Let the Shariah Speak

The following excerpts are from the Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

The book is self-described as follows:

"This work is the first translation of a standard Islamic legal reference in a European language to be certified by al-Azhar, the Muslim world’s oldest institution of higher learning. It presents an explanative interpretation of ‘Umdat as-salik, a classic Sunni manual of Sacred Law by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) that comprises the legal work of Imam Nawawi, the great thirteenth-century Shaf’I hadith scholar and jurisprudent. Ibn Naquib’s famous handbook carefully summarizes the conclusions of Nawawi’s legal encyclopedia al-Majmu’ on all aspects of practicing Islam, from prayer, marriage, jihad, and inheritance to the other facets of Islamic life." [from the rear cover of the book]

The above-mentioned book is a classic version of Shariah law. The information contained therein would be familiar to any Sunni Muslim. Please find outlined below some excerpts from this book.

Female Genital Mutilation

p. 59, e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For Men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)

I have since found out that the text above was deliberately mistranslated. The mistranslation was brought to my attention through my reading the witness statement of Mark Durie, Senior Associate with the title of Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics of the University of Melbourne, Victoria, who makes this statement for the respondents, Catch the Fire Ministries Inc, and Pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scott, who are the subject of a complaint brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria Inc. in the State of Victoria, Australia. As far as I can determine, the complaint was brought by the Islamic council simply because the respondents had the temerity to tell the truth about Islam. If you wish to learn more about the case, Mr. Durie’s witness statement is available online at: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001307.php. Also, more information about the case is available online at: http://www.catchthefire.com.au/.

The information regarding the mistranslation is on page 50 of the witness statement, a copy of which I enclose. As Mr. Durie states, the Arabic at e4.3 is mistranslated as follows:

This is translated by Nuh Hah Mim Keller as follows:
“Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)”

However what the Arabic actually says is:
“Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off thepiece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called HufaaD).”

This deceptive translation obscures the Shafi’i law, given by ‘Umdat al-Salik, that circumcision of girls by excision of the clitoris is mandatory. This form of female circumcision is widely practiced in Egypt, where the Shafi’i school of Sunni law is followed.

The above quotation can be found on page 50, Witness Statement of Mark John Durie, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/Witness%20Statement.pdf.

Bribing people to convert to Islam

p.270, h.8.14

THOSE WHOSE HEARTS ARE TO BE RECONCILED

h.8.14 The fourth category is those whose hearts are to be reconciled. If they are non-Muslims, they are not given Zakat, but if Muslims, then they may be given it (O: so that their certainty may increase, or if they are recent converts to Islam and are alienated from their kin).

Those to be reconciled include:

(1) the chief personages of a people (O: with weak Islamic intentions) whose Islam may be expected to improve, or whose peers may be expected to enter Islam;
(2) or the heads of a people who collect zakat for us from Muslims living near them who refuse to pay it, or who fight an enemy for us at considerable expense and trouble to themselves.

Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father

p. 522, m3.13

GUARDIANS WHO MAY MARRY A VIRGIN TO A MAN WITHOUT HER CONSENT

m3.13 Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.

(1) The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride’s father or father’s father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

(2) Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.

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.

Arab Racism

p. 523, m4.2

m4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another:

(1) a non-Arab man for an Arab woman (O: because of the hadith that the prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“Allah has chosen the Arabs above others”)

Beating a rebellious wife is permissible

p. 540, m10.12

DEALING WITH A REBELLIOUS WIFE

m10.12 When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz, dis: p42) (O: whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (O: without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, “Fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me,” or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, “Your obeying me [def: (3) below] is religiously obligatory”). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (O: and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (A: bruise her,), break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (O: It is unlawful to strike another’s face.) He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may not hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness.

The Discriminatory Treatment of Non-Muslims in a Muslim State - Dhimmitude

pp. 607-609

o11.0 NON-MUSLIM SUBJECTS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE (AHL AL-DHIMMA)

o11.1 A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

(1) Jews;
(2) Christians;
(3) Zoroastrians;
(4) Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;
(5) and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

o11.2 Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:)), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the pseudoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha’is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4).)

o11.3 Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);
(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya).

THE NON-MUSLIM POLL TAX

o11.4 The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

o11.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

(1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;
(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
(3) are not greeted with “as-Salamu alaykum”;
(4) must keep to the side of the street;
(5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;
(6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
(7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

o11.6 They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days (when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

o11.7 A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

o11.8 It is obligatory for the caliph (def: o25) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

o11.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

o11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

(1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;
(2) conceals spies of hostile forces;
(3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;
(4) kills a Muslim;
(5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

o11.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

The Punishment for Apostasy is Death

p. 109, f1.3

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 concensus (ijima’, def: b7) and which is necessarily known as being of the religion (N: necessarily known meaning things that any Muslim would know about if asked) thereby becomes an unbeliever (kafir) and is executed for his unbelief. (O: if he does not admit he is mistaken and acknowledge the obligatoriness or unlawfulness of that which is there is scholarly consensus upon. As for if he denies the obligatoriness of something there is not consensus upon, the he is not adjudged an unbeliever).

Military Jihad against non-Muslims is a communal obligation

pp. 599-603

O9.0 Jihad

(O [the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: 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), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad,

“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);

(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);

(3) “Fight the idolaters utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O [the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”

and Allah Most High having said:

“Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good” (Koran 4:95)

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they [i.e. Muslims (poster’s note)] are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.

The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever can.

0.9.2 Jihad is personally obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines (A[comment by Sheikh ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi]: and to flee is an enormity) (O[the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one’s mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force).

0.9.3 Jihad is also (O[the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: personally) obligatory for everyone (O[the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O[the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for the non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A[comment by Sheikh ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi]: the above mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way is possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible.

WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD

Those called upon (O[the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.

….

THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

0.9.8 The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N[comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman]: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) – which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself – while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O[the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O[the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9:29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“I am the last, there will be no prophet after me.”

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)).

0.9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: [the following is an excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat]: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya)) (n [remark of the translator]: though according to the Hanafi school, people of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi (y21), 6.48-49)).

Lying is permissible in a time of war

PERMISSIBLE LYING

R8.2 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.”

This much is related by both Bukhar and Muslim, with Muslim’s version recording that Umm Kulthum added,

“I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A [comment by Sheikh ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi]: in smoothing over differences).”

This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, who says, “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 telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N[comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman]: i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. … Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do so; it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But it is religiously more precautionary in all such cases to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying, while the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer, though even if one does not have such an intention and merely lies without intending anything else, it is not unlawful in the above circumstances.”

Why do Muslims not just admit that the above things are part of their intellectual tradition, renounce them and try to convince other Muslims that these parts of their tradition are shameful? They have done similar things in the past, in that they have, for the most part, renounced slavery (although it is still practiced in the Sudan and elsewhere apparently). Why instead do they deny that these things are part of their intellectual tradition? Would a Catholic deny the Inquisition? Would a Catholic deny the persecution of Galileo for his beliefs? Would the German people deny the Holocaust? Why is it that Muslims should get a “pass” for the shameful things that are part of their religious tradition. And needless to say, where the Shariah is in effect, the above-outlined things are not part of the past, they are the bitter reality. Ask the Christian Copts in Egypt, the Christians in Pakistan, the Christians in the Sudan, the Christians in Nigeria what they think of Dhimmitude.

Muslims’ constant protestations that their religion only professes peace and good will towards their fellow humans will ring hollow and insincere until:

1. Muslims spend as much time trying to protect the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries as they do trying to protect and expand their own rights in Western countries; and,
2. Muslims spend as much time trying to convince their fellow Muslims that Islam means peace and that offensive jihad against non-Muslims is wrong and not part of their religion as they do trying to convince non-Muslims that Islam means peace.

Nothing against your message, Mentat, but there is such a thing as information overload. Not to mention it's basically offtopic.

I would like Robert to delete both of our posts, and I hope that you would be willing to trim your post down to pertinent data and retry.

This must be a huge mistake. Those two were engaged in an inner struggle against nations deemed hostile to Islam. Perfectly harmless stuff. Jihad means inner struggle, Islam is the religion of peace.

Let freedom ring: Mentat, you type too much. You won't find many buyers for the crap you're trying to sell. Please stop taking up so much text space with your Islamotrash

Now....on topic, CAIR said it was suing Anti-CAIR in order to protect their reputation....This should help preserve their good name quite nicely. Bye Mr. Royer.....I hope they put you in a cold, damp, dark cell, feed you pickled pigs feet, and room you with a 300 pound sexually deprived lifer, and stick you on a chain gang.

Good bye, terrorist.

The sentencing of these two men would add strong
support for the defense in the CAIR vs ANTI-CAIR
lawsuit.

The link is to Al mujihauron, a radical muslim group in England. If you respond by email to their incendiary treasonous abuse of free speech they will block any further access by you to their site. I sent them by opinion and have since been unable to view their site.

Mike H

Hood Jihadi: Do you know that it is increasingly common for women to have the hood pierced and a ring inserted in a similar way to an ear piercing.

What the hell does your post got to do with the topic in here?

Hood Jihadi: "Al mujihauron" works for the British intelligence services. They operate to attract extremist Muslims, use them and then hand them over to the police. That is why they are allowed to roam free in Britain.

Hooded Jihadi- yes I and others had plans to wack Omar Bakri but a cornish nationalist on the inside said they were our boys.....

Maybe you should wack Bakri as he is a traitor to Islam?

Cornishtani: Maybe you should wack Bakri as he is a traitor to Islam?

Hood Jihadi: Is he not the only DSS case with police guards and a regular appearance on page three of Jew Media? They must send him back to the alcoholic Mubarek, then I will leave the west to torture the lame man.

Susan, unfortunately you ae correct. I guess the Muslim men don't want the Muslim women doing what the men do. After all in their society a man can have multiple wives, a wife cannot have multiple husbands. Sexual mutilation is also a way of insuring subjugation and obedience. To them a woman is jsut a piece of property, a vessel to be owned, used for breeding, not allowed to enjoy sex. Truly these people are barbarians.

"I have since found out that the text above was deliberately mistranslated. The mistranslation was brought to my attention through my reading the witness statement of Mark Durie, Senior Associate with the title of Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics of the University of Melbourne, Victoria, who makes this statement for the respondents, Catch the Fire Ministries Inc, and Pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scott, who are the subject of a complaint brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria Inc. in the State of Victoria, Australia. As far as I can determine, the complaint was brought by the Islamic council simply because the respondents had the temerity to tell the truth about Islam."

Dr Mark Durie does not read or write Arabic. His expertise is in Linguistics and his only exposure to Islam was when he was doing his pHd on the Grammar of Aceh, Indonesia. Arabic and Acehnese are not the same language. He is also not an expert in Islam as he claims or others have claim him to be as highlighted in the court case he is involved in. There is also the problem of his involvement in the case and acting as an independent witness for the defendents.

My dear "Disappointed Christian":

If you have a disagreement about the facts, then state it. Otherwise please refrain from substanceless personal attacks.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Disappointed Christian:
Thanks for the very interesting information. I did not know Mark Durie did not know Arabic. I thought that it was his area of study. If he does not read or write Arabic, how does he know it has been mistranslated?