Studies in Islam: A Theocracy Of Chains, Part Two By Peter Burrows 10/4/17 email@example.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.