| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald comments on the slippery Sistani fatwa:
In the various Muslim websites of the "Ask Mr. Fatwa" or www.islam-online type, one of the Most Frequently Asked Questions from Muslims living in the Lands of the Infidels is: "Do I have to obey the laws of these Infidels"?The answer given, very gingerly, is: "You may obey any laws of the Infidels that do not contradict Islam."
The clear implication is that you have no duty to obey the laws of the Infidel nation-state in which you have been allowed to settle or in which you live, none at all, if those laws somehow are seen to contradict Islam.
And this, of course, is how those Muslim websites, in English, give advice now, after having become well aware that Infidels are monitoring them. Since all Muslim groups are keenly aware of the need to watch out for those pesky prying Infidels, they do not go on to spell out all the ways in which Infidel laws -- manmade laws, laws that are made without reference to Allah, the sole source of authority, of legal and political and every other kind of legitimacy for a Believer -- are flatly contradicted by the Shari'a.Nor is it only a question of laws, of the kind that regulate some areas of behavior through norms and sanctions. Islam offers a Complete Regulation of Life. It goes far beyond what any non-Muslim legal system does.
Furthermore, outside the hearing and viewing of those Infidels, another attitude and other kinds of advice are given by at least some clerics. The hukm (not fatwa, I was recently reminded) against Rushdie is a clear call to commit murder, as a righteous and rewardable act, by a Muslim or Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels. That has the full weight of Muslim (Shi'a) authority.
Many Muslims appear to regard the Lands of the Infidels as, by right, theirs -- they need only wait, and wait, for the right demographic changes. Bruce Bawer describes a Muslim cleric in Norway telling his followers that they could steal as they wished from the Infidels, for this was not theft -- it was helping themselves to the Jizyah that they had every right to demand. That attitude, that it is licit, even admirable, to take the property, or have one's way with the women, of the Infidels, is certainly reflected in the criminal statistics in every single European country, where Muslim crime kicks the beam. If 70% of the rapes in Scandinavian countries are committed by Muslims who make up 2-3% of the population, is one not entitled to draw certain conclusions? If 50% or more of the prisoners in France are Muslim when they make up 10% of the population, yet Islam supposedly offers them those family values and stability that Muslim groups like to talk about when pretending they have something, anything, in common with "conservatives" (see the sly appeal, for example, by the young Turk -- not Young Turk-- Mustafa Akyol), are we supposed not to notice?
What is most telling, what is most amazing, what must never be forgotten, about the Sistani fatwa is that Muslims living in the West are being told, in the view of uncomprehending and misreporting Infidels, by a cleric living in Iraq, that they may, that they should, obey the laws of Canada if they live in Canada, but only insofar as Muslim values are "not ridiculed." This is really a milder, clever version of the statement to be found every day at Muslim websites in answer to queries from Muslims Who Want to Know: "You may obey the laws of the Infidel land in which you happen to live [seldom is the particular country specified -- why should it be? What does that distinction matter to Muslims?] as long as those laws do not contradict Islam in any way." Al-Sistani's formulation -- you should obey the local laws of the local Infidels [in this case those of Canada] "insofar as Islamic values are not ridiculed" is softer in expression, with possibly just a little leeway in that phrase "Islamic values" rather than the flat-out appeal to the Shari'a.
But here we are. 2006, and in Canada, some are pleased that a cleric who lists as "unclean" or "najis" at his official website "blood, spit, excrement, semen and Infidels" should be hailed for his "moderation" and his generous concession. How nice of him to tell Canadian Muslims who follow his views that they should, whenever "Islamic values are not ridiculed," take the trouble to obey those Infidel laws, of that Infidel state of Canada.
No doubt Canadians should be grateful to Al-Sistani. How nice of him, and how nice of those Muslims in Canada who will heed him, and try to obey those laws -- just so long, of course, "Islamic values are not ridiculed." And that formulation, of course, depends on just how thin-skinned and quick to take offense Muslims are -- we saw the mass riots and boycotts and threats of murdering every single Dane, the reaction to the publication of twelve largely anodyne cartoons. What else might be taken to offend or violate or "ridicule" Islamic values?
At least Sistani did not say, as Muslim clerics and individual Muslims have said (in Norway as mentioned above and elsewhere), that they are entitled to take property from the Infidels as Jizyah due them. At least he did not say they could do what they wished with those Western women, whose dress apparently makes some Muslims conclude that they deserve what they get (see the "Lebanese" -- i.e. Lebanese Muslim -- gang rapes in Sydney a few years ago).
Worse and still worse.
Posted by Robert at June 15, 2006 9:27 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
There's special exemption clauses for Mujahedin "travellers" - provided a jihadi is only temporarilly visiting infidel lands and intends to return home at some later date, they're excused from salaat and halal obligations... I couldn't cite scripture, but if this is correct certain "secularised" Moslems might not be as innocuous as they seem.
And was it Khomeini who wrote that livestock feces only become najis if the hapless creature is molested... how generous. After reading that I stick to the falafel kebabs.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 15, 2006 10:27 AM
Animus,
One more reason for sticking to falafel kebabs.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_rape_murder_trial_hits_the_bbc_headlines/
The story of Charlene Downes is not carried by majority of the media. Her trial came up in March this year, but the media is ignoring it. This 14 year old was raped, killed, was made into burgers and kebabs, and served to infidels by muslims.
at June 15, 2006 11:07 AM
Here is a manmade law worth considiring and applying in all societies:
1) No person shall be permitted to enter the United States from any nation or country that does not accord full and equal rights, including the free and public practice and teaching of religious beliefs, as well as freedom of conscience to those persons who have no religious belief. Federal, state and local authorities shall have appropriate power and funding to enforce this legislation.
Why tolerate Muslim intolerance in Saudia Arabia and other Muslim countries? It's time to close the door to these nurseries of intolerance. We must make the necessary sacrifices of oil to protect our freedom. As Lincoln said, "Necessity tells us what the right thing to do."
Public opinion is ready to move in this direction. Muslims don't seem realize how many people are offended by their intolerance, the absence of full equality of religious rights in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, the Muslim demands for rights which they will not accord others, and the charge that they are victims of discrimination.
Posted by: Frank at June 15, 2006 11:13 AM
As a Muslim I see the obey civic laws drafted by "non-Muslims" so long as they don't oppose the teachings of Islam like Christians in the Civil Rights Movement who broke laws in a tradition we now call "civil disobedience". It has nothing to do with doing harm to the society you live it, but it has to do with upholding higher moral values sometimes ignored by unjust civic laws.
Peace!
at June 15, 2006 11:14 AM
Did someone get the hang of what this enlightened is trying to put across ? The voltage must be way down, cos I can't see no light. Somebody enlighten me.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 15, 2006 11:27 AM
Arjun, moral equivalence ping.
You see, Christians peacefully disobeyed laws that they thought were immoral during the Civil Rights Movement (on the order of Ghandi, nonviolent resistence).
He is implying that Muslims will only (1) disobey laws that are immoral and that should be changed, and (2) that they will do it peacefully.
Of course, number one means the institution of sharia law and the destruction of our entire immoral infidel constitutional republic, and number two is a baldfaced lie.
at June 15, 2006 11:35 AM
Treehugger,
Thanks. From your explaination, No. 2 seems to be 'peaceful da'wa' that naseem rants about.
at June 15, 2006 11:47 AM
The answer given, very gingerly, is: "You may obey any laws of the Infidels that do not contradict Islam."The clear implication is that you have no duty to obey the laws of the Infidel nation-state in which you have been allowed to settle or in which you live, none at all, if those laws somehow are seen to contradict Islam.
Actually, it seems there is no duty to obey those laws even if they don't. Sistani doesn't say:
"You should obey any laws of the Infidels that do not contradict Islam."
He says:
"You may ...
This is as much as to say that there is no harm in obeying laws that don't "contradict Islam" but that the Muslim is not positively enjoined to.
This is as much as to say refrain from jumping a red light if you please, but be sure to murder an "apostate", contrary to the laws of Canada, if you are able to.
at June 15, 2006 11:47 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
Should infedel laws be obeyed?
In an infedel country , should you choose to live in that country...the answer is an implicit YES.
And I know that many muslims and wuslims have a grudging respect for laws that are fair to all.
What would not be so acceptable are the unwritten laws....like having christian assembly in schools...like learning RE at schools which only asks you sing to "while shepards wash their socks by night" etc.
Laws are there for justice and public safety and the continued support and expansion of the teachings of Allah.
I would welcome laws that support this expansion ...such as muslims allowed to marry more than one woman.
Posted by: Naseem at June 15, 2006 12:00 PM
I believe we must clarify what Mr. Enlightner means by "immoral" and "oppose" (as in "so long as they don't oppose the teachings of Islam"). Semantic renderings are a useful arrow in the taqqiya quiver.
So, Mr. Enlightner,
Is an infidel law "immoral" at any point it does not parallel Sharia? Is this what you mean by "oppose"? Do you differentiate the morality of infidel laws that
1) limit Sharia "freedoms" (e.g. polygamy; thanks, Naseem) from those that
2) exclude a Sharia freedom (e.g. domestic abuse), or do you speak only of those that
3) dictate practices not allowed by or contradict Sharia? And what about those those "immoral" infidel laws which
4) limit the expansion of Islam (separation of powers) or guarantee the rights of infidels to continue violating Sharia.
That is, if Islam says you may have four wives, will you self-limited to one, just because jahiliya says so? Will you refrain from beating your wife, even with a toothbrush, because the kafir says it is haram? I'm straining for an example of (3), but how about if you are required to keep yourself at your desk working instead of going to raise your rump to the sky?
Do you feel BOUND by our laws, or are you merely acquiesing, deferring, humoring us, feigning assent?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at June 15, 2006 12:08 PM
Every creation is needy for Allah and depends on Allah while Allah is the one who is not needy; he has no partner in his kingdom and has no assistant, and needs no support. Therefore we should know that Allah does not need any of his creation to intercede through anybody else because he is the only one who can grant that Shafa’ah. Unless he gave permission, nobody can intercede.
The Shafa’ah is the means and the request; it is Waseelah. The Shafa’ah also means customarily,
"To ask for good things for others
(SO WHAT GOOD IS MOHAMMAD...WHY DO YOU KILL OVER CARTOONS OF A MAN?) http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/Deen/tawheed1/shafaah.htm
at June 15, 2006 12:11 PM
What would not be so acceptable are the unwritten laws....like having christian assembly in schools
What makes you think that the 1944 Education Act in the UK (to which you seem to be referring), which mandates an daily act of Christian worship in schools, was unwritten? What was it then? Scratched in hieroglyphics on clay tablets?
It is, however, widely ignored:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4552382.stm
Posted by: Yojimbo at June 15, 2006 12:20 PM
Naseem,
"I would welcome laws that support this expansion ...such as muslims allowed to marry more than one woman. "
Have you ever heard of the saying, " When in Rome, do as the Romans do? "
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 15, 2006 12:45 PM
I would still prefer more than "When in Rome...", when our guests have an obligation, and in cases of citizenship, have taken an OATH to uphold our laws. I would like Naseem and Enlightner to state whether they are bound by these obligations and oaths (and what that would mean to them), or do they perform taqiyya and merely feign them?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at June 15, 2006 1:16 PM
Um . . . guys?
Christianity also teaches that its followers may not obey civil laws when they contradict the law of God.
Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at June 15, 2006 1:21 PM
DominvusVobiscum:
Kindly enumerate some of those Laws of God which Christians would place above the laws of the land.
at June 15, 2006 2:10 PM
patriot4,
I think you concede the point too quickly. Review Romans 13 and Titus 3:1.
Except for Matthew 10:23 (feel free to find others), the admonitions to civil disobedience are quite passive (refuse circumcision (as salvific), don't deny the deity of Christ), etc.) and otherwise accept martyrdom as being counted worthy. There are no New Testament commands to burn embassies, behead, rape, etc., when "persecuted" (actually persecuted, not merely hindered or offended, which is assumed).
Matthew 5:11-12 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Therefore, I invite Enlightner and Naseem to
A) fulfill Matthew 10:23 and flee "persecution" back to their Islamic paradise, or
B) fulfill Matthew 5:11-12, and quietly persevere in the lands they find so oppressive and stifling.
"When in Rome...."
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at June 15, 2006 3:33 PM
I do believe Christians are called to respect those in authority as well as pray for them. True civil disobedence has been praticed by Christians, but only and I mean only the laws were in full unjust, such as when it came to segregation in the American south in the 50's and 60's for example. Otherwise Christians are called to honor those who are our rulers and to pray for them.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 15, 2006 3:53 PM
I think the reference to the notion that Christians are empowered to disobey laws contrary to the will of God refers to hypothetical situations for example where a state requires worship of a false god (allah is a reasonable example) instead of Christ. Another example would be where Christian german people in the second world war harboured jewish people against the law, to save their lives....
Posted by: payingattention at June 15, 2006 4:33 PM
DominvusVobiscum
Are there laws of God other than the 10 Commandments that Christians would have to place above the laws of the land?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 15, 2006 8:17 PM
Infidel Pride: "Are there laws of God other than the 10 Commandments that Christians would have to place above the laws of the land?"
Its an interesting question especially in the light of the fact that western liberal democracies were founded upon Judeo-Christian principles in the first place.
So it would seem that mnay of our laws are actually in sync with those principles:
(a few that come to mind and loosely paraphrasing here):
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (which is why I assume witnesses in a court of law swear on the Bible before giving their testimony.)
One example that comes to mind of Christians having to put the 10 commandments above the law of the land would be in the case of a military draft in which a Christian could assume the status of a conscientious objector on the grounds that this requirement of the state violates the commandment not to kill.
Those are just random thoughts. No expert on this topic here by any means. But it is interesting to reflect on the impact of admitting Muslims into our society in terms of the third example (false witness) - and how central this assumption about not lying is to the functioning of our political system (which depends on the rule of law) and how problematic it could prove were not everyone to share that basic assumption.
Posted by: Caroline at June 15, 2006 8:34 PM
The fundamental law of the United States is the Constitution. Since Islam explicitly rejects just about every concept of governance within that document, in particular the Bill of Rights, Islam and Muslims should be banned from U.S. territory.
Islam is not a religion. Respecting no laws other than its own, it is an aggressive, intolerant, and inhumane ideology designed to conquer territory and subjugate populations under fascist governance.
Any practicing Muslim who takes the oath of citizenship, which requires that he "support and defend the Consititution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," is, by definition, a liar.
Posted by: Stendec
at June 15, 2006 10:43 PM
Islamisbad,
Romans 13:1-7
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2013&version=31
at June 15, 2006 10:51 PM
Islamisbad-
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's."
That effectively allows secular government for Christians.
The pedophile "prophet" of Islam censored Jesus' sayings that were incompatable with his imperialistic, despotic, worldly aims, trapping Mohammedans in a permanent theocratic police state.
Anyone who values human freedom opposes Islam.
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 16, 2006 12:10 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)