confessing privileges the capability to admit and relieve patients at a medical facility no more than 30 miles from the center.
Mainstream medical groups have repeatedly said that confessing privileges are not required to make abortion more secure than it already is. In mid-January, John deGravelles, a federal judge in Baton Rouge, ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
The state of Louisiana appealed to a three-judge panel drawn from the 5th circuit court of appeals, the nation s most conservative circuit. On 25 February, the fifth circuit court of appeals ruled that the law could enter into result while the state of Louisiana appealed.
The ruling plunged Louisiana centers into mayhem. Only 2 Louisiana abortion companies from 6 have admitting opportunities. For the past week, just two abortion centers in the state, in New Orleans and Shreveport, have actually been able to supply the treatment.
The supreme court s ruling permits centers in Baton Rouge and Bossier City to reopen instantly.
Just 2 days after saying our case before the supreme court to overrule a comparable sweeping law in Texas, we planning to the justices to put an end to these sham measures threatening women s rights, health and lives across the United States, stated Nancy Northrup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, whose attorneys are representing Louisiana abortion providers.
Louisiana is a state with nearly 1 million women of reproductive age. The week that the law was in impact provided abortion rights advocates a look at the troubles of providing for that lots of women with only 2 working centers.
The 2 doctors who had the ability to keep carrying out abortions accounted for less than half of all abortions in Louisiana in 2013. One of the physicians, who works for Hope Medical Group in Shreveport, has testified that he would not continue to provide the treatment if he was the only abortion carrier in the northern part of the state. His worries of harassment and violence were too great.
It has been a significant challenge for our clients, Sylvia Cochran, the administrator at the Women s Health Care Center in New Orleans, stated last week. Hers was one of the 2 centers that was still offering abortions. We re already getting an influx of women and it has actually currently enhanced our wait times.
Rochelle Tafolla, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast, called it a problem. She noted that the center operating in Baton Rouge, Hope Medical Group, was already dealing with hundreds of women driving over the border from Texas, after a comparable law shut down half of that state s clinics.
It is difficult for one to 2 physicians to offer services for all the women in Louisiana in need of abortion care, said Kathaleen Pittman, a spokeswoman for Hope Medical Group.
Fans of the Louisiana law state it is required to ensure that women having issues from abortions get constant care if they require hospitalization. The American Medical Association places the danger of a significant incident in between 0.05 % and 0.2 % abortion carriers hardly ever fulfill a medical facility s particular requirements.
Prior to Louisiana s law took effect, 5 from the state s 6 abortion companies made 13 various efforts to secure admitting privileges at close-by healthcare facilities. Numerous medical professionals struggled to obtain the required references from healthcare facility personnel, deGravelles ruled, because of fears about being connected with abortion.