Tag Archives: hedaya

A Proposal regarding Islamic Supremacism and Islamic Supremacists

NB This is a continuation of a discussion on the Gates of Vienna site about whether Islamisation can be rolled back without eroding civil liberties.

In 622 AD Mohammed and his followers arrived in Medina as refugees, supposedly fleeing religious persecution. He quickly established himself there by means of criminality (caravan raiding), violence (assassination) then open warfare (jihad) and within eight years he controlled the entire Mecca/Medina area having either converted, exiled, enslaved or slaughtered all the local population.

When we observe the growing control by Muslim immigrants of no-go zones across Europe and the effect on local populations of escalating levels of criminality, violence and jihadist attacks, it is clear that the perpetrators are simply following the example of Mohammed…today Rinkeby, tomorrow Malmo, in due course Sweden. Clear to those of us who have enquired into the teachings and history of Islam at least. For those who have not done so it is a mystery. As an example, just recently there were co-ordinated carbecues in several Swedish towns accounting for around a hundred Saabs and Volvos. The prime minister, Stefan Löfven, responded by saying “I’m getting pissed off – really! My question to these people is what the hell are you doing?”

Some time in the not too distant future one or more of the European countries which so foolishly opened their borders to mass Muslim immigration will have to decide whether they will throw off such wilful ignorance and do what is necessary to survive, or just go under. Most likely the first will be Sweden but the rest of us are not that far behind.

Who do we turn to for guidance in these absurd times? Clearly not our mainstream political leaders. They have turned against us and care more for their utopian dreams than the protection of their people. The same goes for mainstream journalists, academics and religious leaders.

But amongst all the froth they produce, assuring us that we are all the same and we can all get along fine if we just make a bit of effort, one dissenting message from a religious man to the inhabitants of Europe stands out as starkly realistic. That man is Amel Shimoun Nona, exiled Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul:

“Please, try to understand us. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home”.

I believe this to be undeniably true. Democracy was never designed to cope with a sizeable, determined contingent of people who are intent on its destruction, using its liberties against it. At some point we will have to accept that it is necessary to suspend or limit our non-discriminatory ideals with regard to one particular ideology and its adherents, and discriminate against it and them as though our civilisation depended on it….because it does.

Agree with me or disagree, but that is the assumption the following Proposal is based on. So now we just have to sort out the details. First of all, what is the ideology in question and who are its adherents?

“What a dumb question” you may say, “obviously we are talking about Islam and Muslims”. True, but is that the whole of Islam and all Muslims? Many people think so. The view that the problem we face comes from an undifferentiated Islam and all Muslims is clearly put here by the author of the Hesperado blog in his farewell post.

I suggest that we can slice things quite a bit finer than that though and save ourselves some trouble. Or we could if there was the political will, but that deficit applies to all proposed solutions…at the current time.

I would hope that we can agree there are parts of Islam which present no more of a threat to us than Sikhism or Hinduism – all of the five pillars in fact; the declaration of faith, prayer, compulsory charity ie Zakat (apart from the proportion which Islamic Law stipulates must go to support jihad), fasting and the pilgrimage to Mecca.

So what is it about Islam which is such a danger and what should we call it? Is it Sharia or jihad or political Islam or Islamism or fundamentalism or any of the other similar terms? They all point to aspects of that which threatens us, and overlap to some extent, but I suggest the crucial element can best be identified as Islamic supremacism.

This definition by the Citizen Warrior site sums it up precisely:

“ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM is the belief that Islam is superior to other religions, cultures, and governmental systems, and the belief that Islam’s superiority entitles Muslims to dominate, control, and rule non-Muslims”.

I deplore the fact that Islamic texts justify the cruel oppression by Muslims of other Muslims, particularly females, but if it wasn’t for the implicit or explicit call for the subjugation of non-Muslims then I could happily ignore Islam, as I did until five years ago.

“So the Muslims we really need to worry about are those who can be designated Islamic supremacists?” That’s right. I don’t give a damn which foot Muslims enter the toilet with or even that their bugaboo god reckons to torture me forever for not believing in him. But I do object to those Muslims who think I should be under their control since they are Allah’s representatives on Earth. I have to regard them as my enemy, as they apparently regard me as Allah’s.

“Ah yes, but how to tell them apart from the others?” More of that later.

How should we respond to Islamic supremacism and what is currently its central project, the Islamisation of the West? There is no shortage of suggestions to be found on counterjihad sites about how to deal with the problem. Putting aside those involving pitchforks or nuclear weapons, I am concerned to try to identify one which seems to hold out the best chance of being effective while doing the least damage to our system of governance built on democracy, liberty, individuals’ rights and the rule of law.

It may be that there is no such solution and that we are headed ineluctably towards subjugation or civil war. But there is surely nothing to lose in attempting to sketch out a possible last ditch plan to deal with the problem democratically (or somewhat democratically) before armed militias confront each other on the streets.

Looking at the proposed solutions to be found on the internet we can see that they tend to fall into two camps, those involving the ideology of Islam and those involving its adherents, Muslims. [My brief comments on some of the solutions look like this]

Examples of solutions based on Islam itself:

1. We recently saw a petition from a collection of French notables, including an actor and an ex-president, demanding that verses of the Koran “calling for the murder and punishment of Jews, Christians and disbelievers” should be removed on the grounds that they are obsolete. Not surprisingly al-Azhar university, the guardian of Sunni orthodoxy, said “Not bleeding likely” or words to that effect.

2. Geert Wilders has simply called for the Koran to be banned in the Netherlands. [How are you then going to show people just how awful it is?]

3. I myself, not entirely seriously, proposed a joint venture with Her Majesty’s Government to publish and distribute a Moderate Koran, that is one with the Medina suras removed.

4. In a novel twist on this approach the Pakistani scholar Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri had the cheek to slip additional notes into his translation of the eternal, uncreated book making all the jihad verses explicitly defensive and then used it as the basis for his fatwa condemning all terrorism as un-Islamic. As an example this is what he did to the infamous verse 9:29:

“(O Muslims!) Wage (also a defensive) war against those of the People of the Book (who infringed the peace treaty signed with you, and despite being in exile, provided full support to the disbelieving Meccan invaders who imposed the battle of al-Ahzab [the Confederates] on Medina, and have continued every possible conspiracy against you even now). They do not have faith in Allah and the Last Day…etc”.

Examples of solutions based on Muslims:

1. The author of the Hesperado blog mentioned above always maintained that nothing short of the deportation of all Muslims from western countries could save the West. [But he would never address the practicalities]

2. The commentator El Ingles here, here and here thinks the solution, or a large part of the solution, for Britain would be to deport all Pakistanis. [Why settle for a religious war when you can have a race war too?]

3. One of the policies of the now defunct political party Liberty GB was to prohibit Muslims from holding public office. [Taxation without representation didn’t turn out well for us last time, did it?]

4. We sometimes hear calls for legal or geographic partition in Europe. [They would only be beachheads, wouldn’t they?]

There is however a third group combining both Islam and Muslims:

1. In 2006 Sam Solomon, an ex-Muslim scholar, wrote a Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding which was endorsed by the current leader of UKIP, Gerard Batten. It detailed which parts of Islamic teachings should be rejected by Muslims living in the West and groups claiming to represent Muslims were asked to sign it. As far as I am aware there have been no takers so far.

2. In Australia Harry Richardson has produced a Declaration of Peaceful Intent for individual Muslims to sign and has suggested that it could form the basis of a statutory declaration, giving it some legal force. [Needs refining – as it stands even a genuinely quietist Muslim would be likely to object to the phrase “unprovoked violence” believing that the Koran sanctions only provoked, ie defensive, violence]

3. Daniel Pipes proposed in-depth interviewing to, as he says, smoke out Islamists and produced 93 questions to ask based on Islamic beliefs and practices. [Who could be more of an Islamist than Mohammed?]

4. Newt Gingrich proposed the deportation of any Muslims who believe in Sharia. [Far too broad brush – Sharia includes how Muslims should wash their hands]

My Proposal falls into this third group.

The law of the land, properly enforced, should be sufficient to deal with the various unlovely, but not necessarily supremacist, features of Islam such as polygyny, forced and underage marriages, FGM, honour killings, vigilantism, punishment for apostasy and blasphemy etc.

Common sense policies on immigration, welfare and ejecting illegal immigrants would also help with community relations. Likewise insisting on Friday sermons being given in the language of the host country and banning foreign funding of mosques.

But European governments should also accept that an uncertain percentage of their Muslim populations subscribe to the world view of Islamic supremacism which presents a mortal threat to western civilisation. Those governments should therefore make it clear which beliefs and actions are acceptable and which are necessarily seditious, with the understanding that offending individuals must be removed one way or another from the host society and offending institutions closed down. That is my Proposal in a nutshell.

Offenders should be interned until such time as they can be returned to their ancestral homelands or any other country willing to take them. There are 57 OIC member states. Perhaps some of them would be amenable to financial or other inducements. If not, we should ask ourselves whether it is likely to be cheaper in the long run to intern committed Islamic supremacists or to allow them free movement in a continent full of high value jihad targets.

You might ask whether it is physically possible to isolate a large number of such people in crowded European countries. Well, to take just two examples, the British Isles comprise 6,000 islands (yes, who knew?) and Sweden has plenty of unspoilt tundra in the North.

Here are some examples of those unacceptable attitudes and actions:

Anyone believing that jihad is still required from Muslims, and not just a dead letter from 7th century Arabia would necessarily qualify as an Islamic supremacist.

That would include any imam using the Hilali Khan translation of the Koran. Here is verse 8:60 making the issue very clear:

“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know…etc”

The mosques or other Islamic institutions using it would qualify as centres of Islamic supremacism. Since the Hilali Khan translation (aka the Wahhabi Koran) is widely distributed in the West courtesy of Saudi funding, that means a lot of imams to be removed and a lot of mosques to be closed down. Those resisting such closures will have revealed themselves as supporters of the ideology in question and will also qualify for removal.

The same goes for mosques where the faithful pray for victory over the kuffar, apparently a not uncommon practice. Here is that nice Cat Stephens singing about it (at 2:00). He’s definitely one!

The Muslim Brotherhood is the primary font of Islamic supremacism in the world today. Its founder, Hassan Al-Banna, gave the organisation its ideological stamp when he said:

“It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet“.

It has spawned most of the well known jihadist groups around the world and has infiltrated western countries using a plethora of front organisations. It, and they, should be proscribed and their supporters removed. This, of course, goes for the many other Islamic supremacist groups which spring from other sources, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir or those organisations in the West taking their inspiration from the Pakistani scholar Abul Ala Maududi. Here he is making his position clear in his seminal book Jihad in Islam:

“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it….Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet….”

What business does anyone holding such an ideological position have in non-Muslim European countries? Answer…none. And why would anyone own that book in the first place? Even now it is a crime in western countries to possess documents “likely to encourage or aid terrorism”. Jihad in Islam, and a great many similar books, could sensibly be added to the list.

Of course there are parts of Sharia which explicitly mandate Islamic supremacism. A well-thumbed Section O of the Shafi’i manual of Islamic Law, The Reliance of the Traveller would be highly suggestive of supremacist sympathies.

Attempts to take over symbolic public spaces such as Speakers Corner would also count since they have nothing to do with pluralistic engagement and everything to do with Islamic triumphalism. Blocking the traffic by praying in the street falls into the same category. Likewise expressions of contempt for non-Muslims, the vilest of creatures, such as anti-semitism or attacks on churches.

Successful attempts to impose Sharia on the indigenous population such as the exclusive provision of halal meat in hospitals, schools or prisons should be rescinded along with the de facto blasphemy law enshrined in hate speech legislation. But in truth you can’t blame Muslims for trying it on. The blame lies with the non-Muslim authorities who think they are being nice and decent rather than just weak.

If Sharia councils (not courts) are to survive they should be officially registered and closely monitored to be sure they are not going beyond their brief of providing guidance in family matters, and on a truly voluntary basis.

The niqab and burqa are not just a fashion statement or an expression of piety. They are a studied insult to western values and a declaration of permanent separation. As such they are likely precursors to Islamic supremacism. An Algerian apostate has related how those who eventually instigated the bloody civil war in Algeria in the 90’s started their campaign of differentiation and acquisition of power by first controlling the dress of their women before then going on to attempt to control everyone.

Islam is the Religion of Control – of the universe by Allah, of the Ummah by Mohammed, of women by men, and if given the chance, of infidels by Muslims. If we wish to survive as free societies we have to deny them that chance.

The above are just examples of supremacist attitudes and actions. No doubt an international committee, composed of people who understand the threat, could produce a comprehensive list and Muslims could be asked to sign a declaration rejecting them. Those refusing would save us the trouble of further investigation. As an added benefit, no doubt some useful-idiot SJW types would “convert” and refuse to sign out of solidarity with oppressed Muslims. Excellent – we should take them at their word.

Not surprisingly objections have been raised to this approach:

1. How to get the Proposal adopted and implemented.

Solutions to the problem of Islamisation are routinely proposed among the counterjihad community and are often met with the very reasonable objection “It’s no good just telling us what needs to be done. How do we get from here to there?”

The good news regarding the above Proposal is that we need do nothing at all. The conditions which may eventually induce the populace to support such decisive measures, and therefore governments to implement them, are being brought about as we speak. Not by us but by those Muslims closely following the example of Mohammed, enthusiastically demonstrating how incompatible they are with European civilisation. With greater numbers of Muslims come greater levels of criminality, jihad and actions which show the desire to dominate rather than to co-exist as equals. This pairing is automatic and invariable and so these conditions must only increase over time.

For the long-suffering indigenous Europeans the elastic is being stretched a little tauter with every stabbing to the cry of “Allahu akbar”, every rape of a kaffir girl, every desecration of a church and every small anti-social act toward the host population. It may of course just snap with us meekly accepting our subjugation or perhaps it will reach its limit and spring back, much to the surprise of those who have never heard the saying “Good fences make good neighbours”.

2. Is it even possible to implement without triggering the civil war we wish to avoid?

It all depends on the numbers. Attempting to deport all Muslims from Britain, or even just all Pakistanis, would almost certainly trigger civil war or something like it. There are (officially) about 4 million Muslims in Britain and the majority of those are of Pakistani descent.

Whatever the total, it would be an awful lot of people to round up and deport considering that the UK now has an army of only 60,000 soldiers, 10% of whom are considered unfit for duty. Factoring in an unknown number of non-Muslim allies who wish to see western civilisation brought down at any cost and true believers in the “poor Muslims persecuted by the evil West” myth, I suggest that the ensuing conflict would immediately go unofficial with militias fighting it out on the streets.

On the other hand, how many Islamic supremacists are there in Britain? Nobody knows. Estimates vary from a tiny minority, sometimes quantified as something like 0.001%, to all of them. Polls show variable figures, sometimes indicating percentages as high as 30% to 50%. At a guess, I would not be surprised to see Daniel Pipes’ finger-in-the-air figure of 10% to 15% borne out (he calls them Islamists).

There is only one way to find out, by making laws proscribing certain expressed attitudes and actions, and seeing who breaks them. If it turns out to be a tiny minority then there would be very little problem, in fact we could expect the great majority of Muslims to be glad to see the back of the trouble makers giving their religion a bad name. If it turns out to be 10% to 15% that would be manageable. If it turns out to be the opposite, 85% to 90%, then we have a problem but, as with any problem, it is at least a step in the right direction to know the real extent.

3. What might be the effects of this removal of Islamic supremacists?

Think of this Proposal as a gardener might. Applying a selective weedkiller will remove the ragwort in a lawn leaving the grass unharmed, even encouraged. Of course ragwort will always find its way back, requiring repeat applications, but that’s life.

The first application would remove the largest, most obvious clumps of noxious weed such as all those Muslim Brothers insidiously working to undermine our civilisation. Subsequent applications would account for ever decreasing hauls.

Let’s assume that this Proposal works and the first few applications remove most of the Islamic supremacists in our midst and a good many mosques are closed down. What would a Muslim community with the noxious weed of Islamic supremacism largely removed look like?

It seems reasonable to assume that those who wish to control non-Muslims are the same people who maintain such an effective control over other Muslims. Perhaps, with the coercive element gone, the remaining Muslims will give up the endless compulsion to dominate, and a truly moderate Islam will emerge, a quietist strain of Islam whose adherents really can get along with everyone else. Perhaps female Muslims will take control of their own fertility, join most other social groups in having no more children than they really want, and thereby put an end to the demographic trend which is the biggest threat of all to western societies.

Or perhaps we will discover that it is precisely the coercion which keeps Islam alive. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, effectively chaplain to the Muslim Brotherhood, once admitted that without capital punishment for apostasy Islam would have died out long ago. Perhaps when Muslims realise that they can leave Islam with impunity they will do so in numbers, leaving only a small remainder of non-threatening Muslims. This would take us back to the same happy condition which existed in Britain fifty years ago when Muslims dressed like the rest of us and words like “jihad”, “Allahu” and ”akbar” were never heard.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out?

4. There is no time, it’s too late.

The short answer is if it is too late for this Proposal then it is also too late for any others and we must reconcile ourselves to civil war or subjugation.

The long answer is as follows.

This is a quote from the discussion on the Gates of Vienna site mentioned at the top:

”….such policies should have been implemented a decade or so ago. We discussed similar things here back in those days, and the basic conclusion was that they needed to happen very soon, within a few years at most, or it would be too late….Well, those few years have come and gone, and nothing has changed. Or rather, things got worse….”

If events always took place in an orderly, linear way then it is true because things have got worse and if nothing happens it will be too late. But great changes generally do not occur like that. Actions lead to reactions; the pendulum swings too far in one direction and then swings back, sometimes catastrophically.

In the case of western acceptance of Islam the pendulum has been moving in only one direction for the last 20 or 30 years but now it is slowing drastically. Nationalist parties are not just springing up all over Europe but threaten to become the largest single party even in places like Sweden. Next stop is an outright majority, after which unthinkable things become not only thinkable but doable.

We see Brexit about to significantly weaken the EU’s power and finances, the Visegrad four defying Brussels, Italy turning back migrants and even France and Germany rowing back on Schengen. Surely these things, along with increasingly negative experiences with immigrants, herald the end of the EU, the prime mover of the pro-Islam pendulum, even though it may take a non-immigration issue such as a financial crisis in Italy to kick it off.

When the EU does implode it won’t be an orderly process but a sudden, dramatic collapse unpredicted by all the talking heads just as was the case with the end of communist rule in Eastern Europe in 1989 and the global financial crisis of 2007. The above events lead me to believe that it is not correct to say that it’s too late, rather that things are things are coming to a head.

5. Civil and Human rights.

The lessening of civil rights for any section of society must cause pain to any civilised person but there is an obvious precedent. In time of war civil rights are always severely, but temporarily, restricted for the sake of security. In the Second World War Germans were interned in Britain and likewise Japanese in the US.

We just have to accept that we are also in a war – the war to make Islam supreme in the world. It has been going on for nearly 1400 years with a partial break of about 150 years thanks to European colonisation after which hostilities resumed as normal. And now the enemy is within the gates, hiding among co-religionists who are not, or appear not to be, our enemy. If we do not identify and remove our enemies ”even at the cost of contradicting our principles” there will only be one outcome.

As for human rights, this is an area in which we are subject to dangerous assymetry on two fronts.

The first is that of the European Court of Human Rights which routinely puts the rights of enemies of member states before their citizens’ right to protection. Hopefully it will implode along with the EU and save us the trouble of extricating ourselves from it.

The second is that of mainstream Muslim attitudes to human rights themselves. While Muslims routinely play western human rights for all they are worth the Islamic view of human rights is markedly different and clearly expressed in the OIC’s 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

The Declaration starts with this assertion:

Article 1 All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah…

and ends with this clarification:

Article 24 All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

In fact Islamic Sharia is invoked throughout the Declaration so you would need to know what it consists of before you can understand what the Declaration means. No source for the Islamic Sharia is referenced in the Declaration so anyone taking it seriously is buying a pig in a poke. Fortunately there are a few Manuals of Islamic Law (largely synonymous with Islamic Sharia) which have been translated into English and give the enquiring infidel a key to the Declaration. They all have things to say about relations between Muslims and non-Muslims which give the lie to many claims made in the Declaration, for instance the statement in Article 1 that:

“All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion…”

This is what the Hanafi manual of Islamic Law, the Hedaya (Book 9 p.140) has to say about discrimination against non-Muslims on the basis of religion:

“War must be carried on against the infidels, at all times, by some party of the Mussulmans. The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of the Mussulmans; and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who has said, in the Koran ‘SLAY THE INFIDELS’; and also by a saying of the prophet, ‘war is permanently established until the day of judgment’.”

That being the case, is it not beyond question that extending every benefit of universal human rights to those who offer in return the very far from universal rights under Sharia is nothing short of suicidal in our current situation?

As a closing note, may I reiterate that the Proposal above is not put forward as something to be acted upon now but only to be borne in mind until such time as a critical mass of Europeans realise that the coming struggle for dominance is a question of “us or them” and start to look for solutions short of outright civil war.

Advertisements

The Reliance of the Traveller

reliance

Umdat as-Salik or the Reliance of the Traveller is the classical manual of Islamic Law (also referred to as Sacred Law or Sharia Law) of the Shafi’i school of Islamic Jurisprudence (fiqh). It was compiled in the mid 14th century by Ahmad ibn an-Naqib al-Misri. The 1991 translation by the American convert Nuh Ha Mim Keller has been certified by al-Azhar University in Cairo as “conforming to the faith and practice of the orthodox Sunni Community”.

(See HERE for details of online availability)

It is worth noting, to avoid confusion, that although Keller’s translation is called the “Reliance of the Traveller” the mediaeval text by al-Misri only constitutes books E to O and even then section o25, The Caliphate, was added by Keller. The other books consist of various other material including texts of fiqh by other authors and commentary by Keller.

Sections of the text are précised below but direct quotes are marked as such. The translater’s and other commentators’ additions are mostly left unidentified in order to avoid confusing clutter. [My comments look like this].

Here is a selection of items likely to be of particular interest to non-Muslims (and women, children, apostates, thieves, drinkers, prisoners of war, dog lovers, artists, musicians, singers, dancers, comedians, scientists, transvestites, homosexuals and fornicators).

Book E – Purification  

e.4.3 “Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (bazr) of the clitoris (not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna [ie exemplary], while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband).”
[however, the linguist and Anglican pastor Mark Durie claims that “bazr” does indeed mean the clitoris]

Going to the lavatory
e9.1 “It is recommended when one intends to use the lavatory:”
(6) “to enter with the left foot first and depart with the right foot first”

e14.0 FILTH (NAJASA)
e14.7 Something that becomes impure by contact with something from dogs or swine does not become pure except by being washed seven times, one of which (recommended not to be the last) must be with purifying earth mixed with purifying water,

Book F – The Prayer (Salat)  

f1.3 Someone raised among Muslims who denies the obligatoriness of the prayer, zakat, fasting Ramadan, the pilgrimage, or the unlawfulness of wine and adultery, or denies something else upon which there is scholarly consensus thereby becomes an unbeliever (kafir) and is executed for his unbelief.

f1.4 A Muslim who holds the prayer to be obligatory but through lack of concern neglects to perform it until its proper time is over has not committed unbelief. Rather, he is executed, washed, prayed over, and buried in the Muslims’ Cemetery.

Book G – The Funeral Prayer  

g4.20 “It is unlawful to wash the body of a martyr or perform the funeral prayer over him. A martyr (shahid) means someone who died in battle with non-Muslims. It is recommended that war gear be removed from the body and it is best to bury the martyr in the rest of his bloodstained clothes since it is the effect of worship.”
[thus allowing the Imams who refused to pray over the London Bridge jihadis’ bodies to fool the kuffar, details HERE]
.

Book H – Zakat  

h8.7 “It is obligatory to distribute one’s zakat [mandatory charitable giving] among eight categories of recipients”:
h8.8-18 The poor, people short of money, those who collect and distribute zakat, “those whose hearts are to be reconciled” [ie of wavering faith], slaves purchasing their freedom, those in debt, “those fighting for Allah” and “the traveller in need of money”.

h8.24 “It is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim”.

Book K – Trade  

k32.0 Manumission [ie the freeing of slaves]
[The translater leaves this section about slavery untranslated because “the issue is no longer current”. That strongly implies then that he considers the rest of the contents of the book to be still current.]

Book M – Marriage  

Guardians Who May Marry A Virgin To A Man Without Her Consent
m3.13 (2) Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father’s father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin’s silence is considered as permission.

Book N – Divorce  

n9.2 A waiting period [to determine pregnancy or otherwise] is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty, or one has and the other has not.
[therefore intercourse with prepubescent girls is quite lawful]

Book O – Justice  

Who Is Subject To Retaliation For Injurious Crimes
o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(2) “a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim”
(3) a dhimmi for killing an apostate
(4) a parent for killing their child or grandchild
[thereby excusing honour killings of girls who have become too westernised]

Indemnity (Diya)
o4.9 The indemnity for an accidental death of a woman is half that for a man. For a Jew or Christian it is one third, and for a Zoroastrian one fifteenth, of that for a Muslim.

Apostasy From Islam (Ridda)
o8.1 “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”.

Acts That Entail Leaving Islam:
o8.7 (1) “to prostrate to an idol”
(2) “to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future”
(4) “to revile Allah or his Messenger”.
(6) “to be sarcastic about Allah’s name”
(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or to add any to it
(11) to accuse a Muslim of unbelief [ie takfir] incorrectly
[a serious matter because one of the parties will necessarily be considered an apostate]
(14) “to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims is part of Islam”
(17) “to believe that things in themselves or their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah”
[perhaps explaining the dearth of great Muslim scientists, despite the myth of the Golden Age]
(18) “to deny the existence of angels or jinn, or the heavens”
(19) “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law”
[ie anything in the Reliance]
(20) “to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world”
[thereby mandating Islamic supremacism].

Jihad
o9.0 “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs).”
[NB section o9.0 was not in the original Reliance but comes from a 19th century commentary by Umar Barakat added by the translater. The idea of “the greater jihad” comes solely from a particular hadith which is considered weak or fabricated.]

The Obligatory Character Of Jihad
o9.1 “Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.”
“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad.”

The Objectives Of Jihad
o9.8 “The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non Muslim poll tax [ie jizya].”

o9.9 “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.”
[ie they have no escape by paying the jizya since they are not “people of the book”]

The Rules Of Warfare
o9.13 “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.”

o9.14 When an adult male is taken captive the caliph decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release or ransoming.

Truces
o9.16 Umar Barakat explains that truces are only ever temporary, for the benefit of the Muslim war effort, since it is “a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the non-performance of jihad”.

Non-Muslim Subjects Of The Islamic State (Ahl Al Dhimma)
o11.1 An agreement of protection is made with People of the Book.

o11.2 The 20th century commentator, Abd al-Wakil Durubi, tells us that idol worshippers and followers of “cults which have appeared since Islam” such as Sikhs, Baha’is, Mormons, Qadiani [ie Ahmadis] do not qualify as People of the Book.

o11.3 Dhimmis [ie protected people (in a state of dhimmitude)] must follow the rules of Islam and pay a poll tax (jizya).

o11.5 The rules include:
(2) wearing distinctive dress
(4) keeping to the side of the street
(5) not building as high as Muslim buildings
(6) not openly displaying signs of their religions
(7) not building new churches.

o11.10 The agreement is also violated (if the state has stipulated any of the following conditions) when a non-Muslim:
(1) commits adultery with or marries a Muslim woman
(3) leads a Muslim away from Islam
(5) mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet or Islam
[ie what is apostasy for a Muslim is blasphemy for a Non-Muslim]

o11.11 When a dhimmi violates the agreement the caliph chooses between the same four options for prisoners of war detailed in o9.14, death, slavery, release or ransoming.

The Penalty For Fornication Or Sodomy
o12.2 The penalty for a person considered able to remain chaste (ie validly married) is stoning to death. The penalty for a person not considered able to remain chaste (including someone who is prepubescent at the time of marital intercourse) is scourging with 100 stripes and banishment for a year.
[again we see that intercourse with a pre-pubescent girl is lawful]

o12.6 “A pregnant woman is not stoned until she gives birth and the child can suffice with the milk of another”.

The Penalty For Theft
o14.1 A person’s right hand is amputated. If a person steals again his left foot is amputated, a third time the left hand is amputated, a fourth time the right foot is amputated.

The Penalty For Highway Robbery
o15.0 The caliph is obliged to summon whoever uses a weapon and makes people afraid to use the road…If he steals the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold [ie a quarter of a dinar] both his right hand and left foot are amputated.
[this is pretty rich considering Mohammed began his career in Medina as a caravan raider]

The Penalty For Drinking
o16.3 “The penalty for drinking is to be scourged forty stripes with hands, sandals, and ends of clothes. It may be administered with a whip, but if the offender dies, an indemnity is due for his death”.

Witnessing And Testifying
o24.9 “If testimony concerns fornication or sodomy then it requires four male witnesses (who testify, in the case of fornication, that they have seen the offender insert the head of his penis into her vagina)”.

o24.10 “If testimony concerns things which men do not typically see (but women do), such as childbirth, then it is sufficient to have two male witnesses, a man and two women, or four women”.

The Caliphate
o25.4 The Caliphate may be legally effected by three means:
(1) “by an oath of fealty”
(2) “by the caliph appointing a successor”
(3) “through seizure of power by an individual possessing the qualities of a caliph”.

o25.5 It is obligatory to obey the commands of the caliph even if he is unjust because of the hadith “Hear and obey, even if the ruler placed over you is an Ethiopian slave with amputated extremities”.

[NB The following sections are not from the original Reliance but taken from elsewhere in the Islamic tradition and added by the translater].

Book P – Enormities  

Masculine Women And Effeminate Men
p28.1 “The Prophet said”:
(1) “Men are already destroyed when they obey women”
[didn’t Mohammed get his first break working for a woman, Khadija his future wife?]
(2) “The Prophet cursed effeminate men and masculine women”
(3) “The Prophet cursed men who wear women’s clothing and women who wear men’s”.

Making Pictures
p44.1 “The Prophet said”:
(1) “Every maker of pictures will go to the fire, where a being will be set upon him for every picture he made, to torment him in hell”.

Book Q – Commanding The Right And Forbidding The Wrong  

q0.2 “Commanding the right and forbidding the wrong is the most important fundamental of the religion…If it were folded up and put away, religion itself would vanish, dissolution appear, and whole lands come to ruin”.

q2.3 “Some scholars stipulate that the person delivering the censure must have permission to do so from the caliph…This is untrue, for the Koranic verses and hadiths all indicate that whoever sees something wrong and does nothing has sinned”.
[thereby sanctioning vigilantism]

q5.0 The Act Of Censuring
q5.1 The censure has various degrees of severity:
q5.3 Explaining That Something Is Wrong
q5.4 Forbidding The Act Verbally
q5.5 Censuring With Harsh Words
q5.6 Righting The Wrong By Hand “such as by breaking musical instruments”
q5.7 Intimidation by making realistic threats
q5.8 Assault “to directly hit or kick the person”
q5.9 Force of arms “when one is unable to censure the act by oneself and requires the armed assistance of others”.

Book R – Holding One’s Tongue  

Slander
r2.2 “Slander means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike”.
[ie truth is no defence]

Permissable Lying
r8.2 “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory”.
[What would be an example of an obligatory goal? See “The Obligatory Character Of Jihad”, section o9.1 above.]

Joking
r19.2 “Excessive joking is blameworthy and forbidden, since it eliminates one’s dignity and reserve…It also causes immoderate laughter, which kills the heart”.

Music, Song and Dance
r40.1 “The Prophet said”:
(2) “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress”

r40.2 “It is unlawful to use musical instruments – such as those which drinkers are known for, like the mandolin, lute, cymbals, and flute – or to listen to them”

r40.4 “It is not prohibited to dance…unless it is languid, like the movements of the effeminate”.

Book W – Notes And Appendices  

Women’s Obligatory Clothing
w23.1 “The nakedness of a woman that she is forbidden to reveal differs in the Shafi’i school according to different circumstances. In the privacy of the home, her nakedness is that which is between the navel and knees. In the prayer it means everything besides the face and hands. And when outside the home on the street, it refers to the entire body”.

Things That Are Not Inconsistent With The Acceptance Of Fate
w59.2 “And this clarifies the Koranic verses and hadiths about hatred for the sake of Allah and love for the sake of Allah, being unyielding towards the unbelievers, hard against them, and detesting them, while accepting the destiny of Allah Most High insofar as it is the decree of Allah Mighty and Majestic”.
[hence the doctrine of Al Wala’ Wal Bara’ (Love and Hate for Allah’s Sake)]

                                                       *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Moral Sickness

Suppose you found this book in the street, never having heard of Islam. I suggest you would likely be repulsed by the cruelty and viciousness displayed toward so many categories of people, including yourself as a non-Muslim.

What kind of book mandates controlling female sexuality by mutilating girls’ genitals or death for anyone criticising the religion the book represents, of which it is in fact a distillation? Obviously a morally sick one, you might think, with the same going for those who wrote it, the man who inspired it and the people who revere it.

But you would be wrong, or at least taking it out of context which is just as bad.

That context is that the religion it represents is actually a “religion of peace” and “a great historic faith which has brought spiritual nourishment to millions”. We know because our political leaders, versed in theology as they are, tell us so.

Not only that but if you went around telling people what you thought, or put it on Facebook, you would likely get a visit from the boys in blue, if not the boys with bushy beards who don’t take kindly to the kafir mentioning “something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet or Islam” (see section o11.10 (5) above).

Best just put the thought away. No one wants trouble, do they?

Cult Status

Apart form the obvious cruelty, bigotry and hatred on display, what do the contents of the Reliance tell us about Islam itself? Surely the main response a cursory reading must evoke is incredulity at the minute interest taken in Mohammed’s every word and deed, however slight. Why would clever men spend so much time and effort working out the often arbitrary ramifications of what one man said and did as opposed to what is self-evidently reasonable, decent and fair? I know Mohammed was meant to be an example to all men but then so was Jesus and the gospels don’t go into excruciating detail about his toilet habits (see section e9 or click HERE if you have a strong stomach).

Rational minds like yours and mine struggle to comprehend the downright obsessive loopiness at the heart of the Religion of Peace. Perhaps it should rather be called the “OCD Religion” or the “Religion of Control”. Yes, that’s more like it, control runs through Islam like “Brighton” through a stick of rock. After all, Allah refers to his followers not as his children or his followers but as his slaves and demands from them not reasoned acceptance but unquestioning submission.

We have a word for religions which seek to control every last detail of the believers’ lives with threats of violence for non-compliance, that word being “cult”. Islam is indeed surely a cult, just the biggest in history. HERE Ali Sina details the characteristics which show beyond doubt what Islam really is. Once seen, it is impossible to view Islam in the same light again. Pity the poor cult members unable to escape Mohammed’s malignant mind control, and their victims over 1400 years.

Some general and historical background

We are often told that Sharia Law varies greatly from place to place and that ISIS or Saudi Arabia practice extreme versions. This is not true. Muslim legal codes vary not in the kind but only in the amount of Sharia Law they include, with most countries managing to avoid the worst of the barbaric punishments which authentically come from the practices of Mohammed.

In his introduction the translater writes “The four Sunni schools of Islamic law, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali, are identical in approximately 75 percent of their legal conclusions”. Differences are mostly procedural or a matter of degree. As a comparison here is the 18th century translation of the Hanafi equivalent of the Reliance, the Hedaya, showing a similarly unambiguous attitude to the infidel (p 154):

“War must be carried on against the infidels, at all times, by some party of the Mussulmans. The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of the Mussulmans; and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who has said, in the Koran ‘SLAY THE INFIDELS’; and also by a saying of the prophet, ‘war is permanently established until the day of judgment”.

What happened between the time when the manuals of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, and the Shia equivalent, provided the bedrock of the law for all Muslims, and the situation today in which Islamic Law is applied patchily throughout the Muslim world? The answer, of course, is not an Islamic Reformation or Enlightenment but only European colonisation. For instance, the translation of the Hedaya was commissioned by the East India Company, not out of scholarly curiosity but as part of their campaign to wrest legal control from the local qadis (religious judges).

The Hedaya fed into the creation of the hybrid system of Anglo-Muhammadan Law in which Sharia family law was left largely untouched as a sop to native sensibilities, not being an area of critical interest to the colonising power.

Sharia Law in Britain today

Curiously enough, a similar situation pertains in Britain today with Sharia councils offering adjudication only in domestic matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance. In theory this is voluntary but of course this is hardly the reality considering the cultural pressures on Muslim women often newly arrived from Pakistan with no clue about their rights under British Law.

As Home Secretary, Theresa May set up an inquiry into the running of these councils but, scandalously, it explicitly starts from the assumption that it is only the misapplication of Sharia Law which might be a problem. Since it is headed by a Muslim theologian rather than a representative of British Law, with two Islamic scholars on the board, we can presumably rest assured that the profoundly discriminatory roots of Sharia Law will remain undisturbed.

It goes further than that though. Non-Muslims in Britain also live under elements of Sharia Law which various governments have obligingly imposed on everyone. For a start there is the halal meat which is served in schools, prisons, hospitals etc and sold unmarked in supermarkets. Imagine the reaction if the reverse happened.

There is also the de facto blasphemy law enshrined in the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act, set up to protect Muslim sensibilities only a few years after the Christian blasphemy law was scrapped. In theory the act is even-handed but everyone knows you can burn a Bible with not a flicker of interest whereas burning a Koran will get your collar felt. In extreme cases such as draping bacon over a mosque door handle (imagine the horror!) you can expect a year inside like poor Kevin Crehan who failed to come out again. Five months later the cause of death has still not been identified. Perhaps Islamophobia has turned lethal.

Just History?

How can the Islamic Law of the Reliance and similar manuals be reconciled with the modern world? A reader of this blog asked just that question of a Muslim scholar and received this reply:

“It should be remembered that a madhhab [ie school of Islamic Jurisprudence] is a tradition of interpretation, not a body of fixed rulings; hence the normative content of each school often varies from century to century. In the contemporary context, jurists continue to evolve their madhhab-based positions using the characteristic methodologies of their schools. Hence nobody would claim that, say, a law manual from the Mamluk period should be put into practice today.”

Well actually, if the law manual in question is the result of intensive investigation to ascertain the will of Allah to the best of humans’ ability then I would in fact expect the bulk of its rulings to remain valid indefinitely. Why would it go out of date? If Islam’s greatest scholars came to the conclusion that Allah and Mohammed thought that adulterers should be stoned to death, how could changing circumstances negate that? In fact it appears that the rulings in the Reliance have not been negated at all, only avoided. What we find is that when states move away from their colonial legal systems and toward Sharia Law, as for instance Brunei has done, their legal codes look increasingly like what we see in the Reliance.

Today there are only a handful of states which approach a full implementation of Sharia Law. In Pakistan we see lynchings of Christians, as a result of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. In Iran we see the execution of homosexuals and in Saudi Arabia we see beheadings for apostasy and hear reports of crucifixions and stonings kept out of sight. But no jizya or sex slavery anywhere you say. Well, for those we have to go to the state which really applies Sharia Law to the full, the Islamic State. Mad, bad and dangerous to know, but at least they are in no danger of being called hypocrites when they meet up with Mohammed in paradise since there is very little that they do which he didn’t do, and very little that he did which they don’t do.

It does not reassure me one bit to learn that this vile book is widely read and revered by Muslims but to be told “Don’t worry, no one would expect it to be put into practice today”. Remember al-Azhar University, the highest authority in Sunni religious thought, has certified it as “conforming to the faith and practice of the orthodox Sunni Community”. That is “conforming”, ie present tense.

If Islamic Law has moved on from the Middle Ages where is the modern equivalent of the Reliance, let’s call it the Anti-Reliance, which makes clear that the appalling rulings which make non-Muslims shudder have been repudiated, abrogated, consigned to the dustbin of history? Perhaps it exists somewhere in the untranslated Shafi’i literature but if so it is being kept very quiet, and reform-minded Muslims are missing a trick by not broadcasting its existence. Tell you what, let’s just assume that it doesn’t exist until notified otherwise.

And where is the book written by an authoritative Sharia scholar addressed to non-Muslims titled “Sharia – Why You Have No Need To Fear”? It would put our minds at rest no end. But I suggest it will never be written because repudiating Islamic supremacism, jihad, discrimination against women and unbelievers, and all the vicious punishments as opposed to just avoiding them, would mean repudiating Mohammed and therefore Allah.