Hat tip to Andrew B.
*************************************
I posted this to educate the non muslim, the “infidel” “kuffer” as to what Shariah Law, whether economic, societal, or social really is. While we sit by and sell out American and the West to Dubai, dreaming of wealth, and seeing unlimited petro dollar flowing into our economy to repair bad loans and decisions make by imcompentant CEO’s. While they scramble to save atheir homes in the Hamptons, their private planes, they have taken a financial risk that is so incidious, so dangerous, without caring. It is still like the movie “Wallstreet” and Gekko says “Greed is Good”. In the case of selling our indices, our banks, our stock exchanges to the proponents of Shariah Law and Islam, we have sold our soul along with it. Thomas Jefferson was concerned about Islam entering a new democracy, and his fears were legitimate.
This is not about being anti Muslim, it is anti theocracy. It is a system of law that goes against everything we value in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a system of law that is backwards and will take us into an area that we dare not tread.
We are living in times like “Alice in Wonderland”, where up is down and down is up. But if we enter this “wonderland” we may never right the wrongs, and it may be too late for us, and especially our children and their children.
Money, can be the root of all evil, and selling ourselves out to Shariah will not bring us financial relief, but a life of dhimmitude.
comments by Allyson Rowen Taylor who is solely responsible for them.
Shari’a and the Non-Muslim, as per the Greatest 20th Century Scholar of Islamic Law, Joseph Schacht (1964): *
The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be either converted or subjugated or killed (excepting women, children, and slaves); the third alternative, in general, occurs only if the first two are refused…Apart from this, prisoners of war are either made slaves or killed or left alive as free dhimmis or exchanged for Muslim prisoners of war, at the discretion of the imam; also a treaty of surrender is concluded which forms the legal basis for the treatment of the non-Muslims to whom it applies. It is often called dhimma…This treaty necessarily provides for the surrender of the non-Muslims with all duties deriving from it, in particular the payment of tribute, i.e., the fixed poll-tax (jizya) and the land tax (kharaj), the amount of which is determined from case to case.
The non-Muslims must wear distinctive clothing and must mark their houses, which must not be built higher than those of the Muslims, by distinctive signs; they must not ride horses or bear arms, and they must yield the way to Muslims; they must not scandalize the Muslims by openly performing their worship or distinctive customs, such as drinking wine; they must not build new churches, synagogues, or hermitages; they must pay the poll-tax under humiliating conditions…
A non-Muslim who is not protected by a treaty is called harbi, ‘in a state of war’, ‘enemy alien’; his life and property are completely unprotected by law…
..the dhimmi cannot be a witness, except in matters concerning other dhimmis…
* Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law, Clarendon Press, 1964, reprinted 1982, pp. 130-132.
Writing in 1955, (in this essay collection, Unity and variety in Muslim civilization), Schacht further observed,
The idea of religious law—the concept that law, as well as the other human relationships, must be ruled by religion—has become an essential part of the Islamic outlook. The same, incidentally, is true of politics, and even economics; it explains the recent attempt to hold an Islamic economic congress in Pakistan. Because they cannot face the problem, because they lack historical understanding of the formation of Mohammedan religious law, because they cannot make up their minds, any more than their predecessors could in the early Abbasid period [which began 750 C.E.], on what is legislation, the modernists cannot get away from a timid, halfhearted, and essentially self-contradictory position.
And he concluded, “The real problem poses itself at the religious and not at the technically legal level.”
