Here are two stories that seem unrelated on the surface but are connected in a very important, and sinister, way.
First, a story from Texas. A Muslim couple were convicted on SLAVERY charges. Their defense?
the prophet Muhammad kept slaves and that punishing them is thus “Islamophobic.”
This would seem to be the logical endgame of the policy of CVE (Obama's policy of 'Countering Violent Extremism') which Stephen Coughlin speaks of with great clarity here and here, as well as the OIC (The Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the United Nations) inspired United Nations resolution 16/18.
What we see is the unmasked proclamation that Western law means nothing to many religious Muslims and that Koran, and the example of the founder of Islam, Mohammed, an example that is one of the most monstrous of all of human history in fact, is the basis for behaviour.
Now we see this, also from this week in Germany:
But as the court proceedings against the defendant began, he dropped a surprise. While he had remained completely silent as to the accusations against him, he broke his silence even before they could be read to him as the court hearing opened: “I admit everything. Don’t need to talk more”, he said while the judge was still trying to verify his personal information. After the reading of the accusations against the defendant, the German-Moroccan man repeated his confession and added: “I killed him because he was an unbeliever.”
One of the eternal questions in politics, I believe, is "at what point do a series of isolated incidents become a statement of policy"?
Examples number far far more than two. But these ones are especially interesting as they are sworn statements in Western courts. If one adds the testimony of US army major and psychiatrist, Nidal Hassan, (please see video at bottom of post) at least the bits we are allowed to see, we get a much clearer picture as well. Sharia law is what they enforce and obey. And it doesn't make much difference what we think of it.
If we wish to retain rule of law and the use of evidence and truth as a defense, if we wish to have a system that affords the presumption of innocence and the same rules for people of all faiths and ethnicities, we had better deeply consider the number of people who would implement this system we permit into our lands.
We can see the results of not doing so in any country ruled by the sharia, where anyone can be accused of a thought crime such as "disbelief," "apostasy," "sorcery," etc. and with lethal consequences, and most importantly, a fully irrational and often unrelated-to-the-charge, legal procedure designed to eliminate those who are seen to not promote Islam as the supreme and ultimate modus operandi in all things.
Stephen Coughlin explains the CVE
Part II here
FOX News on Nidal Hassan's statement in court as to his motives for the mass killings at Fort Hood