http://apps.americanbar.org/cle/programs/t11dst1.html

Dispelling the Sharia Threat Myth: Implications of Banning Courts from Referencing Religious, Foreign, or International Law Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 Format: Live Webinar and Teleconference Duration: 90 minutes

In the last year nearly 50 bills and state constitutional amendments intending to ban state courts from considering international, foreign, or religious law were introduced in more than 20 states.   Such provisions—commonly referred to as "Sharia law bans" or "anti-Sharia law legislation"—have already passed in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Louisiana.

Once adopted these bans have the potential to obstruct state courts from performing essential functions including enforcement of commercial contracts, intra-country adoptions, foreign marriages, Native American rights, foreign, judgments, and the outcome of voluntary faith-based dispute resolution forums as well as efforts to thwart child abduction. The provisions also have serious implications for individual rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. 

Our panel will discuss the origin of these bans, their potential impact on how state courts function, and efforts to combat the provisions in legislatures and the courts.

    Do we really want Islamic commercial law to be enforced in our courts? To be Shari'ah compliant, Zatat of 2.5% is required on financial transactions. 12.5% of Zakat must be paid to those "fighting in Allah's cause".  Zakat paid on Shari'ah compliant investments, insurance, annuities & mortgages will be used to finance terrorism. Wasn't that what the Holy Land foundation trial was about? Reliance of the Traveller, Book H codifies the law of Zakat.

h8.17 The seventh category is those fighting for
Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military
operations for whom no salary has been allotted in
the army roster (0: but who are volunteers for
jihad without remuneration). They are given
enough to suffice them for the operation, even if
affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and
expenses (0: for the duration of the journey,
round trip, and the time they spend there, even if
prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned
here of the expense involved in supporting such
people's families during this period, it seems clear
that they should also be given it).

    Several of the cases described in http://www.shariahinamericancourts.com involve divorce and child custody.  Islamic laws of marriage & divorce are codified in books M & N of Reliance of the Traveller Do you really want those laws enforced in our courts?

    Shari'ah empowers the father of a pre-pubescent virgin girl to compel her to marry the man of his choice.  How does that square with our age of consent laws?  Should a girl be allowed to choose her own mate, and wait until she is sufficiently mature to make the decision? 

m3.13 Guardians are of two types, those who
may compel their female charges to marry someone,
and those who may not.
(1) The only guardians who may compel
their charge to marry are a virgin bride's father or
father's father, compel meaning to marry her to a
suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

    Shari'ah allows a Muslim to divorce his wife by repeating "I divorce you." three times, it is quick and simple.

n3.1 The words that effect a divorce may be
plain or allusive. Plain words effect the divorce
whether one intends divorce by them or not, while
allusive words do not effect it unless one intends
divorce by them.
n3.2 Using plain words to effect a divorce
means expressly pronouncing the word divorce
(0: or words derived from it). When the husband
says, HI divorce you," or "You are divorced," the
wife is divorced whether he has made the intention
or not.
(A: Here and in the rulings below, expressions
such as "The wife is divorced," or "The
divorce is effected," mean just one of the three
times (def: n9.0(N:» necessary to finalize it,
unless the husband thereby intends a two- or
threefold divorce (dis: n3.5) or repeats the words
three times.)

    The Shari'ah of support could be an important consideration in divorce cases.

m 11.1 0 As for a woman in her postmarital waiting
period (def: n9), she is entitled to housing during
it no matter if it is because of her husband's death,
a divorce in which the husband may take her back,
or a threefold, finalized divorce. As for her support
(A: in terms of food) and clothing:
(1) it is not obligatory to provide her with
it during the waiting period after (N: a threefold
divorce, a release for payment (def: nS), or) her
husband's death;
(2) it must be provided in the waiting period
of a (A: not yet threefold) divorce in which her
husband may take her back;
(3) and if a woman in the waiting period of a
threefold divorce is pregnant, she is given support
each day (A: until the child is born, after which
she is entitled to support and wages for taking care
of it), but if not pregnant, she is not entitled to
support.

    In matters of child custody, which parent is better qualified to have custody?  Islamic law might not meet your expectations.  Custody is a function of age and religion.

m13.5 When a child reaches the age of discrimination
(0: which generally occurs around seven or
eight years of age) he is given a choice as to which
of his parents he wants to stay with (0: since the
Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)
gave a young boy the choice between his father
and his mother. The child is only given such a
choice when the necessary conditions for child
custody (def: m13.2) exist in both parents. If one
of them lacks a single condition, then the child is
not given a choice, because someone lacking one
of the conditions is as though nonexistent).
If the child chooses one of the parents, he is
given to the care of that one, though if a son
chooses his mother, he is left with his father during
the day so the father can teach him and train him.

    What if the father is Muslim and the Mother is Christian? 

m13.2 The necessary conditions for a person to
have custody of a child are:
(a) uprightness (def: 024.4) (0: a corrupt
person may not be a guardian, because child care
is a position of authority, and the corrupt are
unqualified for it. Mawardi and Ruyani hold that
outward uprightness (def: m3.3(f) is sufficient
unless there is open wrongdoing. If the corruptness
of a child's mother consists of her not performing
the prayer (sal at) , she has no right to
custody of the child, who might grow up to be like
her, ending up in the same vile condition of not
praying, for keeping another's company has its
effects);
(b) sanity (0: since a mother uninterruptedly
insane has no right to custody, though if her
insanity is slight. such as a single day per year. her
right to custody is not vitiated by it);
(c) and if the child is Muslim, it is a necessary
condition that the person with custody be a Muslim
(0: because it is a position of authority, and a
non-Muslim has no right to authority and hence
no right to raise a Muslim. If a non-Muslim were
given charge of the custody and upbringing of the
child, the child might acquire the character traits
of unbelief (kufr».

m13.4 A woman has no right to custody (A: of
her child from a previous marriage) when she
remarries (0: because married life will occupy her
with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent
her from tending the child. It makes no difference
in such cases if the (A: new) husband
agrees or not (N: since the child's custody in such
a case automatically devolves to the next most
eligible on the list (dis: m13.I)), unless the person
she marries is someone (A: on the list) who is
entitled to the child's c!Jstody anyway (0: as
opposed to someone unrelated to the child, since
such a person, even if willing, does not deserve
custody because he lacks the tenderness for the
child that a relative would have).

    The offspring of a Muslim father must be raised as Muslims. A Christian mother can not obtain custody. If she remarries, she loses custody.  Do you want that Islamic law enforced in our courts? 

    There are many other details that make Shari'ah incompatible with American law. You can read about them in Reliance of The Traveller. Consider the laws of eligibility to give testimony in court.  You can obtain the book from Amazon.com for about $30; it is 1251 pages long including the index. .

    Examine the House Resolution before the Congress. It simply excludes foreign law unless it is explicitly required by the Constitution or federal legislation. 

H.R. 973: To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of foreign law in Federal courts,...

112th Congress: 2011-2012

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-973

SECTION 1. USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS.
Part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘CHAPTER 183--USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS
‘Sec. 4201. Limitation on use of foreign law in Federal courts
‘In any court created by or under article III of the Constitution of the United States, no justice, judge, or other judicial official shall decide any issue in a case before that court in whole or in part on the authority of foreign law, except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.’.

    Michigan House Bill 4769 would ban enforcement of foreign law which abrogates constitutional rights.  Take a close look at its operative provisions.

Sec. 2. A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other  
4  adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce  
5  a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the  
6  constitution of this state or of the United States.  
7  Sec. 3. (1) If any contractual provision or agreement provides  
8  for the choice of a foreign law to govern its interpretation or the  
9  resolution of any dispute between the parties and if the  
10  enforcement or interpretation of the contractual provision or  
11  agreement would result in a violation of a right guaranteed by the  
12  constitution of this state or of the United States, the contractual  
13  provision or agreement shall be applied as modified or amended to  
14  the extent necessary to preserve the constitutional rights of the  
15  parties. 
16  (2) If any contractual provision or agreement provides for the  
17  choice of venue or forum outside of the states or territories of  
18  the United States, and if the enforcement or interpretation of the  
19  contractual provision or agreement applying that choice of venue or  
20  forum provision would result in a violation of any right guaranteed  
21  by the constitution of this state or of the United States, that  
22  contractual provision or agreement shall be interpreted or  
23  construed to preserve the constitutional rights of the person  
24  against whom enforcement is sought. Similarly, if a natural person  
25  subject to personal jurisdiction in this state seeks to maintain  
26  litigation, arbitration, agency, or similarly binding proceedings  
27  in this state, and if a court of this state finds that granting a  
claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would  
2  likely lead to a violation of the constitutional rights of the  
3  nonclaimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in  
4  dispute, the claim shall be denied.  
5  (3) Any contractual provision or agreement incapable of being  
6  modified or amended to preserve the constitutional rights of the  
7  parties pursuant to the provisions of this section is null and  
8  void. 
9  (4) If a corporation, partnership, limited liability company,  
10  business association, or other legal entity contracts to subject  
11  itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction outside of any state or  
12  territory of the United States, this act does not apply to that  
13  contract. 
14  Sec. 4. This act applies only to actual or foreseeable  
15  violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the  
16  application of the foreign law.

    Exactly how does prohibiting the enforcement of foreign law which would violate the Constitutional rights of one party impair a Muslim's right to practice Islam?  Please explain in a comment or document your answer in a blog post and post the url in a comment.  Does the proposed legislation stop him from Iman, Salat, Saum, Hajj or Zakat?   What real harm is done to the Muslim if the legislation deprives him of a frivolous defense against charges of bigamy, marital rape or domestic violence? 

    Must we allow Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & conspirators to assert a defense based on religious obligation and let him get off Scott free because "Allah made me do it."?

    Does anyone comprehend the fact that Muslims present a real, present & persistent danger to our personal and national security precisely because of Shari'ah, which codifies Allah's imperative, threat & promise?  Allah said "fight them";  Shari'ah  says that  if jihad is neglected when possible to perform,  all who knew of it are in sin.  Shari'ah says that "The  caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians"...

    Shari'ah's provisions for perpetual conquest may not be tried in our courts, but its child custody provisions have already made an appearance there.  Despite 50 trial and appelate cases in the last 30 years, the ABA assures us that Shari'ah poses no threat.

    The Shari'ah threat can not be exorcised by the magic of legal incantations, it can only be exorcised by expelling Islam and its advocates from our shores.  At present, legislation to exclude Shari'ah from court decisions is the only proximate solution to an insoluble problem.

Candidate Baiting

 I missed the debate in Oakland because of a previous commitment. Tonight I watched it on You Tube. While Perry's blank out is receiving most of the attention, I noticed that Santorum appears to have made a great deal of improvement compared to his performance at previous debates. I doubt that his improved presentation will move him up in the ranks, but it might set him up for the second slot on the ticket. 

    Gingrich seemed to be getting the audience's attention and agreement. Too bad he has flip-flopped and has heavy baggage. He may be gaining on the second slot like Santorum. 

    Bachmann has the knowledge, policy and ability to articulate them, but has fallen out of the limelight; not getting the face time she deserves.  In my jaundiced view, Romney, Perry & Huntsman have one common element: shifty eyes.  To me, they appear untrustworthy. 

    Cain seems to cling too tightly to his 999 plan, fearing to stray far from it. But the audience appreciated his handling of the venomous questions about the harassment accusations.  It is likely that the controversy will backfire on his detractors by increasing his media attention, giving Cain more air time to explain his plan and policy positions. 

    Ron Paul appeared to be having a lucid moment, articulating solid economic theory; he does best when avoiding national security & foreign policy.

    The thing that struck me about this debate was the apparent antagonism of the questioners. The woman in the center seemed to be shooting daggers with her eyes.  The baldy with the grey goatee appeared at one point to be suffering from a fire ant infestation in his hemorrhoids. 

    The tight time format with multiple candidates is not suited to major issues such as economic policy. Thirty seconds is not enough to outline an alternative to Obama Don't Care.

    I have a better idea, inspired by Jamie Glazov's Front Page Magazine symposiums: a series of  single issue forensic debates carried out by email.  The emails would be arranged on a web page similar to Glazov's symposiums. That would allow more deliberate and extended statements & responses and facilitate viewing by readers limited to low bandwidth dial up connections. 

    There is more than one way to solve the problem; the debates could be done with You Tube videos.  A Facebook group would be another alternative that could facilitate mass audience participation. It may be too late for the primary campaign, but creative minds could cook something up in time for the general election campaign next year.

Fiqh Council Declares No Conflict Between Islam and Constitution

 The Fiqh Council of North America issued a resolution declaring that Shari'ah and the Constitution are not in conflict. Are they practicing al-Taqiyya or telling the truth?  Examine the details to find out.

http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/node/67
Resolution On Being Faithful Muslims and Loyal Americans

Resolution of the Fiqh Council of North America
Adopted in its General Body Meeting held in Virginia on September 24-25, 2011
On Being Faithful Muslims and Loyal Americans

Like other faith communities in the US and elsewhere, we see no inherent conflict between the normative values of Islam and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Contrary to erroneous perceptions and Islamophobic propaganda of political extremists from various backgrounds, the true and authentic teachings of Islam promote the sanctity of human life, dignity of all humans, and respect of human, civil and political rights. Islamic teachings uphold religious freedom and adherence to the same universal moral values which are accepted by the majority of people of all backgrounds and upon which the US Constitution was established and according to which the Bill of Rights was enunciated.

    The Qur’an speaks explicitly about the imperative of just and peaceful co-existence, and the rights of legitimate self-defense against aggression and oppression that pose threats to freedom and security, provided that, a strict code of behavior is adhered to, including the protection of innocent non-combatants.

        The foregoing values and teachings can be amply documented from the two primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence – the Qur’an and authentic Hadith. These values are rooted, not in political correctness or pretense, but on the universally accepted supreme objectives of Islamic Shari’ah, which is to protect religious liberty, life, reason, family and property of all. The Shari’ah, contrary to misrepresentations, is a comprehensive and broad guidance for all aspects of a Muslim’s life – spiritual, moral, social and legal. Secular legal systems in Western democracies generally share the same supreme objectives, and are generally compatible with Islamic Shari’ah.

    Likewise, the core modern democratic systems are compatible with the Islamic principles of Shura – mutual consultation and co-determination of all social affairs at all levels and in all spheres, family, community, society, state and globally.
As a body of Islamic scholars, we the members of FCNA believe that it is false and misleading to suggest that there is a contradiction between being faithful Muslims committed to God (Allah) and being loyal American citizens. Islamic teachings require respect of the laws of the land where Muslims live as minorities, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God. We do not see any such conflict with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The primacy of obedience to God is a commonly held position of many practicing Jews and Christians as well.

        We believe further that as citizens of a free and democratic society, we have the same obligations and rights of all US citizens. We believe that right of dissent can only be exercised in a peaceful and lawful manner to advance the short and long term interests of our country.

    The Fiqh Council of North America calls on all Muslim Americans and American citizens at large to engage in objective, peaceful and respectful dialogue at all levels and spheres of common social concerns. We call upon all Muslim Americans to be involved in solving pressing social problems, such as the challenge of poverty, discrimination, violence, health care and environmental protection. It is fully compatible with Islam for Muslims to integrate positively in the society of which they are equal citizens, without losing their identity as Muslims (just as Jews and Christians do not lose their religious identity in doing the same).

    We believe that emphasis on dialogue and positive collaborative action is a far better approach than following the paths of those who thrive on hate mongering and fear propaganda. Anti-Islam, anti-Semitism and other similar forms of religious and/or political-based discrimination are all forms of racism unfit for civilized people and are betrayal of the true American as well as Islamic values.

    May the pursuit of peace, justice, love, compassion, human equality and fellowship prevail in the pluralistic mosaic that is the hallmark of our nation.

no inherent conflict

    So the Qur'an is compatible with the Constitution?  Compare Surah An-Nisa' 4:89 to the Bill of Rights.

4:89. They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allâh (to Muhammad ). But if they turn back (from Islâm), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Allah issued a command to kill apostates. The Constitution forbids laws abridging freedom of religion.  How do they hope to square that circle?  Here is one more example just to pile on.

5:38. Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is All­Powerful, All­Wise.

 

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

sanctity & dignity of human life

    The Fiqh Council asserts that Islam promotes those values, so we shall delve into the two most authentic Islamic sources: the Qur'an and Sahih Bukhari to discover the truth of the matter.  The council did not cite the Qur'an in this resolution but others have, quoting Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32.

5:32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allâh by committing the major sins) in the land!

5:33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

    Muslims love to quote 5:32, but never quote the next verse. Why is that?  One phrase from that ayeh says it all: "wage war against Allâh"; what does it mean?  Tafsir Ibn Kathir has the answer for us. "`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. ".

    The Qur'an justifies killing disbelievers because of their disbelief, equating it with waging war against Allah.  One hadith in Bukhari's collection, widely accepted as the most authentic of the six canonical collections, exposes the sanctity and dignity of human life assertion as an egregious lie.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

    While the first sentence of that hadith is sufficient to demolish the "religion of peace" meme, it informs us that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims until we recite Shehada and do things their way.  Only Muslim lives are sacred.

    The last sentence of that hadith makes another point crystal clear: only Muslims have human rights.  The assertion that Islam promotes the sanctity & dignity of human life and human rights is fully exposed as a lie.

uphold religious freedom

    Allah said something else entirely, the polar opposite of religious freedom. Surah Al-Imran holds an important clue in ayat 85-151. [Click the link and scroll down to read the context.]

3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

    If Allah won't accept choosing Christianity, will his slaves?  The answer is in the context.

3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh - and rebellious against Allâh's Command).

3:111. They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; and if they fight against you, they will show you their backs, and they will not be helped.

    #111 tels us the intended outcome: war against Christians & Jews.  Consider the highlighted clause in #110; what is the meaning of "best of peoples"?  The answer is in a hadith and it does not reflect freedom of religion.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

    Examine the highlighted clause.  Bringing us to Islam in change is violent & coercive, the polar opposite of religious freedom.  The ultimate contravention of freedom of religion is found in Surah Al-Anfal 8:39 & At-Taubah 9:29.  Those contain the jihad imperatives; fight until loops. Note the terminal conditions, which I have highlighted to make them stand out.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    Muslims are commanded to wage war until only Allah is worshiped; until Jews & Christians are subjugated & extorted. Tell me again how the teachings of Islam uphold freedom of religion.

universal moral values

    Universal moral values such as the sanctity of marriage?  We turn next to Surah An-Nisa' 4:24 to examine the morality of Islam.

4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allâh ordained for you. ...

    Muslims are prohibited from copulating with married women except those they own. Of course the prohibition of rape is another universal moral value upheld by the teachings of Islam; or is it? There is a hadith which speaks to this issue with stunning clarity.  Moe did not say "don't rape them' he ruled against al-Azl.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

just and peaceful co-existence

    In Surah Al-Baqarah 2:143 we discover the meaning of just: Muslim. If it ain't Muslim, it ain't just. Examine the highlights carefully.

2:143. Thus We have made you [true Muslims - real believers of Islâmic Monotheism, true followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways)], a Wasat (just) (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger (Muhammad ) be a witness over you. And We made the Qiblah (prayer direction towards Jerusalem) which you used to face, only to test those who followed the Messenger (Muhammad ) from those who would turn on their heels (i.e. disobey the Messenger). Indeed it was great (heavy) except for those whom Allâh guided. And Allâh would never make your faith (prayers) to be lost (i.e. your prayers offered towards Jerusalem). Truly, Allâh is full of kindness, the Most Merciful towards mankind.

    Surah Al-Imran neatly wraps up the issue of co-existence. Examine the highlights carefully and click through for the full context; to the end of the Surah.

3:64. Say (O Muhammad ): "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allâh, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allâh. Then, if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims."

    The above cited verse and its context give a strong hint, but fall short of complete clarity; they require external confirmation which is contained in Moe's extortion letter to the Byzantine Emperor.  The extortion letter preceded the  ghazwat on Tabuk, which is the main focus of Surah At-Taubah.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 6:
...The contents of the letter were as follows: "In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad the slave of Allah and His Apostle to Heraclius the ruler of Byzantine. Peace be upon him, who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your Arisiyin (peasants). (And I recite to you Allah's Statement:)

'O people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah).' ...

word that is just

    The "word that is just" is Islam. The call is to 'come to Islam'. That is the dawah which precedes invasion if it does not result in surrender. . 

Peace be upon him...

    But war will be upon him who rejects the call to Islam. 

become a Muslim;  be safe

    If you do not become a Muslim, you will not be safe; Muslims will wage war against you. 

Bear witness that we are Muslims

    Why say that except as a veiled threat? The basis of that threat is revealed in Surah Al-Hashr  59:13.

59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).

    Allah told Moe that he and his army scared the Jews more than Allah did. Moe had built a well deserved reputation for rapacious rapine; which is what Allah talks about when he says that he will "cast terror".   The context is confirmed by another extortion letter dictated & dispatched by Moe to Ethiopia.

LETTER TO THE SUCCESSOR OF AS'HAMA THE NEGUS

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

From Muhammad, Prophet of Allah -

To Negus, King of Ethiopia.

His Prophet (Sal Allaho Alehe Wasallam).

I bear witness that there is none to be worshipped except Allah. No one is His associate or partner. He does not stand in need of a wife or children. And I affirm that I am his servant and his Prophet.

I invite you to believe in Allah who is One. If you want security, accept Islam.

O people of the Book! Ignore all matters of difference and dispute, and agree to a thing to which you and we are equally committed, and it is that we should not worship anyone except Allah. And neither should we associate anyone else with Him nor should we regard anyone else as our Sustainer. If they object to it, tell them, "you will bear witness that we believe in Allah."'

If you will not accept these, the responsibility of the transgression of your Christian people shall be yours.

Seal: Allah's Prophet Muhammad 
 

self-defense ...

    Muslims want us to believe the fabulism that Islam only fights defensively. I already showed you the ayat containing the primary imperatives of offensive jihad. In the early Meccan period, when Moe was weak, with no army, he preached tolerance and forbearance.  At Medina, as his army grew, he preached defensive & retaliatory combat. When his army was ready to take on Mecca, he issued 8:39 & 9:29.

    Shari'ah puts proof to the egregious lie: Reliance of the Traveller, Book O and Al Hedaya Volume II, Book IX fall short of perfect clarity individually, but together they are mutually clarifying.

O9.1 ...

In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year....

The destruction of the sword  is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the  sacred writings which are generally received this effect.

War must be carried on against the Infidels, at all times, by some party of the Muslims.

protection of innocent non-combatants

    Islam is so moral, isn't it?  Offensive wars of conquest are ok so long as women and children are protected, right?  Yeah, right!  Lets examine the reality of this egregious al-Taqiyya.  In Sahih Muslim 19.4294, the second most authentic of the canonical hadith collections, Moe's orders to his field commanders are listed. They are ordered to avoid certain acts that would profane a holy war.  See also Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2608.

...Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children....

What do embezzling spoils and killing children have in common?  Mull it over for a moment, we'll get back to it.  Next we turn to Malik's Muwatta, #4 in authenticity, for a real eye opener.

Malik's Muwatta Book 21, Number 21.3.8:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, 'The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.' "

A fighter about to kill a woman remembered Moe's prohibition and spared her; what a gentleman!  But why did Moe proscribe killing women and children? Obtain a clue from Surah Al-Ahzab.

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

Who was made captives? Tafsir Ibn Kathir has the answer.

...(a group you killed, and a group you made captives.) Those who were killed were their warriors, and the prisoners were their children and women. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Atiyah Al-Qurazi said, "I was shown to the Prophet on the day of Qurayzah, because they were not sure about me. The Prophet told them to look at me to see whether I had grown any body hair yet. They looked and saw that I had not grown any body hair, so they let me go and I was put with the other prisoners.''...

    What would they have done with Atiyah if he had reached puberty?  Such fine, peaceful gentlemen who do not kill children.  Why don't they kill children?  The next clue comes from Shari'ah, codified in Reliance of the Traveller.

O9.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

    For the kill shot, we turn to the Religious and Moral Doctrine on Jihad by Ibn Taymiyyah.

.... Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since the constitute property for Muslims....

    What do captive women and children have in common with the spoils?  They are part of the spoils!! Killing them is prohibited because they represent a source of wealth, to be sold on the slave market. 

Shari'ah protects religious liberty

    Examine the code from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9 to see how Shari'ah protects religious liberty.

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax...

 

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax...

    Of course, waging war upon people until they convert to your religion is a great way to protect religious liberty.

Shari'ah & secular law

    The Fiqh Council says they are compatible; are they?  Our Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishments. Shari'ah requires lashing and amputation. 

O16.3

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 (def: o4.4) is due (A: from the scourger) for his death. If the caliph (def: o25) increases the penalty to eighty stripes, it is legally valid, but if the offender dies from the increase, the caliph must pay an adjusted indemnity, such that if he is given forty-one stripes and dies, the caliph must pay 1/41 of a full indemnity.

P21.1 Allah Most High says: "Thieves, male or female--::eut off their hands in retribution for what they have earned, as an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Almighty and Wise" (Koran 5:38).

Islam is compatible with democracy

    Democracy involves man made law and a process of consensus. Islam requires Allah's demonic law.  The two are incompatible because they are polar opposites.  Our laws are made by our bicameral legislature within limits set by our Constitution. Islamic law is the Qur'an & sunnah.

    Moe was an autocrat; how can his successors be anything else?  Surah Al-Ahzab  has a clue for you.

33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.

Anti-Islam = racism

    What race is Islam? It was invented by an Arab, but it has conquered Asians, Caucasians and Negroes. So, what race is it?  Islam is a deen: way of life. That deen is intra-species predation.  One hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud makes this fact abundantly clear. It offsets jihad against commerce and agriculture as inferior economic systems.  It declares jihad to be the original religion of Islam. 

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Islam plays the race card and the hate card to silence its critics because it can not refute the fatal facts displayed above.  Islam is the polar opposite of American values: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Can there be any greater arrogance than that which at once seeks to destroy our way of life; to kill or enslave us and demands that we tolerate it in silence?