Opposition To Shar’ia is Warranted. Here is part 2.
"It is time to make a choice. Will America accept Shar’ia? The fear of Shar’ia is not a hysterical but a valid response to a political law which Islam wants to and is administering in America right now. Progressives like Mr. Haynes is doing that for them through the American judicial and political system. We must stop Shar’ia. Shar’ia is not constitutional for (1) it violates all of the libertarian values we hold dear and (2) it is a political law bent on imposing itself over our Constitution.
I agree that religious freedom prevailed before and it will again if we speak out. But before let us make sure we know the facts. Please, lend your voice to stop Shar’ia.
***********************************************************************************
Opposition To Shar’ia is Warranted Part 2
By Bo Perrin
The following article is to refute Mr. Charles Haynes’ pro-Shar’ ia article. “Shar’ ia is Unconstitutional and Opposition is Warranted.” This is one of his flagship articles which appear in numerous written media outlets. If you would like to “Know the Truth about Muslims” the address is:
Shar’ia is Unconstitutional and Opposition is Warranted
By Bo Perrin
Mr. Haynes, in his second article, declares that Shar’ ia hysteria is unwarranted and unconstitutional. At the very beginning Mr. Haynes engages in assuming there is hysteria. It is true many states are working with David Yerushalmi, Esq. from the Center for Security Policy to outlaw Shar’ ia. It is neither unwarranted nor unconstitutional. The Center for Security Policy has recently put out a 352-page book called, “Shariah: The Threat to America.” This book refutes every Progressive’s argument for the constitutionality and peacefulness of Shar’ ia. The book can purchase it on Amazon.com.
Mr. Haynes takes up half his second article quoting those who disagree with him. In reality, half the article is useless to the topic. So, lets look at some substance. He claims that anti-Islamists conflate Shar’ ia with terrorism. Two issues present themselves here. First, those who are knowledgeable about this subject cannot conflate the two because Shar’ ia does not conflate the two. Islam uses terror and sacrifice to further Islam just as America uses terror and sacrifice to further our aims. Second, Mr. Haynes conflates the two by trying to make terrorism (use of force) separate from Shar’ ia when in fact Shar’ ia demands Muslims use force against unbelievers. He states Tennessee is a bright spot because the anti-Shar’ ia legislation removed references to Shar’ ia from their proposed law. First, Mr. Haynes is wrong for in fact the bill simply adds the exception “peaceful practice” of Islam while outlawing the violent aspects of Shar’ ia. He argues that by removing Shar’ ia references then the law merely outlaws terror. Again, Shar’ ia and terror do not mix and merely outlawing terror will not outlaw physical jihad because physical jihad is Shar’ ia.
Mr. Haynes believes that those who do not agree with his assessment are simplistic with a distorted understanding to the reality of Shar’ ia. Contrary to his claims Shar’ ia is a monolithic set of unchanging laws. Mr. Haynes argues that Islam law (Shar’ ia) has been interpreted in many ways. He is overstating reality playing on your ignorance. Islam boasts four major Islamic schools of Law and despite their differences in interpretation the differences are rather minor. The four schools agree 90 percent of the time. The largest spilt in Islam is between Sunni and Shia and together they make up about 95 percent or more of the Islamic society. Yet, despite the disagreement over who is to be Caliph, which lead to the split, the Sunni and Shia schools of law agree more than 90 percent of the time. All Islamic schools agree that Islam is to (1) dominate the world, (2) be the only religion available, (3) use physical jihad as the tool of implementation and (4) force Shar’ ia on unbelievers. Yes, I said force because the Qur’ an demands that Islam become superior to every religion even if the unbelievers hate it. (At Taubah 9:33; 2:191-193) In addition, the centuries to which Mr. Haynes refers ends in the Tenth. Islamic interpretation of Shar’ ia was closed int the ninth and tenth centuries. There are Muslims who are calling for this to be reopened. I say more power to them. Nevertheless, interpreting Shar’ ia is not the free-flowing tit-for-tat which Mr. Haynes makes it out to be. This is less about fundamentalism nor non-fundamentalism and more about the facts.
What I do find striking is Mr. Haynes refusal to offer a more specific explanation of Shar’ ia by providing examples. Mr. Haynes slips. He claims that Shar’ ia is constitutional and that America has laws to prevent violent acts which he wants to place into the category of terrorism. Mr. Haynes not only conflates the two against his own advice but admits Shar’ ia is violent. So, lets look at the Shar’ ia that Progressives do not want you to know about.
Mr. Haynes claims Shar’ ia is not a “set” of unchanging laws and seems to imply that Shar’ ia is not codified. You can buy the Umdat Al-Salik (Reliance of The Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.) The book can be purchased at Amazon.com as well. I will be using the Umdat Al-Salik nomenclature for reference.
Women: Shaking hands with the opposite sex is unlawful. (m2.9 (A :) ) Except for a few exceptions when the Husband demands sex, his wife is obligated to do so immediately. (m5.1) Muslim men are allowed four wives. (m6.10). A woman is not allowed to travel alone. (m10.3) She made be forbidden to leave the house. (m10.4) A husband may hit his wife for rebellion. (m10.12) Oh, this is Constitutional?
Jihad: Interestingly, Jihad is under the heading of Justice in the Traveller. Jihad is defined as war with unbelievers. (o9.0) Jihad is to force Islamic monotheism on non-Muslims. (o9.0 (3)) Jihad is obligatory for every Muslim whether a fard ‘ayn or kifayah . (o9.3) The objective of jihad is to make war on Zorastrians, Christians and Jews. (o9.8)
Dhimmi: A dhimmi is a Jew, Christian or Zoroastrian who decides to pay the jiyza or protection tax to practice a limited version of their religion. Idol worshipers are to be killed. (o11.0) Must follow the rules of Islam (Shar’ ia) (o11.3) Must keep to the side of the street. (o11.5 (4)) Cannot openly display pork. (o11.5 (6)) Cannot build new churches nor repair those needing it. (o11.5 (7)) They may not reside in Mecca, Medina nor Yamama. (o11.6) Cannot lead a Muslim away from Islam or kill a Muslim. (o11.10 (3, 4))
Zakat. Zakat is a form of alms and is one of the six pillars of Islam. Yes, Jihad is the six unofficial pillar of Islam. Zakat is a yearly contribution of 2.5 percent of the income of a Muslim, Muslim family or a Muslim business. The Umdat Al-Salik states there are eight recipients of the zakat and number seven is jihad, which the Al-Salik defines as war against unbelievers. (h8.17) The Qur’ an agrees in At-Taubah 9:60.
This is only a sampling of Shar’ ia. Contrary to Mr. Haynes’ prolific statements that Shar’ ia is constitutional it violates both the spirit and the law. In addition, Shar’ ia is immoral according to the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded. The above examples are not terrorism, they are Shar’ ia. They are not radicalized, they are the norm. By calling for the normalization of Shar’ ia in America Mr. Haynes is also calling for the normalization of making a woman a second-class citizen, engaging in and supporting physical warfare against unbelievers, the killing of apostates and the superiority of Islam. Mr. Haynes claims Shar’ ia is no different from Catholic law, Jewish law or any other religious law. Really? I don’t remember Jesus nor his apostles telling Christians to kill those who don’t believe in the gospel. It is appalling that Mr. Haynes with his position and knowledge would even suggest such a thing.
Does Shar’ ia hysteria exist? Is there a fear or loathing of the other side? Is this a disease? Here are the facts Mr. Haynes deprived the Gazette’s readers in his articles. Now, you have the facts so that you can make a reasonable and rational decision rather than rely on hyperbole and emotion. Mr. Haynes argues “Religious freedom prevailed before – and, if we speak out, it will again.” Clearly, Mr. Haynes does not understand the opposition.
Allah stated, “It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad ) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it). (The Noble Qur’ an, At-Taubah 9:33)
In addition, Allah tells us how this will happen. He says, “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God – Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He) . Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).” (The Noble Qur’ an, At-Taubah 9:29-30)
It is time to make a choice. Will America accept Shar’ ia? The fear of Shar’ ia is not a hysterical but a valid response to a political law which Islam wants to and is administering in America right now. Progressives like Mr. Haynes is doing that for them through the American judicial and political system. We must stopped Shar’ ia. Shar’ ia is not constitutional for (1) it violates all of the libertarian values we hold dear and (2) it is a political law bent on imposing itself over our Constitution.
I agree that religious freedom prevailed before and it will again if we speak out. But before let us make sure we know the facts. Please, lend your voice to stop Shar’ia.
0 Comments - Share Yours!:
Post a Comment