By: Brian Evans
A secret war is going on inside some of the world’s prison systems. A war for the minds and hearts of inmate soldiers. In fact, Muslim radicals are preying upon some of the most vulnerable populations in the world by offering a chance to get back at those who have locked them away for the crimes committed.
One example can be seen in Britain’s HMP Brixton prison. In 2015, Mohamed Yusef Ahmed, a Muslim, took over as senior chaplain in 2015. He immediately began targeting Christian pastors for removal from their position, in an obvious effort to replace Christianity with the Muslim faith in the prison. In fact, Mohamed Yusef Ahmed immediately began attacking and removed Paul Song, a long serving, highly respected Christian volunteer Chaplain who worked at the prison. Ahmed also eliminated their internationally respected Christian course in an attempt to wipe out the ‘Christian domination’ at Brixton prison.
WND reported that the “chaplain, Paul Song, relocated from South Korea in 1992 and began working as a minister at London Shepherd Church in 1996. In 1998, he began using his one day off each week to volunteer alongside 15 other Christians at HMP Brixton, and he was taken on as a chaplain. Among other services was his provision of a program called Alpha, which introduces spiritual seekers to Christian faith.”
Song explained: “Imam Mohamed’s discriminatory agenda was clear from the outset. He began scrutinizing the material for each of our courses, commenting that the material was ‘too radical,’ and that the Christian views expressed were ‘extreme.’ He paid scant regard to the fact that the courses are mainstream Christian courses, used by churches throughout the world. He also said he wanted to ‘change the Christian domination within HMP Brixton.’”
There were not any complaints against Paul Song, but despite his dedication and work, the muslim chaplain chose to eliminate christianity in the prison, and anyone who represents the Christian faith. Prior to Song’s dismissal, the muslim religious leader told Song “You do not have permission to enter the wings and nor do you have the permission to speak to any prisoners here at HMP Brixton. If you do turn up to here without my prior permission from me, your keys will be confiscated and you will be walked to the gate.” Within a few weeks, the muslim chaplain accused Song of calling a prisoner a “terrorist,” which he denies, and no evidence has been produced to show its validity. Song said the “whole reason I served at the prison was because of my desire to bring the good news of the gospel to people, regardless of their religion or background.” He went on to say “I believe that it has the power to transform the lives of all who believe, and so I would never do anything which may cause an individual to not want to hear the Christian message.” Song continued by saying that “the prisoners who attended the Christian courses were of different religions, sexual orientations and ethnic backgrounds. Some of them were violent and held views which strongly opposed mine, yet I never made any judgmental or stereotypical comments to any of them. For 19 years, I served with an exemplary record. I worked alongside the prisoners and other staff members in harmony, recognizing our differences and praying that they would come to faith, but equally respecting their decisions and background. I would have had plenty of opportunities to make offensive comments should I have wanted to, and yet during this time, no complaints were ever made about me.”
The Christian Legal Center’s Andrea Williams said: “To call this Christian who has served without a blemish for almost 20 years an extremist defies belief. Pastor Song’s work with prisoners has been shut down for no good reason, denying prisoners of life-giving ministry.” The Christian Institute even said that the prisoners at HMP Brixton have been speaking up in Song’s defense, including former Brixton prisoner Jeremy Conlon. Jeremy said that “prison is a tough place to be, though Paul was a light in the darkness for me and many others.” When lawyers reached out to HMP Brixton, the prison officials declined to comment.
Here is what Chaplain Paul Song said about the incident:
This is just another blaring example of what is coming to the United States if we continue to allow un-checked, un-monitored, un-objective refugees to flood across our borders. Britain and the whole of Europe are experiencing the ‘Islamization of Europe,’ as they fill heavy refugee migrant quotas. In fact, according to the Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán, many European leaders now agree with Hungary’s policy on stemming the tide of muslim migrants, and are looking to secure their national borders. It is due to the fact that the European Union’s migrant quotas are creating an unsafe environment for women, creating hostile and dangerous environments for Christians, and causing a severe strain on the European countries financial systems. Especially since the majority of the migrants are placed on government welfare systems. However, the European countries are also concerned because as muslims flood their borders, Sharia law is becoming the norm instead of their own countries legal systems. A problem that has already begun to show signs in the United States. In fact, the communist backed ACLU has defended anti-women, anti-gay, anti-human rights Sharia Law.
If you look back to when the United Nations adopted “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” on Dec. 10, 1948, WND reported that the United Nations participatory countries recognized human’s basic human rights as:
- Freedom of opinion and expression
- Freedom to change religions
- Right to education
- No slavery
- No forced marriages
- No torture
- No inhumane punishment
In comparison, the leaders of the 57 Islamic countries rejected the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, forming their own group called the OIC – Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation then passed in 1990 the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” affirming Sharia law as supreme, with the following laws:
- Death penalty for those who try to leave Islam
- Punish female rape victims
- Legalize male polygamy
- Legalize wife-beating
- Censor speech that insults Islam
As a result, it begs the question as to whether or not America’s Constitutional freedoms can be granted under Sharia law. A law that blatantly violates the Constitution of the United States. Can freedom of speech be granted to those who seek to abolish the freedom of speech? Can protections for women be granted to those who rape women and young girls, beat their wives, marry underage girls, or other heinous atrocities that violate the rights of women as protected under the constitution of the United States? Can islamic faith be embraced while Christians are condemned? Can muslim burqa’s be allowed in schools while crosses banished? Can young girls endure female genital mutilation, despite the constitution condemning such atrocities. Can muslims censor speech that insults Islam, while embracing speech that insults christianity. Our country was founded on freedom of religion; therefore, under our constitution, all religions should be free of government intervention, or the absence thereof, unless they violate the rights and freedoms of other Americans.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, but Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”
The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.
The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.
The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.
The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.
The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.
The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.
The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.
The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).
The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.
The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)
The 18th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.
The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly.
Ultimately, Sharia law is not just a series of religious laws, but it is set up as a political and militaristic system. Therefore, when Muslim politicians swear upon the Quran to protect and defend the Constitution, it is not the same as doing so as a Christian to the bible. In fact, when a muslim bows in prayer, they are pledging political/military allegiance to Mecca; whereas, when Christians bow in prayer, they are preying to God for a variety of potential reasons. Christians pray for the following reasons and much, much more:
- Communicate to God
- Participate in God’s Works
- Keeping Christians Humble
- Strengthens the bonds between believers
- Fulfills Emotional Needs
- Thanking God for the food received
- Praying for health and prosperity
- Praying for recovery of the sick
- Praying for those who have trespassed against them
- Praying for loved ones, or many times, those who Christians do not know, but want to have blessings bestowed upon them
Ultimately, Sharia law (muslim law), is the inverse of Constitutional Law. It violates the very fabric of our Constitution. Furthermore, if we don’t put an end to the unrestricted flow of radicals into the United States, America’s system of constitutional law will be increasingly challenged by the muslim’s sharia law. Sharia law in Britain has already overwhelmed and challenged Great Britain’s legal system, and now islamic law councils have inundated the once christian land. As a result, it has led to widespread discrimination against women, the forced marriage of underage girls, murder, stoning, female genital mutilation, and rape. Women are losing rights at an astronomical rates as the muslim faith spreads throughout Europe and much of the western world. Rather than a condemnation of such practices, American groups who claim to stand up for the rights of women and our constitutional freedoms are embracing ‘Sharia law’. Groups like the ACLU, Congressional Black Caucus, National Organization for Women, Mainstream Media, Democrat Party, Progressives, Socialists, and Pro-communist groups. American’s must fight back and help stem the tide of radial Islam from penetrating our borders and endangering American civilians, and our way of life. After all, there can only be one ‘Supreme Law of the Land’. Either it is the Constitution of the United States, or it is Sharia Law. Both cannot co-exist, simply because they each violate the fundamental basis of each other. Furthermore, if American’s don’t fight for and defend Constitutional Law, American’s just might be in for a bloody and rough road ahead, as muslims fight to force Sharia law and the islamic religion on not only the whole of Europe, but on the United States of America as well.