Understanding that you are a very busy lawyer, perhaps you could have had one of your associates or paralegals do a modicum of research on this issue before painting yourself into a corner. Since you obviously haven’t done much research, allow me to give you a primer on the basics of Shariah law. And please understand, that one of the main tenets of Shariah law is that it is not served up a la carte. A Muslim must make a choice to either be all in for Shariah, the 7th Century Islamic law set out by Mohammed or, if the Muslim has entered the age of reason and enlightenment, opt not to be a Shariah supremacist. Wake Forest, if they had done the proper vetting, could have chosen a 21st century Imam who was a non-Shariah supremacist and we wouldn’t be having this dialogue, but they didn’t.
Here are some basic tenets of the Shariah law ideology that you are trying to defend in the name and guise of diversity:
- All laws were handed down by Allah. There are no man-made laws such as the Constitution. Shariah is, to quote Andy McCarthy, “not merely a set of religious principles for spiritual guidance but a full-scale, authoritarian governmental system, regulating every aspect of political, social, and economic life.” Please note the quote from Imam Griggs in number 6 below whereby he gives voice to this belief.
- Denial of freedom of conscience, religion and speech. If you are a non-Muslim in a Shariah dominant state, you have three choices, convert to Islam, be a dhimni (a second class citizen with less rights and more obligations than a Muslim), or death.
- Death to apostates (Muslims who leave the faith). Have you seen the recent Pew poll taken in Egypt after the fall of Mubarak where a full 80% of Egyptians stated that it was their belief that apostates, those renouncing their Islamic faith, should be put to death?
- A caste system where everyone is segregated by creed and sex. A society where men’s rights are superior to women’s rights and where a Muslim’s rights are superior to a non-Muslim’s. This obviously includes polygamy with men allowed up to four wives. A woman’s testimony is only worth ½ of a man’s testimony in Shariah courts (which Britain now has).
- Death to homosexuals. Did you ever wonder why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, when speaking at Columbia University said there were no homosexuals in Iran? At least those students had enough common sense to laugh and boo him for this comment, instead of defending him in the name of diversity.
- Women must cover all of their skin. Here is a website with a Question and Answer with Imam Griggs describing why women should cover up. One quote from Imam Griggs says it all: “I think it’s very important to understand that the parameters of dress for Muslim women and Muslim men are parameters that were established by the creator of the universe, by Allah, and those parameters do not change.” (See No. 1 above) I encourage you to read this article in order to gain an understanding into this man’s ideology, at least what he will admit to publicly, so that you will know what you are defending.
- Zakat – Islamic charity, of which 1/8th must go to fund jihadist violence by non-military Muslim actors on non-Muslims;
- Taqiyya – lying to non-muslims in order to spread their faith.
- The permissible use of violence to impose Shariah law. You really should read the notebook of information that I supplied to Dr. Hatch in my August 5th letter as it sets all of this out clearly and in great detail. But I will summarize it for you. Imam Griggs touts extensively, including on the website for his mosque, his membership in the Islamic Party of North America (IPNA). He wrote the definitive history of IPNA. He is an officer in IPNA. I bought their instructional manual entitled “Taking Islam to the Street: The Daw’ah of the Islamic Party of North America” in which Imam Griggs is quoted extensively. In other words, he is a big player in IPNA. Page 66 of this manual recites their eight-line motto…line five of which is “Jihad, all out struggle, is our means” …to impose Shariah Law everywhere. In all schools of Sunni and Shia jurisprudence, Jihad is obligatory and means to wage warfare against non-Muslims. There is no other legal definition of Jihad in Islamic Law. If you don’t believe me, perhaps you could have one of your associates do a little legal research on this issue. You may want to rely on someone who has a little more expertise than the Southern Poverty Law Center. The classic and authoritative manual of Islamic Sacred Law, which is available on Amazon, is “Reliance of the Traveller” (sic). This is the leading text on Islamic Jurisprudence and it has a very unambiguous definition of Jihad, which is clearly set out in the opening sentence of the section on Jihad.
So Mr. Williams, do you believe that this is an ideology worth defending, worth circling the wagons for, worth implying that I am a bigot or Islamaphobe because I want the Wake community to know about it, worth castigating those who don’t want to give their money to Wake as along as this is protected and kept hidden at Wake? Do you really believe that Wake should allow this ideology to use its campus for more jihadist recruits who want to pull our society down from within?
I ask you, if Wake Forest’s motto, “Pro Humanitate (for humanity), is at the heart of the University’s identity and reflects a dedication to making a difference in the world,” then who is best supporting that mission? You, who are trying to support yet hide this hideous ideology, or I, who am trying to expose it?
I firmly believe that unless all Americans understand Shariah Islamists, then they cannot begin to understand what is happening in the world, why non-Muslims are murdered in the millions by Muslims in Shariah Islamic countries, why the Arab spring is turning out to be the Arab Winter, or why Iran wants to destroy Israel and can never be allowed to posses nuclear weapons.
I believe that what is best for Wake Forest, its students and alumni, and what I would encourage you to get behind, is the symposium/debate which I have proposed. Shouldn’t it be a hallmark of a great institution to be open-minded, to embrace dialogue and debate on difficult issues of national and worldwide importance, to eschew political correctness and follow the truth wherever it leads? If I, and the others mentioned above, are wrong, then why not engage in a debate for everyone to witness? What are you and the administration afraid of, other than educating the Wake community on the nature of Shariah law and the ideology of Imam Griggs?
Donald L. Woodsmall
Class of ’77, J.D. 81
Board of Trustees
Old Gold and Black
Wall Street Journal
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Pages: 1 2