Doc's Talk: AIG Defies U.S. Taxpayers by Promoting Sharia in America

Saturday, December 06, 2008

AIG Defies U.S. Taxpayers by Promoting Sharia in America

Jeffrey Imm
Anti-Jihad League of America
http://anti-jihad.org/blog/2008/12/aig-defies-us-taxpayers/
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/blog/imm-articles/118.html

For the third month in a row, AIG is in the news regarding its promotion of Sharia-compliant finance (SCF) products, which promote the Islamic supremacist, segregationist ideology of Sharia. For a company struggling with its financial survival, it remains astounding that AIG would want to incite its American taxpayer owners by promoting products that are based on an Islamic supremacist political ideology. In October 2008, I wrote how the U.S. government gave an $85 billion loan to AIG, without demanding divestment of its business ventures reselling Sharia mutual trusts and its AIG Takaful division selling Sharia-based insurance. In November 2008, I wrote about how the U.S. government purchased $40 billion in AIG stock, making you as a taxpayer, an owner of a company promoting Sharia through such businesses.

For two months, I have warned that AIG's Takaful division was planning to expand to offer such AIG-specific Sharia products here in the United States. Now AIG has announced that it has Sharia-based insurance products for the United States, and AIG is promoting them.

On December 1, 2008, AIG announced that it was "introducing a Takaful Homeowners Policy, the first installment in Lexington Takaful Solutions, a series of Shari'ah-compliant (Takaful) product offerings in the U.S. The newly announced Takaful products are compliant with key Islamic finance tenets and based on the concept of mutual insurance." Note that AIG indicates that such Sharia insurance products are the "first installment" in a series of Sharia products. In the AIG press release, AIG Takaful's Abdallah Kubursi expresses his pride in AIG's ability to promote Sharia within the United States, stating "This is truly a global effort on the part of AIG."

This is our company, using our taxpayer dollars, to promote Islamic supremacist Sharia-based products in our country. As we are $40 billion owners in AIG, this is our problem as Americans. What is our government and AIG going to do about this?

First, let's remember what Sharia is and is not.

Sharia is a legal codification of the political ideology of Islamic supremacism. This Sharia legal codification is intended to enforce discriminatory and segregationist practices against women and non-Muslims and to suppress the liberties of those living in Islamic theocracies. As a legal codification of a supremacist ideology, Sharia is incompatible with democratic values and the inalienable human right that "all men are created equal." In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the European Court of Human Rights determined that Sharia law was incompatible with democracy and human rights. The President of the European Court of Human Rights stated that "the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention... Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia...". Even British courts have ruled that Sharia is "discriminatory."

In a nation such as the United States, based on the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, why would American taxpayers seek to fund a business selling products that promote a discriminatory, segregationist, and supremacist ideology that is "incompatible with democracy and human rights"?

Sharia is not merely "cultural beliefs," "religious beliefs," or "social preference." In the AIG press release, AIG's Abdallah Kubursi would have Americans believe that the goal of promoting such Sharia products is to expand "social preference." But America has rejected those who would label supremacist values as "social preference," just as they rejected white supremacists who once called for racial segregation and discrimination. America's society, businesses, government, and law rejects supremacist ideologies. Just ask President-Elect Barack Obama.

This is the same Sharia ideology that has been used by the Islamic supremacist Taliban to murder those who they believe have committed moral crimes, the same Sharia ideology that was used to murder a 13 year old girl last month who was raped in Somalia, and the same Sharia ideology supported by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Islamic supremacists around the world. It is the same Sharia ideology whose zakat charities have been used to fund jihadist terrorist organizations. On September 18, 2008, Congressman Tom Tancredo's office introduced "Jihad Prevention Act" (H.R. 6975). According to the press release from his office on this bill, "the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense."

But now American taxpayer dollars are being used to promote products based on Sharia?

In fairness to AIG, there are many who do not understand the political Islamic supremacist nature of Sharia.

Stop Sharia Now (FAQ item 17) provides a quote regarding an "Islamic Finance conference" in New York City where an attendee asked the meaning of Sharia. One of AIG's Sharia advisors, Sheik Nizam Yaquby, ambiguously responded by stating that "Shariah is the path on which we walk, the water which we drink." Those of us who are aware that Sharia is a legal codification for all aspects of Islamic supremacist life grasp what Yaquby was trying to communicate; certainly none of the supremacist aspects of Sharia was communicated by Yaquby. It is then reported that "Not one person in the room followed up with a question. The group went back to looking at flowcharts and graphs." So it should be little surprise that few people involved with Sharia finance products actually understand the ramifications of promoting Islamic supremacist Sharia.

To give AIG an opportunity to respond to this, I called the individual listed on AIG's press release for its Sharia Takaful Homeowners Policy, Jim Crain, and talked to him about the AIG product. My impression is that AIG's Jim Crain is a businessman, and I got the distinct feeling that he was uncomfortable with being named as the AIG point of contact on a product with political connotations. I told AIG's Jim Crain about the online petition signed by over 100 individuals calling for the Federal Reserve Board and the Department of Treasury to call for AIG to divest itself of its Sharia businesses. I also told AIG's Jim Crain about how the Islamic supremacist Taliban and other groups are seeking to promote Sharia.

AIG's Jim Crain told me that he had no comment on AIG's Sharia product linkage to the Islamic supremacist Sharia ideology, but stated that with "this business venture" it was not AIG's intent "to enter into the political arena at all." Jim Crain stated that he did understand that Sharia is viewed as a political ideology, and commented "that is becoming more apparent as the days go on." (I would conclude from this that I was not the first person who has called Jim Crain about this.) He stated that "it is entirely possible" that the public is going to think that AIG is taking a political position that is pro-Sharia. Jim Crain concluded our discussion by stating "I am going to pass your concerns on to our senior management and legal."

Now it is your turn. American taxpayers own $40 billion worth of AIG stock. This is your company and your responsibility to contact AIG about both its Sharia finance businesses and its efforts now to promote Sharia-based insurance in the United States.

Let AIG's Jim Crain know that the calls he has gotten thus far complaining about AIG's Sharia based business is the tip of the iceberg. Jim Crain's phone number and email address are provided on the AIG press release to discuss AIG's Sharia-based Takaful Homeowners Policy. Let him know precisely what you think of it as a shareholder in AIG, and ask Jim Crain to make certain that his senior management also is aware of your concerns as well.

Sign our online petition demanding that the Federal Reserve, Securities Exchange Commission, and Department of Treasury carry out their fiduciary responsibilities under H.R. 1424 to act as the Financial Stability Oversight Board in America's interest - and demand that AIG divest itself now of its Sharia businesses. This is an opportunity to make American commitment to human rights a part of how companies do business in America. It is our responsibility to let AIG know our concerns.

Let's make our voices heard on this outrage, just as we would if AIG was offering a white supremacist financial products, black supremacist financial products, or any other products or services linked to a supremacist ideology. We need to make our voices heard because supremacism is fundamentally against the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, as defined in America's Declaration of Independence... and declaration of our identity as well. By the very definition of America, we are responsible for equality and liberty, and we are responsible for confronting Islamic supremacism.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk