Finally, Ilhan Omar Answers Our Questions!

Question 1: Did you marry your own brother?
Answer 1: Some people did something.


Question 2: Did you live with your current husband before marriage?
Answer 2: Some people did something.


Question 3: Did you recently start an affair with a married man?
Answer 3: Some people did something.

Question 4: Did you recently file for divorce?
Answer 4: Some people did something.

Thank you, Ms. Ilhan Omar, for your openness and transparency.

Islamism is . . .

Radicalism

Islamism is not Islamic extremism;
rather, it is radicalism at the root of Islam.

Muslims who marry infidels?

Ali Waked

According to Ali Waked, writing for Breitbart (August 19, 2017):

While sharia law allows Muslims to marry non-Muslim women who convert to Islam, the law forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam.

Huh?

Weird Shariah?

Almighty Allah
Wikipedia

I once asked a Muslim man how sharia functions in the case of an honor killing, since the right to retribution would sometimes fall to the individual accused of the killing, but I received no response. Maybe the case of honor killing detailed below can supply an explanation:

While recording his statement in . . .court . . . , the accused, Faqeer Muhammad, not only pardoned himself, but also his son and nephew who were his accomplices in the case.The accused said in his statement: "The deceased, Kiran Bibi, was my real daughter. She was unmarried at the time of her murder. There are no other legal heirs of the deceased except her mother, Bushra Bibi, and me. I have forgiven the accused persons in the name of Almighty Allah, and have no objection to their acquittal. I also waive my right of Qisas (retribution) and Diyat (blood money)." Faqeer Muhammad had shot dead his daughter and her alleged lover, Ghulam Abbas, "to save family honour" in 2014. His son, Muhammad Illyas, and nephew, Muhammad Tahir, were also accused of abetting the double murders. Abbas' mother Azmat Bibi named the three accused . . . . Later, the complainant moved an application, requesting that the court make the offence (the murder of her son) compoundable . . . . The court allowed the application after which Azmat Bibi and her second son, Waqas Ali pardoned the accused, pleading that they had no objection to their acquittal, and also waived their right of Qisas and Diyat. After the complaint cleared them, Faqeer and Bushra recorded their statements as legal heirs of the deceased girl, and forgave the accused.

This shameless process appeared, as reported by Rana Yasif, in "Man kills daughter for 'honour' in Lahore, goes scot-free after pardoning self" (The Express Tribune, October 18, 2016). In fact, this process is so blatantly unjust that I have to wonder if we're reading a satirical piece and The Express Tribune a Pakistani equivalent of The Onion!

Professor Hans Jansen on Shariah's Inhumanity to 'Man,' its Unkindness to 'Mankind'

Hans Jansen
Arabic Expert
Wikipedia

In Brussels on July 9, 2012, at an International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) conference, Professor Hans Jansen spoke on "What is Sharia, where does it come from, and why does it matter so much?" I quote generously if selectively from his talk:

The Islamic Sharia is a system of law. It is a collection of prohibitions, admonitions and commands about human behavior. The Sharia is not an internal matter that only concerns Islam and Muslims. The Sharia includes a large number of provisions about people who are not Muslims. These rules are usually prohibitions that carry severe penalties if violated. These provisions of the Sharia make life unsafe and uncertain for someone who lives under Sharia law and who is not a Muslim.

Non-Muslims thus suffer under Shariah since it is not meant to govern solely the actions of Muslims. Even more troubling, there is no democratic supervision of Shariah:

Unlike the legal systems of most modern nation states, Sharia law is not subject to democratic supervision . . . . Sharia law does not know a parliament or a government that acts as legislator, but the rules of the Sharia come into being by being agreed upon by the experts, that is, the Islamic religious leaders, the professional Muslims . . . . Religions are not democratic even if they sometimes may preach or tolerate democracy. Hence, the way in which the rules of Islamic law come into being is undemocratic. This implies that allowing the Sharia, or a part of it, to be the law of the land in a Western nation will diminish the democratic character of that nation. It means giving . . . legislative power to unelected self-appointed men, who are unknown and anonymous, who operate from far-away mosques in Pakistan or Afghanistan. In a democracy, this is not the ideal arrangement. One may have legitimate religious reasons to nevertheless prefer such an arrangement, but it entails something worse than taxation without representation; it entails legislation without representation.

Non-shariah laws in Muslim countries also generate controversy:

Islamic theology identifies Sharia law with the will of God; and Sharia specialists are the religious leaders of the Islamic community . . . . Each and every Islamic country nurtures its own equilibrium between its government and its religious specialists . . . . Nevertheless, most Islamic countries possess legal systems that are influenced by, but not identical with, traditional Sharia law. To the leaders of the radical Islamic movements this non-identity of national law and Sharia law is a permanent source of anger. The smallest discrepancy between Sharia law and the law of the land is permanent fuel to the fire of their propaganda machines since such a difference supplies proof that a human lawgiver wanted to take God's place, and attempted to improve on God's work, which is blasphemy.

Shariah is not a practical legal system:

Sharia law is not a practical system of law developed in courts. It is the product of the deliberations of scholars, and it does not spring from the practical concerns of judges, barristers, prosecutors or defenders. Consequently, Sharia law is poor on procedure. It is a theoretical, abstract system of law thought out in academies. This explains most of its weaknesses . . . . If unfamiliar new questions arise for which the Sharia has to provide an answer, Sharia specialists, at least in theory, put forward a solution that is based upon the four principles or 'roots', of the Sharia. These four principles will reemerge again and again in all discussions concerning the Sharia. They are Koran, Hadith, Analogy and Agreement . . . . Agreement or Consensus, is for all practical purposes the most important criterion. Once a consensus has emerged it becomes unnecessary to consult the other sources.

Further problems arise, namely, decisions about what is abrogated:

Theory and theology . . . attach the greatest value to the authority of the first of these four roots, to the Koran, but in practice the wording of the Koran may have to be supplemented or interpreted by the other sources, or by another passage from the Koran itself, . . . . [which leads us to] an important principle from both Sharia law and Koran interpretation. This principle, 'abrogation', naskh in Arabic, is often misunderstood. 'Abrogation' means that a verse from the Koran that was revealed early might be repealed, or 'abrogated', by a verse that came down at a later point in time. Sometimes even an element from one of the other three sources can abrogate the contents of a verse from the Koran. Muslim scholars analyze all possible cases in depth, . . . . [but the] most famous example of abrogation is of concern to anyone who is not a Muslim: the abrogation of Sura 109, a Sura from the Mecca period that preaches religious tolerance. This Sura is abrogated by later verses from Medina that command the Muslims to fight and kill the unbelievers wherever they find them . . . . This important directive plays a central role in the Sharia system. Its application has a number of unforeseen consequences. Abolishing a Sharia regulation on which agreement had been reached . . . implies that Muhammad's umma did go wrong. But according to Islam's Prophet, it did not. Hence, it is out of the question to go back on regulations once they are agreed upon. Examples of cases where this creates difficulties and embarrassment are numerous: just think of the Sharia punishments for apostasy, adultery or theft . . . . [or a] famous example of abrogation, . . . the prohibition of wine. In early verses, the Koran speaks well of wine; later verses forbid wine. But how do we know which verse comes first? This we can only know from the Muslim Sharia experts. How do they know? Well, since wine is forbidden, the verse that forbids wine must be later than the verse that praises wine.

Sounds like circular reasoning, but defenders of Islam like to talk about the flexibility of shariah:

Outsiders will suspect circularity, but to traditional Muslims this all enjoys the support of the Most High, and reconfirms that they would be at loss without the scholarship and learning of the experts who embody religious authority in Islam, . . . . [and the] friends of Islam see the alleged flexibility of Islamic law as an indication of its humane and liberal character. This, however, is a mistake. Flexible laws are not humane but dangerous, since citizens do not know for what they can be arrested and executed.

Flexibility of law is not so humane after all. But even when Islamic law is straightforward and clear on some points, Islam can be inhumane:

Islamic law, flexible as it is reported to be, is unanimous on a large number of points. Agreement, consensus, that is what the system is built upon. No important disagreements exist on the points of law that are important to whoever is not a Muslim, whatever the friends of Islam may say. Not respecting the majesty of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, is generally seen as a capital crime. If the courts or the governments do not execute the offender, spontaneous informal volunteers may feel justified to take this task upon their shoulders, whatever the cost to them personally.

But we non-Muslims can ask one hard question, namely, if the Qur'an is written in clear Arabic, as it claims to be, then why are so many commentaries necessary?

There is . . . one point of entry into the Islamic armor that sounds as pious and as Islamic as these things go. It may even be effective. The Koran unequivocally states that it is written in clear Arabic language . . . 'Well', one is bound to ask, 'Why, if this is true, do we need Koran commentaries that run into thousands of pages?' . . . . The elevated position of the Sharia in the world of Islam, we might argue, can only be understood as a belittlement of the Koran and Muhammad. Once we can make our Muslim and our dhimmi opponents see this, we may have influenced them. The question we should ask as soon as an appeal to a Sharia law book is being made is: 'What do the Muslim scribes and scholars, all of them human, none of them a prophet, know more than Muhammad and His companions knew?' . . . . The Koran brings bad news to someone who does not want to submit to Islam, but as explicit as the Sharia it is not. We may, moreover, freely criticize recently annotated and revised Sharia handbooks, nothing in our laws and customs forbids us to do so. However, criticizing an ancient holy text can easily be portrayed as uncivilized. The many contemporary Sharia handbooks are, . . .  [in contrast], fair game. Their authors are only human, men like you and me. But the writers of these Sharia books certainly claim to know more than all the prophets and archangels combined.

Another problem us non-Muslims is that our Western freedom of religion was not conceived with Islam or other non-Western religions in mind:

One of our problems with Islam is the Western understanding of freedom of religion. Most Westerners do not realize this, but religions are dissimilar. Every act that can be imagined is either prohibited or made obligatory by at least one of the hundreds of religions our planet is graced with. Hence, freedom of religion, if it means that every religion can have its way, is not possible. When my professor in my first year at the University explained this, I did not believe him, and asked whether something as innocent as drinking tap water could be the subject of a religious prohibition. He answered that he did not know of an example but at the same time he assured me that if I started looking I would find one. And right he was: Hinduism has a caste that may only drink water pulled up from a well by a clay jug.

We therefore need to change the rules concerning freedom of religion:

In Europe and America, however, the extant religions are comparatively similar, and usually somehow connected to the Bible. Hence Europeans and Americans tend to believe that there is no harm in letting a religion have its way since 'deep down all religions are the same'. This is a misunderstanding. There is nothing that is common to all religions . . . . Freedom of religion, if it means that any form of religion can have its way, is a recipe for civil war. What our wise forefathers meant when they advocated freedom of religion should be reformulated. What they meant can only have been freedom of opinion and freedom of worship. Since they were unfamiliar with religions that were essentially different, and since they tired from going to war about beliefs and forms of worship, and since they were unfamiliar with the full . . . [spectrum] of global religious variety, they formulated their convictions, however right they were, in a way that today is confusing and creates serious problems for freedom, science, justice, health and politics . . . . [Many] if not most Muslims are too humane to be willing to execute all commands the Sharia imposes. Let us help them by pointing out that that the Koran may well be the word of God – this, after all, is untestable, but that the Sharia is the work of men, even according to the teachings of Islam. To remain free from Sharia law, we may eventually have to fight, but then, freedom is not for free.

Every little bit of resistance to theocracy helps, and since Professor Hans Jansen has recently passed away, on May 5 this year, we need more people with understanding and wisdom to focus upon the challenges that Islam poses to open societies.

Abdulazziz Al-Qattan: Islamic State is No Aberration

Abdulazziz Al-Qattan
Memri TV Video Clip 4821

In the wake of the IS ship of state's atrocities, liberal, educated Muslims in the Arab world are speaking out against Islam's own traditions, as Memri Clip No. 4821 (March 5, 2015) reveals in its report, "Kuwaiti Researcher Abdulazziz Al-Qattan: ISIS [i.e., the Islamic State,] Is the Product of [Our] Islamic Heritage." Here are some excerpts:

ISIS did not come out of nowhere. It's not an aberration. By no means. ISIS adopts the Salafi-Wahhabi ideology of Al-Qaeda. If you look at Durur Al-Saniyah by Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, you will see that ISIS is implementing the ideas of that book to the letter. They are doing it step by step, word by word . . . . The problem of us Arabs is that we are not being honest with ourselves. We do not acknowledge our mistakes. We refuse to break away from that heritage. Our Islamic heritage is a minefield of these deviant ideas. Unfortunately, even some contemporary muftis, sheiks, and Islamic scholars subscribe to this reactionary ideology [of Salafism] and to this backwardness. To this day, some [Salafis] . . . consider photography . . . prohibited polytheism, and view statues as idols that are worshipped instead of Allah, . . . . [though even] in the days of the Islamic conquests, 'Amr Ibn Al-'As did not destroy the Sphinx and did not shatter statues in Egypt. I cannot imagine . . . any civilization, without art. I cannot imagine . . . beauty . . . without art. Art is sublime. Art means progress. Art means civilization. Can you possibly imagine humanity without art? Inconceivable! Inconceivable! . . . . [Even] before ISIS and Al-Qaeda emerged, [the Islamic State's ideology existed,] but we turned a blind eye, and some Arab governments still prefer not to face the plain truth. All the books of Islamic heritage, without exception - from all Islamic sects and denominations - have enough ISIS ideology to turn your hair white . . . . [What] we need to do is sift through [our] Islamic heritage. We must go back to the book of Allah, [the Qur'an,] for it gives guidance to humanity. Islam does not, under any circumstances, run counter to human nature. Allah created Man free and gave him freedom of thought, but the problem is that the Muslims have begun to worship people. We have begun to worship our heritage. We have begun to worship books . . . . "Islamic heritage" . . . [is what I say,] but that is not what it [truly] is. It is the heritage of the jurisprudents, not of the Prophet Muhammad. The books of [our] Islamic heritage - Al-Bukhari and Muslim hadith collections, and the other canonical hadith books, as well as the Kitab Al-Kafi and all the other books of the Shiites [- each of] these books need[s] to be sifted through by real institutions. These stories should be sifted through in order to filter out all their blemishes. Politics played a role in the [development] of this heritage. The Islamic scholars of the Sultan's court played a role in this. The hadith narrators were not infallible. Some of them were liars, cheats, and so on.

I think that Mr. Abdulazziz Al-Qattan has got things right. Muslims must unburden themselves of the entire jurisprudent tradition. The brutality of many hadith cannot be moderated but only rejected before Islam can be reformed.

Only in that way can Islamism be finally defeated . . .

A dog, a donkey, and a woman? Why in God's name . . .

Suha Al-Jundi

(Image from Elaph dot Com)

In Memri "Special Dispatch No. 5990" (March 9, 2015 ), the "Arab Woman Columnist [Suha Al-Jundi] Marks International Women's Day With [a] Sarcastic Article" enumerating "various Islamic laws and customs that harm women, humiliate them, and discriminate against them, such as the inheritance, marriage and divorce laws," and she speaks with heavy irony of the "lofty status" that Islam grants to women and the "great respect" that it has for women, as the following shows:

A woman's testimony has half the weight of a man's, since she is feeble-minded and ruled by her emotions. Hence, for her testimony to be accepted, she must find another woman who witnessed the crime [to corroborate her story]. Otherwise she must stay home and remain silent, rather than tell the truth [about what she knows] . . . . A man may take four wives, even if his salary is meagre and his (physical) abilities limited. That is simply the nature of mammals who live in packs of one male and several females. Religious law must conform to this nature . . . . Divorce in Islam is very simple. Islam does not compel a woman to remain tied to the family she has dedicated her life to establishing. The man may divorce her with a spoken or written word, or even with a gesture, if he is deaf or paralyzed. To ensure that she leave the house quickly, Islam does [not?] grant her any right to the fruits of her efforts . . . . [Islam] obliges a woman to wear a hijab the minute she reaches puberty, even if she is [only] ten years old. This, in order to guard the woman and her chastity, and ensure that men will not be aroused and licentiousness will not spread. If the woman suffers vitamin D deficiency as a result of insufficient exposure to sunlight, she should take fish oil capsules. If she can't find any, Allah will reward her doubly for her ability to endure suffering . . . . If a man summons his wife to have intercourse with him and she refuses, the angels will curse her, even if [she refused because] her husband does not respect her, does not make her feel cherished and safe, or because he smells bad . . . . If a husband is concerned his wife may be rebellious (even if this is just a fear that has not yet materialized), he must warn her. If she does not repent he must throw her out of the house, and if she [still] fails to repent he must hit her. This, even if she is smarter and more knowledgeable than him, or if her salary is higher and she contributes more to the family income . . . . If a dog, a donkey or a woman passes in front of a man as he is praying, his prayer is null and void. This, because the woman is beautiful and attractive, and causes him to be aroused . . . .

That final point explains why a woman should not pass in front of a praying man, but why the dog, why the donkey? Surely not the same reasoning! I hope . . .

Fatwa on Burning as Capital Punishment in Islam

Fiery Punishment
Google Images

According to Memri Special Dispatch No. 5976 (February 26, 2015), the Qatari government's website presented a fatwa in June 2009 that was relevant to the Islamic State's recent action in burning a Jordanian pilot to death: "Execution By Burning Is Permitted Under Certain Circumstances." This fatwa was linked to two others, one from 2006 and the other from March 2009. My quotes below reflect all three fatwas in answer to the question raised:

Question:

Is it permissible to punish a Muslim, Sunni or Shi'ite, by burning him? Please inform me, because I received an email about a Muslim being burned, and I answered the person who sent me the email [with a quote from the hadith]: 'only the God of fire may punish with fire.' But he opposed my position to the point that I started to doubt its correctness.'

Answer:

According to the shari'a, punishment by fire is forbidden, regardless of a person's status, for it is written in the hadith: 'only the God of fire may punish with fire'... [So] this deed is a sin that is forbidden because of the injustice it involves . . . . How can we reconcile the Prophet's ban on burning with fire with [Caliph] Abu Bakr's burning of Iyas bin 'Abd Yalil during the Ridda Wars? . . . . The Prophet's ban is valid. According to the honorable hadith, the Prophet said: 'only the God of fire may punish with fire' . . . . [R]eligious scholars were divided on whether this ban is absolute, or is only meant to [instill] humility [towards God]. [Shafi'i jurisprudent] Ibn Hajar [Al-'Asqalani] said in his book Fath Al-Bari: "This ban is not meant to prohibit [burning], but only to [instill] humility. The actions of the Prophet's Companions indicate that burning is permissible . . . . [Caliph] Abu Bakr punished criminals by burning in the presence of the Prophet's Companions, and [the Prophet's Companion] Khalid Ibn Al-Walid [also] burned people from among the apostates . . . . The story about Abu Bakr's burning of the believer Iyas bin 'Abd Yalil is recounted in the books of biography and history. [It is said:] 'Iyas bin 'Abd Yalil came to Abu Bakr and said to him: Give me weapons so I can fight the apostates. [Abu Bakr] supplied him with weapons and appointed him commander, but [Iyas] turned against the Muslims . . . . Abu Bakr discovered this, and sent people to arrest [Iyas] and fetch him. Abu Bakr ordered to light a fire in the Medina mosque, and then he pitched [Iyas] into it, swaddled in cloths.'

This is strange reasoning. Muhammad said not to burn someone with fire as capital punishment. Abu Bakr burned someone with fire as capital punishment. Yet, the action of Abu Bakr was justified because the ban on burning was explained as not absolute, but as restraint to show humility before Allah, for Allah punishes with fire. Therefore . . . Abu Bakr didn't need to show humility toward Allah?

Of course, we all know what's going on in this reasoning. Muhammad can't be wrong, nor can one of the four rightly guided caliphs, so if one of those caliphs directly contradicts Muhammad, the sharp contradiction has to be blunted. But as we see, the manner of dealing with the contradiction in this instance merely shifts the problem to another, even more serious level, lack of humility toward Allah.

Logically, therefore, Abu Bakr showed arrogance toward Allah.

Ibrahim Issa on ISIS and the Barbarity Found in Islam's Early Sources

Ibrahim Issa
Memri Video

The Egyptian journalist and television personality Ibrahim Issa spoke some harsh words to Muslim religious leaders, pointing out that "Nobody [Among Them] Dares to Admit That ISIS Crimes Are Based on Islamic Sources" (Memri, February 3, 2015, Clip No. 4773).

The video can be viewed by clicking on "Memri Video" under the image, but for ease of access and saving time, here's the transcript, from which I quote:

Whenever ISIS carries out an act of barbarity, such as decapitations, throat slitting, or the burning of a person alive, as they did today, various sheiks tell you . . . that this has nothing to do with Islam, that Islam is not to blame, and whatever. But when the people of ISIS perpetrate slaughter, murder, rape, immolation, and all those barbaric crimes, they say that they are relying on the sharia. They say that this is based on a certain hadith, on a certain Quranic chapter, on a certain saying of Ibn Taymiyyah, or on some historical event. To tell the truth, everything that ISIS says is correct . . . . All the evidence and references that ISIS provides to justify its crimes, its barbarity, and its horrifying, criminal, and despicable violence . . . . All the evidence and references that ISIS provides, claiming that they can be found in the books of history, jurisprudence, and law, are, indeed, to be found there, and anyone who says otherwise is lying . . . . [Whenever ISIS members] kill a person claiming that he is an infidel, when they rape women, when they kill prisoners, and when they slaughter and decapitate people, they say that the Prophet Muhammad said so. Indeed, the Prophet said so! . . . None of those [Al-Azhar clerics {in Egypt}] . . . . have the courage . . . to admit that these things are indeed to be found [in Islamic sources] . . . . I would like to see a single Al-Azhar cleric in Egypt have the courage to admit that Abu Bakr burned a man alive. That's right. He burned Fuja'ah [Al-Sulami]. This is a well-known historical story.

Issa goes on to argue that massive reinterpretation of Islamic sources is needed, and he urges Muslims to condemn the barbarous commands and acts found in the early sources, or at least to argue that those commands and acts were uttered and committed, respectively, in a context limited to the era of early Islam.

Let's hope to see more of this honest, critical self-reflection by Muslims.

Islamic State Contravenes Islamic Law: Confirmed

Yassin ibn Mika'il
Google Images

Two days ago, I posted my opinion that in burning the Jordanian pilot alive, the Islamic State had contravened Islamic law, and I asked for confirmation, which came by way of the Muslim pictured above, who kindly explained:

Yes, without any doubt, you are correct, and it is well known to all Muslims, which is why they [i.e., the Islamic State,] put under the video "Islamic" justifications for this, from "scholars of Islam" who are unnamed. To kill male prisoners of war is allowed if the Imam feels it is in the best interest of the Ummah, or they may be taken as slaves, or ransomed for Muslim captives, but not killed in this barbaric manner, rather if they are to be killed it should be honorable and swift. And Allah knows best.

In reply, I wrote: "Thank you. That is helpful information." I meant that sincerely . . . though I have no idea who Yassin ibn Mika'il is, other than that he is a "student of Islamic studies."

UPDATE: But consider this nine-minute video on the issue.

Islamic State Breaks Islamic Law? - Is Burning Alive Forbidden?

Lieutenant Muath Al-Kaseasbeh
Jordanian Pilot

Google Images

I wonder if this manner of execution used by the Islamic State even finds justification in Islamic law, for I have read this hadith:

Ibn 'Abd al-Barr states in al-Tamhid (5:316) that, "When Ibn 'Abbas learned that 'Ali had burned the apostates - that is, the unbelievers - he said, 'If I had been in his place, I would have killed them in keeping with the words of the Prophet, "If anyone changes his religion, put him to death." I would not have burned them with fire, since the Messenger of God said that no one is permitted to inflict on another the chastisement which God alone will inflict [in the afterlife].'"

My source is from page 81 of Apostasy in Islam: A Historical and Scriptural Analysis (2011), by Taha Jabir Alalwani.

This hadith concerns the punishment for apostasy - which is death - but burning as a method of punishment would seem to be forbidden because it is reserved to Allah as his manner of punishment in Hell. One might object that that this hadith concerns apostasy only and therefore has nothing to do with the execution of an enemy captured in battle.

But if fire as punishment is reserved to Allah alone, then it should not be used by any human authority, not even by a caliph, despite 'Ali's action as one of the four 'rightly guided' caliphs.

Has the Islamic State thus broken Islamic law?

UPDATE: But consider this nine-minute video on the issue.

ISIL: Convert or Die . . . or Ransom Your Own Life!

Christians Vanishing from Iraq
Photograph by Matthew Fisher
Postmedia News

From Raqqa in Syria to Mosul in Iraq, the advancing Sunni Islamist group ISIL (or ISIS) threatens not only Shia Muslims but also Christians, as reported by Matthew Fisher in "Convert to Islam or face the sword, Iraqi Christians told by Sunni extremists" (Postmedia News June 22, 2014):

Convert to Islam or face the sword . . . . was the stark message Christians in the Syrian city of Raqqa received last year when ultra-fundamentalist Sunni extremists, proclaiming themselves . . . members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), seized power and launched a reign of terror against Shiites and Christians that has included beheadings and at least three crucifixions . . . . [Because they were a]ware of ISIL's ferocious reputation for murder and mayhem, thousands of Christians who lived in Mosul and the surrounding Nineveh Plain fled in panic when ISIL rebels captured Iraq's second largest city from government forces on June 10 . . . . They all feared persecution at the hands of the insurgents who had suddenly arrived in their midst because they follow a harsh 7th century interpretation of the Qur'an that demands not only that women mostly stay indoors, but that church bells must never be rung, crosses must never be displayed and Christians must pay a “gold tax” in return for their lives.

From the article itself, we see that the title is somewhat misleading. The choice of conversion or beheading was given by the ISIL in Raqqa, Syria, but not in Mosul, Iraq, where payment of a "gold tax" guarantees one's life, if one can trust the ISIL in such arrangements.

Incidentally, that "harsh 7th century interpretation of the Qur'an" is simply Islamic law, period.

Dr. Mohammed Malkawi: "Don't we want to make the infidels angry? Isn't this Islam?"

Dr. Mohammed Malkawi
MEMRI

In its Special Dispatch, No. 5364 (July 16, 2013), Memri offers us a stirring message from Dr. Mohammed Malkawi, doctoral expert in computer engineering, adjunct professor at Argosy University-Chicago, and founder of Chicago's Hizb Al-Tahrir (Party of Liberation): "Let Britain, America, And The Entire West Go To Hell, Because The Caliphate Is Coming, Allah Willing." Here's his view of the world, as presented in that stirring message presented in Jordan recently on the 92nd anniversary of the fall of the Islamic Caliphate:

"After Islam had reached the peak of glory and the Muslims were masters of the world, there came a time when the infidels conspired against the Muslims, who were in a deep slumber. Britain conspired against them, along with Arab and Turkish collaborators and traitors, and ended the Islamic Caliphate and its glory. Ever since the Caliphate was destroyed, the world has lost an exemplar of justice, a model for humanity in its entirety. Since then, the world has been held hostage by wolves, who do not respect the honor of a man or a believer."

That sounds like a fairy tale: "Once upon a time . . ." Masters of the world? I don't recall that Islam ever conquered China. Nor a few other places, e.g., Europe, North America, South America, or Australia. And if the Caliphate was so great, why did it ever grow so weak as to collapse? If it was such a fine exemplar of justice, why was it opposed? If it was a model for all of humanity, why did humanity reject it? Why? Because "there came a time when the infidels conspired against the Muslims, who were in a deep slumber," as he just told us. But surely that was Allah's will, else things would have turned out differently. Nevertheless, he and an unnamed speaker call for Islamic law:

Professor Mohammed Malkawi: "We demand a state ruled by the Koran."
Crowd: "We demand a state ruled by the Koran."
Unnamed Speaker: "We demand a state ruled by the Koran."
Crowd: "We demand a state ruled by the Koran."
Unnamed Speaker: "We reject secularist rule."
Crowd: "We reject secularist rule."
Unnamed Speaker: "We reject the rule of Satan."
Crowd: "We reject the rule of Satan."

The lowest rule of Satan would be democracy -- people's rule rather than Allah's law -- so bring back the Caliphate, says Malkawi, no matter what the infidels say:

"Oh Muslims, the infidels and their collaborators warn you and scare you about using the term 'caliphate.' They say: Use the word 'religion,' use the word 'Islam,' use any word you like, but the word 'caliphate' is too much . . . . They say to you: 'You can say anything except that you want Islamic law.' For them, Islamic law is something unimaginably harsh . . . . They say that the caliphate makes the infidels angry. Don't we want to make the infidels angry? Isn't this Islam?"

There you have it. According to this Islamist, the religion of Islam is supposed to make infidels angry. His message is thus stirring only in the sense of stirring up trouble.

Taking Sharia Seriously

"Shari'ah's Uphill Climb"
Photo from Andrea Kermann
Christianity Today

Christianity Today has an article by legal scholar John Witte, Jr., that actually takes sharia seriously as making claims already in the US, "Shari'ah's Uphill Climb" (November 20, 2012):

Some advocates [of Shari'ah] want separate Muslim arbitration tribunals that operate alongside the state; others want independent Shari'ah courts akin to those of Native American tribes . . . . [T]he bottom line is . . . to allow Muslim communities eventually to become more of a law unto themselves in the governance of marriage and family life. For the past decade, law journals, blogs, and conferences have been full of sophisticated papers pressing this case. Readers can get a good sampling of these arguments in two superb new edited volumes: Shari'a in the West (Oxford University Press) and Marriage and Divorce in a Multicultural Context (Cambridge University Press).

I told you multiculturalism pointed this way! Witte tells us even more, noting the three paths that lead the way indicated:

The three most prominent arguments for the use of Shari'ah family norms and procedures in America (and the rest of the West) are based on religious freedom, political liberalism, and nondiscrimination.

These terms "religious freedom, political liberalism, and nondiscrimination" hint at the sharia advocates' arguments, which Witte spells out in greater detail, but he also offers rebuttals:

Though each argument seems plausible on the surface, they are all, to my mind, fundamentally flawed.

I won't attempt to summarize his more detailed analyses or rebuttals, for they are already brief and easily read at the website. Suffice it to say that he thinks sharia will not find easy acceptance in the US, or in the West, and he should know:

John Witte Jr. is Jonas Robitscher Professor of Law, Alonzo L. McDonald Distinguished Professor, and director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University School of Law.

I hope that he's right, and maybe with these credentials, he's believable . . .

International Civil Liberties Alliance

ICLA Logo

I received an email recently from an organization known as the International Civil Liberties Alliance calling attention to its International Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Conference held in the European Parliament in Brussels on July 9, 2012, from where it issued what it has termed the Brussels Declaration, its primary concern being to oppose the extension of sharia and sharia's limits upon free speech:

Affirming the irrefutable fact that sharia law as articulated and applied is incompatible with and destructive to free speech, civil liberties and human rights and as such is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy (as stated in the 13 Feb 2003 judgment of the ECHR);

Acknowledging that the declaration known as "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam" also commonly referred to as the "Cairo Declaration" curtails all human rights under sharia law and sharia normative behavior restrictions (CDHRI Articles 22, 23, 24) on the pretense that "All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah" (CDHRI Article 1);

I've heard of the "Cairo Declaration" of 1993, but I don't think that I've ever looked at it carefully, so let's take a look at CDHR Article 22, 23, and 24:

ARTICLE 22:

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.

1. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah.

(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.

ARTICLE 23:

(a) Authority is a trust; and abuse or malicious exploitation thereof is explicitly prohibited, in order to guarantee fundamental human rights.

(b) Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah.

ARTICLE 24:

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

The ICLA is certainly right to oppose such a document, but how significant is the Cairo Declaration? According to the ICLA, rather significant:

Observing that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), being the creator of Cairo Declaration and its current main proponent has, by its continuous and single-minded activity, proven to be the principal international politico-religious organization working to restrict free speech, civil liberties and human rights and to enforce sharia in the world;

The OIC is an organization significant enough to oppose, and though I don't know a lot about the ICLA, I thought that I'd call attention to them and their recent conference because the past two blog posts of mine have expressed support for free speech and open discussion.

You can judge for yourself by visiting the ICLA site.

Sex Slavery Again . . .

Sheikh Awn with Concubine-Bride
Pundicity

In an article originally published by the Gatestone Institute, "Egypt's First 'Sex-Slave' Marriage" (Pundicity, July 5, 2012), Raymond Ibrahim describes an event broadcast on Egyptian television:

Last Monday, on the Egyptian TV show Al Haqiqa ("the Truth"), journalist Wael al-Ibrashi began the program by airing a video-clip of a man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, "marrying" his "slave." Before making the woman, who had a non-Egyptian accent, repeat the Koran's Surat al-Ikhlas after him, instead of saying the customary "I marry myself to you," the woman said "I enslave myself to you," and kissed him in front of an applauding audience.

Is this the new Egypt? We've seen calls by other Islamists for sex slaves, but this is the first actual instance of one, so far as I've heard. With this sort of Islamist 'marriage,' the wife's dress code differs from the usual rules for Muslim women:

[E]ven though she was wearing a hijab, her owner-husband declared her forbidden from such trappings, commanding her to be stripped of them, so as "not to break Allah's laws." She took her veil and abaya off, revealing, certainly by Muslim standards, a promiscuous red dress (all the other women present were veiled).

You see the 'husband' removing the abaya in the photo above. Apparently, this man is still too prudish, still breaking Allah's laws, for he appeared on the same television show immediately after the video had shown, and from what follows as justification also implies that the good sheikh didn't go far enough, despite his attempt to follow precedent:

Even stripping the sex-slave of her hijab, the way Awn commanded his concubine-wife, has precedent. According to Islamic jurisprudence, whereas the free (Muslim) woman is mandated to be veiled behind a hijab, sex-slaves are mandated only to be covered from the navel to the knees—with everything else exposed. During the program Awn even explained how Caliph Omar, one of the first "righteous caliphs," used to strip sex-slaves of their garments, whenever he saw them overly dressed in the marketplace.

Sheikh Awn neglected to follow the letter of Allah's law, as his own justification reveals, for he failed to strip his sex-slave down to the navel! Nevertheless, he went too far, according to another Islamist:

The other guest on the show, Dr. Abdullah al-Naggar, a professor of Islamic jurisprudence at Al Azhar, fiercely attacked Awn for reviving this practice, calling on him and his slave-wife to "repent" and stop dishonoring Islam, arguing that "there is no longer sex-slavery" -- to which Awn responded by sarcastically asking, "Who said sex-slavery is over? What -- because the UN said so?"

The report doesn't reveal Dr. al-Naggar's response, but the question is an excellent one, and I'm glad that Sheikh Awn raised it, for this is precisely the issue faced by Islam in our modern world: Which takes precedence, Islamic law or human rights' legislation? We see from the encounter between the two Muslims on this television program that particular Islamic laws embarrass some Muslims even as other Muslims attempt to revive such laws as part of the current resurgence of Islam. Those who wish to revive such embarrassing laws can accuse the embarrassed of not being sufficiently Islamic since these laws are there in the Muslim sources and cannot be denied.

Upon such an Archimedian point, the entire Muslim world can be moved . . . but which way, toward modern human rights or toward medieval Islamic laws?

UPDATE: Long-time commentator "Erdal" explains that the scene was scripted:

This is a "scripted reality" show and the man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, is an actor-pawn of the presenter, who plays out this story to frame the scene for the studio-talk and the street interviews, who all predictably slam him down. It's a morality play in sensationalistic TV format. Even the man's name, Abd al-Rauf Awn, is a pun, meaning roughly "he who serves as an assistant, and we know it."

So . . . never mind.

Muslim Brotherhood's Plans for the West?

Investigative Project on Terrorism

I've long been aware of the investigative journalist Steven Emerson, who has looked into radical Islamism in the West since the early 1990s, especially in the United States. He founded an archive in 1995 on Islamist groups, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which has among its files a widely known Islamist memo by the Muslim radical Mohamed Akram on pdf file, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America" (May 19, 1991). This is a fifteen-page Arabic document followed by an eighteen-page English translation in which Akram sets forth his detailed plan for Islam in America. One section is labeled Understanding the Role of the Muslim Brother in America, by which he means the role of the "Muslim Brotherhood," -- though Akram seems not to distinguish clearly between Muslim Brother and ordinary Muslim -- and in which he states the following:

The process of settlement [in America] is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

This is written for a broadly conceived jihad -- "with all the word means," Akram tells us, and since the word means "struggle," then he intends to see it applied to all of its traditional uses, from inner spiritual struggle to active proselytizing to outright battle. This is to be the American front in the Islamist attack on Western Civilization, and that memo was written nearly twenty-one years ago as an explanation of a long-term plan dating from 1987, so this Islamist goal is at least twenty-five years old. Read the entire memo to see just how ambitious this "Brotherhood" is.

The Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood, will be familiar to those who have been keeping up with the Arab Spring as the weather has changed with the seasons to an Islamist Winter. The Brotherhood's members were the winners in the recent Egyptian election, and the group has a very professional website that shows their pleasant face under the name of the Freedom and Justice Party, but the terms "freedom" and "justice" have Islamic meanings delimited by sharia, Islamic law, which the FJP fully intends to implement, a legal system in which Muslim women have fewer rights than Muslim men, Christians and Jews have fewer rights than Muslims, and infidels have no rights as all, not even to mention the hudud laws stipulating beheading, stoning, amputation, and flogging for crimes against Allah.

That's what Islamist individuals like Mohamed Akram want for the US as well as for the broader West . . .

Joel Brinkley: Sharia's Failure in Saudi Arabia?

Joel Brinkley

Stanford University

Joel Brinkley writes a weekly column on foreign affairs that appears in many papers, but I usually read it in a local paper, The Korea Herald, and the column this week was rather carefully titled "Youth aren't served in Saudi Arabia" (March 3-4, 2012), but it's really about the failure of sharia to deal with the modern world:

Saudi Arabia faces a mammoth housing shortage for . . . [its] young people and others. Banque Saudi Fransi warns that the state will need 1.65 million new homes in the next three years, just to meet current demand . . . . [A] proposed mortgage law, intended to open the housing market . . . . has been marooned, "under study," in government committees, for more than a decade now . . . . These problems raise an important, even fundamental, question: In the modern era, can a fully Islamic state, like Saudi Arabia, function in way that serves its people? . . . . [T]he issue behind the housing, jobs and other problems is Islam . . . . [Saudi Arabia is] the only state governed entirely by Sharia law in its most uncompromising form. And Islam forbids lending or borrowing money under any scheme that requires paying interest. In other words, mortgages . . . . [Last year], King Abdullah . . . [promised] to build 500,000 new homes . . . . [But] how can young people, particularly, buy homes without a mortgage? The state does run a Sharia-certified, interest-free mortgage service, essentially a charity. But it can't fund every new homeowner -- especially since 60 percent of Saudi Arabia's 28 million people are under 30 years old . . . . [P]otential homeowners must wait 18 years for a mortgage . . . . Last year, the government took up the mortgage bill again, talked about it a bit, enacted a couple of incremental bits, but then tossed it back into the swamp where it remains today.

I knew of sharia's ban on interest (riba), which I presume is the issue here, and one can read more on Islam's economic laws at Wikipedia. I hadn't realized that this single prohibition had such far-reaching effects in a relatively successful Islamic state that is bursting with oil wealth. I hadn't given the issue any thought, but if asked, I'd have surmised that sharia-compliant banking had dealt with the issue of mortgages and had found a way to provide housing loans.

Is Mr. Brinkley correct on this point, i.e., that the most Islamic of states, Saudi Arabia, can't find an Islamically approved manner of providing loans in a way that will work successfully?

Or do the Saudi youth fail to take out loans because they refuse to work at menial jobs and simply expect the government to provide everything for them, including free housing?

UPDATE: I emailed Professor Brinkley to ask if he were aware of the issues raised by Erdal in the comments, and he responded as follows:

"Thanks very much for your note. I appreciate it. I am aware of much of what your commentator said, but there's only so much detail you can include in a 750-word column. I often wish I had a longer format available for pieces like that one."

That's the extent of the reply, and having written columns myself, I grant his point, but construe it as you think fitting . . .

Tawriya: Islamic Doctrine of Dissimulation?

Dr. Ahmad Muhammad at-Tayyeb

Shaykh al-Azhar

Oasis

In a recent short essay, "Tawriya: New Islamic Doctrine Permits 'Creative Lying'" (February 28, 2012), Raymond Ibrahim explores a 'new' Muslim teaching -- though he admits that it is technically not new, so his title is a bit misleading. Anyway, here's Ibrahim's explication of tawriya:

As a doctrine, "double-entendre" best describes tawriya's function. According to past and present Muslim scholars (several documented below), tawriya is when a speaker says something that means one thing to the listener, though the speaker means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.

For example, if someone declares "I don't have a penny in my pocket," most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him -- though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies. Likewise, say a friend asks you, "Do you know where Mike is?" You do, but prefer not to divulge. So you say "No, I don't know" -- but you keep in mind another Mike, whose whereabouts you really do not know.

That this really is an Islamic teaching, Ibrahim shows from a number of citations, including the words of Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid:

Tawriya is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the hidden meaning; 2) that it does not lead to an injustice" ("injustice" as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards).

Although we might not appreciate being misled by an instance of tawriya, I'm nevertheless struck by how fastidious this doctrine is. There are times when one would rather not be too explicit about the truth yet would also not wish to lie outright. I can imagine that the sort of dissimulation allowed by tawriya would be very useful under totalitarian rule, when the truth can get one killed.

The problem arises, as I've already hinted, when "we" are the ones being misled. Here's a possible example of tawriya from a passage written by a Shaykh of al-Azhar, Dr. Ahmad Muhammad at-Tayyeb, in a "Declaration by al-Azhar and the intellectuals on the legal ordinances of fundamental freedoms" (Oasis, February 28, 2012):

Freedom of belief and the right connected to it of full citizenship (muwâtana) for everyone, based [in turn] on absolute equality in rights and duties, is considered the cornerstone of the modern social order. This freedom is guaranteed by diriment and ever valid religious texts and by explicit constitutional and juridical principles. The Omnipotent in fact says, be He exalted and magnified: 'No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error' (2:256); 'so let whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will disbelieve' (18:29). It follows that any form of compulsion in religion, persecution or discrimination in its name, is condemned as a crime. Each individual in society has the right to embrace the ideas he prefers, provided it does not harm the right of the society to preserve the heavenly faiths. In fact, the three divine religions have their own holy character (qadâsa). Individuals are free to practise their own rites without offending the sensibility of others, violating the sacredness (hurma) of the three religions in word or in facts, and without making an attempt on public order.

I'm not sure how "diriment" is to be understood in this passage -- perhaps as nullified restrictions on freedom of belief? Anyway, this passage could be taken as an instance of tawriya if it has two audiences in mind, both the Egyptian one and the Western one. Westerners will read this as a guarantee of the freedom to believe or disbelieve in any or all religions, to change one's religion, and to speak openly about one's beliefs, even to the point of attempting to persuade others to change their religion, but all of these Western freedoms are severely curtailed by Islamic law. For instance, a Muslim can never, on pain of death, openly renounce Islam according to Islamic law.

Martino Diez, writing for Oasis, recognizes the dissimulation (though he calls it "vagueness") and explores possible implications in "How, for whom and to what extent al-Azhar defends the freedom of creed and speech," but I'll leave that for readers to follow up on.

I would simply note that -- tawriya or no tawriya -- Muslim statements must be subject to close scrutiny because terms in Islam have very different meanings than they do for Westerners. Caveat auditor!

Thomas F. Farr: Blasphemy and Democracy in the Islamic World

Thomas F. Farr

Berkley Center

Thomas Farr, director of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, has written a review for Christianity Today of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide (Oxford University Press), a recently published book by Paul Marshall and Nina Shea. The review, titled "Islam's Inquisitors: A Review of 'Silenced'" (December 29, 2011), first introduces us to the authors:

Having collaborated for several years, first at Freedom House and currently at the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, the pair brings to the subject a remarkable background in research and advocacy. Marshall is in many respects the intellectual godfather of the fight for international religious freedom. His 2007 Religious Freedom in the World was the first attempt to provide a comparative index of religious liberty that measured the performances of key countries. And Shea has pioneered activism on behalf of the victims of persecution, while maintaining a steady stream of trenchant writings on the subject. Of late, she has directed much of her fire at the failures of Saudi Arabia to remove toxic Wahhabist principles from its textbooks.

I was familiar with the author's names, though perhaps readers are not, but I've not read much by either, probably just an article or two over the years since 9/11. Their interest in religious freedom dovetails with that of Farr, so in drawing from the review, we'll likely be getting the views of all three combined. Farr notes that Western countries in the past also had blasphemy laws, some of these still being on the law books but largely unenforced, and that today's Christians generally support the position "that all religious communities have the right to make their truth claims freely and publicly, and to win converts where those claims are persuasive." Such a position does not find common ground with most Muslims:

The lands of Islam, however, are still far from embracing this aspect of religious liberty. Blasphemy continues to be criminalized throughout the Muslim nations of the greater Middle East, Africa, and South and East Asia. Converts from Islam -- apostates -- are often imprisoned, tortured, or murdered. Under the aegis of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Muslim nations have for years attempted to internationalize the treatment of blasphemy as a crime.

Apparently, this obvious fact still comes as a surprise to many Westerners, though not to Farr, Marshall, or Shea. The problem of religious persecution has broader implications, for Farr tells us that "there is mounting evidence that religious liberty is necessary for the stability and longevity of democracy in highly religious societies, and for the defeat of religion-based terrorism." I find the link between religious freedom and democracy intuitively obvious, but I do wish that Farr had provided some detailed evidence for the point. Pakistan would likely offer a lot of evidence for the link, for the mere accusation of blasphemy appears sufficient to get the accused killed. The Islamists shoot first and ask no questions later. God will sort the innocent out from the guilty, I suppose.

In such a society as Pakistan's, clearly, an accusation of blasphemy can be used against any opponent merely by claiming that some of the opponent's views on any topic whatsoever, religious or not, are inherently blasphemous. Now Pakistan is hardly an example of a country with a rule of law, but what of more orderly Islamic countries, say one where legal processes based on sharia are more orderly in judging words and actions? Unfortunately, Islam has a rather broad concept of blasphemy. Whereas in the West, "Blasphemy has been understood classically as manifesting contempt for God or, worse, assuming the attributes of God," in the Islamic world, any criticism of Muhammad is also blasphemy, so if one dare even question the moral propriety of Muhammad having consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine years old, one can be put to death. Since Islam is based on the Qur'an as the direct word of Allah and the on the words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad as the perfect human being, then any criticism or questioning of some purportedly Islamic position could easily get the speaker charged with blasphemy. By extension, any words that might be construed as advocating views incompatible with Islam could get the speaker accused of blasphemy. The Muslim concept of blasphemy is thus implicitly a very far-reaching one, boundlessly elastic in what it can be stretched to cover.

I therefore suspect that readers can easily see how laws against blasphemy would dampen free speech and counter democratic practices.