Monthly Archives: October 2017

Speech to Republican Women 10/18/17

Speech to Republican Women of Grant County 10-18-17

Speech to R-Women 10/18/17, Sharia Law by Peter Burrows – Document 873 – “Maw” refers to the Sayyid Abdul A la Mawdudi translation: Toward understanding the Quran; “Kahn” refers to the Khan, al Hilali translation, The Noble Quran; R of T” refers to  Nah Ha Mim Keller’s Reliance of The Traveller. All available from Amazon. 

We’re going to talk about sharia and women, sharia being the laws of Islam. First, you have to understand that sharia law is God’s law—correction, ALLAH’s law –and where there is a conflict between Allah’s law and manmade law, Allah’s law prevails.  Devout Muslims believe manmade laws compete with Allah, and to obey them is to turn your back on Allah and Islam. That is apostasy, which carries the death penalty.

Sharia is derived directly and indirectly from the Koran, the foundational sacred text of Islam.  Let me take a minute to explain the Koran: It is NOT like the Bible. Get rid of that notion.  There are only a few words in the Bible direct from God, and they are the Ten Commandments revealed to Moses. The Koran has only a few words that are NOT direct from God, all the rest Allah’s words revealed through Muhammad.

Since the Koran is the word of Allah, it must be obeyed, accept for those parts where Allah changed his mind. We won’t be running afoul of those changes. Allah changing His mind is an Islamic fundamental of huge importance that I’ll cover at the next meeting of the GC Republican party, where I’ve been invited to give a talk on Islam.

The Koran commands Muslims to obey Allah, to obey and emulate Muhammad, and to obey “Muslims who are in authority “(V4:59 Khan pg. 127), not secular authorities but Muslim authorities, who acknowledge the sovereignty of Allah and the paramount authority of the Koran. Theocratic authorities.

(V4:59. See Maw pg. 121 for definitive footnote that reveals obedience owed to Allah, Mu, and those “invested with authority,” who are Muslims who rely on the Koran and Sunnah. See also the next verse V4:60 and ftnt pg. 122, equating secular law etc. with Satan, ditto “legal and judicial system that acknowledges neither the sovereignty of God nor the paramount authority of God’s book.)  

Over the centuries, “those invested with authority” have relied on the Koran and the life of Muhammad to produce a vast body of law which has been summarized for Sunni Muslims in this book, called Reliance of the Traveller, “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.”  Sunnis are 80-90% of all Muslims.

Let’s start with the most infamous verse in the Koran dealing with women. This is verse 4:34 – the 34th verse from the fourth chapter: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has made one of them excel over the other—“.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: Of course, God “made one excel over the other” and that one is obviously women because it says right here that Allah commands us men to protect and maintain you women. But, that’s not quite what Allah had in mind.

Let me finish: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has made one of them excel over the other and because they spend out of their possessions to support them. Thus righteous women are obedient   — Allah’s command, ladies—-As for women of whom you fear rebellion, first admonish them, (next) remain apart from them in beds, and, last, beat them.

Hey, Allah’s command until the end of time. The helpful footnote from this Koran says: This does not mean a man should resort to these three measures all at once–.” See, Islam is compassionate!

This compassion is even more apparent when we go to the Reliance for details: on page 541 under Dealing With A Rebellious Wife, the husband may hit her quote “but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not break bones, wound her or cause blood to flow.” He can’t hit her in the face, either. So there, proof positive that compassionate wife beating is Islamic law. Sharia. Allah’s law.

Some of you are probably wondering about this scold her first, don’t sleep with her next stuff. Well, in Islam, a wife’s rotation is important, and you’re thinking “Rotation?” To explain, let me read Allah’s command from Verse 4:3 “–then marry the women that seem good to you: two or three or four. If you feel you may not be able to treat them justly, then marry (only) one —.”  (Maw pg. 102.)

Footnote: Muslim jurists are agreed that this verse fixes the maximum number of wives at four. (MAW 102) So, polygamy is Allah’s forever law and in the Reliance, we have rules for husbands so blessed to follow, for example, back to rotation: whenever he spends the night with one wife, he is obligated to spend nights with the others, “giving equal time to each one.”  (RofT pg. 539 m10.5) Proof  positive that Islamic law protects the rights of wives!

Some other nuggets: It is not permissible for a husband to enter the quarters of a wife when it is another wife’s turn.  If a husband wants to take a wife on a trip, he must draw lots to determine which one. That’s only fair, isn’t it?? Also, it is unlawful for a husband to house two wives in the same lodging unless they agree. Hey, sounds to me like Muslim women are in charge!! (rot, 538 – 540)

Also, it is unlawful for a wife to leave the house without her husband’s permission unless for a pressing need, and “It is not permissible for a woman to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed,” (RofT pg. 538 m10.4) and under no circumstance is she to be alone with a non-family member male. Can’t call the plumber, ladies, unless the boss is home.

Scholars unanimously agree it is unlawful for a wife to leave the house unveiled if there is a likelihood of a temptation, meaning anything that leads to sexual intercourse or its usual preliminaries.” (Whatever that means!!) (RofT 512 m2.3.) This from the Koran: “Remain in your homes and do not display your beauty as women did in the pre-Islamic period of Ignorance.” V33:33 The R of T adds this: It is a condition for the permissibility of her going out that she take no measures –no measures– to enhance her beauty, and that her figure is concealed or altered to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (RofT pg 682 p42.2(4))

Also, a woman cannot travel without a guardian, but I can’t find any definition of “travel”: To the store? Around the world? Beats me.

Any woman not taking such precautions opens herself to, at the very least, charges of rebelliousness and perhaps even charges of apostasy, because not being obedient is contrary to Allah’s law which means she is an apostate and “deserves to die.” Says so right here, page 596. (o8.4. Also & o4.17/o.5.4 pg. 593.) OK. Enough. We’ll return to this “modesty: theme in a moment.

Perhaps the second most infamous male-chauvinist-pig command from Allah in the Koran (V 2:282) concerns witnessing signatures to property transactions: “–call upon two of your men as witnesses but if two men are not there let there be one man and two women as witnesses so that if one of the two women should fail to remember, the other might remind her.”  (Also RoT pg. 637 o24.7.)

My wife, when informed of this heavenly directive gave me a look I can only describe as “bleak,” and said, “Not funny!”  I said, “Hey, I’m just quoting the Almighty. You’d think the daughter of a Lutheran minister would have a more worshipful attitude!”  Sigh. Allah’s work is never done.

This particular verse offers a perfect example of the circularity of reasoning so prevalent in Islam: We know the Koran is the word of Allah because Muhammad said so, and we know that Muhammad is Allah’s messenger because the Koran says so. Here, we have Muhammad declaring in the Koran that Allah says it takes two women equal one man, and in one of the stories in the most venerated of Islam’s “Gospels,” he refers to this Koranic “revelation” as “proof” of your mental inferiority, ladies.

(Buk 1:6:301)  I quote: Then he (Muhammad) passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell were women.’ They asked, ‘Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence —than you.  A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’  The Women asked, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence –?’ He said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half that of a man?’ The women said “Yes.” He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.” (Buk 3:48:826)

Note that part about a “sensible man could be led astray by some of you”?  That means, ironically, that sensible –sensible!!– Muslim men are weak minded compared to at least some Muslim women. One of the themes in Islamic law is that men cannot control themselves around women and it’s the woman’s fault!  So, who’s superior to whom?  (If time, relate story of M’s first cousin = it was m who couldn’t handle “a glimpse of stocking” which he then blamed on women and had Allah confirm the blame!)

In that same vein, an important verse in the Koran that is causing much harm today, and we touched on this earlier, is that “believing women” be appropriately clothed. Let me quote in full verse 33:59, (Maw pg 631): “O Prophet, enjoin your wives and your daughters and the believing women, to draw a part of their outer coverings around them. It is likelier that they will be recognised and not molested. ”

Let me read you the footnote from this (Maw) Koran: “–when people see (women) dressed in garments exuding simplicity and modesty they will be recognised as honourable and chaste women. They will appear distinct from women of loose character who are ever on the hunt for lewd encounters. These women (those dressed appropriately) are unlike those whom immoral men would seek out to gratify their carnal desires.

Think about the ramifications of 1400 years of teaching that “honorable and chaste” women are “covered up” and if not, then they are “women of loose character who are ever on the hunt for lewd encounters.” Put a bunch of immigrant Muslim men on the streets of Europe and don’t be surprised when sexual assaults go through the roof.  To these men, a glimpse of stocking is not something shocking, it’s an invitation to rape, and proof that non-Muslim women are just scum good only for sex.

Thanks to mindless Muslim immigration, Sweden has become the rape capital of the Western world. In 1975, there were 421 rapes reported to the police, in 2014, there were 6,620, 78% committed by “foreigners,” and that doesn’t count second generation Muslims, who are “Swedes.”

Swedish courts have been reluctant to prosecute these rapists, and this in a country where feminists once crusaded to have men sit while urinating, standing being so symbolic of male dominance, don’t cha know. I didn’t make that up!  All over the world, the Muslim is a victim of racism, Islamophbia, Western exploitation and xenophobia. His victimhood far exceeds that of a raped female. Sorry about that, ladies.  In the politically correct order of victimhood, Muslims trump women.

In fact, sharia as practiced makes it virtually impossible to convict a man of rape. From the R of T, “–if testimony concerns fornication —then it requires four male witnesses–” –male witnesses (page 638 o24.9), “testimony concerns fornication,” no qualifications.

The “four witness” law derives from three verses in the Koran (V4:15 pg. 118 Khan, V24:4, V24:5) that don’t make sense to me because all of them say it takes four witnesses to convict a woman of the charge of illegal sexual intercourse, nothing about convicting the man. This has evolved into requiring four witnesses to exonerate her.    (If time, V24:4 and V24:13 were “revelations” specifically to refute allegations, made by THREE men, that Muhammad’s favorite wife had been adulterous. She said no, Muhammad believed her and VOILA!! Allah said FOUR witnesses required. People believe this crap.) 

The reading I’ve done suggests some Muslims think the four-male witness rule to substantiate a woman’s claim of rape is a misreading of Islamic law.  Their opinions count for nothing if the traditions of sharia say otherwise. What happens is that when a woman is raped, the man or men claim it’s her fault, and she’s automatically guilty.

Fortunately, most Muslim ruled counties have more Westernized rape laws, two glaring exceptions being Saudi Arabia and Somalia, where a woman claiming rape is seen as admitting she is guilty of fornication, which earns her 100 lashes if she is single, stoned to death if married.  (R of T 610, 611) But, hey! While men are lashed standing up, women are lashed sitting down! How sweet! NOW must approve.

While the sexual exploitation of Muslim women has a long history in Islam, so does the sexual exploitation of non-Muslim women.   The verse I referred to earlier that gave Allah’s permission to have up to four wives also says if you can’t marry, one, two three or four women, you can “marry from among those whom your right hand possess.”  (V4.3 pg 102 Maw & V2:221 pg. 47 Maw.)

The helpful footnote explains that the expression “those whom your right hand possess” means “slave girls –female captives of war who are distributed –when no exchange of prisoners takes place.” The Koran refers to “those your right hand possess” in many verses, e.g. one says that if men can’t afford the “bridal-due” (4:4 pg. 102 Maw) to marry a free believing woman, then “marry such believing women whom your right hand possess,” no payment needed. (4:25 pg. 111 Maw)

You might think that slave women being “captives of war” makes this Allah approval something irrelevant today, but oh, no. Islam is always at war with unbelievers, in most places for the last four hundred years or so that war has been suspended.  Recently, however, Iraq and Syria have been the battle ground for a new Islamic state, ISIS –Islamic State of Iraq and Syria— complete with self-appointed caliphate.

If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that ISIS delights in beheading captive unbelievers, something you can see for yourself on You Tube.  That’s what Muhammad did to his captives. Also, they have delighted in making sex slaves out of the wives and daughters of the unbelievers they’ve captured. That’s also what Muhammad did.

Now, the Koran forbids men from having sex with married women “except” I quote, “those women whom your right hands have come to possess as a result of war. This is Allah’s Decree and it is binding upon you.”(V 4:24 pg 110 and 111.) From the R of T: When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Rape away, boys!  (BTW no rape in a Muslim marriage. V2:223 pg. 48 = wives your tilth etc.)

ISIS even had a pamphlet printed up to guide their soldiers on the proper treatment of slave women. You can Google it up, e.g. ISIS Slave Women Manual.  A separate Q&A pamphlet on treating slave women had as question 13: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty? (A) It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty if she fit for intercourse; however, if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse.”  Oh, my. (https://news.vice.com/article/islamic-state-releases-qa-guide-on-the-treatment-of-yazidi-slave-girls) and (Sharona Schwartz the blaze 12-14-14 when jihadists capture a woman–)

That ISIS would put such an abomination into print is not at all surprising when you know that having sex with nine-year-old girls has the indirect approval of Allah, who decreed that Muhammad was a good example for Muslims to emulate. V 33:21) And, guess what? Muhammad married a six-year-old and began having sex with her when she was nine.

The Ayatollah Khomeini, who became Iran’s Supreme Ruler after the overthrow of the Shah, had married a 10-year-old when he was 28. He said marriage to a prepubescent was “a divine blessing” and he urged Muslim men to marry off their daughters before they reached puberty. And after the Ayatollah took power, the legal age of marriage for brides in Iran was dropped to nine. Just a week ago, Pakistani lawmakers rejected a bill that would have banned child marriage: “Un-Islamic.”

A couple of other of “Allah’s forever commands” in the Koran still in force in Islamic societies today are the command that men receive twice the inheritance of women (V4:11) whenever possible and to divorce a wife a man simply has to say “I divorce you” three times. (Koran 2:228, 2:229 and 2:230., R of T pg. 558 n2.1)) The triple talaq” it’s called.

Early this year, the President of Egypt, concerned about the high divorce rate, proposed they do away with verbal divorce and he was met with fierce resistance. As one religious leader put it, “The authentication (of divorce) by virtue of a written document is a new phenomenon and was not applied at the time of the Prophet.” End of argument.

And, If there is some provision by which a wife can initiate divorce, I haven’t found it. If her husband gives her permission, yes, she can effect divorce by saying to him, “You are divorced.” (R of T pg 559 n3.3 (3)). From what I have read, the best a woman can do is take her grievances to an Islamic judge who then may — may—ask the husband to allow a divorce. (See files for blurb from islamqa.)

BTW, Tunisia passed a law a couple of weeks ago allowing Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, which would put an end to that triple talaq crap for those women.  But, I wonder how long that will last. Such women would be committing apostasy and could be subject to honor killings.

Finally, one last piece of bad news, ladies. It is obligatory for Muslims to consolidate their political power into the office of a caliphate. (RoT 638) Unfortunately, ladies, the caliphate must be a Muslim –surprise!—- MAN! Says in here, “–the leadership of a woman being invalid because of the rigorously authenticated” saying of Muhammad: “A people that leaves its leadership to a woman will never succeed.” (RoT 641)

This leads me to my favorite Muhammad quote, at least my favorite when Miriam is telling me what to do: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Men are (already) destroyed when they obey women.” (RoT pg. 672 p28.1 (1))

YES!! I’ve noticed that. Thank you, ladies. We’ve run out of time but if you have any questions, I have been ordered to stick around and try to answer them and I always obey the ladies..

 

Advertisements

Studies in Islam: A Theocracy of Chains, Part Two

 By Peter Burrows 10/4/17 elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com

Islam’s useful idiots see nothing wrong with allowing Muslim immigrants to establish their own courts of law. This misguided bow to freedom of religion assumes that Muslims tolerate other religions just like Christians and Jews do. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islamic law requires Muslims to forcibly subjugate followers of all other religions until they obey Islam. There is no First Amendment in the religion of Islam.

Furthermore, Islamic law, sharia, prescribes the death penalty for anybody who criticizes Islam or its prophet Muhammad, either in speaking or writing. There is no First Amendment in the religion of Islam. There is, however, much in Islam that is the equivalent of the Constitution’s Article VI, which declares the Constitution to be the “supreme Law of the Land.” According to the Koran, Allah commands that Islam someday must rule the world, which would make sharia the “supreme Law of the Land.”

To question the Constitution does not violate any law in the Constitution. Not so sharia. There are three laws in the most well known book of Islamic jurisprudence, The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), that prohibit Muslims from questioning their religion, but first, a little background on the Reliance of The Traveller, referred to herein as “R of T.”

The cover tells us it is “A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.” It was first published in the fourteenth-century as an update and summary of an earlier work by a “great thirteenth-century Shafi’i hadith scholar and jurisprudent who upgraded the work of previous generations —.”(Pg. vii.) In other words, the R of T’s bona fides are very old and very venerable.

The current edition is the Keller translation of 1994, last published in 2015. Authentications of the translation from contemporary Islamic scholars are found in the opening pages, e.g. “– its aim is to imbue the consciousness of the non-Arabic-speaking Muslim with a sound understanding of Sacred Law–” (pg xviii). Al-Azhar, Islam’s preeminent theological university, certified that the translation “corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community–” (pg. xx). Sunnis represent 80-90% of all Muslims.

I present these contemporary endorsements because there is much in the R of T that reminds me of tennis great John McEnroe, who would look at the linesman and scream “YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!” Unfortunately, what’s in the R of T is serious, deadly serious. A Muslim who knowingly violates anything found in the R of T risks being branded a hypocrite, which makes the Muslim an apostate, and: “There is no indemnity for killing an apostate, or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die.” (R of T, o8.4, page 596.)

Therein lies an important reason for Islam’s longevity: Allah allows no dissention under penalty of death. His followers are ordered in the Koran to kill apostates (V 4:89.) in addition to anybody else who refuses to accept Islam. Communism’s goal of a dictatorship of the proletariat is kids’ stuff compared to Islam’s dictatorship of the theocratic. In fact, if a Muslim denies that Allah intends for Islam to rule “the entire world,” he is an apostate. (R of T o8.7(20), page 598.)

(When the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, addressed the faculty of Al-Azhar on January 1, 2015, and questioned the belief that Muslims should kill all the non-Muslims in the world, he committed apostasy and put his life in danger, something he was well aware of. His bravery should have, but didn’t, draw the praise of the entire civilized world.)

I am not sure how the R of T is updated. Most of it by definition cannot be updated because it represents the eternal word of Allah. However, change cannot be ignored, and the R of T has a recent section on television, an undated work by a Council of Islamic Scholars in South Africa. It’s a hoot to read, e.g. #5 on the list of why television is bad: “incitement to fornication.” Hmmm. Don’t believe I’ve experienced that one. Number 13, however, is spot on: “it wastes time.” Bottom line: “–no one can have any doubt of the illegality of television in Islam.”

What isn’t a hoot is that a devout Muslim father, or mother, could catch their children watching TV and KILL them for that sin. You think I jest? In Islam, there is no punishment for killing one’s children or grandchildren (R of T o1.2(4) page 584). I suspect the “illegality” of watching television is something enforced only at the convenience of the authorities, e.g. if someone earns the wrath of the Supreme Leader of Iran, they may find themselves arrested for watching Oprah.

The first rule in the R of T that puts the Koran in the “no thinking allowed” zone, is found under “Acts That Entail Leaving Islam,” all of which constitute apostasy. On Page 597, the seventh on the list is “to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it —.”

Scholarly consensus is defined in the R of T on pages 23-24 and essentially says that whenever there is unanimous agreement among qualified Islamic judges or scholars, their ruling becomes “an authoritative part of Sacred Law that is obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey.”

Such a ruling is absolute and forever, and the R of T on page 24 justifies this as follows: “The proof of the legal authority of scholarly consensus is that just as Allah ordered the believers in the Koran to obey Allah and His messenger, so too He ordered them to obey those in authority among them, saying ‘O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those of authority among you.’ (Koran 4:59.)”

The second rule that puts the Koran off limits is on page 693: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘Arguing over the Koran is unbelief.’ ” As you can imagine, “unbelief” by a Muslim is apostasy.

The third sharia law is on page 751, r14, in the section, EXPLAINING THE KORAN BY PERSONAL OPINION. At first read, this seems to allow some leeway for personal interpretation of the Koran: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, ‘Whoever speaks of the Book of Allah from his own opinion is in error.'”

The commentary then says this applies only to discussing the allegorical parts of the Koran and cites Verse 3:7, which says that Allah has sent down to people the Koran which has some verses which “are entirely clear,” and are the foundation of the Koran. Those are verses of commandments, obligations, and punishments. By definition, these are self-explanatory and not subject to opinion.

Other verses are “not entirely clear” and are the ones from which the doubters seek “hidden meanings” but “none knows its hidden meanings save Allah.” The verses “not entirely clear” are for Allah alone to know the meaning of, not for a mere a mortal to have an opinion about. Thinking prohibited!

All of this “no thinking” reminds me that the first verse to a number of chapters is simply Alif-Lam-Min, Arabic for the letters A-L-M. Some chapters start with Ha-Mim, or Qaf. In each case, The Khan translation of the Qur’an says: “These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur’an and none but Allah (alone) knows their meaning.” So, if you thought the Koran explained all things as per verse 16:89, you are “thinking” and should stop that right now.

Calling these unexplained letters a “miracle” is, in my opinion, a mindless rationalization of something inexplicable. Apparently, whenever Allah-Muhammad came up with some incomprehensible mystical nonsense, it was a “miracle,” not incomprehensible mystical nonsense. More proof against the divinity of Islam, in my opinion.

Ooops! Opinions not allowed in Islam.

In Part Three, we’ll use this unquestioning acceptance of Islamic dogma to counter the many lies Muslims are obligated to tell us infidels.