Is Islam A Peaceful Religion?

 Quran V. Constitution:

Why They Are Incompatible

Sharia Is Bad For All Societies

Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 (I John 4:1-8)

True Christianity Betters Life Everywhere

Sept. 27, 2009

Paul Brown

www.lastgeneration.us

      Most Westerners believe that Islam is really a peaceful religion (see Is Islam in reality a peaceful religion?). They think that a few Muslim radicals have given this false religion a bad name. You need to study their book and see what they really believe.  By their fruits ye shall know them (Matt. 8:16).  The history of Islam reveals the true nature of this brutal religion which blossomed from its hateful writings.  Islam is a religion of hatred towards those who do not think as they do.  Christianity, true Christianity (not Roman Catholicism [remember the Crusades and "trial by fires?"]), is a belief of love towards mankind in support of repentance and salvation in Jesus Christ, regardless of a person's beliefs.

     If a person is afraid of losing the religion that they have in their heart, because they associate with other people of different faiths, then they do not have the real thing.  Real faith in a person's heart is permanent no matter what the conditions.  You do not have to hate or kill an infidel to maintain and impart your faith.

     The Family of Imran 3.151 (Quran): We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.

    Muslim teaching says the unbelievers of Islam have something terrible coming to them in this life, and in the afterlife.  The reason for this is because the infidel has crossed paths with Allah and done things for which Allah has given them no authority to do.  The punishment in the afterlife is hell.  But, the Muslim's Quran teaches that a Muslim can "cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve."  A false religion will teach its members to commit acts of terror against unbelievers because they go against the teachings of their book.  Who is going to want to join, and be a part, of such a terrible religion? No love here.

    The holy Bible teaches that an unbeliever who dies in their sin, without accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, will go to hell after death.  The Bible does not teach that a Christian can "cast terror into the hearts" of unbelievers.  A Christian is to "cast the love of the true God into the hearts" of unbelievers.  God is love. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever shall believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  The Bible does not teach to evangelize through terror.  The Bible teaches to evangelize through the truth of the Gospel, true love, and kind deeds.  If a person claims to be following the true God and goes about spreading their religion, through other methods than what was just mentioned, then they are deceived and have the wrong beliefs. You cannot bully someone into believing what you want them to believe.

     Al-taqiyya: The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "dissimulation"  which is okay in Islam. In other words, the Muslim religion teaches its disciples to lie about what their religion really teaches. The Taqiyah doctrine is based on the following verse from Qur'an 3:28: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them." Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir explained that "believers that fear for their safety from the unbelievers... are allowed to show friendship to the unbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly."

     The Art of Al-taqiyya From the Washington Post (http://www.lindasog.com/mt/archives/2005/03/

the_art_of_alta_1.html): Al-taqiyya is a word used for the practice of Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims. Muslims consider the act of Al-taqiyya or lying to non-Muslims to be a good work. Especially if it helps support the war against the infidel. In case you've forgotten, you are the infidel, so am I, so is each and every American who is not Muslim. From "Islam's Shell Game" by Johnn "Trike" Schroeder Muslims say one thing and think another, because their holy book allows such action in the furtherance of their religion. They do not punish the insane killers in their communities who strike at Americans, because they do not see the terrorists as wrong, rather they see them as warriors, honorable and holy themselves. Thus there is no conflict with their religion, and no real dichotomy exists between the terrorists and Islam as a whole. If one acts as a neutral (for no Muslim speaks out one way or the other as a rule on terrorists and their acts), to create a sort of wall behind which our enemies can move and strike at us, they act as our enemies as well!

Quran Vs. Constitution: Why They're Incompatible

Sept. 26, 2009

Quran vs. Constitution: Why they're incompatible
By William J. Federer
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111055

     President Barack Obama stated in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009: "When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the …Holy Quran." The dilemma is: How can one swear to defend something upon a book that promotes the opposite? (answer Al-taqiyya)

     The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, "Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them." In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."

     Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to "dhimmi" status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David. The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge "the freedom of speech," yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells. (kind of like the religion of the NEA in American Public Schools).

     The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away "the right of the people to peaceably assemble," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

     The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

     The Second Amendment states, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind. (kind of like what the Democratic party believes.)

     The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to "quarter" someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill – and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures," yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

     The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime …without due process of law," yet Muhammad said, "No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)" (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

     The Sixth Amendment guarantees a "public trial by an impartial jury" and the Seventh Amendment states "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim.

     The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," yet the Quran states: "Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah" (Sura 5:38). In Muslim countries a raped woman is punished: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes" (Sura 24:2).

     Women can be beaten: "If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

     The 13th Amendment states there shall be no "slavery or involuntary servitude," yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Muhammad owned slaves. The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens "equal protection of the laws," yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as "the People of the Book," Muhammad said: "They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine" (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

     The 15th Amendment guarantees "the right of the citizens …to vote shall not be denied …on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," yet the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making their own laws.

     The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived." Muhammad said, "Fight those who believe not in Allah …until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).

     The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

     One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book. As Muhammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political and military leader, Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political and military system. Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political/military example of Muhammad, when Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political/military allegiance to Mecca. Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values is a dilemma worthy of a presidential explanation.

What is Sharia?

      

     Sharia means "path" in Arabic; sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna--the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Precedents and analogy applied by Muslim scholars are used to address new issues. The consensus of the Muslim community also plays a role in defining this theological manual.

 

     Sharia developed several hundred years after the false Prophet Mohammed's death in 632 CE as the Islamic empire expanded to the edge of North Africa in the West and to China in the East. Since the false Prophet Mohammed was considered the most pious (everyone knows about his 9 year old wife) of all believers, his life and ways became a model for all other Muslims and were collected by scholars into what is known as the hadith. Sharia law is discriminatory: Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are discriminatory, particularly against women and children, and in violation of universal human rights.

     Sharia law is unfair and unjust in civil matters Proponents argue that the implementation of Sharia is justified when limited to civil matters, such as child custody, divorce and inheritance. In fact, it is civil matters that are one of the main cornerstones of the subjugation of and discrimination against women and children. Under Sharia law a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; a woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband. A man can have four wives and divorce his wife by simple repudiation, whereas a woman must give reasons, some of which are extremely difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive; women who remarry lose custody of their children; and sons are entitled to inherit twice the share of daughters.

     Sharia law doesn’t promote minority rights and social cohesion. Proponents argue that the right to be governed by Sharia law is necessary to defend minority rights. Having the right to religion or atheism, however, is not the same as having the ‘right’ to be governed by religious laws. This is merely a prescription for discrimination, inequality and culturally relative rights. Rather than defending rights, it discriminates and sets up different and separate systems, standards and norms for ‘different’ people. It reinforces the fragmentation of society, and leaves large numbers of people, particularly women and children, at the mercy of elders and imams. It increases marginalization and the further segregation of immigrant communities. It ensures that immigrants and new arrivals remain forever minorities and never equal citizens.

     One law for all: Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not beliefs. In a civil society, people must have full citizenship rights and equality under the law. Clearly, Sharia law contravenes fundamental human rights. In order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no Sharia.

Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia Is Bad For All Societies

August 13, 2005

Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies

By James Arlandson

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

     Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented? This article says no for ten verifiable reasons. Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:

     First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.

     Second, each of these ten reasons has a back—up article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles (from the original website http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html). They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.

     Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just....

     Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs.... New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity. 'Islam' in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars. Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.

     10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol. In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes. In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

     After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry: The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

     Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment? The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here. It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? Islamic countries still have drinking, drugs and gambling in them.

     9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives. In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia. Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Islamic scholars have sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives. The Quran says:

    ...If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004) The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

     Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari) This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127: 'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'

     It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars.  In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

     8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

      In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.

In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiancé.

     In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes. The Quran says:

     5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and  wrongdoers . . .) (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996).

     This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation. The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above. Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally....

     7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan. A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here. The Quran says:

     5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

     At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788).

     6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated. In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.

     In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated. The Quran says:

     5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem) It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

      The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.

     5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed. In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed. In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy. In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

     On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.'  These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate. Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .

     'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).

     This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have a wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . .on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

     4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death. In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex. The Quran says:

     The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law] (Hilali and Khan). The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.

     The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here. According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty—five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.

In December 2004, Amnesty International reports: an Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped. She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

    This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

    The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

     Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

     In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed  the fatwa.

     In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

     In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam. Here are the classical legal rulings. First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger
(2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'
(3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'
(4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'
(5) reviling the religion of Islam
(6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law
(7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . .to be the religion followed by the entire world

 

     Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ. How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

     Islam orders apostates to be killed. In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy. This analysis  tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples. Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.  What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions:

     (1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture.

     (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this.

    (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low.

     (4) Old men and monks could be killed.

     (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.

    (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim.

     (7) Civilian property may be confiscated.

     (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed.

     (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed.

   (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.

    (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow? Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive....

      The New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are. Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.

     Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.

     One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada.  Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia  as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love (I John 4:1-8).

_____________________________________

Are you saved? Are you ready for the tribulation to come? Are you headed to hell without hope and God?

Click here to go to our salvation page and learn how you can become born-again and live eternally.