Why Christians Should Help Fight Sharia Law

by Luke Muehlhauser on November 14, 2009 in Islam,Video

Do you know what Sharia Law is? Watch the above video to find out.

Basically, even moderate, non-violent Muslims believe it is their mission from God to dominate the world and enforce Sharia Law on everybody else. They’ve made huge progress in Europe, and have now set their sights on the White House.

Sharia Law dictates that:

  • adulterers should be stoned to death
  • 9-year-old virgins can be married off without their consent to older men
  • abuse in not a valid reason for divorce
  • women cannot get a divorce without the husband’s consent
  • sons inherit twice as much as daughters
  • homosexuals should be stoned to death

And much more. Of course, much of this is taught by the Christian Bible, too, but it is not practiced by most Christians anymore. In contrast, Muslim countries really do stone homosexuals and permit the abuse of women – every day.

Christians may feel safe in America, where most of their neighbors are Christian as well. But it will not always be that way.

Christians seem to think the real threat comes from atheists. But atheists have no agenda to conquer the world or abuse women or stone adulterers and homosexuals to death. Muslims do. Even liberal Muslims, should they ever decide to actually start doing what their holy book says, can help bind up the world in the chains of Sharia.

So here’s the point. I think atheists and Christians should work together to resist every movement of Sharia Law, in Europe and America and everywhere else.

What can you do? Educate yourself. Sign petitions. Take action.

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }

Jon November 14, 2009 at 10:59 am

You need not worry about Christians failing to demonize Muslims. It’s going on all the time. I live in Detroit and there’s a Christian talk show host that I like to argue with over the air. I called him two days ago because he posed a question to callers. “Am I right to be suspicious of every Muslim I meet and fear them, since polls show they support terrorist activities.”

I have Muslim friends that are literally afraid to express themselves. One won’t even go to the Al Jazeera website because he’s afraid he’s being monitored and could be fingered and accused of disloyalty. I ask others to call in to this radio show and rebut the slanderous assertions, but they won’t. They’re afraid. Americans don’t think too much about the people being beaten by the IRF squads in Gauntanamo, but Muslims here know about it and know what can happen to them, especially in an atmosphere of fear like what is perpetuated with this video you posted.

It’s standard fare for aggressor nations to encourage their populace to fear their victims. The Germans feared the Jews. American colonists feared the Native Americans. Let’s tally the corpses over the last 30 years, including Muslims killed by U.S. proxies.

In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon and slaughtered 20,000 people in three months, pretty much all civilians, with the support of the U.S. Iran had deposed the Shah in 1979, a murderous tyrant imposed on them by the CIA. That’s well documented. In response the United States encouraged their stooge Saddam to invade, which he did with U.S. weaponry and logistics support. Maybe a million dead Iranians and half a million dead Iraqi’s. In 1991 Saddam invaded Kuwait to recoup his losses and did so probably because he had misunderstood U.S. orders. The U.S. responded by imposing sanctions over the next 12 years that had the effect of starving about a million children. Next came the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which according to the Lancet and Opinion Research Business has probably killed on the order of a million people so far. Who knows what the story is in Afghanistan. We don’t count our victims all that accurately.

Today Obama is using drones to kill civilians in Pakistan, where he’s created millions of refugees. At the turn of the year it was again Israel bombing the poor residents of Gaza, who are nothing but prisoners. There was no credible pretext. Another 1300 dead, a large proportion children. One would almost think they did it for nothing, but in fact the evidence is that they did it merely to assert their own dominion.

So let’s take a little advice from Jesus. Let’s deal with the beam in our own eyes before looking to the speck’s in our neighbors eyes. Far be it from me to defend Sharia law, but maybe we should concern ourselves with the many Muslims our government is killing on a daily basis and THEN start looking to the faults of others.

  (Quote)

Scott November 14, 2009 at 11:03 am

I’m reading the Qur’an right now, and it completely endorses Global Muslim domination, especially when joined with the Hadith (“And slay [your enemies] wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places from which they drove you out, for persecution is worse that slaughter” Qur’an 2:191). Every non-Mulsim should either pay a tax in submissiveness to the government (jizya), convert, or face death.

I could take all this with a dismissive grain of salt if part of Islamic doctrine didn’t preach that the Qur’an is literally the Word of Allah, and Muhammad was more of a secretary than author. Hell, my copy of the Qur’an says I must wash my hands before even touching it.

  (Quote)

Wes November 14, 2009 at 12:36 pm

I’ve been reading through my copy of the Quaran as well. While I see where Jon is coming from, I’m not sure that I can agree. Islam is a religion with a built in political structure. Whether or not terrorism comes from a fundamentalist branch of Islam is irrelevant because even the fundamentalist branches of Islam fall within Islamic orthodoxy. There is nothing heretical about their views when pitted against the backdrop of historical Islamic faith. Let’s say, as a hypothetical, that “moderate” Muslims vowed to never practice a physical Jihad against Americans of different or no faiths. Even then, there’s nothing inherent in Islam to keep their followers from renouncing that “moderate” agreement. There may be many nice Muslims but that does not grant that Islamic belief is one of niceties.

  (Quote)

Joshua Blanchard November 14, 2009 at 12:49 pm

Do you really think most American Christians feel more threatened by Atheists than Muslims?

Also, do you really think the probability of Sharia law being imposed in the U.S. is more than negligible?

I think both of these are misconceptions. Much more airtime in television and radio media, for example, is spent demonizing Muslims and the Muslim world; very little is spent even so much as acknowledging recent developments in atheism. As for Sharia Law, I don’t see any justification for thinking it will be imposed in the United States. Scary Youtube videos, a staple of such proud traditions as Christian chain emails, aren’t very convincing.

  (Quote)

drj November 14, 2009 at 1:27 pm

In my travels, I see many right wing Christians becoming increasingly xenophobic towards Muslims – and fear of sharia law is one of their concerns.

But its a weird dynamic… many seem to believe that atheism, liberalism, and extreme multiculturalism are all joined at the hip or all require one another. Liberalism, is atheism, is liberalism, is Islamic appeasement and anti-Christian. In other words, they seem to tend to think atheists naturally love Islam, and even work to Islam-ify American institutions as part of a greater conspiracy against Christianity.

Cruise any conservative message board, and you’ll see what I mean – why we’re practically under Sharia law already… thanks to the atheists (ie, liberals)

  (Quote)

Jon November 14, 2009 at 2:29 pm

Scott, the right wingers love to trot out these supposed frightening texts from the Qur’an. Please have a listen to my discussion on the radio with this right wing xenophobe on this topic. In short the context entirely mitigates the situation. Note also the audio of the Muslim caller that followed me.

http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2009/06/fascinating-discussion-on-dutko-show.html

Other discussion on the motivations of Muslims by me is available here:

http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-audio-debates.html

  (Quote)

John H November 14, 2009 at 8:47 pm

A couple of things: First, there is a snowballs chance in hell that Sharia as practiced in Saudi Arabia, etc. is going to be implemented in the West.

Second,

Of course, much of this is taught by the Christian Bible, too, but it is not practiced by most Christians anymore

only the thin sliver of reconstructionism believes the Bible teaches that list.

  (Quote)

TK November 14, 2009 at 10:16 pm

only the thin sliver of reconstructionism believes the Bible teaches that list.  

I’d add that the same could have been said of Islam at some points in Middle Eastern history (substituting the Qur’an for the Bible, of course). Some of the more secular Islamic states were among the most civilized, liberal states in the world at various times.

The swell in dangerous Islamic intolerance is mostly a result of socioeconomic factors, not deep gaps between the craziness of Islam and the craziness of Christianity. We atheists should (and do) abominate both religions fundamentally not because they have bad implications, but because they’re false–but “defending” Islam is sometimes a good way to put the Christians in their place.

  (Quote)

Scott November 14, 2009 at 10:23 pm

Jon, I totally hope I’m wrong with what I’m reading in it. My biggest fear is the complete lack of critical thinking that goes along with it: “Allah wrote the Qur’an, the Qur’an says P, therefore Allah says P, and if I must obey Allah, I must obey P.” (P being any proposition, obv.). I hope that people are smart enough as a whole not to take it at face value.

  (Quote)

MuslimgirlfromNZ November 14, 2009 at 11:40 pm

Hello
Just to correct you, Muslims dont actually think they have to enforce Sharia Law on anyone. I’m not trying to sugar-coat it’s simply the truth. My mother is as fundamentalist as they get and she kind of laughs at the notion of our Muslim brothers and sisters in the UK (where the “Hizbs” there are pretty big) trying to get the UK government to endorse our Sharia.

It’s beginning to get a little amusing how horribly people take Qur’anic texs out of context

Scott: I’m reading the Qur’an right now, and it completely endorses Global Muslim domination, especially when joined with the Hadith (”And slay [your enemies] wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places from which they drove you out, for persecution is worse that slaughter” Qur’an 2:191). Every non-Mulsim should either pay a tax in submissiveness to the government (jizya), convert, or face death.I could take all this with a dismissive grain of salt if part of Islamic doctrine didn’t preach that the Qur’an is literally the Word of Allah, and Muhammad was more of a secretary than author. Hell, my copy of the Qur’an says I must wash my hands before even touching it.  (Quote)

SubhanAllah, I was just reading that very verse today.

190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
192 But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

It seems people endorse selective reading!
And even if you were to take verse 191 by itself it says, “and drive them out of the PLACES WHICH THEY DROVE YOU OUT,” and “for PERSECUTION is worse than slaughter”

Unless you believe the whole world is persecuting Muslims and driving them out of their homes…

Still, I’d love for the whole world to adopt Sharia Law – and I don’t think Christians should be proud of them throwing God’s Law behind their back and adopting humanist, secular and atheist Laws over the Laws of their own God. It’s pretty shameful – as it is for Muslims who have done the same.

  (Quote)

Scott November 15, 2009 at 12:09 am

MuslimgirlfromNZ It’s beginning to get a little amusing how horribly people take Qur’anic texs [sic] out of context

Even in context you provide, my reading of it doesn’t change. For example, it’s easy to make the case that since the Western powers established Israel on Muslim-controlled lands, all aggressions can be justified from the cited passage. Muslims were “driven out” and arguably treated as second-class citizens (i.e. persecuted). So long as a belief of oppression can be cultivated, this passage calls the faithful to war.

Historically, the Middle East has been home to a warrior-horseman tradition, inherited from the tribes of the Asiatic steppe (c.f. Mongols, Huns, et al). It takes no stretch of the mind to think that Islam was founded stepped in this mindset. After all, Muhammad himself was a warlord…

  (Quote)

Jon November 15, 2009 at 12:57 am

Hey Scott.

Of course a violent, irrational person can justify violent behavior in their mind through the Qur’an and hadith, just like they could do the same with the Bible. But violence from Muslims today is not motivated by their reading of the Qur’an. As I’ve been blogging about a lot at my own website recently based on a book I recently read, Muslim violence is about occupation. The data show this quite clearly. My own personal view is that since occupation engenders violence if we stopped it and removed the primary motivation for suicide terrorism we’d naturally see a drastic reduction. If this didn’t eliminate the violence entirely then at that point it’s time to start looking at those specks in our neighbors eyes now that the beam is gone from our own.

As far as Palestine, again, it has nothing to do with Islam. 750K people were driven from their homes in 1948. Many of those people and of course their descendants basically would like to have their homes back. That’s not about Islam. That’s about being human. Interestingly the whole Arab world is prepared to let those homes go and settle with Israel. They’ll forego their homes, forego the UN mandate with the 1948 borders, and they will let Israel keep the land it acquired through aggression all the way up to the 1967 borders. Israel is able to refuse only because the United States permits it. Every year at the U.N. they vote on “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.” It calls for a two state settlement on the internationally recognize borders (the 1967 borders). It’s basically the U.S. and Israel against the world. Here’s a table of the roll call through a few selected years.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/resolving-the-israel-palestine-conflict-what-we-can-learn-from-gandhi/

There’s no need to look to Islam as the source of the violence with a voting record like that.

  (Quote)

Scott November 15, 2009 at 2:03 am

Jon, I completely agree that the displacement of Muslims from their homes is the cause of much of the the crap that goes on there – I know I’d be pissed if I was either forced out of my house or had some random guy start living with me, my complaints about it moot.

My biggest fear with the Qur’an is not that it causes violence, but is used to justify it. If a people feel disenfranchised, and can find in their holy book an excuse to go to war (permitting them to act on what they already want), then it can still play a tangential role in all of this, especially if you come to feel like you’ll be rewarded in the next life for killing others in this one. I wonder how differently, if at all, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would play out if both side were secular.

And I do loathe the U.S.’s enabling of Israel’s screwing around with the Palestinians. To be clear, I think everyone’s guilty in that.

  (Quote)

MuslimgirlfromNZ November 16, 2009 at 1:54 am

Dear Scott,
To start I’d first like to say that actually it does make a huge difference to your reading because the text clearly says that you are not allowed to commit any transgression or injustice. The very fact that it is SEEN as injustice is very telling of Muslim beliefs. You seem to be thinking that if I kill any non-muslim and I believe it to be justified if I can somehow twist passages from what I believe to be the Words of God – then I’ll get some reward in Heaven.
But a Muslim who knows anything about his religion wouldn’t be so lenient with that kind of justification because the price for murder – of either a muslim or a non-muslim – is no less than Hell.

To demonstrate how seriously a Muslim is to take this, there’s a story about Ali ibn abi Taleb – the 4th Caliphate (i.e. 4th ruler of the Muslim nation after the death of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH) and the Prophet Muhammad’s young cousin who grew up in his house, was reported to have been in battle once and he had overcome one of the men from the opposing army and he had his sword ready to kill the man when the man spit in his face. In response, Ali bin Abi Taleb (may Allah be pleased with Him) walked away. The man was so shocked that he went after Ali and asked him why he did that. Ali explained that at first I was going to kill you for the sake of Allah (i.e. for a reason sanctioned by Allah) and after you spit in my face I wanted to kill you for myself – [so I walked away].

So this idea of killing non-muslims at random and hoping you’ll get into Heaven is just not supported by Muslim teachings – and certainly not by the Quran as it clearly states that this would be transgression and injustice.

The fact that enraged people can blindly use it to justify their goals is.. irrelevant.
Israel used the excuse of “self-defense” to kill hundreds of children. Should we ban self-defense?

  (Quote)

MuslimgirlfromNZ November 16, 2009 at 2:02 am

Oh and one more thing

You said that text endorses “Global Muslim domination”

You can see from reading it that that verse in no way does any such thing as I clearly showed.

It is obvious now how ridiculous rumours can spread about Islam when an educated person such as yourself goes to such stretches to paint a picture of this Arabian ignorant fool who’s out to “take over the world” (Quoting Brain)

Justice requires a more careful and objective view of Islamic teachings

  (Quote)

AtheistguyfromFrance November 16, 2009 at 7:17 am

MuslimgirlfromNZ, stop spreading bullshit please.

For your information, Al-Fitnah (which means originally “test” or “trial”) in verses 191 and 193 was never understood by the early classical Quranic commentators as meaning “persecution”. It’s just a modern politically correct interpretation.

Here’s what Ibn Kathir says about it in his Tafsir:

“Shirk is worse than Killing

Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. Abu Malik commented about what Allah said:

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing.” Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said:

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) “Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.’

(…until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

Allah’s statement:

(…and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.’ It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari said: “The Prophet was asked, `O Allah’s Messenger! A man fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them fights in the cause of Allah’ The Prophet said:

(He who fights so that Allah’s Word is superior, then he fights in Allah’s cause.) In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:

(I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah.)”

———-

Shirk means polytheism but of course the treatment is the same for the kufar (unbelievers).

But I acknowledge that the sura 2 The Cow doesn’t promote clearly offensive jihad. That’s what the sura 9 do, a sura which contains the “verse of the sword” as the muslims called it. It’s important to notice that this verse has been revealed in a time of peace, after the conquest of Mecca.
For more detailed explications about this verse, you can read this article:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

(yes, I know, it’s a christian apologetic website but this page provides accurate information on this matter).

You say also:

“because the price for murder – of either a muslim or a non-muslim – is no less than Hell.”

That’s a pathetic lie (or mark of ignorance). Here are 2 hadiths for you (from Bukhari):

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:

Narrated ‘Abdullah:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated ‘Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

And please don’t tell me that apostasy here means “treason in time of war” because that would be another lie.

Those things being said, I must add that I don’t want to form any alliance with Christians to oppose Sharia Law. We don’t fight religious violence with people who worship the Bible.

  (Quote)

Lorkas November 16, 2009 at 7:55 am

Many thanks to MuslimGirl for her explanation of her view of Islam. It’s refreshing to hear someone with first-hand experience of the religion straightforwardly address some of the claims I’ve heard made about Islam.

  (Quote)

AtheistguyfromFrance November 16, 2009 at 11:54 am

MuslimgirlfromNZ, stop spreading bullshit please.

For your information, Al-Fitnah (which means originally “test” or “trial”) in verses 191 and 193 was never understood by the early classical Quranic commentators as meaning “persecution”. It’s just a modern politically correct interpretation.

Here’s what Ibn Kathir says about it in his Tafsir:

“Shirk is worse than Killing

Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. Abu Malik commented about what Allah said:

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing.” Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said:

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) “Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.’

(…until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

Allah’s statement:

(…and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.’ It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari said: “The Prophet was asked, `O Allah’s Messenger! A man fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them fights in the cause of Allah’ The Prophet said:

(He who fights so that Allah’s Word is superior, then he fights in Allah’s cause.) In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:

(I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah.)”

———-

Shirk means polytheism but of course all forms of unbelief are targeted.

But I acknowledge that the sura 2 doesn’t promote clearly offensive jihad. That’s what the sura 9 do, a sura which contains the “verse of the sword” as the muslims called it. It’s important to notice that this verse has been revealed in a time of peace, after the conquest of Mecca.
For more detailed explications about this verse, you can read this article:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

(yes, I know, it’s a christian apologetic website but this page provides accurate information on this matter).

You say also:

“because the price for murder – of either a muslim or a non-muslim – is no less than Hell.”

That’s a pathetic lie (or mark of ignorance). Here are 2 hadiths for you (from Bukhari):

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:

Narrated ‘Abdullah:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated ‘Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

And please don’t tell me that apostasy here means “treason in time of war” because that would be another lie.

Those things being said, I must add that I don’t want to form any alliance with Christians to oppose Sharia Law. We don’t fight religious violence with people who worship the Bible.

  (Quote)

MuslimgirlfromNZ November 17, 2009 at 10:34 am

Atheist guy from France, I’m afraid I don’t have the time now to fulyl respond to your reply, as I do need to look up the references you have sited.

Just some quick words.. It’s really of no merit to your argument throwing the word “bullshit” in my face and calling me a liar – I had no intention of polishing my religion for you or for any other human – your opinion bares no effect on the value of my beliefs, and I believe the truth does not need to be polished or sugar-coated for anyone. Pehaps some Muslims will apologize for their beliefs but I am not of the kind – atleast I hate to be such. I will not tell you that apostasy means treason in time of war – for I believe the treason of turning your back on the truth is far worse than treason against your country. That doesn’t mean it’s halal – legal – for us to go around killing atheists.

Secondly – read surah 9 more carefully – it speaks of the people breaking/undoing the covenant they had with the Muslims.

Thirdly, Christians dont “worship the Bible”. They worship a triune God

  (Quote)

MuslimgirlfromNZ November 17, 2009 at 10:58 am

Atheist Guy from France

Before I get to sleep –
Zanadiqa certainly does not mean atheists. It means people that pretend to be Muslims only to cause internal dispute within the Muslims.

  (Quote)

alexie November 20, 2009 at 2:32 am

There are over 100 verse in the Koran to go to war.
This does not include descriptions of war by Mohammad just what the Koran tells Muslims to do to Christians, Jews, Pagans and non-believers.
There are two houses. One Muslim and the other the House of War. A Muslim can say that Islam is a peaceful religion as if you are Muslims you are to be peaceful. If not then “slay them in the streets.”
The Koran mentions taking slaves and that a woman is worth less than a man.
Its sad because the Koran mentions Jesus many times as Isa Masai. The Messiah. In Surah 3 it mentions Gods spirit. In Later verse it mentions Mary Virgin birth of Jesus. It mentions God does what He wants. So how did Mary conceive? Through God and so God is the Father of Jesus. Yet they deny all this and the Love Jesus preached. The Koran does not mention at all that we should love. Only by mentioning Jesus could they have a connection to love and only then through the Bible.
In the end there are over 55 Islamic countries of which maybe only Turkey has high human rights, maybe.
The tighter the Sharia Law the worse the treatment of people.
Again God loves all Muslims but sadly they are tormented by false prophets and people who want to shed blood. The Koran is twisted to suit this bloodshed but sadly there is much that requires no twisting, it says what it says and its not good. The only hope is a true understanding of Jesus in the Koran and the Bible and then they will not want Sharia Law.
Islam is a political/religious organism. The Umma, world Islam is foundational to its beleifs that the whole world become Muslim. It is also an Arabic obsession. Have you noticed that many muslims will retain the muslim dress and often will not integrate. Look at Engkand now. In ten to twenty years it may become majority Muslim as the birth rate of Muslims is 6-8 times greater than your anglo/saxon Englishman. Will they implement Sharia Law. Of course as there is no split between “Church” and state. Once they win an election or have the power to change laws then Sharia law will come in.

  (Quote)

alexie November 20, 2009 at 2:35 am

AtheistguyfromFrance: We don’t fight religious violence with people who worship the Bible.

Do you mean singularly? Because many Christians in other parts of the world are continually attacked and killed (violence) by muslims. Is this truly what they are saying as its not possible to support this with evidence?

  (Quote)

MuslimgirlfromNZ November 20, 2009 at 10:28 am

alexie:
What sweeping statements you make!
Yes indeed there are many verses in the Qur’an* that speak of war – I never claimed it to be a pacifist religion. I’m sure you’ll be aware of the fact that the Prophets (may peace and blessings be upon them) sent to the Jews certainly were not pacifist either. Jesus PBUH did not go to war – but then the Jews rejected him, but I certainly would not call him a pacifist either.

” If not then “slay them in the streets.” For such a bold claim I seriously suggest you provide some evidence.

“The Koran is twisted”
have you even read the whole Qur’an?

” In Surah 3 it mentions Gods spirit. In Later verse it mentions Mary Virgin birth of Jesus. It mentions God does what He wants. So how did Mary conceive? Through God and so God is the Father of Jesus”
:| Are you insinuating what I think you’re insinuating?!?!?!?! Astaghfirullah – Glory be to He. Please be careful of the words you use when you talk about God.

“The love that Jesus preached.”
My dear do you read your Bible?
Tell me about the love that he had for the pharisees!
A Prophet of God doesn’t believe in appeasement of the people. Look at the way he spoke to the pharisees – the way he spoke to the hypocrites and to the “evil and adulterous generation”.
I love Jesus PBUH just the way he was and I don’t understand why some Christians try to make him into a Ghandi. He had a beautiful characteristic of speaking the truth and fighting the evils no matter what anyone said – this is why the Jews hated him so much and framed him for “blasphemy” and wanted to crucify him to prove he is cursed by God – but Allah SWT tells us in the Qur’an that he was saved from the ignoble death of the crucifixion and we are told that he was not blasphemous but one of the greatest Prophets of God.
/
May the peace and blessing of God be upon all our beloved messengers and I call God as a witness that I believe in them all and love them all.

  (Quote)

MuslimgirlfromNZ November 20, 2009 at 12:11 pm

@ Atheist guy from France:

I just found a few links about apostasy in Islam. I said that I think apostasy is worse than treason and I hold to that but there appears to be be many muslims who differ in their point if indeed apostasy is sanctioned in Islam and so I just wanted to provide the links to try to be fair in my representation of Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUiEuKzKSDM&feature=channel

The guy provides links there to some scholars who speak about the subject

  (Quote)

lukeprog November 20, 2009 at 12:29 pm

MuslimgirlfromNZ,

According to the Qur’an, how are you to respond to an apostate from Islam?

  (Quote)

Conor Gilliland November 22, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Luke,

I’m right with you on resisting Sharia law. Though, I will echo others’ points that nowhere does the Bible teach anything like it in principle.

-Conor

  (Quote)

AtheistguyfromFrance November 24, 2009 at 10:41 pm

MuslimgirlfromNZ: Atheist guy from France, I’m afraid I don’t have the time now to fulyl respond to your reply, as I do need to look up the references you have sited.Just some quick words.. It’s really of no merit to your argument throwing the word “bullshit” in my face and calling me a liar –

It’s not an insult, it’s a fact. But you can replace “bullshit” by “nonsense” if you prefer. By the way I said liar or ignorant but I don’t know which hypothesis is the most charitable.

I had no intention of polishing my religion for you or for any other human – your opinion bares no effect on the value of my beliefs, and I believe the truth does not need to be polished or sugar-coated for anyone. Pehaps some Muslims will apologize for their beliefs but I am not of the kind – atleast I hate to be such.

Very good, so take time to answer Luke’s original post, tough girl.
You said: “I’d love for the whole world to adopt Sharia Law”. Would you really love to live in a world where:

* adulterers should be stoned to death
* abuse is not a valid reason for divorce
* sons inherit twice as much as daughters
* homosexuals should be killed

and fornicators flogged, thieves’ hands cut off and so on… Clear and no polished answer needed. Thanks.

I will not tell you that apostasy means treason in time of war – for I believe the treason of turning your back on the truth is far worse than treason against your country. That doesn’t mean it’s halal – legal – for us to go around killing atheists.

If you just want to imply that it may be illegal for an individual but not for the islamic state, you’re ducking the issue. But if you maintain your opinion that “the price for murder – of either a muslim or a non-muslim – is no less than Hell” I can cite other hadiths, like this one from Muslim:

Book 020, Number 4661:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A disbeliever and a believer who killed him will never be gathered together in Hell.

or this one from Bukhari:

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50:

Narrated Abu Juhaifa:

I asked ‘Ali “Do you have anything Divine literature
besides what is in the Qur’an?” Or, as Uyaina once said,
“Apart from what the people have?” ‘Ali said, “By Him Who
made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we
have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability
(gift) of understanding Allah’s Book which He may endow a
man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper.” I
asked, “What is on this paper?” He replied, “The legal
regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for)
releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no
Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment)
for killing a Kafir (disbeliever).”

or maybe you want a fatwa:

First of all, you should know that a Muslim should not be killed for killing a belligerent non-Muslim according to the consensus of the scholars may Allaah have mercy upon them. According to the view of the majority of the scholars may Allaah have mercy upon them a Muslim should not be killed against a free non-Muslim under the Muslim rule. The evidence about this is the saying of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ): “A Muslim should not be killed for killing a non-Muslim.” [At-Tirmithi]
Moreover, according to the view of the majority of the
scholars may Allaah have mercy upon them the title (and
rulings) “disbeliever” is applicable to a free non-Muslim
under the Muslim rule. However, Abu Haneefah, and the
scholars of his School of jurisprudence may Allaah have
mercy upon them are of the view that a Muslim should be
killed for killing a free non-Muslim under Muslim rule;
their evidence is the two verses which the questioner
mentioned. Nonetheless, the correct opinion is that of
the majority of the scholars may Allaah have mercy upon
them that is based on the above Prophetic narration,
which is a direct proof related to the case of dispute.

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=e&Id=92261&Option=FatwaId

MuslimgirlfromNZ: Secondly – read surah 9 more carefully – it speaks of the people breaking/undoing the covenant they had with the Muslims.

No it doesn’t. It’s Muhammad who broke unilaterally the treaty in a time of peace. You ask me to read more carefully but it looks like you haven’t even read or understand the first verse:

1.Freedom from obligation (or declaration of immunity) (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.

For the context read Ibn Ishaq.

MuslimgirlfromNZ: Thirdly, Christians dont “worship the Bible”. They worship a triune God

Yes, thanks for the information (it was a figure of speech, you know).

Zanadiqa certainly does not mean atheists. It means people that pretend to be Muslims only to cause internal dispute within the Muslims.

First, it’s not my translation but Muhsin Khan’s one.
Secondly, Zanadiqa means heretics in a broad sense,
including atheists (same problem with the word kuffar).
However I agree with you that in this case, it’s an arbitrary interpretation (but it’s the point of view of a believer who often use “atheist” as a derogatory term). Your own -too narrow- definition falls into the same vein.

  (Quote)

AtheistguyfromFrance November 24, 2009 at 11:00 pm

alexie:
Do you mean singularly? Because many Christians in other parts of the world are continually attacked and killed (violence) by muslims. Is this truly what they are saying as its not possible to support this with evidence?  

I don’t totally understand your point but what I wanted to say is that it makes no sense to have an even one-off alliance because there’s no rational common ground. Of course, it doesn’t prevent from condemning persecution of Christians by Muslims (or the opposite).

  (Quote)

MuslimgirlfromNZ December 2, 2009 at 12:08 am

@ Luke: I don’t know that apostasy is actually addressed in the Qur’an – but in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH. If it was, there wouldn’t be different opinions between the Muslim scholars as to what actually happens. I’ll try to get you a few different sources if you like.

@ Atheist guy from France:
Thanks for taking this up. I was offended and put off at the beginning (I’m new to debating my beliefs) but I’ve tried to take a calmer approach.

I’d just like to stress that I am no scholar and should admit to my ignorance because I’m not too proud to realize I haven’t read a lot of the hadeeths that you’re quoting me, but I will try to reply to the best of my ability, if you don’t mind.

I just wanted to take up a few of your points (thanks Luke for the debating space) for now if you don’t mind – with regards to the ‘challenge’ in the post. The reason I answered the way I did is because I know those things well..
I was hoping to write a few posts about my thoughts about these things.

First of all, with the stoning the adulterers to death – I don’t know if you know this but 4 witnesses to the act are required for them to be punished, and (I’ll try to get some references for this but I’m just talking from the info I got in “Islamic studies” classes in school) it can’t even be that 3 of those witnesses were there and the 4th one was called to the scene. If any discrepancies are found all four are flogged (I believe 40 times). I’d just like to stress that it’s adultery and not just fornication – because previously unwed offenders do not get the death penalty.
The benefits to society of stopping adultery and fornication are huge.. No more children out of wed lock – no children without fathers to own up to them – no children having to face the shame of being called a bastard (I know in the West this might not be an issue but it is elsewhere) – it means security for both the mother and her child, where everyone’s rights are secured in a court of law through marriage. The lineage of the child is not questioned, and his inheritance is preserved. I know in the West the woman can go out and get her own ‘bread on the table’, as a lot of Muslim women do as well, but in Islam the woman has a right to stay at home and have all her finances taken care of, and that of her child as well. What happens when the father doesn’t own up to his child? Who looks after him?
I’m sure there are a lot of ways to solve these issues but the way it is done in Islamic law is to cut off the problem from it’s roots. You (not literally you) want that kind of benefit – you get a wife, pure and simple. A dignified wife before the whole world where there’s no risk of being used and abused. I could go on but I’ll stop there..

Secondly.. Abuse not being a grounds for divorce. I didn’t really know about this one and I don’t know enough to say actually so I’ll pass on that one. I thought it depended on what the judge decides but I’m not really aware of what the Islamic teachings are with this regards. Maybe I’ll get back to you inshaAllah

Thirdly.. Like I said before women in Islam have a right to pay literally ziltch from the moment they are born to the moment they die. Before they are married their parents (or any male relatives) are required to provide for her and after she is married the man is required to provide housing, clothing, security, etc. etc. and even if she comes with her own money she doesn’t have to pay a cent towards her household – where as for the male in Islam (legally speaking) the parents can ask him to work from the minute he hits puberty – from the Islamic law perspective they are not bound to provide for him financially from that day on. I’m guessing that’s probably why the Prophet Muhammad PBUH used to work as a shepherd as a teenager. Anyway you see can see the point – the money (or whatever it is) the woman inherits is purely for her, while the male provides for his family and perhaps some of his female relatives if needed.

Third – homosexuals being killed.. I haven’t thought of this one as much as the others, but all that comes to mind is that if naturally men and women are supposed to marry each other – then having men marrying men and women marrying women disrupts the functioning of society. What happens if half the men in a population are gay? What happens to the women? Do they then marry other women? You might think half a population’s a crazy number but from what I hear that’s not far from the truth in some places (or so I heard – like Charlotte, US where my relative used to live). The same would probably apply for needing the witnesses, and so I guessed (when learning about the penalty for adultery in school) that it seems more of a societal measure than anything else – so that the act does not spread in society. Because the Muslim belief is that you will be held accountable in the Hereafter (so the point, I don’t think, is punishment for the sin but rather a working law for the society).

Lastly I’d just like to point out that this is all part of a bigger worldview of the Muslim – where this life is trial before the life of the next world which is the “real life” – but this life is temporary.

Anyway I realize I haven’t addressed all your points but I thought it best not to touch on the points I didn’t know enough about and instead offer what I do know about.

Thanks

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment