There are currently 1 user and 29 guests online.
Linz's Mario Book—Updated!
Who Should Be the Republican Nominee?
Total votes: 20
The Five Pillars, Sharia, and Apologists
Submitted by Richard Wiig on Mon, 2010-09-13 11:51
SOLO’s resident Islamic apologist claims that Islam is the five pillars - that is: Shahada (the monotheistic statement that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger); Salah (daily prayers); Zakat (obligatory charity); Sawm (fasting); and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) - and that is where Islam ends. When Osama Bin Laden and his ilk violently fight for Islam, they are not practicing Islam, according to the apologist. It would be nice if that was true. It would mean that, at the very least, Muslims everywhere would be outraged at the misuse of their religion, but that clearly isn’t the case.
It’s true that practice of the five pillars is core to Islam, but in themselves they are nothing but mind-numbing exercises in rote obedience, exercises that can only serve the purpose of softening the mind for further content. Where is this content to come from? Is it to be Islamic, and come from the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sunnah, or from somewhere other than Islam? The answer is clear to all who care to see.
When we look beyond the Five Pillars we find: the Qur’an (the unchangeable word of Allah), the Hadith and Sunnah (the living example of Islam’s Prophet) and Sharia, or Islamic law, codified from the ideas contained in the former two. Sharia was codified by Islamic scholars after the death of Muhammad at the behest of Islams early Caliphs’ (after which the Caliphs had them killed) and it has been institutionalised and entrenched ever since. Sharia is Islam and Islam is Sharia.
A statement from an apologist: “What Al-Qaeda practices is not Islam but terrorism.”
Al Qaeda certainly practices terrorism, as the Qur’an and Sharia commands them to do, but it doesn’t do so merely for the sake of terrorism. The goal of Al Qaeda, and all other Jihadists, violent and non-violent, is to advance Sharia. This cannot, in any sense, be considered the advancement of something-other-than-Islam. It is, Islam, and it is institutionalised to varying degrees by every Muslim state, and infused on a personal level thoughout the entire Islamic culture. One of the clearest examples of this is the personal outrage and push from across the entire Islamic world for the West to bow to Sharia blasphemy laws over the Danish cartoons, and presently over the burning of Qur’ans.
Apologists love pointing out that only a few Muslim countries practice Sharia in full. That is, however, irrelevant. Islam is Islam whether practiced by halves or by wholes. A Christian in Pakistan, persecuted, jailed, perhaps even murdered, for blasphemy, does not care that Pakistan isn’t a fully fledged Sharia state. In 1990 forty-five Muslim countries signed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Article 24 of that Declaration states that it is “subject to the Islamic sharia”. Article 25 states that Sharia “is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of this Declaration.” Clearly, there is no such thing as human rights in Islam, at least not as understood by any Western conception of the term.
The more one delves into Sharia the more filth it reveals. Here’s a few examples from Nonie Darwish’s book, “Cruel and Usual punishment”:
From the Shaf’i school
“There is no expiation (punishment) for killing someone who has left Islam, a highway man, or a convicted married adulterer, even when someone besides the Khalifa kills him”
“A criminal, even if repents, will not be spared from punishment except for the crime of Hiraba.”
Hiraba, as the explanation section states:
“means violation of public safety by disrupting law and order due to attack of a united group. Plunder of property, rape, murder, and bloodshed is included in this.”
That is, it supports vigilante mobs acting in the defense of Islam, such as the mobs that rioted and murdered over Danish cartoons.
The mentality for that is set up with Qur’anic teachings and Hadith such as this:
”Whoever sees something wrong and accepts it is as though he had committed it.”
In regards to blasphemy, every school of Islamic law mandates death. Blasphemy is considered an act that makes a believer an unbeliever, which amounts to apostasy. Shafi’ law has 442 acts in section w.52 that are classified as “Enormity” (horror acts). Here are a couple:
o.8.(7): to deny any verse of the Holy Qur’an
o.8.(19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred law.
o.8.(20) to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world.
In regards to apostasy:
There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die)
The testimony of apostates is not admissible.
An apostate does not inherit from muslim parents
Marriage to an apostate is immediately dissolved if the spouse is and remans Muslim.
This is a tiny sampling, but enough to see that Sharia is to be imposed from the bottom up as much as from the top down. It is a license to every would-be thug, heartless malcontent or just plain pious believer who cannot tolerate anything outside of a lockstep conformity. It is a license to the worst in people - a sanction to jealousy, envy, greed, vindictiveness, fear.
Another statement from an apologist:
“The lip-service which AL-Qaeda pays by referring to 1500 year old verses, doesn't make it Islamic organization. Ask Osama bin Laden where last time he performed Hajj? To sit in some cave in Afghanistan and to send stoned jihadists to commit suicide missions mainly against Muslims is not Islam.”
That comment can stand for itself. I’ll simply say that if apologists didn’t pay lip-service to Islam, then they’d know better, and that the best of Muslims knows that the apologist is no better than dead meat.
“No Muslim should be killed for killing an unbeliever”
More SOLO Store
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand