The Sword & Shield to Stop the Islamization of America

God's Gift of Unalienable Rights & Article VI of the Constitution:


The Sword & Shield to Stop the Islamization of America


By Publius Huldah Monday, September 20, 2010


This is an encouraging paper, because it explains the moral and constitutional justifications to stop the Islamization of our country.



We face a grave threat - the Muslims are infiltrating our country and taking over. We seem powerless to resist: Our governments won’t acknowledge the threat; we are told Muslims have “constitutional rights” to come here, proselytize everywhere build mosques, and implement shariah in their communities and in the public square; and our governments are letting them do it.

The Muslims seek to replace our Constitution with shariah - their totalitarian political, economic, military, social & legal system - with the goal of incorporating our Country into a global Islamic caliphate. They are making progress in islamicizing our Country because we are not resisting.

And the dreadful message we are getting from all sources is that our Constitution renders us powerless to resist Islamization.

But read on, and I will show you how our Constitution & Declaration of Independence - properly understood - actually give our federal, State & local governments justification and authority to stop the Islamization of our Country. Once we understand two things, it becomes clear what we may - and must - do:

One: Islam is not a “religion” in the sense we understand religion. Islam is about TOTAL POWER. It is a system which controls every aspect of the lives of those who have the misfortune to be subjected to it. It masquerades as a religion, but once we understand that it is just another totalitarian system - like soviet communism, we can deal with it and defeat it.

Once in place, Islam is enforced with stone-age barbarism. It masquerades as a religion to recruit gullible fools who become suicide bombers, and to provide “cover” for officials in the Western countries who, indoctrinated with the Lies of multiculturalism & political correctness, look for an excuse to do nothing.

Two: We must understand Our Founding Principles - these are our Sword & Shield - that

(1) Rights come from God alone,
(2) Muslims do not have the right to divest us of our Rights, and
(3) the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights God gave us.

Now let us learn more of our Sword and Shield.

1. Let us first consider Our Rights. What are our rights, and where do they come from? The Constitution? The First Ten Amendments? NO! The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ...

Those words are golden: Our Rights come from God Who Created the Universe; and the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

● God gave us many Rights: Life! Liberty! Pursuit of Happiness!
To work and enjoy the fruits of our own labors. To earn, inherit and keep private property.

● To demand that the civil authorities obey the Law - and to hold them accountable when they don’t.

● To have a civil government which protects our God given rights, protects us from invasion and criminals, but gives fair trials to accused persons.

● Equal treatment under the law: Courts are not to favor the rich, or the poor, or males or females.

● God means for us to enjoy life! Healthy food, wine and strong drink (in moderation); attractive dress for women, the marriage relation between man & woman, prosperity, and liberty!

As long as we obey the criminal laws (don’t murder, steal, bear false witness, and the like), we have the right to be left alone.

Liberty is the rule in God’s Model for civil government. That is why our Liberty Bell quotes Leviticus 25:10 - “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.”

2. Do Muslims respect the rights God gave us?

Life? Theirs is a culture of death: murder, honor killings & suicide bombers.

Liberty? Theirs is a culture where women are slaves and prisoners, little girls toys for old men, and conversion to Christianity a capital offense.

Pursuit of Happiness? Theirs is a culture of torture & sadism. Young Muslim girls in America who talked to non-Muslim boys were shot to death by their father in the back seat of his taxicab. Wife-beating is commonplace. Women who don’t cover their hair are lashed. Women are mutilated and maimed on the faces and even in their private places.

Freedom of Speech? Theirs is a culture where criticizing Islam leads to a terrible death.

You can go down the list: For every Right God gave us, the Muslims take it away.

Let’s look at just one God-given right: The Right to a fair trial:

Bearing false witness is condemned. (The Ten Commandments); The evidence of two or more witnesses is required to prove a case (Deut 19:15 & Matthew 18:16); Public trials are required (Exodus 18:13); & Judges are required to be fair, impartial, & without favoritism. (Deut. 1:16-17).

Do Muslims respect this God-given right to a fair trial? NO! In Iran, judges in “morals” cases (adultery) are allowed to make their own subjective determinations that a person is guilty even in the absence of any evidence!

Do Muslims have the “right” to impose in this Country a shariah system which takes away the rights GOD gave us? No! God did not give Muslims the “right” to take away from us, the rights He gave us!

3. We are told Muslims have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here. But is that what the First Amendment says? No! Let’s read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment doesn’t grant any rights to anybody! All it does is prohibit CONGRESS from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly!

So Muslims do not have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here.

4. Not only do Muslims claim the “right” to impose shariah in the Muslim communities springing up throughout our Country, they also claim the “right” to impose shariah law in the public square: They demand shariah compliant financial institutions, foot baths in public places, that wine, sausages, and the like be banned from their presence, that they be allowed to shut down public streets for “prayers”, etc.Do Muslims have the “right” to apply their law here? No! Art. VI, clause 2 of Our Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

OUR Constitution and laws authorized by OUR Constitution are the supreme law of this land - and anything to the contrary must fall. It violates Our Constitution for Muslims to practice shariah here! Muslims who thus seek to overthrow Our Constitution and replace it with shariah are guilty of criminal sedition. The federal government has the duty to prosecute them for sedition - or deport them.

5. Can the federal or state or local governments properly extend to Muslims a “right” to build mosques & proselytize here? No! Because The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us. Muslims to take away our God-given Rights. Civil government is supposed to protect us from those who seek to divest us of our Rights.

We must insist that our federal, State, and local governments STOP the islamization of Our Country. We must insist that they live up to the one legitimate purpose of civil government: to protect our GOD-given rights.

6. WE are a Christian Country based on Judeo - Christian principles. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not require us to permit Muslims to take Our Country over and destroy Our principles and impose their barbaric totalitarian system on us.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes God as Creator, supreme Judge and Regulator of the World, and as our Divine Protector.

Article VII of Our Constitution, just above the signatures, recognizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It says,

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven ...

7. So! Let us summarize the above three Principles:

(A) Our Rights come from God - they predate & preexist the constitution. our constitution doesn’t give “rights” to anybody. so muslims don’t have “constitutional rights” to come here, build mosques, proselytize, and impose shariah.

(B) All the Evidence shows that Muslims take away from People the Rights God gave them. Since Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges that the purpose of civil governments is to secure the Rights GOD gave us, it is the duty and responsibility of civil governments at all levels to protect us from islamization.

(C) Article VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution - the “Supremacy clause” - makes it unconstitutional for Muslims to practice shariah law ANYWHERE in Our Country.

8. The Center for Security Policy recently issued a scholarly (but readable) report: “Shariah: The Threat to America”. Important suggested policy changes are listed on pages 141-144. Tell your Tea Party groups! Take delegations to your local, state, and federal representatives and tell them about it. Most of them are weak and ignorant, so you must educate them and demand that they do their job and defend your community from Islamization.

9. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders lists ten steps western countries must take to stop the islamization of their countries. All ten steps are mandated by our Declaration of Independence, and consistent with our Constitution:

(1) Stop cultural relativism: We must formalize the Idea that we have one dominant culture that is based on Judaism & Christianity [Wilders adds “humanism”].

(2) Stop pretending that Islam is a religion.

(3) Show the true face of fundamentalist Islam. It is a brutal totalitarian ideology.

(4) Stop all immigration from Muslim countries. For Muslims who are already citizens, tell them that if they adhere to our values and our Constitution, they may stay as equals. But if they deviate, we will expel them.

(5) Outlaw shariah and deport practitioners.

(6) Require Muslims to sign legally binding pledge of integration and allegiance.

(7) Stop building mosques.

(8) Seek reciprocity with Saudi Arabia for western churches & synagogues.

(9) Close all Islamic schools - they are fascist institutions teaching hate.

(10) Remove our current weak leaders.

It is time to boldly stand up for Our God, OUR Declaration of Independence, and Our Constitution, and say, “No!” to those who are taking over Our Country. It is time to use Our God-given unalienable Rights and Our Constitution as the Sword & Shield they are meant to be. We can and must use these to defeat Islamization.
.

THE ANTI - CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTER OF SHARIAH

The 177-page report itself is entitled: “Shariah, The Threat to America, An exercise in competitive analysis ( Download in pdf format ) from Family Security Matter

As a nation, we have lost our understanding of America’s founding principles and as a result have become increasingly ill-prepared to defend the superiority of those principles. This puts us at a distinct disadvantage in being able to identify, let alone understand and confront, hostile doctrines – both foreign and domestic – that are in conflict with our own. The result of this combination of confusion and lassitude is that, in the face of shariah’s violent and stealthy jihadist assaults, our peace and prosperity are at risk to the point where the core tenets of our nation – and ultimately its very existence – are in jeopardy. In this context, it is worth reexamining America’s founding principles and their incompatibility with the doctrines of Islam, especially those political, military and judicial doctrines embodied in shariah.

The Founding Documents

The authoritative statement of America’s founding principles is the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration defines the most fundamental of these in this brief, yet sweepingly comprehensive, passage: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In conformity with the Declaration, the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble is similarly clear in the declaration of its purpose: “[To] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Note that “We the people” create the Constitution; the Constitution does not create “the people.” “The people” as a founding entity were constituted through the voluntary act of consenting to the principles of the Declaration. In creating the Constitution to secure natural rights and liberties, the people acted in their sovereign capacity.

Such is the basis of American government, rooted in “the laws of nature and nature’s laws.” Noted historian Harry Jaffa explained how the principles of the American founding were derived from a combination of reason and revelation:

What we call Western civilization is to be found primarily and essentially in the confluence of the autonomous rationalism of classical philosophy and the faith of biblical religion….The unprecedented character of the American Founding is that it provided for the coexistence of the claims of reason and of revelation in all their forms, without requiring or permitting any political decisions concerning them. It refused to make unassisted human reason the arbiter of the claims of revelation, and it refused to make revelation the judge of the claims of reason. It is the first regime in Western civilization to do this, and for that reason it is, in its principles or speech (leaving aside the question of its practice or deeds), the best regime.391

Separation of Church and State

America’s doctrine of separation of church and state exemplifies this balance. Popularly viewed as a secular doctrine, it actually has its basis firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian biblical scriptures such as “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men”392 and “Render unto to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”393

Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786, exemplifies this concept:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our Religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His Almighty power to do.

As the Virginia Historical Society explains:

Jefferson considered the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom as one of his three greatest achievements, ranking it with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia. According to the Virginia History and Government Textbook Commission, which was created by a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in its 1950 session, “Virginia was the first sovereign commonwealth, state, or nation in all the world to proclaim by law entire freedom of religious belief or unbelief.”394

Tolerance in America Versus the Quran

This brief examination of American principles establishes that American principles are principles of liberty are rooted in mutual toleration. It follows that, in the United States, liberty was never intended to tolerate the intolerant and its citizens were never intended to tolerate totalitarian doctrines. Put differently, intolerant, totalitarian doctrines are in direct conflict with the stated purpose of American government “to secure these rights [endowed by their Creator].”

Even a fairly superficial reading of the Quran and other primary source documents of shariah reveals that it is a political-military-legal doctrine, rather than a religion as defined by the American standards mentioned above. The prominent Islamic scholar Abdul Mawdudi concurs with this assessment, saying: “But the truth is that Islam is not the name of a ‘Religion,’ nor is ‘Muslim’ the title of a ‘Nation.’ In reality, Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals.”395

Shariah is, moreover, a doctrine that mandates the rule of Allah over all aspects of society. Specifically, in contrast – and fundamentally at odds – with the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, shariah holds that God did not create the mind free, but in subservience to the will of Allah (as detailed in shariah). The condition of human beings is submission to Allah, not freedom.

Intolerance towards Apostates

As noted elsewhere in this report, one particularly clear-cut inconsistency of shariah with the rule of law pursuant to the U.S. Constitution is shariah’s requirement that apostates be killed. Quran 4:89 says, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” According to Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Mohammed declared, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.”396 Clearly, such direction is incompatible with the Constitution’s First, Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections.

Virtually every provision of the U.S. Constitution can be juxt a posed with shariah practices that are in violent conflict with America’s foundational laws.

As noted in the next Chapter of this report, a minimum standard of professional competency for America’s political elites and national security professionals demands that they understand the enemy’s threat doctrine. To the extent that that doctrine is wholly incompatible with the Constitution, it is, moreover, a violation of their oaths of office if they fail to defend the latter.

The Founders and Islam

America’s earliest presidents best understood our founding principles. They were not only deeply involved with their formal adoption. They were professionally competent. When confronted with an Islamic threat, they took the effort to consult primary sources and to conduct competent analysis of that threat. The first Muslim member of the House of Representatives recently made a spectacle of being sworn in on a copy of the Quran, rather than the Bible. He deflected some criticism by using one owned by Thomas Jefferson. Unremarked in all the controversy that ensued was the reason why our third President came to own a Quran.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England, met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates of Tripoli to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the demands for tribute being made at the time by the so-called Barbary Pirates. Afterwards, Jefferson and Adams sent a four-page report to the Congress describing this meeting. The relevant portion of their report reads:

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

After this, Jefferson read the Quran in order to know his enemy. That knowledge of his adversary led to his doctrine of “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”

John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams, offers further insights into the early presidents’ views on this subject. Like many Americans, he took an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, when faced with an Islamic enemy, he understood his obligation to be educated on the factual aspects of the principles, doctrines, objectives, jurisprudence and theology of shariah that comprised his enemy’s threat doctrine.

John Quincy Adams’ 136-page series of essays on Islam displayed a clear understanding of the threat facing America then – and now, especially from the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad anddhimmitude.397 Regarding these two topics, Adams states:

…[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind….The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God.

The vanquished [dhimmi] may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.” As the essential principle of [Mohammed’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Quran. The document [the Quran] does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them – the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions.

The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war – it has softened the features of slavery – it has humanized the intercourse of social life.

The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.398

As we have seen in chapter two, Adams’ analysis of the meaning of jihad is validated in the English language translation of the authoritative 14th Century text, Reliance of the Traveller – A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.399 This book reveals in its opening Chapter on Jihad:

o9.0 – Jihad. Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.…The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Quranic verses as: (1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Quran 2:216); (2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Quran 4:89); (3) “Fight the idolaters utterly” (Quran 9:36); …I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed 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 rights of Islam over them.

In conclusion, it is clear from the writings of several of our earliest presidents, as well as the texts of the nation’s founding documents, that American principles are not at odds with – and imperiled by – some “radical” or “extreme” version of Islam. Rather, it is the mainstream doctrine of shariah that constitutes the threat to the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines.

That incompatibility has several practical implications: For one thing, the shariah legal code cannot be insinuated into America – even through stealthy means or democratic processes – without violating the Constitution’s Article 6 Supremacy Clause, which requires that the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the land.”

For another, those who advocate the imposition of shariah in America must be considered ineligible to serve in the military, or hold state or federal office, insofar as Article 6 requires them to swear an “oath…to support this Constitution” – not any other legal code, like shariah. The same disqualifier would appear to govern with respect to immigrants or would-be naturalized citizens.

Lastly, advocacy of and engagement in jihad, of even the dawa variety, for the purpose of imposing shariah, supplanting the Constitution and overthrowing the government it mandates would – as a practical matter – constitute a felony violation of the U.S. Code’s prohibitions on treason, sedition and subversive activities. From its founding, America has had a great tradition of tolerance and inclusion, on a mutual basis.

Our latter day tendencies, however, for cultural diversity, political correctness and unreciprocated ecumenism – all seen by our enemies as submission and the subject of the following Chapter – must not be allowed to create vehicles for our national destruction at the hands of those all-too-willing to use our civil liberties against us toward that end. In World War II, Americans would never have proposed that Nazi doctrine had some political or moral equivalency with American principles. We rightly identified the two as being completely and unalterably at odds. Today’s mortal peril, shariah, must be viewed and treated the same way.

As is discussed at greater length below, the relevant, seminal texts concerning shariah are available in English from online booksellers and in mosque bookstores across America. It is, consequently, inexcusable for our political elites to be ignorant of the doctrines that guide shariah-adherent organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American Islamic Relations, the North American Islamic Trust, etc. as well as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al.

Even more reprehensible is the willingness of some among America’s elites, and it would appear even a subset of its elected leaders, to accede to these groups’ increasingly insistent contention that shariah is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, based on shariah’s tenets, its core attributes – especially its intolerance of other faiths and disfavored populations (e.g., apostates, women, homosexuals, Jews, etc.) and its bid for supremacy over all other legal or political system, there can be no confusion on this score: As the Framers fully understood, shariah is an enemy of the United States Constitution. The two are incompatible. 400

7. The Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. Operations:

Exemplars By the mid-1990s, thanks to the successful application of the techniques employed pursuant to the phased plan by the Muslim Brotherhood’s organizational footprint in the United States, the Ikhwan was in a position to target American society at all levels. With growing aggressiveness in recent years, its operatives have been mounting influence operations against this country’s government, educational institutions, media, churches and synagogues, and local communities from coast to coast.

Here are a few illustrative examples of the MB’s progress:

• Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community have been targeted in order to: blunt investigative efforts that might interfere with the Brothers’ activities; keep homeland defenders and military personnel from being educated on the true nature of shariah, jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood; and ensure the MB is the only entity from which the U.S. government seeks advice on Islamic matters.

• The Department of Education and school boards across America have been penetrated for the purpose of encouraging, subliminally at first, submission to shariah in textbooks and pedagogy. The object is to control and soften the history of Islam and how it is taught to American students. Middle East Studies programs at several leading U.S. universities have received $20 million apiece from a prominent Saudi prince and enabler of the Brotherhood, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, with predictable results regarding their curriculum.

• Many well-meaning leaders of other faiths and their churches and synagogues have been penetrated and compromised through MB influence operations under the guise of “interfaith dialogue.” Some have provided invaluable political cover for the Ikhwan by decrying objections to the establishment of mosques associated with it – for example, at Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan, in Roxbury, Massachusetts, in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and elsewhere – in the name of safeguarding religious tolerance.

• Prominent secular leadership figures in communities across the country have also been induced to provide what amounts to political cover for the Brotherhood. This is done when they lend their prestige and authority to MB taqiyya and publicly consort with Ikhwan operatives. Perhaps the most egregious example has been New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s repeated insistence that the Ground Zero mega-mosque must be built and that those who oppose it, or even seek to establish whether the $100 million to construct it are coming from problematic sources (perhaps including Iran) are “un-American.”267

• The financial community has been deeply penetrated via the promotion of shariah-compliant finance into Wall Street, with encouragement from the U.S. government. In fact, the American taxpayer now owns the largest purveyor of shariah-compliant insurance products in the world: AIG. (For more on this subject and a federal lawsuit challenging its constitutionality, see the Appendix.)

In short, the enemy among us – organized and guided by the Muslim Brotherhood and disguised by deceit – poses a grave long-term threat to our Constitution, government, freedoms and way of life. When the Brotherhood’s stealth jihad operates in conjunction with overtly or covertly violent jihadist organizations like those described in the following Chapter, joining forces to operate as a sort of strategic pincer-movement, they are toxic to freedom-loving and open Western societies like ours.

6. The Implementation of Shariah by the Muslim Brotherhood

The Implementation of Shariah by the Muslim Brotherhood

The Elbarasse archives and close observation of the Brotherhood’s operations reveal the following as the most important of the techniques employed by the Ikhwan in America to achieve the seditious goals of its civilization jihad:

• Expanding the Muslim presence by birth rate, immigration, and refusal to assimilate;

• Occupying and expanding domination of physical spaces;

• Ensuring the “Muslim Community” knows and follows MB doctrine;

• Controlling the language we use in describing the enemy;

• Ensuring we do not study their doctrine (shariah);

• Co-opting key leadership;

• Forcing compliance with shariah at local levels;

• Fighting all counterterrorism efforts;

• Subverting religious organizations;

• Employing lawfare - the offensive use of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits;

• Claiming victimization / demanding accommodations;

• Condemning “slander” against Islam;

• Subverting the U.S. education system, in particular, infiltrating and dominating U.S. Middle East studies programs;

• Demanding the right to practice shariah in segregated Muslim enclaves;

• Demanding recognition of shariah in non-Muslim spheres;

• Confronting and denouncing Western society, laws, and traditions; and

• Demanding that shariah replace Western law.

Note that many of the foregoing techniques entail, in one way or another, influencing and neutralizing the American government at all levels.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s own Explanatory Memorandum identifies the following groups under theheading “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends” 227:

• Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
• Muslim Student Association (MSA)
• The Muslim Communities Association (MCA)
• The Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS)
• The Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE)
• Islamic Medical Association (IMA)
• Islamic Teaching Center (ITC)
• North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)
• Foundation for International Development (FID)
• Islamic Housing Cooperative (IHC)
• Islamic Centers Division (ICD)
• American Trust Publications (ATP)
• Audio-Visual Center (AVC)
• Islamic Book Service (IBS)
• Muslim Businessmen Association (MBA)
• Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA)
• ISNA Fiqh Committee (IFC)
• ISNA Political Awareness Committee (IPAC)
• Islamic Education Department (IED)
• Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA)
• Malasian (sic) Islamic Study Group (MISG)
• Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)
• United Association for Studies and Research (UASR)
• Occupied Land Fund (OLF)
• Mercy International Association (MIA)
• Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)
• Baitul Mal Inc (BMI)
• International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT)
• Islamic Information Center (IIC)

5. The Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘ Phased Plan’

We know from, among other things, the Elbarasse trove of MB documents, that the goal of destroying Western Civilization from within is to be achieved by the Brotherhood in accordance with a “phased plan.” The plan is a stepped process modeled directly after Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones and the shariah doctrine of progressive revelation.

One such document is an undated paper entitled, “Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan.” It specifies the five phases of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in North America. They are described, together with comments about the Ikhwan’s progress in realizing each goal as follows:

Phase One: Phase of discreet and secret establishment of leadership.

Phase Two: Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities (It greatly succeeded in implementing this stage). It also succeeded in achieving a great deal of its important goals, such as infiltrating various sectors of the Government. Gaining religious institutions and embracing senior scholars. Gaining public support and sympathy.

Establishing a shadow government (secret) within the Government.

Phase Three: Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. Currently in progress.

Phase Four: Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach. Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. It has noticeable activities in this regard.

Phase Five: Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united. 211

This document offers a chilling operational insight into the mindset, planning, and vision of the Islamic movement in North America.

4. The Muslim Brotherhood in America

In 1953, Princeton University hosted a group of “prominent Muslims” for an “Islamic Colloquium.” Brotherhood delegates asked for and were granted a meeting with President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who agreed to the meeting on advice from his defense and intelligence advisors, who saw it as an opportunity for the U.S. to influence the Muslim world and use them against the communists.

One of the delegates at the meeting was the “Honorable Saeed Ramahdan, Delegate of the Muslim Brothers,” as described in the official White House documents. A now-declassified CIA documents recording the events of this meeting described Ramadan as follows: “Ramadan seems to be a Fascist, interested in the grouping of individuals for power. He did not display many ideas except for those of the Brotherhood.” 198

It is critical to recall the MB’s aforementioned bylaws, and specifically that the approved “means” to achieve the Ikhwan’s objectives in America includes this mandate: “Make every effort for the establishment of educational, social, economic, and scientific institutions and the establishment of mosques, schools, clinics, shelters, clubs.” (Emphasis added.)

As the Muslim Brothers “settled” in North America, they did so according to their stated bylaws. At the University of Illinois in Urbana, the Ikhwan created its first front organization in North America, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) in 1963. Today, MSA chapters are present on many college campuses across the country, serving as recruiting nodes for the MB and, in some cases for violent jihadist organizations (some of which are described in chapter five). As will be explained further in the following pages, out of the MSA came nearly every Muslim organization in America today. Initially, as MSA chapters sprang up on American campuses, they presented Islam in public as an acceptable alternative to other religions, never mentioning its revolutionary aspects. In recent years, MSA members have become ever-more-aggressive in their demands for accommodations and silencing all who oppose them.199

In the 1970s, a number of trade organizations were formed by the Brotherhood for the purpose of insinuating its members more deeply into American society. These included the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE), the Islamic Medical Association (IMA), the Muslim Communities Association (MCA), and others. The Brothers also formed other student groups in the 1970s, including the Muslim Arab Youth Assembly (MAYA) and Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA). 200

In 1973, the Saudis created an important new enabler of Brotherhood operations in the United States and domination of American Muslim communities: the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT “controls” approximately 80 percent of the titles/deeds to the mosques, Islamic organizations and Islamic schools in this country.201 Typically, along with such ownership comes Saudi-trained and appointed imams, textbooks for the madrassas, jihadist literature and videos for the bookstore, paid hajj pilgrimages (the obligatory trip to Mecca) and, in some cases, training for jihad. 71

In 1980, the Brotherhood created a new organization to extend the footprint made possible by the swelling ranks of Muslim Students Association alumni. It brought together most of its groups under the authority of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which is today the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in North America.

The creation of ISNA ushered in an era of massive growth of the Movement in North America. Through the 1980s and 1990s, the Brotherhood created hundreds of new organizations and built hundreds of mosques and Islamic schools across North America. It did so primarily with funding from Saudi Arabia. 202


Breaking the Code

In August of 2004, an alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in Maryland, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver of the vehicle was identified as Ismail Elbarasse and detained on an outstanding material witness warrant issued in Chicago, Illinois in a Hamas case.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office raided Elbarasse’s residence in Annandale, Virginia, and in the basement of his home, a hidden sub-basement was found. In the sub-basement, the FBI discovered the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.

The documents confirmed what investigators and counterterrorism experts had previously suspected and contended about the myriad Muslim-American groups in the United States – namely, that nearly all of them are controlled by the MB and, therefore, as shariah dictates, are hostile to this country, its Constitution and freedoms. The documents make clear their sole objectives are to implement Islamic Law in America in furtherance of re-establishing the global caliphate.203

3. Movement of the Muslim Brotherhood into the West

Among the most prominent members of the Ikhwan during this transitional period were: Youssef Nada, Said Ramadan, Ghaleb Himmat, Mohamed Akef, and Yousef Qaradawi, who is today known as the International Muslim Brotherhood’s “spiritual guide” and is a leading Islamic Legal scholar. Each of these men played an important role in transforming the Ikhwan into the international Muslim mafia it is today.

The history of their penetration of Western societies in Europe is instructive for those seeking to understand how and the extent to which similar influence operations are being run against the United States. Of these men, Said Ramadan is particularly noteworthy as he was al Banna’s assistant for years, married his daughter and became a driving force in the Brotherhood leadership after al Banna was killed by the Egyptian security services. His son, Tariq Ramadan, is a member of Brotherhood royalty and one of today’s most assiduous practitioners of the stealth jihad. In January 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed a six-year ban on the younger Ramadan’s entry into the United States. He has used his renewed access to American audiences to advance the Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.182

Post-war Germany offered the Brotherhood a valuable safe haven in the heart of Europe, primarily because the Brothers had established a relationship with the Nazis during World War II and maintained ties to powerful Germans after the war. Additionally, the West Germans were especially welcoming of Syrians and Egyptians because of a state policy that offered assistance to any “refugees” from nations that formally recognized Bonn’s rival, East Germany – something both Egypt and Syria did.

The Brotherhood leadership, which insinuated itself into the societies of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and other European countries, established numerous front organizations for the Ikhwan – a pattern the organization follows aggressively around the world and especially in the West to this day. For example, Said Ramadan moved to Cologne, where he received a law degree, and founded the Islamic Society of Germany. He presided over it from 1958-1968.

In 1962, Ramadan founded the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia.Ghaleb Himmat was a Syrian who was a citizen of Italy, who directed the Islamic Society of Germany from 1973-2002.183 He established the Al-Taqwa Bank, which Italian intelligence dubbed “the bank of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Himmat ran Al-Taqwa and a group of front companies in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and the Bahamas with Youssef Nada. Before it was shut down in 2002, Al-Taqwa became known for its funding of: al Qaeda; the Brotherhood’s Palestinian arm, known as Hamas; Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters; and other terrorist organizations.

In the 1960’s, these senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders planned and built a huge complex known as the Islamic Center of Munich which became an important staging point for the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe. A new book by Ian Johnson entitled A Mosque in Munich describes the powerful force-multiplier this facility became for Ikhwan operations in Europe and beyond. It also reveals longstanding U.S. government ties to the Brothers, including Said Ramadan who contributed to the construction of this mosque.184

In 1973, several dozen Muslim Brothers attended a meeting of the Islamic Cultural Centres and Bodies in Europe in London, England in order to organize the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in Europe. Ghaleb Himmat was present as the head of the Islamic Community of Southern Germany. While no agreement on strategy to develop a European Islamic network was reached, this meeting laid the foundation for such a plan.185

Four years later, the senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders met in Lugano, Switzerland, near the homes of Ghaleb Himmat and Youssef Nada to discuss the strategy for moving the Brotherhood forward.186 Yousef al-Qaradawi was among those present at this meeting. One of the first actions taken afterwards was the establishment of the MB front known as the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT). IIIT’s role was to maintain the ideological purity and consistency of the Brotherhood’s expanding operations. During a subsequent meeting in Saudi Arabia in 1978, the Brotherhood decided to set up IIIT near Temple University in Philadelphia, an institution where leading Islamic thinker and Muslim Brother Ismail Faruqi was teaching at the time.187 Later, the IIIT moved its headquarters to Herndon, Virginia. 69

In the 1980s, Mohammed Akef (the MB’s Supreme Guide for several years until early 2010), who was then serving as the imam at the Munich mosque, moved the MB’s European headquarters into the Markfield Conference Centre, a small community near Leicester in the UK.188 The Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) is housed there and led by an Iraqi named Ahmed al-Rawi. It has become one of Europe’s largest MB organizations.189 The Markfield Conference Center is owned by the Islamic Foundation which is an affiliate of the Muslim Council of Britain – both Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Yousef al-Qaradawi is heavily involved with this entire network. The Federation has become the starting point for a number of other Muslim Brotherhood entities, including the Institute for the Study of Human Sciences and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. The latter is headed by al-Qaradawi.190

In France, the Brotherhood has the Union of Islamic Organizations in France,191 and its partner organization in Italy is the Union of the Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy.192 Those groups work, respectively, with the French and Italian governments in order to advance the Muslim Brotherhood agenda and subvert their respective nations, while using claims of victimhood and demands for equality and tolerance to mask their true intentions and marginalize or silence critics.

In the United Kingdom, the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Association of Britain are two of the most prominent MB organizations.193 Like their counterparts on the Continent, the MCB and MAB work with the British government at the highest levels toward the same end: subverting Her Majesty’s Government and nation from within.

The late 1990s saw the MB launching the Forum for European Muslim Youth and Student Organizations (FEMYSO), which is headquartered in Brussels. FEMYSO describes itself in its own literature as “a network of 42 national and international organizations bringing together youth from over 26 different countries,” 194 and credibly claims to be the primary organization in Europe for all Muslim youth. This Muslim Brotherhood organization – like most of the Ikhwan’s other fronts – has significant influence and appears to have encountered little resistance from European security services. In short, Muslim Brotherhood organizations exist across Europe today. As we shall see with respect to the MB footprint in the United States, virtually without exception, the leading Muslim organizations across the continent are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood. Even though the affiliation with the Brotherhood for most of these organizations is easily established, and the true, seditious objectives of these organizations are readily discernable, most European governments are unwilling to face reality – let alone deal effectively with the threats posed by MB penetration of the highest levels of their societies. Take, for example, several cases in point: Two of the most prominent Muslim Brothers in Europe, Ghaleb Himmat and Yousef Nada, were designated as terrorism financiers by the U.S. Treasury Department in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Treasury also deemed their bank, Al-Taqwa, as an entity that funds terrorism. 195

For his part, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Yousef al-Qaradawi, was named in the HLF trial as an unindicted co-conspirator for his involvement with that Hamas front. All three of these individuals have, nonetheless, been allowed to continue doing business with and, in some cases, actually in Europe.196

One reason for Europe’s unwillingness to confront and counter the danger posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its operatives is that in parliamentary politics of some nations, Muslim communities are increasingly seen as critical voting blocs.197 To the extent that the Ikhwan is able to capitalize on such perceptions long before Muslims achieve majority status in the demographics of a number of European nations, it has greatly facilitated the MB’s efforts to insinuate shariah into and otherwise exercise influence over these states.

Growing unease about the success of the Islamicization of Europe has begun translating into pushback, however – most notably in the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders’ party rooted in opposition to shariah has garnered unprecedented support. The question is: Will it amount to much and, if so, will it happen in time?

2. The Genesis of the Muslim Brotherhood

The defeat of the Ottoman Empire and its allies led to the Empire’s dissolution as a unified entity in July 1923, and the establishment of the modern state of Turkey by Mustapha Kemal, who was given the title “Ataturk” or “Father of the Turks.”177

Determined to tie his country firmly to the West, Ataturk sought to diminish its Islamic character, notably by abolishing the caliphate in favor of secular rule. Ataturk also banned the growing of beards by men and wearing of headscarves by women; banned the call to prayer by muezzins; abolished the Turkish language’s script and replaced it with Latin script; and made the Turkish military the custodians of secular tradition.

The dissolution of the caliphate and the transformation of Turkey from the center of the Islamic world to a secular nation did not sit well with some in the global Islamic community (ummah). One of those determined to restore the caliphate was Hassan al Banna, the son of a Muslim imam who lived outside of Cairo, Egypt. In 1928, he founded an organization known as the al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin, the Society of Mus67lim Brothers or the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), for the purpose of unifying the Islamic states under a new caliphate and subordinating all lands the Caliph’s rule pursuant to shariah.178

The Muslim Brotherhood’s bylaws make clear the Ikhwan’s objectives and means to achieve them:179

“The Muslim Brotherhood is an International Muslim body which seeks to establish Allah’s law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion which are namely the following:

F) The need to work on establishing the Islamic State;

G) The sincere support for a global cooperation in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia.

Chapter II, Article 3: The Muslim Brotherhood in achieving these objectives depends on the following means:

D) Make every effort for the establishment of educational, social, economic, and scientific institutions and the establishment of mosques, schools, clinics, shelters, clubs, as well as the formation of committees to regulate zakat affairs and alms;

E) The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing the Islamic state.” (Emphasis added.)

By the early 1930’s, the Brotherhood had developed a formal organizational structure around groups of men with special spiritual and physical training called “Battalions.” By 1940, the Brotherhood created the “secret apparatus” which was the military wing of the Society of Muslim Brothers, and in 1943 abandoned the Battalions. The MB’s military wing continues to operate today, and is referred to as the “Special Chapter.” Its operations are known as “special work,” meaning military fighting or operations.180

During the Second World War, and the years that followed, the Brotherhood became increasingly aggressive and violent, and called for the removal of all British forces (“non-Muslim Forces”) from Egypt (“Muslim Lands”), as required by Islamic Law (shariah). During the late 1940’s, the Brotherhood targeted Egyptian officials, British soldiers, and their families, and in December of 1948, a Muslim Brother assassinated Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmud Fahmi al-Nuqrashi.181 In February 1949, the Egyptian security services killed Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna in Cairo.

The period following the assassination of al Banna was marked with significant MB violence against the Egyptian monarchy and the British. After a ban on Brotherhood activities was lifted in 1951, the MB coordinated actively with Gamal Abdel Nasser and the young officers who overthrew King Farouk in 1952. As soon as the Ikhwan felt powerful enough to confront the government on their own, however, it turned against the new president Nasser. Nasser launched a crackdown against the Brotherhood in 1954 that accelerated an exodus of many top Brothers and the expansion of the organization around the world, including into the West.

1. What is the Muslim Brotherhood

The history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its arrival in America, its key objectives and supporting doctrine, the individuals and organizations working to achieve its objectives, and some examples of how they are achieving them.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its express purpose was two-fold: (1) to implement shariah worldwide, and (2) to re-establish the global Islamic State (caliphate).173

Therefore, AlQaeda and the MB have the same objectives. They differ only in the timing and tactics involved in realizing them.

The Brotherhood’s creed is: “God is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” 174

It is evident from the Creed, and from the Brotherhood’s history (and current activities) detailed below, that violence is an inherent part of the MB’s tactics. The MB is the root of the majority of Islamic terrorist groups in the world today.175

The Ikhwan believes that its purposes in the West are, for the moment, better advanced by the use of non-violent, stealthy techniques. In that connection, the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to establish relations with, influence and, wherever possible, penetrate: government circles in executive and legislative branches at the federal, state and local levels; the law enforcement community; intelligence agencies; the military; penal institutions; the media; think tanks and policy groups; academic institutions; non-Muslim religious communities; and other elites. The Brothers engage in all of these activities and more for one reason: to subvert thetargeted communities in furtherance of the MB’s primary objective – the triumph of shariah.176

Islamic Muslim's Sharia Law: TAQIYYA

Islamic Muslim's Sharia Law TAQIYYA

Closely associated with shariah doctrine on lying is the concept of taqiyya, which is generally described as lying for the sake of Islam.

Taqiyya is a concept in Islamic law that translates as “deceit or dissimulation,” particularly towards infidels.

It is based on Quran 3:28 and 16:106 as well as hadiths, tafsir literature, and judicial commentaries that permit and encourage precautionary dissimulation as a means for hiding true faith in times of persecution or deception when penetrating the enemy camp.


Take, for example, Quran 3:28: “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, unless you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself, and to Allah is the final return.” (Emphasis added.)

According to the authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam:

Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.150

The authoritative commentary on the Quran, Tafsir Ibn Kathir 151 notes the prohibition on “taking disbelievers as friends” then explains the Quranic phrase “unless you indeed fear a danger from them”:

The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers. Allah prohibited His servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He stated… “unless you indeed fear a danger from them” meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly…. “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”

Another authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam, states definitively the standing taqiyya enjoys in shariah:

Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.152

A respected modern-day authority on Islam, William Gawthrop, has observed in connection with the practice of taqiyya:

Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, [is permissible] to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split ‘the enemy.’ One result is the ability to maintain two messages, one to the faithful while obfuscation and denial is sent – and accepted – to the non-Muslim audience.153

It is worth noting how closely this language from Gawthrop’s “Islam’s Tools of Penetration” maps to the language used by Omar Ahmad, an unindicted co-conspirator154 in the HLF Trial when discussing separating the information role of CAIR from the operations role of the Holy Land Foundation. From the transcript of a secretly recorded meeting in Philadelphia which was identified as “Philly Meeting – 15,” and entered into evidence in the U.S. v. HLF trial,155

Ahmad had this to say regarding an information campaign against the United States:

Omar Ahmad: I believe that our problem is that we stopped working underground. We will recognize the source of any message which comes out of us. I mean, if a message is publicized, we will know…, the media person among us will recognize that you send two messages; one to the Americans and one to the Muslims. If they found out who said that – even four years later – it will cause a discredit to the Foundation as far as the Muslims are concerned as they say “Look, he used to tell us about Islam and that is a cause and stuff while he, at the same time, is shooting elsewhere.”

Ray Ibrahim, another contemporary scholar on Islam, quoted one of the principal Quranic authorities to address this circumstance:

Al-Tabari’s (d. 923) famous tafsir (exegesis of the Koran) is a standard and authoritative reference work in the entire Muslim world. Regarding [the Quranic Sura] 3:28, he writes: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them.…Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers – except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.”156

Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373, second in authority only to Tabari) writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Mohammed's close companion, Abu Darda, who said, “Let us smile to the face of some people [non-Muslims] while our hearts curse them”; another companion, al-Hassan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”157

Taqiyya in Practice

A classic example of the shariah practice of taqiyya can be found in the dual messaging of Yousuf al-Qaradawi, best known as the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. For an intended Muslim audience, he wrote in the Saudi Gazette on June 11, 2010:

…The acceptance of secularism means abandonment of shariah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah's injunctions….For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of shariah is downright apostasy….158

At an earlier “Democracy and Political Reform” conference held in Qatar in June 2004, al-Qaradawi also declared: “There are those who maintain that democracy is the rule of the people, but we want the rule of Allah.”159

In these two instances, al-Qaradawi’s rejection of Western-style liberal democracy could not have been more clearly stated. He was making these statements in his role as an Islamic jurist, providing legal opinions specifically sourced back to the Quran and shariah. This is not the message he gives to other audiences, however. For instance, during a January 2010 interview in the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Shorouk, he saw advantage for the Muslim Brotherhood and shariah in extolling the virtues of democracy – as a means of ending the rule of President Hosni Mubarak (who mostly suppresses the Muslim Brotherhood) and bringing the Ikhwan to power: “Egypt will not regain its status, its wellbeing and its role unless it opens the windows of freedom. It must open the doors completely and make way for [new] figures and competition as real democracy is the solution, not fake [democracy].”160

Similarly, in the Brotherhood’s online forum, IslamOnline.net, which is published in English and aimed at a Western audience, al-Qaradawi went so far as to suggest that shariah actually embraces democracy: “Islam calls for democracy and grants people the right to choose their governor.”161 In short, what Muslim audiences are required to know about Islam is not the same thing as what non-Muslim Western audiences are allowed to know – or encouraged to think – by Islamic authorities. Taqiyya provides the legal basis under shariah for this sort of deceptive dual messaging.

The practice of taqiyya is sometimes erroneously described as one in which only Shiites engage. While it is true that the Shiites, being the minority sect in Islam, have historically had reason to engage in deception (i.e., to conceal their religious identity from the majority Sunni population who would otherwise persecute them), Sunni Muslims living in the West are themselves in the minority among societies full of non-Muslims. Shariah is permissive of their lying in such conditions.

Such examples from shariah sources should suffice to alert national security professionals to the mainstream position of Islamic doctrine on the subject of lying. In view of the Prophet Mohammed’s statement that “War is deceit,” and cognizant of the requirement under shariah for Dar al-Islam to be in a constant state of animosity, hatred, and jihad with Dar al-Harb until “all religion belongs to Allah,” it is imperative that those whose duty it is to protect the United States. from shariah grasp the centrality of taqiyya in the arsenal of its adherents.

This is critical because the consequences of taqiyya extend to real world issues related, for example, to Muslim overtures for interfaith dialogue, peace and mutual tolerance – all of which must be viewed in the light of Islamic doctrine on lying.

This is not an argument for trusting or mistrusting someone in any particular instance. It is, though, an argument for professionals to be aware of these facts, to realize that they are dealing with an enemy whose doctrine allows – and at times even requires – them not to disclose fully all that they know and deliberately to misstate that which they know to be the truth.

As is discussed at greater length below, American officials charged with national and homeland security have a duty to understand that which is within the sphere of their professional competence. For anyone with such responsibilities, knowledge of these attributes of Shariah is a requirement.

Islamic Muslim's Sharia Law: Permissible LYING

It is imperative that national security professionals with responsibility for defending the U.S. Constitution from encroachment by shariah understand that, under Islamic law, lying is not only permissible, but obligatory for Muslims in some situations. This complicates efforts to understand the true nature of the threat– and to have confidence in those Muslims at home and abroad with whom the government hopes to make common cause in countering it.

What is particularly confusing is the fact that shariah has two standards of truth and falsehood: In general, the Quran disapproves of Muslims deceiving other Muslims. It declares, “Surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar.”140 Yet, Quranic passages and statements attributed to Mohammed in reliable hadiths provide exceptions even to the usual prohibitions on lying to fellow Muslims.

For example, Reliance of the Traveler provides practical examples of where lying even to Muslims can be appropriate: “Giving directions to someone who wants to do wrong…” is one such example, explaining that “It is not permissible to give directions and the like to someone intending to perpetrate a sin, because it is helping another to commit disobedience.”141 Such disobedience, as understood under Islamic law, is defined as: “Giving directions to wrongdoers includes: (1) showing the way to policemen and tyrants when they are going to commit injustice and corruption.”142

Reliance also shows in quotes from Mohammed that there are other grounds for lying even to Muslims:

“He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.”143

And “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 (in smoothing over differences.)”144

These exceptions are sufficiently broad to cover most instances in which lying would be expedient. Shariah demands, moreover, that its adherents lie where it will be advantageous in dealings with infidels whose submission is an obligation. Consider the legal guidance provided in the authoritative Reliance of the Traveler. In Book R, “Holding One’s Tongue,” one finds sections on “Lying” (r8.0) and “Permissible Lying,”(r8.2).

These cite the iconic Islamic legal jurist Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali:

This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest…When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: 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.145

An example of the Quranic basis for the shariah standard on lying is: “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.”146 Indeed, in some places, it is Allah himself who is described approvingly as a capricious deceiver: “Say, ‘God leads whosoever He wills astray.”147

As noted above, Sahih Bukhari writes that Mohammed, too, authorized a permissive attitude toward telling the truth: “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.”148

Besides lying, there is also guidance in Reliance about giving a misleading impression: “Scholars say that there is no harm in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law.”149

Islamic Muslim's Sharia Law: APOSTASY

To understand what is meant by kufr, or unbelief, it is instructive to move on to Book O, “Justice” in the Reliance of the Traveller. In the Chapter on “Apostasy from Islam,” 135 it states:

• “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief and the worst.”

• “Whoever voluntarily leaves Islam is killed.”

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

This is an absolute rule in shariah that does not admit of an alternate interpretation. Recall Abdul Rahman, the Afghan national who, in 2006, converted to Christianity. When the Islamic authorities found out about his conversion, Rahman was sentenced to death for apostasy. The European Union determined this was a human rights violation and they reacted by threatening to withhold five hundred million euros in economic aid from Afghanistan.

This created a significant political and legal issue for Afghan President Hamid Karzai. If he failed to put Rahman to death for apostasy, he would be violating Islamic law (and the Afghani Constitution in which shariah is the Law of the Land) and failing in his duty as a Muslim leader. If carried out the sentence, he would lose the European economic aid.

The solution: Rahman was declared insane.136 Under Islamic law, declaring a person insane is one of the only ways a Muslim leader (who is required to follow shariah) can avoid putting the apostate to death.

In the Western world, this would be an abominable human rights violation, but under shariah, it can be the only thing that allows the authorities to avoid imposing the death sentence that is prescribed by Islamic law for apostasy.

The enumerated reasons in shariah for declaring a Muslim an “apostate” include: “to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus…belongs to it” and “to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslim…is a part of Islam.”137 This means that Islamic law makes violation of scholarly consensus an unambiguous act of apostasy.

So, if one were to disagree with something where there is consensus among the scholars, one could be charged with apostasy and put to death. This shariah concept of “scholarly consensus” effectively precludes any effort to moderate or reform any element of shariah sustained by such consensus. Reliance underscores the magnitude of the crime of apostasy in Book C, “The Nature of Legal Rulings”138:

Here, the author notes, “Scholars distinguish between three levels of the unlawful:
(1) minor sins…;
(2) enormities…; and
(3) unbelief (kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam… and necessitate stating a Testification of Faith….”

The only way a Muslim who is declared a “kufr” can escape this is to recant and recite the Shahada the declaration of Islamic faith in Allah and the Prophet), thus declaring a new testimony of faith. He has tore-enter the Islamic faith, as it were.

As Louay Safi, a top Muslim Brotherhood member operating in the United States who is nonetheless considered by many officials to be a respected “moderate,” wrote in his 2001 book Peace and the Limits of War — Transcending Classical Conception of Jihad: “The war against the apostates is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order.”139

Safi then adds: Therefore, the individual apostasy which takes place quietly, and without causing any public disorder, should not be of concern to Islamic authority…. Only when the individual openly renounces Islam and violates Islamic law should he be punished for breaking the law.

In other words, Safi is saying, in effect: We do not put people to death for becoming apostates. We put people to death when we find out that they have become apostates. In the final analysis, defining elements of shariah are intolerant of any deviation. There is freedom of belief in Islam only to the extent that matters of individual conscience do not threaten the ummah, whose cohesion and public appearance of rigid compliance with shariah is paramount and takes precedence over any individual’s personal preferences.

The Sources of Shariah

What is Sharia?

The Arabic word “shariah,” according to one modern English-language student textbook on Islam, “literally means a straight path (Quran 45:18) or an endless supply of water. It is the term used to describe the rules of the lifestyle (Deen) ordained for us by Allah. In more practical terms, shariah includes all the do’s and don’ts of Islam.”71

The Sources of Shariah

There are four sources for shariah that make it authoritative: the Quran, the Sunna, ijma, and qiyas.

Deemed the “uncreated word of Allah,” the Quran reflects direct divine revelation and is understood to be the primary source of Islamic law. After the Quran, Islamic jurists next turn to the Sunna, considered to be indirect divine revelation arising out of the hadiths, or sayings or acts of Mohammed. Ijma refers to the con38 sensus of the grand mujtahids of the past, a historic process in which, once consensus attached, became a permanent part of the immutable body of Islamic law. Finally, the fourth source for shariah is qiyas, or reasoning by analogy, which applies an accepted principle or assumption to arrive at a legal ruling.

In order fully to understand shariah, it is necessary to examine each of these sources and their contributions in turn.

The QURAN: In Islamic parlance, the Quran is considered to be the uncreated word of Allah. According to Muslim belief, it has existed since the beginning of time and was revealed by the Archangel Gabriel in the 7th Century to the Prophet Mohammed in the Arabic language of his homeland.

The SUNNA: The second most authoritative source for shariah is the Sunna, commonly understood to be the actions and sayings of the Prophet. The Sunna includes the ahadith (plural of hadith), or collections by Mohammed’s contemporaries of what he did and said during his lifetime. Also within the Sunna is the Sira, which are biographical accounts of the life of Mohammed. It should be noted that the ahadith (not the Sira) constitute the legally significant element of the Sunna.81

The many hundreds of thousands of hadiths have been recorded in a number of Hadith collections, of which six collections are held to be the most authoritative or “strong hadiths,” meaning their chain of transmission is considered solid. The two most important collections of all are those by Sahih Al-Bukhari (collected and compiled by Mohammed bin Isma'il, known as Imam Bukhari, born 810, died 870) and Sahih Muslim (Muslim bin al-Hajjaj, known as Imam Muslim, born 817/818,died 874/87.Ijma:

In addition to the Quran and Sunna, there are also two accepted secondary sources for shariah: these are ijma (consensus of the scholars) and qiyas (analytical deduction. Consensus of the Islamic jurists refers to the achievement of agreement on particular legal issues and finds its justification in numerous verses of the Quran.82 Hadith accounts also provide support with the words of Mohammed: “My followers will never agree upon an error or what is wrong.” The early Muslim scholars turned to this device of ijma only when they could not find a specific legal ruling in either the Quran or the Sunna.

QIYAS: Qiyas make up the fourth most important source for shariah. The term means “to judge by comparing with a thing.” Its methods of deductive reasoning derive from the previous three sources of authenticity, namely the Quran, the Sunna, and ijma. When a legal ruling was required but could not be found in the other sources, the Islamic jurists employed analogy, reasoning, and legal precedent to arrive at new case law.

Although all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali) accept IJMA as a legitimate source of shariah, Shi’ite Muslims do not; however, they replace ijma with aql (or reason. Considering that Shi’ites do not accept the authority of the Sunni Caliphs after Imam Ali, it is understandable that they would reject a source of legal authority that arose under their authority. In any case, the Shi’a practice of aql is essentially identical to ijma.

The Muslim Practices Islam Under Sharia Law...

The following are some of the most important – and, particularly for Western non-Muslims, deeply problematic – tenets of shariah, arranged in alphabetical order. The citations drawn from the Quran, schools of Islam and other recognized sources are offered as illustrative examples of the basis for such practices under shariah.



1. ABROGATION (‘Al-mansukh wa al-nasikh’ in Arabic—the abrogated and the abrogating): Verses that come later in the Quran, chronologically, supersede, or abrogate, the earlier ones. In effect, this results in the more moderate verses of the Meccan period being abrogated by the later, violent, Medinan verses. “When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?” (Quran 2:106)

2. ADULTERY (‘Zina’ in Arabic):

Unlawful intercourse is a capital crime under shariah, punishable by lashing and stoning to death. “Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful deed and an evil, opening the road to other evils.” (Q 17:32) “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness the punishment.” (Q 24:2) “It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except for one of three sins: a married person committing fornication, and in just retribution for premeditated murder, and [for sin of treason involving] a person renouncing Islam, and thus leaving the community [to join the enemy camp in order to wage war against the faithful].” (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa’i) 28

3. APOSTASY (‘Irtidad’ or ‘Ridda’ in Arabic):

The established ruling of shariah is that apostates are to be killed wherever they may be found. “Anyone who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith—but such as open their heart to Unbelief—on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” (Q 16:106) “Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, ‘If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’” (Bukhari, Volume 9, #17) “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…..When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed…There is no indemnity for killing an apostate…” (‘Umdat al-Salik, Relianceof the Travel r, Chapter 08.0-08.4)

4. DEMOCRACY AND ISLAM:

Any system of man-made law is considered illicit under Islamic law, for whose adherents Allah already has provided the only law permitted, shariah. Islam and democracy can never co-exist in harmony. “And if any fail to judge by the light of what Allah has revealed, they are no better than unbelievers.” (Q 5:47) “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Almighty Allah alone. He is the absolute arbiter of values and it is His will that determines good and evil, right and wrong.” (Mohammed Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, 3d rev. ed., (Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Text Society, 2003), 8.) “The shariah cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards. Rather, it is the absolute norm to which all human values and conduct must conform.” (Muslim Brotherhood ‘spiritual leader’ Yousef al-Qaradawi)

5. FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: “Circumcision is obligatory….for both men and women.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, e4.3)

6. GENDER INEQUALITY: Shariah explicitly relegates women to a status inferior to men.

• Testimony of a woman before a judge is worth half that of a man: “And get two witnesses, not of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose for witnesses.” (Q 2:282)

• Women are to receive just one half the inheritance of a male: “Allah thus directs you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females….” (Q 4:11)

• Muslim men are given permission by Allah in the Quran to beat their wives: “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last, beat them.” (Q 4:34)

• Muslim men are given permission by Allah to commit marital rape, as they please: “Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how ye will….” (Q 2: 223)

• Muslim men are permitted to marry up to four wives and to keep concubines in any number: “…Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive that your right hands possess…” (Q 4:3)

• Muslim women may marry only one Muslim man and are forbidden from marrying a non-Muslim: “And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikun [non-Muslims] till they believe in Allah alone and verily a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik, even though he pleases you....” (Q 2:221)

• A woman may not travel outside the home without the permission of her male guardian and must be accompanied by a male family member if she does so: “A woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin….accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, m10.3)

• Under shariah, to bring a claim of rape, a Muslim woman must present four male Muslim witnesses in good standing. Islam thus places the burden of avoiding illicit sexual encounters entirely on the woman. In effect, under shariah, women who bring a claim of rape without being able to produce the requisite four male Muslim witnesses are admitting to having had illicit sex. If she or the man is married, this amounts to an admission of adultery. The following Quranic passages, while explicitly applying to men are cited by shariah authorities and judges in adjudicating rape cases: "And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses (to adultery), flog them..." (Q 24:4) “Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah, stand forth themselves as liars!” (Q 24:13)

• A Muslim woman who divorces and remarries loses custody of children from a prior marriage: “A woman has no right to custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending the child.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, m13.4)

7. HONOR KILLING (aka Muslim family executions):

A Muslim parent faces no legal penalty under Islamic law for killing his child or grandchild: “…not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, 01.1-2)

8. HUDUD PUNISHMENTS:

The plural of hadd, is “a fixed penalty prescribed as a right of Allah. Because hudud penalties belong to Allah, Islamic law does not permit them to be waived or commuted.”69

• “Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of believers witness their punishment.” (Qur’an 24:2)

• “On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a [Muslim] person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people….The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land…” (Q 32-33)

• § p0.0. From the Kitab al-kaba’ir (Book of Enormities) of Imam Dhahabi, who defines an enormity as any sin entailing either a threat of punishment in the hereafter explicitly mentioned by the Koran or hadith, a prescribed legal penalty (Hadd), or being accursed by Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace). (‘Umdat al-Salik, Book P “Enormities,” at § p0.0)

• “Shariah stipulates these punishments and methods of execution such as amputation, crucifixion, flogging, and stoning, for offenses such as adultery, homosexuality, killing without right, theft, and ‘spreading mischief in the land’ because these punishments were mandated by the Qur’an or Sunnah.” (Islamic Hudood Laws in Pakistan, Edn 1996, 5.)

9. ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM:

Belief that Islam is superior to every other culture, faith, government, and society and that it is ordained by Allah to conquer and dominate them: “And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.” (Q 3:85):

• “Ye are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind.” (Q 3:110)

• Non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings” (Q 98:6)

• Be “merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers” (Q 48:29)

• “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” (Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood)

• “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” (Omar Ahmad, Council on American Islamic Relations co-founder/Board Chairman, 1998)

10. JEW HATER:

Antisemitism is intrinsic to shariah and is based on the genocidal behavior of Mohammed himself in wiping out the entire Jewish population of the Arabian Peninsula.

• “And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, as we said to them: Be as apes, despised and hated.” (Q 2:65)

• “And you will most certainly find them [the Jews] the greediest of men for life, greedier than even those who are polytheists…” (Q 2:96)

• “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; forthey are friends but of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”(Q 5:51)

• “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they be of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” (Q9:29)

11. JIHAD: Jihad is warfare to spread Islam:

• “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war…” (Q 9:5)

• “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, not hold that forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” (Q 9:29)

• “So fight them until there is no more fitna and all submit to the religion of Allah alone.” (Q 8:39)

• “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay the 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” (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim – agreed upon – as cited in ‘Umdat al-Salik o9.1 Jihad)

• “Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.0, Jihad)

• “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world....But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world….Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!

• “Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” (Ayatollah Khomeini as quoted by Amir Taheri.70)

12. LYING / TAQIYYA:

It is permissible for a Muslim to lie, especially to non-Muslims, to safeguard himself personally or to protect Islam.

• “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, unless you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself, and to Allah is the final return.” (Q 3:28)

• “‘Unless you indeed fear a danger from them’ meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly.…‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol 2, 141)

• “Mohammed said, ‘War is deceit.’” (Bukhari vol.4:267 and 269)

• “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” (Bukhari vol.3:857 p.533)

13. SLANDER / BLASPHEMY:

In shariah, slander means anything that might offend a Muslim:“… The reality of tale-bearing lies in divulging a secret, in revealing something confidential whose disclosure is resented. A person should not speak of anything he notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim to relate or prevent disobedience.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, r3.1)

14. UNDERAGE MARRIAGE:

Islamic doctrine permits the marriage of pre-pubescent girls. There is no minimum age for a marriage contract and consummation may take place when the girl is age eight or nine.

• “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses [periods], for them the 'Iddah [prescribed period before divorce is final], if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.” (Q 65:4)

• “Aisha narrated: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 7, Book 62, Number 64; see also Numbers 65 and 88)“They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is, three months from the time divorce was pronounced.

• “Here, one should bear in mind the fact that, according to the explanations given in the Qur'an, the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible.” (Syed Abu-Ala’ Maududi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, volume 5, p. 620, note 13)

15. ZAKAT:

The obligation for Muslims to pay zakat arises out of Qur’an Verse 9:60 and is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Zakat may be given only to Muslims, never to non-Muslims.

• Zakat is for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. (Q 9:60) “Of their goods take alms so that thou mightiest purify and sanctify them....” (Q9:103) “Zakat is obligatory: (a) for every free Muslim and (b) who has possessed a zakat-payable amount [the minimum that necessitates zakat] (‘Umdatal-Salik, h1.1)

• According to shariah, there are eight categories of recipients for Zakat: The poor; Those short of money; Zakat workers (those whose job it is to collect the zakat); Those whose hearts are to be reconciled; Those purchasing their freedom; Those in debt; Those fighting for Allah (Jihad); Travelers needing money (‘Umdat al-Salik, h8.7-h8.18)

• “It is not permissible to give Zakat to a non-Muslim…” (‘Umdat al-Salik, h8.24)