Barenaked Islam quoted a New York Times article:
Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition, which first lists several locations where opposition to Mosque construction has arisen and then brings out the key revelation.
"In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with
Islamic Shariah law."
Either the opponents have begun to study the enemy's canon or they have been emboldened to use to a new level of direct counter attack on the ideological plane. The next paragraph trots out the implicit false premise: "
Islam is a religion, equal to Christianity and must be tolerated as such as a matter of First Amendment right."
"These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat." [Emphasis added for clarity.]
Many left wingers are slick in their use of loaded expressions. "America's democratic values" is heavily laden with all things bright and beautiful. The use of that expression lays the foundation for accusing Islam's opponents of racism, bigotry & xenophobia. They are off to a fast start, ahead of the starter's pistol, mis-framing the debate. Only religions are protected by the First Amendment's free exercise clause. They have evaded\ the crucial question: "Is Islam a religion worthy of First Amendment protection?".
It has a scripture, it has theology, it has cosmology, it prays, it sways, it practices charity; it must be a religion. Yeah, right. Islam is a deen: way of life which dictates all aspects of human life. One critical aspect of that way of life makes it incompatible with our Constitution and intolerable in our society. Open your eyes and prepare to learn; I am about to show you something that nobody else will expose you to. This oral tradition exposes the reality of the Islamic deen.
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.
Moe presented jihad and agriculture as alternatives, the former being acceptable to Allah and the latter carrying a curse. Allah will curse the Muslims if they abandon jihad in exchange for agriculture. Jihad Akbar is striving against your ego and temptations. Is Jihad Akbar an alternative to farming for a living? Jihad asghar is defined in Islamic law as "
to war against non-Muslims". Is that an alternative to farming as a way of making a living? For the answer, examine this hadith, which Khan bowdlerized but Aisha Bewley included in her translation of Sahih Bukhari.
How did Moe make his living? By his spear. Was it by hunting wild game? Is the life style of a hunter/gatherer consistent with making commands; abasing and humiliating anyone who disobeys? What kind of command is involved in that saying? Here is one sample.
...
I do not intend to wage war against you till you receive my written reason for it. It is better for you, either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jiziya and consent to remain obedient to Allah, His prophet and his messengers. My messengers deserve honour. Treat them with respect. Whatever pleases my messengers, will also please me....[LETTER TO THE CHIEFS OF AQABA]
Moe sent a letter to Christians, giving them the choice of conversion to Islam, dhimmitude & Jizya or war. He commanded people to submit to Islam and attacked them if they refused. What is consistent with issuing commands and punishing the disobedient? Pillage & plunder. Do you see the pattern yet?
For those who can not perceive the pattern, I have more clues from the Qur'an: Surah al-Anfal:; "Spoils of War". To whom do the spoils belong? How are they allocated? What was Moe's motivation?
8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad ) about the spoils of war. Say: "
The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), if you are believers.
8:41. And know that
whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad )], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad ) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should
have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom)
until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land.
You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise. [Emphasis added for clarity.]
Moe gets the spoils; the best 20% off the top. Moe's motivation was the spoils & ransom for captives. We have it on Allah's authority. But spoilation was taboo among Arabs, how did Moe get away with it? Allah gave him special dispensation. Nay more! Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world. How did Allah make Moe wealthy?
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 ...3.
The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping,
the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet
wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs. "
[Emphasis added for clarity.] Islam's mission is mercenary, neither spiritual nor eleemosynary. This fact alone is sufficient to disqualify Islam from First Amendment protection. There is another fact, equally potent as a disqualifier:
Islam is permanent war. Moe created Islam for his personal emolument & empowerment, which were dependent on
constant warfare. He began with razia on camel caravans, graduated to ghazwat against local Jewish settlements, and went on to conquer Mecca and threaten nearby kingdoms and empires.
Since Moe was the self-appointed spokesman for Allah, he had Allah issue commandments. Two of them are crucial to the question before us.
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Those are commands, imperatives, not suggestions; not metaphors, not allegories. They have neither geographic nor chronological limits; they are outcome oriented, of global scope. I gave you links to four tafsirs and Islamic law for a reason: so that you can verify what I have written. Those tafsirs deny the mercenary motivation clearly exposed by Allah's own testimony in 8:67: "You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives)". None of them denies the
fard al-kifaya of annual ghazwat. None of them asserts limits of time or geography. None of them asserts an expiration date.
Besides bing fard al-kifaya, jihad is the essence of the relationship between Allah and the believers; he purchased them as slaves so that "
...they kill (others) and are killed.".
What makes jihad holy? Is it
fighting to establish the religion? [Read the footnote to 2:190.] No! Jihad is only holy if nobody embezzles the spoils!
Sahih Muslim 19.4294: "...Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children...."
Jihad would be profaned by
embezzling the spoils, which belong to Moe, fleeing from battle and mutilation which was another taboo. Killing women and children is prohibited because they were
part of the booty, dead bodies had no value on the slave market. If you retain any doubt about this disgusting fact, I have some references for you:
33:26-27,
Ibn Kathir and
Ibn Taymiyyah {"property for Muslims"}.
What is the importance of Jihad?
"
Abdullah Humaid (Shaykh). "... Besides these acts of worship, a Muslim is directed to abstain from evil deeds and to perform good deeds, so that he may achieve success in the Hereafter, as well as, in the life of this world. But, as regards the reward and blessing,
there is one deed which is very great in comparison to all the acts of worship and all the good deeds-and that is Jihad!"
By what stretch of the imagination is a mercenary and martial institution which wages war against us to be greeted with a welcome mat and given the protection which the First Amendment extends to legitimate religions? Given the fact that offensive jihad is a required part of the practice of Islam, how can there be a right to practice Islam here?
The Times tells us that there is a "growing cottage industry of authors and bloggers" who testify against Islam and "interfaith groups led by Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, rabbis and clergy members of other faiths" who defend Mosques. They don't tell us about the fact that only one side has relevant, verifiable evidence to support its case. Throughout this post you will find links to source documents. They are bold, blue underlined text. When clicked, they open a relevant document in a new window.
At the end of the article, the times quotes a spokeswoman for one Mosque.
"Camie Ayash, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, lamented that people were listening to what she called “total disinformation” on Islam. ... “A lot of Muslims came to the U.S. because they respect the Constitution,” she said. “There’s no conflict with the U.S. Constitution in Shariah law. If there were, Muslims wouldn’t be living here.”
Does Shari'ah conflict with our Constitution and laws or not?
Reliance of the Traveller is a 1251 page book, translated from Umdat as Salik. It is acknowledged by the Sheikhs at Al-Azhar University to be an authentic handbook of Islamic law. We have freedom of religion. American citizens can choose their own religion, and switch at will. Muslims governed by Shari'ah can not. A Muslim who apostatizes must be executed.
O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-2.html
Does that Islamic law conflict with our organic law or does it not?
Islamic law concerning marriage and divorce can be somewhat shocking to the western mind.
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.
The father of a prepubescent girl can marry her off without her consent. Is that or is that not in conflict with our laws? What if she refuses
O1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
...
-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir 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.
Honoricide, anyone? But, of course, there is no conflict between Shari'ah and our Constitution.
Now, back to the topic of divorce.
Chapter N3.0: The Words that Effect a Divorce
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.)
Is the Islamic law of divorce consistent with ours, or does it conflict?
Lets touch upon a subject which, though not directly involved in the federal organic law, does involve the Constitutions of the several states: duties of the governor.
O25.9 Authority in view of merit is that which is freely invested by the caliph through his own choice, and entails delegating a given limitary function and the use of judgement within a range of familiar alternatives. This investiture consists of the caliph appointing an individual to independently govern a city or region with authority over all its inhabitants and discretion in familiar affairs for all matters of government, including seven functions:
-1- raising and deploying armies on the frontiers and fixing their salaries, if the caliph has not already done so;
-2- reviewing laws and appointing judges and magistrates;
-3- collecting the annual rate (khiraj) from those allowed to remain on land taken b Islamic conquests, gathering zakat from those obliged to pay, appointing workers to handle it, and distributing it to eligible recipients;
-4- protecting the religion and the sacrosanct, preserving the religion from alteration and substitution;
-5- enforcing the prescribed legal measures connected with the rights of Allah and men;
-6- leading Muslims at group and Friday prayers, whether personally or by representative;
-7- facilitating travel to the hajj for both pilgrims from the regian itself and those passing through from elsewhere, that they may proceed to the pilgrimage with all necessary help,
-8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients.
Revisit the last item in that list. The local governor has a duty to
undertake jihad against neighboring enemies and dividing the spoils. Does that or does that not conflict with our federal and state Constitutions? We have been assured that there is no conflict between Shari'ah and our Constitution. What is the truth of the matter? Does our Constitution guarantee freedom of religion? How about Shari'ah?
O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29), the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ). [Emphasis and link added for clarity.]
The caliph makes war upon Jews & Christians until they become Muslim or pay extortion, in obedience to 9:29. But, we are assured that this does not conflict with our Constitution. I doubt that many Muslims have read it. Of course there is a perfect right to build Mosques & Madrassahs wherein to preach the obligation (fard al-kifaya) of jihad. And its perfectly alright to send 1\8 of the charity collected to those waging war against us.
H8.7: The Eight Categories of Recipients
It is obligatory to distribute one's zakat among eight categories of recipients (O: meaning that zakat goes to none besides them), one-eighth of the zakat to each category. (n: In the Hanafi school, it is valid for the giver to distribute his zakat to all of the categories, some of them, or to confine himself to just one of them (al-Lubab fi sharh al-Kitab(y88), 1.155). ) ...
H8.17: Those Fighting for Allah
The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration). They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people's families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).
Didn't President Obama have something to say
about Zakat at Cairo? "That's why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill Zakat." Who did the Holy Land Foundation send $13. million to? Why was that a big deal, requiring two trials in federal court?
Sphere: Related Content
Sovereignty belongs to the people, under our Declaration of Independence and Constitution; it does not belong to Satan and we will not relinquish it to Satan or his slaves. These seditious slaves of Satan share something with Shari'ah4America: 
|
