If Not Now, When?

September 27, 2008

Some people say that Sharia is not an important issue for them, because Muslims are such a small minority (less than 1 percent in the US) that they have no political power anyway. Why get all worked up about an issue that isn’t much of an issue in the foreseeable future?

For those who think this way, I have two questions:

First, at what percentage do you think the Muslim population should be before Sharia becomes an issue that’s worth paying attention to? 5? 10? 25? 40? Pick one or name your own.

Second, what’s one example of a country in the world today that has the percentage Muslim population you’ve named (or higher), which includes a substantial Islamic orthodoxy, in which the Sharia issue shows signs of being resolved in favor of individual rights and freedoms? Here are some indications the country you choose will likely reach a favorable resolution:

  • There is a free and open discussion on the subject of Sharia involving all parties: Islamist Muslims, secular Muslims, non-Muslims, and ex-Muslims.
  • There is an absence of violent intimidation, and an absence of calls for censorship of the discussion of any aspect of Sharia.
  • The Islamist Muslims show signs of being swayed by the arguments against Sharia made by secular Muslims, non-Muslims, and ex-Muslims.
  • There is no sign of existing accommodations for Sharia that have already been implemented even though the Islamists are in the minority.

I’d love to see answers to those two questions by any Sharia procrastinators. Please ask your friends and family and leave a comment.

I don’t know of any country in the world with a substantial Muslim minority that fits the description above. Even in the US, with its tiny Muslim population, we have publishing decisions effected by violent intimidation, calls for censorship, exclusion of secular Muslim voices, fearful ex-Muslims, and accommodations for Sharia. The percentage of Muslims in this country, while small, shows no sign of becoming smaller, so the easiest time to deal with the issue of Sharia is right now. If we don’t deal with it now, how would waiting make it any easier?


Would It Be Wrong to Reject a Muslim Presidential Candidate?

July 8, 2008

Many people believe Barack Obama is now or once was a Muslim. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not there’s any truth to those rumors, what if a Muslim did run for President? Would it be appropriate to elect a Muslim President of the United States at this moment in history? Various commentators have expressed dismay at the notion that a Muslim could be rejected for the office of President based on his religion. Recently, for example, Colbert King of the Washington Post wrote:

What will they [orators 150 years from now] say about our professed fidelity to religious freedom when they find out that many of the Americans who thank God for their religious liberty are also ready to turn their backs on a candidate if they think he is a Muslim or Mormon?

This clearly implies Mr. King believes that to turn our backs on a Muslim presidential candidate would be religious bigotry.

Let’s interject some common sense here. We have been attacked by Muslim Jihadists, and are in the midst of an ongoing conflict with Islamic Jihad. Even if there was no inherent conflict between certain Islamic doctrines and our Western values, this would not be an appropriate time to elect a Muslim to the Presidency. I have no objection to electing a Japanese-American as President at this time, but it would not have been appropriate to do so in the context of WWII. This is not bigotry, but simply acknowledgment of a basic principle: when an individual is a member of two groups, and there is a conflict between those groups, we cannot be completely certain where his loyalties lie. Maybe we can be certain enough to be the individual’s friend, but not certain enough to elect the individual President. The stakes are just too high.

In addition, a significant number of Muslims believe that Islam ultimately requires the removal of non-Muslims from power and implementation of Sharia law worldwide. There is considerable evidence that this agenda is being advanced by stealth. Sharia is in conflict with our Constitution, violating such principles as freedom of speech and press, freedom of religion, equality under the law, and more. This conflict would need to be decisively resolved, such that Sharia would no longer be considered a valid source of law by mainstream Muslims, before it could be appropriate to elect a Muslim as President of this country.

Is Obama, in fact, a Muslim?

From the evidence I’ve seen, I think it’s virtually certain he was raised as a Muslim, at least for a period of time. Taking into account his Muslim background, there is also a small chance he remains a closet Muslim, as we can’t read his mind to find out what he really believes in his heart. For a Muslim to deceive non-Muslims (taqiyya) in certain circumstances gets the green light by Sharia law. For example, according to Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali as quoted in Reliance of the Traveller, a classic book of Islamic law, lying is permissible to reach a permissible goal that cannot be reached by telling the truth. If, for example, a Muslim believed that he would have to lie about his faith in order to be elected President, lying in this context would be permissible according to Ghazali.

Of course, just because lying can be justified in Islam does not mean that Obama is a closet Muslim. Not all Muslims practice taqiyya, and non-Muslims can also be dishonest. However, since it appears Obama has been dishonest about his Muslim upbringing, is it wise to trust his honesty regarding his current religious beliefs? And, given that there’s probably a small chance Obama is a closet Muslim, would it be responsible for us to risk it? That’s a judgment call each of us can make, but it certainly is a legitimate consideration that has nothing to do with bigotry, and everything to do with national security.


Ground Rules for the Religious Pluralism Club

June 26, 2008

On a regular basis of late, Muslim spokespeople have called for “interfaith dialog”. They evidently want Islam to be viewed as a mainstream religion in a pluralistic world. This fits with a general desire for Islam to be respected by non-Muslims. It’s true that mutual respect is a desirable thing; however, for this to happen, I think it’s important for religious leaders to establish ground rules. Every community needs ground rules so that members can get along with each other, and a pluralistic community of religions is no exception. Here are five simple rules I would propose, based on fairness, which I believe are reasonable prerequisites for joining the club of religious pluralism:

Religious Pluralism Ground Rule #1: Anyone Can Leave Any Religion

Oops, it appears that Islam is starting off on the wrong foot by breaking one of the very most important ground rules for fairness amongst religions. According to Sharia, the punishment for leaving Islam is death for men, and either death or life in prison for women (depending on the school of Sharia). Although few Muslim countries today enforce this punishment, vigilante enforcement is such that apostates from Islam fear for their lives, even in the United states. As long as this is the case, Islam is a religion that people can enter but cannot leave without risk. Why should other religions accept Islam when Islam traps its believers, including converts from other faiths, like flies on flypaper?

Religious Pluralism Ground Rule #2: Anyone Can Promote Their Religious Beliefs to Anyone Else

Unfortunately, things don’t get any better for Islam here. It naturally follows that if Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam, non-Muslims are not allowed to do anything which might persuade Muslims to leave Islam. Christian missionaries throughout the Muslim world face persecution. In “moderate” Turkey, missionaries are sometimes arrested or deported, even though missionary activity is ostensibly legal. Niyazi Guney, Turkish Ministry of Justice director general of laws, has commented that “Missionaries are more dangerous than terror organizations.” Even in the West, police have been known to support Sharia rules banning non-Muslims from proselytizing Muslims though there is no legal basis for it. For example, in Britain, a constable told two preachers they couldn’t preach in a Muslim area. In the US, a Christian preacher at UC Irvine was assaulted by Muslim students, while campus police did nothing.

Even simple religious expression that falls far short of missionary work is banned for non-Muslims under Sharia. Displaying religious symbols and building new places of worship, for example, are forbidden for non-Muslims.

Meanwhile, under Sharia, Muslims are free to promote their faith to non-Muslims all they want, as well as building mosques and displaying Muslim religious symbols, which clearly violates the fairness principle.

Religious Pluralism Ground Rule #3: Anyone Can Criticize Any Religion

Hmmm…. Islam just gets further in the hole with this one. As noted by Robert Spencer in this must-read article, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is making a concerted effort, and a successful one, toward shutting down all criticism of Islam. Add to this the efforts of organizations such as CAIR, the MSA, and the MSU, to name a few, and it’s easy to spot a trend.

I would also note that mainstream, traditional interpretations of the Quran are severely critical of non-Islamic faiths, including polytheism, Christianity, and Judaism. In addition, any religion with a prophet after Mohammed is widely regarded by Muslims as blasphemous, based on mainstream interpretations of Quran 33:40. How can it be wrong for Islam to be criticized, when Islam’s holy book defames non-Islamic religions? So long as Islam keeps the Quran (and traditional interpretations thereof), fairness dictates that criticism of Islam must be allowed.

Religious Pluralism Ground Rule #4: Religions May Not Impose Their Rules by Force of Theocracy

In the past, Christianity was a misbehaver on this one, but this is the twenty first century. No major religion today other than Islam has a political agenda to rule the world. The rules of Sharia are incompatible with the US Constitution and basic norms of individual rights and freedoms in the West. Sharia includes laws which explicitly discriminate against other religions, such as valuing the legal testimony of a non-Muslims as half that of a Muslim. The barbaric punishments prescribed for certain crimes also comes off as unfriendly. Is it any wonder, then, that representatives of Islam have trouble gaining respect from non-Muslims?

Religious Pluralism Ground Rule #5: Religions May Not Support Holy War

Yes, it seems people get really annoyed when they or their loved ones are killed for being infidels. That’s just not a good way to get along with others–it makes people testy. Of course, the majority of Muslims have no interest in participating in Jihad warfare. However, Jihad warfare remains, to this day, very much a part of Islamic theology. Where are the mainstream Muslim organizations who denounce Jihad warfare under any circumstances and refute the theological justification for Jihad warfare on Islamic grounds? There do not appear to be any at all. Support for Jihad warfare amongst everyday Muslims remains uncomfortably high, as well.

Conclusions

Only Islam violates all five of these rules for respectful relations with others. Although there are individual Muslims who do want to follow these ground rules, they are not the ones who are “driving the bus” of Islam. Those who call for religious dialog can start by challenging the Muslim world to follow the same general ground rules that other religions today generally follow.


How Can We Screen Out Jihadist Immigrants if Muslims Themselves Can’t Tell the Difference?

May 26, 2008

According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, some immigrants to the US from Muslim countries are frustrated that their citizenship applications are taking so long. Some are even suing the federal government. They believe their civil rights are being violated if it takes longer for them to gain citizenship than it does for an immigrant from a non-Muslim country. The immigration authorities take longer with Muslim applicants so that a thorough background check can be performed.

It is common sense that for would-be immigrants, US citizenship is not a right but a privilege. Immigration, within certain limits, is good for this country. However, it does not make sense to bring in immigrants from demographic groups that have a higher risk for committing acts of terrorism, or crimes of mass destruction, unless there is a reliable way to distinguish between those who are potentially violent and those who are not. Screening out potential Islamic terrorists protects all people in this country, both Muslim and non-Muslim. A background check is the least we can do; but is it enough?

Is There a Reliable Way to Screen Out Potential Jihad Terrorists?

Robert Spencer and others have stated many times that there is no reliable way for immigration authorities to tell the difference between potential Jihadists and those who will never participate in Jihad. They are correct, and here’s more evidence:

Even Muslims Can’t Tell the Difference!

It would be reasonable to assume that Muslims, being intimately familiar with the various strains of Islam, could spot a potential Jihadist more easily than a non-Muslim, especially if they are close friends or family members. However, this does not seem to be the case in every situation.

Nail Bomber’s Muslim Friend “Stunned”: Nick Reilly, aka Mohammed Rasheed, a British convert to Islam, was recently arrested for attempting to detonate a nail bomb in a restaurant. Omar Siddiqui, Reilly’s friend and president of the Islamic Society at the local university said, “I believe the Islamic community will be stunned by what he is alleged to have done because he always seemed so calm and nice.” According to neighbors, Reilly had a screen saver of the twin towers coming down on 9/11.

Accused July 21 Bomb Suspect’s Sister “Surprised” He Had Jihad Book: When Adel Yahya was being prosecuted for his alleged involvement in the July 21 bomb plot in Britain, his sister Lina evidently knew nothing about a Jihad book he had in their home. Lina said, “This is a surprise. He’s never really had these sort of views.” (Adel’s jury failed to reach a verdict, after which he pled guilty to a lesser charge.)

SUV Jihadist’s Sister “Shocked”: Mohammed Taheri-Azar drove an SUV into a crowd of people on the UNC campus to “avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world.” His sister, Laila, describes her brother as “a kind, gentle and pure soul.” She says his actions are “as much a source of shock and distress to us as they are to you.” This is despite the fact that he admitted plotting the act for two years.

July 7 Bomber’s Wife “Had No Idea of His Plans”: Germaine Lindsay, aka Jamal Lindsay, was one of the bombers in the attacks on London’s public transport system on July 7, 2005. His own wife, Samantha Lewthwaite, a British convert to Islam who was pregnant at the time of the bombing, said, “He was a good and loving husband and a brilliant father, who showed absolutely no sign of doing this atrocious crime.”

So, since it’s apparent that Muslims who are close to the Jihadists can’t predict what they will do, how does anyone expect the immigration officials to do so?

By now, you may be saying, “Wait a minute. These people may have known more than they’re admitting.” This is true, but it doesn’t matter. If the Jihadists’ closest friends and family members could not tell they were Jihadists, that’s a good reason to stem the flow of Muslim immigration. If the Jihadists operate in a community that conceals their activities from the authorities, that’s a good reason to stem the flow of Muslim immigration.

Some Jihad plots are foiled due to Muslim informants, and they deserve credit for helping keep us safe. But not every plot is foiled by informants, and it only takes one successful plot to do a whole lot of damage.

How Do We Screen Out Peaceful Islamic Supremacists?

In addition, since our Constitution is not compatible with Sharia law, we should also be attempting to screen out Muslims who believe Sharia should one day be the law of the entire world. Our system of representative government with individual rights cannot be maintained if a significant portion of the population is hostile to our basic system, whether or not they are potentially violent. Since no one seems to be able to tell with certainty who is a Jihadist, how is anyone to tell whether someone is an Islamic Supremacist?

How Do We Screen Out Those Whose Children Will Be Islamic Supremacists?

In addition to the risks of terrorist immigrants and peaceful Islamic Supremacists immigrants, there’s also the risk of homegrown terrorists and peaceful Islamic Supremacists. More than once, moderate Muslim parents in the West have been appalled to find their children becoming more radical than the parents are. We already have this risk with the population we currently have. However, the larger our Muslim population, the more this risk grows.

I believe it would be good policy to drastically reduce or stop immigration from Muslim majority countries, as well as Muslims from Europe and elsewhere, until this threat has been dealt with successfully. If we allow any immigration at all from Muslim countries, we should give preference to peaceful religious minorities, apostates and heretics from those countries. This is not because all Muslims are Islamic Supremacists, nor will their children all be such. It’s because we have no way of knowing which are which.

Note that this policy protects not only non-Muslims, but also those Muslims already living here who value our way of life and don’t want to change it. Those are the Muslims we should be concerned about, not the ones who want to replace the Constitution with Sharia.


Sharia Utopia Is a Myth Part II: Where Is It?

March 29, 2008

Some Muslims defend Sharia by claiming that it creates a just, moral, ethical society. This is important because the quest for utopia is one reason Muslims are so motivated to impose Sharia, and it’s one of the ways they try to sell it to non-Muslims. According to many Muslims, all problems result from not enough Islam, and the cure is always more Islam. Let’s just examine the evidence of their claims.

To begin with, Muslim claims of Sharia utopia are similar to claims of utopia made by adherents of other totalitarian and authoritarian systems: fascists, Nazis, and communists, for example, have all made the claim that their system would produce a paradise on earth, and none of these have ever produced a utopia. All have created massive amounts of misery, not utopia. Communist countries generally have to keep people from escaping, or their populations would be decimated. The failure of other totalitarian schemes should already make us sceptical of the notion of a Sharia utopia.

I recently received a comment from “theveiledtsunami” who 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…”

I asked Tsunami: 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. 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. Her reply was:

”Unfortuantely (sic), I know of no country that does, to the absolute letter of the Islamic law.”

The Sharia Utopia Is Fantasy-Based

Since there is not a single Muslim country that exemplifies a Sharia utopia, the concept is fantasy-based. In this series, we will be looking at the qualities of Muslims’ utopian dream point by point.

Is the Problem Sharia, Or Its Implementation?

Muslims sometimes claim that any problems with Sharia result from flaws of its implementation, not from Sharia itself. This would be a fair claim–if there were any evidence for it. There are times in which cultural factors do play a role, as in honor killings and female genital mutilation. However, even in these instances, there are foundational Islamic texts that give support to the practices, and the perpetrators generally view their behavior as Islamic. If these practices were antithetical to Islam, why has Islam failed to eliminate them after 1400 years? Why are these practices carried out in various Islamic cultures, not just in one tribal area?

A better argument could be made that some of the most livable Muslim countries owe their positive qualities to the fact that their local culture has survived sufficiently to give them some protection from the worst aspects of Sharia. The best Muslim countries are the ones with the least Sharia.

Sharia has a poor historical record, as well. The Islamic Golden Age is a myth. Historically, as in modern times, life under Muslim rule was best when Islam was weakest and least orthodox, and when Islam failed to smother the positive cultural qualities remaining from pre-Islamic times.

It is true that there can be a distinction between written religious dogma and the actual practice of a religion, but both belong to the religion. The practice of a religion is effectively determined by its followers. If large numbers of Muslims support honor killings and/or female genital mutilation and they say this is Islamic, then for them, it is. There are Christian practices that have no basis, or scanty basis, in the Christian Bible (e.g. Sunday worship, Christmas, Easter, et al), but they are so widely accepted among Christians that for practical purposes, these practices are indeed Christian.


Sharia Utopia Is a Myth Part 1: Muslim Countries Among Most Corrupt

March 14, 2008

Transparency International publishes a Corruption Perceptions Index, ranking of 179 countries for corruption. In their most recent report (2007), there are no Muslim countries in the top 10 (least corrupt) countries. There are none in the top 20. There are none in the top 30. The least corrupt Muslim country on the list is Qatar, number 32, which means that 31 non-Muslim countries are less corrupt than the least corrupt Muslim country.

Looking at the most corrupt countries, 16 of the bottom 34 are Muslim: Somalia (the very worst), Iraq, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Chad, Afganistan, Guinea, Turkmenistan, Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Cote d’Ivoire, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, and Guinea-Bissau. To give you an idea of just how corrupt these countries are, they are ranked worse than Russia!

Where’s the utopia? The reason this is important is that Islamists often justify Sharia by arguing it creates a utopian society. Why, then, are Muslim countries generally more corrupt than non-Muslim countries, despite having the “benefit” of Sharia and Islam? Muslim countries all have different ways of implementing Sharia, and a very few don’t use much of it if any, but they all share a common belief that Sharia is a valid source of law. If Sharia really were a benefit, you’d think one of them would produce a stunningly honest government.

What is the relationship between Islam and the corruption in Muslim countries?

Islam does not mandate corruption, but there are provisions in Sharia that provide the conditions in which corruption thrives.

Checks on power: According to Transparency International, one factor allowing corrupt practices to flourish is the lack of institutional checks on power. This follows the maxim, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Sharia is very authoritarian in nature, concentrating power in the rulers with no orderly process for holding them in check. A Quran verse often quoted to support this authoritarianism is 4:59: “O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you….” Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law also quotes a Hadith to emphasize the importance of obediance to the Caliph: “Hear and obey, even if the ruler placed over you is an Ethiopian slave with amputated extremities.” (pg. 645) Another Hadith quoted is “Leaders shall rule you after me, the godfearing of them ruling you with godfearingness and the profligate ruling you with wickedness. So listen to them and obey them in everything that is right; for if they do well, it will count for you and for them, and if they do badly, it will count for you and against them.” (pg. 639) A Caliph is supposed to have a list of qualifications which include being an upright person, but “it is valid, if forced to, to resort to the leadership of a corrupt person….” (pg. 642) Although there is currently no Caliphate, this authoritarian framework is in the Quran and seems to be hard for Muslim countries to shake off.

Democracy: In addition, democratic systems are better able to fight corruption. Transparency International states: “In a modern democracy, the power of governing bodies is inherent in the political mandate given by the people. Power is entrusted and it is supposed to be used for the benefit of society at large, and not for the personal benefit of the individual that holds it. Thus corruption – misusing publicly entrusted power for private gain – is inherently contradictory and irreconcilable with democracy. That does not mean, unfortunately, that corruption cannot be found in democratic systems. Temptation remains a challenge anywhere. That is why it is all the more important to put in place control mechanisms and establish systemic hurdles to prevent people from abusing their power, as TI is seeking to do. Such mechanisms are more easily drawn up and introduced in established democratic systems, however, than in newly democratic or non-democratic ones.”

Freedom House lists electoral democracies in the world. Of the 32 least corrupt countries, only 3 are not electoral democracies, and 29 are. Of the 34 most corrupt countries, 24 are not electoral democracies, and 10 are.

Many Muslims believe that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If their views prevail, it is likely that the corruption currently entrenched in their societies will never get a whole lot better. Other Muslims are trying to redefine Islam as a personal religion only, with no political side. If they succeed, political reform in Muslim countries becomes more possible; however, they have a long way to go.

Freedom: There is a very clear inverse relationship between freedom and corruption: the more the freedom, the less the likelihood of corruption, and vice versa. Looking at the Freedom House report, which gives countries a rating for freedom, in combination with the TI corruption report, we find that of the 32 least corrupt countries, only one is Not Free (which is Qatar, number 32 on the list); two are Partly Free (Singapore and probably Hong Kong); and the other 29 are Free, of which 26 have the very best score. (Hong Kong was not in the Freedom House report, so I’m arbitrarily calling it “Partly Free”.) In contrast, of the 34 most corrupt countries, 21 are Not Free, 13 are Partly Free, and not a single one is Free. Freedom and honest government go together, and Muslim countries are decidedly freedom challenged.

Honesty: Another factor I would expect to make a difference is the society’s attitudes toward honesty: a more honest society would, logically, tend to be less corrupt. As we have examined extensively in other contexts, Islam and Sharia do not have an absolute commitment to honesty. Deceit is allowed if it’s for a permissible goal. Oaths can be broken if something better comes along. Truth-telling can be punished if the truth embarasses someone. This is not a winning combination for rooting out corruption. There is no such thing as a completely honest or dishonest society, but there are certainly differences nonetheless.

To be clear, my sole interest in this information is to remove a common argument used to defend Sharia. Many people believe it’s “insensitive” to criticize another culture or religion. That would be fine, unless that culture and/or religion wishes to make us more like them. When that’s the case, as it is with Sharia, scrutiny is in order.


Does Sharia really call for barbaric punishments?

March 6, 2008

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?