Misinformation on Shariah from the Center for American Progress

On 31 March, the leftist Center for American Progress (CAP) released a document called Understanding Sharia Law. In that document, the authors asserted that "conservatives’ skewed interpretation" of Sharia law "needs debunking." It is actually the Center for American Progress that exhibits profound confusion when it comes to Shariah.

The fact is, Shariah is the enemy threat doctrine in the war being waged by the Jihadists against the rest of the world. CAP’s irrelevant assertion that Shariah is "not static" and that there is "no one thing called shariah," notwithstanding, the most ridiculous evidence that CAP cites to attempt to put Americans at ease about what is essentially a barbaric code of life is that: "Sharia is overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting, and not with national laws."

Before we get into the actual evidence refuting CAP’s enabling of the enemy threat doctrine by declaring it benign, we first should analyze the gist of CAP’s analysis of shariah. By declaring that shariah is not static and that there is no one shariah, they have essentially made any interpretation or analysis of shariah impossible. According to this theory, anything that paints shariah in a negative light can be declared either outdated or not accepted by Muslims.

Unfortunately for CAP, we have written evidence that contradicts their salacious statements about the Jihadists’ threat doctrine.

That evidence comes in the form of a book called Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Originally written in 1368 by Islamic scholar Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, the book was translated into English by Nuh Ha Mim Keller in 1991. It has since been reprinted 5 times and is available on Amazon.com for anyone to purchase.

Lest you think that a book written 700 years ago has no bearing on today, think again. Reliance of the Traveler is one of the world’s most widely circulated references on the shariah law that CAP basically claims does not exist and the organizations that have endorsed it are hardly fringe elements.

The first several pages of the book contain endorsements by Islamic authorities from across the Muslim world: Abd al-Wakil Durubi (Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha, Damascus, Syria); Nuh Ali Salman (Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces); Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani (President of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Member of Islamic Fiqh Academy at Jedda, President of the Fiqh Council of North America); and Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar (General Director of Research, Writing and Translation, Al Azhar Islamic Research Academy, Cairo, Egypt).

The IIIT is one of the most influential Muslim juridical organizations in the entire world. The Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jedda is one of the most influential educational institutions in the Muslim world for shariah scholars. And the Fiqh Council of North America serves in a similar capacity for the US and Canada. But none of these can compare to Al Azhar in Cairo. Al Azhar is nothing less than the premiere Islamic university in the entire world.

Reliance makes allowance for the various fiqhs, or schools of shariah jurisprudence under Sunni and Shia Islam and provides an amalgamation of them for reference. Here are excerpts of what this authoritative work on Islamic sacred law has to say about several vital issues according to Shariah law:

Charging One’s Wife With Adultery

Public imprecation consists of the Islamic magistrate telling the husband to repeat four times,"I testify by Allah that I am truthful in charging her with adultery" though if she is present he says,"this wife of mine," and points to her. The fifth time, after the magistrate warns him, enjoins him to fear Allah, and after he has put his hand in front of the husband’s mouth, the husband adds,"And may the curse of Allah be upon me if I am lying."

When the husband has done this, …his wife is divorced from him…She is now liable to be punished for adultery.

 

Dealing With a Rebellious Wife

When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife, he warns her in words 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."

If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her.

It is not lawful for a wife to leave the house except by permission of her husband, though she may do so without permission when there is pressing necessity. Nor may a wife permit anyone to enter her husband’s home unless he agrees, even their unmarriageable kin. Nor may she be alone with a nonfamily-member male, under any circumstances.

It is obligatory for a wife to obey her husband as is customary in allowing him full lawful sexual enjoyment of her person.

Jihad and The Rules of Warfare

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the world mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

 

The Obligatory Nature of Jihad

Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

… He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad.

… Jihad is personally obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines provided one is able to fight.

… Jihad is also obligatory for everyone able to perform it, male or female, old or young.

 

The Rules of Warfare

It is not permissible in jihad to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. It is permissible to kill old men, meaning someone more than forty years of age and monks.

… When a child or woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture and the women’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

 

The Penalty for Theft

A person’s right hand is amputated, whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam.

… If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then his left hand; and if he steals again, then his right foot.

 

Apostasy from Islam

Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, "Trim your nails, it is sunna," and he replies, "I would not do it even if it were."

… When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

… 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 consensus and which is necessarily known as being of the religion thereby becomes an unbeliever and is executed for his unbelief.

 
There are many other examples in the 1200+ page book and I urge everyone to obtain a copy of Reliance of the Traveler yourself to verify the truly all-encompassing nature of Shariah to see if the Center for American Progress is correct in the assertion that "Sharia is overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting, and not with national laws."

To close out this article and to offer further evidence of Shariah as the enemy threat doctrine, I offer these quotes from some infamous, but not insignificant, Muslims about the importance of Shariah to their Jihad. For one reason or another, their view of Shariah does not match that supposed by the Center for American Progress. We ignore their views on Shariah at our peril.

 Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda Ideologue:

• The sharia has forbidden us from taking infidels as confidants, inducting them into our secrets.
• The sharia forbids us from appointing infidels to important posts.
• The sharia forbids us from adopting or praising the beliefs and views of the infidels.
• The sharia forbids us from assisting infidels against Muslims; even the one who is coerced has no excuse to fight under the banner of the infidels.
• The sharia commands us to battle infidels–both original infidels and apostates, as well as hypocrites. As for waging jihad against the infidels who have usurped the lands of Islam, this is a duty considered second only to faith, by ulemaic consensus.
• The sharia does not accept the excuses made by hypocrites–that they befriend the infidels because they fear the vicissitudes of time.
• We are duty-bound by the sharia to help Muslims overcome the infidels.
• Democracy is based on the principle of the power of creatures over other creatures, and rejects the principle of God’s absolute power over all creatures; it is also based on the idea that men’s desires, whatever they may be, replace God absolutely, and on the refusal to obey God’s law. In Islam, when there is a disagreement or a difference of opinion, one refers to God, his Prophet, and the commands of sharia.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hizballah: 

• From the point of view of ideology and sharia, we are required to establish God’s rule over any part of this earth, regardless of particularities and details. This can only happen, however, if the nation adopts this ideology and safeguards it.

Ayatollah Khomeini, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979-1989)

• The laws of the shari’a embrace a diverse body of laws and regulations, which amounts to a complete social system. In this system of laws, all the needs of man have been met: his dealings with his neighbors, fellow citizens, and clan, as well as children and relatives; the concerns of private and marital life; regulations concerning war and peace and intercourse with other nations; penal and commercial law; and regulations pertaining to trade and agriculture.
• Reason also dictates that we establish a government in order to be able to ward off aggression and to defend the honor of the Muslims in case of attack. The shari’a, for its part, instructs us to be constantly ready to defend ourselves against those who wish to attack us. 
• It will be the duty of the Muslims to engage in an armed jihad against the ruling group in order to make the policies ruling society and the norms of government conform to the principles and ordinances of Islam.
• If the enemy attacks the lands of the Muslims or their borders, it is the duty of all Muslims to defend them by any means possible, including the sacrificing of one’s life and the expenditure of one’s wealth. With respect to this matter, there is no need to seek the permission from a shari’a judge.

Osama Bin Laden, founder of Al Qaeda

• Regarding which shared understandings, exactly, is it possible that we agree with the immoral West?… What commonalities, if our foundations contradict, rendering useless the shared extremities-if they even exist? For practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under sharia law. As for this atmosphere of shared understandings, what evidence is there for Muslims to strive for this? What did the Prophet, the Companions after him, and the righteous forebears do? Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover "shared understandings" between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations would spread-in such a satanic manner as this? The sharia provides a true and just path, securing Muslims, and providing peace to the world.
• …Offensive Jihadis (are) an established and basic tenet of this religion. It is a religious duty rejected only by the most deluded. So how can they call off this religious obligation [Offensive Jihad], while imploring the West to understandings and talks "under the umbrella of justice, morality, and rights"? The essence of all this comes from right inside the halls of the United Nations, instead of the Divine foundations that are built upon hating the infidels, repudiating them with tongue and teeth till they embrace Islam or pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission and humility…. Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread sharia law to the world-that and nothing else. Not laws under the "umbrella of justice, morality, and rights" as understood by the masses. No, the sharia of Islam is the foundation.
• They say that our sharia does not impose our particular beliefs upon others; this is a false assertion. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others.
• Thus whoever refuses the principle of terror[ism] against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His sharia.