Regardless of the irrelevant fact that Obama no longer allows the use of the words, “war on terror”,  here is why Shariah as public policy must be opposed.  Daniel Pipes explains:

Those of us who argue against Shariah are sometimes asked why Islamic law poses a problem when modern Western societies long ago accommodated Halakha, or Jewish law. In fact, this was one of the main talking points of those who argued that Shariah should become an accepted part of dispute resolution in Ontario in 2005.

The answer is easy: a fundamental difference separates the two. Islam is a missionizing religion, Judaism is not. Islamists aspire to apply Islamic law to everyone, while observant Jews seek only to live by Jewish law themselves.

Two very recent examples from the United Kingdom demonstrate the innate imperialism of Islamic law.

Picture of the Queens Care Centre from the outside.

The first concerns Queens Care Centre, an old-age home and day-care provider for the elderly in the coal town of Maltby, 40 miles east of Manchester. At present, according to the Daily Telegraph, not one of its 37 staff or 40 residents is Muslim. Although the home’s management asserts a respect for its residents’ “religious and cultural beliefs,” QCC’s owner since 1994, Zulfikar Ali Khan, on his own decided this year to switch the home’s meat purchases to a halal butcher.

His stealthy decision meant pensioners at QCC could no longer eat their bacon and eggs, bangers and mash, ham sandwiches, bacon sandwiches, pork pies, bacon butties, or sausage rolls. The switch prompted widespread anger. The relative of one resident called it “a disgrace. The old people who are in the home and in their final years deserve better. … [I]t’s shocking that they should be deprived of the food they like on the whim of this man.” A staff member opined that it’s “quite wrong that someone should impose their religious and cultural beliefs on others like this.”

Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts of the Avon and Somerset police force models the hijab for non-Muslims.

Queried about his decision, Khan, lamely replied he ordered halal meat for the sake of (nonexistent) Muslim staff. Then he backtracked: “We will be ordering all types of meat” and went so far as to agree that religious beliefs should not be imposed on others. His retreat did not convince one former QCC staffer, who suspected that Khan “intended to serve only halal meat at the home but has had to think again because of the row.”

A second example of imposing Shariah on non-Muslims comes from southeast England. The Avon and Somerset police force patrols the cities of Bristol and Bath as well as surrounding areas has just issued hijabs to female officers. The hijabs, distributed at the initiative of two Muslim groups and costing £13 apiece, come complete with the constabulary’s emblem.

Now, issuing hijabs as part of uniforms in Great Britain is nothing new – the London police led the way in 2001, followed by other police forces, at least one fire brigade, and even the furniture chain Ikea. What sets the Avon and Somerset hijabs apart from these others is their being intended not just for pious Muslim female staff but also for non-Muslim staff, in particular for their use upon entering mosques.

[Rashad Azami of the Bath Islamic Society finds it "highly pleasing" that the constabulary took this step. One of the seven non-Muslim officers to receive a hijab of her very own, Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts, calls it "a very positive addition to the uniform and one which I'm sure will be a welcome item for many of our officers."

[Dhimmitude is the term Bat Ye'or coined to describe subservience to Shariah by non-Muslims. Assistant Chief Constable Roberts' enthusiasm for the hijab might be called "advanced dhimmitude."]

“Hijab bullies” (as David J. Rusin of Islamist Watch calls them) who coerce non-Muslim females to cover up are just one stripe of Islamist imposing Shar’i ways on the West. Other Islamists focus on impeding the uncensored discussion of such topics as Muhammad and the Koran or Islamist institutions or terrorist financing; still others exert to bring taxpayer-funded schools, hospitals, and jails into conformity with Islamic law, not to speak of taxi cabs and municipal swimming pools. Their efforts don’t always succeed but in the aggregate, they are rapidly shifting the premises of Western, and especially British, life.

Returning to pork: both Islam and Judaism abominate the flesh of pigs, so this prohibition offers a direct and revealing comparison of the two religions. Simply put, Jews accept that non-Jews eat pork but Muslims take offense and try to impede pork consumption. That, in brief, explains why Western accommodations to Halakha have no relevance for dealing with Shariah. And why Shariah as public policy must be opposed.

Related Topics: Islamic law (Shari’a), Muslims in the West

Jihadist says slaughtering and eating of American soldiers needs to be according to Shariah.  Via WND:

The Al-Falluja jihadist forum has featured a new discussion – on the slaughter and eating of U.S. soldiers, according to officials with the Middle East Media Research Institute.

On the organization’s Jihad Threat and Terrorism page, a subscription service of the nonprofit that monitors, interprets and reports on media developments in the Middle East, a report said the discussion was prompted by a new book from Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, one of the most influential jihadist sheiks alive.

The MEMRI report said a forum participant who identifies himself as “Al-Maqdisi’s Student,” wrote on June 13: “Is it permitted to eat the flesh of American soldiers? A quote from the illustrious Sheik Al-Maqdisi, may Allah preserve him.”

He recounted an exchange involving early Muslim commander Khalid b. Al-Walid and a Byzantine commander at the battle of Yarmuk, which is thought to have happened in A..D. 636 .

“The Byzantine commander said to Khalid that the Muslims had only gone out from the land due to hunger, and offered to buy them off. Khalid responded, ‘It was not hunger that drove us out of our land, as you say; we are a people who drink blood, and we know that there is no blood more delicious than Byzantine blood. That is why we came,’” the report said.

After American International Group Inc, or AIG, reached two major bailout agreements totaling $152.5 billion in taxpayer dollars, the company is stepping up its dealings with Islamic finance by offering Shariah-compliant homeowners insurance to the U.S. – outraging critics over AIG’s support of a “discriminatory ideology, that is against equality, and that is against liberty.”

With the fantastic response to the Detroit billboard confronting Islamic Sharia Law that was recently put up by the United American Committee, the UAC desires to expand that campaign, and put up more boards with the same or similar messages in key demographic areas. Please help us achieve that goal.

Please make your most generous end of the year tax deductible donation to:
United American Committee
P.O. Box 80325
RSM, CA 92688

Or contribute instantly and securely online by clicking here.

Let’s keep up the fight.

Since 2002, the U.S. Treasury Department has begun embracing Shariah-Compliant Finance. According to a press report out of Saudi Arabia, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt has declared that “experts in the Treasury Department are currently learning the important features of Islamic banking.” and has professed an interest in “studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis.”

What is of great concern is that the Treasury Department hosted in its headquarters building on Thursday, November 6th a “seminar for the policy community” entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” This event was being co-sponsored – and,  orchestrated – to promote Shariah-Compliant Finance by one of America’s leading promoters of the industry: the Islamic Finance Project at Harvard Law School.

According to Coaltion to Stop Shariah,

It is especially alarming that the Treasury Department is now in a position to impose its submission to Shariah on the various financial institutions which it has bought in recent weeks or otherwise controls. With the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, its purchase of – at last count – 17 banks and the enormous leverage associated with its $700 billion slush-fund, Treasury can be an irresistible force should it actively promote Shariah-Compliant Finance. The fact that Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari, the official charged with administering that slush fund, is the host of “Islamic Finance 101″ certainly looks like active promotion of Shariah-Compliant Finance.

The Coalition to Stop Shariah calls on the Treasury Department to cancel this indoctrination session, to cease its efforts to promote Shariah-Compliant Finance and to recognize Shariah for what it is – sedition – and treat it accordingly by banning its use in U.S. financial institutions and products.

Wall Street now features an Islamic mutual fund and an Islamic index.

Lovely.  And very clever. Muslim terrorists are often financially supported through U.S. investments – and they now have insidiously created a system by which the United States funds its own enemy.