Understanding Islam, mohammad and angelic behaviors of peace
Do Muslims have to live in a Islamic State? Can Muslims live in a Kufr State (non-Islamic or non-Muslim State), use the kufr system to defend themselves in the Kufr State? What is the difference between the concept of Ummah andQaumiyat (nation or community)?
Muslims residing in the Non-Muslim nation-state, can they be patriotic to their country? Is America a Christian State? What American Muslims should say if some one asks them that why are they in America?
Can American Muslims be loyal to America? Is there a clash of loyalty between Islam and America? Can American Muslims be proud Muslims and patriotic Americans at the same time? And is this permissible in Islam?
This video is beneficial for everyone- Muslims and not Muslims, Americans and not Americans, American Muslims and General Americans, Islamists, Nationalist and what ever “ists” you call yourself.
This video addresses the very important issue out in Public just like the Ulema (Islamic Religious Scholars) in early 1900′s did in South Asia. Indian Ulema went through these kinds of debates, discussion and discourses about being Muslims in the newly found concept of Nation-state.
Disagreement among the Indian Ulema resulted in mainly two groups. 1st group of Ulema supported the unified Indian, where Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwiand Abul Kalam Azad were at the forefront. 2nd group of Ulema supported the Pakistan Movement, where Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, Students of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanwi are famous names from famous Islamic SeminaryDarululoom Deoband, while Mawlana Mawdudi supported Pakistan Movement with caution towards the Muslim League.
Many other groups and movements in Pakistan and Middle East then sprang up around 1950′s that propagated skewed and unorthodox concepts about Shariahand Islamic State, those ideas have affected the thinking of Western Muslims and the Easterners since then.
This is a very good sign the Sheikh Yasir Qadhi came out in public and spoke intellectually on a topic that has been in long discussion for past half century and a very hot topic in online forums.
21 Responses to “American vs Muslim: Is there a clash of Identity” by Sheikh Yasir Qadhi
Related articles
- Islamic Supremacist 911 Mega Mosque Imam Rauf’s “Muslim Leader of the Future” Hater, Anti-Semite, Jihadist (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- American Jihadi: A Muslim’s Loyalty Must Be To Islam, Not America (creepingsharia.wordpress.com)
- Pamela Geller, Weekly WND Column, Defending the West “Muslim-Americans stand up for honor killing” (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- Muslim site tells children become Muslim in secret, tell parents later (creepingsharia.wordpress.com)
New Ground Zero imam Apostates against Islam must be jailed
New Ground Zero imam: ‘Apostates against Islam must be jailed’
Posted on January 26, 2011 by creepingsharia
Moderate face of Islam says jail apostates. So much for freedom of religion and speech.
via Aaron Klein at WND, Ground Zero imam: ‘Apostates against Islam must be jailed’
Those who leave Islam and preach against the Muslim religion must be jailed, declared the imam who has become the new face of the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero in New York City.
“If someone leaves the din, leaves the path privately, they cannot be touched. If someone preaches about apostasy, or preaches their views, they’re jailed,” stated Imam Abdallah Adhami in a November lecture obtained and reviewed by WND.
Adhami was discussing the Quranic view of apostasy, or Muslims who decide to leave the Islamic religion.
According to Shariah, or Islamic law, the consensus view in Sunni Islam is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted against his will.
There are, however, differing views on the subject, with some contemporary Islamic scholars differentiating between public and private apostasy and arguing for actions ranging from death to nothing.
Adhami, speaking to a non-Muslim audience, claimed Islamic law only calls for punishment for public apostates and that most Islamic scholars demand only that public apostates be jailed as opposed to killed.
He claimed Islam was “revolutionary” for purportedly only punishing those who preach apostasy publicly, as opposed to other religions, which, he claimed, punish both public and private apostates.
“The Quran distinguishes between public and private apostasy,” he said, failing to note most medieval Islamic scholars did not make such a distinction.
Adhami admitted, “Yes, many jurists said [public apostates] have to be killed. … But the position of the state was the position of Islamic scholars – they must be jailed so they are contained.”
He said, “In Islam, in the Quran, theoretically, if you look over the Quran from cover to cover, you literally have the right to the choice to reject God’s message. The only thing you do not have the right to do is to spread this conviction, lest you, quote unquote, pollute others.”
Last week, WND broke the story that Adhami declared in a lecture Muslims have “more of a right” than Jews to the biblical prophet Moses.
In the same lecture, Adhami urged Muslims to “compete” with other religions.
Meanwhile, others have been scrutinizing Adhami’s background.
Writing at the NewsReal blog, writer Joseph Klein revealed Adhami was a guest speaker at the annual convention of the Islamic Association for Palestine in 2000. T he theme of the convention was “All Palestine is Sacred!”
Adhami was reportedly joined at the speakers’ rostrum by Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to contribute services to or for the benefit of the Palestine Islamic Jihad.
IAP went defunct in 2005. It was established in 1981 by Hamas political operative Mousa Abu Marzook.
Like the ISNA, the IAP was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document – titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” – as one of the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded “organizations of our friends.”
RESPONSE ON Originial Posting:
Pawndad, on January 26, 2011 at 1:03 PM said:
It would be kinda nice if someone mentioned Adhami’s remarks to NYC mayor Bloomberg. and for that matter get Obama;s reaction. Of course it’s not going to happen because the MSM will not allow it.
ORIGINAL POSTING:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam
Let’s go on to your next two books, the Koran and the Hadith. Can you tell me a little bit about them and why you chose them?
The Koran is supposed to be the words of God and the Hadith are the sayings and deeds of the prophet. The Koran has the basic commands; the Hadith or the Sunna, is a sort of manual. It is supposed to be a guideline of how to understand the Koran, because people say that it’s not explicit enough. The Hadith is a compilation of six volumes and they are called the Sahith Sitta – Sitta just means six and Sahith means authentic.
So what I did after September 11 was I analysed bin Laden’s words, his quotations, his explanations, and his mission statement which is: ‘We are at war with the West. They want to destroy Islam and we need to fight back.’ I know scripture, and when Islam is attacked you all become warriors, all of you. And so I wanted to know, ‘Am I a warrior of Islam now?’ Also, are all these things that bin Laden is saying really in the Koran and in the Hadith? And, to my shock, they were. A lot of people say they are taken out of context, but they are completely not taken out of context. They are in context. They only thing that is out of context is the fact that this very old book which was put together by – well, we don’t know who the authors are, but it’s definitely more than one author – is considered to be valid in the 21st century. That’s what’s out of context. Everything else is consistent with what that book says, what the founder of Islam, Mohammed, envisioned, how he practised in his lifetime, with his religion, and the legacy he left behind. And the question that I had to answer for myself was, did I want to belong to that, or not?
For the Full Interview go to:
Breaking the manacles of Islam
A specter is haunting the Mullahs. The specter of Islamic truth. Pardon me for paraphrasing those two famous lines of Karl Marx from his ‘The Manifesto of the Communist Party.’ I could find no better sentences than those two lines about the frantic efforts by the Mullahs to cover up the true colors of Islam in the world of Internet. Many recent essays in NFB (News From Bangladesh), secularIslam, Rational Thinking, etc., have exposed the other side of many religions including the Islam. The writers of these essays have taken great risks in terms of their personal safety to expose the intolerance, cruelty, injustices and irrationalities of many facets of Islam, the religion of “Peace.” Their forceful arguments, painstaking researched and extraordinary dedication are really going to shake the very foundation of the religion. I think the Mullahs could never believe that there is so much of disgust and disdain for the irrationalities and the backwardness in Islam in the present-day context. They thought that the fear of death sentence and the declaration of Jihad (Holy War) would silence the voices of rationality, logic and progress. No wonder, the Mullahs are desperate to counter attack with theirs every possible means. Amongst them are the illogical blind quotations of fear, the mindless hate, personal attacks, intimidation, charges of apostasy and blasphemy and what not. If only they could identify and catch those Kafirs and the infidels, I am sure they cannot wait to hang them in public. Unfortunately, the cyber world is too huge for them to start the killing spree. Therefore, they have little choice but to resort to intellectual assassinations.
After reading through a number of those venomous essays by these Islamists, I could categorize them into two broad groups; namely:
1 . The hard-core bigots. These Mullahs preach nothing but hatred towards anyone suspected of uttering a single word against Islam. They are completely devoid of any logical or rational thinking. Their languages are filthy (mostly four letter words), full of personal threats, distasteful and incomprehensible writings, etc. They usually judge a Muslim through his/her name. They challenge the writers to declare their apostasy in public so that they can take care of them (that is, kill them). They usually send their threats through the personal e-mails of the authors. So, many readers may not be aware of these threats. They do not realize that a person’s name has very little to do with his/her religion although it (the name) may be useful in many cases. I know many Lebanese whose names sound like Muslims but I see them wearing crosses on their necks that tells me what is his/her real religious affiliation is (that is they are actually Christians). Bertrand Russell seems to be a Christians name, but he wrote the book ‘Why I am not a Christian.’ The name given to a person during his birth is beyond his/her control. Similarly, the birth religion of a person has nothing to do with his/her personal belief when he grows up and starts to think and act on his/her own. This is a fundamental human right. Thus, a person being born in a Muslim family and given a Muslim (or rather Arabic) name does not necessarily must follow Islam when he grows up. But these fanatic bigots will not accept this basic right of a human being. When the bigot finds that a person has a Muslim name and he argues certain points in Islam, he is immediately declared as an apostate and, therefore, that person automatically becomes a target for annihilation. I just do not understand this mindless thinking. Never have I seen a secularist/humanist declare any person who does not agree with him or who talks and writes against the secularists/humanists/atheists should be killed. These people will not accept the truth that a person has every right to examine critically his/her birth religion. What kind of religion these bigots are preaching to the civilized world?
Readers, have you seen that these hard-core bigots are greatly alarmed even though they know that it is not that simple to kill people in the cyber world? Their frustration is then manifested in the personal attacks to the writers. There are many examples that can be found in many criticisms of the essays written by the secularists/humanists authors. A recent example is the criticism of Kamran Mirza’s two essays; one was on the ancient Arabian practices of worship of the Moon God Allah and the other was the serious questions about fasting in Islam. The Islamic critics resorted to severe personal innuendoes, abusive languages and false accusations. I cannot quote all those remarks. Please refer to NFB back issues if you want details. Another example is the personal and shameless attack on Taslima Nasrin in an article titled ‘True color of Taslima Nasrin.’ The bigoted writer of this article has tried to depict Taslima as a sex maniac and has delved into her private married life with her deceased husband. They wanted to finish her off physically by slaughtering her but that did not happen. They grossly underestimated her courage and conviction. So, now they are trying to kill her through character assassination. Nothing could be more unjust than this type of intrusion in some ones personal and private life. But then, again, we cannot expect anything more decent from these hard-core bigots.
These types of bigots have very little understanding even the religion that they love so much and not to talk of their knowledge of other religions or other philosophical/belief matters. Their main language is violence, Jihad, and terrorizing people to the extent that the author is compelled to stop disseminating his/her views. This tactic is nothing new in religion. Terror and violence had always been used in Islam (and some other religion too) to silence it’s critics. You will find many references to these types of activities if you read the relevant passages in Koran and the Hadiths.
2 . .The intellectual bigots: These bigots have very good knowledge of Islam, Koran Hadiths……etc. They are fully aware that what is being written by the Kafirs and the infidels are very difficult if not impossible to refute. These intellectual bigots are frustrated by the logic, rationality, coherence and the realistic arguments extended by the authors. They too wished that these writers were eliminated but then they also feel a little guilty about the open call for their annihilation. So, they resort to psychological killing. This involves the quotations from Koran and Hadiths about the dreadful punishments that will be meted out to those who dare to criticize Islam. They openly declare that whoever questions Islam is no more a Muslim. Of course, the infidel writers are very little concerned whether they are considered Muslims or not. But then, the declaration by this group of bigots has some significance. What are those? The significance is that the author becomes an enemy of Islam and therefore, subject to all the punishments that are applicable to non-believers and the apostates.
These bigots are very shrewd and intelligent. They will extend subtle threats to the authors, like becoming an outcast in society, to rot in hell, not to have the advantages of the petrodollars, not to be favored by the Arabs, etc. etc. This type of threat is designed to instill the fear and greed in the minds of the authors. A preferred fear is the fear of death. The greed is the greed of going to heaven/petro-dollars, etc. They will quote from their scriptures about the terrible death that awaits those who question and doubt the religion (Islam). Most of the time these bigots will avoid going into logical or rational reasoning because they know rather well that that won’t be fruitful. Their main armor is the quotations and the regurgitation of only what they know about their religion. For example, when the question of haram/halal food is raised, they will give no reason as to why the halal food should be eaten except that religious scriptures have decreed so. And, therefore, it should not be questioned. The nutritional values of haram/halal foods are irrelevant in this case. All that matters is that the religion has approved certain foods and to the contrary has banned certain foods. Many haram foods are as nutritional as many halal foods are if not better. If halal foods are good, then the Muslims must be the healthiest people in the world. How come then that those who eat haram foods have better physique? This is a commonsense question. However, the religious bigots will never answer this question in an honest and straightforward fashion. They will simply hide behind the cloak of their scriptures and confuse people more. Similar examples can be cited on many other archaic practices in Islam. Like fasting, performing haj, praying five times every day, etc. These bigots will never give any good reasons as to their practices except to say that they are the pillars of Islam. Is there anything wrong in knowing the reasons behind them? Many of these rituals were actually practiced by the pagan Arabs long before the advent of Islam. However, if this question is put to the bigots, all you get is personal vilification and branding you as an enemy of Islam. This reminds me my childhood. As a child, I was asked to memorize the verses of Koran. I used to ask the Hujur (Mullah) what meanings were conveyed by those verses? The reply I used to get from the Hujur was a few strokes of the cane and rebukes. He used to say that one should never ask any question on the matter of Islam especially on Koran. The penalty for asking questions is whipping. So, I stopped questioning and memorized the verses without understanding anything. The Hujur was a symbol of terror to me. I had no choice but to follow whatever he asked of me. That was how fear was and still is being introduced in the minds of the people and these bigots are repeating the same things over and over again. This is what is called a mass hypnotization induced through intimidation and fear. The fact is that if the real truths about the religion leak out these Hujurs will be out of work. Pure and simple.
Another ploy employed by these people is to blame the translators of the Koran, Hadiths and Sunnah. Even the eminent translator like A. Yusuf Ali is not considered as authentic translator. These bigots will never say which one is the authentic English version of the Koran, Hadiths, Sunnah, etc. They will simply say that one must be very good in Arabic to interpret Koran. This is akin to saying that one must be very good in Aramaic and Hebrew languages to understand the Bible and the Talmud. Or that you must be very good in Greek, Latin and Dutch languages to understand Aristotle, Roman laws, Copernicus’ ‘laws of heavenly bodies,’ etc. These are absolutely illogical ideas. Strangely though, you will notice that these bigots will use the English translation of the Koran when it suits their purposes. But when the inconsistencies, irrationalities and illogical things are pointed out, these bigots will simply say that the English translation is perverted. What kind of hypocrisy is that? In many cases, they warn people that the interpretations will vary depending on who is interpreting as well as the context of interpretation. This means that only those interpretations offered by them are valid and the rest are simply invalid. At the same time, these Mullahs also insist by quoting from Koran that the mishandling (wrong interpretations) is a great sin and the interpreter/s will have to face severe penalty No wonder, it is next to impossible to gauge any logic from these talks of the Mullahs.
Has it occurred to the readers of NFB that these bigots give them the impression that the Koran is an extremely difficult piece to understand and to interpret. Why should Allah make his words so difficult that ordinary people have great difficulties in understanding them? It simply doesn’t make any sense, whatsoever. One does not need a Ph.D in the ancient Arabic language and culture to understand the Koran. Then, why do these Mullahs insist so much on the mastery of the Arabic language? They know that most followers of Islam do not know Arabic and even if they know their skill in the language is not enough to interpret the ancient language of Koran. Furthermore, it takes many years to master a language. Most people have no time, patience and the motivation for that. So, they simply take the advantage of people’s ignorance and pretend that they are the sole agents of the Koran and it’s interpretations. Many people are not conversant in the English language as well. So, they do not know the exact meanings in many verses of the Koran. How about the Bangla and other translations of Koran? The Mullahs simply ignore them while accepting only those that suit them. Ironically, think about what will happen to the Mullahs if every Muslim masters the Arabic language! People will start interpreting the Koran in the way they understand and not be dependent upon the Mullahs. This may open the eyes of the masses and dehypnotize them. These Mullah’s will then simply be defeated in their own game, will they not?
This is what the Mullhas fear most. The Mullahs desperately need the uneducated, ignorant and fearful mass to perpetuate their stranglehold on the salesmanship of Islam.
However, the development in new technology and the introduction of the Internet has really alarmed the Mullahs. Many people are now able to exchange ideas almost instantly on any matter including religions. Many Mullahs could never believe that there are so many born Muslims who dare to question Islam and challenge its archaic practices. This was unthinkable even a few years ago. The reason is very simple. Many of these thinkers always had doubts about what they were supposed to believe but thought that they were alone and hence they were fearful about speaking their minds in public or to their peers. They kept that question to themselves. The Internet and the modern electronic mass media had opened an opportunity for them to be united if not physically at least electronically. This is a very bad news for the Mullahs. They simply cannot digest the truth that one day Islam will not go unchallenged. This is now happening as it had already happened with Christianity and with other religions as well many years ago. The innate nature of humanity to seek the truth, to explore the unexplored, to question and to innovate can never be suppressed. One day Islam will surely realize that.
By the way, it is interesting to note that innovation in Islam is haram. The dictionary definition of innovation is to introduce changes or to introduce new things. This is the foundation of civilization. Imagine what would have happened if mankind was not innovative. The people of other religion prospered only when they freed themselves from their religious irrationalities and started innovating. That is why Islam is so paranoid about innovative ideas and free-thinking. These two things hit at the heart of Islam.
Curiously, you will notice that many of the innovative ideas and inventions are used by the Mullahs to propagate their doctrines. You can see many examples of these. Like TV, Radio, modern appliances and the latest is Internet. They have realized the immense power of modern science and technology. When you ask them why should the Islamic people accept these innovative things that are mainly due to the innovative ideas of the Kafirs and the infidels, the Islamists have ready answers. The answer is that these inventions are the gifts of Allah. Some will even say that science and technology are Allah’s blessings to mankind. I have no problem in accepting the compliment. How about the Islamic bomb? This maut be the greatest gift of Allah to His followers. How about the Hindu bomb? Since Allah is the only god could it be that Allah is also responsible for this great gift to the Hindus as well? And how about the Christian and the Buddhist bombs? If these questions are asked to the Islamists I do not know what will be the answer? The other question is that why is it that the followers of Islam have next to nothing contribution to the modern science and technology? Isn’t that because Islam had kept its followers blind for centuries? Now, many of these blind people are getting their sights back. What were impossible to think for centuries for many innocent followers of Islam, are now having a second look at their ancestor given faith. It is simply a matter of time before the arrogance and the irrationality of Islam becomes a distant history. And with that, is the demise of the Mullahs like, Ayatollahs, Talibans, Golam Azam, Maulana Nizami, etc.
Finally, I must pay homage to the few braves who took the risk to demystify Islam. You are the pioneers. You have taught me how to think the unthinkable. You have taught me how to be courageous. You have taught me how to rekindle the human spirit. You have taught me how to fight for the justice. You have taught me how to accept merciless criticisms with grace. You have taught me how to conquer the unconquerable. A hundred years from now humanity will remember you as the greatest innovators in finding a cure for the religious blinds. That is because you dared to think differently. Truly, you are the alarm bells of the Mullahs. History won’t forget you for being the Agradoot (harbinger) who are bent on breaking the manacles of Islam.
————————
By Abul Kasem.
abul88@hotmail.com
ORIGINAL POSTING:
My View From Here
ORIGINALLY POSTED AS COMMENT TO SON’S FACEBOOK POSTING
As a patriotic American concerned with the future of my country, I’m less worried about the idiots trying to get into office than where we are heading. The Chinese are lending us money to finance our debt we can’t pay so we can by more stuff from them and for oil, while the Islamic stealth jihad slowly gets Sharia Law replacing both our Constitutional freedoms and eliminating our freedoms. And our government, DEMS and REP both allowing these travesties.
Palin is mental inferior and not qualified for election for dog catcher. And before anyone starts screaming liberal, I’m not. I’m a thinking American. And, my choice for someone with the intelligence and integrity to be MY president, it is Mitt Romney.
If anyone REALLY wants to know where we are heading on the course George and Barack have set us on, watch the Glenn Beck show. He will tell you the truth and it will make you mad, especially if you are like most Americans, head firmly stuck in the sand (or some other place not polite to mention).
And if you really want some truth that will make you unhappy or enlightened, depending on how well you can handle reality, you are welcome to go to paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com
Islamic Jihadists Train Airport Security
Muslim Brotherhood Front Group Trains Airport Screeners
by Connie Hair
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has completed training for 2,200 Transportation Safety Officers (TSOs) at the Los Angeles International Airport according to a press release found on the MPAC website.
The MPAC release notes that the two-month training course informed officers of “the diversity of Muslims around the world from cultural dress to language to tenets. The four trainers taught the TSOs how to properly handle a Quran and discussed the different ways Muslim women and men choose to cover or dress. For example, the TSOs learned if a woman wears hijab and needs a secondary screening she should be screened in a private area by a female TSO officer.”
(The Drudge Report shocked the nation with a photo of a nun being patted down by a Muslim woman in head garb. Apparently Christian women are afforded only public groping sessions.)
In 1986, MPAC was formed as a political action arm of one of the largest Wahhabi mosques in America, the Islamic Center for Southern California.
As the Center for Security Policy’s Team B II report entitled “Sharia: The Threat to America” notes, “The founders of the Islamic Center for Southern California are Hassan Hathout and his brother Maher Hathout. The late Hassan Hathout was a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement. The two brothers Maher spent time in an Egyptian prison during the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities there, led by the Brotherhood’s founder Hassan Al Banna. MPAC’s own publication, The Minaret, has proudly called Hassan a ‘companion of’ and Maher ‘a close disciple of’ Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna.”
Maher Hathout also founded and is currently a senior advisor for MPAC. He and others at MPAC also currently work for and maintain a close relationship with the Islamic Center of Southern California.
Hathout was also on the board of directors and a member of the American Muslim Council (AMC) from 1993 to 1997. AMC was founded by the al Qaeda financier and Hamas operative Abdurahman Alamoudi who is currently serving 23 years in prison for funding terrorist groups including al Qaeda.
Maher Hathout served on the AMC Board of Directors at the same time Alamoudi was serving as its Executive Director.
“Maher Hathout has publicly voiced his approval of Designated Terrorist Organizations such as Hezbollah; decried many U.S. counterterrorism efforts; called for the destruction of Israel; and, openly supported known terrorists such as Hasan al Turabi, the leader of the National Islamic Front of Sudan. Yet, the organization he founded, MPAC, enjoys a reputation in official U.S. circles as a ‘moderate’ Muslim organization,” the Team B II report states.
“Salam al-Marayati is the current president of MPAC. Al-Marayati was denied a leadership position on the National Commission on Terrorism by then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt when it came to light that Al-Marayati claimed that the terrorist group, Hezbollah, was a legitimate organization and has the right to attack the Israeli Army.
“Edina Lekovic is MPAC’s Communications Director. Previously, Lekovic was editor of the magazine Al-Talib when it editorialized that Osama bin Laden was a freedom fighter and warrior for Allah, who should be defended by Muslims. Al-Talib is the magazine published by the UCLA chapter of the Muslim Student’s Association. … The MSA was the first Muslim Brotherhood organization established in the United States.”
MPAC works as a propaganda and misinformation ministry for the Muslim Brotherhood. One example offered in the Team B II Report is its aggressive and successful pursuit of total control of the language used by the United States government in regard to Muslim terrorists.
“MPAC attacked the language used to describe the events of September 11, 2001 detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report. MPAC demanded an end to the use of words such as jihad, ummah, caliphate, shariah and others in relation to terrorist doctrine,” the report states.
“In subsequent years, the National Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have all issued strategic counterterrorism documents devoid of these terms. Such conformity to shariah by U.S. government entities such as the FBI and DHS is an extraordinary strategic victory for the enemy in the information battlespace.”
The Investigative Project offers another extensive background study of MPAC’s links to jihadi terrorist groups.
You can obtain a copy of the Team B II report on the Center for Security Policy website here
Taqiyya – Kitman – Islamic Lying
Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman) — Question: Are Muslims permitted to lie?
Summary Answer:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”
There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
The Qur’an:
Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”
Qur’an (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”
Qur’an (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”
Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:269) – “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.’” The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy.”
Muslim (32:6303) – “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”
Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.
From Islamic Law:
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) – “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…
“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.
Additional Notes:
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:
Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true.
Kitman – Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”
Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.
Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.
At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad’s “emissaries” went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).
Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who “accepted Islam” did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim “missionaries” approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already “converted” to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader’s promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded – Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).
Today’s Muslims often try to justify Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.
Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.
The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’
The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.” Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Qur’an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.
The near absence of Qur’anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur’an, it is nearly always in reference to the “lies against Allah” – referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad’s claim to being a prophet.
Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
Conquests of Prophet Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphate, 630-641
Related articles
- Diversity in the Counter-Jihad (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
-
Recent
- The not defendable borders of lesser Israel
- Allah and Muhammad quote Babylonian Talmud instead of Hebrew Scriptures
- Prominent U.S. Imam: New Caliphate Should Wage Jihad
- Yes, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a Muslim Terrorist
- The Islam Bomb
- Islamicized Sweden Has Declared War on the Jews
- Beck Breaks Exclusive Information on Saudi National Once Considered a Person of Interest in Boston Bombings
- FBI Informant Claims Taliban Members Are Living In America
- The Home Counties girl training female suicide bombers for Al Qaeda
- Boko Haram Muslim Terrorists Murder More Than 1,500 Christians and Destroy 400 Churches
- UK: Jihad terror plotters who wanted to carry out another 9/11 and outdo 7/7 will be free by July
- Jihad Movement leader calls for applying Sharia
-
Links
-
Archives
- May 2013 (1)
- April 2013 (28)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (19)
- November 2012 (29)
- October 2012 (78)
- September 2012 (61)
- August 2012 (85)
- July 2012 (67)
- June 2012 (56)
- May 2012 (161)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Introduction: Tenets of Shariah Law
Shariah-Islamic Law is a military political doctrine written 1,200 years ago by Islamic authorities. The believers of Shariah-Islamic Law have created a movement like Apartheid in which a minority oppresses a majority.
The goal of authoritative Shariah-Islamic Law is to establish a one-world militant political Islam through Jihad. There are three forms of Jihad: Violent, Cultural, and Financial.
Shariah is not a religion. It was created centuries after the written Koran, Islam’s holy book. Just because a person is Muslim and therefore follows the Islamic faith, it does not necessarily mean he or she supports or chooses to live under Shariah. Many Muslims are brutally oppressed under Shariah-Islamic Law.
Today, Shariah is the law of the land in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Nigeria and Indonesia. It is the ultimate authority among the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbullah.
There is NO freedom of religion, equal rights, children’s rights or freedom of speech under Shariah-Islamic Law. Criticism of Islam or leaving the faith of Islam is a crime punishable by death. Forced child marriages, the beating of disobedient wives, public hanging of gays, and persecution of those who do not believe in Islam (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, others) are tenets of Shariah law.
Tenets of Shariah-Islamic Law (From Reliance of The Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law, the authoritative Sha’afi school compendium of shari’a jurisprudence.)
Sharia on family law:
* Women are eligible for only half of the inheritance of men
* Virgins may be married against their will by a father or grandfather
* Arab women may not marry non-Arab men
* Women may not leave the house without a husband’s permission
* Muslim men may marry 4 women, including Christians and Jews; Muslim women may marry Muslims
* Men may beat insubordinate wives
Sharia on Jihad and religion:
* Offensive war (military Jihad) against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
* Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
* Non-Muslims ruled by Islam must follow including discriminatory “dhimmi” taxes and laws.
* Non-Muslims may not receive Muslim charity “zakat”, but may be bribed to convert to Islam but
* Lying to infidels during Jihad, or to promote Islam, is permissible
Sharia on human rights:
* Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed
* Slavery is permitted and legitimate
* Muslim men have unlimited sexual rights over slave women, even married slaves
* Female sexual mutilation (cliterectomy) is obligatory
* Adultery is punished with death by stoning
* Women’s testimony in court is worth half that of men (and is permitted only in property cases)
* Non-Muslims may not testify in Shariah courts.
CREEPING SHARIAH-ISLAMIC LAW
The Shariah Supremacy movement does not have the goal of hacking off limbs and stoning women in the West. The goal of the Shariah political movement is to have political Islam become an important component of Western life, bringing with it: Shariah courts to maintain patriarchal power in the family structure, censorship of speech and press to eliminate “racism and discrimination” against Islam; control of western economies through investment by dictating “un-Islamic” and “Islamic” industries, and elevating the political importance of Islam far above any other religion.
Second, I have nothing to say because everything that you have said has no foundation in Islam.
You said: “There are three forms of Jihad: Violent, Cultural, and Financial.” You have no evidence of such uninformed statement & I don’t want to go on like this.
Please check other posts regarding Shariahhttp://umersultan.wordpress.com/tag/sharia/
Especially this: http://dawudwalid.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/what-is-shariah/
What you need to do is get yourself educated about Islam from authentic sources rather than the Islamophobes!
And before you find it necessary to start quoting the Qu’ran about its peaceful Suras, they are subject to abrogation.
It is because Christians, and many Muslims, do not understand this doctrine of abrogation coupled with the nonchronological order of the Quran that they do not understand what is going on in the Islamic world at this time. On the one hand, many Islamic leaders will claim that their religion is a peaceful one, and quote passages from the Quran to prove it. On the other hand, other Islamic leaders will call for terrorism and jihad and base their call on the same Quran. Most of us would view this a simple matter of how the Quran is interpreted, but such is not the case. The peaceful passages within the Quran are found in the early days of Muhammad’s recitations, during a time when he felt that his new religion would be a unifying factor among “People of the Book” (Jews, Christians and Muslims). When his doctrine was ultimately rejected by Jews and Christians he turned on them and “was given” new “revelations” of war and hate to replace the former ones of peace. The surahs, which teach jihad against Jews, Christians and unbelievers, are all found in the later time frame of the Quran. Passages of a later date include 2:190-193,216; 4:74,89,91,95,101-102; 5:33,51; 8:12,39,60,65,67,69; 9:5,29,30,73; 47:4; 59:2-4,5,14 and 61:4. While such passages are scattered throughout the Quran, they are all chronologically of later origin and have, according to the doctrine of abrogation, replaced the former teachings on peace.
May God Guide you!
If you are interested to have a basic understanding of this topic read this:
“Ulum Al-Quran: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran” by Ahmad Von Denffer
I have a correct understanding of Abrogation, but will attempt to find a copy of the book you recommend to determine its accuracy on this subject.
Are you aware of any online links for a free copy? I doubt my local library would have a copy.
Christians believes in Christianity Dominating the world too!
I don’t see the problem with the word “Domination.” If people want to believe in something without compulsion then what is the problem.
As far as Abrogation is concerned it is not based on the time line of the verse. It is based on the occasion the verse is revealed. Islam is not based on the last revealed verses! Each verse was revealed on a specific occasion and it has to be interpreted keeping that in mind and thus it is the job of the people who have dedicated their lives to Islam.
Bin Laden can use the verses as he wish, he will be answerable to God just like every other human being will be. Just like Christian Terrorist may bomb the Abortion Clinics and target and kill the Doctors by justifying their act from the Holy Bible, but at the end they will be answerable to God. Jesus & Muhammad, peace be upon them, are free from the insanity of these Nuts.
And, contrary to the Sura that states there is no compulsion in religion, that Mohammad replaced through abrogation, Islam does compel.
We both know the Suras and Hadith that specifically tells to subjugate all who do not accept Islam, kill those who fight this subjugation, that all who apostatize and speak out against Islam are to be killed, etc etc.
But, you are correct, those nuts that bomb abortion clinics as well as those who do the abortions, will face the judgment of God. All who kill will.
There is a big difference though. These abortion terrorists are in complete contradiction of the Christian Bible. The Islamic terrorists are in fact complying with the teachings of the Qu’ran and Mohammad. Both will come before God and Jesus to be judged.
Please don’t teach me about the world history, I have studied. No one can turn the face by saying the massacre of Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem was not committed by Crusaders in the name of Christ. What British and other European Colonialist did to the world under the name of “White Man’s Burden” was all in the name of Christ.
The difference is, Muslims in general understand the difference between what Jesus peace be upon him taught and the Christians who have committed crimes against Humanity. No one can deny the Inquisition was not done in the name of Christ, forcible converting Jews and Muslims, or expelling or killing them in Spanish, while the Muslim Spain encouraged the Christians and Jewish scholars to come contribute to Al-Andulus. Ever heard of Maimonide? You might want to read into his life.
Christians started believing in “Christianity dominating the world” since Christianity became the official religion of Rome by Constantine. Christian Missionaries accompanied all the Colonialist to “civilize” the savages of the Africa, Asia, Latin America, “New World” called North America, China, South-East Asia. The difference is we Muslims don’t go about targetting and associating lies to Jesus Christ for crimes committed by the Christians.
Make sure you go through the links I posted. In time, God-Willing you may realize that the world is very different from what you have come to know!
May God guide us all, Ameen.
Everyone will be judged according to intentions, whether they be Muslim or Christian or Jew. No one has the right to judge another, or to criticize beliefs without any factual evidence.
Islam is a religion of peace, and will remain so until the end of time. Those who use violence and claim it is “Islamic” are not to be called Muslims.
I would disagree with this statement. How can we say they are Not Muslims? A Muslim is a person who believes in the message revealed to Muhammad, peace be upon him. So unless one crosses the boundary laid down in Islam, one cannot be labelled “Not Muslim!” This is a very serious thing.
They are Muslims, but they are misguided! Thats what we should say!
As for The Crusades:
Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.”
The Truth:
Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.
Here are some quick facts…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in ‘converting’ the survivors to Islam.
Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab occupation is in its 1,380th year).
Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the “occupiers” quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.
The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the “Crusaders.” Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.
For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals.
Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.
Yes, I am aware of the Inquisition and Maimonide. And, yes there were errors made. Again, these were done in direct opposition to the Bible. There is no support for the excesses of the Inquisition in the Bible.
As for colonialist taking Christian missionaries with them, that makes perfect sense. The great commission is for all Christians to teach the truth to all who do not know it, about the nature of the One True God and His Son Jesus Christ. It is what I am doing this exact moment and what every true Christian should be doing, sharing the news of salvation and eternal life with all who do not know these truths.
We do agree on correcting Zayn regarding that he/she who identifies themself as Muslim are Muslim. And I most definately agree that those practicing jihad/stealth or silent jihad or any violence are misguided, BUT they are not misunderstanding Islam, the Qu’ran or the sayings and behaviors of Mohammad.
You should read: “Two Faiths One Banner” by Ian Almond the Holy War of Catholicism will get into perspective.
So you say that KKK was not following Bible and the Inquisition was not following Bible, but thats interesting because they were citing Biblical verses as well, or other time its interpretation. So does those Evangelical Terrorist do when bombing Abortion clinics.
Any way, you should study more into the verses that “preach violence” in the Holy Quran, when they were revealed & what occasion were they revealed and what Authentic Islamic Scholars say about these verses.
Regarding Extremism and Terrorism read this: “Islamic Awakening between Rejection and Extremism” by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Online read here: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/Q_RE/index.htm
Learn your facts from a law professor (working at Boston College Law School and at Harvard) who teaches American law AND Islamic law.
Lay off the Fox news.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/rabb_interview.html
As for Fox News, I’m much more likely to be watching Al-Jazzeria, than Fox. Of course, I have a correct understanding to filter the propaganda of any “news” from any source. Stealth Jihad fails to deceive some of us.
You cannot ignore the fact that many Muslims do not feel compelled into these practices you have stated (none of which have foundation in Quran or Sunnah, but rather twisted cultural practices!). Many Muslims who are American do not find contradiction in these two identities. You cannot just ignore reality. I will share with you my own blog where I, a practicing AMERICAN MUSLIM, have found nothing but an amazing balance between my faith and nationality:http://mahamuslimah.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/american-first-muslim-first-no-contradiction/
Paul, you have made many statements that have no basis in Islamic teaching (i.e. genital mutilations (!?), women traveling without permission, requirement of violent jihad, not giving zakaat to non-Muslims (!?), forbidding Arab women to marry non-Arabs (!?), forced marriages, rape of slaves, and so on). These are cultural practices, and have NO foundation in Quranic teaching. Many of these conditions were already present in the historical context of the prophet. I am sure you know that Islam did NOT invent, implement nor encourage slavery! The same goes for polygamy! Islam did not invent, implement nor encourage polygamy! In fact, it made a limit to the polygamous abuse AND is the only religion that says ‘only have one spouse if you cannot be fair” and it goes on to state “no, you can never be fair”. In fact, there is much evidence in Quran that expresses Allah’s disgust with oppression and the enslavement of other human beings–Muslim or non; enslaved or free.
As a convert who has learned Islam from its sources (Quran and Sunnah), I am appalled and disgusted that some so-called “Islamic nations” oppress their people in the ways they do.
Shariah, for regular-ol’ Muslims (not those with agendas), means “the way” and includes “the ways” in which we perform ablution, pray, fast, pay zakaat. It has more to do with lifestyle than some kind of doctrine that governs the land. I do not even find basis in Quran that encourages Muslims to “dominate” the world. We are encouraged to teach others about Islam, but definitely not force anyone! Anything done under compulsion–by force–does not even count as legitimate (this includes forced conversion, forced marriage, etc) In Quran, there is encouragement to live in a society peacefully with others of diverse beliefs. Read Surah al-kafirun (“Say to those who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship. You do not worship what I worship. And I shall not worship what you worship and you shall not worship what I worship. Unto you is your religion, Unto me is my religion”). This surah recognizes religious diversity and a requirement for Muslims to deal in the BEST manner with others despite their beliefs!
Even you mentioned that:
“Shariah is not a religion. It was created centuries after the written Koran, Islam’s holy book. Just because a person is Muslim and therefore follows the Islamic faith, it does not necessarily mean he or she supports or chooses to live under Shariah. Many Muslims are brutally oppressed under Shariah-Islamic Law.”
Shariah–as a legal system–is an invention to Islam. And I would agree, some Muslims AND non-Muslims are brutally oppressed under so called “Islamic law”. And this is disgusting to me and other Muslims who truly believe in the mercy of God, read Quran, practice Islam. In no way is oppression and hatred toward any individual OK (whether Muslim or non-Muslim)!
It doesn’t even bother me that you say the things you have said. Mainly because I have studied Quran and know there is no foundation nor tolerance for this within the religion. And I am SURE you have not taken time to read Quran from cover to cover. Have you read sunnah (the life of the prophet? How about his teachings? And the ways in which he spoke to and treated his wives? I am sure you have not sat down to talk to a brother or sister and ASK them how THEY feel about these atrocities going on around the world! I have never met a Muslim who has even sympathized with the abuse of these screwed up governments! I am not talking about American Muslims, American converts! I am talking about individuals from the Middle East who recognize the corruption in their government. Corruption of power and religion, Paul.
I honestly, honestly encourage you to read Quran. More so, I encourage you to go to library and find unbiased sources regarding the prophet’s life.
You should be bold enough to cite the books and authors from whom you have gained these very wonderful insight of Islam that has no bases in the Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace be upon him.