Sharia Marches on in Florida and New York

Just like in Missouri and California. It’s a coordinated attack in the U.S. by Muslims.

Source: Articles: Shariah Marches on in Florida and New York

On Friday, October 21st, the Miami, FL, Commission; the Monroe County, NY, Legislature; the Rochester, NY, Board of Education; and the Rochester, NY, City Council announced proclamations condemning hate speech against Muslims.  These proclamations define neither hate speech nor the person or persons who will decide what constitutes hate speech.  Far from benign calls to let peaceful Muslims go about their lives and prayers in peace, these proclamations represent a step towards elevating Shariah (Islamic law) over the Frist [sic, First] Amendment.

Why do I make this claim?  Backtrack to 2012 and the aftermath of Benghazi, when President Obama told the UN, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”  The subtext of this statement was lost amidst several nods by Obama to the First Amendment later in his speech.  The subtext was this: slander in Shariah is not telling lies that hurt someone’s reputation; rather, slander in Shariah is telling a truth or a lie which someone doesn’t want to be told.  Slander in Shariah is thus defined by what the potentially aggrieved party wants or doesn’t want to hear, not by evidence.

For evidence of this, see Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.  On page 730 of the English translation of this law manual – – which has been endorsed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Al-Azhar University, the premier authority in Sunni Islam – – slander is defined as follows: “to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him.”

Continue reading

Michigan Township Defies Feds: ‘Will Not Actively Participate in the Refugee Resettlement Program’

Will they passively accept Muslim “refugees” being forced into their township? Source: Michigan Township Defies Feds: ‘Will Not Actively Participate in the Refugee Resettlement Program’ – Breitbart

Waterford Township trustees in Oakland County, Michigan, passed a resolution on Monday telling the federal government not to resettle any refugees, including those from Syria, within the township’s boundaries, until the program “has been significantly reformed.”

The vote was unanimous, seven to zero.

The resolution stated: “[T]he Charter Township of Waterford will not actively participate in the Refugee Resettlement Program until the Program has been significantly reformed, and until it has been demonstrated that the Townships of Oakland County have the capacity to absorb refugees without diverting funds from needy residents or exposing their residents to unwarranted security risks.”

Waterford Township has a population of 72,000 and is located in the geographic center of Oakland County, population 1.2 million, a suburban Detroit county.

The resolution passed just hours before the Thomas More Law Center announced on Tuesday that it has been selected to represent Tennessee it its lawsuit against the federal government on Tenth Amendment grounds over the operation of the refugee resettlement program by the federal government in the Volunteer State.

It also indicates further legal trouble ahead for the federal government in Oakland County, Michigan, where County Executive L. Brooks Patterson has said he intends to sue the federal government for resettling refugees in the county while failing to comply with the “consultation clause” of the Refugee Act of 1980 that requires the federal to government and the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to consult with state and local government officials prior to the placement of refugees within their jurisdictions.

The full resolution reads:


WHEREAS: Refugees are placed in Michigan through the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program, a federal taxpayer funded program that contracts with vendor agencies to coordinate placements and welfare benefits for refugee families coming into our country, and

WHEREAS: State records show that federal vendors operating in Michigan have requested a total of at least 4060 refugees be settled into Michigan in FY 2016, and

WHEREAS: President Barack Obama has called for the resettling of at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States this fiscal year, and

WHEREAS: Federal vendors have, thus far this fiscal year, resettled more Syrian refugees in Michigan than any other state; Oakland County is a focus area for resettlement; and the arrival numbers are expected to surge dramatically given the federal vendors’ preparations, and

WHEREAS: The FBI and other homeland security agencies have testified before Congress that refugees from failed states such as Syria cannot be adequately vetted to ensure that they do not have terrorist ties because the necessary records do not exist, and

WHEREAS: Intelligence officials have testified before Congress that terrorists are seeking to use the program to enter the United States, and

WHEREAS: Federal immigration law requires that local governments be consulted prior to placement of refugees in their communities and that they be involved in defining their local capacity for refugee placements, and

WHEREAS: Federal reports indicate that there continue to be major gaps in communication between federal vendors and local governments and schools prior to the placement of refugees, and

WHEREAS: The Refugee Resettlement process creates significant unfunded financial burdens for receiving states, counties and local communities to provide public assistance to meet refugee needs for schools, law enforcement, housing and health care, etc., and

WHEREAS: There is pending federal and state legislation to reform the Refugee Resettlement Program requiring federal vendors to operate with more transparency, to more fully involve local governments in placement decisions, and to report to the state police all situations which could be related to security risks or human trafficking events,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Charter Township of Waterford will not actively participate in the Refugee Resettlement Program until the Program has been significantly reformed, and until it has been demonstrated that the Townships of Oakland County have the capacity to absorb refugees without diverting funds from needy residents or exposing their residents to unwarranted security risks.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be provided to all elected county, state and federal officials representing the Charter Township of Waterford.

“The resolution, which has been pushed by the Oakland County Association of Township Supervisors, states that the federal Refugee Resettlement Program creates significant financial burdens for communities to meet the needs of the refugees, WWJ, the local CBS television affiliate in Detroit, reported.

Under the Refugee Act of 1980, state and local governments have standing to sue the federal government for failure to comply with the “coordination clause” of the act.

To date, only two states, Alabama and Texas, have sued the federal government for violation of the Refugee Act of 1980. Both suits lost in federal district court, but are on appeal.

No local governments have yet sued the federal government for its failure to comply with the consultation clause of the Refugee Act of 1980.

The Tennessee lawsuit has not yet been filed, but it is anticipated to be in court within the next few months.

Michigan: Two brothers convert to Islam, arrested plotting terrorist attacks in Tunisia

Tunisia, where Obama and Hillary Clinton started the Arab Spring/Winter/Summer/Fall.


Source:  Brothers From Michigan Arrested in Tunisia in Terrorism Probe

TUNIS, Tunisia — Two American brothers have been arrested in Tunisia on suspicion of belonging to a terrorist organization, two local sources told NBC News.

A senior police official said the brothers were both aged in their 30s and originally from Michigan. A source in the governor’s office also confirmed the arrests.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the police source said one of the men was carrying a U.S. passport that identified him as Patrick Alan Lawwill. NBC News has seen a photocopy of the passport, which was apparently issued in July 2015 and lists Lawwill’s place of birth as Michigan.

Police were not able to provide a copy of the second suspect’s documents.

A State Department official said it was aware of reports the pair had been arrested “on suspicion of terrorist activities” but declined to comment further because of “privacy considerations.”

The brothers were arrested in the northwestern city of Jendouba on Tuesday, according to the local police source.

The pair had recently converted from Christianity to Islam and one of them was married to a Tunisian woman who was also arrested, the source said.

The brothers, who both wore beards and traditional clothing, were reported to authorities by locals who said they were “behaving suspiciously,” the source added.

Another official in the local governor’s office, also speaking anonymously, told NBC News that the pair came to study in the University of Jendouba two weeks ago.

Officials who raided the encampment where they were staying found material relating to hardline Islamic law and jihad, according to the governor’s office source.

More via Michigan Brothers Named in Connection With Jendouba Terror Charges

One of the American brothers arrested in northern Tunisia in connection with terrorism charges is understood to be 31 year old Patrick Alan Lawwill, from Lansing, Michigan. Lawwill was arrested along with his brother, understood to be a 32 year old named Nathan.

Working in partnership with the Lansing State Journal, a daily newspaper in Michigan’s capital, Tunisia Live has discovered that both brothers appear to have lengthy criminal records, including charges of domestic violence and,  in one instance, indications of mental health issues.

Lawwill and his brother were detained by Tunisian authorities Tuesday morning  after they were found plotting terror attacks from an encampment in Zawha City. The brothers have been staying in the greater Tunis area for about a year, Jawhara FM reports, but recently moved to Jendouba on October 23. According to police, the brothers had been in contact with international terror groups via social media.

Police described the brothers as having been found unwashed, with long beards, and living in poor conditions in an encampment near the University of Jendouba.

While the brothers claimed to have been studying computer science at the University of Jendouba, sources at the local police station said they were not enrolled at the University and that this was likely a cover.

Police were tipped off by locals, suspicious of the men’s activities and discovered jihadist content on the brother’s personal laptops and plans to build explosives.

In the company of a translator, the brothers told authorities that they had recently converted to Islam, and wanted to introduce Shariah law throughout the country. They also had stamps from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on their passports.

One of the brothers is said to have entered into an Urfi, (religious rather than legal) marriage with a Tunisian girl from Borj Louzir, Ariana. She was arrested in Lafeyette, Tunis Tuesday afternoon.

According to local police in Jendouba, the brothers will be transferred to a judicial division in Tunis.

A spokesperson for the U.S. embassy speaking to Tunisia Live yesterday declined to comment on the developing story.


Virginia: 2 Somali Women Convicted for Funding al-Shabaab Terrorists

The title should read “Two More Somali Women” as at least two others have been convicted in the U.S. All are Muslim. Source: Two Women Found Guilty of Providing Material Support to Terrorists | USAO-EDVA | Department of Justice

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Two women were convicted today of terrorism crimes related to their material support of al-Shabaab, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Muna Osman Jama, 36, of Reston, and Hinda Osman Dhirane, 46, of Kent, Washington, were found guilty of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, and providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization after a bench trial in front of U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

In addition to money they transferred in direct support of al-Shabaab, these subjects recruited, solicited, and advised an online group located in multiple countries as to how and where to transfer funds to this terrorist organization,” said Paul M. Abbate, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. “In coordination of the group, these subjects would then track and facilitate donations to ensure the money was received by their co-conspirators located in Nairobi and Somaliland. Today’s guilty verdicts send a message that facilitation of financial support to a designated terrorist organization equates to terrorist activity itself.”

According to court records and evidence presented at trial, Jama and Dhirane sent money to financiers of al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya, which they referred to respectively as the “Hargeisa side” and the “Nairobi side.”  The defendants also organized what was called a “Group of Fifteen,” which included women from Somalia, Kenya, Egypt, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as well as Minneapolis, Minnesota.  The “Group of Fifteen” met regularly in a private chatroom that Jama established to organize and track monthly payment of money to the “Hargeisa side,” which was used to finance al-Shabaab military operations in the Golis Mountains in northern Somalia, and the “Nairobi side,” which was used to fund two al-Shabaab safehouses.  One of the safehouses was used by al-Shabaab to store weapons and to prepare for attacks.  The other was used to treat al-Shabaab fighters who had been wounded in battle. 

A substantial part of the government’s case consisted of recorded telephone calls and other communications among the “Group of Fifteen.”  These recordings demonstrated that the women had close connections with al-Shabaab leadership and were privy to non-public, inside information concerning al-Shabaab activities.  Jama and Dhirane were recorded as they laughed as the carnage at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi was still taking place.  Dhirane and co-conspirator were also recorded as they laughed at the Boston Marathon Bombing before it became known who committed the attack. 

Jama and Dhirane each face a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison when sentenced on January 19, 2017.  The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:14-cr-230.

Unlike many other terrorist cases, there are no photos of the convicted terrorists? Why is that? Just one old court sketch of Hinda Osman Dhirane. And why didn’t the DOJ or media provide their immigration status? If they are refugees why isn’t deportation an option?

At least three other Muslim women were arrested as part of the jihadi funding scheme – no word on the others.


A court sketch of Hinda Osman Dhirane

Sweden Bans Christmas Street Lights, To Avoid Offending Muslims

Islam means submission. Source: Sweden Bans Christmas Street Lights; To Avoid Offending Muslim Migrants?

Towns across Sweden have banned Christmas street lights in the name of “security,” but the real reason is almost certainly because the country has completely capitulated to Islam after importing countless Muslim migrants over the last two years.

According to an SVT report, The Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) will not allow municipalities to erect Christmas street lights on light poles that the authority manages, meaning that many towns will have no festival lights at all on major streets.

According to Speisa, “The change is a victory for those who want to tone down the reminder of the country’s Christian traditions, but according to the Swedish Transport Administration, the decision for the drastic change is “security”.

“Poles are not designed for the weight of Christmas lights, and we have to remove anything that should not be there,” said Eilin Isaksson, national coordinator at the Swedish Transport Administration.

The argument that the lights are too heavy and pose a safety risk sounds like complete baloney.

Swedes are being asked to believe that lights normally held up by tree branches are now too weighty to be supported by metal poles.

Despite there being no safety issue with the street lights for decades, this new rule has been instituted right after record numbers of Muslim migrants flooded into the country – just a coincidence I’m sure.

In reality, the Christmas lights ban is almost certainly an effort to avoid offending Muslim migrants who are causing chaos in cities like Malmo, where the firebombing of cars and businesses in or near Muslim ghetto ‘no-go areas’ is becoming a routine occurrence.

As we previously reported, a top Swedish Bishop advocated removing crosses from a Christian church and replacing them with Islamic symbols in order to please Muslims.

Last Christmas, it was also announced that a Christmas Eve special broadcast on public television would be hosted by a Muslim woman.

Some areas of Sweden are even capitulating to returning ISIS terrorists by offering jihadists free driving licenses and housing benefits to help them “reintegrate into the job market”.

Michigan: County to Pay $197k for Violating Christians’ Rights, Defending Violent Muslim Mobs

I.e., enforcing sharia. To our knowledge, not one of the violent Muslim attackers was arrested or charged.

Source: Judgment Entered Against Wayne County Sheriffs for Violating Christians’ Free Speech Rights | American Freedom Law Center

Detroit, Michigan (September 28, 2016) — Today, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered final judgment in favor of a group of Christian evangelists who were violently attacked by a hostile Muslim mob while preaching at the Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan in 2012.

The case, Bible Believers v. Wayne County, was brought by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of the Christians.  As a result of this judgment, Wayne County agreed to pay $197,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

This judgment brings to a conclusion the lengthy and hard fought litigation in this matter—litigation which included a full court (en banc) review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On October 28, 2015, a majority of the full court of the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the Christians.  The en banc court completely reversed a lower court decision which ruled in favor of Wayne County and officials from the County Sheriff’s Office who silenced the Christians’ speech in response to the hostile mob’s reaction.

Previously, however, on August 27, 2014, a divided, three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit dismissed the civil rights lawsuit, finding that the violent response of the Muslim hecklers justified the Wayne County sheriffs’ order to the Christians that they would be arrested for disorderly conduct if they did not leave the festival area.

Within days of receiving the adverse ruling, AFLC filed a petition for rehearing en banc, requesting full court review.  On October 23, 2014, the court granted the petition and vacated the panel decision.  Oral argument before the full court was held on March 4, 2015, in Cincinnati, Ohio.

On October 28, 2015, the Sixth Circuit (en banc) ruled in favor of the Christians, completely reversing the lower court opinion.

In its decision, which was made final today by the entry of judgment in the district court, the Sixth Circuit ruled, among other things, that two Deputy Chief defendants from the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office were liable for violating the Christians’ First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion and for depriving the Christians of the equal protection of the law.  The court ruled that these individual defendants did not enjoy qualified immunity.

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert J. Muise commented,

“This decision was a major victory for the Constitution and for all freedom-loving Americans.  It affirms that the First Amendment protects speech critical of Islam and that when the government seeks to suppress such speech by enforcing a heckler’s veto that favors the violent Muslim mob over the free speech rights of Christians, the government will pay dearly for this egregious violation of the Constitution.”

For a glimpse of what is being imported into America and the literal battles that your children and theirs will be fighting in the streets of America in the near future, watch how mobs of Muslims of all ages – boys and girls, men and women – attack Americans exercising their rights in Michigan: 

Video: Protesters Assaulted, Stoned by Muslims in Michigan (click to view)


California: Mosque Uses Lawsuit to Abolish Zoning Power of Small Rural Community


We refer to this on Creeping Sharia as the “zoning jihad” and there are dozens of examples across the U.S. Read our previous coverage of the San Martin imposition here, here and here. The article below adds important additional details.

Source: American Thinker: Mosque Uses Lawsuit to Abolish Zoning Power of Small California Community

By Georgine Scott-Codiga

In a small rural area of Santa Clara County California lies a geographically unique area of land called San Martin, close to, but not of, Silicon Valley.

In 1981 the Board of Supervisors established the San Martin Planning Advisory Committee (SMPAC), the only entity of its kind in the county, to give local residents and land owners a voice in decisions affecting San Martin.  Members were appointed by the Board of Supervisors to review interim land use policies, the San Martin Water Quality Study, and to make recommendation to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on land use matters of interest to the San Martin Community.197349_5_

Special care was taken to protect these unique rural agricultural areas, rich in important resources, agriculture, mineral deposits, forests, and wildlife.  Two years later the Board adopted ‘Special Area Plans’ to its General Plan.  These policies limited overall growth and development in rural areas limiting them to non-urban low-density uses that supported the needs of the local community.  The Plan sought to minimize the demand for public services (i.e. roads, Sheriff, postal, crime, graffiti control, etc.) and the cost to the general public for providing and maintaining these undeveloped rural areas.

In 2006, the South Valley Islamic Center proposed to build Cordoba Center (Cordoba) in the San Martin planning area.  In 2011 Cordoba’s project description proposed a 5,000 sq. ft. mosque, 5,000 sq. ft. multipurpose hall, 1-2 covered patios for group picnic, bathrooms for picnic/retreat area.


The tight knit community of San Martin rallied together rejecting the project. They commented at numerous public meetings how the project was too large; unsustainable environmentally; uncharacteristic to San Martin; and that it violated the longtime ‘Local-Serving’ ordinances implemented decades earlier.  Traditional Muslim beliefs forbid non-Muslims from being buried in their cemeteries and since less than 1/10th of 1% of the local residents are Muslim, Cordoba wasn’t considered to be of a ‘Local-Serving’ nature to the community.

Cordoba’s documents were scrutinized.  Previous owners of Cordoba’s parcels had abandoned building permits due to failed percolation tests.  Decades of observations by residents attested to flooding on the property and reported reverse direction of water flow, contradicting reports in Cordoba’s documents.

Cordoba’s application was on the heels of the San Martin perchlorate contamination. The Olin Corp. had improperly dumped toxic chemicals into the soil polluting hundreds of San Martin wells, forcing residents to rely on bottled water for years, some still doing so.  This made the safety of the residents’ drinking water a priority when questioning Cordoba’s septic system and proposed ‘green’ cemetery.  Almost all of San Martin residents rely on well water as their only source of drinking water.  With no city water company or piped in water available, understandably, water is a major concern.

Muslim custom is to bury their dead directly into the ground without caskets or embalming.   “Green” or natural cemeteries started popping up in the U.S. in 2007.  A fairly recent addition, and with all neighboring entities to current green cemeteries having piped in city water available to them, there aren’t any studies on the effects of green burials (i.e, decaying bodies directly exposed to the soil) on nearby wells.  Understandably, San Martin residents, demanded studies showing Cordoba’s proposed cemetery would be safe to their drinking water.  To date, no studies have been provided.

In 2012, the County somehow excused Cordoba from obtaining an Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.), allowing them to go forward with only a Mitigated Negative Declaration.  A Negative Declaration is a document that states upon completion of an initial study that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.   In contrast, an E.I.R. is an informational document that informs the public agency/public of significant environmental effects of a project, possible ways to minimize them and reasonable alternatives.

Local residents, noting the County’s willful desertion of its duty to protect and enforce the ordinances enacted to preserve their ‘Special Area’, filed a lawsuit against the County and Cordoba.  The lawsuit resulted in Cordoba withdrawing its application, and executing a settlement agreement mandating it obtain an E.I.R. if they refiled.

Cordoba, apparently not willing to build anywhere else; i.e. in an urban area of the County devoid of numerous ‘Special Area’ ordinances or other restrictions on noise, traffic, septic, building design, etc., instead threatened to sue the County for violating federal RLUIPA law (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act).   Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: