Nonie Darwish is the author of The Devil We Don’t Know; The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East and President of FormerMuslimsUnited.org.
- Islam’s Self-Destructive Seed by Nonie Darwish
Nonie Darwish is the author of The Devil We Don’t Know; The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East and President of FormerMuslimsUnited.org.
Islam is violent and repressive, and it is the “heart of darkness” at the center of the Islamic State’s inspiration and motivation, despite Barack Obama’s assertions in September 10th’s address to the nation that the Islamic State “is not Islamic” and that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Violence is an integral part of Islamic doctrine, following the example set by its prophet Mohammed, and in the name of Islam and Allah, Muslims have been murdering innocents, since 656 AD.
Six hundred years after Mohammed, one of Islam’s most respected scholars, Ibn Khuldan wrote ‘Muqaddimah’ (Introduction to History), which explained: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force.”
Like most good Muslims, Khaldun’s inspiration came from ‘The Verse of the Sword’, Sura 9:5, “revealed” towards the end of Mohammed’s life, as well as similar themes previous to Sura 9:
Sura 9:5__ “…kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them … But if they repent and perform As-Salat/ Iqamat-as-Salat [the Islamic ritual prayers], then leave their way free…” Also Sura 9:33__ “It is He [Allah] Who has sent His Messenger [Mohammed] with guidance and the religion of truth [Islam], to make it superior over all religions…”
The Hindu Kush, seventy-five thousand square miles between Afghanistan and Pakistan, was populated by Hindus until approximately 1000 AD and the Muslim invasions. An estimated 60 million Hindus were murdered by Muslims over a thousand year reign, and Hindu Kush is the Muslim name for the region. It means “Hindu Killer”.
Now today, the majority of the Muslim community worldwide, including the U.S., does not completely frown on their “holy warriors” in the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Jaamat e-Islami and any other terror group one cares to mention, for fear of being called heretics or apostates themselves. The murderous “holy warriors” are following a literal interpretation of Koranic scripture, without omissions, innovation or revision. By contrast, heretical views deviate from doctrine.
The 2013 PEW Poll of the Muslim World shows that the majority of Muslims, in several countries, support the death penalty for Muslims who leave Islam, including Malaysia (58%), Egypt (88%), Jordan (83%), Afghanistan (79%), Gaza and the West Bank (62%) and Pakistan (75%); in 2006, a poll for ‘The Sunday Telegraph’ found 40% of British Muslims wanted Sharia Law in the UK and 20% supported the 7/7 bombers. And alarmingly, in 2011 nineteen percent of American Muslims stated they viewed Al Qaeda favorably, while a new poll shows 16% of the French population view the Islamic State favorably.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
Logical minded Americans were not fooled by the big lie Obama delivered before the United Nations on September 24th, when he spoke of Islam’s “great tradition that stands for … the dignity of life, not murder”. Americans see a significant number of Muslims still support Sharia Law, slavery, rape and Islamic inspired violence and murder in this 21st century, and rather than “a religion of peace”, Islam always has been and always will be an ideology of violence and conquest.
Don’t get me wrong. I am thankful for the many Muslims who simply adhere to the first early peaceful verses of the Koran, but let’s not allow that to dissuade us from seeing and revealing the fact that Islam was propagated through violence, staying with Mohammed’s teachings, and it is still utilizing violence today. This can clearly be seen by examining the teachings of Islam, the daily news reports and practically any good, scholarly history book.
One problem in Islamic tradition, affirmed by many scholars, is the doctrine of abrogation, which states that later revelation to Mohammed supersedes prior revelation. And the Koranic verses ordering Muslims to fight and slay infidels, Christians and Jews came after those admonishing Muslims to live with non-believers in peace and without religious compulsion.
As Obama spoke before the UN, he called on the Islamic nations and their leaders to address the spread of “extremism”, full well knowing that he was speaking to the very advocates of Wahabbist fundamentalism, other Islamic orthodoxies and proponents of inflexible, intolerant Islamic scholars, the likes of Sayyid Qutb. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for example, have supported terrorism and financed the spread of Wahabbism and Qutb’s Islamic philosophy globally, including in America, for decades.
And now Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, the United Emirates and several others, who helped create, train and fund the Islamic State, are screaming for the U.S. and the West to end the vicious advance of the Islamic State. They look to destroy the Islamic State, only because they can no longer control its self-appointed “caliph”, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has announced his intentions to take Mecca and Medina; so, it is fear of losing their power and their regimes that motivates them, not any disagreement with the Islamic State’s implementation of jihad and the violent doctrines of Islam.
What about the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, which means “the party of Allah”, and Hamas, which means “Islamic Resistance Movement”? Does Obama deem these Islamic entities “not Islamic” too?
As Obama appealed to young Muslims to follow their “great tradition [Islam] that stands for education … innovation, not destruction”, he must have intentionally forgotten some of the other traditions of Islam. The recent spate of beheadings of Westerners by the Islamic State is only the old made new again, and although horrible beyond belief, they actually pale in comparison to the heinous atrocities committed in the name of Allah across the centuries. Three thousand Catholic nuns were raped at the Church of St Sophia during the sacking of Constantinople in 1453, and many other women and children were simply torn to pieces.
Hadith 107:13_ It was shown the Prophet said, “Allah wrote everything we need to know about Ihsan [kindness] so if you kill, perfect your killing and if you slaughter, perfect your slaughter, perfect your slaughter and sharpen your blade and comfort your sacrifice.”
Koran 8:12 “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
Millions of devout fundamentalist orthodox Muslims, devout in the manner of Osama bin Laden_ Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are making preparations and have already been waging a divinely endorsed war against Europe, America and Israel. And, rather than continue against all reason and, in the light of Islam’s sacred texts, to propagate the lie that “Islam is peace”, which is placing America within a quagmire of reoccurring expansionist jihad, this administration and future administrations must cut all funding to all Islamic nations and acknowledge that “extremism” and violence are the basis of Islam, if America is to win the future war against Islam.
By David Wood:
Politicians, the media, and many Muslim organizations report that ISIS (the Islamic State) is violating the commands of Allah and Muhammad. Yet many Muslims from various countries are traveling to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS and wage jihad. Why are so many young Muslims convinced that Islam commands them to fight non-Muslims and hypocrites?
Here are all of the sources quoted in the video (in order):
I. TWO VIEWS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE
President Barack Obama—“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. . . . ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” (Source)
Maajid Nawaz—“We Muslims must admit there are challenging Koranic passages that require reinterpretation today. Let us use existing tools of exegesis, such as specificity, restriction, abrogation and metaphor. Vacuous literalism as an interpretive method must be abandoned. It is bankrupt. Only by rejecting vacuous literalism are we able to condemn, in principle, ISIS-style slavery, beheading, lashing, amputation and other medieval practices forever (all of which are in the Quran). This is a struggle within Islam. Reformers either win, and get religion-neutral politics, or lose, and get ISIL-style theocracy.” (Source)
II. ON THE CLARITY OF THE QUR’AN
Qur’an 6:114—Shall I seek for a judge other than Allah, when He it is Who has sent down to you the Book fully explained?
Qur’an 11:1—This is a Book, whose verses have been made firm and free from imperfection and then they have been expounded in detail.
Qur’an 12:1—These are verses of the clear Book.
Qur’an 16:89—And We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things . . .
Qur’an 24:46—Certainly We have revealed clear communications, and Allah guides whom He pleases to the right way.
Qur’an 27:1—These are verses of the Qur’an—a book that makes (things) clear.
Qur’an 41:3—A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail . . .
Qur’an 57:9—He it is who sends down clear communications upon His servant, that he may bring you forth from utter darkness into light.
III. ON SUBMISSION TO ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD
Qur’an 33:36—It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.
Qur’an 4:65—But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.
Qur’an 33:21—Certainly you have in the Apostle of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.
IV. MUHAMMAD’S EXAMPLE AND TEACHINGS
Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—The Prophet said, . . . “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”
Sahih Bukhari 2795—The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world, even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah’s cause).”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—A man came to Allah’s Messenger and said, “Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”
Sahih Bukhari 2796—The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it.”
Sunan An-Nasa’i 3099—The Prophet said: “Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 2763—The Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency.”
Sahih Muslim 33—The Messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Allah’s Messenger said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, kill him.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 2535—The Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.”
Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik 36.18.15—The Messenger of Allah said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!”
Read more at Answering Muslims
It might seem strange that Austria is taking the lead in the European domestic response to ISIS, but it shouldn’t be. Thanks to Chancellor Kreisky’s left-wing radicalism and ties to the USSR, Vienna became a base for Muslim terrorists in Europe.
But the terrorists are a lot more disturbing these days than just the PLO. Vienna is now more of a Jihadist hub than ever.
The report stated that Austria is used as a place for recruiting and organising European jihadists who plan to travel through the Western Balkans to Syria.
As many as 130 people from Austria are believed to be fighting as jihadists abroad. More than half of Austria’s jihadists originally come from the Caucasus region and have a valid residence permit in Austria. The rest are mainly Bosnian and Turkish-born.
John R. Schindler, a professor of national security affairs at the US Naval War College, writes in a recent blog post that “for years, Vienna has served as the de facto base for Islamist extremists from Southeastern Europe, a place to recruit, raise and hide funds, and radicalize, thanks to Austria’s permissive laws and weak enforcement mechanisms. It’s an exceptional terrorist or Salafi radical in Bosnia who has not spent some time in Austria.”
Now Austria is suddenly pushing some of the hardest laws in Europe in response to ISIS.
It includes: a ban on the groups’ symbols; revoking Austrian citizenship of extremist fighters who are double citizens; and stricter rules for minors who want to travel outside the European Union.
For Americans, two of these might as well be imaginary, but it’s the Koran retooling that is getting attention.
Austria’s foreign minister has proposed an idea he believes will discourage Muslims from joining the Islamic State group: create a single, standardized translation of the Koran to discourage misinterpretation of the Muslim holy book.
Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz said Saturday that the move will prevent extremists from misusing the Koran, the German news agency DPA reported, suggesting bad translations are behind radicalism.
“There are countless translations, countless interpretations,” Kurz said. “On the other hand it is also in the interest of the community of faith that not many words are incorrectly interpreted and reproduced.”
Obviously it’s a ridiculous proposal since the idea that the Austrian government’s official Koran will be able to compete with the subsidized Saudi copies routed through its network of mosques and agencies is unrealistic.
Furthermore there’s only so much you can do with the translation. Even assuming that your targets don’t read Arabic, changing the meaning of some words won’t fix this. The Koran’s narrative is military. To fix that you would have to rewrite, rather than retranslate. The USSR adjusted the translations of some books. Other books it had to rewrite because they were too problematic.
And rewriting the Koran would require replacing it with a new Koran. Obviously that won’t happen. Instead a few of the more violent terms will be translated vaguely and the end result will fool no one and only serve as a hook for Salafist recruiters.
But the move itself is interesting. It’s alien to America where there is a separation of church and state, but not to Europe where they continue to be entangled.
Austria is pursuing the “Russian” solution of creating a government approved Islam. To some extent the UK is struggling to do the same thing. And when Obama and Kerry assert that ISIS isn’t real Islam, they are implictly doing the same thing.
In essence this means the rise of a government approved and subsidized Islam.
By David Wood at Answering Muslims:
Jihadists fighting for ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) claim that they are following the commands of Allah and Muhammad. Yet Westernized Muslims, politicians, and the media insist that ISIS is violating the principles of Islam. Who’s right? In the following video, I present the top ten Qur’an verses you need to know to understand ISIS.
In Denmark in 2005, Tina Magaard – a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in textual analysis – published detailed research findings comparing the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard concluded from her data-driven analyses that
“The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with.”
Magaard further observed that “There are 36 references in the Koran to expressions derived from the root qa-ta-la, which indicates fighting, killing or being killed. The expressions derived from the root ja-ha-da, which the word Jihad stems from, are more ambiguous since they mean ‘to struggle’ or ‘to make an effort’ rather than killing. Yet almost all of the references derived from this root are found in stories that leave no room for doubt regarding the violent nature of this struggle. Only a single ja-ha-da reference (29:6) explicitly presents the struggle as an inner, spiritual phenomenon, not as an outwardly (usually military) phenomenon. But this sole reference does not carry much weight against the more than 50 references to actual armed struggle in the Koran, and even more in the Hadith.”
Andrew G. Bostom’s copiously documented book The Legacy of Jihad describes the doctrinal rationale for Islam’s sacralized Jihad violence, and its historical manifestations, from the seventh-century advent of the Muslim creed through the present. Consistent with Magaard’s textual analysis, Bostom cites the independent study of the renowned Arabic-to-English translator Paul Stenhouse, who maintained that the root of the word Jihad appears forty times in the Koran. With just four exceptions, all the other thirty-six usages in the Koran and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries – the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam – and to ordinary people meant and mean, as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer E. W. Lane: “He fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.” Muhammad himself according to traditional Islamic sources waged a series of bloody Jihad campaigns to subdue the Jews, Christians and pagans of Arabia.
The concept of Jihad is unique to Islam. It is a key component that makes Islam uniquely aggressive and dangerous among all of the world’s major religions.
It is, technically speaking, true that there may be non-violent aspects to Jihad as well, for instance propaganda. However, this is true of all wars. The primary meaning of Jihad is violent, and has been so consistently for fourteen centuries. The ultimate goal of Islam and of Jihad is the global supremacy of Islam and of Islamic law, or sharia — in other words, world supremacy. It is very hard to get much more aggressive than that. Until that goal has been reached, every non-Muslim man, woman and child on this planet is a potential target for Jihad violence. Sometimes, Jihadists will even target Muslims who are not Islamic enough for their taste.
One Jewish survivor of the Second World War was asked what he learned from the Holocaust. His reply was that when somebody tells you they want to kill you, you should believe them. That is wise advice, and not just for Jews. The fighters of the Islamic State have public declared to the Western world that “we will drown all of you in blood.” I tend to take them at their word, and so should you.
I am a man of books and letters myself. I rely on rational arguments, as far as that goes. However, I am also not a pacifist. Genghis Khan would not have been impressed by the force of your arguments, only by the force of your arms. The same thing applies to Islamic Jihadists. They are not interested in “dialogue,” unless this means submission to Islam and Islamic rule. Until you accept that, they will respect only the strength of your arms. They cannot be reasoned with, and it is suicidal to try.
American Thinker, By Richard Butrick, August 31, 2014:
One face is for Islam’s useful idiots the other is for Islam’s faithful.
The Koran is not arranged in chronological order. When it is arranged in chronological order it is clear that the Koran undergoes a serious transition after Muhammad’s first real triumph on the battlefield at Badr in 624. The period following that battle is called the Medina period of the prophet’s life. Conceptually this transition can be seen as a transition from the Old Koran to the New Koran. Unlike the transition from the Old to the New Testament, the transition from the “Old” Koran (pre-Medina) to the “New” Koran (Medina) is a transition to a more vengeful, demanding, supremacist God.
He who at Mecca is the admonisher and persuader, at Medina is the legislator and the warrior, who dictates obedience, and uses other weapons than the pen of the Poet and the Scribe. [link]
In practice, Quranic abrogation results in a known doctrinal footprint that subordinates the milder, more moderate verses of the Quran from the Meccan period of revelation, to the later and violent verses of the Medina period. Islamic law is substantially derived from the Medinan period. Where a conflict exists, anything said during the Medinan period overrules anything on the same subject in the Meccan. And anything said in the later part of the Medinan period either overrules or controls anything said in the earlier part. [link]
In an attempt to polish Islam’s image, Muslim activists usually quote verses from the Quran that were written in the early days of the Islamic movement while Mohammed lived in Mecca. Those passages make Islam appear loving and harmless because they call for love, peace and patience. Such is a deception. The activists fail to tell gullible people that such verses, though still in the Quran, were nullified, abrogated, rendered void by later passages that incite killing, decapitations, maiming, terrorism and religious intolerance. The latter verses were penned while Mohammed’s headquarters was based in Medina. [The Quran’s Doctrine of Abrogation – Abdullah Al Araby]
A clear-cut example of this principle of abrogation is the oft quoted passage from the Old Koran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” (Q 5:99) which is abrogated by chronologically later passages such as these:
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.”
And on it goes. Apologists for Islam insist these passages refer to retaliatory measures to be taken when attacked.
Regarding these passages, it is to be noted that the Koran is the word of God and not a testament as are the Old and New Testaments and is thereby much less subject to “interpretation.” Moreover, it is axiomatic in Islam that Muhammad is the perfect male to be emulated as much as possible by all male Muslims. The post-Meccan Muhammad is a warrior, raider, conqueror, and subjugator of the non-Islamic world. The mission of all good Muslims is, correspondingly, the spread of Islam any means possible.
The great divide between the Old Koran, which is relatively tolerant and accepting of Jews and Christians, and the New Koran which views Jews and Christians as vermin worthy only extermination or servile groveling before their Muslim masters, enables the supremacist mandate in Islam to present one face to the West’s useful idiots and another to the faithful.
It has worked.
The Old Koran is used to piously claim that terrorism, suicide bombing, and persecution of religious minorities and disempowerment of women are “un-Islamic.”
What is the useful-idiot version of Islam? Here it is a culled version based on quotes from President Bush’s comments on Islam:
Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate. Mohammad’s word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements.
And here is President Obama solemnly declaring that Islam is based on the principles “of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
But here are the real five pillars of Islam for the faithful:
I. Islam is to dominate over all other religions Q9:33, 61:9, 8:39
2. Muslims are to purify all of Arabia of its Pagans who can convert or be killed Q9:5 3. 3. Muslims are to fight and subjugate other non-Muslims and subdue and make them inferior second-class citizens (Dhimmis) to pay jizya (humiliation tax) to save their lives. Q9:29
4. Muslims are to have hatred and enmity forever for non-Muslims until they worship Allah alone Q60:4, they should fight those unbelievers close to them and let them find harshness in the Muslims Q9:123
5. Muslims must engage in this jihad (struggle) as this fighting is ordained for them even if they dislike it 2:216 and they are told they can overcome much greater enemies to a multiple of 10 times or more Q8:65
From George W. Bush to Hillary Clinton the “hijacked Islam” or “un-Islamic” meme has infected U.S. foreign policy and enabled creeping Sharia at home. It seems to have gotten to the point that exonerating Islam is the primary concern of U.S. foreign and defense policy with regard to terrorist activity from ISIS to Fort Hood to Boko Haram. The first order of business is to insure that “us folks” understand that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Just after the terrible treatment of Yazidis and the beheading of Foley, practically the first words out of President Obama’s mouth were that “ISIL speaks for no religion.”
The Obama crew has been suckered, bamboozled, and taqiyyaed into believing the Islam of the Old Koran is the real Islam. But as the menacing face of the Islam of the New Koran turns fully into view it is becoming increasingly clear that it is the Obama team of useful idiots who have been hijacked. Even CNN has published a report showing that al Qaeda affiliated groups are gaining strength:
That was in April, before ISIL showed its real power. And wait till we pull out of Afghanistan. It will be brutally clear that it is not ISIL but Obama and his crew of Islam’s useful idiots that “speak for no religion.”
The Center’s Clare Lopez debates Mike Ghouse on Sean Hannity’s radio show on the Islamic State (IS), Islam, doctrinal basis for IS atrocities.
Published on Sep 12, 2013 by RealLifeJackHibbs (h/t Bill Warner)
Jay Smith is a noted evangelist and apologist to radical Muslims at Speakers’ Corner in London. “Jay has a Masters degree in Islamic studies from Fuller Theological Seminary and is currently working on a Ph.D at London School of Theology. Jay is an expert in Christian-Muslim Apologetics, having worked with Muslims for [over] 23 years. He is famous for his unique evangelistic ministry. Every weekend he leads dozens of Christians to the Speakers Corner in Hyde Park in London, where they meet with hundreds of Muslims face to face, to make friends, answer tough questions, debate the latest research and ideas, and share their faith.”^^ Smith heads up Hyde Park Christian Fellowship, and emphasizes the use of Polemics with Muslims, over Apologetics.
By David Wood at Answering Muslims:
Most Christians (myself included) don’t have Sam Shamoun’s computer-like brain to recall thousands of verses on command. Nevertheless, with a little effort, we can all learn some basic facts about Islam. In this short video, I present three Qur’an verses that every Christian should learn.
In case you’d like to copy them down, here are the verses:
Qur’an 4:157—They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
Qur’an 5:47—Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
As we close this weeks series on Sharia and its importance in today’s world events, it must be again reiterated that everything the United States is dealing with in the current war is all about Sharia. Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic states around the world, and the doctrine of Islam itself all mandate Sharia be imposed on the entire world until there is “Peace.”
It seems fitting, then, to conclude our series on the most basic of questions: Is Sharia comparable with our Constitutional Republic in any way? The unequivocal answer is NO.
Article VI of the Constitution mandates that “…all Executive and Judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
By an Act of the U.S. Congress under Title 5 Section 3331 of the U.S. Code, all elected or appointed officials shall take an oath as prescribed in that law to defend the Constitution against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Former Inspector General of the United States Department of Defense and Constitutional professor Joseph Schmitz has specifically highlighted three key areas where Sharia is in direct contradiction with our Constitution: Popular Sovereignty, Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion.
Specifically, the U.S. Constitution, in its Preamble, identifies the People as sovereign under our system. Sharia specifically states all of mankind must submit to Islam: “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Allah Almighty alone.” (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Mohammed Hashim Kalamali)
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states “This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land.” As was noted in an earlier UTT Blog this week, the most popular Junior High School text in American Islamic schools – What Islam is All About – states, “The law of the land is the Shari’ah of Allah.”
Finally, the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the freedom to practice their faith and religion without government interference. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” Sharia, which comes from the Quran and the example/teachings of the prophet Mohammed, states “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie and wait for them in every stratagem of war” (Quran 9:5); and “But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn away from Islam, seize them and slay them wherever you find them, and take no friends or helpers from among their ranks.” (Quran 4:89) In Sharia, there is no disagreement among the scholars and 100% of authoritative Islamic Law legally puts Muslims at a higher status in the community with greater rights than those of non-Muslims, and 100% of all Islamic Law mandates that all apostates from Islam be killed.
What the Global Islamic Movement intends to do, and says it intends to do, and is killing tens of thousands of people across the globe and overthrowing countries in furtherance of, is the imposition of Sharia on the world. This is not about religious freedom for Muslims in any way. It is about a violent and organized effort to impose foreign law (Sharia) on American citizens in direct conflict of the U.S Constitution and U.S. Federal Code.
Those who have sworn an Oath to protect and defend America and our Constitution must do so against any incursion into our system by Sharia. Sharia should be viewed as a cancer inside our system – a viewpoint which was crystal clear to our Founders.
Published June 16, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01
By Mark Durie:
Today a report appeared in The Australian, a national daily newspaper, which discussed forced marriages in our nation. There were many good points made in this article, which was entitled It is the young flesh they want.
The offending paragraph was:
“It is critical that the whole community is educated,” says Jennifer Burn of Anti-Slavery Australia. “The Koran does not support child marriage and the Grand Mufti of Australia says that consent is vital. But there are over 60 different traditions within the Muslim community, with different interpretations of the religious scriptures. We need the religious leaders to take the message into the communities, because they will listen to their leaders rather than us.”
[Since The Australian appeared, I contacted Associate Professor Burn, and she reported to me that she had been misquoted. She has successfully requested the Australian to correct the quotation to: “It is critical that initiatives to address child marriage and forced marriage are developed in consultation with communities and with community leaders,” This is the version which is published on the Australian’s website — as of 21 June 2014.]
It is true that the Koran does not refer specifically to child marriage. However in discussing divorce it does refer to conditions applying for a female who has not yet menstruated, i.e. for a pre-pubescent girl. The reference is found in Sura 65:4 in a list of regulations concerning the waiting period (the Iddah orIddat) for divorced women before they can remarry. The verse deals systematically with different cases of women who for some reason are not having regular periods. It reads:
“And of those of your women who have given up hope of menstruating, if you doubt, their (waiting) period is three months, as well as those who do not menstruate. And those who are pregnant, their period is until they deliver their burdens.” (Sura 65:4)
It might be thought that this verse is ambiguous in relation to young girls. However it is quite clear. It systematically covers the three main cases where a female is not menstruating: the old, the young, and those who are pregnant.
Ibn Kathir’s highly respected commentary on the Koran has this to say about this passage (see here).
Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her ‘Iddah [waiting period before marriage] is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their‘Iddah is three months like those in menopause.
The reference to ‘Surat Al-Baqarah’ is to Chapter 2 verse 228 of the Koran, which states that divorced women must wait through three mentrual periods before remarrying. Ibn Kathir also refers to two hadiths or traditions of Muhammad that Sura 65:4 was revealed when someone asked Muhammad about the young, the old and the pregnant, because their waiting period could not be determined from the principle of three menstrual periods, given in Sura 2: 228.
Furthermore, Islam is not just based upon the Koran. It is also based upon the example and teaching of Muhammad, and here there is very clear support for what today we would call ‘underage’ marriages, because Muhammad married Aisha when she was six and consumated this marriage when she was reported to have been nine years old (that is nine lunar years, which means she was aged somewhere between 8 years, nine months and 9 years, nine months). The revered Sahih al-Bukhari, a collection of sayings of Muhammad, includes a chapter with this heading:
Giving one’s young children in marriage (is permissible) by virtue of the Statement of Allah ‘… and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) (65:4). And the ‘Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).
This chapter consists of the following hadith:
64. Narrated ‘Ā’isha that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Collections of hadiths are arranged for legal purposes. The heading of each chapter indicates the relevance of the hadiths it contains for jurisprudence. In this case, referencing Sura 65:4, a hadith about the marriage of Aisha is taken as evidence that it is permissible for a father to marry off his young daughters, specifically if she has not yet reached puberty.
I have written in Quadrant (here) about the rule in Islamic law that a father or a grandfather is considered to be a wali mujbir, or ‘forcing guardian’, who has the right to marry a virgin daughter without her permission.
What Jennifer Burn seems to be trying to do is entirely laudable. She seems to be attempting to persuade Muslim communities to reject forced marriages of female children. However to do so she claims that this practice is not supported by the Koran, which is quite false.
Is it praiseworthy to make a false statement about a religion’s teachings in order to incite its followers to behave well? Whatever the answer to this question may be, this strategy is bound to fail, because anyone who is better informed about the religion will simply reject advice based upon ignorance.
A strategy which acknowledges the authorities in Islam for a practice, and then mounts a case against the practice, is far more likely to have enduring success than one based upon wishful thinking or misleading information.
Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum, and director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.