Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

White House Shari’ah Rally: What Do They Want?


I learned from a Daily Mail article that three infamous British Muslims have been asked to address a pro Shari’ah rally at the White House March 3, 2011. The event is sponsored by the International Institute of Islamic Thought.   If we had rational and patriotic leaders in power, Anjem Choudary, Abu Izzadeen and Sayful Islam would be denied visas.

The theme of the rally is supposed to be exhortation to rise up and impose Shari’ah on America. Literally the “path to life giving waters”, Shari’ah is a codification of the laws laid down in the Qur’an & hadith.

The Sunnis comprise the majority of Muslims and the Shafi’ite school of jurisprudence is the most widely accepted of the Sunni schools. Its handbook of fiqh is Reliance of the Traveller and Guide to the Faithful.

I have included images from a pdf file scanned from Reliance of the Traveller. Click them to view full sized images. Lest you doubt the authenticity of the text, I included two certifications of authenticity, from al-Azhar & IIIT.

Reliance is divided into topical books. Book o treats of “Justice”; chapter 9 treats the law of jihad, beginning with a definition:

09.0 JIHAD
(0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims,
and is etymologically derived from the word
mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the
religion.[…]

The text cites several verses of the Qur’an and hadith to back that up.  o9.1 discusses the communal obligation of waging war against infidels, which is “meaning upon the Muslims each year”  Islamic law requires a minimum of one military expedition against infidels in every year.

O9.8 reveals the practical application of that communal obligation.

o9.8 Thc caliph (025) makes war upon Jews,
Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has
first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice,
and if they will not, then invited them to
enter the social order of Islam by paying the nonMuslim
poll tax (jizya, def: 01 L4)-which is the
significance of their paying it, not the money
itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions)
(0: and the war continues) until they
become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll
tax (0: in accordance with the word of Allah Most
High,…

The text continues with the scriptural basis of the ruling, which is 9:29.  Note the similarity of expression used by J.M. Rodwell.

Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.

O9.9 follows up with warfare against pagans.

09.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until
they become Muslim (0: because they are not a
people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are
not permited to settle with paying the poll tax…

Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf and other advocates of Shari’ah won’t tell you about those provisions, why not?

There are important considerations other than violence. The concept of equality is one of them.  Consider what chapter 24 says about testimony.

024.2 Legal testimony is only acceptable from a
witness who:
(a) is free;
(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def:
c8.1) (0: as testimony is not accepted from a child
or insane person, even when the child’s testimony
regards injuries among ehildren that oeeurred at
play);
(e) is able to speak;
(d) is mentally awake;
(e) is religious (0: meaning upright (024.4)
(A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,
“Let those of rectitude among you testify”
(Koran 65:2),
and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as
goes without saying);

If you ain’t Muslim, you can’t be a witness!  Let that sink in for a moment. Read it again.  What do you think about Shari’ah now?  The testimony of a man is worth that of two women.

024.7 The testimony of the following is legally
acceptable when it concerns cases involving property,
or transactions dealing with property, such
as sales:
(1) two men;
(2) two women and a man;
(3) or a male witness together with the oath
of the plaintiff.

Why is the feminist movement silent about this?

In England and some American states, there is pressure for application of Shari’ah to domestic matters; family disputes.  The laws concerning marriage are laid out in book m.  I will raise one quote from that book, containing a concept which will cause any rational and compassionate person to reject Shari’ah.

GUARDIANS WHO MAY MARRY A VIRGIN
TO A MAN WITHOUT HER CONSENT
m3.13 Guardians are of two types, those who
may compel their female charges to marry someone,
and those who may not.
(1) The only guardians who may compel
their charge to marry are a virgin bride’s father or
father’s father, compel meaning to marry her to a
suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.
(2) Those who may not compel her are not
entitled to marry her to someone unless she
accepts and gives her permission.
Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or
father’s father may marry her to someone without
her permission, though it is recommended to ask
her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin’s
silence is considered as permission.
As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no one
may marry her to another after she has reached
puberty without her express permission, no matter
whether the guardian is the father, father’s
father, or someone else.

Let that sink in for a moment.  Read it again. Do you want Shari’ah to be applied here?  Why/why not??

Divorce is one of the more important family law matters. Under Shari’ah, a husband need only declare divorce three times to give it legal effect.

n1.3 The person conducting the divorce may
effect it himself or commission another (def:
k17.5-6) to do so, even if the person commissioned
is a woman.
The person commissioned may effect the
divorce at any time (0: provided the one who
commissions him does not cancel the commission
before the divorce takes place (dis: k17.16»,
though when a husband tells his wife. “Divorce
yourself,” then if she immediately says, “I divorce
myself,” she is divorced, but if she delays, she is
not divorced unless the husband has said, “Divorce
yourself whenever you wish.”

n2.1 A free man has three pronouncements of
divorce (0: because of the word of Allah Most
High,
“Divorce is two times, then retain with kindness
or graciously release” (Koran 2:229),
and when the Prophet (Allah bless him and give
him peace) was asked about the third time, he
said,
“It is Allah’s having said, ‘or graciously
release’ “).

I have furnished links to the pdf file containing Reliance. The images below are screen shots taken from that file. Click them to view full sized images. You don’t need to take my word for the facts, I make it easy for you to verify what I write.

Certificate of authenticity from IIIT. Certificate of authenticity from al*Azhar U.
Certificate of authenticity from IIIT Certificate of authenticity from al-Azhar University
o9.0 defines jihad. o9.1 describes the communal obligation to attack disbeleivers.
o9.0 Defines jihad. o9.1 Describes the obligation of annual attacks on disbelievers.
o9.8 confirms war on Jews & Christians. The caliph fights all other peoples...
o9.8 “The caliph makes war on Jews, Christians… o9.9 …fights all other peoples…
o24 details who can serve as a witness. It takes two women to match one man's testimony.
Christians can’t testify in court. Woman’s witness: half weight.
More on testimony. Compulsory juvenile marriage.
Further details on testimony. A father may force his pre-pubescent daughter to wed.
Partial contents of the book on divorce. Divorce: contents.
Book N: Divorce: contents Book N: Divorce: contents
N2.2 Divorce
N2.2 Divorce

Reliance is not the only handbook of Islamic law, though it is the most popular. Others are generally less detailed in some matters. Al-Hedaya is not as easy to read but it explains the differences between Shafi’ite and Hanifi fiqh.

For the Maliki fiqh on jihad, turn to chapter 30 of Risala, which offers less detail than Reliance.  The Hanifi fiqh of jihad is in  al-Hedaya, Vol. II, Book IX, Chapter 1.

The fiqh of wudu & prayer tends to be arcane, nonsensical and harmless to us. But the Islamic law regarding war is totally unacceptable, as is the inequality of women and religious minorities.  The concepts of arbitrary divorce & forced marriage are so repugnant as to compel vigorous objection to imposition of Shari’ah.

Let us therefore rise up as one with a loud voice shouting HELL NO!!! to those who demand imposition of Islamic law.  Let us support the state legislation designed to ban it and make demands for national legislation to prevent the imposition of Shari’ah in the federal courts.

February 21, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Al-taqiyya about Shari’ah Must Be Refuted!


 

The S-Word

Fearmongering about Sharia law in America needs to stop

Published: Thursday, November 18, 2010

I did not find the article to be rich in substance, but a few points need to be raised.

The proposal was bolstered by a case in New Jersey in which the court considered Sharia law in its decision to deny a Muslim woman a restraining order against her sexually abusive ex-husband. That decision, thankfully, was overturned on appeal.

What if?  Suppose there was a technical error in the appeal, causing the original verdict to be upheld?  What if the appeals court failed to recognize the lower court’s error?  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

After the negligence comes the sarcasm.

But it was enough to drive seven out of ten Oklahoma voters toward the “Save Our State” Amendment,” to “save” Oklahoma from, in the words of the bill’s main author, Muslims who desire nothing more than to take away “liberties and freedom from our children.”

A student, occupied with learning and passing exams, can be forgiven for being ignorant of Islamic doctrines & practices, but not for assuming that he knows everything about the subject. I was ignorant of Islam when I was a student, but I have learned a great deal in the last ten years.  Islam’s strategic objective is total world domination: making the entire human race slaves of Allah. Islam does not recognize man made legislation, it demands the imposition of Shari’ah, derived from the Qur’an & Sunnah.

But the law exemplifies something far more insidious than bad public policy. Quite simply, there is a dangerous amount of ignorance in the United States about what Sharia law actually is. And until this misconception is corrected, as another concerned columnist so eloquently put it, the war on global Islamist terror will also continue be a war on American Muslims.

Basing American court decisions on the American Constitution, legislation & case law is not “bad public policy”, it is common sense.  There is a dangerous level of ignorance about Shari’ah. That ignorance can be corrected by reading Reliance of the Traveller, Noah Ha Mim Keller’s translation of Umdat Al-Salik, the Shafi’ite school’s handbook of Fiqh.  The text includes certificates of authenticity and accuracy from scholars at Al-Azhar.

In England, Shari’ah courts deal mainly with family law. Safe, sane and simple; no threat there, right?  Wrong!!!  Book m treats of the laws of marriage. Lets examine a sample.

m3.13: Guardians Who May Marry a Virgin to a Man Without Her Consent

Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.

-1- The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride’s father or father’s father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

-2- Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.

Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father’s father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin’s silence is considered as permission.

As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father’s father, or someone else.

So much for the minimum legal age. So much for choosing your own lifetime mate.  Book n treats of divorce.  Who can do it?
Divorce is valid from anyDivorce is valid from any

n1.1

Divorce is valid from any:

(a) husband;

(b) who is sane;

(c) has reached puberty;

(d) and who voluntarily effects it.

A divorce is not valid from:

-1- (non-(c) above) a child;

-2- (non-(b) ) someone insane;

-3- or (non-(d) ) someone who is wrongfully coerced to do it, as when one is threatened with death, dismemberment, being severely beaten, or even mere verbal abuse or a slight beating if the person being coerced is someone whose public image is important and would thereby suffer. (O: Someone being forced should use words that give a misleading impression (def: r10.2) for his ostensible “divorce.”)

n2.1

A free man has three pronouncements of divorce (O: because of the word of Allah Most High,

“Divorce is two times, then retain with kindness or graciously release” (Koran 2:229),

and when the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was asked about the third time, he said.

“It is Allah’s having said, or graciously release”’).

n3.1

The words that effect a divorce may be plain or allusive. Plain words effect the divorce whether one intends divorce by them or not, while allusive words do not effect it unless one intends divorce by them.

n3.2 Using plain words to effect a divorce means expressly pronouncing the word divorce (O: or words

derived from it).  When the husband says’ “I divorce you,” or “You are divorced,” the wife is divorced

whether he has made the intention or not.

(A: Here and in the rulings below, expressions such as “The wife is divorced,” or “The divorce is effected,” mean just one of the three times (def: n9.0(N:) ) necessary to finalize it, unless the husband thereby intends a two-or threefold divorce (dis: n3.5) or repeats the words three times.)

 

 

Let divorce cases be handled by Shari’ah courts; great idea, ladies?   How about honoricide?  Book o treats of “justice”. o.1 details retaliation for death or injury. There are certain cases in which no retaliation is due. Here they are.

o1.2

The following are not subject to retaliation:

-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) );

-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);

-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring;

-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor’s) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.

You can not execute a Muslim for killing a kuffar, an apostate or his own offspring. That’s the law. It should be enforced, of course. It is so much superior to our man made laws.   How about the blood money to be paid for murder?

o4.9

(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury’s type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim’s indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )

The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.

A Muslim woman is worth only one half of her Muslim husband. A Christian is worth only one third as much as a Muslim. What a great system, lets implement it!

Then there is the matter of eligibility to give testimony in court.

o24.2

Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:

(a) is free;

(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1) (O: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane person, even when the child’s testimony regards injuries among children that occurred at play);

(c) is able to speak;

(d) it mentally awake;

(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,

“Let those of rectitude among you testify” (Koran 65:2),

and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying);

(f) and who is outwardly respectable (O: respectability (muru’a) meaning to have the positive traits which one’s peers possess in one’s particular time and place. Sheikh al-Islam (A: Zakariyya Ansari) says, “Respectability is refraining from conduct that is unseemly according to standards commonly acknowledged among those who observe the precepts and rules of the Sacred Law.” It is according to standards commonly acknowledged (def: f4.5) because there are no absolute standards for it, but rather it varies with different persons, conditions, and places, Such things as eating and drinking (A: in the marketplace or wearing nothing on one’s head may vitiate it (A: though the latter is of no consequence in our times), as may a religious scholar’s wearing a robe or cap in places where it is not customary for him to do so).

o24.7

The testimony of the following is legally acceptable when it concerns cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales:

-1- two men;

-2- two women and a man;

-3- or a male witness together with the oath of the plaintiff.

o24.8

If testimony does not concern property, such as a marriage or prescribed legal penalties, then only two male witnesses may testify (A: though the Hanafi school holds that two women and a man may testify for marriage).

 

Christians can’t testify, nor can menial laborers and it takes two women to give evidence. What a great system! Other schools of Islamic jurisprudence are not exact matches, but are objectionable, none the less.  For example, the Maliki’s Risala. Marry off your virgin daughter, unequal blood wit, female testimony, infidel testimony. Is that warm glow of Ivy League superiority holding still holding up?

One senator had words of wisdom about basing rulings on foreign law.

I did want  to mention it in that connection. But lf me U.S. Supreme Court. ls not going to look to the laws of the Uunited States, including  the fundamental law of tho Unted Status, which In tho Constitution, but lnterpreting what is and is not constltutlonal under tha U.S. Constitution by looking at what foreign governments and foreign Iaws have to my about that same issue. I fear that bit by bit and case by case the Amerlcan people are slowly losing control over the meaning of our laws and the Constitution itself. It this trend continues, foreign governments may have a say in what our laws and
our Constitution mean and what our policies  ln America. should be.

Senator John Cornyn, March 20,2005, Congressional Record, Vol. 151, Pt. 4, pg. 5516

International and Foreign Law Sources: Siren Song for U.S. Judges? By Chimène I. Keitner on page ten, cites legislation proposed in 2005 that would limit federal judges to domestic sources except for British common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Justices cited as favoring consideration of foreign law, cited by Chimène I. Keitner. include William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor,Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy.  Shari’ah is not mentioned in that article, but the same principle applies.

For the grand finale, lets glance at the temporary injunction.

Munir Awad vs. Oklahoma  State Board of Elections;  Case No. CIV-10-1186-M

State Question No. 755, which was on Oklahoma’s November 2, 2010 ballot, provides: This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases.
It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law….

“Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the ban on the state courts’ use and consideration of Sharia Law violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Three elements are listed:

  1. by Oklahoma’s official condemnation of his religion/faith as reflected through the amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution banning state courts’ use or consideration of Sharia Law,
  2. by the invalidation of his last will and testament which incorporates various teachings of Mohammed, and
  3. by the excessive entanglement of the state courts with religion that would result from the amendment as the state courts in implementing the amendment would have to determine what is and is not encompassed in Sharia Law.

Constitutional elements:

  1. must have a secular legislative purpose,
  2. its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
  3. it must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

The amendment specifies the local sources of law and proscribes use of foreign law and Shari’ah. It is unreasonable to equate rejecting Shari’ah as an input to judical decisions with rejection of Islam.

Does any reasonable person believe that the amendment rejects or invalidates the plaintiff’s last will and testament?  If his will is probated, it will be subject to state law, regardless of Shari’ah. Book l treats of inheritance. Only one third of the estate can be bequeathed, the rest is divided according to a complex formula. If you are crazy enough to want to figure it out, go to Book l.1.

Entanglement?  All the courts need to do under the amendment is perform  their duties as they do now, considering the facts, law and constitutions but not Shari’ah.  There is no need for the courts to read Reliance, Risala or Hedaya, they just need to do their job. The complaint is obviously unfounded.

The amendment has a constitutional purpose: preserving the primacy of the federal and state constitutions.  It neither advances nor inhibits religion, it prevents entanglement the court system with Shari’ah.  It does not foster government entanglement with religion, it prevents entanglement. 

November 19, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: