返回新站                                                                                                                                                                      返回总目录 James M. Arlandson: What is Shariah? - Jihad Watch

James M. Arlandson: What is Shariah?

2 What Is Shariah?
Its Two Main Foundations: the Quran and Hadith
by James M. Arlandson, Ph.D.

This series of articles about Islamic shariah law is intended for educators, journalists, judges, legislators, city council members, government bureaucrats, think tank fellows, TV and radio talk show hosts, and everyone else who occupies the “check points” in society; they initiate the national dialogue and even shape the flow of the conversation – they are the decision and policy makers.

They have heard the critics of shariah and believe the critics exaggerate. The intellectual elites may even believe the critics are “Islamophobes.” Islam is a world religion, so it deserves respect, after all.

Yet the elites may also have gnawing doubt that the critics are at least partially accurate. Can they be all wrong, all the time? The elites have heard disturbing reports coming out of the Islamic world, and even in their own world.

Defenders of shariah post articles online seeking to allay the secret doubts of the intellectuals. This series quotes extensively from the defenders. The apologists seem to have one main goal in mind: to communicate the message that there is nothing wrong with shariah.

As to the purpose of this present article, it defines the terms and identifies the major legal scholars.

We begin with the Quran and hadith, the two main sources or foundations of shariah, and then move on to shariah itself.

Table of Contents:

THE QURAN

HADITH

SHARIAH

“CLASSICAL” AGE

CONCLUSION

 

THE QURAN

Islam flows out of the life, words, example and revelations of Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, messenger, or apostle, sent from Allah. The revelations he got from his deity were mainly recited on the mosque pulpit in Medina. Some of the earlier ones were cited in various places in Mecca, like the Kabah shrine where the black stone is housed, or in the marketplace.

Then he moved to Medina in A.D. 622, because the Meccans were going to kill him. But the revelations did not stop. He recited them in various places like the marketplace, on his travels, and in the mosque itself.

They were written down in the Quran several decades after he died. Since they came directly from Allah, the Quran is sacred and inspired. It is binding on all Muslims, if they interpret it correctly.

The Oxford Dictionary of Islam says the Quran is:

. . . The book of Islamic revelation; scripture. The term means “recitation.” The Quran is believed to be the word of God transmitted through the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran proclaims God’s existence and will and is the ultimate source of religious knowledge for Muslims. The Quran serves as both record and guide for the Muslim community, transcending time and space. Muslims have dedicated their best minds and talents to the exegesis and recitation of the Quran because the Quran is the criterion by which everything else is to be judged; all movements, whether of radical reform or of moderate change, whether originating at the center or at the periphery of the Islamic world, have grounded their programs in the Quran and use it as support.[1]

What is so striking about that excerpt is that the Quran transcends time and place. It is cross-cultural and ahistorical; that is, it is applicable to any society today and in the future. The second feature in the excerpt is that the Quran judges all movements of change and reform.

The Quran was written in a time (the seventh century) and a place (Arabia, and specifically the Hejaz or western Arabia). To believe that every verse can be brought forward and applied to the modern world means that the reform of Islam is very difficult.[2] The Quran is a very conservative book, religiously speaking, to say the least.

THE HADITH

However, not everything Muhammad did or said made it in the sacred book. In fact, most of what he did or said did not make it in. But he had close companions and others who remembered his words and deeds.

Soon after his death they loved to tell stories about him. “I remember what Allah’s messenger said in this situation.” Or “we were with Allah’s apostle when we fought the pagans at such-and-such battle.” “The prophet ruled that this or that action should be punished or forgiven.” These are the oral traditions, handed down from one generation to the next.

Eventually, some conscientious Muslim scholars observed that the traditions may have been distorted and grew to be unreliable and unsound or were never reliable or sound in the first place. The scholars sifted them by requiring a chain of narrators to be of utmost integrity and honesty.

Did the traditions contradict clear verses in the Quran? Then they were rejected. Yet there still are some passages which contradict statements of the Quran; occasionally hadith are even abrogating the Quran. One example is the hadith of stoning the adulterers which takes priority over the verse of the Quran which demands flogging. Nonetheless, most hadith were rejected if they contradicted the Quran.

Next, were the various passages embarrassing? They were suspect – too bad since embarrassing ones may have the chance of being the most reliable, because a devout and reliable Muslim of authority would never frivolously pass on a tradition that he believed would embarrass his prophet, so the transmitter believed it was true.

In any case, collectors and editors wrote them down in their books, and this body of writing is called the hadith, which may be defined briefly as the reports and narrations and traditions of Muhammad’s deeds and words that take on a sacredness and a binding force. Sometimes they report on the words and deeds of his closest companions who carry their own special authority.

In addition to that brief definition of the hadith, let’s find a more official one. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam says:

Hadith: Report of the words and deeds of Muhammad and other early Muslims; considered an authoritative source of revelation, second only to the Quran (sometimes referred to as sayings of the Prophet). Hadith (pl. ahadith; hadith is used as a singular or a collective term in English) were collected, transmitted, and taught orally for two centuries after Muhammad's death and then began to be collected in written form and codified. They serve as a source of biographical material for Muhammad, contextualization of Quranic revelations, and Islamic law. A list of authoritative transmitters is usually included in collections. Compilers were careful to record hadith exactly as received from recognized transmission specialists... The science of hadith criticism was developed to determine authenticity and preserve the corpus from alteration or fabrication. Chains of authority and transmission were verified as far back as possible, often to Muhammad himself. Chains of transmission were assessed by the number and credibility of the transmitters and the continuity of the chains (isnad). The nature of the text was also examined. Reports that were illogical, exaggerated, fantastic, or repulsive or that contradicted the Quran were considered suspect. Awareness of fabrication and false teaching has long existed but became a major issue in academic circles in the twentieth century due to early reliance on oral, rather than written, transmission. Traditionally, the body of authentic hadith reports is considered to embody the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad.[3]

In the New Encyclopedia of Islam Cyril Glassé, a Muslim, says that the hadith traditions form the foundation of Islamic law and there was the need to write them down so the community could refer to them:

The Hadith were accorded the role of basis of law in Islamic jurisprudence by the universally accepted methodology of ash-Shafi'i [see below]. It then became inevitable that as Islam unfolded in History, the need for the tangible support which Hadith could provide for intellectual and cultural developments called forth the "missing" or "unspoken" Hadith that were now required. If in the first centuries the standard by which Hadith were measured was that of an impeccable isnad, the growing needs of an expanding Islam of later times added de facto another, one of verisimilitude in the eyes of a developed and sophisticated religious community.[4]

Then Glassé says that great care was taken by reliable hadith editors and collectors to get the traditions right.

The collections of Bukhari and Muslim were scrupulously compiled in the first two and a half centuries of Islam. Their authenticity was assured by the criterion which the people of the time found most valid, that of an authoritative isnad, or chain of transmission. The method was based on the assumption that it was unthinkable for God-fearing men to lie about matters which they held sacred; each human link in the chain vouchsafed the others. If in the isnad there were persons whose integrity could be doubted for any reason, however small, the authenticity of the Hadith was to that extent weakened. Biographical study also served to establish the plausibility of the transmissions. Naturally, fabricated Hadith also had fabricated isnad, but criticism of the matn [text of the hadith] would be equivalent to dogmatic discussions of Islam itself – thus analysis discussions turned around the isnad, but often as euphemism for a discussion of the contents.[5]

As noted, Bukhari[6] (d. 870) and Muslim[7] (d. 875) are considered the most reliable, with Bukhari carrying the most weight. We also occasionally use Abu Dawud[8] (d. 875), another authentic collector and editor.[9]

SHARIAH

Shariah, sometimes spelled sharia or even shareeah, is Islamic law derived from the Quran and the hadith.[10] With these two sources it is no wonder that many Muslim jurists, indeed the average Muslim, believe that shariah is divine.

And if it is divine, then it must be the foundation of Islamic nations and wherever Islam becomes dominant. It must be implemented, gradually if a nation is non-Islamic and constitutionally if it is. But before we go too far down the path toward the purpose of shariah, we need to formally define it.

We begin with the word “shariah” in the Quran. The three-letter root of shariah is sh-r-‘ and its verb form can mean, among other things, “to lay down law, to ordain, to enact (a law)” (Quran 42:13, 21).[11] In its two noun forms (shariah and shirah) it can mean “an open way, a clear way, a right way . . . a Divine law, an access” (Quran 5:48; 45:18).[12]

Moving on to other sources, we find that the Concise Encyclopedia of Islam define shariah as “the road to the watering place, the clear path to be followed, as a technical term, the canon law of Islam.”[13]

The Dictionary of the Holy Quran adds that the verb and noun forms signify, “establish a law, appoint a religion ... law or institution prescribed by God; right way or mode of action ... system of divine law; way of belief and practice.”[14]

These definitions imply that shariah is a whole way of life.

Expanding on shariah’s literal definitions, the Oxford Dictionary of Islam says:

Two terms are used to refer to law in Islam: shariah and fiqh. Shariah refers to God's divine law as contained in the Quran and the sayings and doings of Muhammad (hadith). Fiqh refers to the scholarly efforts of jurists (fuqaha) to elaborate the details of shariah through investigation and debate. Muslims understand shariah to be an unchanging revelation, while fiqh, as a human endeavor, is open to debate, reinterpretation, and change.[15]

Next, Islamic law comes from Allah, but it is found in historical contexts, but despite the human interaction with Islamic law in history, it is divine and absolute. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam says:

Allah's law is not to be penetrated by the intelligence ... i.e. man has to accept it without criticism, with its apparent inconsistencies and its incomprehensible decrees, as wisdom into which it is impossible to enquire. One must not look in it for causes in our sense, nor for principles; it is based on the will of Allah which is bound by no principles, therefore evasions are considered as a permissible use of means put at one's disposal by Allah himself. Muslim law which has come into being in the course of time through the interworking of many factors, which can hardly be exactly appreciated, has always been considered by its followers as something elevated, high above human wisdom, and as a matter of fact human logic or system has little share in it.[16]

However, Islamic law, though having a divine origin, can be explored, in order to find the most suitable ruling and interpretation. Yet Islamic scholars must not put too much stress on theory. Instead, shariah, as we just observed in the Dictionary of the Holy Quran, comprises all areas of life and society, including tolerated faiths, if they are not “detrimental to Islam.”

In that light, the Concise Encyclopedia of Islam continues:

A modest enquiry into the meaning of the divine laws so far as Allah himself has indicated the path of enquiry is, however, not prohibited. There is therefore frequent reference to the deeper meaning and suitability ... of a law. But one must always guard against placing too much stress on such theoretical considerations. For this very reason, the [shariah] is not "law" in the modern sense of the word, any more than it is on account of its subject matter. It comprises, without restriction, as an infallible doctrine of duties the whole of the religious, political, social, domestic and private life of those who profess Islam, and the activities of the tolerated members of other faiths so far as they may not be detrimental to Islam.[17]

Despite shariah’s divine origins and its intention to swallow up all aspects of life and society, there is wiggle room, so to speak.

As noted, fiqh is the science of applying and interpreting shariah, done by qualified judges and legal scholars. Over the first two centuries after Muhammad’s death in A.D. 632, four main Sunni schools of fiqh emerged, led by these scholars: Malik (d. 795), Abu Hanifah (d. 767), Shafi’i (d. 820), Ibn Hanbal (d. 855). They in turn had students who added their own opinions to those of their teachers, even many generations after the founding jurists lived.  In other words, fiqh is open to interpretation, and it is not necessarily binding outside of a court of law.

In this series of articles we keep track of a few differences between the various schools, but mainly we will observe the remarkable unanimity on how to implement divine Islamic law. It is this consensus in various rulings, like death or imprisonment for apostates, which implies that we should not take this “wiggle room” too far.  When a shariah judge rules in his courtroom, the decree is indeed binding.

THE “CLASSICAL” AGE

A quick note before we begin the series in earnest: the designation “Classical” is used in the articles. We don’t need a complicated definition.

For our purposes it begins with the death of Ali (the fourth caliph and Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law) in A.D. 661 and goes into the fourteenth century when the law books and commentaries were still flourishing. Especially noteworthy is the eight century when the earliest extant biography of Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq (d. 767), and the ninth century when the oral traditions were gathered, edited, and written down into various volumes, now known collectively as the hadith.

The time before Ali’s death will be known in this series as “original Islam.”

CONCLUSION

Shariah is divine Islamic law that has its roots in the Quran and the traditions (hadith) about Muhammad. Since Allah inspired the Quran, and Muhammad lived the perfect life in conformity to the Quran, shariah is believed to have a divine origin.

However, interpreting shariah is not divine, but can be changed and reinterpreted.

Maybe it is here that we can hold out hope that Islam can evolve and fit into the modern age. But it will be very difficult to reinterpret shariah laws that are based squarely on clear Quranic laws. So we should not be naïve or overly optimistic about the reform of Islam; it certainly will not happen overnight, and maybe not even in our lifetime.

ENDNOTES

[1] The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, ed. Jonathan Esposito (New York: Oxford UP, 2003), 256.

[2] The series does not explain the Bible and how to interpret it properly, especially the interrelations between the Old and New Testaments, law and grace. But readers may be curious about it. If so, they may click on my two studies: How Christ Fulfills the Old Testament and How Christians Benefit from the Old Testament. Christianity does not bring every verse in the Old Testament forward to the world today. There are hermeneutical (interpretive) principles that guide Christians.

[3] The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, 101-02.

[4] Cyril Glassé, The New Encyclopedia of Islam, rev. ed., (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1991), 161.

[5] Ibid. 160.

[6] Bukhari, Sahih Bukari, 9 vols. trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Riyadh: Darussalam, 1997). Cited as Bukhari, this edition is used throughout this series of articles. We will reference it by the book title, the volume in the nine-volume set, and the hadith number, which are placed sequentially. So, for example, Marriage, 7.5204 means the Book on Marriage, vol. 7, hadith no. 5204. The hadith are searchable online at the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, under the aegis of the University of Southern California.

[7] Muslim, Sahih Muslim, 4 vols., trans. and ed. Abdul Hamid Siddiqi (Lahore, Pakistan: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1992), throughout this series of articles cited as Muslim, and then the same standard referencing system applies: book title, volume number, and hadith number.

[8] Abu Dawud, Sunan Abu Dawud, 3 vols., trans. Ahmed Hasan (Lahore, Pakistan: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1984, 2004), throughout this series cited as Abu Dawud, and the same standard referencing system applies: book or section title, volume number, and hadith number.

[9] There are six so-called sahih (sound) hadith collectors: the three named in this article and Abu Isa Muhammad at-Tirmidhi (known as Tirmidhi) (d. 892 or 915); an Nasai (d. 915); and Ibn Maja (d. 886) (Cyril Glassé, The New Encyclopedia of Islam, rev. ed., [New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1991], 159).

[10] The other two sources, consensus and analogical reasoning, take us too far afield and into needless complications for our purposes, but sometimes we will note the consensus of the Muslim legal scholars.

[11] Hannah E. Kassis, A Concordance of the Quran, Los Angeles: UCP, 1983), 1142.

[12] Ibid.

[13] H.A.R. Gibb and J. H. Kramer, Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, (Leiden: Brill, 1953), 524.

[14] Abdul Mannan Omar, Dictionary of the Holy Quran (Hockessin: Noor Foundation, 2003), 287, with a few mechanical adjustments, like lower case letters instead of upper case or punctuation.

[15] Oxford Dictionary, 148.

[16]  Gibb and Kramer, Concise Encyclopedia, 525.

[17] Ibid.

James M. Arlandson has written a book: Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity. He has recently completed a series on The Sword in Early Christianity and Islam.

| 14 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

14 Comments

| Leave a comment

I think there are many who comment here who know a good deal more and are more realistic about the topic, ie there's virtually NO hope of reforming Islam to suit our tastes. Even if there were "hope" I think we have to prepare for the worst: all those soldiers of Allah brandishing weapons are not mucking around, neither are the fiery imams.

"I think there are many who comment here who know a good deal more and are more realistic about the topic"

PJG,

Recall that this series is for educators and jurists who likely know nothing about Islam. If it began uncompromisingly, and did not concede any possibility of change, however dim, the intended audience would simply not read it or take it seriously.

They may not anyway. But, at least here is a series of informative articles on Sharia, a bedrock foundation of Islam, which is accurate, and which clearly communicates the inflexible nature of Islamic danger to anyone who reads it seriously.

We are not as far along as England, or Holland, or Austria, or France, or even England, where rational criticism of Islam is pretty much criminalized. It is vital to begin a reasoned discussion of Islam itself in the public domain. Once a discussion begins, Islam will pretty much expose itself. There is no way to examine real Islam without coming off horrified.

Therefore, any series of articles such as these by Arlandson, is hugely beneficial.

What's disturbingly compelling is that the Koran or the Hadith, must not be questioned in any way.

Is this a written principle in the Koran or the Hadith ? or is it a rule tought by man ?

There are verses in the Quran that essentially say that, but even if there weren’t, it would be an inherent property of the ideology anyway simply because of Islam’s unique structure. The Quran purports to be a book written by Allah – literally -- and it is mostly just a laundry list of specific instructions, rules and admonishments, and it says that the punishment for disobedience is eternity in hell. If one is a believer in all of that, and wishes to avoid hell, there really isn’t any room for questioning.

Thank you TM,

Your answer makes sense, believe what you read or suffer the consequences for not believing it. A dismal prospect that inhibits faith and enslaves the mind.

I think this section was well done. A couple of minor issues:

"One example is the hadith of stoning the adulterers which takes priority over the verse of the Quran which demands flogging. Nonetheless, most hadith were rejected if they contradicted the Quran."

That's not so much an instance of abrogation (in the sense of canceling or overruling) as an instance of specification. The Quran is often vague, general, ambiguous, and incomplete. The verse 24:2 states that the punishment for zina (illicit sexual intercourse) is flogging of 100 stripes, but it doesn't literally distinguish between fornication and adultery. The hadith do make the distinction, indicating that the 100 stripes mentioned in the Quran (and banishment for a year, mentioned in the hadith) is for fornication, whereas stoning to death (mentioned explicitly only in the hadith) is for adultery.

"Maybe it is here that we can hold out hope that Islam can evolve and fit into the modern age. But it will be very difficult to reinterpret shariah laws that are based squarely on clear Quranic laws. So we should not be naïve or overly optimistic about the reform of Islam; it certainly will not happen overnight, and maybe not even in our lifetime."

I think there are at least two things needed here. First, we (Islam critics) ought to give some indication of the probability of (positive) reform, beyond saying it will be very difficult and so on. Since there has been no significant reform that benefits non-Muslims in the entire approximately 1400-year history of Islam, and since the current trends in the Islamic world are all heading towards more and more strict and comprehensive sharia and shutting down of freedom of expression and so on, that the probability of a positive reform is so remote that we can consider it for all practical purposes ruled out.

Second, as hinted at in my above paragraph, any such reform would have to be in a positive direction in regards to treatment of non-Muslims and women, where "positive" is defined in terms of modern Western values such as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, equality of all people in the eyes of the law, equal opportunity, genuine democracy, valuing of hard work and entrepreneurship, and so on. There is no guarantee that reform would be in just this direction that westerners might hope for; rather, reform may more likely be in a direction that is negative for non-Muslims. (Indeed, one may consider the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, for examples, to be Islamic reformists. The recently-reported fatwa wherein a Muslim jihadist was permitted to allow other jihadists to sodomize him to widen his anus so that he could insert a great volume of deadly explosive to be used in a terrorist attack is a type of Islamic "reform"--no pun intended).

To summarize, reform of Islam is extremely unlikely, and still more unlikely to be positive for non-Muslims if and to the extent that it did occur. We (non-Muslims) can therefore rule it out as a practical consideration; we must instead work with the far more credible assumption that Muslims by and large will not reform Islam in a way that makes it positive and harmless toward non-Muslims. Islam is a large and growing threat to the whole world, and it will be up to non-Muslims to reduce and reverse this trend.

I wrote "Since there has been no significant reform that benefits non-Muslims in the entire approximately 1400-year history of Islam..."

...by which I mean internally driven reform. Obviously, there are points in Islamic history where temporary outside pressure from the West, for example, served to reduce fanatical and abhorrent elements of Islam--temporarily.

Arlandson writes:

"Nonetheless, most hadith were rejected if they contradicted the Quran."

He offers no evidence for this sweeping generalization. In fact, someone far more learned than Arlandson about the subject indicates that his claim is inaccurate:

Professor Chibli Mallat wrote:

“...none [of the 4 schools of Islamic law] would disagree with the statement attributed to the Syrian jurist Awza’i (died 774 a.d.) that the Book [the Koran] is in greater need of the sunnah than sunnah is of the Book.”

Source:

“Islamic to Middle Eastern Law a Restatement of the Field (Part I)” by Chibli Mallat, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn, 2003), p. 724

Why is this important? Because the inaccurate impression that is reinforced, that the Koran is the be-all and end-all of Muslim thought and behavior, can often help Muslim sophists tap-dance their evasive way out of the mountain of grotesque barbarities and violent fanaticism enshrined in the sahih hadiths, simply because "it's not in the Qur'an" -- as though Muslims limit themselves to the Qur'an, and are not, rather, positively bound by and slavish admirers of the outrageously hideous and dangerous hadiths and of all the Sharia lawmaking and laws that depend on them (not to mention all the fatwas and "answers" clerics give in their "Islamic Q&A" to so many millions of Muslims seeking anxiously fanatical "advice" on everything under the Sun from what shampoo is haram to how to beat one's wife to whether it's okay to have sex with your goat to finding artful ways for women to work alongside males who are not her family members by allowing them to suckle on her teats, and on and on and dry-heavingly on...).

I'm not sure if Chibli Mallat is a Muslim or a Lebanese Maronite Christian. The Wikipedia page on his father, Wajdi Mallat, notes that ...he established Mallat law offices [in Lebanon] in 1949. As a lawyer, he defended celebrated cases in Lebanese modern advocacy, winning landmark judicial victories on behalf of the Vatican and the Beirut Maronite Church.

If Chibli is the latter, I have yet seen no title among his published works that would disabuse me of the suspicion that he's pretty much a Useful Dhimmi if not a flaming stealth Islamochristian (as Hugh Fitzgerald has defined that term he coined): i.e., either way, it would be prudent to suspect him of being a stealth jihadist. (If "flaming stealth jihadist" sounds self-contradictory, it's only because the West is currently so stupid about the danger of Islam that stealth jihadists (Muslims or Dhimmis) can pretty much operate in full view without raising an eyebrow.)

At any rate, Chibli Mallat is no academic slouch; his CV indicates a solid scholarly career:

Princeton, 2006-7

Yale law school, 2005-2006

Virginia Law School, 2006, 2008

professor in the law department of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London (where apparently he received his PhD in 1990), and Director of its Centre of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law,

EU Jean Monnet Chair of European Law and Director of the Centre for the Study of the European Union at the University of Saint Joseph, Beirut, and SJ Quinney

Presidential Professor of Law and Professor of Law and Politics of the Middle East at the University of Utah.

A look at his published work is also impressive:

http://www.mallat.com/articles/Prof%20MallatPublications_linked_2012.pdf

http://www.mallat.com/index7.html


Shariah (my bold): The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam says:


Allah's law is not to be penetrated by the intelligence ... i.e. man has to accept it without criticism, with its apparent inconsistencies and its incomprehensible decrees, as wisdom into which it is impossible to enquire. One must not look in it for causes in our sense, nor for principles; it is based on the will of Allah which is bound by no principles, therefore evasions are considered as a permissible use of means put at one's disposal by Allah himself.

This is a complete fallacy that Allah's law cannot be penetrated by intelligence but must be accepted (on faith) without criticism. This is the logic of cults, tyrants, potentates, abusive parents, psychopaths, but especially Cults. Combine "cult power" with "tyrannical potentate" and you have powerful mix of Political Power and feigned religiosity. "Believe or else" rules with fear of punishments and death. Stand back and think…. Is this not what Islam and Sharia is all about? Primitive to the max?

Muslims can't even prove anything wrong in their Koran/Hadith/Sharia, because they are not allowed to used their 'intelligence'! (except to invent clever lies to deceive Kufr) Ultimate Catch-22, checkmate! The primitive 7th century "slaves of Allah"/Muhammad/Uthman are allowed ONLY to obey in unquestioning 'submission'. It addles the brain! Allah's law is the ultimate Catch-22.

For those who slept through high school lit class, here is what Catch-22 is about:

"The phrase "Catch-22", "a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule.""

Kinda resembles Allah's law, no? Your right to question, or to intelligently reason, is inherently denied in Allah's texts by his uncompromising rule, as so stated.

Battle,

You quote a passage from "The Concise Encyclopedia Of Islam" I assume it was authored by someone who has compiled interpretations that Islam's diety is not to be questioned for the various reasons given therein.

The intent of my original question was to learn if text similar to the above subject paragraph, exists in the Koran. What I'm driving at is wheather or not It's the word of their diety or an embellished understanding thereof ? How can you take the Koran literally, if it tells you, don't try to understand it ?

Mine on Shariah was from the "continue reading" part.

@Domenick: "What I'm driving at is wheather or not It's the word of their diety or an embellished understanding thereof ? How can you take the Koran literally, if it tells you, don't try to understand it ?'

Allah is not to be questiioned per Q 4:11. So Mohammad had to 'invent' a sura to cover the Quraysh tribe's refusal to believe him. This is indicative of a Cult leader who, like an abusive parent, answers them "because I said so!" … So to answers yours, yes, it is in the Koran. Of course, all Islam scholars latched onto it like ducks to water, since it gives them absolute authority. (Ours is not to reason why) Also Q 5:101 has basic tenet laid out:

(O ye who believe!) This was revealed about Harith Ibn Yazid who asked the Prophet (pbuh)-when the verse (And pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind) was revealed: “Is it once every year, O Messenger of Allah?” So Allah forbade him from asking such questions, and started by addressing him with (O ye who believe!), (Ask not) your Prophet (of things) that Allah has relieved you of (which, if they were made known unto you) if they were made obligatory upon you, (would trouble you; but if you ask of them) if you ask of the things that you were relieved of (when the Qur’an is being revealed) when Gabriel brings down the Qur’an, (they will be made known unto you) they will be made obligatory upon you. (Allah pardoneth this) this questioning, (for Allah is Forgiving) of the one who repents, (Clement) vis-à-vis your ignorance.

So you are 'pardoned' by Allah/Mohammad?Uthman if you 'repent' for asking (obvously a stupid question!), basically that old Islamic demand for a groveling "apology"… Where have we heard that before?

Believe and obey… or else.. Hell fires in next life, killed in this one. Catch-22! ... Again!!

Thank you Battle.

Your reponse, pretty much sums it up for me. It's a man made contrivance, dictating blind obedience enforced with both fear and the remission of sin.

"So we should not be naïve or overly optimistic about the reform of Islam; it certainly will not happen overnight, and maybe not even in our lifetime", says the writer.

Or...... At all. Right?

What sort of 'chance(s)' should we take with, for just ONE example, our Freedom of Speech, say, to allow the progeny of our Present-Day Civilization-Murderers to evolve, in an unknown future, to just our present level of Civilization?

I'd say, on an individual basis, one "chance".

After that, either incarcerate for life or kill 'em: male (especially) or female.

R-iiii-g-h-t!!!

I agree: How to look into the eyes of Jesus with the killing of a female on my heart. So, ok, incarcerate them, unless they offer resistance with a weapon, I guess... But, we're going to lose some good people as we try to decide, in an instant, on capture or shooting back.

Darn Christian sentimentalism: l;-]...

Leave a comment







Did Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer
Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


New book examine's Islam's questionable originsSIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» Right Wing News
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator!iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter