The 13 Verses that reveal that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir (non-Muslim)

 I am reproducing article from Center for the Study of Political Islam International. 

Like any cult, Islam instruct its followers to segregate from outsiders, to the point of forbidding friendship outside the Muslims.

Thirteen (13) Koran verses defining the relationship between Muslims and Kafirs.

9:23 Oh, Believers, do not make friends of your fathers or your brothers if they love unbelief above Islam. He who makes them his friends does wrong. Say: If your fathers, and your sons, and your brothers, and your wives, and your kin-folks, and the wealth which you have gained, and the merchandise that you fear you will not sell, and the dwellings in which you delight—if all are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and efforts on His Path, then wait until Allah’s command comes to pass. Allah does not guide the impious.

3:28 Believers should not take unbelievers as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah’s protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.

3:118 Believers! Do not become friends with anyone except your own people. The unbelievers will not rest until they have corrupted you. They wish nothing but your ruin. Their hatred of you is made clear by their words, but even greater hatred is hidden within their hearts. We have made Our signs clear to you. Therefore, do your best to comprehend them.

4:89 They would have you become unbelievers like them so you will all be the same. Therefore, do not take any of them as friends until they have abandoned their homes to fight for Allah’s cause. But if they turn back, find them and kill them wherever they are. Do not take any of them as a friend or a helper except those who seek asylum among your allies and those who come to you because their hearts have forbidden them from fighting against you or their own people. If it had been Allah’s will, He would have given them power over you so they would have certainly fought you. Therefore, if they leave you and do not wage war against you and seek peace with you, Allah commands you not to injure them.

4:138 Warn the hypocrites that torturous punishment awaits them. The hypocrites take unbelievers as friends rather than believers. Do they look for honor at their hands? Truly all honor belongs to Allah.

4:144 Believers! Do not take unbelievers as friends over fellow believers. Would you give Allah a clear reason to punish you?

60:1 Oh, you who believe, do not take My enemy and yours for friends by showing them kindness. They reject the truth that has come to you. They drive out the messengers and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord. If you continue to fight for Allah’s cause [jihad] and from a desire to please Me, would you show them kindness in private? I know best what you conceal and what you reveal. Whoever does this among you has already strayed from the right path.

60:13 Oh, Believers, do not enter into friendship with those against whom Allah is angered. They have despaired of the hereafter, even as the unbelievers despair of those who are in graves.

5:57 Oh, you who believe, do not take those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] before you, who have scoffed and jested at your religion, or who are unbelievers for your friends. Fear Allah if you are true believers. When you call to prayer, they make it a mockery and a joke. This is because they are a people who do not understand.

5:78 Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of David and of Jesus, Son of Mary, because they were rebellious and persisted in excesses. They did not restrain one another from the iniquity they committed. Their actions were detestable. You will see many of them make friends with the unbelievers. They have sent their evil works on before them. Allah is angry with them, and they will abide in torment forever. If they had believed in Allah, the Messenger, and the Koran that was revealed to him, they would not choose them for their friends, but most of them are rebellious wrongdoers.

58:14 Have you not taken notice of those who befriend the people with whom Allah is angry? They are neither a part of your group or theirs, and they knowingly swear a lie. Allah has prepared a dreadful punishment for them, for their actions are evil. A humiliating punishment awaits those [Jews who pretend to be Muslims] who use their faith as a disguise and turn others away from Allah’s path. Neither their wealth or their children will protect them from Allah. They will be prisoners of the Fire, where they will live forever.

5:55 Your protectors are Allah and His Messenger and those who believe, who observe regular prayer and regular charity, and who bow in worship. And whoever takes Allah, His Messenger, and those who believe for friends, they truly are the people of Allah and must be triumphant. Oh, you who believe, do not take those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] before you, who have scoffed and jested at your religion, or who are unbelievers for your friends. Fear Allah if you are true believers. When you call to prayer, they make it a mockery and a joke. This is because they are a people who do not understand.

5:51 Oh, believers, do not take the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If any one of you take them for his friends, he surely is one of them. Allah will not guide the evildoers.

Halal Food

The islamization of the West, specially Europe, the US, Canada and Australia, that we witness today, is probably best exemplified by the increasing introduction of Halal food. The word halal indicates what Muslims are permitted to eat or do. By itself this is not an issue. The problem starts when we realize that to be halal, the animals have to be slaughtered in a ritualistic way, which is far away from the more modern and humane ways of slaughtering animals, based on stunning the animal previous to its killing. Halal food requires that the animal has its throat cut open and then the animal is placed upside down until all its blood had drained out.

Besides the humane aspect, here are other considerations on why should non-Muslims should care about halal food?

Here is WHY non-Muslims should care about the introduction of any halal food into the West. I read a great anti-halal essay that explained that halal food contributes to four significant problems – independent of animal cruelty or religious issues.

The first problem is an employment fairness issue. Halal slaughter requires that Muslims perform all halal rituals. The end result is that Muslims begin to “take over” food production jobs of a nation. The idea that Muslims – who wish to eliminate non-Muslims – control any aspect of non-Muslim food production is disturbing.

The second problem is a terrorist funding issue. All halal products require the monetary purchase of halal certification from a major Muslim entity – and some of that money inevitably supports terror efforts against the West.

The third problem is a Muslim immigration scam. Evidently, halal slaughter requires Western nations to import halal butchers from Muslim nations. The scam is that the halal butchers QUIT as soon as they receive their Western immigration status – requiring the constant importation of halal butchers from – you guessed it – Muslim nations.

The fourth problem is that – where Western countries have banned guns but allow knives – halal butchers can use their butchering skills as very effective human murderers. In essence, the importation of halal butchers is the importation of devout Muslims who would make extremely effective foot soldiers in a fighting war.

A comparison between humane slaughter and halal slaughter:

In the United States, the handling of animals to prepare them for kosher or halal slaughter is exempt from the Humane Slaughter Act. Stunning is legally required for conventional slaughter and hoisting of sensible animals prior to stunning is not permitted. All mammals undergoing conventional slaughter have to be stunned and rendered insensible while they are either standing in a stunning box or held in a comfortable upright position in a restraint device. However, stunning is not legally required for religious slaughter. Some plants restrain fully sensible cattle, calves or sheep by hanging them upside down by a chain attached to their ankle. This is a stressful, cruel method of restraint that should be eliminated, but it is legal in the U.S. for religious slaughter. (Improving Religious Slaughter Practices in the U.S.) 

A few YouTube Videos. One discusses why this must stop:  Halal Horror. Another compares non-Halal and Halal slaughter and is graphic: Humane slaughter vs Halal slaughter.

It is wrong to compare Islamic and Jewish religious courts: they are very different

No Comparison: Shariah and Jewish Religious Courts. An excellent article by Rabbi Aryeh Spero explaining how different Islamic and Jewish laws are, published in The American Thinker:

Many stealth jihadists pushing to have Shariah law instead of American civil law govern American Islamic communities are making the preposterous claim that Shariah Courts are similar to Jewish religious courts that observant Jews often use to adjudicate intra-community disputes. This is entirely inaccurate given that Shariah has as its goal the replacement of American law with Shariah, whereas Beit Din, Jewish religious court, limits its purview and has no intent or desire to flout American law.

Over 1800 years ago, the Talmudic Rabbi Samuel set the tone of how Jews were to interact with the laws of Babylonia, which had become the primary residence of the Jewish People after its exile from Israel.  His statement and decision has guided the Jewish community throughout their dwellings in new lands: "The law of the land is the law." Rabbi Samuel understood, as did all subsequent rabbinic figures, that dwelling in a land and being a good citizen meant living by its laws and standards.

Naturally, many aspects of Jewish religious life differed from that of the host culture, such as the requirement to eat kosher food, observe the Sabbath and abstain from bread on Passover, and Rabbi Samuel would have been the first to reject any attempt by the State to prohibit our core religious observances. In the spirit of Render unto Caesar that which is his and unto God that which is His, Rabbi Samuel demarcated between religious law and civil law. His intellectual honesty lay in not allowing the subterfuge of categorizing civil law as "religious" law, which would have effectively nullified the whole concept of "The law of the land is the law".

Rabbi Samuel certainly wished to preserve Jewish culture and ethnicity. Nonetheless, the Head of Babylon's Jewish community imbibed a deep respect and loyalty to his new country and would not allow zealots and separatists to lurch into a mode of cultural supremacy by erecting autonomous communities within the nation, which is accomplished when the purview of religious law is inflated to include that which is essentially civil and criminal law, something to be decided by the general public.

Eight hundred years later, as the center of Jewish life shifted westward to Europe, Rabbi Gershom of Germany expanded on the theme of "The Law of the land is the law." He declared that because something is permitted in religious law does not mean a Jew should exercise that religious right if it is contrary to a fundamental standard and custom of the country where he now resides. So that even though the ancient Bible did not limit a man to one wife, henceforth Jewish men living in Europe could not marry as was done in biblical days, since European/Christian mores had rejected the simultaneous taking of multiple wives. Though polygamy was already centuries earlier culturally taboo among western Jews, Rabbi Gershom took the opportunity to prohibit it officially and legally to underscore the point that no particular ethnic community stands above and beyond deep-rooted national moral and ethical mores and standards.  

Contrast this philosophy with that of shariah compliance where, for example, in certain European countries Islamic clerics are asking that the State welfare system subsidize the multiple wives of a Pakistani-born Muslim, or that of New Jersey where a lower court judge agreed not to hold a man liable for raping his wife, "reasoning" that his culture permits a man to force himself on his wife even though she vehemently protests her subjugation. Or the case of an 18 year old Columbus, Ohio girl whose wish to convert to Christianity is causing a risk to her life from her parents who claim that shariah does not allow her to become Christian. Jewish law intrinsically deplores what shariah here espouses, and no Beit Din would kow-tow to such rejection of civilized American societal norms.

The three cases mentioned above, some even criminal, stand foursquare against our American principle that women and children are not simply a man's property. This isn't simply a legalism but fundamental to our identity and to who we are as a people and nation. Having two sets of laws, one of which extends to Muslims the right to do that which is forbidden to all other Americans is a breach of the bedrock principle of Due Process, wherein our laws are applied equally to all, be it our rights or our prohibitions. Should we suddenly make one group of citizens more privileged than all others? That is not American, nor western. Equality under the law must transcend fashionable and often silly notions of multi-culturalism. Too much multi-culturalism leads to no culture at all, a society denuded of standards.

It has always been understood here that no one can claim a religious exception to civil and criminal rules that govern all. Religious freedom does not mean freedom from living by the civilized laws that constitute us as a people. That is exactly what Rabbi Samuel had in mind 1800 years ago when warning against those who would abrogate their fealty to civil and criminal law by claiming a special dispensation under religious law.

There are two areas where from time-to-time a Jew invites a Beit Din into his life. One is marriage and divorce. But here the Beit Din does not supersede routine civil law, rather it embellishes these events with certain required rituals, none of which offend deep-rooted social morality nor contradict existing civil law. After the divorced couple arranges their divorce settlement -- finances, child custody questions etc. -- the Beit Din's scribe quilts on parchment a divorce document according to an ancient Hebrew text. Marriage is similarly preceded by written documents and blessings. These additions do not abrogate any civil laws, rather fall under the rubric of rituals that adorn and enrich each particular group within humanity.

The second is the arbitration process where two Jewish litigants decide to forgo the expenses of lawyers and protracted civil court proceedings and opt to have the Beit Din arbitrate and decide their business or monetary conflict. Courts are often pleased by this choice since it relieves them of yet another case on their heavy dockets. But even here, the Beit Din cannot pull out of left field some wild form of insular reasoning whose logic could not stand up in secular court. Nor would it ever arbitrate on criminal matters.

And herein lays an essential difference between those advocating shariah for Islamic communities as opposed to Beit Din in highly observant Jewish communities. Whereas, a Jew finds himself at a Beit Din once or twice in life, and for many never at all, shariah will dominate the individual within the community. He will live under shariah. Shariah is comprehensive, and coercive. It is the ultimate balkanization, wherein a mini nation lives within a broader nation. It is a seceding from the Union - yet with all the privileges of being in that union.

For stealth jihadists, shariah is the most effective way to Islamize a country. Through its imposition, it telegraphs that a nation has no unique and binding set of laws, mores and standards. That's why radical multiculturalists love it. It helps brings down America.

Islamic shariah has a completely different aspiration than Jewish law. Jewish law has no world-wide ambitions. We don't even seek converts. There's one Jewish state, and a small one at that. Islam's stated goal is to have the world live under shariah. It yearns for a world-wide caliphate, bringing all under Islam, individuals and nations.

Shariah announces that Islam is above and beyond the law. It is above country. Once allowed and implemented in Islamic neighborhoods, it reaches beyond and extends to ever growing areas where its adherents migrate, so that neighborhoods once under American law now must forfeit their American way of life if they wish to do business or be shielded from harassment. Shariah does not believe in Live and let Live, which has been the sweet anthem that has guided America. It demands changes in our schools, work places, swimming pools, and every facet of public and commercial life.

In England , for example, whole school districts now forbid pork in school cafeterias where Christian children still constitute the majority, and some districts won't even teach the Holocaust because it "offends" anti-Semitic Muslims. Liberals call this sensitivity and accommodation. But it is capitulation; capitulation by emasculated multi-culturalists who feel that the only way to validate our western culture is by forfeiting it and submitting to those who wish to destroy it. Any ideology whose demands and stranglehold on civic and public life are so extensive and unyielding is theocratic in nature and thus incompatible with and dangerous to western life.

At one time, North Africa was not Islamic. Neither was Turkey, southern Asia, Indonesia, Central Africa, Persia, nor most of Iraq and Lebanon; nor were vast lands west, east and north of India. Nor were the Balkans. They are now mostly Islamic. Some fell to the sword of Islam. Others decided to be "nice guys" and allow shariah law in their countries for those few who demanded it. Now, tens of millions of them and their children must live under shariah law. Their heritage is gone.

Punishments under Islamic Law: flogging, beheading, hanging, crucification ...

The post Sharia- Crime and Punishment under Islam provides an excellent discussion on the types of crime and related punishments prescribed under Sharia Law. Here, there are a few actual examples:

Flogging
Sudan (Dec 2010): video shows a women receiving lashes at the Khartoum Police Station and part of an interview with the Governor of Khartoum, Dr. Abd Al-Rahman Al-Khadr. He stated that "what was aired was the implementation of an Islamic punishment..."  In fact, he went on to say that "[w]e should consider the more important issue in this case ~ our penal code is in keeping with Islam and the sharia is the main source of our legislation.  Islamic punishments are carried out to purge the perpetrator." (MEMRI TV Video #2772 and transcript).

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 (Qat’ Al-Tariq).

1. Unlawful Intercourse—Zina: 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 Wine—Shurb: 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—Qat’ Al-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.

Qat’ Al-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 (Qat’ Al-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.

Conclusion

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 7^th 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.

Conclusion

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. 

Jihad, duty of the Caliph

Excerpts from "Roots of the Gaza Conflict", by Nonie Darwish, FrontPageMagazine.

Mainstream Sharia books define Jihad as: "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion." (Shafi’i Sharia o9.0).

Jihad is not just the duty of the individual Muslim, but it is also the main duty of the Muslim head of State (the Calipha):

"A Muslim calipha is entrusted to take his people into war and command offensive and aggressive Jihad. He must organize Jihad against any non-Muslim government, which prevents Muslim da’wah (meaning preaching and spreading Islam) from entering its land."

Sharia law# o25.9 states:

"(When the caliph appoints a ruler on a region, his duty includes) if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, (he will) undertake Jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants and setting aside a fifth for deserving recipients." (Shafii Law o25.0 to o25.9).
Also:

"The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax provided he has first invited them to enter Islam or pay Jizya, the non-Muslim poll tax, (in accordance with the word of Allah Most High Chapter 9 verse 29)."

Zia-Ul-Haq, former President of Pakistan, said "jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim Ummah."

One of Islam’s eminent 20th century scholars, Sheikh Maolana Maududi said:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program … the objective of Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish instead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

Some people seem to think that such laws are just historical relics, on the books but not in practice or in control of the minds of Muslims. But that is the kind of denial we cannot afford; these laws rule the hearts, minds and actions of a majority of Muslim individuals and states around the world today. These scriptures are taught, preached and promoted as the incontrovertible and eternal word of God and funded by Saudi petrodollars throughout the world, including Western nations such as the U.K. and the United States.

Some Muslims tell me that they don’t believe in Sharia and question why am I making a big deal about it. My answer is that Sharia is the law of the land in 54 Muslim countries and many Muslim groups are demanding Sharia in the West. In 1990, 45 Muslim countries signed the Cairo Human Rights Declaration which stated that Sharia has supremacy over the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Muslim world must look within to its sacred laws, scriptures, sermons, teaching and preaching, and reform the obstacles for peace that have condemned them to a permanent state of jihad. The non-Muslim world must have no illusions.

Islamic Law on "retaliation"

Islamic law devalues the lives of non-Muslims by saying that ['Umdat al-Salik o1.1-01.2]:

Retaliation is obligatory...against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.

That means, someone who commits murder must be punished. However:

not subject to retaliation is a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim.

That means that there is no penalty for a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim.

However, in some cases, the injury or death of a non-Muslim may be literally paid off with money, with the perpetrator making a payment to the victim or his family. In that case ['Umdat al-Salik o4.9]:

the indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.