Muslim spokespeople sometimes pooh-pooh the association of draconian punishments with Sharia, as though such an association could only come from ignorance. Here’s a recent example from The Sydney Morning Herald:
“The use of the term sharia conjures up images of a brutal, harsh and inhumane legal system, characterized by amputations, beheadings, and stoning to death. In fact these were the very images used as the background to a news report about the lecture [stating Sharia would inevitably be incorporated into the British legal system] delivered by the archbishop.
”With such a grim picture of sharia in our minds, it is little wonder that the call made by the archbishop to consider ways of accommodating sharia law in certain areas of dispute resolution, in particular family law, was received with such animosity.”
The authors could have acknowledged that those “brutal, harsh and inhumane” punishments are written into actual Sharia criminal law, but they did not, choosing instead to call them “[conjured] images”, “a grim picture”. The implication is that they have no relevance to a discussion of Sharia.
So, let’s settle the matter of whether Sharia calls for these “brutal, harsh, and inhumane” punishments. There are four major schools of Sunni Sharia law. They agree about 75% of the time. Sharia has been basically unchanged for about the past 1000 years. There is a difference between Sharia and the laws of various Muslim states. Muslim states can vary in their implementation of Sharia, but this implementation does not change the basic nature of Sharia. There are authoritative legal texts of Islamic law which spell out what Sharia law entails. Here are some quotes from Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Shafi’i School):
pg. 613 “THE PENALTY FOR THEFT…. A person’s right hand is amputated, whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam….”
pg. 616 “THE PENALTY FOR HIGHWAY ROBBERY…. If he steals the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold…, both his right hand and left foot are amputated…. If the highwayman robs and kills, he is killed and then left crucified for three days.”
pg. 610 “THE PENALTY FOR FORNICATION OR SODOMY…. If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death….”
pg. 595 “APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)…. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”
pg. 617 “THE PENALTY FOR DRINKING…. The penalty for drinking is to be scourged forty stripes, with hands, sandals, and ends of clothes. It may be administered with a whip, but if the offender dies, an indemnity… is due… for his death.” [This penalty applies only to Muslims.]
In each case, there is also a list of qualifiers for who should be punished. Of course, these punishments are not carried out much of the time today, but they certainly are a part of Sharia. They have never been removed from the books, and they can be enforced at any time and place that Sharia is considered to be a valid source of law.
In addition, there is evidence these barbaric practices are still very much alive. Aid organizations, such as the Red Cross, have found it necessary to have a policy for whether to assist with amputations meted out as punishment in Muslim countries. Stonings are being carried out by the legal system in Nigeria, Iran, and elsewhere.
So tell me, why exactly would we believe those who say they could implement Sharia family law only, without opening the door to the criminal law with its cruel medieval punishments? If we legitimize Sharia as a source of law, what exactly would stop orthodox Muslims from wanting–and indeed, expecting–the whole thing?
Citizens Against Sharia 
To insist that these practices be removed from the books is ridiculous. What is with the West’s incessant ideal to “modernize and moderate” Muslims? Removing these things would be akin to shaping the religion to suit your own needs. This is hypocrisy.
Better yet, let us look at this with a more open sense. Let us try to understand it first. And let us keep in mind that no one country society is perfect. A society existing under judiciously applied Shariah law would have little to no cime, no homeless people, no unwanted abandoned illegitimate children, no rape… And allow us also to keep inmind that her ein the United Staes, we carry the death penalty. I suppose we think it a more sophisticated means to and end, but this after years of housing, feeding, and assistin gint he continued miseducation of the criminal. Women are raped and children molested whole sale inthis country. Men and women openly brag about their open drunkeness and who suffers? The children, you and I as we drive down the road and get slammed by someone having a good time.
Personally, I can think of no one that I hate worse than a thief. They take from the people who need it most, who really can’t do without, who sweated blood and tears to make a life for themselves. In an ideal Islamic system, no one for fear of poverty will have to steal, becasue the needs of thepoor will be taken care of. And those who do for reasons unacceptable will have thier hands amputated.
My largest point here is that I am disheartened to see people, usually non-Muslims, spending so much time worrying about how another faiths practice their way of life. It is arrogant. If We could all get it right we would be better people, but I believe that this must all start within. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
http://theveiledtsunami.wordpress.com
tsunami,
It’s always interesting to find someone willing to defend chopping off hands and feet of thieves, killing those whose only crime is choosing to leave Islam, and stoning gays.
Much of Islam concerns their treatment of unbelievers. Therefore, unbelievers such as myself have a legitimate interest in just what Islam says about us. In addition, since Islamists wish to ultimately impose their view of justice on the entire world, it’s our business to see where this would lead us, so we can head it off at the pass. There is no hypocrisy in this. What is hypocritical is to say that only we in the West have no right to stand up for our culture.
In addition, why should we not wish to see Islam modernized and moderated, when there are Muslims who wish to modernize and moderate Islam? Why should we take the side of the barbarians over the Muslim reformers?
A society under Sharia would have no rape?? Under Sharia, rape can only be proven if the victim produces four male Muslim witnesses. If she fails to produce these witnesses, which is usually impossible, she can be prosecuted for illicit sex. A large portion of the women in prison in Pakistan are rape victims who are being punished for illicit sex. Both rape and domestic violence are rampant in Muslim countries, and grossly underreported. What exactly would be the benefit of looking at this with a “more open sense”, to “understand it first”? Would we do Muslim rape victims any favors by accepting their plight?
Yes, the punishment of amputations in Muslims countries may result in less petty theft. Does that justify it? If we beheaded people who spit on the sidewalk, we’d probably have less sidewalk spitting, too.
You say, “My largest point here is that I am disheartened to see people, usually non-Muslims, spending so much time worrying about how another faiths practice their way of life. It is arrogant.” If “practicing their way of life” has victims, then it would be irresponsible for us to ignore it, especially since Islamists would like to impose their way of life on us all. What is arrogant is to take the position that it’s fine for Islamists to have an agenda, but it’s not fine for non-Muslims to object.
tsunami,
Two more points: You give your vision of a country with Sharia utopia. Please give us an example of one Muslim country, out of the 50, which implements the full Sharia and exemplifies this utopia today. Saudi Arabia? Iran? Please give us a specific example so the rest of the world can decide if this kind of utopia is for us. If there is no example of it in existence, then you are presenting a fantasy-based view of a Sharia country.
You also say I should be criticizing the flaws in my own country rather than those of Muslim countries. At first glance, this seems to be a moral argument, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. My country allows criticism of itself, and there is a great deal of it. I engage in it myself on a regular basis. I agree that self-criticism is good for a country. However, in Muslim countries people cannot criticize their religion without fear of punishment. People have been punished in Muslim countries for criticizing Sharia. So to discourage criticism of Sharia from the West would mean that no one at all could criticize it, either from within or from without Muslim countries. If you really believe in the value of a society having introspection and self-criticism, you should focus your ire on the Muslims that shut it down in their countries, not the non-Muslims in the West who take up the slack.
In addition, you evidently feel that you are morally justified in criticizing those with whom you disagree. Are you the only one who is?
[This comment is long and my responses are even longer, so I have edited to include my responses in brackets, so the reader does not have to read it twice.–CAS]
This is what I said:
A society existing under judiciously applied Shariah law would have little to no cime, no homeless people, no unwanted abandoned illegitimate children, no rape…
Unfortuantely, I know of no country that does, to the absolute letter of the Islamic law.
[If you cannot hold up a single Muslim country as a good example of Sharia in action, your claims for a Sharia utopia are fantasy-based. This is good for non-Muslims, as well as interested Muslims, to know.–CAS]
That said, what you might want to look into, while you’re in the mood for moderating and modernizing someone elses faith is actually measure real Islam to the practices of specific countries. My point being, Islam is a religion of freedom and peace within and without. What you are concentrating on and misnaming is the practices of a governmental entity, not a faith.
[Unless you have a funny definition of “peace”, your concept of the “real Islam” differs from that of many Muslims. The majority of Muslims accept the Quran, Sira, and Sunnah, and probably most also accept that Sharia is part of Islam. All of these have massive support for the concept of Jihad as holy war to force the world to submit to Islam. Of course, there are also many Muslims who, like you, believe Islam is a “religion of freedom and peace”. After you have convinced your fellow Muslims that your view of Islam is the “real Islam”, you can come back and convince me of it, too. Most of the sources for my information are either Muslim sources or non-Muslim sources which cite Muslim sources.
In addition, who said I’m moderating and modernizing Islam? I’m very much in favor of Islam being reformed (if that’s possible), but that can only be accomplished, or not, by Muslims. Since Islam includes doctrines that effect non-Muslims, it is wise for us to learn about those doctrines and understand what kind of reform it would take to render them harmless. If non-Muslims have no understanding of the fascist doctrines of Islam, we have no means to protect ourselves from them.–CAS]
As a Muslim woman, who chose Islam of my own accord, I have never ever in my life known such peach, joy, or contentment.
[You had the freedom to choose your religion because you live in the West, where this freedom is guaranteed to you. Since you have defended the list of barbaric punishments in this article, you have implied that you support killing apostates. If so, then you would deny Muslims this same freedom of conscience that you have enjoyed. In addition, if you one day move to a country that has the Sharia you seem to admire, your own children will not have the same freedom to choose that you have had.
I have never stated that Islam does not help some people experience peace. I don’t really care how people achieve a state of peace, so long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. I’m primarily interested in the way Islam treats non-Muslims, and am also interested in ways in which Islamic doctrines potentially victimize some Muslims, as those Muslims are my potential allies.–CAS]
I don’t need anyone to liberate me from a faith that I love and Allah who is my protector and guidance. Perhaps, if I lived in a country who’s cultural practice and beliefs tainted the true spirit of my Islam, I might want to be liberated – from that country – but never from my faith.
[If you are practicing Islam as a personal religion only, and have no potential of ever supporting Jihad or supporting the imposition of Sharia on others who are not so enamored with it as you are, then there is no pressing need to “liberate you from your faith”. However, if you are spreading the message that there is nothing about Islam that could be a threat to the rest of the world, then you are helping the Jihadists and the Islamic Supremacists, whether intentionally or not. The historical record shows that traditional understandings of certain Islamic doctrines are indeed a threat to the world.–CAS]
As for criticising the laws in your own country, let me remind you, if you were not aware, that this is MY country as well. I am willing to criticize it and any other country/person that I feel justifiably deserves/earns it. This is my right. And you have that right as well, obviously.
[You may be a citizen of this country, but if you support Sharia as a source of law, then you do not support the US Constitution, neither the letter nor the spirit of it. This would make you a poor citizen of the country in which you live. I do not say this because you are Muslim. There are Muslims who denounce Sharia and embrace the Constitution; these are good citizens. There are also non-Muslims who do not support the Constitution, and they are also poor citizens.–CAS]
I do not discourage anyone from criticising these countries that call themselves Islamic and then enact laws that are not in the spirit of Islam. What I criticise in this case is your/or anyone’s criticism of a faith that they obviously do not KNOW or understand. I say, know Islam, before criticising it and know the difference between Islam and a country/culture. The countries you mentioned are grossly patriarchal and stunningly unjust, but yet again I add, not following Islam to the letter of the REAL law.
[You are assuming that your understanding of Islam is correct, and other Muslims’ understanding is incorrect. Since you like to throw around the word “arrogant”, this fits it. In addition, I give sources for my views so any reader can look into it further and reach his or her own conclusion. What sources have you given? If you’re going to dispute something, please cite a specific statement I’ve made, explain why you believe it to be incorrect, and give evidence to support your views. Name-calling does not prove your point. “I am a Muslim and you’re not, therefore I’m right” is not a logical argument.–CAS]
There is nothing about the practice of my faith that leaves victims. Is capital punishment less wrong when enacted by a governement (say the United States) that has a seperate church and state? Where often times many witness come forward and yet the wrong men (usually black) are prosecuted for crimes they did not commit?
[Reasonable people can disagree about whether capital punishment is appropriate for serious violent crimes, such as murder or rape. However, killing people because they leave a religion is barbaric. Apostates who are killed are some of the victims of Muslims “practicing their way of life” (which were your original words on this topic; now you’re morphing them to “practicing my faith”).–CAS]
You don’t have to think that Islam or its laws are right, but it is absolutely arrogant presumption to actually tout yourself as enlightened and try to save them form their faith. I personally believe that Christianity is frought with impossible contradictions. I am not making it my personal mission to save them from their ignorance.
[Please give me a link to the specific post where I said I was enlightened and that I was trying to save Muslims from their faith. I must have missed it.
Christianity has no worldwide Jihad network, and there is no Christian Sharia. That’s the difference. There are many people besides Muslims with whom I disagree on principles of faith; this is immaterial to me because their faiths do not include doctrines which could infringe upon my rights.–CAS]
As for Muslims who want to modernize and moderate their faith – let them. That is thier personal business. There are plenty of Muslims who do not want to do this. Plenty of them cling to the depth of their faith despite the attempt of people who think that they know what is best for them.
[I’m glad you are willing to allow Muslims to modernize and moderate their faith. That’s generous of you. Many of these Muslims consider themselves allies with non-Muslims and ex-Muslims who share an aversion to Sharia. Is this where you draw the line? Should non-Muslims and ex-Muslims not be allowed to oppose Sharia, in your view?
As I’ve said, only Muslims can reform their religion. However, since Islam as it is understood by many if not most Muslims effects non-Muslims as well, we are stakeholders in Islamic reform.–CAS]
As for Islam imposing its view of justice over the entire world, you must be Muslim, because isn’t that what you are attempting to do? Do you not have a view that you believe to be more suitable, isn’t that why you are a Citizen Against the Sharia? Isn’t that what the Jehovah’s witness is doing, when she comes to my door on Saturday morning to preach the word?
[What an impressive example of moral relativity this is! Would it be the same to impose slavery as to “impose” freedom? In the case of Sharia, is it the same to impose barbarity as it is to “impose” civilization (to borrow descriptive terms from Wafa Sultan, who undoubtedly “understands” Islam)? Of course, most people would like to make the world more the way they think it should be. But the similarity ends there.
In addition, my goal is not to impose, but to persuade.–CAS]
And yes, reshaping the faith to suit the cause and needs of certain people would be hypocrisy. Let me remind you that in Christianity homosexuality was once an abomination. Now your priests have sex with children and each other and are allowed to lead a congregation. That is hypocrisy.
[Of course it is. I’ve never known any Christian or non-Christian to defend priests who have sex with kids, have you? I do not see your point.–CAS]
People can commit any crime and then say “I am born again” and have no fear of retribution.
[No, being born again does not prevent a person from being punished for a crime. I’m unfamiliar with any evidence that would indicate an especially high crime rate among born-again Christians.–CAS]
Use the Bible to justify the enslavement of Africans, but it is all in Jesus’ name.
[Every culture has, at one time or another, sanctioned slavery. However, if you’re comparing slavery in Christianity to slavery in Islam, you might want to know that the Muslim world has, historically, enslaved more people than Christianity (including Africans), and in some places Islamic slavery continues to this day. Mohammed himself enslaved people, according to the Hadith. Christianity has the distinction of ending slavery, and pretty much every Christian in the world today is opposed to the practice.
–CAS]
Encourage your women to date and go about nearly nude, but this is culture, and of course it is alright, in Jesus name.
[There is no law forcing women to date. I’m not sure where you get the idea that near-nudity is done in Jesus’ name, but if you mean that women can let their ears show, I doubt Jesus (if he exists) would have a problem with it.–CAS]
Eat pork, which your Bibles tells you not to, and throw those baby back ribs on the grill. Everything is alright in Jesus’ name. Yes? Is it your wish to make Islam a free for all like the enlightened Christian?
[Since you say “your Bibles”, you seem to be assuming I’m a Christian. I’m not offended by this, since I respect Christianity as a religion that has brought much good to the world. Yes, most Christians believe it’s fine to eat pork, but they do not force others to eat pork. I really don’t care whether Muslims eat pork or not, as there are no victims from abstaining from pork.–CAS]
No thank you.
[None of the Christian practices you’ve mentioned are imposed on you now, so you can say “no thank you”. However, in a Sharia country, we would not be able to say “no thank you” to Sharia.–CAS]
[To simplify, I will give my responses in brackets below.–Citizens Against Sharia]
To be very clear, I absolutely believe in and uphold every single iota of what my faith is, expects of me, and commands me to do. I would never uphold the part of Islam that I feel suits me (or people like you) and leave the rest. That is what a hypocrit would do. Which I am not.
[I believe it is better, spiritually speaking, to be a hypocrite than to support fascist, blood-thirsty doctrines. Hypocrisy can only be a sin if the doctrines in question are completely positive, or at least harmless.–CAS]
And in this, I suppose you find a reason to fear. Because there is no way for you to quantify the faith. As for trying to convince you that it is a faith of peace. I was attempting to do no such thing. I could care less if you are convinced or not.
[“…a reason to fear.” This appears to be a “veiled” threat. How typical.–CAS]
I take issue with your arrogant eltist stance that because I believe in the letter of my faith, or to put it plainly, because I am a practicing Muslim, that I am not a good citizen of this country. You are no one and not qualified to make that judgement of me.
[To use your terminology: If you say you are a good citizen of this country, but you only uphold the parts of the Constitution that suit you and leave the rest, then you are a hypocrite. It makes no difference who I am and whether I am qualified to make this judgement; you have made the judgement yourself, with your words.–CAS]
If there are Muslims who support your warped cause, to make Islam a religion of hypocrits and conformists, then they are in fact hypocrits and deserve whatever ill you might heap upon them in the result of judgement by Allah himself.
[If Islam includes doctrines that violate the rights of others, then the “hypocrites” are better people than the true believers. It’s true, we all will reap the spiritual consequences of our actions; I’d rather bet my soul on a god who is truly compassionate and merciful. A god who claimed to be compassionate would obviously not require holy wars and fascism from his followers, or he would be a hypocrite.–CAS]
Might I reiterate, that a country and a culture are not Islam. You don’t know the faith. This is apparent. And therefore not qualified to lead people into reformation. How grand of you to condescend on the behalf of Muslims.
[Again, you can feel free to challenge any specific statement I’ve made with evidence. Lead people into reformation? I do not consider myself a leader of reformation, but I certainly recommend Muslims find their own leaders of reformation. Every Muslim who makes a serious effort at reformation is a Muslim I admire, not condescend to.–CAS]
As for the imposition of faith/law, if you are a Muslim or a Christian then you should be willing to follow that law, as opposed to gleaning what you think suits you. Uh, can I say it again, hypocrisy.
[And again I say, following a religious law is fine unless that law violate the rights of others. If so, it is better to be a hypocrite than a true believer.–CAS]
And again, I say no thank you.
[And I say, thank you, for giving us some insights into the thinking of a Muslim who rejects any type of reform of Islam.–CAS]
To whom do you believe that I was making a veiled threat? You can’t really be that “ridiculous”? Ridiculous, for lack of a better word. Typical of what? A Muslim? Please do not take the “holier than thou” stance.
CAS, I am simply offering my opinions on the topic that you have written about, and contrary to what you may (or may not) believe, this is nothing more than a discussion between two people with differing opinions (as far as i am concerned).
Certainly you have the right to your opinions, just as I have the right to disagree. I am assuming that you posted this blog so that you could “speak out loud” about the things that concern you, and since you have a reply area, I assume you wished for dialogue about this.
As for my citizenship in my country, whether I am a good or bad, that is honestly a very subjective concept. I love my country for its greatness and potential, but certainly not for everything it does, good or bad. As for my faith, in the long run, and to be honest, as with everyone, it is between me and Allah. I am ever conscious, on personal jihad to do what I believe is right before my Lord while existing in a world and a society that might discriminate against me becasue of Him. As a Muslim, I am bound by my faith to be tolerant of people of other religions, even if I can not agree with their doctrines. And I suppose, I expect the same.
As a Western born Muslim (who was once not Muslim), I am in a unique position, I believe. I have been able to learn about my faith without the introduction of certain cultural norms that exist in other parts of the “Muslim World”. While I do not claim to know everything (even about my own faith) I do claim to love it, as I have never known such peace or simplicity of life before it. I say this as it is my truth, but not as a way of convincing you.
My Allah, does not require holy wars from me, nor fascism. In fact, in Islam it is illegal to fight unless you are being persecuted, and mostly being persecuted for your faith, because oppression is worse than death.
As for taking parts of the constitution and leaving the rest… I am not sure what you mean. Firstly, I would never equate allegiance to my God with allegiance to my country. God will always come first, so of course, if it is a matter of taking parts of the constitution and leavng other parts, then well…what can I say? Or anyone for that matter? How many people disagree with parts of that document? Why not? It was created by man and not by God and therefore not equal, and therefore not deserving of the same undivided allegiance. Despite that, I believe myself to be a model American, if there can be a such thing. I am employed, and a tax payer. As an oncology nurse, I care for people each day, Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish or otherwise, and I form real bonds of affection with them. I am a registered voter. I follow the law and I harm no one. I give in charity, not just to Muslims but to anyone in need. I am raising three very intellegent productive human beings that will enter society as adults one of these days, Insha Allah. My son, may one day be your doctor, my daughter your pharmacist or nurse or teacher. Will they veer away from the very spirit if their faith? I hope not, and for this they will be even better people.
But this is neither here nor there.
Reformation of a faith? What does that mean? In this day and age, it means Westernization. This isn’t always a good thing. In fact, it almost never is. I would rally instead for the kind of reformation that encourages Muslims to be more… well.. Muslim.
tsunami,
First, I appreciate the tone that you’ve used in your most recent comment, and the reduction in name-calling.
Yes, in the context of a discussion of Islam, mentioning “a reason to fear” does come off as a veiled threat. And, yes, this is typical of Muslims who are defending their religion. I wish it were not, but I cannot help noticing a trend that way. You have made many unflattering characterizations of typical Christians, so I think you could accept a few made about typical Muslims also. However, if you did not mean it as a threat, I accept that.
Actually, you are living in a society that might discriminate against you because of the actions of your fellow Muslims, primarily on 9/11. Prior to that, very few Americans knew or cared a whole lot about Islam. If you are as good a citizen as you say you are, then this discrimination is unfortunate. However, some of your co-Muslims have, in fact, declared war on our country and the West in general. And, as it turns out, some others of your co-Muslims would like to replace our Constitution with Sharia. It is inevitable that this creates awkwardness in the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. During WWII, many patriotic Japanese, German, and Italian Americans faced discrimination. This happens during any war, without fail. However, if you want to place the blame for this where it belongs, it is with those who have declared war on us.
You come back to a theme that you know the difference between Islam and culture. Again, if you believe I have made an error in this matter, please give a specific quote that you think is inaccurate, and present evidence to support your views.
“My Allah, does not require holy wars from me, nor fascism. In fact, in Islam it is illegal to fight unless you are being persecuted, and mostly being persecuted for your faith, because oppression is worse than death.” This is one interpretation. However, many of your co-Muslims disagree with you. In addition, their definition of “oppression” and “persecution” can get kind of interesting at times. Also, your defense of the barbaric punishments of Sharia, I believe, contradicts your claim that your Allah does not require fascism.
“As for taking parts of the constitution and leaving the rest… I am not sure what you mean.” If you support Sharia as a source of law, Sharia is simply incompatible with the Constitution. I explain here.
Best wishes!–CAS
That is preposterous. Sharia does not create a utopia. If anything it creates crime. Crimes against humanity. It is harsh & barbaric and should of faded out of existence long long ago. Sure there is capital punishment in the US but there is no comparison. We do not murder and yes it is murder or torture women for adultery. Or young girls when they have been raped. I will never will understand why an American female would ever condone or praise sharia.
Women are raped and children are molested in islamic muslim countries too. If you do not believe that you are quite naive.
O/T lol The snapshot preview of my site is stuck in the far distant past. I’ve no idea why. I post daily, with a few exceptions.
I just came across your post and the comments. I have posted your article at my blog, with a link here, and hope you have no objections:
I have found your site very interesting and helpful. I too have deep concerns over the west’s attitude to creeping Islamisation. Especially so here in Britain, where since Tony Blair left, the (failing) government and its opposition parties are refusing to take seriously any threat from this quarter.
Your debate with theveiledtsunami (interesting alias!) only adds to the strength of your case as laid out above.
S/he is just SO, SO wrong about SO, SO much. For instance:
“My Allah, does not require holy wars from me, nor fascism. In fact, in Islam it is illegal to fight unless you are being persecuted, and mostly being persecuted for your faith, because oppression is worse than death.”
If so, when are they going to stamp down on the international terrorists acting in the name of “My Allah”? And when are the good books going to be revised so that such people cannot use them to justify terrorism? And when are you going to understand that your Allah did NOT write your good books any more than did God ours? It’s all man’s interpretation, “man” being the operative word?
Can I suggest that if “oppression is worse than death” s/he just sidles off and settles for the second worst option? We won’t mourn too long. Life is oppressive from the moment we enter it. S/he needs to get used to that – oh, and smile a bit more.
(Btw, why do I find it difficult to equate any kind of lightness or sense of humour with these fundamentalist believers? Can’t imagine.)
Speaking personally a deity, since adulthood, has kept itself well hidden from me. Guess I wasn’t chosen. BUT, I am a secular Christian because that is how our society’s freedoms have evolved. That suits me very nicely, thank you.
My second point:
Allegiance to a religion or a state? Why? Because of the dreams of caliphate? The stateless, yet universal political religion.
“As for taking parts of the constitution and leaving the rest… I am not sure what you mean. Firstly, I would never equate allegiance to my God with allegiance to my country. God will always come first, so of course, if it is a matter of taking parts of the constitution and leavng other parts, then well…what can I say?”
I, on the other hand, have allegiance to my country – Britain – a state WITHOUT a written constitution. Somehow or other we just struggle along reasonably comfortably in that condition. Of course the time may be coming where that position will need to be re-visited.
When your Muslim contributor tells us whether s/he supports the hand chopping, whipping, stoning, putting to death etc for “crimes”, then perhaps we will pay attention. Until then, s/he sounds like a waste of ones and zeros. Albeit s/he is providing further fuel for those of us trying to get the message over to freedom loving, democratic westerners as to what exactly we are facing.
Many thanks for your article.
Keep up the good work.
keeptonyblairforpm,
Thank you for your comments. I worry about Britain sometimes. Glad to have you spreading the word across the pond.
Citizens – you’re welcome. Sadly many of my countrymen and women think these fears exaggerated.
But there are more of us coming to our senses. I THINK!