Florida Atlantic University's Muslim Professor . . .

"Chopping off hands a ‘better solution’ for crime in America."

U.S. Muslim Professor Keeps Job At Florida Atlantic University After Condoning Chopping Off Hands

Professor Bassem Alhalabi of Florida Atlantic University is very concerned about ‘Islamophobia’ in America. He also advocates for cutting off the hands of those caught stealing. - WND

Following Article by Leo Hohmann, WND, June 8, 2016

"What happens to an American college professor when he openly and publicly endorses Shariah law as practiced by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS?

Apparently nothing.

Just ask Bassem Alhalabi, associate professor of engineering and computer science at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. See Halabi’s Linkedin page.

It’s been more than two weeks since he made the inflammatory comment at an “Islamophobia” panel discussion sponsored by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Student Association, or MSA. He is still employed at the public university and being paid by U.S. tax dollars, WND has confirmed.

The event, held on the campus May 23, took an unexpected turn when Halabi, who is the university’s student adviser to the MSA and one of several 'experts' to speak on “Islamophobia” in America, took a stance in defense of hardline Islamic law.
Here is what he said:

'Where there is no Shariah, Islamic Shariah, they die in dozens and hundreds every day because of organized crime. People kill people, other people or steal pizza for $10 – so when Islamic Shariah is saying about capital punishment – so even though it sounds like it is severe but if that is the solution to prevent any crimes, then it still has a lot of rules and regulations.

I will just mention one and stop here, which is let’s say cutting off the hands of a person if they steal. It sounds very severe. It sounds very barbaric, I know. But if takes one or two people to have their hands cut off, and then there’s no more stealing and there’s no more stealing in the whole nation – that’s a much better resolution than having hundreds of people die every day.'

Audible gasps could be heard from the audience as Halabi spoke these words.

The College Fix reported it this way:

'As you might expect, this caused a bit of consternation among those in the audience (is that ‘Islamophobic’?), so an Islamic scholar seated next to Alhalabi quickly interjected to ‘clarify’ what the professor had meant: He was referring to Islamic State (ISIS) law, and not anything that would apply here in the United States.'

WND contacted Florida Atlantic University’s media relations department repeatedly seeking comment on whether professor Halabi had been disciplined in any way for his controversial comments.

 

- 'Welcome to post-constitutional America, where even Supreme Court Justice Kagan promoted Shariah at Harvard Law School under the rubric of the al-Sanhuri lecture series, etc.' -

 

Joshua Glanzer, vice president of media relations for FAU, was called twice and emailed. Contact: Concerned individuals may contact Florida Atlantic University.

WND confirmed through a switchboard operator for the department of engineering and computer science that Halabi is still employed as a professor at the university. Calls to his office went unanswered, and his voicemail said it was not receiving messages.

'One wonders which of Caitlyn Jenner’s appendages the good professor would want amputated?' said Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of 'Legacy of Jihad' and several other books about the history Islam.

Part of Shariah law includes harsh treatment of homosexuals and transgenders. Shariah comes from the Quran and from the teachings of Muhammad.

 

Kudos for honesty

But Bostom said Halabi is to be commended, not chastised, for his honesty.
'In all seriousness, the man is simply a pious, Shariah-compliant Muslim making a mainstream Islamic argument for the ‘justice’ of the Shariah,' he said. 'Welcome to post-constitutional America, where even Supreme Court Justice Kagan promoted Shariah at Harvard Law School under the rubric of the al-Sanhuri lecture series, etc.'

 

- 'Christians in America had better start standing up and speaking out against this continual onslaught of Shariah brainwashing happening within our constitutional republic. . .' -

 

Clare Lopez, vice president of policy and analysis for the Center for Security Policy, a think tank in Washington, also took a sanguine view of the matter.

'In some sense, honest discussion about what Islamic law (Shariah) really entails is not altogether a bad thing,' she told WND.

'Instead of castigating this professor, who’s not radical at all, merely honest, they ought to invite him to convene a panel presentation to discuss a full range of Shariah injunctions, most especially to focus on the seven Hudud crimes and punishments … as long as he agrees to cite specifically and only to the authoritative Islamic sources, such as Quran, Sunna and relevant tafsirs,' she added.

'I think such a presentation could be enormously useful to an academic audience that is terribly ignorant about such things,' Lopez said. 'It would certainly help them to understand why words like ‘extremist,’ ‘Islamist’ and ‘radical’ have no meaning in this context. Shariah defines Islam.'

Yasir Kazi, American Imam and Professor at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee - WND

WND has reported on many questionable teachings from professors over the years espousing everything from communist ideals to Shariah law.

WND reported recently that Yasir Kazi, (on left) an American imam and professor at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, was teaching that Christians were 'filthy' in the sight of Allah.

 

 

Time to wake up?

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said Americans should wake up and smell the coffee, before it turns poisonous.

'Never question the sincerity and authenticity of a true believer who follows Shariah law,' said Bachmann, who tried to get Congress to pass laws against Shariah but got zero cooperation.

'Freedom of religion, other than Shariah, doesn’t exist under Islam,' she said. 'Americans need to wipe the cobwebs from their minds and understand that true Islam means to exterminate the non-Islamic believer. Really.'

Lopez said Muslims are obligated to obey Shariah and their failure to do so will count against them on the Day of Judgment, according to Islamic doctrine, just as obeying Shariah will weigh in their favor.

'Nothing ‘extremist,’ ‘Islamist’ or ‘radical’ about this: Obedience to Shariah is simply what it means to be Muslim,' she said. 'Accurate, honest discussion about Shariah is to be encouraged in the academic environment.'

 

Zero action, zero news coverage!

Carl Gallups, a pastor for the last 30 years at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Milton, Florida, said Florida Atlantic University has been caught with its pants down and should be given an award for holding a double standard of epoch proportions.

'What if this ‘professor’ (AKA Muslim Brotherhood operative in the U.S.) had been a Christian or a Jewish professor and passionately advocated the United States convert to a system of law based on strict Old Testament or Christian law?' Gallups asked. 'I have little doubt under today’s Islamic slanted, politically correct environment if he would still be employed at a major publicly funded U.S. university like Florida Atlantic.'

It’s also telling that no coverage to Halabi’s comments has been provided by CNN, FOX News or any of the other major American newspapers or TV networks.

'I seriously doubt the mainstream media would be silent about a Jewish or Christian professor spouting ‘radical’ ideas that would throw us back centuries to when homosexuals were put to death, or when women were stoned for being prostitutes or adulterers,' said Gallups, author of 'Final Warning' and other books.

'I do not recall having seen any coverage of the FAU Muslim professor’s comments by the mainstream media outlets. What are they afraid of? More importantly, what are they hiding? Surely a story of this magnitude would have been on their ‘newsworthy’ radar? It certainly would have been if the speaker had been a conservative Christian or an Orthodox Jew.'

If a conservative evangelical pastor were to appear at a lecture hall in a public university and espouse that 'Christian law' should be applied to the Muslim nations and culture, and how 'superior' that law is to Islamic Shariah, Gallups said it would be major news.

According [to] The United West, professor Halabi has a record for battery and assault (on a United West employee) and was subsequently ordered to complete an anger management course. He also was found guilty of sending 'thermal imaging devices' to Syria, and is a 'colleague of, and co-author with' convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian.

From a Christian perspective, Gallups said pastors and church-going Christians also need to make their voices heard on this developing double standard being propagated by the hard left and typically goes unchallenged.

'Christians in America had better start standing up and speaking out against this continual onslaught of Shariah brainwashing happening within our constitutional republic,' he said. 'If we continue to check out from being the salt and light that Jesus called us to be – we will soon lose everything.

And, I can promise you, our children and grandchildren will not, in the future, call our generation ‘The Greatest Generation.’ Rather, we will be known as the generation that lost their heritage to Islamic dominance.'”

Above Article by Leo Hohmann, WND, June 8, 2016

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

Why Our Leaders Won't Name The Enemy

The truth would destroy them.

"[Obama] He knows the truth, but the truth would interfere with the left’s larger plans to transform America." - FrontPage

Following article by Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Magazine, June 28, 2016

"After the Orlando attack, Obama ranted that it did not matter what we called Islamic terrorism. 'What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIS less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.'

The 'Islamic terrorists by any other name would smell as sweet' argument is the last resort of the losing side. It dismisses the whole issue as a matter of semantics with no bearing on the real world. And that’s a neat rhetorical trick for the political side that relentlessly refuses to acknowledge reality.

One of the more shocking moments in Jeffrey Goldberg’s extended Atlantic write-up of Obama’s foreign policy came with his conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia. Obama, who has refused to recognize any connection between Islamic theology and violence, and made the hijab into a civil rights issue, told the Australian leader how he had seen Indonesia turn to 'fundamentalist' Islam and noted, unfavorably, the large numbers of women now wearing hijabs as a sign of that fundamentalism. Obama blamed the Saudis for pushing Wahhabism through imams and madrassas into Indonesia.

 

- Obama is not lying to himself. He’s lying to us. He is willing to say things about Islamic terror to foreign leaders that he refuses to say to Americans. -

 

It wasn’t an original critique, but also not one that you hear much in Obama’s circles. When Obama reportedly tells world leaders that there will be 'no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity' and undergoes reforms the way that Christianity did, it’s like suddenly having Khrushchev explain why Communism can’t work and will end up falling apart.

It’s shocking and revealing.

In moments like these we see that Obama knows that he’s lying. And Obama makes the awkward semantics argument because he knows that the existence of Islamic terrorism can’t be debated. When you are reduced to arguing that names don’t matter, it’s because you know that the name is right.

Plenty of leftists lie to themselves about Islamic terrorism. Obama is not lying to himself. He’s lying to us. He is willing to say things about Islamic terror to foreign leaders that he refuses to say to Americans. He can tell them that Islamic terrorism is real and that the only way to stop it is to reform Islam.

And here is where we come back to his question of why naming Islamic terrorism matters. It’s a question that Obama has already answered. You can’t solve a problem until you define it. It may not matter what you call a rose, as long as you know that it’s a plant.

If you don’t know that a rose is a flowering plant that grows out of the ground, then you’ll never figure out how to plant one. If you don’t know that Islamic terrorism is a theological implementation of its core religious identity, you won’t even know what it is you are supposed to be fighting. And you won’t win except through brute force.

We have never defined the problem of Islamic terrorism because that would just be too dangerous.

 

- Telling the truth would no doubt 'offend' Muslims. And the threat of offending Muslims continues to occupy far more branches of our government than fighting Muslim terrorism. -

 

Why is Obama willing to talk about Saudi support for terrorism to the Prime Minister of Australia, but not to Americans? Why does he only suggest reforming Islam to foreign leaders in private?

The official story is that it would 'empower' Islamic terrorists, but that’s a nonsensical claim. ISIS doesn’t derive its legitimacy from whether we call it ISIS, ISIL or Daesh. Nor are Muslims going to determine the theological legitimacy of a Jihadist group based on whether we refer to it as Islamic.  

Telling the truth would no doubt 'offend' Muslims. And the threat of offending Muslims continues to occupy far more branches of our government than fighting Muslim terrorism.

But Obama isn’t really afraid of offending Muslims. If he were, he wouldn’t have provided this little peek into his private meetings at all. Obama isn’t afraid of Muslims, terrorists or otherwise, he’s afraid of Americans.

 

- The real reason that our leaders won’t name the enemy is that they don’t like us and they don’t trust us.-

 

Tell the truth and Americans might suddenly get the naughty idea that instead of waiting for Islam to 'reform', they ought to just deal with the problem at its source with a travel ban. They might decide that extra scrutiny for mosques really is warranted and that airport profiling would save everyone grief.

And, worst of all, they might realize that they have no reason to feel guilty about our foreign policy. If Islamic terrorism exists and is caused by Islam, then America isn’t and was never the problem. That kind of thinking frightens Obama and the left far more than a hundred Orlando terror attacks.

Name the enemy and Americans might suddenly start feeling good about themselves. That outraged confidence which we associate with Pearl Harbor, but that made a brief return after September 11, might come back to stay. Americans would embrace patriotism and pride without doubt or guilt.

That is why Islamic terrorism can’t and won’t be named.

Whatever dislike Obama may harbor for the Islamization of Indonesia, he appears to be far less concerned by it than by the Americanization of America. He may indeed recognize Islamic terrorism to be a threat of some degree, but he views American patriotism as a much bigger threat.

He can give enlightened Atlantic readers a small peek behind the scenes to show them that he recognizes the obvious problem, but he isn’t about to extend that confidence nationwide.

 

- Obama lies to us about Islamic terrorism for the same reason that he lies to us about being able to keep your doctor. -

 

And it’s not just Obama.

The real reason that our leaders won’t name the enemy is that they don’t like us and they don’t trust us. Running through their heads are nightmare scenarios like Brexit and Trump. They see their job as shepherding us away from our 'worst impulses' toward a proper role within the global community.

They are quite capable of recognizing Islamic terrorism for what it is. They may not be terribly bright, but people in their positions have more than enough access to information for the conclusions to be inescapable. But they are determined not to allow Islamic terrorism to disrupt their larger plans for us.

It isn’t another 9/11 or 7/7 that worries them, but a resurgence of nationalism in response to it. That is why they will lie, mislead and even criminalize any dissent. Their response to every Islamic terrorist attack is to make us feel responsible, ashamed and helpless by transforming Muslims into the victims.

For these same reasons they will push mass Muslim migration no matter what the terror risks are. They will champion the hijab, even though they know it harms Muslim women. Why? Because these policies undermine our values and transform our countries. And that is their overriding agenda above all else.

That is what we are up against.

They know that they are lying about Islamic terrorism. It’s why Obama dismisses the subject as mere semantics. But it’s only one of many things that they are lying to us about. Obama lies to us about Islamic terrorism for the same reason that he lies to us about being able to keep your doctor.

He knows the truth, but the truth would interfere with the left’s larger plans to transform America." - Daniel Greenfield

Above article by Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Magazine, June 28, 2016