Al-taqiyya about Shari'ah Must Be Refuted!

The S-Word

Fearmongering about Sharia law in America needs to stop

By Avishai D. Don

Published: Thursday, November 18, 2010

    I did not find the article to be rich in substance, but a few points need to be raised.

The proposal was bolstered by a case in New Jersey in which the court considered Sharia law in its decision to deny a Muslim woman a restraining order against her sexually abusive ex-husband. That decision, thankfully, was overturned on appeal.

What if?  Suppose there was a technical error in the appeal, causing the original verdict to be upheld?  What if the appeals court failed to recognize the lower court's error?  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    After the negligence comes the sarcasm.

But it was enough to drive seven out of ten Oklahoma voters toward the “Save Our State” Amendment,” to “save” Oklahoma from, in the words of the bill’s main author, Muslims who desire nothing more than to take away “liberties and freedom from our children.”

A student, occupied with learning and passing exams, can be forgiven for being ignorant of Islamic doctrines & practices, but not for assuming that he knows everything about the subject. I was ignorant of Islam when I was a student, but I have learned a great deal in the last ten years.  Islam's strategic objective is total world domination: making the entire human race slaves of Allah. Islam does not recognize man made legislation, it demands the imposition of Shari'ah, derived from the Qur'an & Sunnah.

But the law exemplifies something far more insidious than bad public policy. Quite simply, there is a dangerous amount of ignorance in the United States about what Sharia law actually is. And until this misconception is corrected, as another concerned columnist so eloquently put it, the war on global Islamist terror will also continue be a war on American Muslims.

Basing American court decisions on the American Constitution, legislation & case law is not "bad public policy", it is common sense.  There is a dangerous level of ignorance about Shari'ah. That ignorance can be corrected by reading Reliance of the Traveller, Noah Ha Mim Keller's translation of Umdat Al-Salik, the Shafi'ite school's handbook of Fiqh.  The text includes certificates of authenticity and accuracy from scholars at Al-Azhar. 

In England, Shari'ah courts deal mainly with family law. Safe, sane and simple; no threat there, right?  Wrong!!!  Book m treats of the laws of marriage. Lets examine a sample.

m3.13: Guardians Who May Marry a Virgin to a Man Without Her Consent

Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.

-1- The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride's father or father's father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

-2- Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.

Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission.

As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.

So much for the minimum legal age. So much for choosing your own lifetime mate.  Book n treats of divorce.  Who can do it?
Divorce is valid from anyDivorce is valid from any

n1.1

Divorce is valid from any:

(a) husband;

(b) who is sane;

(c) has reached puberty;

(d) and who voluntarily effects it.

A divorce is not valid from:

-1- (non-(c) above) a child;

-2- (non-(b) ) someone insane;

-3- or (non-(d) ) someone who is wrongfully coerced to do it, as when one is threatened with death, dismemberment, being severely beaten, or even mere verbal abuse or a slight beating if the person being coerced is someone whose public image is important and would thereby suffer. (O: Someone being forced should use words that give a misleading impression (def: r10.2) for his ostensible "divorce.'')

n2.1

A free man has three pronouncements of divorce (O: because of the word of Allah Most High,

"Divorce is two times, then retain with kindness or graciously release'' (Koran 2:229),

and when the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was asked about the third time, he said.

"It is Allah's having said, or graciously release''').

n3.1

The words that effect a divorce may be plain or allusive. Plain words effect the divorce whether one intends divorce by them or not, while allusive words do not effect it unless one intends divorce by them.

n3.2 Using plain words to effect a divorce means expressly pronouncing the word divorce (O: or words

derived from it).  When the husband says' "I divorce you,'' or "You are divorced,'' the wife is divorced

whether he has made the intention or not.

(A: Here and in the rulings below, expressions such as "The wife is divorced,'' or "The divorce is effected,'' mean just one of the three times (def: n9.0(N:) ) necessary to finalize it, unless the husband thereby intends a two-or threefold divorce (dis: n3.5) or repeats the words three times.)

 

 

Let divorce cases be handled by Shari'ah courts; great idea, ladies?   How about honoricide?  Book o treats of "justice". o.1 details retaliation for death or injury. There are certain cases in which no retaliation is due. Here they are.

o1.2

The following are not subject to retaliation:

-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) );

-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);

-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor's) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.

You can not execute a Muslim for killing a kuffar, an apostate or his own offspring. That's the law. It should be enforced, of course. It is so much superior to our man made laws.   How about the blood money to be paid for murder? 

o4.9

(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury's type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim's indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )

The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.

A Muslim woman is worth only one half of her Muslim husband. A Christian is worth only one third as much as a Muslim. What a great system, lets implement it!  

    Then there is the matter of eligibility to give testimony in court.

o24.2

Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:

(a) is free;

(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1) (O: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane person, even when the child's testimony regards injuries among children that occurred at play);

(c) is able to speak;

(d) it mentally awake;

(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,

"Let those of rectitude among you testify" (Koran 65:2),

and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying);

(f) and who is outwardly respectable (O: respectability (muru'a) meaning to have the positive traits which one's peers possess in one's particular time and place. Sheikh al-Islam (A: Zakariyya Ansari) says, "Respectability is refraining from conduct that is unseemly according to standards commonly acknowledged among those who observe the precepts and rules of the Sacred Law." It is according to standards commonly acknowledged (def: f4.5) because there are no absolute standards for it, but rather it varies with different persons, conditions, and places, Such things as eating and drinking (A: in the marketplace or wearing nothing on one's head may vitiate it (A: though the latter is of no consequence in our times), as may a religious scholar's wearing a robe or cap in places where it is not customary for him to do so).

o24.7

The testimony of the following is legally acceptable when it concerns cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales:

-1- two men;

-2- two women and a man;

-3- or a male witness together with the oath of the plaintiff.

o24.8

If testimony does not concern property, such as a marriage or prescribed legal penalties, then only two male witnesses may testify (A: though the Hanafi school holds that two women and a man may testify for marriage).

 

Christians can't testify, nor can menial laborers and it takes two women to give evidence. What a great system! Other schools of Islamic jurisprudence are not exact matches, but are objectionable, none the less.  For example, the Maliki's Risala. Marry off your virgin daughter, unequal blood wit, female testimony, infidel testimony. Is that warm glow of Ivy League superiority holding still holding up?

   One senator had words of wisdom about basing rulings on foreign law.

I did want  to mention it in that connection. But lf me U.S. Supreme Court. ls not going to look to the laws of the Uunited States, including  the fundamental law of tho Unted Status, which In tho Constitution, but lnterpreting what is and is not constltutlonal under tha U.S. Constitution by looking at what foreign governments and foreign Iaws have to my about that same issue. I fear that bit by bit and case by case the Amerlcan people are slowly losing control over the meaning of our laws and the Constitution itself. It this trend continues, foreign governments may have a say in what our laws and
our Constitution mean and what our policies  ln America. should be.

Senator John Cornyn, March 20,2005, Congressional Record, Vol. 151, Pt. 4, pg. 5516

    International and Foreign Law Sources: Siren Song for U.S. Judges? By Chimène I. Keitner on page ten, cites legislation proposed in 2005 that would limit federal judges to domestic sources except for British common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Justices cited as favoring consideration of foreign law, cited by Chimène I. Keitner. include William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor,Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy.  Shari'ah is not mentioned in that article, but the same principle applies.

    For the grand finale, lets glance at the temporary injunction.

Munir Awad vs. Oklahoma  State Board of Elections;  Case No. CIV-10-1186-M

State Question No. 755, which was on Oklahoma’s November 2, 2010 ballot, provides: This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases.
It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law....

"Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the ban on the state courts’ use and consideration of Sharia Law violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Three elements are listed:

1. by Oklahoma’s official condemnation of his religion/faith as reflected through the amendment to Oklahoma’s constitution banning state courts’ use or consideration of Sharia Law,
2. by the invalidation of his last will and testament which incorporates various teachings of Mohammed, and
3. by the excessive entanglement of the state courts with religion that would result from the amendment as the state courts in implementing the amendment would have to determine what is and is not encompassed in Sharia Law.

Constitutional elements:

1. must have a secular legislative purpose,
2. its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
3. it must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

    The amendment specifies the local sources of law and proscribes use of foreign law and Shari'ah. It is unreasonable to equate rejecting Shari'ah as an input to judical decisions with rejection of Islam. 

    Does any reasonable person believe that the amendment rejects or invalidates the plaintiff's last will and testament?  If his will is probated, it will be subject to state law, regardless of Shari'ah. Book l treats of inheritance. Only one third of the estate can be bequeathed, the rest is divided according to a complex formula. If you are crazy enough to want to figure it out, go to Book l.1.

    Entanglement?  All the courts need to do under the amendment is perform  their duties as they do now, considering the facts, law and constitutions but not Shari'ah.  There is no need for the courts to read Reliance, Risala or Hedaya, they just need to do their job. The complaint is obviously unfounded.

    The amendment has a constitutional purpose: preserving the primacy of the federal and state constitutions.  It neither advances nor inhibits religion, it prevents entanglement the court system with Shari'ah.  It does not foster government entanglement with religion, it prevents entanglement. 

Sphere: Related Content

California To Get Rid Of Marriage

by Findalis


Why is it that I am not surprised at the tactics that Gays and Lesbians will go to force the idea of Gay marriage on the nation. On November 4, 2008 the voters of California passed Proposition 8 which states:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This passed 52.3% to 47.7%. Thus the voters of California spoke saying no to Gay marriage.

This is not the end of the arguement. The supporters of Gay marriage are not going to take that lying down. They have a new tactic. Get rid of marriage. No I am not joking.

California's top election official says supporters can start collecting signatures for a proposed ballot measure to strike the word "marriage" from all state laws.

Supporters of this ballot measure want to replace it with the term "domestic partnership," while keeping all the rights of marriage in place.

Read the full story here.

Domestic Partnership is not the same as Marriage. In a partnership, one can just leave the partnership without legal recourse. In a Marriage it takes a divorce to dissolve it. One can have multiple partners in a Domestic Partnership. In a Marriage a person can have only one spouse at a time.

Forcing all people in California to give up Marriage in favor of Domestic Partnership is wrong. But knowing the liberals, idiots, nincompoops in California they will now pass this idea overwhelmingly and sound the death knoll of the American Family.

If this measure passes how long do you think it will be before it is brought to every state in the US?

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. If it was a right the government would have to supply each and every person in the nation with a spouse. They don't. And a couple planning on marrying should not have to go and get a Domestic Partnership license but a Marriage license.

Changing the name of Marriage to Domestic Partnership is just a bad idea.

Sphere: Related Content