The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Sharia for Dummies (and Dhimmis)

that’s not the actual title. Sharia-ism
is Here: The Battle to Control Women and Everyone Else
might have been
called that but doubtless Joy Brighton, the author, would have encountered
brand or trademark infringement problems with the publisher of the popular and
successful For Dummies series, John Wiley
& Sons
. I also suspect that Wiley & Sons would have been horrified
by the idea of publishing such an “Islamophobic” book anyway. It has
published Islam
for Dummies
and The
Koran for Dummies
, both of which, to judge by their Amazon
descriptions, are treacly, inoffensive, sanitized guides to a highly “misunderstood”
and “misperceived” religion-cum-ideology.
opus is a generously illustrated and
annotated book
intended as a “show n’ tell book for national security,
civil right and women’s right activists and lobbyists in America.” It is meant
to be read by, and serve as, a handy reference guide for anyone who is aware of
the peril posed by Islam as it is practiced around the world, in the West, and
especially in the U.S., but who really hasn’t digested the scale of the threat
or any of its details. And it isn’t just about Islam’s crusade to control
women. It truly is about Islam’s designs on everyone.
citing the book’s plenitude of virtues, however, there is one issue I must
raise. Page 131, for example, under the heading, “Conversion to Islam or
Sharia-ism in America? How do we help youth understand the difference?” highlights
the conversion percentages of Americans to Islam. At the bottom of the page is
an “Insight Box,” which reads:
How many of these American
Converts have been converted to Islam the religion? How many are knowingly or
unknowingly slowly being converted to Sharia-ism, the political movement of
Radical Islam? How do we help young potential converts understand the difference
and draw the line between Islam and Sharia-ism?
point of disagreement between Sharia-ism
is Here:
The Battle to Control Women
and me is that I do not draw a line
between Islam and what Brighton calls “Sharia-ism.”  Brighton writes in her Introduction:
You are holding in your hands a
chronicle of the surprising inroads that Shariah, the guiding principles of
Radical Islam, has made in America during the critical years of 2008-2013.
Radical Islam, also known as
Political or Sharia Islam, has expanded onto every continent, and with it
Sharia-ism, the political movement of Radical Islam, whose goal of totalitarian
control of every nation and people is incompatible with Western values of
individual liberties and inalienable rights. Sharia-ism is about politics, not
Sharia-ism is about total
control, not simply destruction or terrorism. (p. 6)
of Brighton’s terms, Sharia-ism and Radical Islam, violate Ockham’s Razor of
economy of concepts by arbitrarily divorcing Islam and Sharia. The dichotomy is
fallacious and inadvertently grants Islam an unsought-after epistemological and
ideological victory. Brighton is not the only authority to commit this error. Seen
as a virulent ideology, Islam and Sharia are one and the same. They are inherently
complementary and co-dependent. I do not think Islam, “moderate” or
otherwise, is a benign belief system, because it is fundamentally political,
nihilist, and totalitarian in means and ends. Sharia is Islam, and Islam is
nothing without Sharia. Without the primitive, anti-conceptual, rote-learned
code of Sharia, Islam is little better, and perhaps even worse, than your
random whacky California cult, or Scientology, Wiccanism, or Pyramid-Worship.
were it not an ideology, why have its proponents, spokesmen, and activists
focused so much on its political status? Catholics, Protestants, Jews and
members of other creeds are not waging campaigns to force government,  businesses, and other social organizations to
accommodate their beliefs and practices. The promulgators of Islam, however,
such as CAIR and the various Muslim organizations in this country, seek
accommodations to Islam in virtually every sphere of American life, from
demanding foot baths in various venues (schools, office buildings, airports),
removing “offensive” crucifixes and other non-Islamic religious icons
from classrooms, insisting on halal
restaurant menus, to praying en masse
on public streets, to inveigling their way into government jobs and
way of contrast, I am not aware of a movement in the Catholic Church to compel,
by statute, non-Catholics to genuflect when passing a Catholic church on the
street, or else pay a fine.
perhaps more importantly in the context of politicizing Islam, Catholicism,
Protestantism, Judaism, and other faiths do not campaign to silence critics and
criticism of those faiths. Islam, however, yearns to suppress all criticism of
its practices and tenets. As Brighton herself points out in her book, the term
“Islamophobia” was coined by the Muslim Brotherhood to stigmatize any
and all criticism of Islam, the term implying racial, ethnic, or religious
even were one to portray Islam as a mere patriarchic theocracy, one is still
talking politics, for a theocracy implies the governing moral structure of a
country. Ergo, it is a political system, and specifically a totalitarian one,
because it prescribes the course of one’s life from head to foot, from sunrise
to sunset, in thought, in action, and in one’s social associations.
make no allowances for Islam, or cut it any slack by calling it a
“private” belief system as I might the Catholic or Jewish. Privacy is not Islam’s leitmotif; on the
contrary, it is unabashedly and necessarily public.
Conformance to its bizarre catalogue of dictats is audited. Straying from the
ritualistic and behavioral drill can result in death (e.g., honor killings, and
for apostasy). To refer to “radical Islam” is to commit a redundancy.
Islam is “radical” in the sense that must obviate all other
alternatives and choices, else it is nothing. Force or the threat of force is Sharia’s
telling hand. Islam is Sharia, and vice
non-violent Muslims face a decision: a continuation of their submission to
Islam, or total repudiation, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali decided on. There is no
dignified or respectable “middle ground”; one cannot be half-free and
free at the same time. That is a delusion. See some of my columns on Islam and
its inherently totalitarian and irrational nature here,
and here.
Those objections having been made, Sharia-ism is Here draws on a galaxy of authorities on Islam such
as Nonie Darwish, Steve Emerson, Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan,
Walid Phares, Diana West, and Melanie Phillips, to name but a few whose names
appear in the Acknowledgements and throughout the text.  
are fifteen chapters in the book, under such titles as “What is Sharia-ism
and Shariah Islamic Law?”; “Sharia-ism: Concepts and
Vocabulary”; two chapters, titled “Two-Armed Leadership of
Sharia-ism,” one dealing with Shariah clerics in American mosques and
home-grown radicalization, another with the Muslim Brotherhood network in the
U.S.; “Creeping Sharia-ism,” which exposes the strategy of imposing
Sharia in small steps, which is what we are seeing now; and “Shariah
Lawfare,” which demonstrates how Islamic law is insinuating itself into
the American judicial system on all levels, and not with much resistance from
our courts.
a recent Jihad
article on a legislative initiative in Florida to banish foreign or
Sharia law from the state’s judiciary. It is just one of several initiatives
discussed by Brighton in Chapter 14, “U.S. Representatives and Governors
take action: Congressional Hearings and New State Laws.”)
goal of the “stealth,” cultural jihad
in this country by organizations like CAIR, the Muslim
Lawyers Association
, the Muslim Bar
Association of New York
, and Muslim
, is to persuade, or browbeat, our judiciary into removing the
“foreign” designation from Sharia, and to see it
“integrated” into American law as they are now doing in Britain –
step by stealthy step. A Telegraph (London) article of March 22nd by
John Bingham, “Islamic
law is adopted by British legal chiefs
,” reports:
Islamic law is to be effectively
enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for
solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.
Under ground-breaking guidance,
produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write
Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude
unbelievers altogether. The documents, which would be recognized by Britain’s
courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who
have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.
Anyone married in a church, or in
a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles,
which recognize only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.
how piddly and surreptitious the issues are: Inheritances and wills. Nothing to
worry about. The cases will be handled by the British equivalent of American
family courts or civil law courts handling suits and torts. It’s just some
people fussing and feuding over money and custody. None of our business.
same thing is being attempted here in the U.S. Brighton devotes several pages
to the organization American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).
America has unique values of
liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems; this is particularly true
in regard to Shariah Islamic Law, included among them, but not limited to the
following, are these values and rights: freedom of religion, freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, due process, right to privacy, and the right to keep and
bear arms.
The goal of the American Laws for
American Courts is a clear and unequivocal application of what should be the
goal of all state courts: No U.S. citizen or resident should be denied the
liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed in our constitutional republic.
ALAC is a neutral law. it is
designed to protect the U.S. Constitutional rights of Americans against any
foreign law from any country which challenges their rights. (pp. 224-225)
ALAC-style laws were overturned in a few states because they mentioned Islam or
Sharia. ALAC then created a draft model law that would not be “country,
culture, religion, or ethnic specific.” This model seems to have been
successful in many states, because neither CAIR nor a dhimmified appellate
court could concoct a charge of “Islamophobia” or
“discrimination,” although the unnamed subject is specifically Islam.
hopeful sign is the passage in several states of “anti-libel-tourism”
laws that reject foreign suits against Americans accused of libel. The
Committee to Protect Journalists
features a brief history of those laws,
which stemmed from the suit against Rachel Ehrenfeld for publishing a book in
2003 in the U.S., Funding
Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It
, in which she accused
billionaire Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz of channeling funds to
terrorist groups.  Ehrenfeld was subsequently
sued by Mahfouz in London, but not in the U.S., because the First Amendment
protected her. As a consequence, New York passed the
appropriately named Libel Terrorism Protection Act in May 2008. It refuses to
recognize foreign law, in this instance, Britain’s bizarre defamation statutes,
and in particular suits brought by super-rich Muslims in other countries.  
13, “Failure of U.S. leaders to address the threat of Sharia-ism,” inadvertently
underscores my objection to separating the cream from the milk, that is, making
an erroneous distinction between Islam and Sharia law. Islam is one whole cow.
politicians are fearful of criticizing Islam because it’s a
“religion,” and they don’t wish to be accused of attacking any religion. This prevents them and now
our law-enforcement and intelligence agencies from honestly and effectively addressing
the threat posed by Islam. The redaction of all mention of Islam and Muslims
from FBI training documents, and the recent dissolution of New York City’s
crack mosque and Muslim suspect surveillance program by the new socialist mayor
of New York (at the behest of Muslim “civil rights” activists) simply
blind-sides the country by hamstringing those charged with protecting it from
lengthier review of Joy Brighton’s book would not do justice to it. Her book is
an all-in-one instructive guide to what Islam is, what danger it poses to our
country, and what we have and have not done to combat its corrosive
“cultural jihad” against
this country. It names culprits, and it names courageous individuals who have
sounded the alarm (often to deaf ears), and lists all the rogues and scoundrels.
I think the book is so comprehensive and well done (albeit with my stated
reservations above) that a fund should be started to send free copies of it
every member of Congress, and also to members of the state legislatures.
no vigorish in being a dummy when it comes to betting against Islam. I
recommend Brighton’s book because it can alert Americans to the cards – or
knives – that are regularly hidden up Islam’s sleeve.


Justice Stevens’s Liberty-Destroying Amendments: Part III


Hollywood’s Selective “Islamophobia”


  1. Unknown

    I appreciate you taking the time and thought to write this.
    I respect our differences in understanding. We are fortunate to live in a country with laws that protect free speech and welcomes free political debate. And why, we are both, so committed to exposing this great concern.
    I hope you will try to publish this review elsewhere.
    Please consider writing a brief, honest comment on
    On the whole, we both care deeply about America and the freedoms we hold dear.
    I would love to get this into the hands of Congress. Perhaps a crowd-sourcing campaign? I will think about this.
    Joy Brighton

  2. Edward Cline

    Joy Brighton: Thanks. The review also appeared simultaneously on Capitalism Magazine here:

    and doubtless will be picked up by other sites. Will work on a brief Amazon review.

  3. Village Talkies

    Best Corporate Video Production Company in Bangalore and top Explainer Video Company, 3d, 2d Animation Video Makers in Chennai
    Thanks for sharing the blog, check here my blog on corporate videos

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén