Who are the ‘moderate Muslims’?

There is a number of questions people have been asking me about Muslims.  I’ve tried to answer some before, but, upon further reflection, there are a few I’d like to re-visit.

Here, I would like to explain why I consider some Muslims to be ‘moderates’ – but not others.

Yes, there are some who do not see the distinction, pointing out that to follow Islam, one would have to skip large bits of the Koran in order to practice a ‘moderate’ version of the faith.  True.  But that is also true of the Bible – Jesus famously claims to bring not peace, but the sword.  And it is not that many generations ago that my paternal grandmothers’ relatives were burned alive by the Jesuits for practicing the ‘wrong’ branch of Christianity.

In other words, it is not the dogma itself that makes a person a ‘moderate':  rather, it is the bits of the dogma that one takes and ‘owns’ and lives by that makes one a ‘moderate’ or not, regardless of the faith/religion (theistic, atheistic or non-theistic alike)/doctrine/dogma.

When it comes to Islam, I see the divide as being between those Muslims who demand official recognition of Sharia (Islamic jurisprudence) and those who do not.

What is Sharia?

Books have been written on this, but, in short, it is ‘Islamic Law’.  There are 4 main Sunni and 4 main Shia schools of Sharia and they do indeed differ in some minor aspects, but, on those bits that they all agree, the ‘Islamic Law’ is unalterable.

Sharia evolved over several centuries.  Scholars studied the Koran, the sayings of their prophet Muhammed and stories about the life of the prophet Muhammed as told by his companions.  None of these were written during the life of Muhammed himself, but rather when many of his companions began dying off and the rest of the Muslims were afraid that his teachings and traditions would be lost, the ruler at the time had all the companions write down all they remembered, gathered all the materials, weeded through them to pick out the ‘most authentic’, recorded those as the only permitted version and had all the rest burned.  A lot like the role the Council of Nicaea had in writing the Bible.

So, for centuries after the Koran and the Sayings and Traditions of Muhammed were written down, jurists would look to the scriptures themselves to see what the proper sentence should be.  Not all jurists read the same things in these texts, yet, still, over the centuries, a body of jurisprudence had indeed been built up from which some rulings emerged as so common as to constitute laws.  The formal collection of these laws is called Sharia.

While it is still being added to (in the form of fatwas, or pronouncements/rulings of learned clerics on legal questions),the major body of it had been codified at around 1100 CE or so – just as the end of the ‘golden age’ of Islamic science came to its end.  Those two are closely connected, because Sharia is very inimical to any form of inquiry, including the scientific one.

It is important to keep in mind that while Sharia is based on early scholars’ reading of Koran and the life of Muhammad, it is not actually the Koran and Sunna itself.

The way Sharia is implemented in various Islamic countries does vary, even if the cores are common to them all:  the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man, her inheritance is half that of a man’s, a woman is a perpetual minor in they eyes of the law so any and all of her property is managed for her by her guardian, and this guardian is also the one who enters into legal contracts on her behalf (including marriage:  under Sharia, a woman is herself not a party to her marrige contract, only her guardian and husband have legal standing in the contract),  apostates must be put to death (though one school of thought says female apostates are only to be under house-arrest for life), and so on.

Many Muslims do not like living under Sharia and its harsh rules – or, at least, the way it is imposed on them from the outside.

Thus, they have come to The West in order to practice Islam according to their own understanding and without the straight jacket jurisprudence that is Sharia.  These are people who are happy to follow our secular laws and impose any additional religious rules onto themselves, from the inside, without compulsion from anyone else.

These are the people I consider ‘moderate Muslims’.

As opposed to the Muslims who want to live under Sharia – but to do so in our lands, in The West.

The problems with this desire are numerous – not the least of which is that in order to retain integrity and social cohesion in a land, one set of rules has to apply equally to each and every citizen.  Equality before the law is such a fundamental cornerstone of our society that to have one class of people ruled by a parallel legal system means it has already been destroyed.

Another problem with Sharia is that it is deeply supremacist.  It sees itself as above all mere man-made laws, and wherever there is a conflict between the two, Sharia demands supremacy.  And since only Islamic scholars are permitted to issue Sharia rulings, permitting Sharia in a country effectively takes the application of law from the hands of trained jurists and places it in the hands of Islamic clerics…which could, indeed be problematic, to say the least.

Did I mention that non-Muslims are not permitted to speak at a Sharia court, even to defend themselves – even though Sharia reserves the right to rule over them?

And then there are the moderate Muslims – the ones who immigrated to the West specifically to get away from Sharia…if we permit it in our lands, they will automatically be subject to it, whether legally (as in Indonesia) or through peer pressure (as in the UK).  Do we not owe them equality under our laws, just like every other citizen?

Though I have barely scratched the surface, I do hope I have demonstrated both that Sharia is incompatible with our governance and that we owe it to the moderate Muslims among us to protect them from it.

Which brings me to the other type of Muslim – the ones who demand Sharia in our lands, under the terms of ‘religious accommodation’, necessarily at the expense of our ‘freedom from religion’.

Sharia is the politico/judicial arm of Islam and not theological teachings.

As such, anyone who wishes for any form of Sharia to be implemented (accommodated is the term used, but due to its supremacist nature, in reality, this ‘accommodation’ requires putting Sharia above our own common laws) in The West is calling not just for freedom of religion, but for the imposition of Islamic law.  And not just for themselves, as an act of private worship, but as something to be imposed on the whole of society because Sharia’s laws extend to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

This, by definition, makes them Islamists and not ‘moderate Muslims’.

To recap:  those Muslims who call for Sharia accommodation/implementation in The West are not moderate Muslims, they are Islamist colonists who ought to be called out as such and resisted, if we want our culture of tolerance preserved.

 

 

 

 

BCF: Calling For Jews To Be Shot Now Legal – Ontario Attorney General

From BlazingCatFur:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

TORONTO, January 31, 2014 — B’nai Brith Canada, the country’s senior Jewish human rights organization, has been informed that the Ontario Attorney General (AG) has not consented to the laying of hate crime charges against Mr. Elias Hazineh. Hazineh, who spoke at the Iranian-inspired Al-Quds Day rally at Queen’s Park to an adoring crowd, was caught on video issuing an ultimatum that Israeli Jews either leave Jerusalem or be shot.

“We are disappointed by the decision not to confront hatred on the streets of Toronto,” said Frank Dimant, CEO, B’nai Brith Canada. “It seems that we have sadly grown accustomed to hearing hateful rhetoric spewed at these pro-Iranian-regime, anti-Israel events. As we have noted, Al-Quds Day, a now annual event, is a route by which Canadians are being exposed to the radical and hateful ideologies of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and the banned terrorist group Hezbollah. 

Don’t get me wrong – I am a ‘free speech absolutist’.

But, as others keep reminding me, we do have laws on the books in Canada that make ‘incitement to violence’ a criminal offense – and ‘incitement to violence against a group protected on either racial or religious grounds’ is not only a ‘simple’ criminal offense but a ‘hate crime’…

….and, when AT THE SAME TIME incitement to violence against ‘Jews’ becomes acceptable and is not acted upon by ‘the authorities’, our society has stopped being decent….or civilized!!!!

Sad, so sad…

Pat Condell: A word to left-wing students

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

NSA Gathers Far More Than Phone Data (Julian Sanchez)

 

Omar Khadr moved to Edmonton jail

Omar Khadr…

So, Canada’s most infamous convicted terrorist has been moved to a jail in  Edmonton, because the other inmates at Millhaven (just west of Kingston), offered to kill him.  Not for any political reasons, not because he is a Sharia supremacist, not because he is a war criminal, not because he murdered a medic who was trying to save Omar Khadr’s life – but because he’s such a jerk, even the other inmates cannot stand him.

From CBC:

‘Khadr was flown to the Edmonton Institution Tuesday, potentially ending a situation in which he had been deprived of prison programming that complicated efforts to seek parole, his lawyer Dennis Edney confirmed.

“Hopefully, this is a positive step in his long journey to freedom,” the Edmonton-based Edney said.’

Yeah, we all hope he’ll move right next door to us and pop over to sing Kumbaya with our kids every now and then…

With the failure of British and US police forces to protect their citizenry against Islamists with known terrorist tendencies, let’s show the world that the rule of law has not yet broken down in Canada.

Omar Khadr took up arms against forces engaged in a UN sanctioned war, forces which were direct allies of Canada.  That, under Canadian laws, constitutes treason.

Let’s apply the law to Omar Khadr just like we would to any other Canadian, without prejudice on any grounds, and charge him with treason.

For a just society to exist, the laws must be applied to everyone equally – even Omar Khadr!

 

Dzhokar Tsarnaev and his Miranda rights

I am not well versed in legal matters, much less US ones.  So, I found it baffling that it is permissible for US authorities to interrogate Dzhokar Tsarnaev without having first ‘Mirandized’ him.

A nephew of mine who was up last weekend from the US for the funeral of our aunt tried to explain to me both the legality and the logistics behind it.  Because of the family obligations the past weekend, I could not really track this down right away, but my nephew did point me in the right direction.  (Thanks, PJ!)

It seems that it boils down to this:  a person can be arrested and interrogated without having been ‘Mirandized’ and it is perfectly legal – it’s just that what the person says cannot be used against him/her in the court of law.  Here is an excellent legal analysis of this very topic.   (Via Popehat)

‘… But recall that under (1), the government is still free to question Tsarnaev outside Miranda as long as the government accepts the uncertainty of whether those statements would be admissible in a criminal case against him. Assuming that the evidence against Tsarnaev’s many different crimes over the last week is likely to be overwhelming, agents may not need any statements from him for a criminal case…’

 

 

This cop actually says that the police do not have to obey the law – as he illegally disarms, searches and arrests an active duty soldier

So, what else can you get arrested for in the USA these days?

Well, you can also be suspended from school for wrestling down an armed gunman who threatened to shoot a student on a school bus…and here are 19 other things that got kids arrested at school.

This is not proper policing…

UPDATE:  some of the links in ’19 other things that got kids arrested’ are broken.  I’ve hunted around the net and found better/alternate links to some of the ones broken in the linked post:

and, also, getting an undercover narc to bully – and then arrest – autistic student for selling sugar packets

If you find more broken links, please, let me know and I’ll search for an alternate link to the original article.  This is too important to ignore!!!

Pat Condell: I’m offended by Islam

I’m offended by not applying the rule of law equally to each and every citizen.

I’m offended by all claims that religious laws are above human laws.

I’m offended by adult human beings taking pride in believing things that they have no evidence for.

I’m offended by people claiming that a person can be both religious and moral.

I’m offended by people thinking it’s their right to intellectually cripple their children by brainwashing them into the religion of the parents’ choice…

 

Reason TV: Why The European Union Will Fail: Q&A with Austrian Economist Barbara Kolm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 123 other followers