Sharia 101

Sharia 101

thanks to the Gates of Vienna

Mischief
A large selection of European anti-jihad groups will gather in Paris tomorrow for an event called “Assises contre l’islamisation de l’Europe”, or “Rally Against the Islamization of Europe.” Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Tommy Robinson of the EDL, and Oskar Freysinger of the Swiss People’s Party will be among the speakers.

Several of the groups represented there will be familiar to Gates of Vienna readers: Actions Sita, Riposte Laïque, the French Defence League, and the English Defence League. Not least among them is the Alliance to Stop Sharia, which has been instrumental in shifting the focus of the European Counterjihad from Islam as a religion to the evils of sharia law.

Resisting Islamization means resisting the encroachment of sharia in our countries. Opposing sharia doesn’t have to involve religion — sharia, as law, is already inimical to constitutional law in all Western countries. There’s no need to argue that Mohammed wasn’t the messenger of Allah. It doesn’t matter whether or not the Koran was dictated to him by the Archangel Gabriel. We don’t need to concern ourselves with the word of Allah to decide that Islamic law is against the basic legal codes of every Western country.

Virtually anyone who opposes Islamization is familiar with the outlines of sharia:

  • It makes women into second-class citizens.
  • It also insists that they be stoned to death for adultery.
  • It prescribes amputation for theft.
  • It demands the death penalty for leaving Islam, and even for “insulting the prophet”.
  • It includes many other practices that would be considered barbaric in any civilized country.

All of the above is true, and items like these are the important talking points that we should emphasize in our work as anti-sharia activists. But it’s also useful to understand sharia in greater depth.

Where does sharia come from? And how may we infidels learn more about it so we can understand it properly, cite it correctly, and argue effectively against liberals and Muslims who gloss over its true nature?

First of all: concerning sharia, do not to believe what is written or spoken by Muslims when it is intended for non-Muslims. What is written about Islam for an infidel audience is different from what Muslims teach members of their own faith.

To learn about Islamic law, what we read must have these characteristics:

1. It must be written by a Muslim.
2. The author must be recognized within the Muslim community as an expert on Islamic law.
3. The work must be intended for a Muslim audience.

This is not as difficult as it seems. Despite what Muslim spokesmen would like you to believe, it isn’t necessary to know Arabic, since four-fifths of the world’s Muslims don’t understand Arabic. Many authoritative books on Islamic law that are intended for a Muslim audience are written in English.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Sharia is included the constitutions of almost all Muslim-majority countries. These countries pay lip-service to “human rights”, but to Muslims the term does not mean what it does to most Westerners. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The constitutions of Islamic countries — if they mention human rights at all — reference the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which is a formal legal instrument promulgated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on behalf of OIC member states in 1990. It was formally served to the United Nations in 1993.

To get an idea of what the Cairo Declaration is about, take a look at Article 2 (my emphasis):

Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.

In other words: Muslims may cause bodily harm to others without violating their victims’ human rights, provided that their acts are justified under sharia.

Article 19 tells us:

All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled. [...] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.

In other words: all punishment of criminals must be according to Islamic law. This means that adulterous women must be stoned. Blasphemers and homosexuals must be killed. Thieves must have their hands cut off. And so on.

To make sure that there is no doubt about the primacy of sharia, we learn in Articles 24 and 25 that:

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

And:

The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

So now we know that the signatories of the Cairo Declaration proclaim their absolute adherence to sharia. When Islam dominates in a nation, sharia becomes the law of the land.

It’s clear that Muslim countries base their legal systems on sharia. But what exactly is sharia? And how do we find out about it?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
There are four schools of Islamic jurisprudence in Sunni Islam: Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi’ite, and Maliki. These four disciplines are in broad general agreement concerning the most important tenets of Islamic law, and differ only in the details. Shi’ites have their own version of sharia, which also agrees with its Sunni counterparts in most instances.

Reliance of the TravellerNumerous treatises on Islamic law in English have been published by these schools. One of the most useful and authoritative is a Shafi’ite manual by the 14th-century scholar Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper, commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English. It is useful because it is comprehensive, clearly written, and well-arranged. It is authoritative because all major Sunni Muslim governments cite it as such, and it has been officially approved by al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most prestigious and widely-respected source of Islamic scholarship in the world.

Every Counterjihad activist should acquire a copy of Reliance of the Traveller (it’s easy: see Amazon). Read it, study it, make notes in the margins, and fill it with color-coded bookmarks. In a debate, if you know this material thoroughly, you will be able to neutralize the tendentious nonsense put out by Islam-apologists. They will have no argument left except to call you a racist.

All Islamic law is derived ultimately from the Koran, or from the sunna of the prophet (the authenticated hadith [sayings] and the deeds of the prophet). Based on these sources, any given human activity is either prohibited, permitted, or mandatory. Behavior is mandatory or forbidden based on edicts in the Koran, or the prophet’s instructions as recorded in the hadith. An act is permitted if it took place in the presence of the prophet without causing his disapproval. This last point is key, because extrapolating from such permitted activities has allowed Islamic law to expand to cover every variety of human activity. A lot of effort goes into constructing modern-day fatwas that make further extrapolations, because such things as airplanes, electric can-openers, and penicillin did not exist in Mohammed’s time, and Islamic scholars must painstakingly construct analogies based on existing law to determine precisely how they are to be treated.

Reliance of the Traveller contains an exhaustive compilation of scholarly analysis based on the Koran and the sunna to provide guidance for the ulema (scholars of the law). A devout Muslim who seeks legal advice on virtually any topic will find it in Reliance.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
The two most important principles to remember when studying sharia are scholarly consensus and the doctrine of abrogation. The first is relatively easy to make sense of: when all the major classical interpreters of law agreed on a point, it became fixed in sharia for all time, and cannot be amended. When a text on Islamic law asserts that a legal interpretation enjoys the agreement of the scholars, it means there is no opening for dispute. These decisions were made over a thousand years ago, and are considered immutable.

Abrogation is a little trickier. If the Koran contradicts itself on any given topic — which it does in numerous instances — which verse is decisive? The answer seems simple enough: the decisive verses are those which were revealed later. The tricky part is deciding which passage is in fact later, since the Koran was not compiled in chronological order.

Fortunately for the ulema, there is a consensus of the scholars about the order of revelation in the Koran, with only a few minor disagreements. This makes abrogated verses fairly easy to determine. As it happens, the most bellicose and violent verses are found in the final parts of the Koran, and supersede the milder verses.

So what is the Koranic basis for the doctrine of abrogation?

It is a Koran which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages. (Koran 17:106)

Concerning this verse, the Koran commentator Yusuf Ali says:

The marvel is that these parts, revealed at different times and in different circumstances, should fit together so closely and consistently as they do. All revelation is progressive. The previous revelations were also progressive. Each of them marked a stage in the world’s spiritual history. Man’s mind does not take in more than his spiritual state will have prepared him for. Allah’s revelation comes as a light to illuminate our difficulties and show us the way in actual situations that arise.

This is another verse covering the same subject:

When We substitute one revelation for another — and Allah knows best what He reveals in stages — They say, “Thou art but a forger”: But most of them understand not. (Koran 16:101)

And once again, a comment by Yusuf Ali:

The doctrine of progressive revelation from age to age and time to time does not mean that Allah’s fundamental Law changes. It is not fair to charge a Prophet of Allah with forgery because the Message, as revealed to him, is in a different form from that revealed before, when the core of the Truth is the same, for it comes from Allah.

The final Koranic verse on progressive revelation:

None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things? (Koran 2:106)

Armed with this brief lesson, we can take a look at an example of how abrogation operates in practice. One of the verses that is most commonly quoted by Muslims to infidels is this one:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold. (Koran 2:256)

Ah yes: “no compulsion in religion”; we’ve all heard that one. But Sura 2 is in an early section of the Koran. Sura 9 — the “Sura of the Sword” — has the final say on such matters:

Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Koran 9:5)

And then:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Koran 9:29)

This is the last word on how an observant Muslim must treat the unbelievers.

All that soft, gentle, no-compulsion-in-religion stuff has been abrogated. Any Muslim who cites it to you as authoritative law is either ignorant or lying.

So why would a good Muslim lie? Doesn’t Allah hate a liar?

Well, yes, he does — unless it’s in a good cause. And a good cause is anything that serves the interests of Islam, as required by Islamic law with the consensus of the scholars.

For the details on such matters, see Reliance of the Traveller, Book R, “Holding One’s Tongue”, Section r8.2 “Permissible Lying”:

This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest.

This finding relies on Abu Hamid Ghazali, who was a preeminent Islamic legal jurist. In support of his assertion, Al-Misri quotes Ghazali in the same paragraph:

“…When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

In other words, a Muslim must lie if to do so is the only means to attain an obligatory end, that is, any end which is required by the law as determined from the Koran and the sunna.

Hmm… Subduing the infidel is obligatory, and it may be necessary to deceive him to achieve this end. Hence the lies.

Or it might be that misdirection will serve. Also found in Book R is “Giving a Misleading Impression” (r10.0), with a subsection entitled “An Alternative to Lying”:

Scholars say that there is no harm… in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law that is more important than not misleading the person being addressed, or if there is a pressing need which could not otherwise be fulfilled except through lying. (r10.3)

Now you know that the doctrines of taqiyya and kitman are not some racist slander made up out of thin air by us racist Islamophobes. They are in fact part of the body of Islamic law, as codified in treatises authenticated by the highest legal authorities in Islam.

Pulling the wool over the eyes of the kuffar is mandatory.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
What else can we learn about sharia from Reliance of the Traveller?

In Book O, Justice (o1.2), we discover that:

The following are not subject to retaliation:

[…]

(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim.

So when you kill a non-Muslim, there might well be a crime associated with it, but the killing itself is not murder.

(4) a father or mother… for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring…

Can you say “honor killing”?

Also in Book O (o8.0-8.1):

Whoever Voluntarily Leaves Islam Is Killed.

[…]

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

Now we can make sense of what is happening to Christians in Afghanistan. We — the United States of America — wrote a constitution for Afghanistan which includes this:

Article 2 [Religions]:

(1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Article 3 [Law and Religion]:

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

The “beliefs and provisions” of Islam require that any adult who converts out of Islam be killed.

The death sentences handed out to Christian converts in Afghanistan are legitimate, legal, and constitutional, according to a constitution that we wrote for the Afghans. Killing apostates does not even violate their human rights, because Afghanistan is a signatory of the Cairo Declaration, which states: “There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.”

The United Nations has recognized the Cairo Declaration as a valid instrument of international law.

The game is over, folks, and we lost. Those Christians on death row in Afghanistan have already had all the human rights they’re going to get.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
A common misconception among Westerners is that Muslims fight jihad against unbelievers in an attempt to convert them to Islam. This is not true: the goal of jihad is the imposition of sharia on the whole world.

Conversion is to be welcomed, but it is not the desired end. In his book Peace and the Limits of War — Transcending Classical Conception of Jihad, the Islamic scholar Louay M. Safi says this (p. 32):

The war against the apostates is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order.

This is why Muslims in the West are so eager to take offense and threaten and protest public symbols and make demands for cultural concessions: these are the outward signs of sharia law.

Halal meals in schools? Sharia.

No dogs in taxis? Sharia.

Separate sexes at the swimming pool? Sharia.

No crosses or crèches on display? Sharia.

No Mohammed cartoons? Sharia.

Interest-free mortgages? Sharia.

Prayer rooms in public buildings? Sharia.

No public eating during Ramadan? Sharia.

We’re halfway there. Oh yes, we still get to have our synagogues and churches, at least for a while longer. Our women can still walk around in provocative clothing like uncovered meat. We can still eat ham sandwiches — as long as it isn’t Ramadan, and there aren’t any Muslims around to file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

By the time we wake up to what is happening, it will already be too late. Sharia will be the law of the land. We will have submitted.

We will then pay the jizya with our own hand, and feel ourselves subdued.

******

Sharia Law for the Non-Muslim

This is the introduction and first two chapter’s of Bill Warner’s book, Sharia Law for the Non-Muslim and is recommended reading for all Americans as Sharia is spreading rapidly throughout our country.  The book can be downloaded below and also there is a table below with links to summaries on the current Jihad activities in our country today.

Sharia in Europe Today

When you study Islam in Europe today, you are seeing America in 20 years. Why? The actions by Muslims in Europe are based on Sharia law, the same Sharia law that is beginning to be implemented in America today.

There are times when traffic cannot move in London streets as Muslims commandeer the streets to pray—a political result based on Sharia law.

Entire areas of Europe are no-go zones for non-Muslims, this includes the police. These are Islamic enclaves where only Muslims live. The Muslim-only policy is based on Sharia.

In England an Anglican bishop calls for the rule of Islamic law for Muslims. The bishop is obeying Sharia law.

In the schools only Islamic approved texts can be used; this is based on Sharia law.

Christians may not speak to Muslims about Christianity nor may Christians hand out literature. This is a political result based on Sharia law enforced by British courts.

Rape by Muslims is so prevalent in parts of Sweden that Sweden has forbidden the police from collecting any data in the rape investigation that would point to Islam. Rape is part of Islamic doctrine as applied to non-Muslim women.

In London, mass demonstrations by Muslims call for the end of British law and Sharia law to rule all people, regardless of religion. This political action is based on Sharia.

In some English hospitals during Ramadan fast (an Islamic religious event), non-Muslims cannot eat where a Muslim can see them. The submission of non-Muslims to Islamic preferences is based on Sharia law.

At British hospitals, Muslim women are treated only as Sharia law demands.

Sharia in America Today

Islam in America Overview Islam in America: Education Islam in the American Workplace
Islam in American Prisons Islamification: American Colleges and Universities Internet Jihad
Islamic Compounds in America Islam Lawfare in America American Fifth Column

Here are current and historical events in America that are driven by Sharia law:

On September 11, 2001 jihadists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center in New York. This atrocity was in compliance to the doctrine of jihad found in the Sharia law. The attack was a political action motivated by a religious mandate for endless jihad.

Textbooks in America must be approved by Islamic councils. This is in accordance with Sharia law.

American employers and schools are met with demands for time and space to do Islamic prayer. These demands are based on Sharia law.

The American banking system is becoming Islamicized with Sharia financing. Our banking system is becoming Sharia compliant in financial law, but is ignorant about the totality of Sharia law.

Universities are asked to provide sexually segregated swimming pools and other athletic facilities for Muslim women.

Hospitals are being sued for not providing Sharia compliant treatment.

No course at the college level uses critical thinking regarding the history and doctrine of Islam. Under Sharia nothing about Islam may be criticized.

Muslim charities give money to jihadists (Islamic terrorists), as per Sharia law.

Muslim foot-baths are being installed in airport facilities, paid for by American tax dollars. This is in accordance with Sharia law.

American prisons are a stronghold of Islamic proselytizing.

Workplaces are being made Islamic worship sites through special rooms and time off to pray. This is in accordance to Sharia law.

Islamic refugees bring all of their wives for welfare and medical treatment to America. American authorities will not act—even when presented with evidence. Polygamy is pure Sharia.

We are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to implement constitutions whose first article is the supremacy of Sharia law.

Why do we need to know Sharia?

islamic scholars claim: Islamic law is perfect, universal and eternal. The laws of the United States are temporary, limited and will pass away. It is the duty of every Muslim to obey the laws of Allah, the Sharia. US laws are man-made; while Sharia law is sacred and comes from the only legitimate god, Allah.

sharia: Sharia is based on the principles found in the Koran and other Islamic religious/political texts. There are no common principles between American law and Sharia.

Life Under Sharia law:

  • There is no freedom of religion
  • There is no freedom of speech
  • There is no freedom of thought
  • There is no freedom of artistic expression
  • There is no freedom of the press
  • There is no equality of peoples—a non-Muslim, a Kafir, is never equal to a Muslim
  • There is no equal protection under Sharia for different classes of people. Justice is dualistic, with one set of laws for Muslim males and different laws for women and non-Muslims.
  • There are no equal rights for women
  • Women can be beaten
  • A non-Muslim cannot bear arms
  • There is no democracy, since democracy means that a non-Muslim is equal to a Muslim
  • Our Constitution is a man-made document of ignorance, jahiliyah, that must submit to Sharia
  • Non-Muslims are dhimmis, third-class citizens
  • All governments must be ruled by Sharia law
  • Unlike common law, Sharia is not interpretive, nor can it be changed
  • There is no Golden Rule

The Solution

This book uses a fact-based approach to knowledge based upon analytic or critical thought. When you finish reading, you will know what Sharia law is. More importantly, you will know the basis of Sharia. You will achieve an understanding of Islam that most in the West do not have. Islam will begin to make sense.

The Three Views of Islam

There are three points of view relative to Islam. The point of view depends upon how you think about Mohammed. If you believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer. If you don’t, you are a nonbeliever. The third viewpoint is that of an apologist for Islam. Apologists do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but they are tolerant about Islam without any actual knowledge of Islam.

Here is an example of the three points of view.

In Medina, Mohammed sat all day long beside his 12-year-old wife while they watched as the heads of 800 Jews were removed by sword.[1] Their heads were cut off because they had said that Mohammed was not the prophet of Allah. Muslims view these deaths as necessary because denying Mohammed’s prophet-hood was, and remains, an offense against Islam. They were beheaded because it is sanctioned by Allah..

Nonbelievers look at this event as proof of the jihadic violence of Islam and as an evil act.

Apologists say that this was an historic event; that all cultures have violence in their past, and no judgment should be passed. They have never actually read any of Islam’s foundational texts, but speak authoritatively about Islam.

According to the different points of view, killing the 800 Jews was:

A tragedy

A perfect sacred act

Another historical event. We have done worse.

There is no “right” view of Islam, since the views cannot be reconciled.

This book is written from the nonbeliever point of view. Everything in this book views Islam from the perspective of how Islam affects non-Muslims. This also means that the religion is of little importance. A Muslim cares about the religion of Islam, but all nonbelievers are affected by Islam’s political views.

This book discusses Islam as a political system. It does not discuss Muslims or their religion. Muslims are people and vary from one to another. Religion is what one does to go to Paradise and avoid Hell. It is not useful nor necessary to discuss Islam as a religion.

We must talk about Islam in the political realm, because it is a powerful political system.

[1] The Life of Muhammad, A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, 1982, pg. 464.

What is Sharia?

CHAPTER 2

Sharia law is Islamic law. Sharia is the basis for every demand that Muslims make on our society.

When schools are asked to give up a room for Islamic prayer, that is asking us to implement Sharia law.

When a Muslim wears a head scarf,  that is in obedience to Sharia law.

When our newspapers would not publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons, our newspapers were submitting to the demands of Sharia law.

When demands are made for our hospitals to treat Muslim women in special ways, that is Sharia.

When our textbooks have to be vetted by Muslim organizations before they are used in our schools, that is in accordance with Sharia law.

The attack on the World Trade Center was perpetrated in adherence to the rules of war, jihad, found in Sharia law. Sharia law is the basis for the religious, political and cultural life of all Muslims.

Sharia law is being implemented more and more in America and yet there is no knowledge about what Sharia actually is since public, private or religious schools do not teach it.

The Good News

The easiest way to learn about Islam is through Sharia law. Through learning about Sharia you are introduced to the Koran and Mohammed in a practical manner.

When you know Sharia, Islam makes sense. Most people believe that Islam is complicated or even impossible to understand, but when you understand its principles, Islam is very, very logical. It is based on different views of humanity, logic, knowledge, and ethics. Once you understand the principles and logic, you not only can explain what and why something is happening, but you will be able to predict the next step in the process.

Understanding the Reference Numbers

Before you can understand Sharia, you have to learn about three books that are the foundations of Sharia.

Each ruling or law in Sharia is based on a reference in the Koran or the Sunna, the perfect example of Mohammed (found in two texts—Hadith and Sira). Each and every law in Islam must have its origins in the Koran and the Sunna.

We know the Sunna by knowing about the personal details of Mohammed’s life. We know how he cleaned his teeth and which shoe he put on first. We know the Sunna because we have the Sira and the Hadith.

You probably think that the Koran is the bible of Islam. Not true. The bible of Islam is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith; these three texts can be called the Trilogy.

The Koran is a small part, only 14% of the total words, of the doctrine that is Islam. The text devoted to the Sunna (Sira and Hadith) is 86% of the total textual doctrine of Islam. Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed.

Sharia is nothing more than a condensation and extrapolation of the Koran and the Sunna. Therefore, it is impossible to understand the Sharia without some understanding about the doctrine found in the Koran, Hadith and the Sira. Turn to any page after this chapter and you will find that most of the paragraphs have an index number.

A classic Sharia law text is the Reliance of the Traveller, N. Keller, Amana Publications. (Yes, the correct spelling is Traveller with a double l.) It is very authoritative as it is warranted and certified as accurate by five of the greatest Islamic scholars of today. It is a 1,200 page book, written in the fourteenth century, devoted to such subjects as: political control of non-Muslims, prayer, jihad, wills and estates, punishment, court rules, and land use. It covers legalities and theology.

Here is a typical paragraph:

The “o8.1” reference is an index number in the Sharia law text, The Reliance of the Traveller. The text is divided into divisions—a, b, c, … This particular law is found in division o; section 8; subsection 1. With the index number, o8.1, you can refer directly to the source, The Reliance of the Traveller.

In the example above we not only have the law, apostates (people who leave Islam) should be killed, but we have the supporting doctrine found in a hadith, a sacred text used along with the Koran. A hadith is what Mohammed did or said.

This particular hadith is from Sahih al-Bukhari, one of the six canonical hadith collections of Sunni Islam. These prophetic traditions, or hadith, were collected by the Muslim scholar Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari about 200 years after Mohammed died and compiled during his lifetime. It is the most authoritative of all the collections. Sahih means authentic or correct. Notice the index number—9,83,17. This reference number is like a chapter and verse index so that you can go and read the original. All of the hadith, including Bukhari, can be found on many university Internet sites.

Here is a Sharia law supported by the Koran:

Above, we have the Sharia text defining what jihad is and then the foundational reference for the authority is provided. Again, you can verify the accuracy of the Koran verses and the original reference, 09.0, in the Reliance of the Traveller.

There is one last type of reference to a supporting document.

Above we have the usual Sharia reference number, m10.12, which relates to the Reliance of the Traveller—the original reference. The Ishaq index number, 969, is a margin note reference that allows you to look in the Sira (Mohammed’s biography—The Life of Muhammad, A. Guillaume) and verify the reference for yourself.

Believable and Authoritative

This is fact-based knowledge based upon critical thought and analysis. Everything you see here can be independently verified.

This is a very different approach from asking a Muslim or an “expert” about Islam or Sharia. If a Muslim or any expert says something about Islam that disagrees with the Koran or Sunna, then the expert is wrong. If the expert says something that agrees with Koran or Sunna, then the expert is right, although redundant.

Once you know Koran and Sunna, further advice is not required.

Political Islam

The largest part of the Trilogy is not about how to be a good Muslim. Instead most of the text is devoted to the unbeliever. The Koran devotes 64% of its total words to the unbeliever and the Trilogy, as a whole, devotes 60% of its text to the unbelievers.

Islam is NOT just a religion. It is a complete civilization with a detailed political system, religion and a legal code—the Sharia. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and got 150 Arabs to convert to Islam. He went to Medina and became a politician and a war-lord. After 2 years in Medina, every Jew was murdered, enslaved, or exiled. He was involved in an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life[1]. Mohammed died without a single enemy left standing.

This was not a religious process, but a political process. Jihad is political action with a religious motivation. Political Islam is the doctrine that deals with the non-Muslim.

Mohammed did not succeed with his program of religion, but his political process of jihad triumphed. Sharia law is the political implementation of the Islamic civilization.

The political nature of Islam is what creates the major difference between Sharia and Jewish religious law, halakha. Jewish law has nothing to say about non-Jews and explicitly says that the law of the land trumps halakha.

Sharia has a lot to say about Kafirs and how they are to be treated, subjugated and ruled. Sharia claims political supremacy over the Constitution.

There is nothing good for non-Muslims in the Sharia. This is why every unbeliever has a reason to know Sharia law, especially those in politics, policy, regulation and legal matters. Sharia law is about the unbeliever as well as the Muslim. Islam’s attitudes and actions about unbelievers are political, not religious.

Even though Sharia violates every principle of our Constitution, it is being implemented today, because Americans are unaware about Sharia or its meaning.

Sharia and Interpretation

When faced with unpleasant verses from the Koran, it is commonly said that the true meaning depends upon how one interprets the text. For over a thousand years, the Sharia has been the official and normative interpretation for all of Islam. Sharia is the Koran and Sunna interpreted by Islam’s finest scholars. There is no need to look further for interpretation; that work has been done for a thousand years. New matters in Islam must be evaluated and judged according to Sharia, the final and universal moral code for all humanity until the end of time.

The Sharia is based on the perfect, unchanging Koran and Sunna. The vast majority of Islamic scholars argue that the Sharia is Allah’s will in the past and the present. It should be implemented by all peoples as the only sacred law in its present form.

Any change or reform of the Sharia must be based the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed, just like the classical text.

Technical Details

If you read something in this book and want to know more, most paragraphs have an index number. You can look it up.

Download the Entire Book

6 thoughts on “Sharia 101”

  1. “Backlash”

    March 15, 2011 (KHARTOUM) – A senior Sudanese security officer has been facing a barrage of criticism after he suggested in a radio interview last week that the government may repeal Islamic Shari’ah laws if other political parties agreed to it, in a case highlighting the sensitivity surrounding the issue of Islamic laws in the predominantly Muslim society of northern Sudan. (More)

  2. “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of
    war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and
    others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall
    spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
    (Surah alAnfaal 60)”

  3. Published: January 27, 2012

    Islam is not just a religion

    Adam Bates (Your Views, Jan. 16) states the proposed ban on Sharia law in Oklahoma is unconstitutional and an “embarrassing chapter in our history.” Preventing implementation of Sharia is important and hardly embarrassing. Muneer Awad, Oklahoma executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the ban on Sharia would impact every aspect of his life. This is true because Islam is a complete political, legal and social system, not just a religion.

    The laws that govern all Americans are inadequate for Awad; he must have Islamic law. Other religions separate politics and religion. Jesus never sought political power; Muhammad slaughtered opponents for it. Our constitutional commitment to religious freedom renders us vulnerable to a religion that’s also a political-legal system.

    Sharia prescribes death to adulterers (only women, really), gays and all Muslims who convert to another faith. It also justifies polygamy, pedophilia and wife-beating. Muslims in enclaves throughout Europe, and in Canada, have carried out many such crimes, claiming Sharia justification. When this occurs here, would the perpetrator’s rights under Sharia law supersede the victim’s under U.S. law? Judges should answer this definitively, and not say, “It hasn’t happened yet.”
    There is precedent: Driving under the influence is illegal, even though no crime has been committed yet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>