Sunday, October 17, 2010

Muslim Brotherhood

Muslim Brotherhood motto: "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

Two references on The Muslim Brotherhood.

There was a show on CBN News, Stakelbeck on Terror - The Muslim Brotherhood in America.

An article by Moshe Dan, in the American Thinker, called: The Muslim Brotherhood: Islam's Global Challenge to the West:

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is one of the most dangerous Islamic groups in the world today, not only because it supports terrorism -- providing political and financial support for its  Palestinian branch, Hamas, for example -- but because it is part of a global Islamist network and promotes an ideology that encourages extremism and terrorism.
With branches in seventy countries and linked to major Islamic organizations, the MB has an extensive and well-financed network of educational, social, and cultural institutions which promote a strategic MB plan for Islamic dominance -- not through violence, but integration, becoming part of the national social and political life, and the application of Shariah law. These connections give it access to political power and explain why it and the organizations it supports are courted by governments and NGOs. Jean-Pierre Filiu of the Hudson Institute:
The Muslim Brotherhood ... has for reasons both ideological and tactical tended in recent decades to embrace a more limited conception of jihad combined with missionary activity and organized political struggle.
Hillel Fradkin, director of the Hudson Institute's Center on Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World, notes that the MB, founded in Egypt in 1928, is the source of modern radical Islamic movements and an important part of Muslim communities around the world. The takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas changed the picture. For the first time, the MB had its own territory, a virtual state, and an army. Filiu:
The Brotherhood-offshoot Hamas, which since 2006 has officially ruled over the Gaza strip, is the first Palestinian militia to consistently limit its activities to the territory of pre-1948 Palestine-meaning Israel, the West Bank and Gaza... In the process of consolidating its power, [it] subsequently repressed Gaza's al-Qaeda-inspired groups. Nowadays, al-Qaeda's ongoing conflict with Hamas has become one of the main liabilities to al-Qaeda's propaganda and its efforts to establish itself as the leader of the worldwide jihadist movement.
According to an MB document written in 1991, its role in host countries is a process of settlement called "Civilization-Jihad," which will "eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within" and establish a "global Islamic state." To accomplish this, through mosques and Islamic centers, the MB engages in "coalitions," "absorption," and civic "cooperation," building parallel social, political, and cultural organizations. Its guiding principles are those of Hasan al-Banna, who established the Egyptian MB movement and was closely allied with the Nazis.
The North American Connection
The most comprehensive study of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States is Steven Merley's monograph published by the Hudson Institute (April 2009). He concludes:
[The MB's] extensive history of support for Islamic fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and support for terrorism ...  includes ideological, financial, and legal support, particularly for Hamas and other Palestinian terror organizations.
MB affiliate organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) -- which grew out of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), a front group fund-raising for Islamic jihad and Hamas terrorist organizations -- are not outgrowths of popular or communal expressions, like Christian and Jewish organizations, but instead are self-appointed representatives, combining a volatile mix of religion and politics. Most MB organizations are funded by Saudis and Gulf States, representing non-American, predominantly Arab Muslims.
With over thirty branches in North America, CAIR presents itself as the largest "Muslim civil rights organization," seeking to "enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding." A few years ago, CAIR was included in a list of unindicted co-conspirators alleged by prosecutors to have participated in a conspiracy to funnel money to Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation.
Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha write,
Perhaps the most obvious problem with CAIR is the fact that at least five of its employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities ... CAIR has a key role in the 'Wahhabi lobby' -- the network of organizations, usually supported by donations from Saudi Arabia, whose aim is to propagate the especially extreme version of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia ... CAIR has consistently shown itself to be on the wrong side of the war on terrorism, protecting, defending, and supporting both accused and even convicted radical Islamic terrorists.
The Muslim Student Association (MSA), the largest Muslim campus organization, with more than 250 chapters at nearly every university, was also initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Although the MB's current involvement is unclear, the agenda is similar. Engaged in protests against Israel and disrupting pro-Israel speakers and forums, assisted by left-wing student organizations, and, of course, tolerated by administrators, this explains the upsurge of hostility towards Israel; opposing America's involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; and "American imperialism." Not limited to campus activities, however, in 1981, the MSA and MB morphed into the Islamic Society of North America to carry on its "after-school" activities. 
Saudi prince Alweed Bin Talal is a major financier of Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the U.S. via his Kingdom Foundation, which supports the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Project, backers of the "Ground Zero Mosque.
In the early 1990s, following the Oslo Agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the MB formed several organizations which opposed any peace agreement. The Muslim American Society describes itself as a civic group, involved in "religious, charitable, social, cultural, and educational" affairs, working to improve "family and society" and "move people to strive for God consciousness, liberty, and justice and to convey Islam with utmost clarity. Its vision is a "virtuous and just American society."
Its fundamentalist ideology and political activities, however, don't fit its lofty words and ideals. According to reports, the Muslim American Society's goal is the radical transformation of America into a Muslim society under strict Shariah law.
The Islamic American University, a MAS project, is a training center for the MB philosophy, associated with Sheikh Yousef al-Qardawi, who promotes jihad, proclaims that Muslim forces fighting American troops are "martyrs," and supports Arab Palestinian terrorist organizations, like Hamas.
MAS publishes a magazine, The American Muslim, which supports suicide bombings as "martyr operations" sanctioned by the Qur'an, and portrays Asian Muslim terrorists as "freedom fighters."
With all of this information available, one would think that U.S. government officials would be concerned about the activities of these MB-supported organizations. Instead, they are feted by the White House and supported by the State Dept and CIA, according to, which systematically tracks the MB.
"Their allure," according to counter-terrorism researcher Steve Emerson, "to governments and non-Muslim agencies in foreign countries is that these MB groups have a monopoly on the leadership and representation of  most Muslims, due to the fact that the MB in the Muslim world occupies the center of political and religious gravity and does not tolerate dissent." And it can, when necessary, call upon its adherents to act, using "soft power," rather than "hard power," to influence.
Take over the world
The MB is a critical part of a vast Islamic movement that uses a religious identity to mask its political agenda. Represented by hundreds of social, political, and cultural organizations and banks and financial institutions in the United States alone, the MB is able to infiltrate and exert influence on every aspect of national and international affairs.
According to Islamic expert Bat Ye'or, the MB (through its Muslim World League) is involved with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a religious and political organization representing 56 countries (and "Palestine," which they consider a state under the PA) with a permanent delegation at the U.N. Like the MB, the OIC supports Islamist rule, which in other words is the establishment of Shariah (Islamic) Law and the rule of a Caliphate -- i.e., Islamic political and cultural takeover of the world. Because of their political and diplomatic role, however, they use a more subtle, incremental approach. 
In Jordan, the main opposition party, the Islamic Action Front, represents the MB's "political wing." Islamists, they call for a boycott of elections, hoping to topple the current government and assume control of Parliament. Although banned from politics in Egypt and Syria and accused of being behind terrorist attacks, the MB runs networks of social and charity organizations, giving itself a firm popular basis.
The MB is also a major opposition group in Egypt and will be decisive when Egyptian President Mubarak dies. Egyptian Brotherhood leader Mohammed Badie recently declared that "waging Jihad is mandatory."
The MB is also expanding in Canada, where they recently hosted "the largest Islamic conference in Montreal's history."   
A recent Pew Report on the Muslim Brotherhood in Western Europe documents its extensive network. Yet little or nothing is done to monitor and restrict these organizations and their influence in growing Muslim communities. The presence of so many MB organizations explains the widespread demonstrations against Israel and violent reactions to what are perceived as "insults to Islam." 
Lorenzo Vidino provides an excellent study of the MB in Europe:
The Brotherhood has long served as a key financial node for different Islamist groups, and the intelligence officials say that ... the Brotherhood has expanded its financial network of holding companies and bank accounts in almost every European country.
How it happened
The growth and spread of the global MB network appears to be the result of a carefully planned organizational strategy:
(1) Funded by Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, and wealthy Arab Muslim families, the MB promotes a strict interpretation of Shariah and Islamic rule through educational, social, and religious organizations; in schools, campus organizations, and study centers; and in Muslim professional and "civil rights" organizations. Their extremist brand of Islam in the West, based on Wahhabism and jihadism, however, is rarely exposed. 
(2) Focusing attention on the Palestinian issue, they joined with "liberal," "progressive," and anti-Jewish elements around the world, especially in the media, and now use their influence in the U.N. and international bodies and agencies to demonize, delegitimize, isolate, and boycott Israel.
Through a carefully planned strategy of deception -- masking their sources of support, activities, philosophy, and goals -- MB-sponsored organizations are able to present themselves as religious and/or civil rights groups and thereby avoid scrutiny. Numbed by words like "peace" and "justice," unable to understand Arabic used by clerics and in printed material, non-Muslims have little or no understanding of what goes inside mosques and Muslim social and cultural centers and are unaware of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Though some academics and government officials try to portray the MB as "moderate," the facts prove differently. "The MB actively seeks to destroy America's status as a world power and to replace it with an Islamic power whose foreign policy will be based on jihad and the spread of Islam."
What can be done?
The first step in countering the MB is identifying their organizations. In addition to those cited above, here are some of the most prominent in the U.S. that have been linked to MB:
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
Fiqh Council of NA (FCNA) (formerly American Muslim Council)
North American Islamic Trust (controls most mosques)
Muslim Youth of North America
Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers
PAC's and Muslim chaplains programs (in prisons, military and schools)
Islamic Medical Association
American Trust Publications
Islamic Circle of North American
International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT)
Association of Muslim Social Scientists
Charity foundations, like Kind Hearts, and HolyLand Foundation (now closed), The Union of Good, which assisted the IHH, a Turkish "charity" that backed the "Gaza flotilla," and supports terrorism, Islamic Relief USA and Mercy USA, and thousands more.
Follow the money.
With thousands of affiliated organizations in America, and perhaps millions around the world -- well-organized, accepted as part of the academic community and by religious and political leaders, operating within democratic systems, financed by radical jihadists, and supported by many in the international community -- the MB is a formidable threat. It are vulnerable, however, when exposed -- and that is a task which everyone can share.  
Global jihadist groups
In the late 1970s, as the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement was taking shape, a new terrorist organization was formed by members of the MB in Egypt: Islamic Jihad. The name was chosen to justify terrorism in the name of Islam -- not only as a PLO tactic, but to attack anyone, anywhere, including one's own family, without approval from any authority. Like other totalitarian movements, it was intended to break traditional discipline and encourage terrorism as a religious obligation.
Islamic Jihad (IJ) was declared a terrorist organization by the United States in 2005, and later by the EU, U.N., and other countries despite the fact that it had been carrying out terrorist attacks for more than a decade -- primarily against Jews in Israel.
IJ is reported to receive funding from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries; it is currently based in Syria, but today it is funded mostly by Syria and Iran. Members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad work with Hamas and Fatah (PA); it has no direct ties to MB. IJ is also active in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and other areas in the region.
American Muslims need to take seriously why their non-Muslim neighbors are suspicious, just as those neighbors must be careful of prejudice. Hiding agendas and intentions are as bad as bigotry. 
Underestimating the message and influence of the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to global, and especially Western, security. That is the message of 9/11 and terror attacks in London and Madrid. It is a message we ignore at our peril. 

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Mohammed: Islam’s Achilles heel

The following is a comment posted by "Infidel Alliance" elsewhere on the blogosphere. Could have not said it better myself.
Muhammed is Islam’s Achilles heel, and Muslims know it.
As Goebbels infamously proclaimed “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
The great lie that Muhammed was some kind of holy man, a moral role model with a direct connection to God is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon humanity. It is a massive lie that is propagated by Islam’s power to repress inquiry, dissent and the truth by fear, intimidation and violence.
But the truth about Muhammed cannot be suppressed, because the truth can be found in the Islamic ‘holy’ texts, the Koran, Ahadith and Surah Rasul Allah, recorded in black and white for the whole world to discover.
The Koran 68:4 upholds Muhammed as “…an exalted [standard of] character.” Islamic tradition upholds Muhammed as ‘al-insan al-kamil’ or ‘the perfect man’, to be emulated by all Muslims.
But the hard truth about Muhammed, as recorded in the Islamic ‘holy’ texts, is that far from being a a ‘holy prophet’ Muhammed was a sadistic sociopath, a 7th century Arabian Hitler – only worse, a successful Charles Manson, only creepier and more evil.
Muhammed was a murderer, torturer, amputator, decapitator, mutilator, slaver, looting stealing thief, rapist, human trafficker, sex trafficker, child rapist, sexual deviant, misogynist, perfidious liar, genocidist and self proclaimed terrorist.
By any objective standard, Muhammed was one of the most vile and disgusting men in the pantheon of human history, a brutal barbarian, a self important narcissistic consumed by unquenchable sexual lust, greed and power.
Muhammed should have been incarcerated not venerated, and he should be reviled not revered.
Every pathology that afflicts Islam comes directly from this sick man, Muhammed, and the world suffers because of him.
This is the man who inspires Muslims?? Muslims must be challenged to defend their barbarian prince, to defend the indefensible. They can’t…and they know it.
“Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods & the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”- Ibn Ishaq:327
Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said “I have been made victorious with terror.”- Bukhari (52:220)
Of consequence, Osama bin Laden’s full name is Osama bin MOHAMMED bin Awad bin Laden.
These men are also named after the ‘holy prophet’ of Islam:
1) MOHAMMED Atta, 9/11 airline jihadist
2) Abdulhakim Mujahid MUHAMMED, Little Rock recruiting center assasin
3) MOHAMMED Reza Taheri-azar, UNC SUV jihadist
4) MOHAMMED Ajmal Amir Kasab, Mumbai jihadist
5) Husayn MUHAMMED al-Umari, Pan Am Flight 830 bomber
6) Fahd MOHAMMED Ahmed al-Quso, USS Cole bomber
7) Khalid Sheikh MOHAMMED, beheader of Daniel Pearl
8 ) MOHAMMED Sidique Khan, London Tube suicide jihadist
9) Ramzi MOHAMMED, convicted London Tube jihadist
10) Whabi MOHAMMED, London Tube ‘5th’ bomber
11) Fazul Abdullah MOHAMMED, Tanzanian embassy bomber
12) MAHMOUD Ahmadinejad, despotic Shia leader of Islamic Republic of Iran
13) MOHAMMED Bouyeri, savage Islamist killer of Theo Van Gogh
14) MOHAMMED Ali Hamadei, airline hijacker
15) MOHAMMED Safady, Munich Olympics terrorist
16) AHMAD Marrouf al-Assadi, Achille Lauro hijacker
17) MEHMET Ali Ağca, Islamist who attempted to assasinate Pope John Paul
18) MOHAMMED Atif Siddique, Scottish terrorist conspiritor
19) Kafeel AHMED, Glasgow Airport bomber
20) Abdulla AHMED, ‘Liquid’ bomber
21) John Allen MUHAMMED, mass murdering sniper
23) MOHAMMED Haydar Zammar, al-Qaeda recruiter who assembled the Hamburg cell
24) Jaish-e-MOHAMMED, Pakistani jihadist terror organization
25 & 26) Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed, 25, and Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, 33, NSW Australia jihadists
Mohammed…..Muhammed….Mahmoud….Mehmet….Ahmed…..and on, and on, and on….
All slaughtering in the name of Islam, Allah and Muhammed.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Sharia - Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law

Canada Free Press published on line an article by Kelly O'Connell entitled "Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law." A very nice discussion making a companion to another article called "Non-believers under Islamic Law."
Is American Law Really the Same as Muslim Shari'ah, As Ground Zero Mosque Imam Rauf Boasts?
This article examines classic Islamic law, the “Shari’ah,” regarding crime and punishment. Recently, the “Ground Zero Imam” Egyptian Feisal Abdul Rauf claimed Muslim and American law were essentially the same. He said, “What’s right with America and what’s right with Islam are, in fact, very much in sync…I call America a Sharia compliant state.” But what would being a “Shari’ah compliant state” really mean? To understand this, we need to study the details of Shari’ah law.
One way to better understand Muslim Shari’ah law, is by taking a particular sub-category, such as crime and punishment, to see how Islam treats these topics. While analyzing this issue, the reader will undoubtedly begin to realize Shari’ah and American law are not so similar, and that perhaps Rauf is wildly bluffing (or something else). He claims American law is similar to Muslim because they are both “from God,” while ignoring the fact mankind has created many Gods over millenniums, each mostly opposed to the rest.
Of course, Islamic views of crime and punishment have shifted occasionally over the centuries, and the Shari’ah varies between regimes and Muslim schools. This essay gives a general picture of the Shari’ah on these topics.
I General Introduction to Islamic “Shari’ah” Law
The foundation of Islamic Shari’ah law is the Qur’an; combined with the Sunna, or the Prophet’s model behavior; the consensus of the four schools (Ijma), and analogical reasoning (Qiyas), according to Shari’ah: The Islamic Law by Abdur Rahman I. Doi. These sources are considered divine.
The Qur’an is believed to have “co-existed with God Himself in a heavenly book, known as the ‘Mother Book’” written in Arabic from all eternity,”[a] writes David Forte in Studies in Islamic Law; Classical & Contemporary Application.
The Shari’ah seamlessly combines public, private and religious law, featuring elements of ancient codes, such as revenge. For instance, at a public execution for a crime against a person, the victim will normally be present in the crowd, viewing the impending death. The punishment is owned by the victim or their kin, and only they can stop the killing from taking place, normally by acceptance of blood-money (diya).
II General Description of Shari’ah Criminal Law
To Western eyes, the Shari’ah presents a disorganized and incomplete description of Criminal Law. According to Joseph Schacht, in Introduction to Islamic Law,
There exists no general concept of penal law in Islam. The concepts of guilt and criminal responsibility are little developed, that of mitigating circumstances does not exist; any theory of attempt, complicity, of concurrence is lacking. On the other hand, the theory of punishments, with its distinction of private vengeance, hadd punishments, ta’zir, and coercive and preventative measures, shows a considerable variety of ideas.
As Forte points out, one cannot actually say there is a modern Muslim penal code, writing, “Islamic law does not possess a concept of penal law comparable to that of modern systems. Instead, it categorizes its offenses by the types of punishment they engender.”
Therefore, in terms of punishments, there are five basic categories. Behavior with a specifically prescribed punishment is under hadd. Discretionary punishment for various acts are under ta’zir, where the judge sets whatever penalty he chooses. Personal revenge, where retaliation or blood-money (diya) is applicable, is under jinayat. Offense against the state receive administrative penalties, or siyasa. And crimes where the appropriate, or chosen response, is personal religious penance, are under kaffara.
III Criminal Procedure
Shari’ah legal procedure is a somewhat counter-intuitive process. Rules for choosing the proper court and applying correct procedures, essential for American Due Process, are virtually non-existent in Islamic law. Rudolph Peters writes in Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law,
There are very few general principles in Islamic criminal law. The classical books of fiqh do not contain chapters dealing with general notions or rules. Those that exist are either mentioned in each chapter devoted to a specific crime or they must be found by deduction.
The most important local players in the Muslim legal system are the judge (qadi), the police (shurta), and the Islamic “inspector of the market” (muhtasib), says Schacht. The latter is an official who made sure weights and measures were accurate, but also became a keeper of public morality and justice, including overseeing the police force. The muhtasib controls the system, but the qadi is independent in his decisions. Yet, the state at the highest levels may legally intervene at any time and make political decisions involving the accused which completely derail justice.
Police may beat suspects, not to extract a confession, but merely remind the accused his duty to be truthful, according to There was no office of public prosecution under classic Shari’ah doctrine, although the muhtasib occasionally came to fill this roll as defender of public morals. Most cases were launched by private prosecutions from victims. Only verbal testimony (shahada) is considered evidence, with exceptions made for proof made by smell of alcohol for drunkenness or pregnancy indicating illicit sexual activity. Written documents are merely allowed as memory aids.
IV Muslim Criminal Law Theory
A quintessentially religious law, Shari’ah has set penalties, known as hadd—called “exemplary punishments” (Qur’an 5:38). These are performed in public to remind residents the wages of evil. Retribution is an important part of Muslim punishments, using the standard of Lex Talionis, ie “eye for an eye,” to measure punishment. For example, the murderer should be executed in the same manner his or her victim was dispatched. The Discretionary Punishments (ta’zir) are especially meant to return offenders to the gilded path of Allah.
V Specific Religious Crimes & Punishment Under Islamic Law
The state is generally responsible for criminal punishment, with a few exceptions, writes Peters. The prosecuting next of kin are allowed to personally deliver the death sentence in the case of murder. Also, a slave should be punished by their master, with the exception of amputations, which state executioners enforce. All criminal sentences are to be carried out immediately upon pronouncement, unless a compelling reason exists not do so.
Were an offender to commit several different crimes which cannot be punished at once, a weight-list is used to decide which comes first. Writes Peters,
If a person, having committed several crimes, is sentenced to a number of different penalties, each of them must be carried out. If this is physically impossible, the authorities must first execute those sentences that are founded on the claims of men and then those resulting from the claims of God…If a person has been sentenced to the removal of his eye by way of retaliation, to eighty lashes for slander, to a hundred lashes for unlawful intercourse and to the amputation of the right hand, the head of state or his agent must first carry out the gouging out of the eye because that is the claim of a man, then imprison him until the wound has healed, then carry out the punishment for calumny, etc…
A. Hudud Religious Punishments
Forte describes the religious Hadd crimes, writing “Islamic law denotes five “Quranic offenses” which are regarded as offenses directly against Allah and which compel specific punishment.” These crimes are Unlawful Intercourse (Zina), False Accusation of Unlawful Intercourse (Kadhf); Drinking of Wine (Shurb); Theft (Sariq), and Highway Robbery (QatAl-Tariq).
1. Unlawful IntercourseZina: This occurs when a person has sexual relations with anyone not their spouse, nor a concubine (Shari’ah accepts sexual slavery). Technically, adultery is not a crime as no woman has exclusive rights to her husband, and the husband has no exclusive bond with his wife, despite this being an offense against Allah. The crime of Zina can also occur if a man takes and sleeps with a fifth wife while the four previous yet live, weds a close relative or girl before she undergoes puberty, or commits necrophilia, writes Forte.
Proof of Zina must be provided by four adult Muslim males or a confession. The crime should have occurred within the last 30 days. On a discrepancy of testimony, of even a technical irregularity, the four can then receive the punishment for Zina themselves. Peters explains that if a man has sex with a slave not his, he owes her master a fine. A woman who reports a rape but cannot prove it occurred via four witnesses can then be prosecuted for Zina with her unproved accusation acting as a confession.
Zina Penalty:
The punishment here can be stoning, lashing, or both, depending upon the school. A stoning should only be applied to one convicted of unlawful intercourse, who is mentally competent, is a free person, and has already experienced lawful sexual relations in a marriage. For all others, it is either one 100 lashes for a free person, or 50 for a slave. All homosexual relations fulfill the Zina requirements, although the penalty is simply death instead of whipping, according to Peters.
2. False Accusation of Unlawful Intercourse—Kadhf: This occurs when a competent adult slanders another competent adult, who is a free Muslim, with false charges of Zina. Claiming someone is illegitimate also qualifies. Proof for this occurs via normal Islamic means, using oaths of witnesses, or by confession. Under a special rule, a husband may charge his wife with infidelity without risk if he uses the li’an procedure, which Forte describes as “...if he swears four times by Allah that he is speaking the truth and, at a fifth oath, calls down a curse upon himself if he is lying.” The woman, as a defense, may repeat the exact procedure. If either one refuses the li’an, they are considered guilty, ipso facto, and receive the lashes.
Kadhf Penalty: The punishment for kadhf is 80 lashes for a freeman, or 40 for a slave.
3. Drinking of WineShurb: Alcohol was not originally illegal but became so after Muhammad was appalled at the drunkenness of Arab society. The law also applies to any other intoxicant or drug. Proof can be provided by a confession, which can then be withdrawn at any time without penalty. Or witnesses can attest seeing the accused drinking, smelled alcohol on his breath, or observed him soused.
Shurb Penalty: The penalty for intoxicant imbibing is 20-40 lashes.
4. Theft—Sariq: This must be a crime of theft involving removal by stealth of an item owned by another of at least a certain value, kept in a locked area or under guard (hirz), says Peters. For example, removal of a gold coin stored in an animal stable would not qualify. This crime should be prosecuted by the government.
Sariq Penalty: Amputation of the right hand, as based upon Qur’an 5:38; although the Shiites allow just four fingers of the hand amputated, according to Peters. A second, third and fourth conviction can remove all such appendages.
5. Highway Robbery—QatAl-Tariq: The Arabs considered this the most serious kind of crime as it threatens the calm and order of all society, according to Forte. Two types of evil are covered here. The first is robbing travelers from distant places; whereas the second is armed assault into a private home. Even non-Muslims are protected under this law. There must be at least a holdup which occurs outside the city for the penalty to apply to banditry, states Peters. The perpetrator must be of superior force to the victim, and so women do not qualify.
QatAl-Tariq Penalty: The first conviction for this offense merits the amputation of the right hand and left foot of the wrong-doer, although some schools allow a simple deportation if no harm occurs. The second results in amputation of the left hand and right foot.
Says the Qur’an at 5:33,
The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.
VI. Other Shari’ah Crimes, Punishment, & Blood Money
A. Ta’zir Penalties
Discretionary penalties, or Ta’zir, are punishments delivered at the qadi’s subjective decision. The purpose is to punish acts against man and God, and sometimes includes reparation and repentance, writes Forte. These punishment vary in severity:
  1. Private admonition to the guilty party, sometimes by letter;
  2. Public reprimand in court;
  3. Public proclamation of the offender’s guilt;
  4. Suspended sentence;
  5. Banishment;
  6. Flogging;
  7. Imprisonment;
  8. Death.
Forte says many crimes are covered by Ta’zir that for some reason have eluded Hadd penalties, such as apostasy (ridda —although some schools consider this hadd), wine selling, homosexual activity, bodily harm or murder, bestiality, perjury, slander and usury.
B. Fines & Blood Money
Fines are paid to the state, whereas blood-money (diya) goes to a victim or kin, based upon his blood-status. Bloodprice is the victim’s worth, only calculable against that of the accused, which controls the punishment. A person cannot receive retaliation for killing a person of a lower bloodprice. For example, a Muslim cannot be executed for murdering a slave or member of the protected classes, being Christians or Jews, deemed dhimmis, i.e. the People of the Book (Bible).
C. Public Scorn, Imprisonment & Banishment
A common punishment is public exposure to scorn (tashir). Achieved by shaving the culprit’s head, or covering his face with soot (especially for false witnesses) and parading him sitting backwards on an donkey, through the community, with a town-crier announcing his sins. Banishment (nafy, taghrib) is associated with two crimes—simple banditry and illegal sex. If a woman is banished for being sexually immoral, a male relative must travel with her to make sure she stays chaste. Imprisonment (habs) is not normally used for penal law, but as a means to encourage debtors to pay.
D. Retaliation
Retaliation for injuries (qisas ma dun al-nafs) comes as Lex Talionis, eye-for-eye punishment in the form of amputations, blinding, and infliction of wounds the victim received. A recent Saudi case involved a man sentenced to judicial paralysis for severing the spinal cord of another. This should not be done till the victim has healed, in case he dies.
E. Theft & Amputation
Muhammad probably borrowed amputation (qat) for theft from the pagan Quaraysh tribe, who inflicted this punishment on rival tribesmen caught stealing, says Forte. While Muslim jurists claim amputation is to prevent recidivism, it more likely originated as judicial revenge. The hand is removed at the wrist, the stump cauterized in boiling oil, at the criminal’s expense, and the hand can be hung around the thief’s neck for three days. Cross-amputation (al-qat min-khilaf) is a punishment for brigands, ie highway robbers.
F. Flogging (Jald)
Flogging by leather whip is a very common punishment under the Shari’ah. The executioner administers this penalty, but should not raise the whip arm above the shoulder. The more serious a crime, the harder the executioner should flog the criminal. For example, one convicted of illegal sex should be beaten more severely than one guilty of drinking alcohol. Men are whipped standing, women seated. Men are stripped to the waist, while women are allowed to keep on clothes. As advised in Qur’an 24:2, the punishment should be public. The blows are to be spread over the body, except for dangerous places, like the head or genitals, as the purpose for whipping is not death.
G. Executions: Beheading, Stoning & Other Means
There are many ways to execute a criminal under Shari’ah. Typically, the mode of execution is beheading by sword, as done at famed Chop-Chop Square in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. But the crime defines the manner. For example, homosexuals are executed in typically dramatic fashion, by stoning, beheading, thrown from a high wall or building, hanging, immolated by fire, or buried alive (despite male homosexuality reportedly being rampant in the Middle East, according to Raphael Patai’s Arab Mind).
Execution may be used as retaliation, done by the kin of the victim, according to Qur’an 16:126 & 2:194, which calls for the murderer to be executed in the same manner as he killed his victims. Only if this would result in extended torture will the sword be substituted. The Government will inspect the proposed execution weapon and decide if the person can handle it properly. If not, then a substitute executioner will be arranged.
Death by Stoning (Rajm), or lapidation, is delivered by a crowd with the ultimate intent of killing the victim, writes Peters. The stones used should neither be too large, which would kill the criminal too quickly, nor too small, which would delay the job. The proper size is a stone which fills the hand. Women are to be dug into the earth up to their waists before the event. If the conviction is based upon accusations, the accusers are the first to throw. If the conviction is based upon a confession, the state representative is first to toss.
For Highway Robbery (QatAl-Tariq), if a killing resulted during an attempted robbery, the punishment is beheading by sword. If a murder occurred during an actual theft, the punishment is execution by crucifixion (salb), the body left dying three days. Unlike a normal murder, the family of the victim cannot choose blood-money (diya) instead of execution.
Apostates may renounce Islam by word or deed, including rejecting axiomatic articles of faith, like denying Muhammad’s mission, fasting, or disrespecting the Qur’an. The apostate (ridda) is given three days to reflect, then put to death. Some schools only execute men, whereas the women are kept alive but flogged during the hours of prayer, according to Peters. Frank Vogel, in Islamic Law & Legal System: Studies of Saudi Arabia states that apostates are beheaded in Saudi Arabia before huge crowds on Friday afternoons, in the public square, directly after prayer time has ceased.
Dhimmis, as Christians and Jews, have no inherent rights or status under the Shari’ah, being harbis, or enemy aliens, naturally at war with Islam. It is only by way of the jizyah, or yearly treaty of war tax, that these can qualify for temporary protection. Should a dhimmi lapse in protection, they can be killed on the spot and their property taken without recompense, according to Schacht. Further, any persons not Muslim or dhimmi are considered pagans and are to be instantly killed under classical shari’ah doctrine.
Even the simplest person can deduce that classical Islamic Shari’ah law cannot possibly fit into the modern world anywhere on the globe. But it is especially impossible to apply this system in America, the land that created modern religious freedom, and let millions escape oppression. Most alarming, the Islamic law does not change to fit into other cultures, but is always offered as a “perfect gift,” delivered at the edge of a sword.
Is it not the most obvious fact imaginable that American law is a thousand times fairer and safer than Shar’iah? Therefore, what kind of a mentality would want to force so much injustice, punishment and destruction upon the American people—in the name of God &¬† the “Religion of Peace”? That Rauf claims this antiquated, unsophisticated and brutal legal system agrees with American law and society says much more about his intentions for his Ground Zero mosque than it does any other topic he will ever discuss.
[a]This idea cannot help but evoke John’s description of the pre-incarnate Christic Logos (Word), “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him…” (John 1:1; 18). Undoubtedly, such imagery influenced Muhammad’s fertile imagination when rendering the Qur’an.

Sharia - Non-Believers Under Muslim Law

Canada Free Press published on line an article written by Kelly O'Connell under the title: Non-Believers Under Muslim Law. This article provides a nice discussion on how Islamic Law (Sharia) prescribes the treatment of non-Muslims (being a companion to Crime and Punishment under Islam).
Jews and Christians, called dhimmis 
Discussed in this essay are the laws and status of those persons in Islamic lands who are not Muslims. This group is mainly composed of Jews and Christians, called dhimmis. What is important about this topic is it communicates better than any other method the true historic beliefs of Muslims towards Westerners. Therefore, it indicates how a good Muslim should view a non-believer, especially if they ever achieve control of a formerly non-Islamic state, like America.
The problem in Muslim lands for dhimmis (protected non-Muslims) is summed up by Patrick Sookhdeo, in Freedom To Believe, where he explains that most Muslim countries have dual justice systems with Western civil courts, and also Muslim Shari’ah (Islamic Law) courts. Most of these countries have signed various world human rights agreements. So how do these Islamic states get away with categorizing Muslim and non-Muslim with different status in the Muslim courts? By subverting these agreements under the Shari’ah, according to Sookhdeo.
Every Islamic country has different application of Shari’ah law. Further, modernity has made great inroads against regimes attempting to use primitive Muslim law. But enough Shari’ah remains in various countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, to cause concern. Also, bear in mind America’s worst Muslim enemies call for pure Shari’ah. But the main lesson to take from this study is how Muslims see unbelievers and how they choose to treat them when no one is looking. This alone should help us better understand people like the Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and his secret aspirations.
I. World View of Islam
Islam is a survivor of the crucible of war. Muhammad’s society was quite warlike, and this ethos is fixed within the Islamic religion and societal norms. Thus we have the doctrine of jihad, which has been historically tied to battling the unbelieving world (jihad is best translated as “battle,” revealing the word can both mean “holy war” and “to struggle against” without any contradiction).
Also, strong is the Bedouin tribal ethos in the Arab mind to this day, according to Raphael Patai, in The Arab Mind. And the Islamic worldview is steeped in religion in a way Westerners cannot fathom, but the religion itself is bent on subjugation of each individual in the society, not mere conversion. This is why the very term Islam means submission.
A. House of War v. House of God
Muslims believe that the world is composed of two entities—Non-believers in the House of War; and Muslims in the House of Allah. One website writes:
Islamic theology divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual conflict: The House of Islam and the House of War. The House of Islam (dar al-Islam) embraces territory where Islamic law (Sharia) is the law of the land, while the House of War (dar al- Harb) comprises the rest of the world. The House of Islam is enjoined by Allah to make war upon the House of War until the latter is permanently assimilated into the former.
B. Jihad: War as Mission
Jihad means to struggle or battle. While many Muslims and Western liberals insist the term is used primarily in a non-violent sense, this is misleading. The world view of Islam is based upon an us-versus-them model. Islam is doctrinally in a state of perpetual war against non-Muslims, even when a truce has been signed. This constant state of war-readiness of Islam is a key to understand their view of the world. Daniel Pipes explains:
Jihad is “holy war.” Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.
The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.
Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That’s how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632. It’s how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.
C: Muslims in Foreign Climes
One of the great questions in the history of Islam is whether a Muslim living in non-Islamic lands must still follow all the dictates of the Shari’ah. Writes Michael Mumisa, in Islamic Law, Theory & Application,
While a non-Muslim under the protection of an Islamic government [dhimmi] is expected to obey all the laws of the Islamic state, is a Muslim under the protection of a non-Muslim state expected to obey all the laws of the host country most of which conflict with the Shari’ah law? These are questions whose answers are absent from classical or medieval Islamic literature or from a historical critical reading of the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Yet, another eminent Islamic legal scholar, Abdur Rahman I. Doi, says in Non-Muslims under Shariah (Islamic law), that since the Shari’ah is God’s perfect law for mankind representing his infallible will, it is imperative that all believers obey this at all times, regardless where they reside.
This then sums up a conundrum: Whether a Muslim believes he should follow the complete Shari’ah, there exists a problem for conscientious Muslims in foreign lands as to which law is preeminent. This problem was addressed for Christians by Jesus in Luke 20:25 when He taught, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and Render unto God what is God’s.” So, an upstanding Christian can be both a good citizen of an earthly state and also of God’s Kingdom.
D. Muslim States
Muslims have a different idea of what constitutes a “state,” as opposed to Western practice. Samuel Shahid, in The Myth of Islamic Tolerance cites how prominent Pakistani scholar Maududi explains this difference:
  1. An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.
  2. Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state “should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology.” Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.
  3. An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law “Shari`a” guarantees to non-Muslims “certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology.” Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they “become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government.”
Categories of Acceptable Unbelievers
A. Dhimmi: Jew & Christian
A dhimmi is a member of the class of persons in an Islamic country not Muslim but who follow the Bible, being Jews and Christians (other can include Sabians and Zoroastrians). Dhimmis are given a kind of protection in an Islamic state which is neither complete in scope, nor equal in application, as the following will show.
Warrant for Dhimmi comes from the chapter the Cow in the Qur’an 2:62:
Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.
In accepting dhimmitude, the non-believers have to enter a pact called the Covenant of Umar, according to Bat Yeor in Dhimmi Peoples, Oppressed Nations. The Covenant dates from the 7th century, not long after Muhammad died, and outlines what dhimmis had to do then to stay in an Islamic state.
Jizyah: To have any status, whatsoever, a non-believer in a Muslim country must immediately enter into a treaty of war. This is essentially an agreement of a truce between the non-believer and the Islamic state. This only makes sense when considering that in Islam, there is a metaphorical House of War in which abide only enemy combatants, where non-Muslims reside. Then there is the House of Peace, or Allah, which is where all Muslims abide. Therefore, if a non-Muslim wants to reside in an Islamic state, he or she must officially renounce war through the Jizyah.
This is according to the Submission chapter in the Qur’an 9:29:
You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.
Jizyah literally means “penalty,” according to Shahida. It is described as a “fixed poll tax” by Joseph Schacht in Introduction to Islamic Law. It is described as a 10% tax and meant to cover the costs of defending the dhimmi, etc. Yet the jizyah is also meant to humble the dhimmi. According to Ye’or, the Jizyah “...symbolizes the subjugation and humiliations of the vanquished.” Ye’or details another tax put, being the kharadj, a land tax placed on lands where indigenous dhimmis reside, meaning these are at a decided economic disadvantage to Muslims.
Legal Status: A position of Muslim Shari’ah law is that under it, all are equal. This proposition is highly misleading. Not everyone has access to these rules. For example, a Dhimmi is not the legal equal of a Muslim, but a “second-class citizen,” according to Patai. So a Dhimmi can only give testimony against another Dhimmi, but not against a Muslim. This embargo is much more damaging than it sounds because the only form of acceptable evidence allowed in Shari’ah courts is verbal testimony. It also acts to keep dhimmis from suing or taking Muslims to court.
Further, all laws are said to apply to dhimmis, but if a dhimmi were attacked and killed by a Muslim, the latter cannot be put to death, but only forced to pay a fine based on status, or “blood price.” Since Islamic law generally does not impose imprisonment, this leaves dhimmis in a highly precarious position as regards enemies and safety. Many more examples like this abound.
Religion: According to Islam, both Jews and Christians are characterized by disobedience and by refusing to accept the Last Prophet—Muhammad. This lack of religious integrity is damning and so these dhimmis cannot express their religious beliefs without poisoning the Muslim state.
A realistic view of Islam, in terms of civil and human rights, is within the Muslim state no person has these types of American constitutional rights. They are unimagined in the Qur’an. But if anyone had such rights, it certainly would not be dhimmis. Shahid explains the basic modern restrictions against dhimmis in an Islamic state, which takes much from the Covenant of Umar.
According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on dhimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:
  1. Dhimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. “Old churches” are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
  2. Dhimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
  3. Dhimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
  4. Dhimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
  5. Dhimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
  6. Dhimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
  7. Dhimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.
Other Dhimmi Restrictions: According to Ye’or, dhimmis were historically forbidden from raising a hand against a Muslim in self-defense, even if the aggressor is trying to kill them; to criticize Islam, the Prophet, or angels; to convert to any religion other than Islam; to marry a Muslim woman or concubine; to hold authority over a Muslim; to enter certain restricted towns; or have articles of clothing that were similar to Muslim styles.
Dhimmis also had to live in a separate part of town where their gates closed in the evening; have shorter houses than Muslims; to practice their religion only in secret; to bury their dead quickly and in silence in a non-Muslim style tomb; to wear special clothes not only indicating their dhimmihood, but also which sub-group they belonged to.
Dhimmis must walk humbly with lowered eyes and accept insults without answering back; to keep a humble and respectful attitude when encountering a Muslim; to leave Muslims the best seats; and to make haste when walking through Muslim town. When encountering a Muslim, these must pass on the (impure) left, while the anointed were encouraged to press them against the wall to rub in their loathsome status.
Dhimmis were not allowed to ride horses or camels, since this would create unjustified social status. Unbelievers could use donkeys, but only outside of town. These were often left the most socially debased professions such as grave-digger or garbage collector. Muslims were encouraged to not have social intercourse with dhimmis, but if this was necessary, to do so with utmost brevity while expressing unbridled contempt in the same breath.
Jews, in particular, are not to raise their voices in front of Muslims, practice the same trade as a Muslim; claim that Shari’ah Muslim law could be defective; rise an animal astraddle; mention religion to Muslims; squint to try and imagine Muslims in the nude; sound their ram-horn bugle the shofar; or lend money with interest—by which, it is warned, they could end up destroying the world, writes Ye’or.
The enormous difference between ideas of equality and fairness that separate the Islamic world and the West are so colossal it defies easy explanation. In fact, we must study Islam in pieces to really understand the whole. This matters, because—before long—each big US city will undoubtedly have Muslims similar to Rauf seeking to influence policies and get involved in political life, and put the imprint of Muhammad upon all they touch.
Unless we understand the grave differences between the two world views, representing not just rules, but also principles and values, we will be at severe disadvantage in defending our ancestral freedoms against incursion of foreign belief. This matters because Islam has always been a missionary religion, propagated by force and invasion. If we don’t understand its virulence and fatalistic determination, and that there is no alternative peaceful view in traditional Islam, great and quick may be our fall.