Sharia and Moderate Muslims

Right now people with little training, but who have preconceived ideas about Sharia, will be saying that indeed Sharia can harm you. Then again the other people who also have virtually no training in regards to Sharia or who have never read a book by an Islamic scholar will say that Sharia can’t hurt you. I will take the middle road and tell people to read closely my analogy and decide at the end if Sharia can hurt you and if there are truly ‘Moderate’ Muslims.

Can a loaded firearm lying in the middle of a floor hurt you? No. You have a better chance of winning a state lottery than you do of this firearm harming you. Now you can harm yourself or someone else can harm you using this firearm, but lying on the floor this weapon is perfectly safe. But, if it strikes (through the actions/faults of a human), it can kill.

Shari is very similar. 90% plus of Sharia (Islamic law) is safe. Even the physical aspects of Jihad (Jihad Qital/physical fighting) is safe unless put into the wrong hands, then it can kill. Hundreds of thousands of people have found out through the hands of Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Taliban (to mention a few) how terrifying Sharia can be. I had mentioned that 90% plus of Sharia law is relatively safe. This brings me to the second question I have for readers. In laymen’s terms can you define Sharia? Can a Muslim use one aspect of Sharia in their life and decide not to use other parts? In essence, can a Muslim use the parts of Sharia that pertain to prayer and raising a strong and educated family and not use the aspects pertaining to Jihad and martyrdom? The answer is no. In accordance with the Quran, Islamic scholars, the hadith, and their own Ijtihad, a Muslim must adhere to all aspects of Sharia. Sharia is practicing 100% of Sharia law to the individual’s fullest capability.

To help people understand this better I will use an analogy I often provide people during my presentations. Can a Christian decide to adhere to Commandments 1, 2, and 4, but decide not to adhere to Commandments 5, 7, and 9? A person can call themselves Christian by following only a couple of Commandments, but in reality this person who may be a good person is not a real Christian. The same applies to Muslims. They may be good people but if they decide not to adhere to 100% of Sharia, they are in essence Apostates of Islam.

Some people may be shaking their heads and say this isn’t true. I have two ways to prove this. One could visit an Islamic Center to review the material they provide to their worshippers and to speak with Islamic leaders. The Imam or Islamic leaders will routinely tell you about the laws of Sharia and most even in America have no qualms with telling you they desire Sharia in America...

The second and most accurate method would be for the Muslim who does not want to adhere to all aspects of Sharia, to request if they would travel to a Sharia dominated land such as Saudi or Afghanistan and ask them if they would visit with the local Taliban and/or Al Qaeda for a few weeks. Muslims in America who do not desire to adhere to Sharia law would be the first to tell you they would not do this because they know under Sharia law they would be severely punished. There is a strong likelihood the Muslim who openly admits to the Taliban they do not want to adhere to all aspects of Sharia, this person will likely be killed as an Apostate. The layperson need only review the injustices that were taken out on the Muslim women who do not adhere to the dress codes established under Sharia. In Saudi Arabia if a woman dared to leave her home without the proper attire (and permission of a male) she would be punished under Sharia law at the very least by being flogged.

Now I believe it is important for me to answer the question pertaining to Moderate Muslims. This is a politically charged question and even the most outspoken elected leaders - and even more so our media - do their best to ignore this question. If they do answer they will almost surely tell you there are indeed Moderate Muslims. If Osama Bin Laden were alive today he would be a good one to reply to this. Although he was a murderer and a coward, he would honestly tell you the truth about Moderate Muslims. He would tell anyone (and has) that one is either a Muslim who adheres to all aspects of Sharia law, or they are not truly Muslims. They are committing blasphemy and are Apostates if they were to describe themselves as moderates. Al Qaida and the Taliban have shown people thousands of times how they deal with a person who wants to be a moderate Muslim. They routinely behead the person (usually after they have tortured them for hours). There is no such thing in Islam as a moderate Muslim. A moderate Muslim is a person who is not practicing Islam as their Prophet Mohammed dictated to them.

In this article I believe it is appropriate to address the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden and what this will mean for America. I applaud our Special Forces team for their heroic efforts. They did what needed to be done and should have been completed years ago (yes we had opportunities and missed them due to political correctness). In my professional opinion as a person who has visited Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, other areas, and one who has self studied Islam since 1979, the following will happen:

1: We will see more murders in America like the ones committed by Major Hassan (Ft. Hood, Texas). These type incidents will increase.

2: CAIR and other such organizations will be saying the politically correct things about Osama Bin Laden over the next few weeks. They will steer away from the truth, but will publically say they support the decision by our President. In our book (Muslim Mafia) we put one of the documents we obtained during our undercover research inside CAIR National in 2007/2008. On page 312 and 313, there is a document CAIR National leaders were attempting to destroy, but our researchers were able to preserve. The title is, “Proposed Muslim Platform For 2004”. On page 313 the readers will note CAIR National leaders (and other Muslim organizations) desired the Muslim people to support Osama Bin Laden. The exact statement on this document reads: “8. Attempt to understand Islamic movements in the area, and start supporting Islamic groups including Mr. Bin Laden and his associates”.

Although our book has fewer than 50 documents included in the book, CAIR National was in the process of shredding several thousand documents similar to the document regarding Bin Laden. Now I believe it is easier for people to understand why CAIR National sued me and has been harassing my family and me since they found out about the undercover operation I directed inside their organization. They do not want the other thousands of documents to be released to the public. By putting all of them together even the most naïve person would conclude CAIR is a supporter of Islamic terrorism against America.

Although I had always respected Bill O’Reilly (Fox News), even he would have to ask the tough questions of CAIR leaders the next time he gives them airtime. One has to question why he did not ask Ibrahim Hooper (CAIR National Public Spokesperson) about documents such as the one pertaining to CAIR’s support of Bin Laden. CAIR knows if the thousands of other documents are released they will be prosecuted like their friends of the Holy Land Foundation were.

I ask readers to support organizations such as ACT for America and Dr. (Reverend) Gene Youngblood (Jacksonville, Florida) who are trying to warn people of the dangers of Islam and organizations such as CAIR. They need the support of the American people. We do not want Sharia law in America, or do you?

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dave Gaubatz spent 20 years as an active duty USAF (Special Agent/OSI), 3.5 years as a civilian 1811 Federal Agent, trained by the U.S. State Department in Arabic, and was the first U.S. Federal Agent to enter Iraq in 2003. He is also a counterterrorism counterintelligence officer. He is co-author of the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America. His website is www.muslimmafiacomics.blogspot.com

Islamic Sharia Law in Brief

Cynicism of the Islamists to promote barbaric “Sharia-based Islam” in the west is going on uninterrupted due to the utter ignorance of the westerners about Islamic ideology in general, democratic convenience, and also by the “politically correct nonsense” spewed by many western politicians by their selfishness and forceful ignorance about the inherent danger of Islamic Sharia.

---

Many hypocritical western residing Islamists are trying relentlessly to soft-sell Islam through their speeches and write-ups and so called “interfaith nonsense” only to fool the westerners. All these Islamists are portraying Islam being compatible with western values. Using cynicism and soothsaying techniques, they are trying hard to convince the westerners that Islam is democratic, Islam is tolerant of other faiths, Islam encourages the pursuit of religious freedom, etc. They conveniently ignore/hide the fascism in Islam that originated from the primary (Quran) and secondary (Hadith) texts in the form of Sharia (Islamic law). The barbaric laws and rules of Sharia are causing the Muslims to suffer the most. Fact of the matter is, these so called Allah’s laws are nothing but the ancient Arab Paganic ruthless tribal social justice which had been cleverly ingrained in Islam and now causing the humanity to suffer.

These Islamists are often bluffing westerners by citing some non-Arab Muslim majority nations such as Bangladesh as the proof that there is no inherent discord between Islam and democracy. Many of these countries are nascent western style democracies and are not governed by Islamic Sharia law at all. Outside Middle East, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has adopted partial Islamic laws and one can see the brutality and barbarism happening there in the name of Islam. To understand Islam, one of the important aspects is to understand the “Sharia law”. I have written this piece to inform the readers about the Sharia law that can only generate brutality, hatred, and nothing but Islamic fascism.

What is Sharia law?

The term "Sharia" (Arabic شريعة Šarīʿa; "way" or "path") is the sacred law of Islam. Sharia law literally means religious code of life. It is used to refer both to the Islamic system of law and the totality of the Islamic way of life. Sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including politics, daily routines, foods, clothing, amusements, sports, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. Traditional Muslims (all mullahs, Mawlanas, Muftis, and Islamic scholars) who understand the Quran and the Hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies on Earth. It is the “law of Allah” and bound to be the best of all. Because of this ardent belief, devout and fanatical Muslims all over the world are in constant struggle (Jihad) with their ruling Government to establish “Islamic Sharia” as the country’s only rule by replacing modern secular democracy (Laws made by human).

Sharia and its origin and sources:

The “sharia law” in all the four Madhabs are esentially the same. The principal sources of Sharia are: the Quran, Hadiths, and Sunnah—(the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed). The secondary sources are: Ijma (consensus), Kiyas (analogy), Ijtihad (responsible individual opinion), and Istihsan (Juristic references).

There are four main schools of Sharia law:

Hanbali: This is the most conservative school of Shari'a. It is used in Saudi Arabia and some states in Northern Nigeria. Maliki: This is based on the practices of the people of Medina during Muhammad's lifetime. Shafi'i: This is a conservative school that emphasizes on the opinions of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad. Hanifi: This is the most liberal school, and is relatively open to some limited modern ideas.

Brief History of Sharia compilations:

Muslims consider that, Sharia law was founded on the words of Allah as revealed in the Qur'an, and traditions gathered from the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Sharia continued to undergo fundamental changes, beginning with the reigns of caliphs Abu Bakr (632–34) and Umar (634–44), during which time many questions were brought to the attention of Muhammad's closest comrades for consultation.^[60] Therefore, Quran and Sunnah were the principle guidance to formulate the core issues of “Islamic Sharia”.

Although, “Sharia law” principally derived from the emulations of early Islamic rules by Prophet Muhammad and his four rightly guided Caliphs , but written format (except some hand-written notes) was not available during the early period of Islamic Caliphates. However, hand-written Sharia formulation was started right from the time of Prophet and continued thereafter during four rightly-guided Caliphs, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs until the time of Ottoman Empire. Sharia developed during the long period of: 750-850 CE. Actual Hand-written “Sharia booklets” were formed and compiled by four schools of Islamic scholars and were used by various caliphs as the constitution of the court and final version of the Sharia was compiled after 150 years of the death of Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE. Modern-day Saudi Courts use most conservative Sharia formulated by Imam Hanbali (Hanibali booklet) and Imam Jafri booklet is used in Iran.(Al-Cistani is the guru of Shiite jurisprudence). Actual paper-backed Islamic Sharia books were prepared during 17th Century King Auwrangazev (Alamgir) of Mugal Empire in India.

Some common laws of “Islamic Sharia” which are regularly practiced in the Islamically ruled (Sharia-based) nations with some minor variations:

1- Jihad defined as “to war against all non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- The head of an Islamic State (Caliph) cannot be charged, let alone be punished for serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape (Hudood cases) - Codified Islamic Law Vol 3 # 914C of and page 188 of Hedaya the Hanafi manual.

4- A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam (apostate) must be killed immediately.

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : a) an apostasy b) an adulterer c) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave. Slavery still exists amongst Arab Muslims.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, for sins like killing, adultery, prostitutions; and other Quranic corporal punishments like: amputation of limbs (chopping hands and feet), floggings, beatings and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for the sins like: stealing, sexual promiscuity, robbery, burglary etc.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia (pay Zizzya: poll tax) if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their own religious scriptures, or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, Muslims can curse, criticize or say anything derogatory they like to the religions of others.

15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

19- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23- There is no common property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits. Sister gets half of what brother gets.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and wife has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and also with women captured in battle (concubines), and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man; that is, two women equal to one man.

29- A woman looses custody if she remarries.

30- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

31- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

32- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

33-It is obligatory for a Muslim to lie if the purpose is obligatory and is known as Taqiyya (Islamic Deception). That means that for the sake of abiding with Islam’s commandments, such as jihad, a Muslim is obliged to lie and should not have any feelings of guilt or shame associated with this kind of lying.

The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life.

34. The perpetrators of genocide, mass rape and plunder will not be punished if they repent - Codified Islamic Law Vol 1 # 13.

35. To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses. Women’s testimony is not accepted - Pakistan’s Hudood ordnance 7 of 1979 amended by 8B of 1980. Thousands of raped women and girls in many countries have been charged with Zena (physical relations outside marriage) and punished by Sharia courts for want of witnesses.

36. All modern music including sexually explicit music of any kind is strictly prohibited and punishable by Islamic Sharia code of justice. Only Islamic songs are allowed.

The above are the most important parts of Islamic Sharia law which were devoutly practiced by the early Islamic rulers (Holy Prophet and his four rightly guided Caliphs) and also by the Caliphs of Ummyad and Abbasid Dynasties ruled from Baghdad (Today’s Iraq) and later by Ottoman Empire with very little variations.

Islamic Taqiyya vs. Reality of Islamic Sharia!

Caution! Islam permits devout Muslims to lie, cheat, and deliberately bluff non-muslims to protect or promote his religion of Islam, anytime, anywhere. And this tactic is know as “Islamic Taqiyya” (read: Islamic deception), and was originally used by the Prophet of Islam to fool, and later subjugate and destroy enemies of Islam. As Prophet of Islam repeatedly asserted: “War is a deception” and with this holy-tactic, Prophet of Islam established his most intolerant religion of violence (by 80 plus bloody battles) which he later named as: “religion of peace”! Therefore, today’s Islamists will follow the holy path of their Prophet and will deny that—Sharia is really Islamic law! They will try to cheat by saying that, all these Sharia laws that are practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and elsewhere are not true Islamic, and they have been distorted. They also will try to fool people by saying: Saudi Arabia is ruled by King (Monarch) and Islam does not permit Kingship etc. But, their dishonest assertion is furthest from the truth. Ancient Caliphs of Islam were nothing but the kings of ancient Islamic nations having supreme despotic and dictatorial authoritative rulers. In fact, ancient Islamic caliphs were more despotic and brutal rulers than the present day Saudi King.

No one should be fooled to believing that these harsh and draconian laws were invented out of any wishful imagination of the so called “Islamic radicals/extremists” who came long after Muhammad. Actually, these harsh and barbarically cruelest laws came directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith. Almost 98% of the above samples of Sharia justice can be traced-backed to Quran and Sunnah positively. In fact, Prophet Muhammad himself actually practiced them and deliberately laid down these corporal punishments and policies to rule the ancient Islamic Caliphate. Modern Kings and Presidents of today’s Islamic nations are doing exactly the same to emulate Islamic Prophet and those ancient rightly guided Caliphs. Honorable readers can peruse the article in the reference # 8 to learn more about Islamic Taqiyya.

Some Quranic verses and Hadiths which can be directly attributed for draconian sharia justice:

Readers can check following Quranic verses to understand the sources of the corporal punishments as per Sharia Justice:[Quranic Verses: 4:34, 4:15-16, 24:2. 5:38, 5:45, 5:33, 98:6, 9:111, 9:29, 3:85, 4:89 , 3:90, 4:11-12, 4:176, 8:1, 43:18, 33:61, 4:16-20, 2:282, 2:230, 4:3, 4:11-12, 9:28, 2:96, 9:30, 3:28, 16:106-107, 2:223, 8:12-14, 8:65, 47:4, 9:39, 2:96, 9:30, 2:191, 2:216, 48:20, 5:33, 9:73, 3:85, 9:113, 9:80-84, 33:21].For space limitations, it is not possible to cite exact physical verses here; but readers can open the Quran and verify the verse numbers I have provided above only to discover that—these verses are the nucleus from which most of the above corporal punishments and practices of Sharia law have been originated. Please mind that, the verse #s I have cited here are only some examples and never exhaustive of the list. Quran is replete with harsh cruel belligerent verses for unbelievers and violators of Islamic Sharia law which very well be the real sources of Sharia justice. .

Hadith for corporal punishments of unbelievers and for sex offenders in Islam and who wedged war with Allah and Prophet (Samples only):

Hadith for stoning death: [Bukhari sahrif-vol.8, book-82, No. 817; or, Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196; Also please see hadiths No. 803 to 816 of the same book and volume of Bukhari.] Also please peruse myriads of sahih hadiths for punishments to unbelievers, sex offenders, and all kaffirs by clicking to the URL below:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/082.sbt.html

Please read here some fatwas against Islamic apostates by the most famous Islamic scholar Mawlana Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi by clicking here:

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Hahn/Mawdudi/index.htm#publisher]

Government under God and Blasphemy!

In those Muslim countries where “Islamic Sharia” is the official constitution, Quran and Sunnah—(the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed) are declared to be the sources of the country’s laws. Hence, modern democracy is immediately vanished from the land. Non-muslims are considered second class citizens with very limited rights. Most importantly, citizens in general have no right to criticize anything done by their Government because the rulers only practice God’s law and it is blasphemous to criticize God’s law and thereby it is strictly prohibited, and punishable by imprisonment or even death. Moreover, God’s laws are immutable hence can never be altered or amended by any means. That is why all those strict Sharia-based nations can be taken as the true examples of ancient Islamic nations ruled by Islamic caliphates.

Sharia law has been adopted in various forms by many countries, ranging from a strict interpretation in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and northern states of Nigeria, Sudan, al-Qaeda occupied Somalia, to a relatively liberal interpretation in much of Malaysia, Pakistan, Bahrain, Yemen and United Arab Emirates. In those strictly followed Sharia nations such as Saudi Arabia—women are not allowed to drive, can not go out of home alone, remain under the guardianship of male relatives at all times, and must be completely covered in public. For long, women education was totally banned in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many other Islamic nations.

Sharia in general are heavily misogynistic and anti-minorities. Women and minorities are the prime victims of Islamic Sharia-based nations. Women and all non-muslims live as the second class citizens in their own country. Rape cases are almost impossible to prove in the court of Islamic nations. It is quite ridiculous to consider that any rapist will do the crime in front of 4 males to observe and enjoy the scene (sexual orgy) so that they can later give testimony in the court! Therefore, it is highly impossible to prove rape case in the court and rape victims in Islamic nations end up being charged with Zena (physical relations outside marriage) and punished (floggings or stoning death) by Sharia courts for want of witnesses. Very recently, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, a gang raped 13 years old girl was stoned to death on the orders of a Sharia court in the "Sharia Compliant" country named Somalia.

Family matters such as marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia law practiced in most Muslim nations. Even in the democratically ruled Muslim nations such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey etc, family matters (inheritance, marriage, divorce, and child custody etc) are governed by Sahrai law, still today.

Draconian and barbaric corporal punishments of Hudood law:

In all Sharia-based nations—criminal laws are practiced only by Sharia-justice. Quranic corporal punishments are known as “Hudood laws”. There are five “Hudood” crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for “Hudood” offenses are—flogging, stoning death, beheading, amputation, exile, or execution are routinely practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one's family, are a worldwide problem among the Muslims only. UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor (National Geographic). Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, child-marriages, polygamy, and gender-inequality.

Draconian system of Blood Money!

Islamic Quran (from which Sharia was derived) copied (Plagiarized) draconian code of law from the ancient king Hammurabi King of Babylonia, Mesopotamia (2900 B.C). King Hammarubi’s revenge/compensation for killing was: “life for life, hand for hand, eye for eye, ears for ears, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal”, and the Islamic Allah’s Guidance of compensation in Qur’anic Ayat: 5:45 (Translation byYousuf Ali): “life for life, hand for hand, eye for eye, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal.” It was from this compensatory concept, the “blood money” was established in Sharia law. This draconian compensatory justice system is still practiced in Saudi Arabia (details were published in Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2002). Under this system, if a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay “blood money” or compensation, as follows:

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 (or idolater) man

3,333 riyals if a Hindu (or idolater) woman

That is, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman!

Islam is utterly supremacist and racist religion on Earth!

Devout Muslims do believe that, Islam is the only true religion and all other religions are false and not accepted by the Allah. Therefore, Muslims are the superior human than any other humans on earth. According to Islamic Sharia and Koranic teachings—Christians, Jewish, and all other un-believers (Hindus idolaters etc are the worst) are less humans than Muslims and their rights are not the same as the rights of Muslims. This is the very reason why pure Muslims earnestly believe that—it is the most sacred duty of the Muslims to correct, convert, or killed all non-Muslims/infidels/kaffirs to purify this earth which belongs to only Allah. To this end—Islamic Brother-hood, Hamas, Hizbullah, CAIR, and many other Islamic organizations are doing Taqiyya business, and Talibans and al-Qaeda jihadis are engaged in holy business of armed struggle (Jihad) against all kaffirs of the world in general and against American infidels in particular.

Conclusion

Muslims consider that Islamic Sharia is the “Law of Allah (God)” which is considered divine and immutable and can never be changed or amended by any means! Hence, Islamic Sharia is still clinging to the ancient 7^th century barbaric justice system. Because of this fact, almost anywhere this “Islamic Sharia” is being established as the country’s ruling constitution, world can immediately witness exact face of despotic, barbarian, and totalitarian Islamic rule to all of the Islamic nations. Imposed “Sharia law” immediately becomes the true nightmare for the general public.

In the modern world—all the Islamically (Sharia-based) ruled nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Talibani Afghanistan, Sudan, Northern part of Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, and some other Arab nations are practicing the same Sharia law (mentioned above) with some minor variations country to country, but basics are the same—they all are ruling their nation by Allah’s law. Also, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and some other Arab nations like Kuwait, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Arab Emirate etc are practicing Sharia in variable status country to country. But, main preambles of Sharia law and their sources remain the same. Therefore, all those false claims by most Muslim scholars and Islamic apologists are plain lies and cheating (practicing Islamic Taqiyya) about the ugly face of Sharia-based modern nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan or Somalia. All these hypocritical western-living Islamic apologists are hell-bent to destroy western civilization from within. Gullible westerners and politically Correct western politicians should never be fooled by the utter deceptions and lies routinely and deliberately spewed by all the western-living Islamists.

References:

1. Saudi Arabia’s constitution: http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sa00000_.html

2. Book titled: “Cruel and Usual Punishment; the terrifying global implications of Islamic Sharia law” by Nonie Darwish.

3. Books for Sharia laws: Reliance of the Traveller, Sharia the Islamic Laws, Hedaya, and Malik's Muwatta.

4. Book: “Stop Islamic Sharia Law”: Hasan Mahmud (Director of Sharia law and former president of Muslim Canadian Congress).

5. Islam Sharia Law: A brief introduction: http://www.religioustolerance.org/islsharia.htm

6. Islam: Governing Under Sharia (aka shariah, shari'a): By Toni Jonson, Senior staff writer, Lauren Vriens (Updated: November 10, 2010).

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/islam.html

7. Sharia: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

8. Taqiyyah: The Islamic Principle of Holy Deception: By Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari.

Set as favorite

Commonality of Nazism with Islam and Sharia

In the early 1930’s the 'free world' made the mistake of dismissing Hitler’s words as mere threats and ravings. Will the West make the same mistake when continually confronted with Islamic terror?

Since the atrocities committed on 9/11/01 by Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists in the name of Islam, people in the U.S. and West have debated whether Islam is “a religion of peace” or more of an all-encompassing totalitarian ideology cloaked in religious garb. Unfortunately, it appears that the Qur’an, Shariah, and the Islamic terrorist attacks of the last thirty years, indicate that Islam is indeed a totalitarian ideology engaged in an effort of world-wide conquest much like Nazism. The major difference being that Nazism was based on racial affiliation while Islam is based on religious affiliation.

The word “Islam” – contrary to popular belief – means “submission” and not “peace.” When Islam was founded by Muhammad ibn Abdallah in the 7th century, it conquered the Arabian Peninsula through bloody wars and conquests against fellow Arabs, and Jewish tribes. After the consolidation of Islam in Arabia, the Arabs quickly moved out to conquer the Persian and Byzantine empires, as well as parts of India, and subsequently Spain. All was done under the sword or through discrimination. It was not done by peacefully proselytizing the indigenous populations.

A Brief Overview of Shariah

The holy book of Islam – the Qur’an – contains laws and commandments for the believing Muslim. It is also a book that is replete with references to war, conquest, and the treatment of non-Muslims. From the Qur’an (primarily), and the Sunnah and Hadith (secondarily) came - amongst other principles - the exegesis (tafsir) and jurisprudence (fiqh) of how the laws, sayings, customs, and traditions of Muhammad were to be interpreted. Thus was born Shariah (meaning the “path”). Shariah is not a simple concept to explain (even by and for Muslims), but it can simply be equated with “Islamic law.”

Shariah dictates every aspect of a Muslim’s life – both private and public. It is a total system that not only encompasses the individual, but how the government should rule as well. Islam is therefore a religio-political entity and ideally guided by a caliph (“successor”) to Muhammad. However, the Caliph came to be something of a “supreme leader” as both the head of government and the head of religion. In short, there is no separation of “mosque and state” in an ideal Islamic setting.

While different schools of Shariah exist with various interpretations of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Hadith, all see Islam and Muslims as superior to every other religion, and view non-Muslims as “dhimmi” (plural, “dhimma”) who are regarded as inferior to Muslims under Islamic law. It is the dhimma (namely Jews, Christians, and other monotheistic religions) who must pay the jizya and kharaj (poll and land taxes) because they do not recognize the Qur’an. They must also wear distinctive clothing (usually yellow for Jews, and blue for Christians.)

The Nazi-Islamic Alliance

During the 1930’s Muslims of all different nationalities (most notably Arabs and Persians) were very sympathetic to Adolph Hitler and Nazism. The reverse was also true. Hitler and Heinrich Himmler only had respectful things to say of Islam, and Hitler himself had said that it would have been better if Germany had possessed the “Mohammedan religion” rather than the “meekness and flabbiness” of Christianity.

At the same time, in the Arab world, Nazi-like movements began to spring up. There were the “Nazi Scouts” of Arab youth in British mandated Palestine (based on the Hitler Youth) the “Green Shirts” of Egypt, and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Even the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt was influenced by the Nazis in its political ideology, and many fleeing Nazis were warmly welcomed in Arab countries after World War II.

But Nazi ideology also had an effect in non-Arab Muslim countries, such as Iran. In 1935, Persia was renamed Iran (Land of the Aryans) and Reza Shah Pahlavi, the ruler of Persia/Iran had an open admiration for Hitler. There was also an Iranian Nazi party known as SUMKA with its own Nazi-like symbol. However, fears among the allies were so great that the British had Reza Shah deposed because of perceived German influence in Iran. Indeed, Churchill had at least on one occasion compared the Qur’an to Mein Kampf.

It was during this period, that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini sought out Adolph Hitler and other top Nazis in order to apply the Arab/Muslim “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” in the Middle East. Hitler and Himmler were very receptive, and with the help of the Mufti, Himmler raised two Muslim Waffen SS divisions; one from Bosnia (Handschar, meaning “scimitar”), and one from Albania. There were also lesser known Waffen SS divisions made up of Muslims from the Soviet Caucasus. Hitler promised Husseini that once the Germans penetrated through the Caucasus, the “hour of liberation” for the Arabs would come.

How could devout Muslims ally themselves so willingly with a basically pagan, racist ideology like that of Nazism? The answer is simple. Nazism, like Islam, is driven by a dictatorial totalitarian system with a “leader principle” that divides the world into the “superior” and “inferior.” One can easily substitute the terms “Fuhrer, “Aryan,” “Ubermensch,” and “Untermensch,” for “Caliph,” “Muslim,” “dhimmi,” and “kafir”. And there is also the concept of “jihad” in Islam which divides the world into “dar al-Islam” (house of Islam, where Muslims rule) and “dar al harb” (house of war, where “infidels” rule). And like Islam, which seeks the total Islamization of the world, Nazism also sought the total domination of the “Aryan” over the “non-Aryan” and the total extermination of the Jews. As previously alluded to, the wearing of yellow clothing was a Muslim invention, not a Nazi one. And there is also a genocidal Hadith that exists from the 7th century which speaks of a final war between the Muslims and Jews, resulting in the latter’s total annihilation. This Hadith is quite openly spoken of in the Muslim world to this day, as is the boasting of Muhammad’s “ethnic cleansing” through murder and expulsion of the Jews living in Arabia.

The Final Chapter?

The Muslim attacks of 9/11 should have woken up America and the West to what Islam is – and isn’t. Instead, the masses received from world leaders nothing but platitudes and compliments for Islam which George W. Bush constantly referred to as a “religion of peace.” And, of course, the words “Islam” and “terrorism” could never be mentioned in the same sentence.

Perhaps the real issue is not Shariah per se, but Islam and the Qur’an as a whole. While the world argues about “moderate” and “radical” Islam, fundamentalist Muslims plan the demise of the Western world and its Judeo-Christian concepts and values. Under the guise of taqiyyah (dissimulation), Muslims either seek the conversion of non-Muslims peacefully through “dawa” (the call), or more likely, through “jihad” (holy war). In the words of convicted failed Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, “Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me only a first droplet of the blood that will follow me.”

In the early 1930’s the 'free world' made the mistake of dismissing Hitler’s words as mere threats and ravings. Will the West make the same mistake when continually confronted with Islamic terror?

The Ground Zero Megalomaniac

‘Bridge builder’ Feisal Abdel Rauf of the Ground Zero mosque has been exposed not as a man of goodwill, but as a cunning and calculating stealth jihadist, who supports the creation of an Islamic State, ‘The Ummah’, right here in America.

Rauf gave an interview on June 20^th, 2006 in which he spoke of his game plan for achieving an Islamic State without borders, which in his mind has previously existed and should have continued to exist, if not for Western interference in the last century. To prove his point he gave the example of the existence of Greeks and other minorities in Egypt and Turkey, which he cited as a sign of Islamic tolerance and its refusal to establish a nation state with a border. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the Islamic state does not want defined borders that might restrain its ferocious appetite to expand and conquer the infidel ‘dar Al harb’ states, who like defined borders?

Imam Feisal Rauf interview

Let’s take a closer look at a few quotes from Rauf’s interview:

“9/11 was a watershed, was a major catalytic force in, in catalyzing the attention towards the issue of Islam, it’s presence in the West.”

Meaning that he sees 9/11 mainly as a major opportunity, a milestone in advancing Islam. In other words, he saw that the successful murder of 3,000 Americans is now facilitating the work of nice “moderate’ Imams like him in America.

“How America should really engage with them [Hamas]…Helping her [Madeline Albright] understand the role of religion. She supported a Jewish State in the Middle East; why not support an Islamic State?”

When Rauf learned that the interview is over, he opens up regarding his advocacy for Hamas and how he advised and influenced former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright with whom he claimed to have had constant contact. Rauf warns of the need to deal with Hamas lest we lose this organization to bad guys, like Syria or Iran, as if Hamas is not bad enough on its own. This is the same threat this ‘man of peace’ is warning America to never upset the Islamic street ‘or else’.

“We have designed our Cordoba Initiative to be designed, in other words, we have 5 major areas of our program. So we have foreign policy, is one area, you have communications is another area, you have education as the third area, for example, you have intra-Islamic issues is the fourth area, arts and culture is the fifth area.”

Why would Cordoba, which he claims to be "cultural center", have a "Foreign Policy" section that would develop "Strategy Action Plays"? What is he going to educate Americans of? Will he send Muslim coaches to American schools to teach sensitivity training to watch for the feelings of Muslims or might he demand to educate American kids how to pray to Allah?

“If the entertainment media, the news media, was broadcasted in print, describe and speak about the issues in a different way it can help change perceptions profoundly, because it’s the media, which helps shape perceptions to a great degree. So if we have strategic action plays, designed plays, in the area of foreign policy, in the area of healing the divide, and then you unpack and give up Israel. You then have to have your offensive coaching stuff, your offensive coach and defensive coach and your head coach, we have to have our Palestinian coach, etc.”

Rauf speaks here like a war strategist, who wants to use the media to shape perceptions to promote his strategic action plays in the area of foreign policy. Rauf and I both are of Egyptian origin and I think he is still dreaming of the good old days of the Egyptian media propaganda machine I lived under and participated in. Before moving to America I was a journalist and media censor in the Middle East News Agency. There is no other way to interpret what Rauf wants: to use the media the way the tyrants and dictators of the Middle East do; as a traditional Islamic tool of indoctrination, misinformation and propaganda. Watch how clever Rauf inserts words like “healing the divide” right before hitting us with “you unpack and give up Israel”.

“I am the head coach of this strategic initiative and the President of the United States, or the President of Malaysia, or the President of England, is like a player you want to bring in for particular plays. We look at it as American football, you want to gain yardage.”

Are we supposed to believe that these are normal words of a peaceful Sufi cleric? What is it that he wants to win in yardage, one yard at a time? These are clearly grandiose plans of a borderline delusional narcissist who admits he plans to manipulate US Foreign Policy, the president of the United States, the 'president' of England (someone please inform the Queen on that one!) whom he considers as just “players" in his grand scheme.

When he was asked whom does he considers the enemy, his answer was: “You have to make sure you are not pushed back, you have to make sure you have power on your side to be able to push the ball forward.”

Is this ‘community building’ or a war strategy?

Then Mr. Rauf spoke of his vision of the Islamic state:

“I don’t want a demographic Islamic State, it is not a part of our tradition and never was until recently.” He added “Egypt, Alexandria, had 400,000 Greeks” “We created the notion of demographic Nation State whereas before that they were all living together.”

Rauf has an illusion of an Islamic State that never was and never will be. For some reason I’m hearing John Lennon’s song ‘Imagine’ (there’s no countries… no borders etc).

Rauf’s true self, motives and objectives have been exposed in this interview. To him the hard Jihad of 9/11 was just a catalytic beginning that facilitated his form of stealth Jihad. Soften the American public with a huge explosive terror act that divides Americans and sends their heads spinning, then comes Rauf to save the day with his community bridge-building at Ground Zero. To him 9/11 was just a strategic move in an Islamic/Western chess game. With both violent and stealth jihad coordinating their efforts and by playing the old ‘good cop bad cop’ routine on the American psyche, Rauf aims at becoming the Muslim hero in America who will join those who want to break down America’s borders brick by brick until finally one day America is transformed into Sharia-compliant Islamic state.

Faisal Rauf is the typical double-faced Islamist who speaks from both sides of his mouth. Even his book has one ‘nice’ title in English to fool the West, while in Arabic it advocates Sharia from Ground Zero. While claiming that his mission is non-political, just community building, his interview not only exposed him but more importantly, exposed Islam’s goals and the fact that ‘moderate’ Islam works in perfect harmony and in conjunction with radical terrorists.

This man is dangerous, but what is more dangerous is our State Department who has been facilitating the agenda of a clearly megalomaniacal jihadist.

---

Nonie Darwish is the President FormerMuslimsUnited.org and the author of ‘Cruel and Usual Punishment’.

Civilizational War

Sharia, the Islamic legal code, is devoted to regulating the life of Muslims in every detail --- sex, food, art, business, education, prayer, manners, speech and how to think and not to think. All aspects of life---religion, politics, ethics, culture---are within the bounds of Sharia. It is the operating manual for a complete civilization. And the civilization of Sharia is not just different, it contradicts our civilization.

---

THE CIVILIZATION OF ISLAM

One of the clearest lessons about Islam is found in the Sharia. The largest part of the Sharia is devoted to regulating the life of Muslims down to the smallest detail. There is no aspect of life that is not regulated-sex, food, art, business, education, prayer, manners, speech and how to think and not to think. There is no aspect of life that is outside the power of Sharia-religion, politics, ethics, culture are included. The Sharia is the operating manual for a complete civilization. Islam is complete within itself and needs nothing from the outside.

The Sharia has one other quality that is as important as the totality of its scope. The civilization of Sharia is not just different, it contradicts our civilization.

Inside Islam justice, religion, politics, law, human rights and compassion do not mean what they mean to us. All of these ideas are based on the principles of submission and duality as found in the Sharia.

OUR CIVILIZATION

Our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. We do not always fulfill the principles, but they are the ideals we strive for, and can be used for debate and self-criticism to correct and improve our culture.

Our principles lead to the ideals of critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and a free-ranging humor.

These are beautiful ideals and they are worth keeping and striving towards. Do we meet them? No, but what is more important they contradict the Sharia. It is one thing to fail to achieve these ideals, but it is entirely another to see them disappear as a public option under the impact of Sharia. Sharia law limits critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and humor.

CIVILIZATIONAL WAR

Part of the genius of Islam is the totality of Sharia, which includes a concept of war that attacks the host civilization at every aspect of its being. In modern times the military power of Islam is weak, but this is more than compensated by its ability to attack along legal and cultural lines under the guise of being a religion.

As Sharia is applied to a society, the host civilization is annihilated in each and every manifestation of culture. This annihilation is demonstrated by a peculiar fact about the history of Islamic countries-part of it is missing. Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist civilization. We see its remnants in ruins and fragments such as the Bamiyan Buddhas that were destroyed by the Taliban. Who knows the Buddhist history of Afghanistan? Practically speaking, it does not exist. Who knows the history of how Turkey, North Africa, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq went from being Christian to Islamic?

We don't know the history because of the total annihilation of the past cultures by Sharia law. As time goes on customs, law, art, literature, and ethics of the host culture are replaced by Islamic values under the application of Sharia. The result is that there is nothing left of the history before the implementation of Sharia law.

There is a second aspect of this annihilation---the dhimmitude of the Kafirs (non-Muslims) remaining inside Islamic society. If you talk to Christians who are left in Islamic countries, they are an abused people who are unable to fight back after centuries of suffering and degradation under Sharia law. They are not supported by other Kafirs and are left to suffer under the oppression that will eliminate their few numbers. Whatever memory they have of the past is ignored by those who should be defending them.

If we are to go down the Sharia road, history teaches that it has always led to an Islamic mono-culture. In the end, there is no such thing as a little Sharia.

---

Bill Warner is the Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. This article first appeared on the American Thinker Website.

Sharia for Dummies

Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the US constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:

1. Jihad defined as "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion" is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.
2. A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.
3. A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.
4. A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.
5. It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
6. A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.
7. The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.
8. A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9. A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.
10. A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.
11. Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.
12. Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
13. Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.
14. It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.
15. A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
16. Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.
17. No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.
18. A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.
19. Homosexuality is punishable by death.
20. There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.
21. Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.
22. Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.
23. There is no common property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.
24. A woman inherits half what a man inherits.
25. A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.
26. The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.
27. A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.
28. The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.
29. A woman looses custody if she remarries.
30. To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.
31. A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
32. A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.
33. A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

The above are clear cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?

America, Break Silence on Islam

Americans must hear the truth about Islam continually until they are completely aware of its dangers. Sadly, our religious leaders dare not speak up fearing they would be accused of intolerance toward another religion. Our academia, the university professors, left or right, dare not, because, most likely, they would lose their salaries....

---

Our politicians dare not because they are master practitioners of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception, and they need your votes as well as your money. Our editors dare not because they would lose subscribers. Businessmen dare not because they might lose customers and clientele. Even ordinary clerks dare not because they might be discharged. So I thought I would tell you.

My fellow Americans, America is faced with a formidable enemy. This enemy has a name: 'Islam'. I think it is time to revisit the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and see if Islam is qualified as a religion. Is this an outlandishly absurd proposal? Not at all, serious problems require equally serious solutions. The call for evaluation of the First Amendment may be seen as an attempt to curb Islam or other militant cults. The truth is: it is. It is truly a matter of survival of the United States and the free world.

It is time to take a stand and shift the debate to orthodox Islam. We do not have to investigate every other religion on earth in order to compare them or offer opinion about their relative “goodness” in order to declare that on the whole Islam perpetuates evil. Let others devolve into religious disagreements. But for those commentators who would respond: “OK great, so now what...you claim Islam is evil. How do we combat that?” Your response is already clear: Through the spread of truth, not deceit. Through voluntary social sanctions and laws in every civilized country that forbid evil practices like Sharia, coercion and violence against women, threats against those who disagree, honor killings, apostasy and other hate crimes. Let the world know the truth and decide for itself. Let Muslims who come to their senses opt out.

America, with a long history of protecting religious freedom, still clings to the “hands off” practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as religion. A thorny problem is in deciding what constitutes a religion and who is to make that call. The dictionary supplies a sociologically useless definition for religion: “The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.” Just about anyone or any group under this definition can start a religion, and they indeed do—and some do so at significant costs to others.

Muslims, under the banner of religion, are infringing blatantly on the rights of others, not only in Islamic countries, but also in much of the non-Muslim world. By their acts of dogmatic barbarity, Muslims are slowly awakening the non-Muslim democracies to the imminent threat of Islamofascisim keen on destroying their free secular and free societies.

As more and more Muslims arrive in American land, as they reproduce with great fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims gather more power to undermine a serious challenge to the American system of governance—democracy. As for democracy, the rule of the people, Muslims have no use at all. Muslims believe that Allah’s rule must govern the world in the form of Caliphate—a theocracy. Making mockery of democracy, subverting its working, and ignoring its provisions is a Muslim’s way of falsifying what he already believes to be a sinful and false system of governance invented by the infidels.

A consortium composed of pandering liberal politicians, blinded by short-term self-interest and egotism, attention and fund-seeking self-proclaimed prima donna professors; and, bastions of useful idiots, is the witting or unwitting promoter of Ummah-ism.

Unlike some peaceful religions such as Baha’i, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity, which advocate universally understood principles of good within their Holy books, and perhaps other religious doctrines (with which I am not personally familiar), Islam cannot be reformed.

Any reference to violence in Islam is often counter-argued by pointing fingers to Old Testament violence. Old Testament stories are taught in Christianity as historical fact, not prescriptions based on Christian ethics. And if Christianity was violent in the past, it was in violation of Jesus' teachings and has mended its ways, reformed, and has become peaceful.

But Islam does not tolerate revisionism, reform, of its beliefs or practices over time. Reform is not at play, because one cannot point to Jihadists or terrorists and say Muhammad did not advocate it. He most certainly did, and delighted in his evil thoughts. Islam is a literal religion, taking unabrogated scripture as eternal and absolute. Moreover, there are no calls in Islam for compassion, forgiveness, non-violence, and brotherly love. Instead there are specific prescriptions for retain evil with evil, eternal warfare, religious hegemony, slavery, killing Jews, taxing nonbelievers, stoning, promulgating terror, establishing a caste social system, and perpetuating discrimination against women. The only way to reform Islam is discarding Sharia, but also purging the Quran itself of enormous suras that are not only patently false, but totally repugnant to a civilized humanity. This line of thinking, to sanitize Islam is explicitly forbidden in the Quran:

Quran 2:85: ”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.”

Therefore there is no such thing as “radical Islam.” And those who take a “liberal” view of Islam should be forced to back up their nouveau interpretation with unabrogated scriptural facts. Unless such “reformists” can denounce fascist Islam with scripture, they are the true radicals, which is why we never see them pointing to scriptural arguments against jihad...they cannot because they are lying. Islamic terrorists are only doing exactly what Muhammad demanded, and his demands were not suggestions and they where not ephemeral. They were “perfect,” eternal ultimata. Let us not forget that the terrorists are faithful and true to what is written in their holy book.

The notion that only those who denounce what is plainly Islamic (and just as plainly repulsive) are therefore the tools of Jews, or right-wing, paranoid, NASCAR-loving, gun-rights-worshipping, evangelical Christians must be exhaustively combated and rejected. This politicizing and obscuring reality only keeps people confused, inured, and numb.

But because both those who believe Islam is defective and those who believe it has been hijacked are equally in opposition to terrorism and coercion, there is confusion about how Islam should be regarded. Perhaps the contrasting viewpoints should be named so they can be referred to as valid concepts.

The notion that Islam is peaceful, but that only “radicals” are usurping and distorting the “peace-of-Islam” should be called: Islam-revisionism and advocates called Islam-Revisionists.

The notion that Islam is inherently violent, coercive, harsh, Jihad-oriented...and that it advocates slavery, intolerance, and inequality...and that such traditional and realistic interpretations cannot be reformed should be called Islam-realism and such advocates called Islam-realists.

Once the side of realists has a name and can distinguish itself from wishful revisionists, the public can begin to see that there are many voices which (without advocating a specific competing religion) can denounce Islam per se, and can speak to the real reasons. Islam continues its onslaught, and can counter any senseless position, such as reforming them and bringing democracy and tolerance to their lands (the RINOS position).

Recall how many times former President George W. Bush praised Islam? Recall President George Bush’s love affairs with the Sheikh Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Obama’s bow to the Saudis’ Sheikh? Apparently, both presidents were/are unaware of the existence of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasans in the United States military, though the entire 8 years of the presidency of George W. Bush consumed around the 9/11 tragedy and Islamic terrorism. Next in line to the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia is the largest sponsor and supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. Go figure!

Please tell the American people what has been done since this Muslim-American Maj. savagely killed 14 people while shouting Allah-o-Akbar (one unborn child) and hurting 30 others? As I noted, the recent dastardly mass murder at Fort Hood, committed by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will be forgotten by the public before very long. Life will continue on its deadly course, pushed along in a variety of ways by agents of death, Islamists. Only the families who lost their loved-ones and those who survived the bullets have to live the rest of their lives with incapacitating injuries and, in the main, won’t be able to put the episode behind them.

Those who claim that they want to reform Islam want to transform it by stripping it of a great many provisions that are anathema to civilized humanity. These people are, in fact, trying to make a new religion out of the old with no divine authority that was, supposedly, bestowed upon Muhammad to launch his religion.

If I am right, then Islam will always be a bête noire to the West. Even dopey secularists and leftists will realize that fact one day, perhaps only after their delusions sink all of us. But realizing the fact that this religious power is at eternal war with you is not an act of hopelessness, and therefore it is not a call to pollyanishness. It simply means we must always be on our guard and never self-deluded. It may mean we have to leave the Islamists alone and hope that their people slowly convert to another religion or become unaffiliated. Until then, we should keep our powder dry.

I have refused to accept several organizations that seek to combat or expose the antics of “radical” or “extreme” Islam, because I know that it is not extremism that is causing the violence...it’s mainstream, typical, normal, traditional, specified, canonical Islam.

There are those who with a wink and a nod understand this but continue to work as revisionists because they are afraid of starting a religious war, even as they feel compelled to do something. They tell me, “You can’t openly accuse an entire religion of being evil! That would just incite them and make them hate us even more. My response: the war started in the 7th century, and if in the 21st century we still refuse to accept that reality, then there is perhaps is no hope at all for civilization. Nothing good can come from deception.

I argue that any belief system that licenses murder in the name of Jihad and the conquering and subduing of the world of the infidels by the Ummah, should be outlawed. Prophet Mohammed brewed up a militant, radical and extremely irrational imperialistic cult that sought world dominance. My fellow travelers, let us make one thing clear; Islam is no more a religion deserving our respect or legal recognition than is cannibalism.

It is time for the Americans to call upon the lawmakers of the United States of America to immediately create a safety board and commissioner to study and examine the dangers of Islamic dogma in our society. In the monumental task of dealing with Islam, every individual, group and government must combine their resources and energies to prevail. The destiny of the civilized life hangs in the balance. Shirking responsibility is an unpardonable act of every enlightened human being and organization that values human liberty and dignity.

Are Human Rights Universal?

The United Nations charter says human rights are universal, but Islamic countries not only violate the charter most grossly, but are also trying to undermine it by subjugating it to what is permitted by Sharia...

---

The Roman Catholic Archbishop Dom Helder Camara famously said, "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

I work to protect and promote the rights of people. The government and groups with different names and notions challenge me. Most associate themselves with different races, religions, colors, and political and national identity. I also like to identify with my nation and notion, but I don’t want to forget that my first identity is I am a human and my responsibility is seeking rights for humanity. Unfortunately, human rights are denied in times and places where human led crisis cause maximum hatred for a minimum of reasons.

Human rights are the birthrights of all human beings, which are inherent and inalienable and not granted or bestowed by a sovereign power and are not capable of being given or taken away. But it is very sad that there is no place in the world where one can enjoy all rights. Rather, there are many places where people have bare minimum rights.

In the early ages when nature was out of control, man fought against animals and nature. Today, the same man is fighting against the system of suppression and brutality waged by the powerful towards the powerless.

Powerful people are the fuel source of powerful institutions like the state and sometimes they indulge in immoral acts, which are the sources of suppression and oppression.

Some states dictate rights like God edits our wants through our prayers. When we pray, God edits and corrects them and brings them in line with his will. He detects our rights and the boundaries, which according to him should not be crossed at any cost.

Through the charter of the United Nations, almost all sovereign states have recognized the existence of human rights and understand that such rights should be promoted and protected.

The universality of human rights is closely related to the promotion of public moral imperatives under the notions of equality or non-discrimination without distinction to race, sex, language or religion.

But sometimes, religion and political system become a burden before fulfilling any human rights standards. The Abraham religions clearly violate human rights standards by taking the position that men are created higher than women while others like Islam say that those who desire any religion other than Islam will never be accepted.

In some countries dominated by Abrahamic faith believers, the ignorance of believers is causing serious human rights violations in different ways and degrees.

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of others, which is seen in India’s democratic system.

On Mar. 17, 1998, the then Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi at a commemorative ceremony of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Geneva appealed for a “revision of the Declaration.”

While Islamic criminal laws have a vast official and informal jurisdiction, the UDHR and other U.N. instruments are promoting human rights in countries like Iran.

For example, in 1986, Section 295-C was introduced in Pakistan’s penal code, making the death penalty mandatory for anyone convicted of blaspheming the Prophet Muhammad. Over 200 Ahmadi Muslims were charged with “blasphemy” between 1986 and 1993. The prominent human rights activist John Joseph, Bishop of Faisalabad killed himself to protest against the law. Christians are continuously facing suppression, detention and torture in Pakistan.

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam defends its own Declaration but challenges the UDHR, “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia and the Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

While such divisions only help to dissolve human rights, there is still a good opportunity for the world to unite and promote human rights.

Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies

Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah. But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented? This article says no for ten verifiable reasons. Here are four points you must read, before reading this article: First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith. Second, each of these ten reasons has a back—up article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies. Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics. Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity. 'Islam' in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars. Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies. 10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol. In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes. In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling. After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry:
The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment? The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here. It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them. Here is the article that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic verses on drinking and gambling. It analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings. 9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives. In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia. Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives. The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:
'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery. Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longer article has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law (scroll down to 'Further discussion'). 8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye. In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation. In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fianc�e. In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes. The Quran says:
5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation. The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above. Please go here for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings. Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates. 7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan. A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here. The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788) If the reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting article or this shorter one. 6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated. In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years. In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated. The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:
Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood. See this short article for details on another example of Muhammad's use of torture. Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed. For more information on Muhammad's brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it, go to the back—up article. 5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed. In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed. In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy. In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death. On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.' These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate. Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .
'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion. If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supporting article. This longer one has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to 'Supplemental material'). 4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death. Fornication: In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex. The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833. The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here. According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty—five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal. Adultery: In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:
An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped. She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child. Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here. Here is the back—up article that supports this fourth reason. 3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself. In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa. In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction. In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam. Here are the classical legal rulings. First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):
(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head. The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)): (1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam. According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience. Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ. How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation? For the supporting article that analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics, click here. 2. Islam orders apostates to be killed. In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy. This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples. Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article in no. three, above), whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings. See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law. Here are the articles that support reason no. two. This is a short, but full article on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages. Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll down to 'The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates'). This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed. And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . . 1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad. Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews. Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow? What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions? (1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow? Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices. For an analysis of the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades, click here. For the supporting article of reason no. one, please go here. It also has a segment on the differences between jihad in Islam and the wars in the Old Testament. Another article on that topic can be read here. There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic. Therefore, Islam is violent—unjustly and aggressively. Conclusion The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform? But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad's example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this? In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 1600—1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are. Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them. Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments. One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam. It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just. Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative. Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom. James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com Supplemental material: In private emails to me or on websites, Muslim apologists (defenders) claim that the Islamic way of dealing with vices is superior to the western way, even in Islam's punishments like flogging and stoning. It is true that the West is filled with decadence, but are Islamic countries pure and pristine through and through, as these Muslim apologists imply? To anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. Alcohol and other intoxicants and gambling serve as test cases. This article says that Bahrain, an island and independent sate that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway, provides a 'breathing lung' for Saudis because this Islamic island allows the free flow of alcohol and a night life. The words 'breathing lung' in Bahrain mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge. This article discusses the smuggling of alcohol in Saudi Arabia and says:
"Western analysts note that alcohol smuggling of the magnitude underway in Saudi Arabia —— perhaps tens of millions of dollars' worth of illegal merchandise annually —— would likely involve the complicity of Saudi customs agents and perhaps a higher—level patron."This article reveals how Iranians get around the official ban on alcohol, like beer and vodka and other intoxicants, like opium. A black market has sprung up—just like the one in America during Prohibition. This article says that even though the Taliban, the tyrants who formerly ruled Afghanistan, outlawed the growth of poppies, which are the source of opium, the leaders of the Taliban may have profited from the drug trade. The new and democratic government has a hard time keeping this drug under control. This article says that authorities in Turkey threaten to imprison online gamblers, and this page links to a report (scroll to the second one) that discusses how Turkey must deal with the problem of monetary interest, alcohol, and gambling. It is revealing to see how Muslim religious leaders try to squirm out of Quranic laws against interest, in order to help Islamic financial institutions make money. The purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime underground.