Only muslims can be truly islamophobic
To understand BBC's bigoted and hypocritical islam presenter Mishal Husain a short tutorial in muslim taqiya may be necessary
When the muslim taqiya organization Quilliam (sponsored by infidel taxpayers) pretend to criticize "extremist" islam they completely and purposefully miss the very worst one, Saudi Arabia!
Quilliam: 'Countries such as Sudan, Pakistan and more recently Brunei are increasingly lurching towards archaic and inane interpretations of Sharia and applying laws that undermine basic human rights and equality. This not only puts them at odds with the modern world, it puts them at odds with the trajectory progressive Muslim thinkers and reformists have been travelling in for the last 200 years.'
Klevius comment: In the lengthy rambling of the full article the word 'Saudi' is completely missing. Why?
Make no mistake - Quilliam is all for Human Rights violating Sharia. But what about Mishal Husain?! Why doesn't she openly say she supports Sharia (and thereby opposes the most basic of Human Rights) or, alternatively comes out as an apostate?!
Do note that Quilliam doesn't accuse Saudi Arabia as a nation as it accuses Pakistan, Sudan, Brunei etc. In the case of Saudi Arabia it's only the 'Saudi extremists' which are targeted. Also note that Saudi Arabia considers as 'extremists' and 'terrorists' individuals and groups which don't comply with Sharia.
Maajid Nawaz and Ghaffar Hussain of Qulliam Taqiya -
The pseudo-moderate and extremely disingenuous Quilliam Foundation
Atlasshrugs: His association with the Quilliam Foundation was and is problematic. The Quilliam Foundation’s anti-Israel stance and its unjustified attacks on counter-jihadists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders abundantly establish that it is not what it claims to be - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2013/10/tommy-robinson-vs-mo.html/#sthash.ApePLjOj.dpuf
Klevius: The following excerpt, with due comments by Klevius, reveals that Quilliam has been forced by Klevius to seemingly retreat from OIC's Sharia declaration. However, before late 2012 there seems to have been no such worries at Quilliam despite the fact that Klevius as well as some others for many years before that have strongly criticized it. But there is an important distinction to be made. Only Klevius has focused his criticism on sex segregation (rapetivism) from an Atheist (i.e. without muddled references to some "god") standpoint connected to the idea of universal equality no matter of beliefs or sex. Moreover, only Klevius has then followed up this criticism by connecting it to history (not so called "islam studies") and the fact that to be able to accept islam today it has to be castrated to an extent that entirely disconnects it from its evil historical origin. However, this revoking of islam and Mohammed would also remove it of its allure - which fact makes the Quilliam clowns (and others) either taqiya players or apostates.
Maajid Nawaz and Ghaffar Hussain of Qulliam:The so-called "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam," issued by Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Foreign Ministers in 1990, contains the following clauses:
"Article 10: Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism."
"Article 22(a): Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shar'iah."
"Article 25: The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration."
The last two articles of this bizarre and highly-politicized declaration, allow Muslim-majority countries to violate the UDHR by invoking the Sharia as though there was a unified version of it.
Klevius: '
by invoking the Sharia as though there was a unified version of it'?! What has this to do with Human Rights? Every Sharia worth its name is per islamic definition a violation of Human Rights.
Not only is there no single interpretation of Sharia, but certain Muslim-majority countries seem adamant on re-invigorating some of the most regressive and outmoded interpretations of it in an almost defiant and aggressive manner.
Klevius: Some serious bug in the heads of these muslim clowns. If there is '
no single interpretation of Sharia' how could one then avoid '
the most regressive and outmoded interpretations of it'?! No, these guys can't be that stupid, can they - or do they play taqiya.
This lurch towards medievalism is largely driven by the global Islamist movement, which was born in 1928 when the Muslim Brotherhood was established, and gained real momentum after the Iranian revolution in 1979.
Klevius: This seems as a defense ordered from and for Riyadh against MB and an attack on Tehran.
It is time for the Cairo Declaration to be revoked and for the Muslim human rights discourse to catch up with, and contribute as an equal partner to, modern international human rights discourse.
Klevius: The Cairo Declaration has been burning for years on Klevius' blogs. However, '
for the Muslim human rights discourse to catch up with, and contribute
as an equal partner to modern international human rights discourse' seems to be no solution but just a continuous islamic avoidance to fully comply with the very simple (and impossible to criticize) idea of universal equality.
Ali Sina exposes the lies behind Qulliam and Ansar’s charadehttp://pamelageller.com/2013/10/tommy-robinson-vs-mo.html/
Taqiyah Is Onion Shaped
Ali Sina: Who has not heard of taqiyah? But did you know that it is onion shaped? It is an Arabic word and it means dissimulation. Another word used synonymously is kitman, which means concealment.
This concealment has many layers. The most common form of taqiyah is when Muslims deny that certain Islamic behaviors have anything to do with Islam.
On October 27, the BBC aired a documentary in which Mo Ansar, a Muslim activist in UK, was shown addressing a group of English Defense League members. He wanted to meet them in order to dispel their misunderstandings of Islam and to prove that Islam poses no threat to their country and their way of life. How could he do that when Islam’s goal is to become dominant over all religions and nations? Well, he did it like any Muslim would do. He lied. (Mo’s speech to EDL is at minute 10).
Mo starts by saying “as somebody who was born in this country and is British, I think I uphold British values. I am also a Muslim. Islam is not here to take over the country. Islam is not here to take over the world. That is not the Islam that I know. Islam that I know is one that believes in co-existence and honors and respects British values.”
Nothing can be further from the truth. The British and Islamic values are diametrically opposed. They cannot co-exist. The British values are based on democracy. Democracy implies equality. Iranian Journalist Amir Taheri says, “Equality is unacceptable in Islam. Un-believers cannot be equal to believers and women are not equal to men. Even the non-Muslims are not deemed to be equal. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are accepted as second class citizens and allowed to live in an Islamic state provided they pay the protection tax; Jizyah. But the pagans, atheists and idolaters are not regarded as fully humans. According to the Quran, the idolaters are to be killed wherever they are found.” (9:5)
Maajid claims to be a Muslim who rejects the Sharia. He is not alone. There are a few more in Canada and USA who make such claim. Among them are, Tarik Fatah, Irshad Manji, Zuhdi Yaser, just to name a few. Can these people be trusted? Can a Muslim reject any part of the Quran?
We have to understand that there is a big difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism. Muslims believe that the Quran is the verbatim word of God. Jews and Christians believe their sacred texts were written by humans who were inspired by God. This is a crucial distinction. So while a Jew or a Christian can reject an outdated part of his scripture as the error of its authors, a Muslim does not have that luxury. Muslims can’t pick and choose. Allah in the Quran asserts, “Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.” (Q.5:3). How can one add or subtract to what God has perfected? That idea is preposterous to Muslims.
Another verse says, “Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection? They will be consigned to most grievous suffering. For God is not unmindful of what you do.” (Q.2:85)
It is unlikely that Maajid and his fellow so called moderate Muslims don’t know this. So how can they call themselves Muslim and reject the clear laws of the Quran? They are playing another layer of taqiyah. Their goal is not to reform Islam, something they know is impossible, but to buy legitimacy and more time for it until they become the majority and take over the world. I sounded the clarion about the danger of Islam 16 years ago, and now I warn you again that these so called moderates are wolves in sheep clothing. Don’t fear the terrorists. Fear the enemy within.
Muslims are allowed to reject part or all of Islam and even malign their prophet in order to deceive their victims.
In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.
100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man,
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman,
50,000 riyals if a Christian man,
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman,
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man,
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.
According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and the Sharia. How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?
This is not a quirk of Saudi Arabia. The prophet of Islam advised Muslims not to aid non-Muslims to seek justice if they are abused by a Muslim. In his much celebrated edict of Medina, he declared, “A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.” The same document states, “Whoever is convicted of killing a believer… the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.”
The Quran 3:28 prohibits Muslims to take non-Muslims as their leaders, or even as friends. If Muslims tell the truth about their hostile intention, they will be kicked out from the countries that they intend to overtake. The same verse allows them to lie, “by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them.”
Co-existence? Yes there is co-existence in Islam, but only if the non-Muslims are reduced into dhimmis, and accept to pay tributes to Muslims while feeling themselves humiliated and subdued. (Q. 9:29)
One characteristic of democracy is freedom of belief. This is utterly alien to Islam. The Quran 3: 85 says, “whoso desires another religion than Islam it shall not be accepted of him.” The punishment of apostasy in Islam is death. No Islamic country allows its Muslim citizens to change their religion.
Mo also assured his audience that Islam is not here to take over the world. He lied. People often make the mistake of comparing Islam to Christianity and other faiths. All religions are personal. They are about enlightenment or relationship with God. Islam is about world domination. The focus of Islam is on expansion. A hadith narrated by Bukhari (4: 53: 386) makes this clear. It says that when Umar sent Muslim army to Persia, “the representative of Khosrau came out with 40,000 warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al-Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al-Mughira replied, “We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life. We used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”
The order to fight till the non-Muslims worship Allah has not changed. Muslims will not abandon their quest for domination until they succeed or they are defeated. They have no choice in this. They are programmed to spread Islam through deception or war. They can’t be a Muslim and not advance their religion. The obligation to spread Islam is on every Muslim. But we e have the choice. We can submit, or fight back and defeat them. But how can we do that if we are not even aware that we are under attack? Taqiyah is what Muslims do to keep us in the sedated state.
Muhammad said al Islamo deenun va dawlah, (Islam is religion and state). The goal of Islam is to take over the world and establish a world caliphate. Without this goal Islam becomes meaningless. The whole idea of jihad, which is an obligation on every Muslim, is to expand the Islamic domain. It is also said that the bigger jihad is the struggle against one’s self. This is a lie too. Many scholars of Islam have refuted this as an innovation, something that was never said by Muhammad.
Jihad is through war, through financing the war (zakat) and through deception. The disagreement between Muslims is not in whether the west should become Islamic or not, but in whether it should be annexed through qital (fighting) or through taqiyah (deceiving).
The Quran 9:33 says, Allah will cause Islam to prevail over all religions. One does not have to read the history of Islamic conquest and oppression of their vanquished nations throughout the last 1400 years to know Muslims have no regards for the human rights of the non-Muslims. A look at how the minorities are treated in Muslim majority countries in the 21st century can make that point clear.
When Muslims become the majority, they deny the minorities any participation in political life. No non-Muslim is allowed to run for the head of any Islamic country and where they are allowed to become a member of parliament, it is only as a representative of their people. They are like ambassadors of their co-religionists in the Islamic state. They have no role in how the country should be run, but only as a liaison between the state and their co-religionists who are regarded as second class citizens.
Some of the EDL members expressed their concerned about their daughters who had to married to Muslims and brainwash to cut their ties with their family. Mo Ansar responded with more lies. He said, “If there are girls who have converted to Islam and are told you cannot meet your family; if that happens, I’d say now clearly, that it is not allowed in Islam.”
Mo should know that Muhammad ordered his daughter Zeinab to leave her unbelieving husband Abul As, until he was forced to convert. He told his followers to cut their ties with their families and to emigrate from Mecca. These stories are all recorded in the Sira.
Everything Mo said in that meeting was a lie. Of course he is not an ignorant Muslim. He just considered that in that gathering lying was more beneficial that telling the truth and that too is acceptable in Islam.
Muslims are permitted to lie even under oath to promote Islam and when the necessity justifies it. All they have to do for expiation of lying under oath is to feed someone or fast for three days (Q. 5:89). The Quran also says, “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.” (Q. 2:225). So if the intent is to advance Islam all lies are permissible.
Imam Ghazzali (1058-1111), arguably the greatest Islamic scholar noted, “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If praise worthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”
Mo’s deception had no bounds. He even went as far as saying “I have been fighting for gay rights for 15 years. Many people are surprised by that.” If it were true, it would be very surprising. But it is not true. In at least five places the Quran condemns homosexuality in the severest term and in 4:16, it says, punish them both, unless they repent and amend.
Mo’s audience however, was not fooled. One person noted, “He is just pandering to the audience, saying things he thinks the audience likes to hear. He thinks we are all dimwits.”
Was Mo Ansar really sincere? In the same documentary, (minutes 25) when Tommy Robinson said, there are certain verses in the Quran that glorify murder, rape and slavery and suggested that these verses should be phased out, Mo blamed the lack of understanding of the Quran and not the Quran itself. How can “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, let them find harshness in you,” or beat your wife if you fear she is thinking of disobeying you” can be interpreted in any other way? The Quran is a book of hate and violence. Mo knows it, but he hides the truth.
Mo’s insincerity was put to the litmus test by a fellow Muslim, Maajid Nawaaz, who asked him whether he agreed with the Quranic law of chopping the limbs of a thief and other barbaric laws such as stoning. Mo first tried to play taqiyah and said he wouldn’t, but when pressed, he began stuttering and tried to evade the answer by saying he would seek the consensus of the ulama. It became clear that he was lying all along. He would not go against any of the teachings of the Quran, even when they are all barbaric and inhumane.
What about Maajid Nawaaz? He had no problem saying some of the teachings of the Quran are morally reprehensiblec. This is quite a statement for a Muslim. Is he sincere? Maajid is the chairman of Quilliam Foundation, a self-styled organization that claims to counter Islamic extremism.
He was a recruiter of Hizbul Tahrir, a terrorist organization, and an advocate for Islamic caliphate for 13 years. He says that he was reformed while serving a five years jail sentence in Egypt for his political activities. Now he claims that he rejects extremism and is a moderate Muslim.
Taqiyah is like an onion. One layer hides another layer, which hides yet another layer and so on and so forth. There is nothing surprising for a Muslim to realize Islam is not compatible with our time and leave it. I made the transition myself and have helped thousands to do it. However, those who come to see the truth, leave Islam. They don’t go around promoting a moderate version of Islam. There is no such thing. You either accept the inhuman and backward teachings of Islam or you don’t accept Islam at all.
Maajid claims to be a Muslim who rejects the Sharia. He is not alone. There are a few more in Canada and USA who make such claim. Among them are, Tarik Fatah, Irshad Manji, Zuhdi Yaser, just to name a few. Can these people be trusted? Can a Muslim reject any part of the Quran?
We have to understand that there is a big difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism. Muslims believe that the Quran is the verbatim word of God. Jews and Christians believe their sacred texts were written by humans who were inspired by God. This is a crucial distinction. So while a Jew or a Christian can reject an outdated part of his scripture as the error of its authors, a Muslim does not have that luxury. Muslims can’t pick and choose. Allah in the Quran asserts, “Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.” (Q.5:3). How can one add or subtract to what God has perfected? That idea is preposterous to Muslims.
Another verse says, “Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection? They will be consigned to most grievous suffering. For God is not unmindful of what you do.” (Q.2:85)
It is unlikely that Maajid and his fellow so called moderate Muslims don’t know this. So how can they call themselves Muslim and reject the clear laws of the Quran? They are playing another layer of taqiyah. Their goal is not to reform Islam, something they know is impossible, but to buy legitimacy and more time for it until they become the majority and take over the world. I sounded the clarion about the danger of Islam 16 years ago, and now I warn you again that these so called moderates are wolves in sheep clothing. Don’t fear the terrorists. Fear the enemy within.
Muslims are allowed to reject part or all of Islam and even malign their prophet in order to deceive their victims. Bukhari 5:59: 369 narrates that in Medina there was a young handsome man, a leader of the Jewish tribe of Bani Nadir, by the name of Ka’b ibn Ashraf. After Muhammad banished their sister tribe of Bani Qainuqa from the city, Ka’b went to Mecca seeking protection from the Quraish. When Muhammad heard the news he went on his pulpit and said, “who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands alms from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.”
The story goes on to say how ibn Maslama deceived Ka’b by badmouthing his prophet and when Ka’b trusted him, he and other Muslims, among them Ka’b’s own foster brother who had converted to Islam stabbed him to death. By denouncing the Quran, Maajid is not doing anything unIslamic. He is taking his deception to a higher level.
The deception has paid off handsomely. Instead of serving time in jail Maajid now shakes hands of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, is a chairman of a respectable foundation, and has run for MP in UK. He is far more effective in destroy the western civilization from within, through taqiyah than by placing bombs in buildings and busses.
Could I be mistaken? Have I come to a hasty decision? I invite Maajid Nawaaz to show my error and prove to the world that he is not deceiving them. Maybe I too will join his Quilliam organization and support his efforts. If he is sincere, he will accept this invitation. But based on my experience with “moderate Muslims,” I have a feeling that Maajid’s reply will be a deafening silence.
There is no such thing as moderate Islam. This is the ultimate taqiyah. Falling into this trap is deadly. It may cost your liberty and your life. Moderate Islam is an oxymoron. It is as attainable as perfumed dung; although I may be wrong about the latter.
In comparison to the above here is a muslim comment to Quilliam
from October 9, 2013
Quilliam Foundation: Never has a British Muslim organisation been more reviled
Posted by 5Pillarz (@RMSalih):
Founded in 2007, Quilliam styles itself as a Muslim counter extremism think-tank with the explicit goal of removing the “poison of Islamism” from British Muslim discourse and promoting a peaceful, spiritual form of Islam which is at ease with the modern western world.
It was fronted by two “ex extremists” and Hizb ut Tahrir activists Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz but initially struggled to make any impact because of a lack of funding.
But the pair soon spotted an opportunity to secure government backing because the state was looking for a “Muslim partner” that would deflect attention from its wars abroad and their role in fomenting growing British Muslim radicalisation. Instead the government wanted a credible partner to put the focus on the Muslim community itself. Quilliam obliged.
Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation
Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation
In the following years QF pocketed around a million quid a year, Husain and Nawaz paid themselves handsome salaries, expanded the organisation and were a regular feature of BBC studios and right-wing newspaper columns.
During their heyday they managed to annoy virtually every strand of British Muslim opinion from the salafis to the ikhwaanis and other Islamists, but also the Sufis and the apolitical.
They did this by attacking virtually every active Muslim group and harping on relentlessly about Muslim extremism, while ignoring or minimizing the impact of British foreign policy. And they did this while pocketing a hefty cheque from the British government while implausibly claiming to be maintaining a distance from it.
But by 2010 the British government funding had dried up because of the necessities of economic austerity but also, I suspect, because Downing St realised that Quilliam’s message wasn’t gaining traction with Muslims (and especially those vulnerable to radicalisation) and its impact on the ground was zero or minimal.
So with the dosh no longer readily available Ed Husain buggered off to the right-wing Council of Foreign Relations in America and Quilliam had to cut back on its staff and projects.
Meanwhile, Maajid Nawaz had time to pen a rather naff and vain autobiography and has announced he will stand as a Liberal Democrat candidate at the next general election.
Yet Quilliam soldiered on, with less media attention and less obvious fanfare, but with the occasional blitz of publicity like yesterday’s fun-and-games with Tommy Robinson. It’s no longer the constant, offensive in-your-face presence it once was, but it’s still occasionally bloody annoying.
Failure
So why did Quilliam fail?
Firstly, Muslims don’t like seeing other Muslims going on national TV and the right-wing media constantly criticising their own while sucking up to the establishment. Even Muslims (like myself) who believe it’s necessary for us to look in the mirror quickly get turned off with relentless self-hating.
Secondly, the facts that Quilliam had no grassroots support, were hardly seen at community events (probably for their own protection), and were artificially created and amplified by government finances made them transparent frauds in the eyes of the community.
Ed Husain
Ed Husain
Thirdly, they probably annoyed a lot of “sell-out” Muslim organisations who were also after government money but couldn’t get it because Quilliam had cornered the market.
In many ways this was a shame because the Muslim community is getting more radicalised and insular as the years pass by and its relationship with the British state is getting more problematic.
And there is a need for an organisation which has roots in the community, is loyal to it, is critical of the government and Islamophbia, yet also still seeks to address the real problems that exist in the community itself.
But Quilliam – which is unrepresentative, disloyal and compromised by government finances – certainly ain’t that organisation.
Islamophobia
So I found myself watching the “Tommy and Maajid” show yesterday with a permanent ironic smile.
Here were two people who were theoretically polar opposites but who in reality are basically the same – extremists posing as moderates who should be given a medal by the Queen for services to Islamophobia.
But you know what, I think I prefer Tommy Robinson’s blatant, ignorant retarded form of Islamophobia to Maajid Nawaz’s subtle, suave and sophisticated version.
Here some comments to the above:
Petra Thompson · Top Commenter
of course @RMSalih doesn't mind 100s of other muslim organisations having their snout in the trough of government funding. But perish the thought one of those muslim organisations might have something critical to say about the rest being proponents of islamic nazism.
Reply ·
· 13 · October 9, 2013 at 10:39am
Yusuf Ibrahim
at the height of the muslim empire, the jews were flocking to jerusalem knowing full well that the muslims would protect them. go elarn history u dumb idiot
Reply ·
· 11 · October 9, 2013 at 2:49pm
Klevius comment: Who is the 'dumb idiot' really? History tells us that the expelled Jews and the muslims had one thing in common, the slave market which constituted the very backbone of islamic finance and prosperity!
And here's the bottomline: The Saudi initiated, based and steered OIC (all muslims' world organization due to its UN sanctioned Sharia) and its islamofascist Fuhrer Iyad Madani.
Also do note that Klevius has been the earliest and most successful critic of OIC on the web.
The majority of Google info on 'oic sharia' is there thanks to Klevius - not BBC etc! Since a decade back!
.
