The Maldives: No debate on Sharia punishments, because “there is nothing to debate about in a matter clearly stated in the religion of Islam”

Protesters called for the arrest of the UN human rights chief for criticizing and calling for debate on flogging for extra-marital sex, as is called for in Qur’an 24:2: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”

Such debates have been branded “anti-Islamic issues,” and the implication is clear that to challenge Sharia is to challenge Allah, which could conceivably bring its own set of charges (Qur’an 5:33) at some point in the Maldives’ gallop toward full Sharia.

The phenomenon on display here is also the major obstacle to reforms in Islamic countries where human rights in general, and the rights of non-believers and women are concerned. “Maldives won’t allow debates on anti-Islamic issues: Foreign Minister,” by Ahmed Hamdhoon for Haveeru News Service, November 26 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

The government will not allow debates to be held in the Maldives on issues that are against the fundamentals of Islam, Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem said today.

The minister’s comments come two days after the UN human rights chief called for a public debate in the Maldives on the practice of flogging women found guilty of extra-marital sex.

Minister Naseem told Haveeru that the government would not open a basic Islamic principle such as flogging for public debate in the Maldives despite requests to do so.

“What’s there to discuss about flogging? There is nothing to debate about in a matter clearly stated in the religion of Islam. No one can argue with God,” he said.

“Our foreign ministry will not allow that to happen.”

Naseem stressed that the government will not act against the views expressed by Islamic Minister Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari on Navi Pillay’s comments.

“The government will follow the recommendations given by the Islamic Ministry on religious issues. The government will not stand up against the views expressed by Bari, which is the view of the government [regarding Pillay’s remarks],” he said.

“Maldives is a 100 percent Muslim country.”

During her four-day visit to the country, Pillay told parliamentarians on Thursday that flogging women convicted of extra-marital sex is one of the most inhumane and degrading forms of violence against women.

“I strongly believe that a public debate is needed in Maldives on this issue of major concern,” she said.

Pillay later told reporters that she held discussions with President Mohamed Nasheed, ministers and the judiciary on how to end the practice of flogging in the Maldives.

“At the very least, pending more permanent changes in the law, it should be possible for the government and the judiciary to engineer a practical moratorium on flogging,” she proposed.

She also called on Maldivian authorities to remove the “discriminatory” constitutional provision that requires every citizen to be a Muslim.

“I would again urge a debate on that to open up the benefits of the constitution to all and to remove that discriminatory provision,” she said.

Meanwhile, the UN human rights chief’s comments sparked protests in capital Male with some calling for her arrest.

Protestors surrounded the UN Building yesterday, condemning Pillay’s remarks and demanding an apology from the UN and parliamentarians.

Pillay’s visit was the first such visit to the Maldives by a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

From Jihadwatch

A Pakistani Love Story

From the Sultan

 

It’s still quite a while till Valentine’s Day in the United States, but in Pakistan the day of love came early as a Romeo named Ahmed Yusuf threw acid in the face of his 9 year old Juliet, his wife/cousin causing extensive burns over her body.

Ahmed Yusuf couldn’t have known any better. Throwing acid at a woman in Pakistan is their culture’s version of roses and chocolate. And since he was only 10 years old, his father and brothers were happy to help out.

After the father who had married off a 9 year old girl to her 10 year old cousin noticed the acid burns, which the family tried to pass off as a skin condition, he earned a “Father of the Year” trophy by taking her back home, but that didn’t dissuade his brother and nephews who showed up and thew acid on her again.

Now the acid burned girl and father are on the run with the Pakistani police in hot pursuit because the local law favors turning the girl back to her husband. The whole thing might end in an honor-killing or charges of adultery, a term that in the Muslim world covers everything from marrying without a father’s permission to being gang raped in an alley.

What could a 9 year old girl possibly have done that would result in multiple acid attacks from her own uncle/father-in-law and her child husband? The answer is simple. She was a 9 year old girl in a culture where weakness only inspires cruelty, where animals are routinely tortured and people are treated like animals.

This whole lovely scene took place in Faisalbad, one of Pakistan’s largest cities built up by the British as Lyallpur after Sir James Lyall that was later renamed Faisalbad, after King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. The new name is far more fitting than the old, Lyall for all his faults was not known to rape and torture nine year old girls.

Quite a lot of Pakistan is named after that old Saudi prune, who was a backer of its Islamist ruling thug, General Haq and his Hudood laws which made any woman bringing a rape complaint guilty of adultery. 9 out of 10 female prisoners in Pakistani jails are there under the Hoodud laws.

When Faisal was finally put down by one of his own nephews who had gone to Berkeley, dropped acid and decided that maybe modernization was the way to go, he left behind a legacy of Saudi power used to leverage Islamism around the world.

When the defenders of the Tunisian and Libyan regimes who are rushing to eliminate all family laws that contradict Sharia explain that “Political Islam is a necessary gateway for Middle East democracy”, what they really mean is that you have to break a lot of 9 year old girls to make a democratic omelet.

Don’t fear the Islamists in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Turkey and Libya. They’re well intentioned folks who want democracy. A democracy under which 9 year old girls are property to be bought and sold by the acclamation of the voters, who just happen to be doing the buying and selling.

Saddam may have had his rape rooms and Mubarak’s thugs may have assaulted women, but under the Islamists every house has its rape room and every marriage is an assault.

Men like Austria’s Josef Fritzl or America’s Phillip Garrido are not an aberration under Islam. They are the norm, as mainstream as a white picket fence and chapel. And as Islam becomes mainstream in the West, the end of the protection extended to children is also coming to an end. It was a long battle to raise the age of consent in the UK with the Criminal Law Amendment Act in the 19th century, but as London turns to Londonistan, it will go the way of female rulers, cartoons and ham sandwiches.

There are plenty of love stories like these coming out of Faisalbad. A 12 year old girl was sold off in marriage to an 82 year old man, whose third wife he had murdered by the girl’s father. The father got out of jail and got five acres of land, and a girl who in America would be going trick or treating ended up in a nightmare that her American counterparts could not even begin to imagine.

As the 82 year old landlord put it, he was “owed a wife” and it doesn’t much matter where you get the wife from. Since his murdered third wife had been a cousin of her murderer, it was all kept in the family. The only good news here is that he might be too arthritic to throw acid in her face.

According to the police no laws were broken, “because the girl is an adult as per Islamic Law and Shariah. She is 12-years-old and that is not too young for marriage” Being an adult doesn’t mean that she can get married on her own, or drive a car or vote– it just means she’s eligible to be raped every night by an 82 year old man. That’s the only adult status allotted to Muslim women.

Don’t get the idea that Pakistani law enforcement is completely useless. When a 5 year old was married off, they did intervene to the bafflement of the fellow who was sanctifying the love match.    “This marriage is allowed in Islam and it is not against the law.” And he does have a point. The prophet of Islam married a 7 year old, though he may have waited as long as two years before sexually assaulting her.

The difference between a 5 year old, a 7 year, a 9 year old and a 12 year old is one of those things that you have to be an Imam to properly understand. What did it matter that, “the child had no idea what was happening. She didn’t know she had gotten married or that her father was also getting married to her new sister-in-law.” Aisha was playing with dolls until her father traded her for a top spot in Mo’s brand new religion. The nameless 5 year old girl’s father traded her for a marriage to her husband’s sister.

Why does all this matter to us? Pakistan isn’t just over there, it’s over here. Jessie Bender, a 13 year old girl from California, ran away before she was set to be taken to Pakistan and married off by her mother’s Pakistani boyfriend. How many other girls like her never got the chance to run away? How many of them weren’t 13 but 9 or 7 or 5?

We’re not discussing the quaint customs of some distant country anymore, as Islam grows the tribal savagery of a land where little girls are bought and sold right here in our backyard by people whose religion tells them that women are chattel.

What does a 13 year old American girl go for in Pakistan? Three thousand dollars. You might want to remember that number the next time another episode of Mosque on the Prairie airs or an expert says that we shouldn’t fear the rise of political Islam in Libya or Tunisia or London. The next time you see a cheerful news report on a local Muslim community celebrating Eid, remember the number.

Three thousand dollars or three thousand lives, it doesn’t matter much. Once we agree to let Islam in then all the talk about moderates and standards is a matter of setting the price. The question is do we want to bargain for the lives and rights of our children?

Sharia über Alles versus Western Justice

October 23, 2011

By Andrew G. Bostom

How is it that intelligent people cannot see the lesson of history when sharia enters a non-Islamic society, step by step?  Yale Assistant Professor of religious studies Eliyahu Stern’s 9/2/11 NY Times op-ed (“Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America”) vilifies those who seek fair, rational legislative remedies to the encroachment of Islamic law (Sharia) in America as “stigmatizing Islamic life”¹.  Stern’s vitriol is directed specifically at SB 1028, a bill which was recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly, and includes this straightforward language regarding sharia²:

 

This bill defines “sharia” as the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which are said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States or Tennessee Constitutions, or the destruction of the national existence of the United States or the sovereignty of this state, and which includes among other methods to achieve these ends, the likely use of imminent violence. Under this bill, any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ja’afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie sharia without any further evidentiary showing.

 

Michael Nazir Ali was the first bishop of Raiwand in Pakistan’s West Punjab (1984-1986), who emigrated to become the initial non-white diocesan bishop in the Church of England.  During September 2009, he gave up his English bishopric to work full-time in defense of beleaguered Christian minorities, particularly within Islamdom.  Nazir Ali has authored Islam: A Christian Perspective (1984), Frontiers in Muslim-Christian Encounters (2006), and From Everywhere To Everywhere (2009)³.

 

Contra Stern’s distressingly uninformed polemics⁴, Nazir Ali offered these scholarly and experience-based observations from his adopted Britain (8/7/11) — observations which support Tennessee’s eminently reasonable legislative solution⁵.

 

To understand the impact of Sharia law you have to look at other [i.e., Islamic] countries. At its heart it has basic inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between men and women. The problem with Sharia law being used in tribunals [in Britain] is that it compromises the tradition of equality for all under the law. It threatens the fundamental values that underpin our society.

 

Karl Binswanger was a German scholar renowned for his pioneering 1977 study of the discriminatory and degrading conditions imposed upon non-Muslim “dhimmis” — predominantly Christians — subjugated under Ottoman Turkish sharia in the 16^th century⁶.  Binswanger describes the key role played by the creation of Muslim “satellite” colonies during the Islamization of these vanquished Christian societies^6a:

 

Geographic integrity is shattered by implanting Islamic nuclei.; The sectarian reference point of Dhimmi communities is removed, and further sectarian pruning occurs according to Islamic standards.; The autonomy of Dhimmis is reduced to an insubstantial thing… They are driven out the moment that Islamic nuclei appear in the area.; Dhimmis’ possession of their churches is granted.  These are closed or razed as soon as a mosque is established in their neighborhood…Regulations in the social area…demoralize the individual: [they] are consciously instituted for their degradation.; The social environment of the Dhimmis is characterized by fear, uncertainty and degradation.

 

During 1990, Binswanger published three remarkably prescient essays on the (primarily Turkish) Muslim immigrant community of Germany^6b.  Binswanger opens his 1990 essay, “Islamic Fundamentalism in the German Federal Republic: Development, Inventory, Prospects,” with this ominous illustration^6c:

 

“We reject reform and modernization.  We will keep fighting until a godly order is established!”  This quotation is not from Cemalettin Kaplan, the “Khomeini of Cologne”, but rather from Kadir Baran, the West German national vice-chairman of the “Idealist Associations” [“Idealistenvereine”], in other words, from a ‘Grey Wolf”.. [u]ntil the Autumn of 1987 the federation’s ideology was purely nationalistic, chauvinistically Turkish.  This is symptomatic of a development that one can observe among Turks in the Federal Republic of Germany, too, since Khomeini’s victory over the Shah:  Islamic fundamentalism is on the march…

 

He then demonstrates how the strident re-affirmation of Islamic identity within Germany’s Turkish immigrant population engendered^6d “an increasingly intense demonization of the culture, legal and social order of the host society: the image of Germans as enemies.”

 

Central to this disturbing process was the inculcation of validating Islamic (i.e., Koranic) motifs which promote hostility to non-Muslims^6e:

 

In this regard all the unions [i.e., the alphabet soup of Turkish Muslim organizations in Germany] exhibit an astounding congruence in their ideology, which ultimately is derived from the Qur’an.  The centerpiece of its preaching about the distance to be maintained from the “unbelievers” consists of three verses from the Qur’an, variations on which appear in publications, addresses and on the banners of all unions, either literally or in paraphrases and allusions.  The significant thing is that in all the unions these verses are always central to the discussion about models of integration.  Sura 5, verse 51 of the Qur’an prescribes:  “You believers!  Do not take Jews and Christians as friends.  They are friends with each other (but not with you).  When one of you joins them, he belongs to them (and no longer to the community of believers).”  “To join them” is interpreted today, however, as external adaptation to the European way of life (including New Year’s celebrations) and any form of integration/assimilation. Besides this purely normative prohibition of amicable dealings with “unbelievers”, two other Qur’an verses are frequently cited, which give a reason for keeping one’s distance (and therefore in the case of Turkish migrant workers:  self-isolation: “Jews and Christians will not be happy with you as long as you do not follow their profession of faith” (Sura 2, verse 120).  “You believers!  Do not take as your confidants and intimate friends people who are outside your community.  They never tire of causing disorder among you, and would like affliction to befall you.  Their own statements make their hatred plain enough, but the hatred and wickedness that they secretly harbor within them are much worse” (Sura 3, verse 118).

 

Arguably the most accomplished (and easily the most unapologetic) scholar of how the Ottoman Turks progressively imposed the sharia on non-Muslims, Binswanger became alarmed by the obvious modern parallels to that phenomenon he observed in the behaviors of their contemporary Turkish descendants in Germany.  Thus, he concluded in 1990^6f:

 

A clearly hostile image of German society is developing and is being preached to more and more Turkish migrant workers.  Simultaneously, however, all the umbrella groups reinforce the desire to stay permanently in the Federal Republic of Germany;  this then is possible only if the resident Turkish populace walls itself off from the Germans to a great extent — otherwise it would run into a conflict of faith.  The more they reduce their contact with the Germans, the more the Turks have to set up their own system — this explains the ever wider spectrum of union activities, whose declared goal is the “preservation of identity”.  Through the spread of fundamentalism the recreational clubs of the past have moved into the self-isolation of an all-encompassing “parallel society”.  It is a long way from the recreational clubs of the former bachelors, via the plain mosque unions when they began to bring a wife and a child later, to a closed society after politics took them under its care and the “Khomeini factor” reminded them that Islam is more than quiet prayer in your little room:  namely an all-encompassing rule of life willed by God that forbids any adaptation to, any friendly or trusting relations with “infidels” on an equal footing.  The expression of this change of consciousness (or new self-awareness) and of this heightened sense of worth is their self-isolation today, which for the religiously reawakened is a more authentic home than secularist Turkey.  Yet this is only a transitional stage, admittedly a necessary one, in order to reach the final goal of Islamic fundamentalism:  finally to create for oneself a homeland in which one can accomplish Allah’s will.  This is evident in the final examination of a four-year AMGT [i.e., The “National View Organization in Europe” founded by Necmettin Erbakan’s National Welfare Party as an offshoot of the youth organization “Akincilar” (roughly: “Blitzkrieg warriors”)]  course on the Qur’an and the “right” answer to it:  “Q. What day in the future would be in your opinion the holiest day?”  “Answer:  Our happiest day would be the day on which the Islamic State is founded and the Muslims get their Caliph again.”

 

Twenty-one years later, author and veteran television journalist Joachim Wagner has just published his analysis of the parallel sharia-based Islamic “legal” system burgeoning in Germany, entitled Richter ohne Gesetz (“Judges without Laws”).  Consistent with Nazir Ali’s assessment of the deleterious impact of Britain’s Muslim “tribunals,” Wagner’s alarming investigation — summarized in English during a two-part Der Spiegel series — elucidates how what he terms “Islamic shadow justice” undermines Germany’s Western constitutional legal system, ultimately abrogating even German criminal law^6g.

 

The parallel, indeed superseding application of sharia within Germany’s Muslim community is a widespread, dangerous phenomenon according to Wagner’s research⁷.

 

As far as I know, very prevalent. There are no reliable statistics, since these mediations take place almost exclusively in secret. But criminal investigators who specialize in organized crime and violence within Muslim immigrant families have confirmed for me that in nearly every conflict in this milieu, the first attempt is to find a solution outside the German justice system.

These arbitrators try to resolve conflicts according to Islamic law and to sideline German criminal law. We see witness testimony withdrawn (from German courts) and accusations trivialized to the point where an entire case runs aground. The justice system is “powerless,” partly because it hasn’t tackled the problem vigorously enough.

 

Sheikh Abu Adam, wife-battering⁸, polygamist⁹ imam of the Darul Quran Mosque in Munich, illustrates the tragic, dangerous perversity of Germany’s tacit acceptance of sharia as a “communal” alternative legal system.

 

A Munich-based arbitrator, Sheik Adam maintains that it is a religious duty to mediate among the Muslim faithful.  The imam, who lives with three women, and, in accord with classical Islamic understanding¹⁰, believes that Islam is an all-encompassing theo-political ideology, described to Der Spiegel how he applies his sharia-based legal method¹¹.

 

He invites both parties to visit him at the mosque, listens to both sides, and ultimately has them sign a peace treaty. The important thing, he says, is not who’s right and wrong, and evidence is no particular help — the important thing is to find a compromise. In nine out of 10 cases, the people respect his decision, he says.

 

Adam added unabashedly, despite ignoring accusations of running a shadow justice system¹²:

 

My judgment is fairer than the government’s. I tell my people, don’t go to the police. ‘We’ll take care of this conflict among ourselves.’ I’m making less work for the police.

 

Sheikh Adam gave a lecture at Munich’s Catholic University entitled “An Islam which distances itself from violence,” shortly before being arrested (12/10/10) for allegedly assaulting his spouse so violently that she suffered a broken nose and shoulder and numerous cuts and bruises.  Media reports claimed that the woman, who has borne one of his ten children, wanted to live a more “Western” lifestyle, and was allegedly attacked by him after expressing this wish to her husband.  An icon of Germany’s Islamic parallel Islamic “justice” system, Sheikh Adam purportedly shouted Koran 4:34 at his wife as he beat her¹³.

 

(E.g., Shakir translation¹⁴: “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great[.]”)

 

Sheik Adam’s abusive (if Koran-sanctioned) misogyny (and polygamy; see Koran 4:3¹⁵) notwithstanding, there is no debating that his defiant rejection of Western evidentiary methods for establishing legal truth (and right versus wrong) reflects mainstream sharia-based jurisprudence.  Joseph Schacht (d. 1969), arguably the pre-eminent 20^th-century Western scholar of Islamic law, made these salient observations about evidence and legal proof according to the sharia in his classic “An Introduction to Islamic Law”¹⁶:

 

The emphasis of the Islamic law of procedure lies not so much on arriving at the truth as on applying certain formal rules…If both parties produce evidence, the number of the witnesses produced by each, beyond their minimum number, is irrelevant. There is no examination of the witnesses, or the likelihood of their testimony being true…[I]n cases concerning hadd punishments (i.e., defined by the Muslim prophet Muhammad either in the Koran, or the hadith  included¹⁷: (lethal) stoning for adultery; death for apostasy; death for highway robbery, when accompanied by murder of the robbery victim; for simple highway robbery, the loss of hands and feet; for simple theft, cutting off of the right hand; for “fornication,” a hundred lashes; for drinking wine, eighty lashes) the evidence of women is not admitted, and in the case of zina (“fornication”) four male witnesses are required (notably. if a woman claims to have been raped!)…the dhimmi (non-Muslims vanquished by jihad, and living under Sharia jurisdiction) cannot be a witness, except in matters concerning other dhimmis…

 

N.T. Coulson, another renowned 20^th-century scholar of the sharia, elaborated further on “matters of procedure” under Islamic law antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law^17a.  Coulson reaffirmed the flimsy nature of sharia-based “evidentiary proof” while elucidating, under the sharia doctrine of “siyasa” (“government,” or “administration”), which grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, how arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants were permissible to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects.  Moreover, plaintiffs too could be subjected to bizarre, and equally arbitrary and painful, procedural methods for ascertaining “legal truth”^17b.

 

[T]he strict Sharia rules of evidence, which in general terms limit legal proof to the oral testimony of two witnesses possessing the quality of adala (probity) and, failing such proof, give effect to the defendant’s oath of denial, are scarcely suited to the effective maintenance of law and order. Recognizing the need for these rules to be supplemented, particularly in criminal matters…the jurists admit the power of the ruler to employ such methods as the use of threats or the extortion of confessions by corporal punishment and imprisonment, finding the necessary authority in the practice of the early Islamic rulers. The Caliph Ali, it is alleged, in order to discover the truth of the plaintiff’s claim that he had been rendered dumb as the result of an assault, ordered that his tongue be pierced with a needle; if red blood appeared the plaintiff was lying, but if the blood was black he was indeed dumb. All such stratagems are, according to [the classical Muslim jurist] Ibn Farhun^17c [d. 1397], “good siyasa.”…Particularly harsh treatment is recommended for the individual of reputedly bad character whose guilt is suspected but cannot be proved in orthodox fashion. He should be subjected to rigorous examination, with beating and imprisonment if necessary, for [quoting Ibn Farhun] “were we simply to subject each suspect to the oath and then free him, in spite of our knowledge of his notoriety in crime, saying: ‘We cannot convict him without two adl witnesses [witnesses of probity]’, that would be contrary to siyasa Sharia.” Nor, in the event of the subsequent release of the suspect, is there any question of a remedy for malicious prosecution or false imprisonment. It is only where no proof is forthcoming and the person charged is of such high repute that none would normally suspect him of the alleged offense that the accuser will be punished…[I]dealing with defamatory statements other than the false accusations of unchastity or illegitimacy which entail a hadd penalty, certain jurists would prescribe twenty-five lashes for calling a person “a criminal” or “a wrongdoer,” ten lashes for calling a Muslim “a Jew,” and ten, fifteen, or twenty-five lashes for a false imputation of theft.

 

Clearly, Sharia “standards” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to extract “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

 

The late Kirsten Heisig, a juvenile court judge in Germany, underscored a year ago the inevitable consequences of relegating legal decisions to Muslim arbitrators such as Sheikh Adam¹⁸:

 

The law is slipping out of our hands. It’s moving to the streets, or into a parallel system where an imam or another representative of the Koran determines what must be done.

 

Moreover, Joachim Wagner’s “Judges without Laws” documents judges’ and prosecutors’ recollections of threats toward public officials and systematic interference with witnesses.  For example, Stephan Kuperion, a juvenile court judge in Berlin, noted, “We know we’re being given a performance, but the courts are powerless.”  And federal public prosecutor Jörn Hauschild provided this ominous warning: “It would be a terrible development if serious criminal offenses in these circles could no longer be resolved. The legal system would be reduced to collecting victims”¹⁹.

 

Wagner himself made this astute diagnosis of the current predicament to Der Spiegel, and proffered an uncompromising interim resolution²⁰:

 

They’re [German public prosecutors and judges]  overwhelmed, because they don’t know how to react. They’re in the middle of a legal case, and suddenly there’s no evidence. Eighty-seven percent of the cases I researched either were dismissed or ended with an acquittal when Islamic arbitrators were involved.

Prosecutors need to investigate Islamic arbitrators more intensively. If they had done so sooner, the arbitrators would have been convicted of obstruction of justice long ago. And certain lawyers need to stop behaving as if they were mere servants to a parallel justice system. They allow themselves to be directed by their clients’ desires, regardless of truth and justice. And finally, my plea would be for judges to hear witnesses earlier, which would reduce the arbitrators’ influence.

 

But Wagner is keenly aware of the more profound, fundamental incompatibility of Western law and sharia, the latter being²¹:

 

Very foreign, and for a German lawyer, completely incomprehensible at first. It follows its own rules. The Islamic arbitrators aren’t interested in evidence when they deliver a judgment, and unlike in German criminal law, the question of who is at fault doesn’t play much of a role.

 

Nearly six decades earlier, Robert H. Jackson, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941-1954), who also served as the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, made these more expansive, complementary observations in his foreword to a treatise on Islamic law²²:

 

In any broad sense, Islamic Law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge — all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire — reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law [i.e., Islamic Law, Sharia] of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western Law…Islamic law, on the contrary, finds its chief source in the will of Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It contemplates one community of the faithful, though they may be of various tribes and in widely separated locations. Religion, not nationalism or geography, is the proper cohesive force. The state itself is subordinate to the Qur’an, which leaves little room for additional legislation, none for criticism or dissent. This world is viewed as but the vestibule to another and a better one for the faithful, and the Qur’an lays down rules of behavior towards others and toward society to assure a safe transition. It is not possible to separate political or juristic theories from the teachings of the Prophet, which establish rules of conduct concerning religious, domestic, social, and political life. This results in a law of duties, rather than rights…

 

Joachim Wagner’s modern study has led him to conclude that even the ostensibly limited application of sharia arbitration within Germany’s Muslim community nullifies the state’s Western conception of legal justice²³.

 

The problem starts when the arbitrators force the justice system out of the picture, especially in the case of criminal offenses. At that point they undermine the state… Islamic conflict resolution in particular, as I’ve experienced it, is often achieved through violence and threats. It’s often a dictate of power on the part of the stronger family.

 

Past as prologue to the present, application of the sharia has had obviously negative societal repercussions, for both Muslims and non-Muslims.  How this undeniable truth somehow escapes the mental and moral calculus of Western sharia apologists such as Yale’s Eliyahu Stern ²⁴ is astonishing and reveals the frightening, delusively self-righteous cultural relativist mindset of the American academy.  If Stern was truly desirous of protecting the unique Western freedoms many Muslim immigrants to the U.S. cherish in common with non-Muslim Americans, he would applaud the Tennessee state legislature’s bill SB 1028²⁵ instead of condemning it.*

 

(*POSTSCRIPT: It is perhaps an ironic footnote that the language about sharia which Professor Stern fulminated against was actually pruned out of the final Tennessee bill (House Bill No. 1353) when state legislators came under intense pressure from local Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated “advocacy” groups.  House Bill No. 1353 never mentions the words “sharia,” “Muslim,” “Islam,” or “Islamic law.”  Sharia dictates that non-Muslims in particular have no right to criticize this divine, perfect, and immutable “law”²⁶.)

 

---

¹ Eliyahu Stern. “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America”, The New York Times, September 2, 2011

(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/opinion/dont-fear-islamic-law-in-america.html?_r=1&ref=global)

² SB 1028

(http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB1028&ga=107)

³ For a mini-biography of Michael Nazir Ali, see, Sharia in the West, edited by R. Ahdar, N. Aroney, Oxford, 2010, p. xi.

⁴ Stern, “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America”

⁵ Jonathan Wynne-Jones. “Sharia: A Law Unto Itself”, The Telegraph (London), August 7, 2011

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8686504/Sharia-a-law-unto-itself.html)

6 Karl Binswanger. Untersuchungen zum Status der Nichtmuslime im Osmanischen Reich des 16. Jahrhunderts : mit einer Neudefinition des Begriffes “Dimma”, München: R. Trofenik, 1977. Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients, 2. (Investigations on the Status of Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire  of the 16^th Century, With a New Definition of the Concept “Dhimma”)

^6a Ibid, pp. 327-328 (English translation by James Hodge)

^6b “Islamischer Fundamentalismus in der Bundesrepublik. Entwicklung-Bestandsaufnahme-Ausblick” [“Islamic Fundamentalism in the German Federal Republic: Development, Inventory, Prospects”], pp. 38-54;   “Ökonomische Basis der Fundamentalisten”, pp. 81-93;  “Fundamentalisten-Filz-Getrennt marschieren-vereint schlagen”, pp. 129-148. All three essays were published in Im Namen Allahs. Islamische Gruppen und der Fundamentalismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Koln, 1990

^6c Binswanger, “Islamic Fundamentalism in the German Federal Republic: Development, Inventory, Prospects,”, p. 38. (English translation by Michael J. Miller)

^6d Ibid, p. 41

^6e Ibid, pp. 50ff

^6f Ibid, p. 53

^6g Part 1. “Islamic Justice in Europe” — ‘It’s Often a Dictate of Power’ “, Spiegel Online, 09/01/2011

(http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,783843,00.html);

Part 2. Maximilian Popp. “Parallel Justice — Islamic ‘Arbitrators’ Shadow German Law”,  Spiegel Online, 09/01/2011

(http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,783361,00.html)

⁷ “Islamic Justice in Europe”

⁸ Allan Hall. “Muslim imam who lectures on non-violence in Germany is arrested for beating up his wife”, The Daily Mail, December 2, 2010

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335024/Muslim-imam-Sheikh-Adam-lectures-non-violence-arrested-wife-beating.html)

⁹ Popp, “Parallel Justice”

¹⁰ Joseph Schacht. “Sharia”, in H.A. R. Gibb, J.H. Kramers, The Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam,  1953/2008, p. 743 ff.; G-H. Bousquet. L’éthique sexuelle de l’Islam. [The Sexual Ethic of Islam] Paris,  Maisonneuve 1966/1990, pp. 10-11.

¹¹ Popp, “Parallel Justice”

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Hall, “Muslim imam who lectures on non-violence in Germany is arrested for beating up his wife”

¹⁴ Shakir Koranic translation of verse 4:34 at:

(http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/get.cgi?version=shakir&layout=auto&searchstring=004:034)

¹⁵ Shakir Koranic translation of verse 4:3 at:

(http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/get.cgi?version=shakir&layout=auto&searchstring=004:003)

¹⁶ Joseph Schacht. An Introduction to Islamic Law, New York, 1982, pp. 195,198,132.

¹⁷ Thomas Patrick Hughes. A Dictionary of Islam, London, 1885, p. 153.

^17a N.J. Coulson. “The State and the Individual in Islamic Law”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1957, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 49-60.

^17b Ibid, pp. 57-58

^17c Born about 760/1358 into a scholarly Medinan family of Andalusian origin, after travels to Egypt and Syria Ibn Farhun became a jurist in Medina in 793/1390 and is claimed to have revived the Maliki (one of the four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence) rite there.  He died in 799/1397.  His Tabsirat al-hukkam fi usul al-akdiya wa-manahid̲j̲ al-ahkam is a sort of manual for qadis containing details of procedure, rules of evidence, etc. (See, J.F.P. Hopkins. “Ibn Farhun”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman; Th. Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth; E. van Donzel; and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2011. Brill Online. Brown University. 30 September 2011 [http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_SIM-3160].)

¹⁸ “Islamic Justice in Europe”

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Robert H. Jackson. Foreword to Law in the Middle East. Edited by Majid Khadduri, Herbert J. Liebesny. Washington, D.C., 1955, pp. vi-vii.

²³ “Islamic Justice in Europe”

²⁴ Stern, “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America”

²⁵ SB 1028 (http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB1028&ga=107)

²⁶ State of Tennessee, Public Chapter No. 497, House Bill No. 1353

(http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/107/pub/pc0497.pdf)

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/10/sharia_uber_alles_versus_western_justice.html at October 23, 2011 – 11:21:31 AM CDT

The Norway Massacre and Europe’s War on Free Speech

by Soeren Kern
July 28, 2011

Media outlets in Europe and the United States are accusing Western critics of Islam and multiculturalism of complicity in the mass killing of more than 70 people in Norway. The attempt to exploit this crime for political gain is not just a case of malicious opportunism. It also represents the latest and most unsavoury salvo in the long-running war on free speech in Europe.

Anders Behring Breivik, a deranged Norwegian accused of bombing government buildings in Oslo and then killing scores of young people during a 90-minute shooting rampage on a nearby camping island called Utoya, published a 1,500-page manifesto in which he vents his anger at the direction in which mostly leftwing elites in Norway and elsewhere in Europe are leading his country and the continent as a whole.

As it turns out, parts of the manifesto include cut-and-pasted blog posts from European and American analysts and writers who for years have been educating the general public about the destructive effects of multiculturalism and runaway Muslim immigration. By dint of duplicitous logic, these analysts and writers are now the victims of a smear campaign: multiculturalists are accusing them of inciting Breivik to murder.

These same analysts have, of course, been a constant bane on an unaccountable European elite determined to foist its post-modern, post-nationalist and post-Christian multicultural agenda on a sceptical European citizenry.

Unwilling to countenance opposition, these self-appointed guardians of European political correctness have laboured to silence public discussion about issues such as the rise of Islam in Europe and/or the failure of millions of Muslim immigrants to integrate into European society.

The primary weapon in this war on free speech has been lawfare: the malicious use of European courts to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Prosecutions of so-called anti-Islam hate speech are now commonplace in Europe. Some of the more well-known efforts to silence debate about Islam in Europe have involved high-profile individuals like Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician, and Brigitte Bardot, a French animal rights activist.

Other recent assaults on free speech in Europe include the show trials of: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a housewife in Austria, Susanne Winter, a politician in Austria, Lars Hedegaard, a journalist in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a politician in Denmark, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician in Finland, Michel Houellebecq, a novelist in France, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a cartoonist in the Netherlands, and the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author in Italy.

In other cases, physical violence has been the preferred method of silencing contrary views of Islam in Europe. In 2002, for example, Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated for his views on Muslim immigration, and in 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death for producing a movie that criticized Islam. In 2010, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard narrowly escaped being assassinated by an axe-wielding Muslim extremist in Aarhus, Denmark’s second-largest city.

Many theories attempt to explain the rise of multiculturalism in Europe. Among these is the idea that European elites, determined to prevent a repeat of the carnage of the Second World War, embraced multiculturalism as a tool to try to dilute or even eliminate the national ethnic, religious and or/cultural identities that contributed to centuries of violence in Europe.

But in recent years, the secular purveyors of European multiculturalism have moved far beyond their initial objective of creating an American-style “melting pot.” European socialists now view multiculturalism as a means to eliminate the entire Judeo-Christian worldview. This is certainly the case in Spain, where socialists have joined arms with Islam in a “Red-Green Alliance” to confront a common enemy, Christianity, as represented, in this case, by the Roman Catholic Church.

To be sure, decades of multiculturalism and Muslim immigration have already transformed Europe in ways unimaginable only a few decades ago. In Britain, for example, Muslims currently are campaigning to turn twelve British cities — including what they call “Londonistan” — into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence. More than 80 Sharia courts are already operating in the country. At the same time, Mohammed is now the most common name for baby boys.

In France, large swaths of Muslim neighbourhoods are now considered “no-go” zones by French police. At last count, there are 751 Sensitive Urban Zones (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS), as they are euphemistically called. An estimated 5 million Muslims live in the ZUS, parts of France over which the French state has lost control.

In Germany, anti-Semitism (which is often disguised as anti-Zionism), has reached levels not seen since the Second World War. An April 2011 report, for example, found that 47.7% of Germans believe “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians,” and nearly 50% of Germans believe “Jews try to take advantage of having been victims of the Nazi era.”

In Norway, large sections of Oslo are being turned into Muslim enclaves subject to Sharia law and to the dictates of local imams. The citizens of Oslo are also struggling to cope with an epidemic of rapes. According to recent statistics, 100% of aggravated sexual assaults which resulted in rapes over the past three years were carried out by Muslim immigrants. Norwegians are now trying to deal with the large-scale torching of automobiles, which, as in France, is being attributed to Muslim youth.

In a Wall Street Journal essay titled “Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer,” Bruce Bawer, an American analyst who lives in Oslo, writes: “Norway, like the rest of Europe, is in serious trouble. Millions of European Muslims live in rigidly patriarchal families in rapidly growing enclaves where women are second-class citizens, and where non-Muslims dare not venture. Surveys show that an unsettling percentage of Muslims in Europe reject Western values, despise the countries they live in, support the execution of homosexuals, and want to replace democracy with Sharia law. (According to a poll conducted by the Telegraph, 40% of British Muslims want Sharia implemented in predominantly Muslim parts of the United Kingdom.)”

Bawer describes Norway as a country that stands out for its refusal to confront any of the real dangers posed by Islamic radicalism. He also says the failure of mainstream political leaders to responsibly address the challenges posed by Muslim immigration has contributed to the emergence of extremists like Breivik. Pressure cookers without a safety valve eventually will explode.

Bawer writes: “In bombing those government buildings and hunting down those campers, Breivik was not taking out people randomly. He considered the Labour Party, Norway’s dominant party since World War II, responsible for policies that are leading to the Islamization of Europe — and thus guilty of treason. The Oslo bombing was intended to be an execution of the party’s current leaders. The massacre at the camp — where young would-be politicians gathered to hear speeches by Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland — was meant to destroy its next generation of leaders.”

The question remains: in the aftermath of the attack, will the Norwegian left rethink its non-interventionist approach to Islam and Muslim immigration? In a number of other European countries, governments on the center-right have been doing an about-face on multiculturalism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have all declared in recent months that multiculturalism has failed. In June, the Dutch government announced it would abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands. In Spain, the conservative Popular Party, which is widely expected to win the next general election, has promised to enact new measures that will require all immigrants to learn the Spanish language to obtain residency permits.

Some analysts say these measures are too little too late. But one thing seems clear: European multiculturalists are feeling some unfamiliar political heat. After decades of high-handed stifling of debate, the gradual unravelling of multiculturalism in Europe explains the obsessive zeal with which many are exploiting the Norwegian tragedy.

By falsely accusing conservatives of complicity in a crime in which they had no part, multiculturalists are seeking to delegitimize and silence criticism of their social re-engineering scheme. But they are unlikely to succeed as the consequences of their worldview are becoming clear for all to see.

Hudson NY

‘No porn or prostitution’: Islamic extremists set up Sharia law controlled zones in British cities

This has nothing to do with Islam, right?

 

From Daily Mail

Rebecca Cramer, July 28, 2011

Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up.

Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’

The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the ‘zone’ there should be ‘no gambling’, ‘no music or concerts’, ‘no porn or prostitution’, ‘no drugs or smoking’ and ‘no alcohol’.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term’.

In the past week, dozens of streets in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham have been targeted, raising fears that local residents may be intimidated or threatened for flouting ‘Islamic rules’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-British-cities.html#ixzz1TOGvC6LE

Graphic: Anatomy of a stoning

Anatomy of a Stoning

In Saturday’s National Post we look at the brutal practice of stoning. This method of execution is still practiced in certain countries, notably Iran, where it is used to punish adulterers and other criminals. The graphic below looks at how a stoning occurs:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Egypt Rushes Toward Sharia and War

by Robert Spencer

How hopelessly at odds with America’s best interests is Barack Obama? Less than two weeks ago he declared his support for “political and economic reform in the Middle East,” warmly endorsing the “Arab Spring” uprisings there. Then Sunday, Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Hazem Abu Ismail announced his candidacy for the presidency of Egypt, promising to transform Egypt into an Islamic state and go to war with Israel. Reform that would indeed be, but not the kind any American president should be applauding.

Maybe Obama is still listening to his ruinously incompetent Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who at the height of the Egyptian uprising characterized the Muslim Brotherhood as “largely secular.” Secular they’re not, but they’re certainly influential, and Obama knows it: he specifically requested that Muslim Brotherhood representatives attend his speech in Cairo in June 2009. Speaking in a mosque on Saturday, Abu Ismail said that he was confident of victory — precisely because, unlike the other candidates, he presented a clear call to institute Islamic law in Egypt. “Mohamed ElBaradei, Amr Moussa, and Hamdeen Sabahi, the liberal candidates, will be unable to present a clear vision.”

Abu Ismail was sure all Egyptians would love his pro-Sharia platform: “If I could apply sharia in Egypt, all people, including non-Muslims, would applaud me four years later.” He dismissed all who opposed him as perverts and libertines: “We seek to apply Islamic law, but those who don’t want it prefer cabarets, alcohol, dancers and prostitution, as the implementation of Islamic law will prohibit women to appear naked in movies and on beaches.”

He also promised to go to war with Israel: “The Camp David peace treaty is insulting to the Egyptian people, so it must be canceled, and I will do my best to convince people to cancel it.” Abu Ismail made this pledge as Egypt reopened the Rafah crossing — the only official point of entry into Gaza other than from inside Israel. Egypt had closed it in 2007 after Hamas took power in Gaza, as part of its uneasy observance of the Camp David Accords, since the Rafah crossing had been an easy route into Israel for jihadis and their weapons suppliers.

But now it appears that peace with Israel is no longer such a high priority. And it is no wonder that Abu Ismail thinks ripping up the Camp David accords is a winning issue. Last week the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood leader Rachid Ghannouchi predicted that the “Arab Spring” would lead to the destruction of Israel. Clearly he knows the direction of events in Egypt: man-on-the-street interviews conducted during the Egyptian uprisings found ordinary Egyptians explaining that they hated Mubarak was that he maintained peace with Israel. “He is supporting Israel. Israel is our enemy,” protestors explained. “If people are free in Egypt…they gonna destroy Israel.” Many demonstrators carried posters of Mubarak with a Star of David drawn on his forehead.

In January, Mohamed Ghanem, another Muslim Brotherhood leader, said in an interview on Iran’s Al-Alam television station that Egypt should prepare to go to war with Israel. That same month, Iran’s Press TV interviewed an Egyptian international lawyer Marwan al-Ashaal, who explained the popular discontent with Mubarak as a direct consequence of his keeping the peace with Israel: “The American-Egyptian relationships were based on Israeli security and I think Mubarak has been very dedicated to Israeli security more even than to his own people’s security or the national interests.” Al-Ashaal claimed that “we see the deals with Israel that provoked people and took them to the edge.” He declared that Egypt is “never going to be a friend of Israel.”

Whether or not Abu Ismail is elected President of Egypt, the opening of the Rafah crossing indicates that Egypt has decided to adopt a belligerent stance toward Israel, and more is certain to come as Egypt marches toward Sharia. Obama in his recent Mideast policy speech proclaimed his ardent support for “free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law.” There is, however, no indication that the revolutions in the Middle East will lead to regimes that will have any interest in protecting any of those rights. Hazem Abu Ismail’s presidential campaign in Egypt is just the latest indication that when it comes to analyzing the “Arab Spring,” the Obama Administration is engaged yet again in fantasy-based policymaking.

 

---

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of  The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades),  The Truth About Muhammad,  Stealth Jihad and  The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran (all from Regnery-a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

Sharia Silliness

Sharia Silliness

April 22, 2011
Now that Sharia law is getting more attention, Islam is rolling out its defenses to defuse and confuse the thinking and the not-so-thinking public. If you are a watcher or connoisseur of Islamic politics, it is fascinating to see how similar the different arguments are. Read one apologist for Islam and you have read all of the apologists.

Argument 1:

• Sharia is not static; it changes and evolves.

This promises the hope of reformation over time if Islam becomes more moderate. Islam is the doctrine found in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and his every act and word is to be imitated by all Muslims. The Sunna of Mohammed is found in the Hadith (his traditions) and the Sira (his actions). The complete Islamic doctrine is Allah and Mohammed, or Koran, Sira and Hadith.

Sharia is the interpretation of the doctrine of Islam. Of course, the interpretations change, but they keep being drawn from the same 1400 year old texts. The Sharia circles the sun of Allah and Mohammed, so the evolution of Sharia turns out to be an orbit. The Sharia becomes looser and tighter over the course of history, but it is still the same Sharia and still obeys all of the fundamentals found in the texts of Koran, Sira and Hadith.

One of the biggest fundamental principles of Islam is the Kafir, the non-Muslim. No matter how the Sharia changes, Kafirs are still the same Allah-cursed creature that Mohammed annihilated whenever possible. No amount of adaptation can change the cruel place that the Kafir has in Islam and the Sharia.

Argument 2:

• There is no one thing called Sharia. There is no official document called the Sharia.

See the above. Since Sharia is the practical application of interpretation of the doctrine of Islam found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith, there will be different schools of thought on issues. But the principles never change. All of the versions of the Sharia subjugate and demean the Kafir.

Argument 3:

• Sharia is overwhelming about religion and is not in conflict with national laws.

It is true that a standard table-top book of Sharia such as The Reliance of the Traveller starts off with a large section devoted to religious material, such as prayer and the charity tax. But after the religious beginning, the Sharia winds up with definition of crimes, punishment, business law, family law and the usual legal matters.

There is no problem with the so-called religious Sharia, but a there is a problem with the political Sharia that deals with the Kafir. The political Sharia is evil, since it oppresses the Kafir. Jihad is part of the Sharia and jihad against the Kafir is evil.

The Kafir cares that “only” 1% of a Sharia text is devoted to jihad; that is not acceptable. When it comes to oppression and cruel treatment of Kafirs, any amount of evil is intolerable.

The number of pages in a Sharia text devoted to jihad may be small, but it cannot be removed. Sharia is the interpretation of the perfect Koran and the eternal Sunna and since jihad is a major doctrine it cannot be removed from the Sharia. Sharia can not be reformed.

The Sharia not only has disgusting doctrines such as Kafir and jihad, but also polygamy and wife-beating. It does not matter that Mohammed and Allah are good with polygamy and beating the wife; it has no place in our civilization.

There is no amount of Sharia that is defensible if it makes any political impact on our citizens and nation. Keep praying those Muslim prayers and washing those Muslim feet, but keep every single aspect of political Sharia out of our civilization.

---

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/sharia-silliness/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com