This is the second phase of my paper on Shari’ah. In the last phase, i dealt with apostasy, adultery and theft. It should not puzzle you that despite all the injustice, cruelty and human right violations that results of of implementing Shari’ah in the Middle East, more Muslims continue to push for this law. The advocates of Shari’ah believe that implementation of full Shari’ah will revert their society to a heaven on earth. This heaven is only a PHANTOM HEAVEN, as earlier stated, majority of Shari’ah advocates are vastly ignorant of the law they wish for!
This phase of my paper will deal with;
1. Blasphemy(Defamation and Desecration)
2. Religious coercion
3. Civil matters
Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her.
The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up. The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.”
Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.” (Classed as saheeh by al- Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)
Al-Nasaa’i narrated (4071) that Abu Barzah al-Aslami said: A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and I said, ‘Shall I kill him?’ He rebuked me and said, ‘That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) .’”
Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from ‘Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case.
It may be justifiable to penalize persons for insulting or cursing revered or venerated figures but to stone, decapitate or slaughter like a goat as sanctioned by Shari’ah in the light of the above traditions is criminal.
See, here is another troubling thing about Shari’ah. Even mere polite criticism or disapproval of the religion is ruled as blasphemy by Shari’ah authorities and punishable by death. In fact challenging, debating or probing ‘Islam’ is crime in Shari’ah states.
Remember Raif Badawi the Saudi blogger and activist serving 10 years imprisonment and 1000 lashes for criticising clerics, Saudi state and “Islam”? Confirm
Last decade, an ex-orthodox Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali faced death threats for suggesting that if Muhammad lived today, he would be charged for pedophilia since he is reported to have slept with Aisha; a minor. However, Ayaan ‘s suggestion cannot even be deemed defamatory since she was merely invoking a tradition of mainstream Muslims:::
The Messenger of Allah married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said: or Six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.
It is indisputable that mainstream Muslims are the biggest Islamophobes since their own books of tradition are full of slanders against Muhammad.
Luckily, Ayaan got away, thanks to being in a secular society. Under Shari’ah, it would have been bloodier. Aasia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian is paying the price today for allegedly making a derogatory remark about Muhammad in response to derogatory remark on her religion by Pakistani Muslims. She has been in prison since 2010. With the Shari’ah court bent on death sentence, her future may be grim. Attempts to bail her in the past has ended in assassinations of a Minister and Politician who condemned the blasphemy laws. Confirm
Tombs, shrines, altars or temples are sanctified public places that ought to be protected like other public spaces as Banks, Markets e.t.c. Desecrating such places certainly cannot go unpunished.
However, the bone of contention is that Shari’ah goes overboard. Last month, a young Pakistani couple were killed by Pakistani Muslim mob after a Qur’an copy recovered from a public refuse dump was traced to their door. All their pleas and cries of innocence did not slow the mob in casting them into a kiln. It doesn’t matter whether this killing was legislated by a Shari’ah court or not. It remains that even a Shari’ah court could have had the couple executed. Confirm
I do not relish repeating horror tales about the Muslim world. But i have heard too much to be silent or politically correct. The Qur’an repeatedly states that it belongs to mankind, not Muslims alone. Anyone may own a Qur’an copy and no possessor of Qur’an copy cannot be held accountable before another man except God over his copy. Except the desecrated Qur’an belong to someone else, it is injustice and overt intrusion of personal affair to penalize the desecrator if the Qur’an copy is his personal item just as penalizing a man for confiscating his radio set is.
Throughout the Qur’an, cases of disbelievers ridiculing, desecrating or defaming the Qur’an or the Prophet are mentioned numerous times(Qur’an 15:6 17:47 34:8 37:36 68:51). Not even in one instance is a punishment prescribed for the blasphemers. At most, what the Lord expect of the righteous is to admonish the blasphemers(Qur’an 6:68-69).
In short, Shari’ah is not the law of God. It is the law of mortals attributed to God.
The very existence of Shari’ah, a law enforced to compel people comply with religious teaching is a gross violation of the Scriptures which reaffirm there is no coercion in religious matter(Qur’an 2:256).
The Scriptures are our individual covenant and test with God. Shari’ah undermines this basic fact. It is no longer a test when believers are compelled by authorities regarding the the Scriptures.
That is why except for offences like theft, adultery that violate human right, the Scriptures prescribed no penalty for other offenses like apostasy, blasphemy, consuming ‘unclean’ food.
Under Shari’ah, there is no room for religious pluralism and any brand of the religion beside orthodoxy is forbidden and punishable. Criticising, debunking or even expressing contempt for any tenet of the religion may easily be marked as apostasy, dissidence or rebellion against the state and punishable by death. For this reason any attempt for reform, whether from within or outside the religion is futile from the onset, under Shari’ah.
In 1985, Muhammad Taha was executed on authority of Shari’ah court and Muslim Brotherhood. Taha was a reformist, although he had his blind spots, he was an exemplary figure who founded a Muslim movement in Sudan that stood for secularism instead of Shari’ah, preached for peace instead Jihad, promoted rights of women and minorities. Today, nothing is remembered of Taha, while war-mongers and violators of human rights like Ruhullah Khomeini, Saddam Husseini or Osama bin Ladin are fondly remembered in the Muslim world. Confirm
Educating and enlightening the masses with counter-ideas to the state religion whether by TV/Radio programs, lectures/seminars, newsletters or even internet articles is forbidden. Thus, minorities like Christians or Jews cannot preach or invite anyone to their faith, they cannot build new temples. There is no room for a Muslim to reaccess his faith and inquire for the truth because every information at his disposal has been censored by Shari’ah authorities who ban books and websites with alternate and counter ideas to the religion enforced by the state. In short, a Muslim under Shari’ah have no right to decide regarding his faith, the state decides and the Shari’ah authority enforces.
In fact, there are religious police in most Shari’ah compliant societies like Iran or Saudi Arabia to enforce Shari’ah, they roam about grounding and arresting for offenses like intermingling of men and women, women traveling without a male relative e.t.c. It doesn’t matter whether a Muslim is disillusioned or unconvinced of the position of the State or Shari’ah authorities on a matter, he must comply or may be marked as an apostate to be ostracized or killed.
Don’t also forget that Jews/Christians are levied in return for practicing their religion under Shari’ah. They can only avert this levy by embracing Islam, otherwise they have to pay this levy to protect their lives and properties from the state. Other religious minorities like theists, polytheists, agnostics, atheists have only two choices; embrace Islam or death.
When you meet those advocating for Shari’ah, do not be brainwashed by their invoking of words like ‘Justice, Peace, Rights, Freedom.’ The law they are advocating is a very barbaric, discriminatory, oppressive and misogynist one that will regress mankind to medieval age.
Shari’ah is perhaps the most vivid tool by which Islamists or Islamofascists seek to segregate themselves from non-Muslims when they migrate to the West. Although many Muslims flee Shari’ah in the Middle East for a moderate, modern, free-minded, progressive society provided in the West, Islamists on delegation of the Muslim Brotherhood migrate to the West and apply for validation of Shari’ah and Shari’ah court to precede over civil matters in the Muslim community.
This has been the case in many Western countries. The more troubling issue is that we have non-Muslims, Westerners standing for validation of Shari’ah by invoking ‘freedom for religious practices’ for Muslims. This only shows the level of ignorance and naivety of Westerners regarding Shari’ah.
In cases, some Muslims have stood publicly for secular laws over Shari’ah. In states like Canada, this has suppressed proliferation of Shari’ah. Other states like UK are paying the price for not having moderate Muslims oppose Shari’ah for state laws.
The key difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical is their position on Shari’ah.
As already stated, Shari’ah is an assault on one ‘s freedom of belief and choice. It robs the Muslim of his right to inquire, contemplate and decide on the truth, rendering him into a robot.
There is a lot beyond belief pertaining to civil matters under Shari’ah. The are voices from the left demanding Muslim minorities are granted autonomy to rule their community with Shari’ah. Except the Muslim community is completely separated from the rest of the state, this is not possible. Shari’ah cannot co-exist with a secular egalitarian national constitution for alternate reasons. Here is what i mean:
Do you know that under Shari’ah;
-a non-Muslim ‘s testimony in court is worth less than that of a Muslim
-a non-Muslim or apostate is not entitled to
a share of inheritance from a Muslim relative.
-an apostate loses costudy of his/her kids upon leaving Islam and his/her marriage is annulled if his/her spouse remain Muslim.
-a Muslim cannot be killed in justice for killing a non-Muslim.
-the testimony of a woman is generally half of a man ‘s, in the court.
-a woman have no right to divorce her husband. She may appeal to her husband or Shari’ah court to annull their marriage but in the end her fate depend on descretion of court or her hubby. If her appeal or request is granted, she is obligated to compensate her ex-husband with no less than her dowry.
On the other hand, a man may divorce his wife at anytime and he is not answerable to any one for his decision which the wife cannot object.
-wife beating is condoned as a disciplinary measure by husbands.
Is this the law that sane, educated, righteous men will revere as divine and advocate for its implementation worldwide? It is a law aimed at cutting off any relationship or interaction between opposite genders by enforcing gender segregation right from the temples to the offices and down to even buses or taxis.
It is a misogynist law that requires women to be secluded as much as possible in the home thereby justifying Saudi Arabia ‘s ban of female driving. This same law prohibit women from traveling without company of a male authority, hindering women ‘s mobility and barring them from mobile fields like aeronautics, journalism, politics e.t.c. A man is never answerable to his wife yet a woman cannot even fast without her husband ‘s permission under Shari’ah. Prepubescent girls as young as about 9 may be married off legally!
This is Shari’ah, the law that even feminists, non-Muslims and women are protesting for, behind placards and banners in the name of ‘freedom of religion’.
Shari’ah isn’t merely a law. It is a major component of Islamism, a more totalitarian, fascist and supremacist ideology or movement than even Nazism, Fascism or Communism.
If Shari’ah is so utopian, why is the ratio of non-Muslim immigrants in Shari’ah states to Muslim immigrants in secular states insignificant? It has barely much to offer.
Settling in the “infidels’ domain” as a Muslim is frowned upon by clerics on authority of Shari’ah, yet more and more Muslims are migrating from Shari’ah compliant Somali or Pakistan to secular West. Any land ruled by a woman is considered cursed according to orthodox/mainstream Muslim ideology, yet we have orthodox Muslims among whom are Shari’ah advocates emigrating from Saudi Arabia, UAE to settle in a ‘cursed’ land like Britain ruled by a woman or Queen.
This concludes the second phase of my paper on Shari’ah. In the near future, the final phase will be published. Thank you for reading, and share the word.