In the featured article at Human Events Tuesday I discussed the disturbing case of Dalia Mogahed, Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs (who is his adviser on Christian affairs)?
Dalia Mogahed, Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, appeared on British television last week, where she said: "Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood." How have we misunderstood Islamic law? We have associated it with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women." The Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified," said Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs; most Muslim women worldwide, she said, associate it with "gender justice."Here's some gender justice straight out of the Koran, the Islamic holy book that forms the basis of Sharia. As I explain in my book The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, the Koran declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282). It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).
Worst of all, the Koran tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives, saying that "men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other," and that therefore "good women are the obedient." And as for those who are not obedient, the Koran directs men to give them a warning, send them to a separate bed, and "beat them" (4:34). It also allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures "shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4).
These are not "cherry-picked" verses taken "out of context." All these stipulations -- about testimony, inheritance, wife-beating, marriage and divorce -- remain part of Sharia to this day. So does the law that a wife must not refuse sex to her husband, no matter where or when he makes the demand. This is based on a saying of the Islamic prophet Muhammad: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relations] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning." And another: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle."
Gender justice. And that's not all. Mogahed, a member of the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, made her defense of Sharia on a TV show hosted by a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. This is an international organization that is banned as a terrorist group in many nations, and which is openly dedicated to the worldwide imposition of Sharia and the destruction of all governments that are constituted according to any other political philosophy -- including Constitutional republics that do not establish a state religion.
On the show with Mogahed were two Hizb-ut-Tahrir who repeatedly attacked "man-made law" and the "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism" one encounters in Western societies. They said Sharia should be "the source of legislation." Not "a" source. "The" source.
Mogahed, for her part, offered no contradiction to any of this. Should an adviser to the President of the United States really have given her sanction to such a group? Apparently she has no problem with its goal, since instead of defending the American system of government, she maintained that Sharia was popular among Muslim women: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media."
On the same show, Dalia Mogahed described her job in the Obama administration as involving efforts "to convey...to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want." What Muslims want. Not what America might want from Muslims -- i.e., a recognition of the ways in which Sharia contradicts the Constitution regarding the equality of all people before the law, and a forthright rejection of those elements of Sharia. No one, Muslim or non-Muslim, seems concerned about any challenge to those provisions from the adherents of Sharia. Perhaps they should listen more closely to Dalia Mogahed.
Islam is foremost and submission to mohammad/ allah is always first. The country and other concerns come later. She is a slave of Islam and is following it to the true spirit.
She has to support her sisters from Hizb-ut-Tahrir, as the global jihad gets support from the muslim ummah. When we the non-muslims get this kind of unity? Islam will be no more.
most Muslim women worldwide, she said, associate it with "gender justice."
because most muslim women are illiterate.
"Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood."
The only religion that is misunderstood.
Maybe SHE misunderstands it?
Muslim 1 - You misunderstand islam.
Muslim 2- No, you misunderstand islam.
Muslim 1 - No, you misunderstand islam.
Repeat, infinity....
All 45 minutes of the broadcast are available as a single video in Youtube. I've never come across vids that long on there before.The University of Western Sydney Muslim Students' Association, who posted it, must have a lot of money or influence. A glance at the titles of their other vids seems to betray a HuT connection. It's at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlN6zCXX9Sk
The HuT 'media rep' in the video seems to live in an alternative universe in which more sharia will get rid of abuses like honour killings and FGM and the problem with the Taleban is that their implementation of sharia is imperfect. You would have thought the US gov would have smelled a rat when they heard Mogahed's name pronounced since it sounds close enough to mujahed to show it is, in fact, just a variant.
Sharia and the Constitution of the United States are so incompatible with one another that one has to engage in Alice in Wonderland logic to reconcile all the differences. Such logic is employed by Muslims regularly and by dhimmis too, which would include the present occupant of the the White House (proceeding here on the assumption that he is a Christian and not a Muslim), and, I'm sad to say, the previous occupant as well, even though he stands far above the present occupant in moral intelligence, guts and common sense. Eventually what is necessary is for a very large majority of Americans to comprehend that Islam and America have virtually nothing in common. We have not yet reached this point but I would far prefer it be soooner rather than later for when Islam is not an active killer it is a silent one through such mechanisms as demographic jihad and taqqiya.
Hmmm. University of Western Sydney, eh?
I happen to know someone - not a Muslim; a fervently evangelical Christian - who teaches in that institution.
I think I might let him know what is going on at his place of employment.
Sharia and the Constitution of the United States are so incompatible with one another that one has to engage in Alice in Wonderland logic to reconcile all the differences.
Posted by Wellington
No joke. There is currently a massive ongoing effort in Washington to turn our Constitution into an "Alice in Wonderland" or "living" document. If they complete the job, Sharia should be very nearly compatible with the Constitution. That would greatly please all the PC MC folks.
Everytime I read this it makes me sick to my stomach. Here we have an ADVISER to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES who has no problem with TOTALITARIAN AND OPPRESSIVE SHARIA LAW. What world are we living in?
Everytime I read this it makes me sick to my stomach. Here we have an ADVISER to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES who has no problem with TOTALITARIAN AND OPPRESSIVE SHARIA LAW. What world are we living in?
"Here we have an ADVISER to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES who has no problem with TOTALITARIAN AND OPPRESSIVE SHARIA LAW. What world are we living in?" -- efoc
I think that every day, efoc. It's surreal - bizarre, unreal, dreamlike.
I now understand how the Nazis came to power. History is repeating itself.
"Here we have an ADVISER to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES who has no problem with TOTALITARIAN AND OPPRESSIVE SHARIA LAW. What world are we living in?" -- efoc
I think that every day, efoc. It's surreal - bizarre, unreal, dreamlike.
I now understand how the Nazis came to power. History is repeating itself.
Absolutely Darcy. It is surreal. WTF?!
History is repeating itself. It's a pity too many don't remember and they keep making the same mistakes.
On the same show, Dalia Mogahed described her job in the Obama administration as involving efforts "to convey...to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want."
Except for the yet-to-be-implemented policies of replacing the US Constitution with sharia and getting Michelle and their two girls in mobile tents, hasn't Buraq Arafat Saddam Hussein Osama been doing exactly "what is is that mahoundians want"?
Infidels! It is I, Abdullah Bhullah, the wacky mullah!
Haram! Haram! This so-called "Muslim Advisor" lacks the uni-brow that all muslimahs have! She cannot be a true muslimah! She is obviously a Jewish spy who is attempting to make Islam look silly! This is not that hard to do, but the Jihad does not need the help of this Jewish turncoat!
Haram!
efoc and darcy,
Bush had no problem with Sharia either -- in fact he initiated and sustained two wars that cost us billions as well as the lives of our soldiers and civilian contractors in order to help two nations become Oxymorons: stable democracies based in Sharia law. And Bush succeeded with the second half of that oxymoron: Iraq and Afghanistan remain far from stable -- still violence-wracked; but their new constitutions now are based in Sharia.
"...Dalia Mogahed, Obama's advisor on Muslim affairs (who is his advisor on Christian affairs?)..."
That would be Reverend Joseph Lowery, who delivered the benediction at Obama's Presidential swearing-in -- and who has stated that he found nothing wrong in Wright’s flamingly virulent anti-white racism and paranoia.
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33574
The "Wright" I referred to in my last post -- in whom Obama's Reverend Lowery finds no fault -- is Reverend Jeremiah Wright, of course.
Darcy frets that history repeats itself. Here I'll just fret that Darcy keeps repeating himself. Careful with that submit button Darcy.
I'm curious why Mr. Spencer goes to Qur'an and Hadith to illustrate "Sharia Law". If you are attempting to act as a mujtahid you will be scorned and easily dismissed; critics will focus on your methodology, choice of texts, cherry picking, etc.
I would recommend going straight to the Sharia sources. Umdat Al-Salik, for example, is an excellent place to find far more egregious material than you raise here. When I discuss sharia with its proponents my first question is "which sharia? Please tell me which school, or schools, of sharia you're talking about". Once that is settled, the next question is "which manuals of Sharia law definitively define that school?" If they won't commit on either question then I say they're not talking about Sharia, or if they believe they are, they really don't know what they're talking about.
The main problem with Sharia is not the extreme punishments or the differential treatment of women -- bad as those things are. The main problem is its differential treatment of people according to group: Muslim, female, slave, "people of the book", polytheist, athiest, kuffar, murtad and so on. The most basic principle of western jurisprudence is "one law for all". Sharia is "one law for you, one law for me". If this were placed at the very center of every discussion on the subject, the remaining details would be so much trivia, and I think Western society would respond more appropriately to this assault on our freedoms.
"...to many people seem unequal to women."
Unequal to women? Prove otherwise by removing that ugly scarf.
...then she proceeds to convince her listeners that she has CHOSEN to cover her head -- and her neck -- and anything exposed besides her fingertips.
I'm sweating just looking at her!
Muslims Go Home!! ...take your Sharia-Shit and shove it back to the middle east and keep it there. Enjoy it on your own turf and on your own terms, because we don't want it here in the U-S-A. Got it!
More from the show Dalia Mogahed appeared on:
The Hizb ut-Tahrir representative claimed that sharia "pioneered rights for women" and said women should be involved in politics. When the host asked why sharia barred women from being heads of state, Nawaz defended the ban by belittling the record of Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, who was murdered by jihadists. Mogahed failed to rebut these assertions.
......................
While Benezir Bhutto was hardly the great avatar of democracy that so many Americans hoped she was, she was definitely among the better leaders Pakistan has had. That Mogahed didn't say as much--that, in fact, she let the poor murdered Benazir Bhutto stand as an example of why women shouldn't be allowed to serve as heads of state, is shameful.
And what about the channel this edifying bit of ugliness ran on? Here's some enlightening information:
Islam Television CEO Mohamed Ali Harrath has also been in the news lately – getting the kind of publicity he would rather avoid. The London Times reported that Harrath, who has been advising Scotland Yard on countering Muslim extremism, is wanted by Interpol for his alleged involvement with a Tunisian terrorist group.
......................
Hmm--yet another Muslim advising the authorities about how to deal peacefully with the Muslim world, who turns out to have Jihadist sympathies of his own.
Rather like Dalia Mogahed, herself.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/blog/2009/10/dalia-mogahed-hizb-ut-tahrir-representative-tout
Pious or Pretty? ...tough choice...sarc
I'm REALLY gonna enjoy today's hair appointment and all the complements I'll get afterwards. Gee, I wonder how many complements she receives wearing that super-flattering scarf? ...lol! Ick!
Thank you, Lord, for giving me hair, and the freedom to wear it the way I choose! ...btw, I only cover up my head when it rains, snows, or in the scorching sun.
I have no desire or need to be pious, but I do enjoy being pretty.
"who is his adviser on Christian affairs?"
Dalia Mogahed, of course.
most Muslim women worldwide, she said, associate it with "gender justice."
Er......because if they dared to say otherwise they would be stoned to death.
Archimedes2 --
"When I discuss sharia with its proponents my first question is "which sharia? Please tell me which school, or schools, of sharia you're talking about". Once that is settled, the next question is "which manuals of Sharia law definitively define that school?" "
Good advice. Could you answer a couple of questions to help us have a better armory of information?
1) what school does the Umdat al Salik represent?
2) what sources can we find to cite for the other 3 schools?
Thanks.
Hesperado - Canon Patrick Sookhdeo, in his book 'Global Jihad', mentions a range of sources that are deemed authoritative by Muslims.
For the Hanafis, he mentions the 'Siyar' of Shaybani (750-804), which was translated into English by Majid Khadduri and published as 'The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani's Siyar', by Johns Hopkins Press in 1966.
Sookhdeo notes that 'siyar' (lit. 'motion') is "the branch of Islamic law concerned with international relations, and Shaybani's was the first major work on this subject. Literally 'motion', siyar had come to mean by Shaybani's time the conduct of the Islamic state in its relationships with non-Muslim communities. Interestingly, the early Muslim jurists used to deal with siyar under the general heading of jihad.'
Sookhdeo also states that "the Hanafi school of shari'a has a standard text book written by the scholar Burkhan al-Din al-Marghinani (b. at Marghian near Ferghana in today's Uzbekisan) known as the Hedaya, which is available in English translation, albeit eighteenth-century English" - ref = Ali ibn Abi Bakr Al-Marghinani, The Hedaya: Commentary on the Islamic Laws, tr. Charles Hamilton, 4 vols (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 1985; facs. of 1791 edition).
For the Shafi'i, Sookhdeo mentions Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi, author of Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya [The Ordinances of Government], which is available in an English translation by Wafaa H. Wahba, The Centre for Muslim Contribution to Civilization (Reading: Garnet Publishing Ltd., 1996).
Sookhdeo also states [p. 77] that the Umdat al'Malik, or Reliance of the Traveller, is "an important Shafi'i text".
A representative of the Maliki school is Ibn Rushd/ Averroes, d.1198; his Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa al-Muqtasid, which Sookhdeo describes as a 'primer for Islamic jurists', is available in English translation as 'The Distinguished Jurist's Primer (Bidayat al-Mujtahid)', trans. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee (Reading: Garnet Publishing, 1994).
A representative of the Hanbali school is Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328). He wrote the al-Sisaya al-Shar'riyya fi Islah al-Ra'i wa-al Ra'iyya (Governance according to God's [allah's] Law in Reforming Both the Ruler and the Ruled). This seems not to have been fully translated into English - Sookhdeo states that the section on Jihad, translated into English, is reproduced in Rudolph Peters' "Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam".
Sookhdeo mentions the name of at least one Shiite 'authority' - Al-Hilli (1206-1277), Shara'i' al-Islam fi Masa'il al-Halal wal-Haram, 'The Laws of Islam in Matters of the Permitted and the Forbidden' - which has been translated into English by Hasan M Najafi (Qum: Ansariyan Publications, 2001).
Re. sharia and the schools of thought, I will reproduce here, for Hesperado and Archimedes, an exchange that took place at this forum during the Intensedebate era, concerning sources and scholars associated with the schools of sharia, and the parts of the world where these schools currently obtain.
Here's the first part of that conversation:
INFIDEL PRIDE asked Mr Spencer - Raymond {Ibrahim] is gone, but I have a question.
Which is a good place to find out which Islamic school of jurisprudence is operational in which Islamic countries?
Like Hanbali in Saudi Arabia, Shafii in Egypt, Hanafi in Bangladesh, et al? In this case, what is it in Syria?
I'm mainly interested in these countries:
Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrein, Jordan, Yemen, PA, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Emirates.
Anyone?
-INFIDELAKBAR added - Following on from your question, where can I find an English translation of the Hanafi manual?
-ALKIDYA said - I am not sure you really need a translation of the Hanafi. Just look to the books; the Qu'ran, the Hadiths, the Suras, the ijma, and the qiyas. Wouldn't that be all you need for coverage of the law? I mean Muhammad put the laws down, right? But of course they can be changed to suit the generations along the way.
found a fair description at "Wiki" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi.
-INFIDEL AKBAR said - Thanks, Alkidya
I found this interesting description on Hanafi jurisprudence.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/isla...
According to the article, Hanafi law is “tolerant”, but I found this in the JW archive.
“Unfortunately, however, jihad as warfare against unbelievers in order to institute Sharia worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists; instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology.
"It is affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools.
[…]
The Hanafi school sounds the same notes: “If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them…” (Hidayah)”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015301.php
-DUH SWAMI said - You guys are doing your homework...applause...'Doing your homework' is what makes JW's comments section the cream of the crop...
-ALKIDYA said - Thank you, Infidel
That is an excellent reference library. Very good!
MR SPENCER said, to Infidel Pride - IP:
Raymond is gone, but as it happens, I know a little bit about Islam myself.
Indonesia: Shafi'i
Malaysia: Shafi'i
Pakistan: Hanafi
Afghanistan: Hanafi
Kuwait: Maliki with Jafari (Shi'ite school)
Qatar: Hanbali
Oman: Mostly the smaller Ibadi school
Bahrain: Jafari (Shi'ites), along with Shafi'i and Maliki
Jordan: Hanafi
Yemen: Shafi'i, and Zaydi (Shi'ite school)
PA: Hanafi and Shafi'i
Syria: Hanafi
Somalia: Shafi'i
Sudan: Shafi'i
UAE: Hanbali, with Jafari among Shi'ites
Hope that helps.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
- INFIDEL PRIDE said to RS - Robert
Thanks. So just from this sample (counting my earlier examples), we have
Shafi'i - 8
Hanafi - 5
Hanbali - 3
Maliki - 2
So is it fair to say that the above sample would be reflective of how predominant these schools are within the OIC - Shafi'i and Hanafi predominant, and Maliki almost non-existant, except in Kuwait and Bahrein?
From your answers, Afghanistan surprised me, since I knew that they followed Shafi'i during Mahmoud of Ghazni. Also, given how Indonesia and Malaysia had a previous reputation of being tolerant of people other than Christians, I had thought that they were Hanafi. Also, if Egypt is Shafi'i, wouldn't the same have been true for Syria, given how closely connected the 2 historically were - not only as UAR, but even previously, when Syria was under the Sultanate of Egypt?
-VIRGIL said - The Shafi'i and Hanafi schools are the strongest in the lands of the former Abbasid and Ottoman caliphates (where they had state patronage).
The Maliki school
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maliki
is the dominate [sic: dominant] school in North Africa and formerly in Muslim-occupied Spain.
Many of the well known medieval Maliki scholars came from Spain: Qadi Iyad, Abu Abdullah al-Qurtubi, Abu al-Walid ibn Rushd (Averroës), Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, the family of ibn Khaldun, etc.
INFIDEL PRIDE said - Thanks for this info
VIRGIL said - Always glad to help.
{NB - I just clicked on the wiki link for the Malikis. It says that the 'Risala', by Abi Zayd of Al-Qayrawan, is the standard work in Maliki law. - dda}
And now for the second part of that conversation, which took place on or not long after July 3 2009, in connection with an article about penalties for 'honor' murders in Syria.
Mr Spencer, to INFIDEL PRIDE - IP (said) "So is it fair to say that the above sample would be reflective of how predominant these schools are within the OIC - Shafi'i and Hanafi predominant, and Maliki almost non-existant, except in Kuwait and Bahrein?"
RS - The Maliki school is predominant in North and West Africa.
IP - "From your answers, Afghanistan surprised me, since I knew that they followed Shafi'i during Mahmoud of Ghazni."
RS - That was 1000 years ago. The Deobandi movement, which is Hanafi, spread into Afghanistan much more recently.
IP - "Also, given how Indonesia and Malaysia had a previous reputation of being tolerant of people other than Christians, I had thought that they were Hanafi."
RS - That was largely due to non-Islamic influences, not madhhab-derived.
IP - "Also, if Egypt is Shafi'i, wouldn't the same have been true for Syria, given how closely connected the 2 historically were - not only as UAR, but even previously, when Syria was under the Sultanate of Egypt?"
RS - Egypt is the home of Al-Azhar, which is Shafi'i, but the country itself is largely Hanafi. In Egypt and Syria there is a lot if Hanafi/Shafi'i mixing.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
-INFIDEL PRIDE said - Thanks, Robert. I thought Deobandi was Hanbali. Other than that, your above explanations make sense.
-VIRGIL told INFIDEL PRIDE - The Deobandi are hardcore Hanafi to the point that some of them view the other schools of thought very negatively.
The Deobandi Taliban and the "Salafi" (those without a formal traditional school of thought) Ahl al-Hadith movement in Afghanistan and Pakistan were often at odds (sometimes violently so) over the issue of madhhab.
If you look around the English language Islamic forums and message boards you will find much conflict between the Deobandis and other madhhab traditionalists on one hand and the Salafi-Wahhabi types on the other *(though they will almost all agree when it comes to the obligation of jihad against the Jews and the Christians)* {my emphasis added - dda}.
KAMALA observed - Al-Azhar isn't the only institution to bless Reliance of the Traveler.
P. xiv of the book also includes a letter of approval from Sheikh Abd al-Wakil Durubi, Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha, Damascus, Syria.
RS said - (quoting IP's words) "Thanks, Robert. I thought Deobandi was Hanbali. Other than that, your above explanations make sense."
No, the Deobandis are indeed Hanafi. The Wahhabis are Hanbali.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
-VIRGIL added - The original "Wahhabi" adherents were Hanbali, but not all the modern ones are.
Many of them follow an approach toward jurisprudence inspired or at least strongly influenced by the medieval Spanish theologian and jurist ibn Hazm,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Hazm
who was opposed to all four of the traditional Sunni judicial schools of thought.
Ibn Hazm was an advocate of the so-called Zahiri school of thought, which was viewed as excessively literal by the other schools.
It goes without saying that ibn Hazm was a vicious polemicist, not just against the usual suspects (Jew and Christians), but against other Muslim sects."
END of my record of this useful exchange - dda.
dda,
Nice work. There is a Maliki book of fiqh available online, that is, the Risala, which I've posted before, at
http://bewley.virtualave.net/Risalatitl.html
It contains "misunderstandings" of sharia such as these:
"37.19 Crimes against Islam
37.19a. Zandaqa
A zindiq is killed and his repentance is not accepted. He is the one who conceals disbelief while making an outward display of Islam.
[...]
37.19c. Apostasy
An apostate is killed unless he repents. He is given three days to repent. The same ruling applies to a woman.
[...]
37.19h. Insulting the Messenger of Allah
If someone curses the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, he is killed and his repentance is not accepted. If one of the people of dhimma abuses him outside of that which constitutes his disbelief or curses Allah Almighty other than what constitutes his disbelief, he is killed unless he becomes Muslim."
For those who don't know, the Reliance of the Traveler [Shafi'i fiqh] is searchable online at the muhaddith.org site.
I guess my post was deleted. I articulated Satanism as the source of Islam.
Satanism IS the source of Islam ...huh?
dumbledoresarmy,
Thanks for the wealth of information. I can't help but suspect, however, that the Pandora's box of Islamic complexity more often than not works against us. I fear that even having those manuals you adduce will not be enough in debates/discussions with apologists, for those manuals are centuries old and there is a jungle of related texts of Islamic law (interpretations of manuals, fatwas, interpretations of fatwas, etc.) and perhaps many other manuals they could adduce to squirm out of challenges. There are also many radiating techniques of sophistry (cleverly calculated among the Muslim and some Leftist apologists; sincerely felt among most PC MCs) that serve to dilute the punch of any given challenge we could make. I would hope having these four manuals handy (and of course read) would do some practical good; I'm not so sure it would, however.
What needs to be done at a minimum:
1) elect a person to spend the time to learn in detail all the manuals you listed (a study group could also be enlisted to help that individual)
2) arrange a debate with a learned apologist -- or better yet, a series of several debates with several different apologists that reflect a range of styles, attitudes and cleverness -- and videotape the debates
3) I strongly suspect that the debates will not, in fact, be a slam-dunk victory for our side, but will elicit a tangled jungle of sophistical evasions, tap-dancing and culs-de-sac: but this in itself can prove helpful, for our study purposes: for these videotapes will in reality be round one: we, and our elected representative expert debater, will study the techniques used by his interlocutors for the next round, and we will try to perfect ways to challenge their evasions specifically.
All this, of course, presumes we can find such willing apologists to spend the time going through at least two rounds of debates and be videotaped. It might not be too difficult, but it would take considerable time and even money on our part to do what it takes to engineer such a project.
Short of a project along these lines, I'm sorry to sound pessimistic, but I don't see much practical good to come of the availability of those manuals, given the complexity of the problems related to the ongoing evasiveness of the apologists and the PC MC culture around them that semi-consciously but powerfully facilitates them against us.