What is Shariah and What Are It’s Sources?

Shariah the threatExcerpt from Shariah: The Threat to America, An Exercise in Competitive Analysis—Report of Team B II (pp. 57-66)

By Patrick Poole; Joseph E.Schmitz ;  William J.Boykin ;  Harry Edward Soyster, ; Henry Cooper ; Michael Del Rosso ; Frank J. Gaffney Jr.; John Guandolo; Clare M. Lopez ; Stephen C. Coughlin;  Andrew C.McCarthy

Also see Key Tenets of Shariah and The Reliance of the Traveller

The Arabic word “shariah,” according to one modern English-language student textbook on Islam, “literally means a straight path (Quran 45:18) or an endless supply of water.  It is the term used to describe the rules of the lifestyle (Deen) ordained for us by Allah.  In more practical terms, shariah includes all the do’s and don’ts of Islam.”[71]

In other words, shariah is held by mainstream Islamic authorities – not to be confused with “radical,”“extremist” or “political” elements said to operate at the fringes of Islam – to be the perfect expression of divine will and justice and thus is the supreme law that must comprehensively govern all aspects of Muslims’ lives, irrespective of when or where they live.  Shariah is characterized as a “complete way of life” (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law.

While many, many millions of Muslims around the world do not practice their faith in a manner consistent with shariah, as this chapter makes clear, those who do practice shariah have grounds for arguing that their version of Islam is the authoritative one.  And those who claim that there is no single shariah – a narrative that has recently emerged from representatives of Muslim- and Arab-American groups[72] and their non-Muslim apologists[73] – are either ignorant of the facts about shariah discussed below, or deliberately dissembling (see chapter three).

WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF SHARIA?

There are four sources for shariah that make it authoritative: the Quran, the Sunna, ijma, and qiyas.  Deemed the “uncreated word of Allah,” the Quran reflects direct divine revelation and is understood to be the primary source of Islamic law. After the Quran, Islamic jurists next turn to the Sunna, considered to be indirect divine revelation arising out of the hadiths, or sayings or acts of Mohammed. Ijma refers to the consensus of the grand mujtahids of the past, a historic process in which, once consensus attached, became a permanent part of the immutable body of Islamic law.  Finally, the fourth source for shariah is qiyas, or reasoning by analogy, which applies an accepted principle or assumption to arrive at a legal ruling.[74]

In order fully to understand shariah, it is necessary to examine each of these sources and their contributions in turn.

The Quran: In Islamic parlance, the Quran is considered to be the uncreated word of Allah. According to Muslim belief, it has existed since the beginning of time and was revealed by the Archangel Gabriel in the 7th Century to the Prophet Mohammed in the Arabic language of his homeland. It follows from the characterization of the Quran as the uncreated word of Allah that its points are timeless. Clearly, if it were possible to place the Quran in context within a certain historical period, it could be said that it has subsequently become obsolete – especially since so many of its tenets are unique to 7th Century Bedouin culture. That would be tantamount, however, to asserting that Allah’s uncreated, and therefore eternal, word is actually time-limited.  Thus, it is mandatory that the Quran be deemed as eternal and eternally applicable to everyone, not just Muslims. The preeminence of the Quran in shariah is closed to debate.  An Indian Islamic jurist, Asaf A.A. Fyzee, put it in his work Outlines of Mohammedan Law: “The Koran according to this theory is the first source of law. … It is for this reason that the verse of the Koran (ayat), although only a few of them deal specifically with legal questions, are held to be of paramount authority.” [75]

The Quran is comprised of 114 chapters (or Suras) that include some 6,236 ayat or verses, and is believed by Muslims to have been revealed over a period of 22 years (from 610 to 632 A.D., the year of Mohammed’s death). Chronologically speaking, the first 86 of the 114 chapters were said to have been revealed to the Prophet in Mecca while the remaining 28 came after the hijra to Medina in 622.

Although the chronological order of these verses is known, the Quran itself is not laid out in order of reported revelation but by length of verses (longest to shortest).  In the beginning, Quranic verses were memorized and recited orally, with some being jotted down in a haphazard manner on pieces of parchment, plant leaves, and even stones. It was not until about 650 that the third Caliph, Uthman, commissioned an official, standardized version of the Quran, after which a concerted effort was made to find and destroy any earlier remnants and versions.

It is important to appreciate that the Quran was not compiled in the chronological order of revelations, but rather organized from longest to shortest verses. This decision makes for difficult reading and even more difficult understanding of what was said and when.

In light of the Islamic doctrine of “abrogation” – which holds that the later verses supersede, or abrogate, the earlier ones – the actual chronological order of the Quranic verses makes a critical difference.  This is because there are contradictions among the verses, a delicate situation that had to be dealt with by Mohammed himself. Thus arose the device known as al-mansukh wa al-nasikh (“that which is abrogated and that which abrogates”).  The basis for this solution to an otherwise difficult conundrum in what is supposed to be a perfect book can be found in both the hadiths and the Quran itself, where verse 2:106 states: “When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar.  Do you not know that God has power over all things?” A number of other verses convey the same understanding.

All four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence are in complete agreement on doctrine of abrogation and in general agreement on the abrogating and abrogated import of shariah doctrine regarding Quranic texts.[76]  Seventy-five percent of Sunni Islamic law is recognized in common across all four schools.   An Islamic jurist does not read Islamic law and decide for himself what is or is not abrogated as this has already been determined by the school of law to which the jurist belongs.

These issues have already been decided. A Hanafi, Shafite, Maliki, and even Hanbali Islamic scholar will refer to their respective school’s books on abrogating and abrogated texts.  No one can become a shariah judge unless he knows these passages by heart; they are that important.

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.

To put a fine point on it: When our shariah-compliant enemies cite from the most violent verses of the Quran to justify their actions, they are completely aligned with Islamic law and doctrine.

As the noted scholar David Bukay wrote in a 2007 essay for the Middle East Quarterly, “Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology.”[77]  The point also should be made here that, independent of abrogation, the forcible imposition of shariah is intended to set the pre-conditions within a society that will “open minds and hearts to Islam, and thereby encourage conversion.” (We shall discuss below the implications for national security leaders whose professional responsibility includes understanding the motivations and claimed justifications of the jihadi enemy.)

Closely related to the doctrine of abrogation is the concept of progressive revelation, which means that the Quran’s verses were revealed gradually over a lengthy period of some 20 years. As Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood strategist put it: “The Quran did not come down all at once; rather it came down according to the needs of the Islamic society in facing new problems….”[78]

According to Muslim belief, the gradual revelation of the Quranic verses tracked with the development of the early Muslim community itself under the Prophet Mohammed’s leadership. Early on, when his followers were a small, reviled group in Mecca, the corresponding revelations from Allah commanded a protective low profile.  Even in the face of harsh criticism, Mohammed instructed his followers to maintain a peaceful attitude and the Quranic verses of the period reflect that attitude.

Later on, after Mohammed’s move to Medina (the hijra), circumstances for the early Muslims improved and their numbers, and strength, grew significantly.  At this time, new revelations permitted them to fight back against those who attacked them.  This is precisely the point made by Major Nidal Malik Hasan in his pre-Fort Hood massacre presentation at Walter Reed.[79] Hasan explained the “Jihad-rule of Abrogation” in Slide 35 of his presentation.[80]

Finally, after the signal Battle of Badr in the year 624, where a relatively small Muslim force overcame a much larger enemy force of non-Muslims for the first time, revelations emerged that permitted – and then commanded – Muslims to go on the offensive from that time onward, until all the world should be under shariah.  Specifically, the chronologically last Sura to address jihad is Sura 9, the “Sura of the Sword.”  In accordance with the doctrine of abrogation, its passages represent the ultimate authority on the requirements of jihad:

Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.  (Q 9:5)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, 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.  (Q 9:29)

Instructions on Muslim relations with Christians and Jews were laid out in the late Medinan period as well. Those familiar with Islamic concerns with regard to terrorism are familiar with the Quranic injunction: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” (Q 5:99) This passage is a particular favorite of those Muslim Brotherhood operatives and others seeking to obscure the true character of shariah.

What most non-Muslims have not heard is Quran 3:85: “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him, and he will be of those who have truly failed in the hereafter.” (Emphasis added.) Even more graphic is Sura 98:6 where it is asserted that non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings.”

These verses are interpreted under shariah to mean that anyone who does not accept Islam is unacceptable in the eyes of Allah and that he will send them to Hell.  When it is said that shariah is a supremacist program, this is one of the bases for it.

And even more specifically, regarding the possibility of Muslim friendship with any but fellow Muslims: “Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust.”(Q 5:51)

This verse lays down the rule for Muslims that “the unjust” are not only the Christians and Jews:  they are also Muslims who take Christians and Jews as friends.

And lastly, to quote just one of the Quranic verses that is used repeatedly by shariah-adherent Muslims to castigate Jews and Christians, and by extension, the West:

“Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil….” (Quran 5:60)

So, according to Sura 5:60, Allah turned people who worshipped evil into apes and swine. The references refer, respectively, to the apes, who are the Jews (the people of the Sabbath), while the swine are Christians, the infidels who adhere to the communion of Jesus.

Apologists for shariah try to dismiss such citations as “cherry picking” from the Quran. However[s7] , these Sura are selected precisely because they are operative according to shariah’s doctrine of abrogation. This stepped process of development through which the first Muslims moved forms the model for all Muslims to the current day.

Muslim children, and those studying to become converts to Islam, are typically taught first about the gentle “your religion for you, mine for me” verses of the Quran.

Instruction to Westerners, as it turns out, is strictly limited to understanding Islam in its early peaceful phases.  In fact, it is a top priority of the Islamic Movement to discourage U.S. leaders from studying Islamic doctrine and law.  As Edward Said famously argued in his 1978 book Orientalism, only those who can speak classical Arabic can understand the true meaning of Islam, so why read anything[s8]  at all?

Muslims, however, are required to proceed on to eventual understanding of the complete sequence contained in the Quran and hadiths.  This graduated progression to manage the Muslim community is what Ikhwan strategist Sayyid Qutb made as the object of his seminal jihadist monograph Milestones. The method of graduated progression is why it is impossible to understand the full import of Islam without mastering the doctrines of abrogation and its associated “progressive revelation.”

Finally, progressive revelation along “milestones” tracks with the stepped-learning process that many national security and law enforcement officials have taken to calling “the self-radicalization process.”  Shariah itself calls for this evolution.  The practice may or may not be properly described as “radical,” but it certainly reflects the gradual revelation of Islam itself.

The Sunna: The second most authoritative source for shariah is the Sunna, commonly understood to be the actions and sayings of the Prophet. The Sunna includes the ahadith (plural of hadith), or collections by Mohammed’s contemporaries of what he did and said during his lifetime. Also within the Sunna is the Sira, which are biographical accounts of the life of Mohammed. It should be noted that the ahadith (not the Sira) constitute the legally significant element of the Sunna.[81]

The many hundreds of thousands of hadiths have been recorded in a number of hadith collections, of which six collections are held to be the most authoritative (or “strong hadiths,” meaning their chain of transmission is considered solid). The two most important collections of all are those by Sahih Al-Bukhari (collected and compiled by Mohammed bin Isma’il, known as Imam Bukhari, born 810, died 870) and Sahih Muslim (Muslim bin al-Hajjaj, known as Imam Muslim, born 817/818, died 874/875 ).

Ijma: In addition to the Quran and Sunna, there are also two accepted secondary sources for shariah: these are ijma (consensus of the scholars) and qiyas (analytical deduction). Consensus of the Islamic jurists refers to the achievement of agreement on particular legal issues and finds its justification in numerous verses of the Quran.[82] Hadith accounts also provide support with the words of Mohammed: “My followers will never agree upon an error or what is wrong.” The early Muslim scholars turned to this device of ijma only when they could not find a specific legal ruling in either the Quran or the Sunna.

Qiyas: Qiyas make up the fourth most important source for shariah. The term means “to judge by comparing with a thing.” Its methods of deductive reasoning derive from the previous three sources of authenticity, namely the Quran, the Sunna, and ijma. When a legal ruling was required but could not be found in the other sources, the Islamic jurists employed analogy, reasoning, and legal precedent to arrive at new case law. Although all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali) accept ijma as a legitimate source of shariah, Shiite Muslims do not; however, they replace ijma with aql (or reason). Considering that Shiites do not accept the authority of the Sunni Caliphs after Imam Ali, it is understandable that they would reject a source of legal authority that arose under their authority. In any case, the Shia practice of aql is essentially identical to ijma.

The Sharia Threat to America

By Fred Grandy

There is a great deal of misinformation circulating with regard to sharia and  the threat it poses to America and Western Civilization.

Some  misinformed observers and members of the Muslim Brotherhood liken concerns over  sharia to prejudice and bigotry, but the facts say otherwise.

sTerrorism  experts in the law enforcement, military and intelligence communities have cited  sharia as the Jihadists’ enemy threat doctrine in an intensive study called Shariah:  The Threat to America,” a scholarly, 352-page book based on  authoritative sources of sharia, or Islamic law. While sharia does include  “prayer and fasting” and “worship,” sharia is also an all-encompassing legal and  political code that covers aspects of life that have nothing to do with  religion.

Perhaps  most importantly, unlike other forms of religious law, such as canon law and  Jewish law, sharia is the only form of religious law extant that is also meant  to apply to people of other faiths, i.e. non-Muslims.

The  threat from sharia has nothing to do with prejudice or bigotry. The threat from  sharia is real and multifaceted.

Some  claim that sharia is no threat to the American legal system, but research shows  such a threat does exist. Just as sharia has gradually become embedded in the  legal systems of many European nations over the past generation, it is beginning  to be found in US court cases. An initial study by the Center for Security  Policy entitled Shariah  Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court  Cases,” examined 50 cases from 23 states that involved conflicts  between sharia and American state law. The study’s findings suggest that sharia  has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and  state public policy.

This  incursion of sharia into US court systems usually manifests itself in the form  of foreign law from nations such as Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan,  Libya, Syria and other predominantly Islamic nations.  As a result, four  states, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona and Kansas, have passed into law “American  Laws for American Courts,” legislation. Several more states are considering  American Laws for American Courts. Unlike Oklahoma’s infamous constitutional  amendment, American Laws for American Courts does not ban sharia. American Laws  for American Courts protects individual, fundamental constitutional rights by  preventing courts from applying foreign law when the application of that foreign  law in the case at hand would result in the violation of a fundamental  constitutional right, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due  process and equal protection.

Among  the organizations that are clouding the issue on sharia is the Saudi-backed  Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

ISNA  was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and revealed to be a Muslim  Brotherhood affiliate in the US v. Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism  financing prosecution in American history.

ISNA  was co-founded in 1981 by Sami Al-Arian, a man who is now in federal prison  after having been convicted on terrorism charges as a member of Palestinian  Islamic Jihad.

Read more at American Thinker

 

Key Findings of The Muslim Brotherhood in America 10 Part Course

Frank Gaffney has produced a stunningly detailed 10 part video course on the Muslim Brotherhood and it’s infiltration into the United States through a process of civilization jihad. The course is available to all for free and can be accessed either on youtube or at this site: http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/the-course/

Here are the key findings:

This Course draws exclusively upon information in the public domain and that obtained from  first-hand accounts.  There is, assuredly, considerably more information that would be helpful to making to a full threat assessment.  The findings below, based solely on what is currently available, should prompt those with access to classified information, subpoena power and other investigative tools to bring them to bear urgently for that purpose.

  1. Shariah is a totalitarian, brutally repressive and supremacist doctrine.  Its adherents – notably, the Muslim Brotherhood – seek to bring it here.

  2. Shariah is principally about power, not faith.  Accordingly, acting to realize its political end of overthrowing the U.S. government is seditious and must be prosecuted, not treated as protected religious practice.

  3. The Brotherhood is not a non-violent group.  Rather, in most countries where it operates including the United States, it is in a pre-violent phase.

  4. The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan, the group’s mission in America is a “civilization-jihadist process…a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within” by our hands.

  5. The Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad is being pursued through stealthy means involving the penetration and subversion of this country’s civil society and governing institutions.  Presidencies of both parties have been compromised in this way.

  6. One determinant of the success of such a stealthy, pre-violent jihad is what the military calls “information dominance.”  If the Muslim Brotherhood can exercise it, we can be kept ignorant of the true nature of the threat they pose – and the progress they are making in bringing shariah to America.  That has been substantially the case over the past ten years and increasingly of late.

  7. The Muslim Brotherhood was helped in its efforts to achieve information dominance over the George W. Bush administration, thanks to collaboration between a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Abdurahman Alamoudi, and anti-tax activist Grover Norquist.

  8. In addition to al Qaeda financier Alamoudi, Norquist helped mainstream in the Bush campaign and/or administration five other Muslims with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  They were: the Islamic Free Market Institute’s Khalid Saffuri, CAIR’s Nihad Awad, Palestinian Jihad’s Sami al-Arian, the Fiqh Council’s Muzzamil Siddiqi and Suhail Khan, a former staffer for Rep. Tom Campbell of California.

  9. In his capacity as the de facto Muslim gatekeeper in the Office of Public Liaison under senior Bush advisor Karl Rove, and then as an assistant in the personal office of the Secretary of Transportation, Khan had, at a minimum, an opportunity to facilitate the penetration of other Islamists.

  10. Both during and after the Bush administration, Norquist has used various organizations to promote Islamist agendas.  These have included Red-Green coalitions made up of radical and other leftists and Muslim Brotherhood front groups with whom they routinely make common cause, to the detriment of U.S. security, constitutional freedoms and other interests.

  11. Norquist has worked for years to “create relations with top political leaders and Muslims.”  Of late, that has included running such Muslims for elective office as Republicans.  Three of his protégés – Kamal Nawash, Faisal Gill and Imad “David” Ramadan – have met with mixed results in their runs for state legislative seats in Virginia thanks to troubling questions about their backgrounds and associations.

  12. Norquist continues to support Islamist agenda items and to work to counter initiatives opposed by the Brothers.  In the process, he has collaborated with radical leftists and Islamists in Red-Green Coalitions, the latter include Iranian influence operations.

  13. The precedents, personnel and policies promoted by Norquist and his friends during the George W. Bush administration have metastasized dramatically under that of President Obama.

  14. Notably, six Islamist-sympathizers have achieved positions within or advisory roles serving Team Obama:  Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Rashad Hussein; Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Huma Abedein; Presidential advisor Dalia Mogahed; FBI Citizens Academy graduate Kifah Mustafa; Homeland Security Advisory Committee Member Mohamed Elibiary and Homeland Security Countering Violent Extremism Working Group Member Mohamed Magid.

  15. The conduct of seven key federal agencies suggests the considerable success of the Muslim Brotherhood in destroying us from within by our own hands – starting with the policies and directives emanating from the Oval Office and elsewhere in the White House complex, and including the priorities and activities of: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security and even NASA.

  16. There are myriad steps Americans can – and must – take to counter this civilization jihad.  Some can be undertaken as individuals; some through organized efforts; and others as a nation.

In light of these findings, there is an urgent need for rigorous congressional oversight and investigations aimed at exposing the extent of the civilization jihad – and the need for corrective action aimed at countering it, particularly by federal authorities.  Such legislative branch initiatives should be accompanied by corresponding actions initiated by Inspectors General and, as appropriate, law enforcement.

 

Losing the Jihadists’ War on America

 
Frank Gaffney, Top Intelligence Professionals Reveal Who is Responsible – and Why
 
Washington, D.C., April 23, 2012  At a press conference on Tuesday, April 24th, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney and two former top leaders of the U.S. intelligence community will address a question millions of Americans have pondered: 
 
Why, despite more than ten years of efforts – involving, among other things, the loss of thousands of lives in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well-over a trillion dollars spent, countless man-years wasted waiting in airport security lines and endless efforts to ensure that no offense is given to seemingly permanently aggrieved Islamist activists – are we no closer to victory in the so-called “war on terror” than we were on 9/11
 
In fact, such a prospect is becoming more remote by the day–and no one seems able to explain the reason why.
 
The missing answer will be revealed tomorrow at the National Press Club at 9:30 a.m. with the unveiling of a new web-based, ten-part video course called “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within,” presented by Mr. Gaffney.  He will be joined on the occasion of this roll-out by the co-leaders of Team B II, the group of 19 national security professionals and other experts who published in November 2010 the highly acclaimed analysis, Shariah: The Threat to America:
 
  • Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” BoykinUS Army (Ret.), former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and former Commanding General, U.S. Army Special Forces Command 
  • Lieutenant General Harry Edward Soyster, US Army (Ret.), former Director, Defense Intelligence Agency and former Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command.
What:  Press Conference and short video presentation of the course
 
Where:  The National Press Club, Bloomberg Room
               529 14th Street, NW, 13th Floor
               Washington, D.C. 20045
 
When:  9:30 a.m., April 24th
For more information or to schedule an interview, contact:
David Reaboi, dreaboi@securefreedom.org or 202-719-2410
 
The event will be live-streamed at www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com.
 
 
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.
 
For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.