Many, if not most Christians are familiar with the Islamic societal code or law known as ‘sharia.’ But do Christians and even unbelieving Americans truly know and understand what sharia or Islamic law really is? I truly doubt it, but yet many of the same people have or express an opinion over something they no little to nothing about. The Bible states that we are destroyed by our lack of knowledge. Those words could not ring more loudly and true than the current hour we are living.
Traditional Muslims who read and interpret the Quran and the other Mohammedan companion books, understand and believe that sharia law expresses the ultimate goals for societies according to Allah. In a nutshell, the Islamic law known as sharia is the will of the Muslim god, Allah and should be reflected in all societies of the world. Considering that Islam has a world view, maybe it’s time that you do as well. Far too many Christians are passively ignorant to what’s unfolding around them and they concoct a variety of hyper-spiritual excuses: “I’m not of this world’, ‘I belong to God’s government and rule’, I’m a pilgrim just passing through, and the list goes on and on. These statements are certainly true in a limited edition. But maybe, just maybe, if the Lord tarries, what type of world will your children and great grandchildren inherit because of our lack of vision, political ignorance, and spiritual apathy? We owe our children three vital inheritances; spiritual, environmental, and social.
A few questions need to be answered or considered before we base a factual opinion in regard to sharia law. Was sharia law invented by Muhammad and did he practice this social code? Is there a conflict within the life of Muhammad, the Quran, the writings within various hadith (the words of Muhammad not listed in the Quran) and the rhetoric of Islamic apologists?
Note: ‘Hadith’ is a saying or an act or tacit approval or disapproval ascribed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
With these questions in mind, no one should be deceived into believing that the harsh and excessive laws of sharia were concocted in the fevered imagination and ideologies of Islamist extremists who came long after Muhammad. The harshness and Dark Age flavor of sharia law came directly from the founder of Islam who inspired the Quran and the living of his life example as reflected in multiple hadith passages. The truth, is that Muhammad himself laid down or composed the excessive punishments and policies of sharia law and these prescriptions simply do not reflect the heart of a Creator or God who loves, preserves, and cares for his creation. I will prove this statement as this message progresses.
One of primary points that we must understand has to do with the aspects of spiritual and natural legitimacy. Is sharia law legitimate or compatible with the nature of man and God? It is interesting that many of the punishments within sharia law are not typically reflected outside of Islam or an Islamic court of law. Islamists and Islamic apologists would have the world body believe that legal procedures must be given due diligence before a sentence or should we say, ‘punishment’ is carried out. This may be true in talk-speak, but the issue that I have with this logic is that it does not negate the excessiveness of sharia based punishments and the lack of societal based ‘rule of law’ that exists in democratic institutions. As Aristotle wrote centuries ago, “…excess is never just.”
Some of the contrasts between democratic law and sharia law can be weighed by what the Bible presents to us as a source of moral and civil law. It is not surprising that contemporary Christians are predominantly spearheading the resistance to Islamist leadership and sharia interpretation of societal law. If the Holy Spirit dwells within us, he also bares witness with our spirit and provides understanding to the harsh and excessive nature of Islamic law as well as its antithesis to human nature. Mankind witnessed the excessive nature of religion under the guise of Christianity in the Middle and Dark Ages along with brutal tribal or agrarian religions which also displayed excessive force, abuse, and sacrifice to control populations. Frankly, this is the essence of the antichrist spirit. On the other hand, many of the freedoms, liberties, and wise or reasonable justice we experience in America is based from biblical precepts. The New Covenant of Jesus Christ when embraced and woven into social conduct provides mankind dignity, fairness, freedom of expression, creativity, and hope.
A good example of contrast would be the consumption of alcohol. It is not my purpose to argue whether a person should or should not drink alcoholic beverages in this article. The purpose of this example is to define the differences between democratic and Islamic based punishments (especially when understanding that drinking and drunkenness are completely different dynamics). I can state this example in sharp contrast due to the fact that Islamic law and its societal governments go hand in hand in countries where Islam reflects majority rule and void of the separation of church and state as I defined in part one of this article.
Islam, if interpreted literally, commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. The following events are recent Islamic judgments within the last decade: Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex, but also for drinking alcohol. In Nigeria, a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes. In the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were whipped in front of a mosque for drinking and gambling. This form of justice was carried out publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are currently scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling. Where’s the media and news on this? The Quran prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90-91 and does not literally prescribe the punishment of flogging. However, many hadith inspired by Muhammad (the founder of Islam) does.
Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence. Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries. These works are referred to in matters of Islamic law to this day. The two largest denominations of Islam, Shia and Sunni, have different sets of hadith collections which reflect and interpret the life of Mohammad.
A poor ‘criminal’ was brought to Muhammad who became angry. The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him as the drinker was dragged into Muhammad’s presence. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775) The heart and soul of Islam is revealed in that we witness no offer of help for the drinker and possible alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad refuse to offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately defer to corporal punishment? This is the dual headed dragon and danger of promoting Islam and Islamist based beliefs. 1) The separation of religion and state does not exist in Islamist states creating “opinions of man” rather than the rule of law. 2) Religious “opinions” can be wide ranging and brutal due to the lack of the rule of law and man’s propensity to create a personality for God to achieve an agenda.
In researching this article, I have come across many Islam based web sites arguing that Islamic countries are pure, peace-loving, and a more complete religious expression for mankind. The same Islamic apologists point to the West and western societies as decadent and the prime exporter of evil. I cannot argue with the latter claim, but I will argue that Islamic countries a far from pure.
Is it pure or the expression of a pure heart that Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear ‘highhandedness’ in their wives? How can we forget Rania al – Baz, who had been beaten by her husband and made her ordeal public in 2004 to raise awareness about violence suffered by women behind closed doors in Saudi Arabia. A Saudi television network aired a talk show that discussed this event. The show would go on to promote a Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use or are acceptable to hit their wives with. Like the diameter and composite of the rod makes a difference!
The Quran states in 4:34: “If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them of the teaching of God, then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.”
A widely recognized hadith states that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were also suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing Islamic marriage laws. Quote: “Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady came, wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari)
This particular hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl and bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127. Quote: “He (Muhammad) struck me (Aisha) on the chest which caused me pain.” Did Jesus Christ reflect this behavior? There is evidence that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery due to the strict laws and customs of sharia. The outworking of these supposed gains is the cost of women wearing veils over their faces and keeping separate from men in most social events. How about it western women? Are you up to making society a better place? Are Americans and those in non-Islamic countries willing to make this sacrifice or a means to this end result? In other words, these results which produce fewer incidents of ‘sexual crimes’ rather than sin, may have underlying negative effects in other areas of life such as the oppression of women in many forms and expressions. Generally, sharia restricts women’s social mobility and rights the more closely sharia is followed and adhered to. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law openly oppresses women‘s rights. In many Islamic countries, sharia expresses itself in that a woman’s testimony only counts for half that of men. Likewise, far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery. (reference Sura 4:34) Yet, the UN and world politic remains silent and in cowardly fear for the sake of a false sense of security and peace.
Another form of justice under sharia which Islam allows is that an injured plaintiff can exact legal revenge such as a physical eye for physical eye. This becomes a difficult conversation for many Christians as we witness some of the same interpretations in the Old Testament scriptures. The point is that we live today in a dispensation of grace through Jesus Christ and he fulfilled all law and justice through his words and example. Democratic and US constitutional law is founded upon Judeo-Christian values and expressions of rational justice which is underpinned by New Testament values. The problem with the growth of Islam is that the expression of an “eye for an eye” still has meaning and legal credence today for Muslims to exact upon another. Once again, the following examples are recent events within the last few years: In Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the sharia law of retaliation. A court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiance. An Iranian court ordered a man’s eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes. Although this may seem fair and equitable to a Muslim and even others around world – these forms of justice are very dangerous. First, where do you draw the line since a set social rule of law is not recognized? Secondly, all aspects of repentance and rehabilitation have been severely damaged since the accused person has been permanently scarred. Thirdly, what if a person is wrongly accused? Are Americans really ready for this system of social justice? If not, then wise up and recognize that it spreading all around you in the forms of Interfaith movements, Chrislam, and other subtle forms of Islamic geographical growth. Islam is growing on many global fronts and dynamics.
The Quran states in 5:45, “And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists or wrong-doers). Quran 5:45 implies the execution of just judgment by Muslims and clearly implies in full context that Allah considers those people that do not execute the judgment that Allah desires are considered to be wrong-doers. In fairness, this passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. Obviously one should not (including a Muslim) have a issue with this option. According to this hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. But this is not the point that I am trying to make. The problem is the literal law of sharia retaliation in and of itself which is still active and exercised.
The Quran, hadith, and sharia based legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive “option” has been historically carried out as reflected in the very recent examples I previously listed. These examples just scrape the top of a very large iceberg of sharia based ideologies which are hidden from the naive sojourners view. Islamic or sharia law calls for all of mankind to revert and march backward to the Dark Age and tribal laws of wanton retaliation to support male dominated and religious based agendas. Islam and Islamist ideologies if continued unchecked by the world polity will set us on the path of a tribal revival and a Dark Age cultural shift which portraits a Darwinist survival of the fittest mindset because a condescending voice will eventually become extinct via persecution.
What is stealing according to Islam? I believe that we can steal a material object; we can steal ideas, hopes, dreams, love, and freedom. Does sharia differentiate? Islam commands that a male and female thief or one who steals must have a hand cut off. Again, sharia law is opposite from democratic rule of law in that there is no precedent or defined litmus. Where is a line drawn before your hand may be cut off for simply ‘stealing’ an others idea? Americans and those of western social thought must not lose sight of the fact that this type of justice and punishment is prescribed in the Quran – the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the pitched imagination and doctrines of regimes like the Taliban, Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Fatah (which means ‘conquest’ in Arabic) and Hezbollah – It is the will of the Islamic god, Allah.
The Quran states in 5:38 – 39, “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done, a deterrent from God. God is almighty and wise. But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance. God is most forgiving and merciful.”
At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the accused or thief’s hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after the justice has been administered. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788). With this said, the UN has recognized a Palestinian voice which equates to a state to be added to the world body to promote these doctrines. Americans are either in denial, spiritually ignorant, or lacking in historical understanding. The lack discernment and interest of comfortable Americans will soon provide a life that is not so ‘comfortable’ unless a multi-societal voice of objection is raised.
Islam, according to its written tenants, commands that ‘highway robbers’ should be crucified or mutilated. In 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit which was supposedly a bomb plot masterminded by the British government. In 2002, Amnesty International reported that although Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment of people groups (Convention against Torture – October 1997) – Amputation is still prescribed under both Hudud (sharia based punishments) and Qisas (law of equal retaliation). Amnesty International has recently witnessed and recorded thirty three amputations and nine cross amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.
Note: In Islamic law or sharia, ‘Hudud’ usually refers to the class of punishments that are fixed for certain crimes that are considered to be “claims of God.” They include theft, fornication and adultery (zina), consumption of alcohol or other intoxicants (khamr), and apostasy.
The Quran states in 5:33-34, “Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land; a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter. Unless they repent before you overpower them; in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful.” It may be difficult to accept in our western ‘look at the best in everything’ mindsets, but the hadith clearly states that Muhammad tortured defendants before he executed them. This is interesting and in stark contrast to Guantanamo Bay and its rational means of justice. Yet, the Muslim and media grandstanding for its dissolving continues to this day. President Obama elevated the closing of Guantanamo as part of his political platform; but at the time of this article, nothing has changed…I wonder why? While we can agree that Guantanamo is not the answer to the Islamic dilemma in regard terrorism – we must understand that if the tables were turned, there may not have been a westerner or a person who objected to Islam left alive. If he or she was, they most likely would have been mutilated according to Islamic law as a ‘necessary’ threat.
“Some people came to the Prophet and embraced Islam…they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802) The next hadith reports that the ‘renegades’ died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. The hadith continues to state that the renegades were not given water and they died of thirst. I believe that the truth is that these men died from a loss of blood and dehydration. Did Jesus Christ ever resort to torture, mutilation, and like means to promote and reflect the will of God? Quite the opposite was reflected in the conduct and words of Jesus. We need to wake up and wake up now before it’s too late for many.
Islam and sharia commands that homosexuals must be executed without exception or explanation. A prime example is the Taliban, who once administered the political and religious laws in Afghanistan. The Islamist courts ordered a stone wall to be pushed over unto three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed. I wanted to bring this event into view and to continue driving the facts of what happens when a defined rule of law is replaced by religious interpretation of law. Relationship with God as reflected in Christianity, promotes the love and attributes of God as well as his desire for salvation and restoration. Religion, on the other hand, always has it’s roots firmly embedded in the soil of man’s agenda and dogmas, or to explain the unexplainable as seen in most agrarian societies. In Iran’s 1991 Constitution per Articles 108-113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy and homosexuality. In 2005, a high ranking Kuwaiti cleric stated that homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death. Imagine if this was stated by an American pastor and what the social outcry would be not including the response from the western media which would be far expounded? Yet, its excessive punishment goes unhindered in the Middle East and parts of Africa while Americans in their grand political stupidity support a Palestinian state and Islam as a religion of peace which adheres to the same precepts.
In 2005, Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for what the sharia courts deemed ‘gay conduct.’ The fact is that these homosexual men were very lucky. Had this been just a hundred years earlier, Islam without the aspects of media would have executed them, as the hadith directs. Ibn Abbas who was Muhammad’s cousin and the authoritative translator of hadith, states the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals:
“If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.’ This hadith passage goes on to state that homosexuals should be burned alive or have a wall pushed on them. Quote: Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, ‘Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.’ In a version, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, it states that Ali, a family member of Muhammad, had two people burned and that Abu Bakr (Muhammad’s chief associate) had a wall thrown down on them. (The Mishkat, Volume 1, page 765 – Prescribed Punishments) Although the punishment of a wall being toppled on these homosexual men is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion without a social or democratic rule of law.
Islam and sharia is clear in that unmarried fornicators be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death, The Quran states in 24:2, “The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.”
Note: the excessive punishment of a hundred stripes is defined for unmarried persons guilty of ‘illegal’ sex before marriage. Married persons which commit illegal sex are to receive the punishment of being stoned to death. According to a documented and verified report in Iran – a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, I chose to cited it here because it reflects the fact that lashing can be fatal.
In 2004, Amnesty International reported that an Iranian woman charged with adultery faced death by stoning. In the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court, her unnamed co-defendant became immediately at risk of execution by hanging. Amnesty International members wrote urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped. Sorry to let you down my intoxicated western and comfortable church friends – She was buried up to her chest and stoned to death in accordance with the following hadith passage:
“And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her (Muslim no. 4206) The hadith continues that the ‘prophet’ prayed over her dead body and then buried her. The facts we must face is that does this damned prayer really matter? As the hadith rambles on – Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh…However, even one who lacks discernment can see that the prophet’s words drip with irony.
But does it really matter if Muhammad’s words drip with irony, interpretation, or context? Islam clearly orders death for Muslim and even death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad, the Quran, and even sharia itself.
Most people who were breathing remember the fatwa which was decreed by Iran’s supreme spiritual leader to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote the book Satanic Verses, which included questions or doubts about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. The fatwa happened in 1989 and Islamic fundamentalists have continued to renew the fatwa. Although Salman Rushdie has been no threat to anyone over the last 23 years, a renewed called for assassination has been decreed and sheds light on the lack of tolerance, freedom of expression or speech, and personal liberty Islam represents. This is ironic in that the Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, recently brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia’s vilification law. While on trial, one of the pastors wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it as non-circumstantial. The hardest aspect for me to understand and believe is that the pastors had to appeal their conviction. Conviction of what? Likewise, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament and seems that they have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed and opponents of the law state that it obstructs free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam. How did Britain get to this point of political and social enslavement? The answer is simple. Political correctness which offends few will always enslave mankind over absolute correctness which offends many in world today.
The world’s political correctness has essentially authorized the following Islamic ideologies and social conditioning which exact punishment upon a population:
1) Reviling Allah or his messenger.
2) Being sarcastic or trivial about ‘Allah’s name, his command, his interdiction, his promise, or his threat.’
3) Denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’.
4) Holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’.
5) Reviling or doubting the religion of Islam.
6) Being sarcastic or condescending about any ruling of the sacred law.
7) Denying that Allah intended ‘the prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world.’
Islamic political correctness will manifest as the silencing of critical investigation, reasonable questions, and debate for the truth. Sadly, the questions directed at the Dark Age ideologies that hang over Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ or the questioners head.
Ultimately, censorship which is interwoven in Islamic culture testifies to a lack of confidence in one’s position and message. We see the same in Communist, Totalitarian, and all other despotic or authoritarian regimes. If the message of Islam were truly superior, we can put our trust in the power of truth and history as a guiding force. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ. In other words, all regimes and institutions which have weak foundations, possess repressive measures to quickly silence dissent within. We can break it down even farther in asking how confident was Muhammad and even today’s Muslims in his message that it requires violence and force to protect it?
Violence and force have always been actively aggressive for regime preservation and Islam orders apostates to be killed. Once again, without social rule of law, what exactly is an apostate? Who defines this and the punishment rendered? In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shiite laws. He was charged with apostasy. We must understand that this single example is not limited to Iran in its extreme form of Islam. The judgment of apostasy is recognized around the world and it would be far greater if the punishments weren’t so severe. People born into Islam simply keep their mouths shut and their individual feeling to themselves in the public arena.
Apostates in Muslim culture are those who leave Islam like the writer Salman Rushdie and those who become atheists or convert to another religion. If suspect, they are to be potentially killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.
Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:11-12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death. Again, and in fairness, Islamic literature does state that the accused should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed. The point is not the ‘opportunity’ people have to repent before a potential death sentence. The point is that they are accused in the first place under sharia law.
The bottom line is that Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he inseminated the genetic code or DNA for Islam which was birthed from the edge of his sword through warfare. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his emigration and from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on the northern Christians and Jews.
The following are cultural and legalized rules of jihad (struggle) found in the Quran, hadith, and historical documents which reflect the life of Islam’s founder.
1) Women and children can be enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may ‘marry’ the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. The Qur’an permits a Muslim man to marry more than one woman at a time (up to a maximum of four)
2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, performed this with his consent.
3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low.
4) Old men and monks can be killed if deemed necessary (what is “necessary” without a defined rule of law?)
5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. Muhammad himself found it ‘necessary’ to torture a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.
6) Enemy men who converted to Islam can keep their property and small children. This law is so subtle but yet excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non-Muslim.
7) Civilian property may be confiscated.
8) Civilian homes may be destroyed.
9) Those considered pagans had to convert or die. This ‘choice’ does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.
10) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) have three options per Sura 9:29: Fight and die; convert and pay a forced ‘charity’ or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax.
Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices. Nor should we be deceived to believe these practices are being stopped today under the ‘religion of peace’ banner
The outworking of Sharia not only oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries, it oppresses the world in creating an environment of intolerance and male centered religious opinions as law to meet various agendas. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not even listen to this argument because the judges and Islamic legal scholars understand the ultimate cost. Many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected and this will not happen because the built in mechanisms of force would be removed causing a great exodus of human capital. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel according to traditional Islamic theology. So how can Islam reform? It can start by rewriting classical interpretations of sharia law and various hadith. However, that would again mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad’s example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this? The answer is that they can’t and they won’t! Otherwise, the entire institutional structure would collapse. Only the love of God through Jesus Christ can penetrate the heart of those bound in the grip of Islam. Islam is here to stay and as I pointed out in part one – Islam will play a roll in the antichrist agenda and system.
I’ll conclude this article by stating that western societies have undergone the pains of religious transformation through dark periods such as the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. The laws of Dark Age and warped interpretations of Christianity has been rejected and injected with societal reason that makes sense and promotes individual as well as societal freedoms. Likewise, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments and provides liberty to its adherents. The US Constitution and the western rule of law is founded on New Testament virtues and values. These documents and laws were in fact penned by Christians which should draw our attention. The New Testament is not only revolutionary in how God reveals Himself, it powerfully promotes peace, individual freedom, and tender love which the Quran oddly lacks. Christianity, whose founder is Christ is a stark contrast to Muhammad both in how they historically lived their lives and who they present as “God.” Which will you serve?
To be continued.