What is the Target?

In the past few weeks I have argued that people must stop labeling Islam as evil, and to just focus on the issues at hand. This meant, I said, talking directly about Sharia and preventing its spread.

Clearly Sharia (and other Fascist Islamic Supremacist tools) are linked to Islam, however I believe that I can separate the two. Furthermore, I believe that by separating the foundations and constructs of Islam from the broad label "Islam" it will A) protect Muslims who do not wish to impose Sharia on us and B) be more effective at combating the spread Islamism.

I will explain further by quoting from a couple of conversations I have had in the last week.

You [Aka. Me!] claim saying 'anti-Shariaization' is better than saying 'anti-Islamization'.

Why is it better?

Robert Spencer would probably say that you cannot be a devout Muslim and NOT want Sharia to rule over everyone.

If the foundations [Sharia law etc.] are the same as the building itself [Islam]... maybe there is no difference.

I replied as follows:

I may agree with Robert Spencer there - but I don't need to discuss Islam.

Specifically fighting Sharia law will affect Islam, but it will not harm any Muslims who do not wish to impose Sharia law on our societies.

It's the difference between being against Judaism, or being against Halacha.

If someone was anti-Judaism you would be defensive.

If they were anti-Halacha, you could more easily shrug your shoulders.

I think we should fight Sharia on the specifics of what the law actually represents. Muslims can debate the theology themselves.

I believe this would be vastly more successful than the anti-Islam positions that most anti-Sharia groups are propagating.

On a previous occasion I also wrote:

I am sure most people in the UK who are not Muslim, would not take kindly to an organisation that suggests all Muslims are Islamists, unless they are afraid of leaving Islam. If I went around and said Islam is evil to the core and there are either Islamists and Muslims who want to leave Islam - I would look foolish. Muslims are everywhere here. I know Muslims who are not Islamists and don't wish to leave Islam... this simple bit of personal knowledge would be enough to completely discredit the entire anti-Sharia organisation... which is currently not doing buch more than creating climate of suspicion and fear of all Muslims.

Maybe not all these Muslims are "real" Muslims... I don't know - but even if they are not I don't really care. What I do know is that they think they are Muslim and their identities are linked to Islam... yet they are good decent people. Saying that Islam is evil doesn't get us anywhere. It is up to the theologians to discuss religious tenants - and up to the individuals to make up their own individual minds as to whether or not Islam is for them or not.

If we fight Sharia it will force Muslims to discuss Islam... but discussing Islam is their job, not ours.

I do not want to allow the establishment of a state within a state... it will not have positive ends. I think we should make efforts to fight Islamic supremisism, and that includes fighting against the establishment of Islamic law in our societies.

I am open to criticism... please share your views with me. Thanks.

Reuters Whitewash Sharia

Reuters (who are published across the globe, including in countries like India) are again whitewashing the Islamofascists who are attempting to Hijack democratic society and establish a theocratic Global Islamic Caliphet. This time they have decided to whitewash Barbaric Sharia Law, an Islamic legal system. Untill now, Mohammedians have been blamed about "misinterpreting" literature from the "Religion of Peace" - now the blame is pushed towards non-Muslims. (Please see the video embedded at the bottom of this article.)

Sharia discussion was provoked after the suicidal comments of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who said that Britain should give space to Sharia law. His comments sparked off a global storm from people who want to defend their secular system from religious apartheid Sharia laws which reduce every non-Muslim to a 2nd class citizen.

Here are a few quotes from the Reuters desk:

British Muslims defending him [The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams] stressed most of the Islamic world also rejected the ultra-orthodox model that he clearly ruled out.

Just wait to get a introduction about the British Muslims Reuter's are talking about...

"There are 57 Muslim countries in the world and only two or three of them impose full sharia criminal law. Why on earth would we want to have that here?" asked Sheikh Suhaib Hasan, secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain.

This is the same preacher from channel 4's 'Undercover Mosque' report, which was preaching Islamic supremacy from Green Lane. MPACUK can still be found defending his Fascist Islamic-supremisist speeches. ( Scroll down one-third of that page. )

Reuters further added:

There are also widely differing interpretations of Sharia, both within the four classical Sunni and one Shi'ite schools of jurisprudence and between traditional and modern thinkers.

And? Does it change the barbarity? Iran is Shia and Saudis are Sunni's... and the introduction of Sharia from both sides look extremely barbaric to me.

"In the Muslim world these days, 'Sharia' means a whole variety of different things," said John Voll, professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University in Washington.

Dr. John voll is right here... 'Sharia' can mean a whole variety of different things. It even includes laws which dictate how to go to the toilet.

Hudoud, the corporal and capital punishment outlined in the Koran, has not been applied there in modern times.

The frequently published news about corporal and capital punishment from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan and so on... must all be hoaxes then.

Muslims cannot convert to other faiths and non-Muslims who convert to Islam are not supposed to leave it, but a court allowed this for 12 people in a landmark case last week.

No comment...

Apart from a few public lashings since Islamisation started in the 1980s, harsh physical punishments have not been imposed. Nobody has been executed under a law banning blasphemy against Islam, but some accused blasphemers have been killed by mobs.

OK, all those news with photos still available on The Religion of Peace.com are complete Hoaxes. Got it! Its a Hindu-Zionist conspiracy to rule the world!

In India, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains and followers of other faiths can decide whether they want to be bound by secular personal law or their own religious code.

Looks like some Indian Muslims are living in some myth, that there only exist two law boards in India... i.e. Islamic Personal law board, and secular law board for other communities.

Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim nation and quite moderate in Islamic terms. Its western province of Aceh uses sharia law as part of a local autonomy deal granted by Jakarta and people have been caned for adultery, gambling and stealing.

Are they kidding me? What is moderate then?

Nigeria's northern states adopted a harsh sharia code in 2000, but punishments have been rare. A woman convicted of adultery, Amina Laval, was freed on appeal after her sentence of stoning to death caused an international uproar.

So nice of them, at least they follow international preassure. I think its "moderate" like the "moderate" Fatah of West Bank.

About a dozen other women convicted of adultery have also been freed on appeal.

So you want us to be begging to free the 'convicted' in London too?

This approach can accept secular laws as "sharia-compliant" if they reflect Islamic values. "Even simply by trying to respect Muslim ethics, one is already in the process of applying the sharia," Ramadan has written.

Beautiful advice from Reuters and British Muslims, but no thanks. We simply have to say: "NO SHARIA HERE".

Mr. Ramadan can be located in video embedded below, incase if you missed his discussion on BBC... Tariq Ramadan said that the people discussing their legitimate concerns about Sharia law were 'Islamophobic', and 'trying to use controversy to spread fear in British society'.

[ Video Source ]

Opposing Sharia law

The Archbishop of Canterbury recently said that "Sharia law is inevitable" in the UK, and claimed that it will "bring about social cohesion." Yeah, right. He is under fire from his statement, though some have stated that somehow it is 'Islamophobic' to be against Sharia law for Muslims in the UK, because the system would be voluntary, anyway. Ali Eteraz (who I have taken issue with in the past) wrote a very compelling entry on his blog, explaining exactly why Sharia would be so terrible for Muslims. (please note that he is a practicing Muslim who wrote this) The important part to note...

2 - Islamic family and inheritance law has issues that have not been resolved.

Men get a presumption when it comes to custody (it should be an issue of best interest of child).

Child support ends after three months (it should be as in US law where children “share in the good fortunes” of their divorced parents).

Boys get more in inheritance than girls (should be equal).

Men get bulk of marital assets (should be equitable distribution).

Apostasy automatically ends the marriage (yeah, I’m sure this one won’t be abused by evil in-laws). Think of how easily Muslims accuse one another of kufr.

In a divorce, a parent revealed to be (or more likely accused to be) a homosexual has no claim over the child (”your dad’s a fag, kid, you are fatherless!”). I mean, jilted women have never been known to demonize their exes like this.

A man can divorce in one sitting but a woman needs the permission of a religious authority.

This list is endless, please feel free to add to it.

The purpose of the law is to reflect and respond to social realities. Many parts of Islamic family law — as it stands today — don’t do that

It is a maxim of fiqh: “Changes of al-ahkam (judgments) are permissible with the change in times.” I don’t see changes.

Eteraz wrote much more, but one thing I take issue with is his moral equivalence - he states that the Beth Din in England somehow would be equivalent to the Sharia courts. Firstly, Jewish law is relatively well settled, after the publishing of the Shulchan Aruch. (at least compared to Sharia law) Yes, rabbis will publish responsa to situations as they come about - but this is nothing like the confusion of Sharia. Eteraz noted it as such...

5 - There is no standardized version of Islamic law

Sharia is not codified. It can be anything based on the whim of the arbitrator. For law to be law, it needs standardization. Who is going to do this? Muhammad Fadel and Khaled Abu el Fadl? Abdullahi an-Naim? Irshad and Reza Aslan? Faraz Rabbani? Taqi Usmani and Nameless Arab Guy? Suhaib Webb and Yasir Qazi? Yale University? Harvard’s Islamic Law Symposium? Remember, we’re a community that still haven’t been able to standardize what day to start Ramadan or celebrate our biggest festivals so let’s not get too carried away with pipe dreams about standardizing Islamic family law. If codification has not even been accomplished in numerous Muslim countries then how can you even think about getting a Sharia court going in the West?

And, I assure you that if you get the standardization issue going, its quickly going to devolve into an Islamic civil war — Sufi v. Salafi v. Liberals v. Right-Wing-Islamophobes (what, you don’t think they are going to show up at the public meetings?)

So that is difference one.

Difference two is what goes to the crux of the matter. Namely, there simply is a difference in Sharia law v. Halacha (Jewish Law). Please read Hugh Fitzgerland's explanation as such. Essentially, there is a difference in the way Jewish law is viewed - certainly not as supreme over the secular laws - and the way it is applied. Moreover, there is a difference in the goal; Jews do not hope to one day rule over England with Halacha.

It is for all these reasons and more that we have to be vigilant in our fight against Sharia law. We have to remind ourselves that Sharia is not just the 'Muslim equivalent' of Halacha. It is not. Unless and until Sharia is a) reformed; b) codified, it remains the law of the dark ages. Under the aegis of 'religious tolerance,' why are we okay with letting women be treated as second class citizens? Why? Why are feminists arguing this is actually a good thing? Did the feminist movement mean nothing? Why are so many liberals acting illiberally?

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens wrote a great essay explaining the very real dangers of Sharia right here. To sum it up: allowing Sharia will mean that honor killings will go unpunished to a much larger degree. And most importantly, it will lead to oppression of women. Feminists, where are you? *taps feets* I am waiting to hear from you!

Moderate Malaysia

I don't have any words for Sharia law system supported by majority of "Peaceful and Moderate Muslim's" around the Globe....

Anyways The Video is a bit disturbing and contents can be Mature for some viewers, and is taken from one of the most moderate Islamic state of Malaysia, which is seen as a perfect model in Western countries to represent Moderate Islamic states.....

Viewers discretion strongly advised.