SHARIA LAW IN A NUTSHELL

Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the U.S. constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see how truthful Imam Rauf is:

1- Jihad, defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion,” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Vigilante street justice and honor killing is acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim, but will get it for killing a Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery, sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply to Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. But Muslims can curse non-Muslims.

15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women in low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule — even over a non-Muslim minority.


72 Virgins Waiting For YOU!

Source?

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/27/sharia-for-dummies/

Sharia for Dummies

It figures.

ziggy wrote:

Sharia for Dummies

It figures.

Can a smart man like yourself refute any of the statements?

The link list 34 examples. Keli only posted 18 of them. I'm not saying I agree with the gist of this post but I do understand that Shari is the most extreme of the practiced Islamic sects as practiced by radical clerics such as Muqtada al-Sadr, I would be interested as to whether you can discredit any of the 34 examples cited Ziggy?

Keli wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Sharia for Dummies

It figures.

Can a smart man like yourself refute any of the statements?

Ziggy? Smart? You've got to be kidding.

ziggy wrote:

Keli wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Sharia for Dummies

It figures.

Can a smart man like yourself refute any of the statements?

Ziggy? Smart? You've got to be kidding.

Then we should disregard anything that you say--like "figures"?

OK. That works for me.

Do i see that Aaron is a grandpa? Congratulations!

Ziggy, do you think Islam as understood by the average Muslim fits the template that Keli offered? If not, by what do you base this?

I do not have insight as to how Islam is understood by the average Muslim.

But I do observe that the "average Christian" does not take very seriously the many planks of the many doctrines of the many so-called "Christian" churches.

Keli wrote:A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

The Legal System

The Caliph does not have immunity from prosecution and nor do any of his Cabinet. If any of them commit a criminal offence they will be taken to court and tried before a judge. The judge applies the sentence without regard to their status or government position. Even the Caliph can be impeached and removed from office if he violated his ruling contract (baya).

The Caliphate cannot suspend habeas corpus by interning any of its citizens. It is has been reported on the authority of Abdullah ibn Zubayr in the hadith book Abu Dawood, “The Messenger of Allah has ordered that the two disputing parties should sit before a judge.” Therefore any citizen whether Muslim or non-Muslim must be brought before a judicial court and their case investigated by a judge.

The burden of proof required to convict someone of an offence in an Islamic Court is far higher than in Britain. The court does not accept circumstantial evidence as a legal proof, and only trustworthy witnesses, whether Muslim or non-Muslim are allowed to give testimony. Many miscarriages of justice have occurred in Britain due to flawed forensic evidence (Birmingham six trial) or due to convicted criminals giving testimony. Confessions are investigated to ensure they were not extracted under duress or torture. Britain currently allows evidence obtained through torture in foreign countries, as evidence in special terrorism trials.

The Presumption of Innocence exists in an Islamic Court and the onus is on the plaintiff to provide the evidence. This legal principle cannot be overturned by the government of the day, as Tony Blair is trying to do by introducing more summary offences. Narrated in the hadith book by Al-Baihaqqi, the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said "It is the plaintiff who should provide the evidence, and the oath is due on the one who disapproves”.

http://www.caliphate.co.uk/caliphate/nonmuslims.htm

Religion

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

Historically, when the Caliphate was ruling Jerusalem, it protected the holiest Church in Christianity - The Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The keys to this church have been held for centuries by the Nusseibeh Muslim family who until today still open and close the doors on a daily basis.

Furthermore, Sir Thomas Arnold in his book 'The Call to Islam’ states: "We have never heard about any attempt to compel Non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organised persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity. If the Caliphs had chosen one of these plans, they would have wiped out Christianity as easily as what happened to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain; by the same method which Louis XIV followed to make Protestantism a creed whose followers were to be sentenced to death; or with the same ease of keeping the Jews away from Britain for a period of three hundred fifty years."

In September 2005 a proposal to allow Muslim Canadian citizens to use shariah for settling family disputes provoked outcry and protests, even though Canada has allowed Christians and Jews to settle family law matters in faith-based tribunals since 1991. The proposal was eventually thrown out citing Canada 's commitment to its secular principles. The Caliphate, unlike the intolerance of secular states, allows non-Muslims to have their own courts and judges to settle family law disputes and other matters related to their personal lives and religion. Sir Thomas Arnold in his book 'The Call to Islam' points out that under the Ottoman Sultans (Caliphs) the Christian Patriarch and the Grand Synod could decide all matters of faith and dogma without any interference of the State, something that was never the case under the previous Byzantine emperors.

http://www.caliphate.co.uk/caliphate/nonmuslims.htm

Sharia (شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃaˈriːʕa], "way" or "path") is the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they have differences among themselves as to exactly what it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah

Well, well.

But the "Sharia for Dummies" followers would have us believe that all Sharia Law is the same.

Like Christianity, what the Islamic Gospel means is in the eyes of the believers (and of the non-believers).

Well ziggiot, snce you are defending it with all the vigor you seem to be able to muster, why don't you drag your sorry behind to Iran, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia and live under it.

However, you might just want to read this . .

What Ziggy is defending

I am not defending anything here on this thread, Cato- other than the integrity of the readers of this message board / forum- from no nothing dummies who use scum websites like mag.com as their authority for taring all Islamists with the same brush.

You know as well as anyone here that I do not defend ANY religions based on supernatural Gods and extra-human personalities.

Too many things that are not right in this world are that way because of supernatural, hocus-pocus religions- including both Islam and Christianity as we know them.

ziggy wrote:I am not defending anything here on this thread, Cato- other than the integrity of the readers of this message board / forum- from no nothing dummies who use scum websites like mag.com as their authority for taring all Islamists with the same brush.

You know as well as anyone here that I do not defend ANY religions based on supernatural Gods and extra-human personalities.

Too many things that are not right in this world are that way because of supernatural, hocus-pocus religions- including both Islam and Christianity as we know them.

While I rarely agree with Keli or his links, I don' think he's a no nothing dummy and as such, my integrity doesn't need your defense but thanks anyway.

Keli is the one who posted excerpts from and a link to the article titled Sharia for Dummies- and which appears to have been authored by a simple minded dummy with a religious and/or political agenda to promote rather than to provide honest information about the Islamic religion.

Keli is no dummy. And I herein offer apologies for suggesting that he is. When Keli writes his own material- which he only occassionally does- he does pretty good, even when I disagree with him. But his quoted sources are often written as though their targeted audience is primarily dummies. This particular article was honest enough to just say so.

I agree.

With sources from both sides of the spectrum.

His sources are as whack as Daily Kos and Huffington Post, to name a few.

ziggy wrote:I am not defending anything here on this thread, Cato- other than the integrity of the readers of this message board / forum- from no nothing dummies who use scum websites like mag.com as their authority for taring all Islamists with the same brush.

You know as well as anyone here that I do not defend ANY religions based on supernatural Gods and extra-human personalities.

Too many things that are not right in this world are that way because of supernatural, hocus-pocus religions- including both Islam and Christianity as we know them.

Because of the supernatural religions themselves or corrupt mens use of said religion?

Because of the supernatural religions themselves or corrupt mens use of said religion?

That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. Supernatural religions are created by corrupt men- for corrupt purposes. And over the decades and the centuries more corrupt doctrines created by more corrupt men perpetuate the fraud.

As you have no proof of what you state, you're of course stating your opinion, right Ziggy!!!

ziggy wrote:

Because of the supernatural religions themselves or corrupt mens use of said religion?

That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. Supernatural religions are created by corrupt men- for corrupt purposes. And over the decades and the centuries more corrupt doctrines created by more corrupt men perpetuate the fraud.

I have a question Ziggy, do I understand you correctly that you say man created supernatural religion? Do I not also understand that you call youself a christian, which means you are a follower of Jesus Christ. The same Jesus who proclaimed himself the son of God (a supernatural being). The same Jesus also said he would raise from the dead, a supernatural act. The very same Jesus who later proclaimed he had risen from the dead. If what you say is so regarding supernatural religions, my question is why do you follow someone that by your own beliefs is a liar?

Do you think it would be fair for Buddhists to judge Christianity by the likes of The People's Temple? How about if they lumped all Christians together with the Branch Davidians? Should Roman Catholics be all lumped together with members of Opus Dei?

Perhaps closest to home for my Baptist friends, do you think you and your church members should all be viewed the same way as members of the Waynesboro Baptist Church?

Christianity has had, and continues to have, plenty of blood-thirsty, greedy, power-hungry, hate mongers. Before you condemn all of Islam based upon the words and actions of a select few, you'd be well served to keep in mind just how many ways and how many times the "peaceful" Christianity has been and continues to be warped.

Stephanie wrote:Do you think it would be fair for Buddhists to judge Christianity by the likes of The People's Temple? How about if they lumped all Christians together with the Branch Davidians? Should Roman Catholics be all lumped together with members of Opus Dei?

Perhaps closest to home for my Baptist friends, do you think you and your church members should all be viewed the same way as members of the Waynesboro Baptist Church?

Christianity has had, and continues to have, plenty of blood-thirsty, greedy, power-hungry, hate mongers. Before you condemn all of Islam based upon the words and actions of a select few, you'd be well served to keep in mind just how many ways and how many times the "peaceful" Christianity has been and continues to be warped.

I have asked this a number of times and have yet to be provided a driect answer, so here goes again. Does that make Ziggy's so called supernatual religions bad or the people who misuse them bad? Which is it?