Are We Wising up to Islam?
Barenaked Islam quoted a New York Times article: Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition, which first lists several locations where opposition to Mosque construction has arisen and then brings out the key revelation.
Either the opponents have begun to study the enemy's canon or they have been emboldened to use to a new level of direct counter attack on the ideological plane. The next paragraph trots out the implicit false premise: "Islam is a religion, equal to Christianity and must be tolerated as such as a matter of First Amendment right."
Many left wingers are slick in their use of loaded expressions. "America's democratic values" is heavily laden with all things bright and beautiful. The use of that expression lays the foundation for accusing Islam's opponents of racism, bigotry & xenophobia. They are off to a fast start, ahead of the starter's pistol, mis-framing the debate. Only religions are protected by the First Amendment's free exercise clause. They have evaded\ the crucial question: "Is Islam a religion worthy of First Amendment protection?".
It has a scripture, it has theology, it has cosmology, it prays, it sways, it practices charity; it must be a religion. Yeah, right. Islam is a deen: way of life which dictates all aspects of human life. One critical aspect of that way of life makes it incompatible with our Constitution and intolerable in our society. Open your eyes and prepare to learn; I am about to show you something that nobody else will expose you to. This oral tradition exposes the reality of the Islamic deen.
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.
Moe presented jihad and agriculture as alternatives, the former being acceptable to Allah and the latter carrying a curse. Allah will curse the Muslims if they abandon jihad in exchange for agriculture. Jihad Akbar is striving against your ego and temptations. Is Jihad Akbar an alternative to farming for a living? Jihad asghar is defined in Islamic law as "to war against non-Muslims". Is that an alternative to farming as a way of making a living? For the answer, examine this hadith, which Khan bowdlerized but Aisha Bewley included in her translation of Sahih Bukhari.
How did Moe make his living? By his spear. Was it by hunting wild game? Is the life style of a hunter/gatherer consistent with making commands; abasing and humiliating anyone who disobeys? What kind of command is involved in that saying? Here is one sample.
Moe sent a letter to Christians, giving them the choice of conversion to Islam, dhimmitude & Jizya or war. He commanded people to submit to Islam and attacked them if they refused. What is consistent with issuing commands and punishing the disobedient? Pillage & plunder. Do you see the pattern yet?
For those who can not perceive the pattern, I have more clues from the Qur'an: Surah al-Anfal:; "Spoils of War". To whom do the spoils belong? How are they allocated? What was Moe's motivation?
8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad )], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad ) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise. [Emphasis added for clarity.]
Moe gets the spoils; the best 20% off the top. Moe's motivation was the spoils & ransom for captives. We have it on Allah's authority. But spoilation was taboo among Arabs, how did Moe get away with it? Allah gave him special dispensation. Nay more! Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world. How did Allah make Moe wealthy?
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs. "
[Emphasis added for clarity.]
Islam's mission is mercenary, neither spiritual nor eleemosynary. This fact alone is sufficient to disqualify Islam from First Amendment protection. There is another fact, equally potent as a disqualifier: Islam is permanent war. Moe created Islam for his personal emolument & empowerment, which were dependent on constant warfare. He began with razia on camel caravans, graduated to ghazwat against local Jewish settlements, and went on to conquer Mecca and threaten nearby kingdoms and empires.
Since Moe was the self-appointed spokesman for Allah, he had Allah issue commandments. Two of them are crucial to the question before us.
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.
Those are commands, imperatives, not suggestions; not metaphors, not allegories. They have neither geographic nor chronological limits; they are outcome oriented, of global scope. I gave you links to four tafsirs and Islamic law for a reason: so that you can verify what I have written. Those tafsirs deny the mercenary motivation clearly exposed by Allah's own testimony in 8:67: "You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives)". None of them denies the fard al-kifaya of annual ghazwat. None of them asserts limits of time or geography. None of them asserts an expiration date.
Besides bing fard al-kifaya, jihad is the essence of the relationship between Allah and the believers; he purchased them as slaves so that "...they kill (others) and are killed.".
What makes jihad holy? Is it fighting to establish the religion? [Read the footnote to 2:190.] No! Jihad is only holy if nobody embezzles the spoils!
Jihad would be profaned by embezzling the spoils, which belong to Moe, fleeing from battle and mutilation which was another taboo. Killing women and children is prohibited because they were part of the booty, dead bodies had no value on the slave market. If you retain any doubt about this disgusting fact, I have some references for you: 33:26-27, Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taymiyyah {"property for Muslims"}.
What is the importance of Jihad?
By what stretch of the imagination is a mercenary and martial institution which wages war against us to be greeted with a welcome mat and given the protection which the First Amendment extends to legitimate religions? Given the fact that offensive jihad is a required part of the practice of Islam, how can there be a right to practice Islam here?
The Times tells us that there is a "growing cottage industry of authors and bloggers" who testify against Islam and "interfaith groups led by Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, rabbis and clergy members of other faiths" who defend Mosques. They don't tell us about the fact that only one side has relevant, verifiable evidence to support its case. Throughout this post you will find links to source documents. They are bold, blue underlined text. When clicked, they open a relevant document in a new window.
At the end of the article, the times quotes a spokeswoman for one Mosque.
Does Shari'ah conflict with our Constitution and laws or not? Reliance of the Traveller is a 1251 page book, translated from Umdat as Salik. It is acknowledged by the Sheikhs at Al-Azhar University to be an authentic handbook of Islamic law. We have freedom of religion. American citizens can choose their own religion, and switch at will. Muslims governed by Shari'ah can not. A Muslim who apostatizes must be executed.
O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed. http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-2.html
Does that Islamic law conflict with our organic law or does it not?
Islamic law concerning marriage and divorce can be somewhat shocking to the western mind.
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.
-2- Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.
Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission.
As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.
The father of a prepubescent girl can marry her off without her consent. Is that or is that not in conflict with our laws? What if she refuses
...
-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;
-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor's) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.
Honoricide, anyone? But, of course, there is no conflict between Shari'ah and our Constitution.
Now, back to the topic of divorce.
N3.2 Using plain words to effect a divorce means expressly pronouncing the word divorce (O: or words
derived from it). When the husband says' "I 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.)
Is the Islamic law of divorce consistent with ours, or does it conflict?
Lets touch upon a subject which, though not directly involved in the federal organic law, does involve the Constitutions of the several states: duties of the governor.
-1- raising and deploying armies on the frontiers and fixing their salaries, if the caliph has not already done so;
-2- reviewing laws and appointing judges and magistrates;
-3- collecting the annual rate (khiraj) from those allowed to remain on land taken b Islamic conquests, gathering zakat from those obliged to pay, appointing workers to handle it, and distributing it to eligible recipients;
-4- protecting the religion and the sacrosanct, preserving the religion from alteration and substitution;
-5- enforcing the prescribed legal measures connected with the rights of Allah and men;
-6- leading Muslims at group and Friday prayers, whether personally or by representative;
-7- facilitating travel to the hajj for both pilgrims from the regian itself and those passing through from elsewhere, that they may proceed to the pilgrimage with all necessary help,
-8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients.
Revisit the last item in that list. The local governor has a duty to undertake jihad against neighboring enemies and dividing the spoils. Does that or does that not conflict with our federal and state Constitutions? We have been assured that there is no conflict between Shari'ah and our Constitution. What is the truth of the matter? Does our Constitution guarantee freedom of religion? How about Shari'ah?
The caliph makes war upon Jews & Christians until they become Muslim or pay extortion, in obedience to 9:29. But, we are assured that this does not conflict with our Constitution. I doubt that many Muslims have read it. Of course there is a perfect right to build Mosques & Madrassahs wherein to preach the obligation (fard al-kifaya) of jihad. And its perfectly alright to send 1\8 of the charity collected to those waging war against us.
It is obligatory to distribute one's zakat among eight categories of recipients (O: meaning that zakat goes to none besides them), one-eighth of the zakat to each category. (n: In the Hanafi school, it is valid for the giver to distribute his zakat to all of the categories, some of them, or to confine himself to just one of them (al-Lubab fi sharh al-Kitab(y88), 1.155). ) ...
H8.17: Those Fighting for Allah
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 (O: 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 (O: 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).
Didn't President Obama have something to say about Zakat at Cairo? "That's why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill Zakat." Who did the Holy Land Foundation send $13. million to? Why was that a big deal, requiring two trials in federal court?






