What Is the Relationship between Jihad and Sharia?

December 28, 2007

It’s simple: Jihad is required by Sharia, and worldwide Sharia is the goal of Jihad. They are joined at the hip. Now I’ll back this up with solid evidence.

Jihad is required by Sharia

There are four major schools of Sunni Sharia law. About 85% of Muslims are Sunni, and it is generally suggested that they pick one of the four major schools to follow. Although it may seem that the fact there are four schools means Islamic law is not a monolith, in reality, they are unanimous on 75% of the issues. When there is disagreement, three of the four schools are often in agreement (according to the introduction to Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, 1994 Revised Edition, certified by the prestigious al-Azhar University of Cairo).

This is important because of the Islamic doctrine of “ijma”, or consensus. According to this doctrine, any time the Muslim world reaches a consensus, it cannot be wrong. You might think that since there are over a billion Muslims worldwide, a consensus would be impossible; however, Muslim authorities have found a way around this in how they define “consensus”. First, only the opinions of the highest religious authorities counts. Second, if at any time there is a consensus among the highest authorities, after that the dissenters can be ruled “heretics” so their opinions don’t count, either. It’s really very clever.

The consequences of this doctrine are far-reaching and tragic. Many centuries ago, there were highly regarded Muslim legal scholars called mujtahedin. These were rare individuals; in order to be considered a mujtahedin, a person would have to fulfill stringent qualifications. Only a mujtahedin of the first class had the authority to write new law based on the Quran and other foundational religious texts, without consulting the work of earlier mujtahedin. The last mujtahedin of the first class was Ahmed ibn Hanbal, who died in 855 A.D. The process of independently creating new law is called ijtihad.

According to Islamic scholar Cyril Glasse, about 900 years ago, it was clear that there was consensus on all the major religious issues. Because of the doctrine of ijma, this consensus meant their decisions were infallible, and therefore it was no longer permissible to write new law. The gates of ijtihad were closed in Sunni Islam. (According to some experts, this occurred at an even earlier date.) Today, Muslim clerics can issue fatwas applying existing law to events, but they are not qualified to disregard the mujtehedin and go straight to the Quran and Sunnah.

So, what does Sharia say about Jihad? Let’s examine the legal writings of each of the four major schools of Sharia. Thanks to Robert Spencer for these quotes:

Maliki School, jurist Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996):

“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”

Hanbali School, jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), popular with modern terrorists:

“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).”

Hanafi School, Hedaya, classic manual of Hanafi laws, 12th century:

“It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”

Shafi’i School, scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058):

“The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…”

Worldwide Sharia is the goal of Jihad

The goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda are clear: restoring the Islamic Calphate and ultimately Islamizing the US, Europe, and the world.

Some Muslim apologists say that Jihad has nothing to do with imposing anything on anyone because it really means “inner spiritual struggle” against evil. However, although it is true that Jihad literally means “struggle”, there is clear evidence that a violent military struggle has always been part of the meaning–in fact, the greater part of the meaning–of Jihad. And the goal of that struggle is subjugating us beneath the full weight of an Islamic State.


Resources for Further Study of Sharia, Islam and Jihad

December 18, 2007

If you want to look further into Sharia, as well as the closely related topics of Islam and Jihad, here are some recommendations.

Ex-Muslim Sites Opposed to Sharia

First, here’s a general comment about ex-Muslim sites. As we’ve discussed, many Muslims believe ex-Muslims should be killed. For this and other reasons, many ex-Muslims are very angry at Islam. They also are among those who understand Islam the best, from the inside. These sites are a tremendous resource, but be prepared for strong language.

Faith Freedom. This is among the best-known of the apostate sites, run by the famous Ali Sina. It includes articles, a lively forum, one-on-one debates, and more.

Islam Watch. This site also includes a great deal of information, including a whole section of online books.

Apostates of Islam. This site comes from a humanist perspective.

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. This is a political activist group with specific human-rights goals, listed on their Manifesto. These types of organizations are springing up all over Europe. We hope they reach their goals, and we also hope the United States prevents some of the issues they are having to address in Europe.

Wafa Sultan famously said on Al Jazeera TV that the world is not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism. She is interviewed here.

Muslim Sites Opposed to Sharia

Irshad Manji. Author of the book, The Problem With Islam Today, Irshad Manji is calling for Muslims to open the gates of ijtihad.

Muslims Against Sharia. This group is truly looking their religion square in the eye and is willing to do whatever it takes to remove the objectionable portions, even if it means removing a few hundred verses of the Quran.

19.org. This site was founded by Edip Yuksel, a former student of Dr. Rashad Khalifa, who founded the Submitters sect and discovered a preponderance of the number 19 in the Quran. Khalifa was assassinated by a Muslim for apostasy and heresy.

American Islamic Forum for Democracy. This is a membership organization that makes a stand against Sharia in the United States. Among their stated goals and beliefs, they recognize no clergy in Islam.

Muslim Canadian Congress. This is a membership organization committed to a secular Canada.

Non-Muslim Sites Opposed to Sharia

Answering Islam. This is a Christian site with a wealth of information, including an A-Z index on Islam.

Jihad Watch. This website is directed by Robert Spencer, expert on Islam and Jihad and author of numerous well-documented books on those subjects. This site will keep you up to date regarding Jihad worldwide.

Dhimmi Watch. Another site directed by Robert Spencer, this one focuses on the creeping condition of “dhimmitude”, in which non-Muslims take on a subservient, second-class role relative to Muslims.

Blogging the Quran. This is Robert Spencer’s ongoing blog which covers the mainstream Muslim commentators and their interpretations of the Quran. If you have any interest in studying the Quran, this is a great tool, because you will find out what authoritative Muslims have said on the subject. Blogging the Quran is hosted by HotAir.com.

Mapping Sharia Project. This is a group who are gathering intelligence about the 4500 Islamic Centers across the United States. They intend to provide information to law enforcement and the public regarding which Islamic centers promote Sharia, and therefore Jihad. Although I put this in the non-Muslim section, their group includes Muslims as well.

Middle East Forum. This site is directed by Daniel Pipes, a Middle East specialist who promotes US interests in the Middle East. The Middle East Forum has a special section called “Islamist Watch”, which focuses on “Lawful Islamism”.

Sons of Apes and Pigs. The name of this site refers to the Quran’s description of Allah transforming a group of Jews into apes and pigs (2:65, 5:60, 7:166). To this day, some Muslims believe that Jews and/or Christians are the sons of apes and pigs. This site was established by Egyptian Coptic Christians, who know about dhimmitude first-hand.

Political Islam is specifically focused on the dangers of Sharia and Jihad. Their unique approach is to study the foundational Islamic texts using a statistical analysis. In addition to a series of articles, they also have published a number of books explaining Islam from their viewpoint.

The Religion of Peace offers news and information, and has a special feature of a running count of deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. Last I checked, it was up over 10,000.

Islamist Watch has a fantastic resource of quotes from Islamists, as well as a nice introduction to what an Islamist is.

Dhimmitude.org offers a great selection of articles on the subject of non-Muslims subjugated under Muslim rule and forced to live as a persecuted underclass. This is what will happen to us all if the Islamists have their way. Site edited by Bat Ye’or, renowned researcher into the subject of dhimmitude.

Dhimmi.com is the site for a civil rights group, the Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights. Members include, primarily, various religious minorities that suffer as dhimmis under Sharia law.

Andrew Bostom has written numerous books and articles about Islam. His blog is very informative, as well.

Deafening Silence is a liberal blog against Islamo-Fascism! I’m thrilled to find one. I have maintained that the threat of Islamo-Fascism is too important to be a wedge issue between liberals and conservatives. I believe that many, if not most, everyday liberals would be appalled to know the extent to which liberal leadership in academia, the media, and politics have already acquiesced to the Islamist agenda.

The Center for Vigilant Freedom is an international citizens’ network with over 1000 members who are working to defeat Jihad and Sharia and defend the West. They are associated with The 910 Group, a group of anti-Islamo-Fascism bloggers including Gates of Vienna.

Sites with No Clear Religious Identity Opposed to Sharia:

Secular Islam. I have been unable to confirm who is running this site, but I believe it’s a group of humanists. They promoted a Secular Islam Summit with a mix of ex-Muslim and Muslim speakers. This Summit met in St. Petersburg in 2007 and produced a manifesto, The St. Petersburg Declaration, which affirms specific secular ideals.

These sites can keep you up late for the foreseeable future, and there are more! [Last updated 02/14/08; I have moved this material to the “Resources” page accessible from the top menu, so I will no longer be updating it here.]


Do we already have Sharia law in the West?

December 17, 2007

The short answer is: Yes, we do.

The US Constitution, as well as Western principles of human rights, guarantees each individual the right to choose her religion and practice it openly. However, there are now people living in the West who are denied this right–not by the official law of the state, but by the Muslim law of the street. Here are some examples:

In England, Sophia Allam lives in hiding after her own father threatened to kill her for converting from Islam to Christianity. Another woman, Hannah, has moved 45 times to escape her imam father and other family members who threatened to kill her. (Hannah and Sophia are using pseudonyms).

According to a survey done by Policy Exchange, 36 per cent of Muslims in Britain between the ages of 16 and 24 believe apostates should be killed. Since most Muslims have numerous young Muslims in their circle of family and friends, it is easy to see how this could have a chilling effect on Muslims who wish to leave Islam. For these Muslims, Sharia law is alive and well in Britain.

Also in the United States, ex-Muslims have to be careful for their lives. In 2004 in Falls Church, Virginia, a group of ex-Muslims met for a conference with registration and entrance under “tight security to protect the participants, many of whom say they face death threats or ostracism from their families for leaving the Islamic faith.” Conference presenters spoke only under false names.

A study of ex-Muslim websites will also show that ex-Muslims in the West do one or more of the following: keep a low profile (many do not even inform their families and friends they have left Islam); write under an assumed name; live in a secure, undisclosed location; hire security guards; and/or live with constant death threats. This is not due to religious persecution from the laws of the country in which they live. It’s due to the law of the Muslim street: Sharia.

The problem with Sharia in the West is not limited to punishing apostasy, but also includes punishing behaviors such as criticizing Islam, promoting “heresy” (also known as “reform” of Islam), and, for women in some parts of Europe, going out without a headscarf.

Some may say, “This is not a problem for me, because I’m not an ex-Muslim, I don’t know enough to criticize Islam, and I like headscarves, so who cares?” Indeed, who cares? Who cares if ex-Muslims and critics fear for their lives, and some women are bullied into adopting headgear? Who cares if we lose the rule of law, and instead have Islamic vigilantes in control? Well, here’s why everyone in the West should care: The Islamo-Fascists who want to impose Sharia on the world will never voluntarily stop. They see themselves as part of an ongoing 1400 year old struggle that will only end when Islam rules the world. Islamization is just getting started in the United States. We can look at Europe to see our future. Europeans can look to India to see what’s ahead for them. Indians can take a peek at Indonesia, Indonesians can have a glance at Egypt, and Egyptians can peer at Saudi Arabia. It isn’t pretty. It could take generations, but who would wish this on their grandchildren?

For all those who value the individual rights and freedoms we have had in the West, they are already slipping through our fingers. The question now is: How do we get them back? How do we enlist the help of Muslims, ex-Muslims and non-Muslims in the West who are personally opposed to Sharia to ban it both in theory and in practice? At least we know one thing that doesn’t work: ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away.


Islamic Law and the Constitution: Are They Compatible?

December 10, 2007

Congressman Mel Watt (D-NC) has made the statement that he would not rule out Sharia (Islamic Law) in this country. However, he has also taken an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States. Keith Ellison (D-MN), our first Muslim Congressman, has ties to individuals and groups that want to replace the Constitution with Sharia, and he himself has never denounced Sharia, yet he has also taken an oath to defend the US Constitution. Is it possible for a person to support Sharia law and the US Constitution at the same time? The short answer is: No, it is not possible.

The first amendment of the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

To “establish a religion” would mean the government would promote one religion over the others. Sharia clearly does this, by discriminating against non-Muslims. Sharia also forbids the free exercise of non-Muslim faiths. It abridges the freedom of speech and of the press by making criticisms of Islam, Mohammed, and Sharia illegal. All these are unquestionably unconstitutional.

The fourteenth amendment states: “…No State shall….deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws….” Sharia, however, does not offer equal protection to all citizens. For example, a non-Muslim’s testimony is worth less than a Muslim’s, and a woman’s is worth less than a man’s. Again, clearly unconstitutional.

Since it’s obvious that Sharia law and the Constitution are incompatible, why would any Congressperson hesitate to say so? For Congressmen Mel Watt and Keith Ellison, we don’t know why. But here are some possibilities:

They could be ignorant of the Constitution, or ignorant of Sharia.

They could be pandering for the Islamist vote.

They could be pandering for Islamist contributions.

None of these possibilities are really very comforting. Moreover, it begs the question: How many other Congresspeople, Senators, and presidential candidates are equally unwilling to rule out Sharia, and for what reasons?


What About A Peaceful Jihad?

December 9, 2007

There are Muslims who wish to accomplish the goals of Islamic Jihad peacefully. Would this be an acceptable alternative to violent Jihad? We cannot answer this without a thorough understanding of the goals of Jihad.

What Are The Goals of Jihad?

The global Jihad movement takes on a number of different forms in different local environments, but there is one overriding goal of Jihad: to remove all un-Islamic regimes from power and install Islamic government, ultimately to be united under a global Islamic Caliphate. Technically, it is against Islamic law for offensive war to occur against non-Muslims without the authority of the Caliphate; however, the Jihadists define “defensive war” loosely enough that it’s kind of a moot point. Any grievance can justify defense, and who doesn’t have a grievance? The Jihad movement takes advantage of local grievances; they “think globally and act locally”. There is a great deal of evidence that this is true. [1]

What is an Islamic Caliphate?

The Caliphate would be the Islamic world if ruled by a Caliph. There was an Islamic Caliphate from the early days of Islam until early 20th Century, although from time to time there were some areas of the Islamic world that were ruled independently of the Caliphate. For example, in recent times, parts of Asia were on their own. The Caliphate was abolished in 1924 by Ataturk, a democratically-minded ruler of Turkey. In 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt, with the goal of re-establishing the Caliphate. Once the Caliphate is established, the goal would be to subjugate the rest of the world under Islamic Law. [2]

What is Islamic Law?

The implementation of Islamic Law (Sharia) has varied from time to time and place to place. However, even when the implementation was weaker, the more severe versions of Islamic Law were never removed from the books, and haven’t been to this day. There are four major schools of Sunni Islam, which encompasses the majority of Muslims. There is a consensus of the four schools on 75% of their legal conclusions. These schools were founded about 1000 years ago, and have remained basically unchanged to this day. The reason for this is that about 900 years ago, “ijtihad”, which means “free thought on religious matters”, was closed down. It was then declared that everything of importance had already been decided, so any further innovation would be heretical. This decision also marked the beginning of the end of the Islamic Golden Age, and since that time there has been very little development in the Islamic world in areas of philosophy, mathematics, medicine, science, or literature. [3] Today there are brave reformers, such as Irshad Manji, who are trying to open the gates of ijtihad, but their influence would be difficult to discern at present.

Here are some common elements of Islamic Law:

Apostasy: Anyone born to one or both Muslim parents is required to be Muslim. Any Muslim, whether by birth or conversion, is required to remain a Muslim. For a Muslim to leave Islam is punishable by death, if it’s a man. This is agreed by all four schools of Islamic Law. One of the four schools would give the same penalty to a woman; the other three would give her life in prison. [4]

Freedom of expression: It is illegal to criticize Islam, Mohammed, or Sharia. Attempts at reforming Islam or Sharia can be called “heresy”, which is illegal. Attempts at converting Muslims to other religions is illegal (but Muslims are free to proselytize). [5]

Women: Women are treated as minors their whole lives. They are always under the protection of their fathers, brothers, husbands and/or sons. They may be married off at a very young age, even before puberty, with no say. Their testimony counts as half that of a man’s in court. Their inheritance is half that of a man’s. They can only prove rape with four pious male witnesses; otherwise, to allege rape could get them punished for illicit sex, which is the woman’s fault. There’s no such thing as rape in the context of marriage. Wife-beating is clearly sanctioned in the Koran. A man can divorce his wife by saying “I divorce you”, in which case he has custody rights; a woman cannot divorce her husband. Although it is legal, at least in some circumstances, for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman, the reverse is not legal. Because Muslim men are allowed to have up to four wives, this potentially puts more of the child-bearing capacity under Muslim control. It is also legal for a Muslim man to have sex with his female slaves, whose marriage (if any) is instantly dissolved upon capture. (Slavery has been abolished throughout much of the Muslim world, but continues to be practiced in some countries.) Abortion is most likely illegal. Then there’s the headscarf, or other means of coverage for women. [6]

Non-Muslims: A non-Muslim’s testimony in court is inferior to that of a Muslim. Non-Muslims cannot practice their faith openly, or display religious symbols. Non-Muslims cannot hold a position of power over Muslims, as in government. Non-Muslims have to pay extra taxes (this one is required by mainstream interpretations of the Koran, see 9:29). There have been poll taxes, property taxes (since they’re really just renting the land from the Muslims, rather than owning it), and sometimes double the regular taxes that Muslims pay. Treatment of non-Muslims has varied from time to time and place to place, but Islamic Law is very clear on the principle that they are second class citizens. Their payment of extra taxes is in exchange for their lives being tolerated (protection money). At times, a group of non-Muslims has been singled out for especially harsh treatment. Here are a few extreme examples: As recently as the 20th Century, Yemen has had a law that Jewish orphans must be forcibly converted to Islam. Iran once had a law that Jews could not go outside in the rain, since rainwater could splash from the Jew onto the Muslim, thus defiling the Muslim. There are many, many other examples of discriminatory laws toward non-Muslims that I am not listing here. [7]

Gays: Under Sharia, homosexuals would be killed.

Note that currently, very few countries live under the full Sharia; some experts say just Saudi Arabia and some also include Iran. This is one reason that Jihadists target Muslim countries: they are trying to make Muslim countries more Islamic. Worldwide, more Muslims than non-Muslims are victims of Jihad. Strategically, it makes sense for Jihadists to go after Muslims first, because after reaching their goals in Muslim countries, they would then have more potential recruits with which to go after non-Muslims.

It would also be useful here to mention that there are many examples throughout history of other religions persecuting their religious minorities and mistreating women. However, so far as I know, there is no other religion at present which has a global movement for implementing a legal system like Sharia, so fundamentalist Islam is really the only one which poses a current threat.

However, when I say “fundamentalist Islam”, don’t make the mistake of thinking this means a small fringe group. There is reason to believe that fundamentalism is really the mainstream of Islam; in any case, it’s not a tiny band of extremists, and many observers say it’s growing.

To What Degree Do Muslims Support Sharia?

This is a big unknown. This is partly because in the West, due to the impoliteness of saying anything critical of non-Christian religions, few people are even fully aware of what Sharia is. I think most Westerners think that it would be a good thing for Muslims to pursue Islamist goals non-violently, because they don’t really understand what Islamist goals are. This is one reason more education about Jihad ideology is needed: we need to nip the whole Sharia movement in the bud.

It is clear that not all Muslims support Sharia; perhaps even a majority in the US do not. In Canada, there was a referendum to impose Sharia family law on only the Muslim citizens, which failed. If this had succeeded, a baby born in one house would have had a different set of rights than a baby born next door. This referendum was defeated mainly by women. However, keep in mind the Islamists see themselves as part of a 1400 year old ongoing struggle that will only end when their goals are met. They do not see a tactical defeat as an end, merely a temporary setback.

There are some disturbing indicators of fairly widespread support of Sharia in the US. First, to my knowledge, no mainstream Muslim association or organization in this country has denounced Sharia. It is the small reform groups who have denounced Sharia.

Second, a fair number of Muslim spokespeople have said openly they do want to have Sharia replace the Constitution in this country one day.

Third, the first Muslim congressman in the US, Keith Ellison, who took his oaths of office on the Koran rather than the Bible, has refused to denounce Sharia.

Fourth, according to polls, a very significant number of Muslims have sympathy for the goals of Jihad. [8] So, even if it’s true that Islamic Jihad itself consists of a tiny fringe group, the same cannot be said for those who support the Jihad’s goals. If anything, I would expect the numbers indicated by polls to be understated, because it’s known that some people tell pollsters what they think the pollsters want to hear.

What to do about it?

This is a problem that cries out for more public discussion. I think it’s quite possible that some Muslims support the idea of Sharia because they feel it’s their duty to support it, perhaps without even fully knowing what’s involved. If so, then this, too, needs to be discussed.

In addition, the stigma needs to be removed from those who oppose Sharia, who are currently often branded “racist bigot hate-mongers”. Opposing Sharia is no different than opposing a Christian theocracy, for which there is currently zero threat, but lots of people opposing it. It is no different than opposing Communism, Fascism, or any other political system. Quite a few Muslim reformers want more non-Muslims to speak out against Sharia. It makes no sense to associate opposition to Sharia with hatred towards Muslims; on the contrary, Muslims would be among the biggest beneficiaries of the demise of Sharia, and many Muslims are already aware of this.

Some mainstream Muslim spokespeople will accuse those who oppose Sharia of being on a Crusade against Islam, but Westerners have no excuse for going along with such accusations. What it really boils down to is this: If Islam is just a personal religion and Sharia is not integral to Islam, then going against Sharia is not going against Islam. If Sharia is integral to Islam, then everyone who cares about individual rights should oppose it, and support those wanting to leave it or reform it.

On the other extreme, some Muslims insist, incredibly, that Sharia is not a system of law at all. These Muslims have a lot of explaining to do. If they are right, it should be no problem for them to convince all mainstream Muslim groups to denounce the implementation of the Sharia as a system of law.

References

[1] Front Page Mag: The Muslim Brotherhood “Project”, Patrick Poole

Daniel Pipes: What Do the Terrorists Want? [A Caliphate]

Front Page Mag: The Caliphate is Coming, Rachel Ehrenfeld

[2] Wikipedia: Caliphate

[3] Islam Watch: The Nostalgia of Islamic Golden Age vs. the History of Science, Syed Kamran Mirza

[4] Light of Life: The Penalties for Apostasy in Islam

Challenging Islam: What is the Shariah?, Mentat

[5] Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, Rev. ed. (Beltsville, Maryland: Amana Publications, 1994), 595-598, 609.

[6] Opinion Journal: Unfree Under Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Challenging Islam: What is the Shariah?, Mentat

[7] The Jizyah Tax:
Equality And Dignity Under Islamic Law?, Walter Short

Dhimmitude: History: Dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or

Challenging Islam: What is the Shariah?, Mentat

[8] Telegraph: Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK, Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite


Why blog against Sharia?

December 8, 2007

Sharia, or Islamic Law, is a fascist system of government that conflicts with the Constitution of the United States, and with basic principles of freedom and individual rights that are commonly held in the West. Although Islamic Law comes from Islam, there are millions of Muslims in the world who are opposed to it. However, that is not universally the case; there are also millions of Muslims in the world who believe Sharia is a requirement of their religion, and seek to ultimately impose it world-wide.

Although Westerners are (slowly) beginning to become more savvy about Jihad ideology, very few non-Muslims at present really understand Sharia, or its relationship to Jihad. This is unfortunate, as Sharia poses as much of a threat to our way of life as Jihad, if not more. In addition, Sharia gives us an opportunity: Because Sharia and Jihad are tightly interconnected, if support for Sharia declines in the Muslim world, support for Jihad will decline as well.

The goal of this blog is to educate both non-Muslims and Muslims about the dangers of Sharia, and to advocate for policies that protect the freedoms and individual rights that Western Civilization has struggled so long and hard to gain.