After Jihadist Mass Murder, CAIR’s Sharia Agenda Rolls On
You may see this as Islamist audacity – even, dare we say, chutzpah. Actually, it is business as usual.
In San Bernardino, heartbroken families are preparing to bury the 14 innocent people murdered last week by Islamic jihadists Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. They are tending to another 21 wounded by the married terrorists. Meanwhile the Los Angeles chapter of CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) is pressing child custody authorities in California to comply with Islamic law – sharia – in the placement of the six-month-old infant the terrorist couple left behind.
They may not be saying that that is what they are doing, but that is what they are doing.
In the long term, CAIR-LA is pushing to have the child placed with Farook’s sister, Saira Khan. This is going on, mind you, even as FBI Director James Comey told a Senate committee today that the Islamic supremacist couple had been discussing jihad and martyrdom for the last two years (i.e., beginning before Malik immigrated to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia in 2014). Farook may even have plotted a terrorist attack in 2012.
Even before Director Comey’s testimony, we knew Farook’s mother was living with the couple in what was a bomb factory teeming with ammunition, and that his father was well aware that Farook was an admirer of the Islamic State (ISIS). One might figure, oh I don’t know, maybe CAIR would want to think twice before asking the authorities to place the infant with members of this family. But no.
As I said, that is just the long-term goal. Breitbart News reports that CAIR’s immediate goal is to convince the legal system to transfer custody of the child to a Muslim family. As Fatima Dadabhoy, a CAIR-LA attorney, explained, “CAIR-LA is working to make sure that the baby is placed with a Muslim foster family while she remains in the custody of San Bernardino County Child Protective Services.” (My italics.)
Why so insistent on a Muslim foster family and then ultimate placement of the child with her Muslim blood relatives?
Because that is what sharia requires.
Section m13.2 of the manual prescribes “The necessary conditions for a person to have custody of a child.” Subsection (c) relates:
If the child is a Muslim, it is a necessary condition that the person with custody be a Muslim.
Subsection (c) elaborates with commentary by Sheikh Umar Bakarat, a nineteenth century Islamic scholar. Placement of a child in the custody of a Muslim is a mandate of sharia
because [being a parent to a child] is a position of authority, and a non-Muslim has no right to authority and hence no right to raise a Muslim. If a non-Muslim were given charge of the custody and upbringing of the child, the child might acquire the character traits of unbelief (kufr).
Can’t have that.
The above excerpts are quoted from the English translation of the manual (available on Amazon among other places). Its authenticity has been vouched for by (among other influential Muslim leaders) the scholars of al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni learning since the tenth century, and a think-tank, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).
It is worth dwelling for a moment on IIIT. Like CAIR, IIIT is a U.S.-based tentacle of the Muslim Brotherhood. As I further recount in The Grand Jihad, the Brotherhood was the backbone of the conspiracy proved in the Holy Land Foundation case, the most significant terrorism financing prosecution the Justice Department has ever brought. The case involved the support network for Hamas, the terrorist organization that is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.