Monday, January 24, 2011

Bookmark and Share

Sharia Barbarism is not 'Law'.

Marriage 'Law' is but one example.

by Ferdinand III


Sharia Ritualization, premised on the Koran is not a set of Laws, but a code of subjugation. Sharia, or the Right Path [to submission to the Allah moon cult]; has nothing in common with Western legal doctrines or jurisprudence. Nothing. It would be as if someone suggested that Soviet National Socialist governance was remarkably similar to the English Common Law system. They would be defined quite rightly as an ignoramus of the highest order. Yet the barbarism of Sharia is now conflated within the Western elite and intelligentsia [can there be a better code word for ignorance?]; as not only being the same as Western Laws, but even better. This is absurd:

A fantastic report named 'Time for Team B', on the Sharia threat, can be found at the website published by James Woolsey who was the director of central intelligence under President Clinton and Andrew C. McCarthy, who was the assistant U.S. attorney [and who prosecuted the perpetrators of the first attack on the World Trade Center]. It is well-written, historically accurate and it depicts very clearly the destructive details embedded in pre-modern; and anti-civilizational, Sharia 'Law'.

Consequently, we need to come to grips with Shariah. Whether pursued through violent jihad or the stealthier techniques the Brotherhood calls "civilization jihad" or dawa (the call to Islam), Shariah rejects fundamental premises of constitutional governance and American society: the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves irrespective of any theocratic code; the republican democracy guaranteed by the Constitution; freedom of conscience; individual liberty (including in matters of personal privacy and sexual preference); freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize theocratic codes and practices); economic liberty (including private property); equality (including equality of men and women and of Muslims and non-Muslims); freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (one that does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate "resistance"); and an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of federalism and democracy, not wanton violence.

This is a pithy summary of why Sharia and Islam are completely antithetical to both US Republicanism and Canadian-European Democratic Socialism.

Indeed Sharia is the opposite of what we have created in the West in over 2000 years of hard effort, bargaining, experience and evolution. Justinian's Codex which simplified and amplified the Roman legal system, and the English Common Law development, which grew out of completely different cultural and socio-political factors, have absolutely no corollary within Islam. It is preposterous to assert that pagan Arab Fascism, in which women, infidels, slaves, and non-Muslims are treated as barnyard animals, has any connection to Western jurisprudence.

Take the concepts of Family Law and Marriage. An analysis of the Koran and its Sharia ritualized 'demands' [which are not Laws in the Western sense of that word], indicate very clearly that women, just to take one group, would lose 2000 years of Western development under Sharia. This threat to female liberation within Western states would not be confined to the female cult worshippers of Allah. Once you set up parallel legal systems, in which females and non-Muslims are denigrated, trashed and oppressed, it does not take long for the 'mainstream' judicial system to be infected.

Once Sharia Law becomes established there is no argument against using some of its precepts and principles in general law. In fact it would be logical to do so. The apartheid society created by Sharia would not only debase the general culture and its view of women, gays and minority non-Muslims; it would surely begin to seep into the general legal discourse, mandated jurisprudence, case studies and court decisions. Any cursory reading of legal history makes that obvious.

Let's use Marriage Law as an example. There was an excellent piece written by a lawyer in the Canada Free Press, on the vast unbridgeable gulf which exists between Sharia and Western legal traditions. In this piece the writer, a female US lawyer, goes through the obvious and signal differences between the two world's of thought. I have also covered this elsewhere, but it bears repeating. Koranic Rituals are not Laws, but simply misogynistic means to control women. This is not to say that all Muslim men are polygamous, dis-honor kill teenage girls, rape 9 year olds, beat their wives or have 'marriage' contracts with prostitutes for the weekend. It is to say however, that the Koran and Sharia Rituals quite clearly condone all of these. As this good overview makes clear:

Islamic Marriage Law
A. Overview of Islamic Law of Marriage
The concept of marriage is radically different under Muslim law than in Christian and Western practice. .....

Marriage in Islam is not a sacrament, but a private contract (nikah) with no need of a ceremony. Under classical Shari’ah doctrine, it is considered an agreement between two families where the woman’s opinion holds no sway. Further, she can be married without being present, and divorced without her knowledge. Divorce can be achieved instantaneously by the husband, without courtroom or judge.

B. Choosing a Partner
.....A bride need not express her consent to marriage when the contract is established. The law actually does not require the bride’s presence at the marriage contract (agreement) for the marriage to be valid. The bride has a “matrimonial guardian,” usually the father or, in his absence, another male relative whom family members designate as her legal guardian…Only the guardian’s verbal expression of consent, and not the bride’s, makes the marriage legally valid......

C. Weddings
....Islamic law defines a marriage as a contractual rather than sacred institution. Marriage is a contract through which a man gives a bride price to a woman and commits himself to support her as long as they are married. In counterpart, the man receives the right to have sexual intercourse with her. The religious texts hardly mention the formation of a new family unit as a new social cell. Instead, they emphasize marriage as a legitimation of sexual relations.....

D. Proxy Marriages
Legal acts done by proxy are not differentiated from those executed by the party, including weddings and religious rites (niyaba), writes Schacht. Marriage by proxy is legal in Islam. This not surprising given all unmarried women need a legal guardian (wali) and also the common appearance of child brides.

E. Polygamy
Polygamy is an ancient practice allowing men more than one wife. The Muslim word for marriage is nikah, synonymous for polygamy. Under Shari’ah, a Muslim may have up to four wives, as long as he treats them equally, although the standard for this is never detailed under the law, according to Charrad. Warrant for polygamy comes from the Qur’an, in Sura 4, “The Women,” sura 3:

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, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

F. Temporary Marriage
A “temporary marriage” in Islamic law is an agreement between a man and woman to enter into a union of convenience. The admitted reason for these pairings is sexual pleasure for the man and economic gain of the woman. The Shi’ah still have a formal temporary marriage agreement, called mut’a, whereas the Sunnis condemn it, but still practice the activity, terming it misyar.

..... In response, they argue that mut’a marriage is sanctioned in the Qur’an 4:24, and that it has been permitted by the Prophet Muhammad himself. Despite the early prohibition of the institution, the custom of mut’a marriage did not completely die out among the Sunni, either. (Qur’an Sura 4)

'Moderate' Muslims will of course vociferously interject that the above is not 'True Islam'. It is Koranic 'Law' or Rituals however, so why isn't it true Islam? There are 56 Muslim states in the world, and most have some variety of Koranic Law which is part of the general legal jurisprudence within that state. The variety and mutability of Koranic Sharia Ritualization is justly much commented upon. But this just proves the point. The implementation of Sharia depends on local factors but more importantly, on the sources themselves. If the Koran says that polygamy, sex with prostitutes and slave girls; beating women, and denying them equal rights is the word of the thing Allah, than most certainly aspects of all of these barbarisms will find their way into Sharia. Just as Fascism, or National-State sponsored Socialism mutates to fit into the local-national cultural narrative, so too will Sharia. Sharia is very much a manifestation of an anti-humanist Fascist program.

One question to Muslims in the West – Why don't all of you Muslim 'moderates' denounce Sharia Law and rewrite the Koran ? Just wondering.