You are here

Letter to MP After PM Exonerates Islam after Westminster Attack

Letter to MP After PM Exonerates Islam after Westminster Attack

This letter was sent by a supporter of Sharia Watch to their MP after Theresa May effectively exonerated Islam following the Westminster attack:

Dear xxxxx

Given that sharia law mandates establishment of a caliphate and offensive jihad toward non-believers until Islamic hegemony is globally secured, I am puzzled why you asked in Parliament, "Will the Prime Minister agree with me that what happened was not Islamic..."

Trying to wish away an intruder by closing ones eyes, thinking nice thoughts and singing Kumbaya will fail.  Similarly, people will not end sharia-supremacism by pretending it has 'nothing to do with Islam': that just gives it plenty of space to operate globally as Western non-Islamic obfuscation and blindness continues.

If you doubt the matter, you can check in this manual of sharia-law from the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence:

...Certificates of authenticity attest to the English translation from the governments of Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia; al-Azhar University has certified that "this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community".

The manual's introduction states, "The four Sunni schools of Islamic law, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali, are identical in approximately 75 percent of their legal conclusions, while the remaining questions, variances within a single family of explainers of the Holy Koran and prophetic sunna, are traceable to methodological differences in understanding or authentication of the primary textual evidence, differing viewpoints sometimes reflected in even a single school".

While some development is possible within sharia-law, not every kind of change would be acceptable -- for example, the change must not be contrary to the basic teachings and objectives in Islam.  Under Islamic law, injunctions laid down in the Qur'an and the Sunnah (Muhammad's way of life, as transmitted in traditional reports of his words, actions and approvals) cannot be changed by any human agency.  Note also what is written on "scholarly consensus", p. 23>b7.0 - 24>b7.4: briefly "When the four necessary integrals of consensus exist {see manual for definition}, the ruling agreed upon is an authoritative part of [sharia-law] that is obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey.  Nor can [jurists] of a succeeding era make the thing an object of new [independent reasoning], because the ruling on it, verified by scholarly consensus, is an absolute legal ruling which does not admit of being contravened or annulled."  Though Islamic law makes allowances for an individual Muslim's circumstances (e.g being in environments unsupported of Islamic law), the only way to 'change' such rulings found in mainstream orthodox Islam as the mandate for caliphate, offensive jihad, and pressing forward for world domination under Islamic law, is to leave Islam or to become a Muslim who rejects the binding nature of these laws (and for some Muslims that, too, equates, with apostasy): the law has painted them into a corner.

See p. 638>o25.0 - 645>o25.6 on caliphate and its obligatory nature; here is a brief excerpt from p. 638: "The investiture of someone from the Islamic Community (Umma) able to fulfill the duties of the caliphate is obligatory by scholarly consensus, though scholars differ as to whether its obligatory character is established through reason or through Revealed Law."

From p. 599>o9.0 - 606>o10.3 on jihad (war against non-Muslims): "Jihad is a communal obligation.  When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others"; “If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it.  In the time of the Prophet … jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina.  As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.  The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case {offensive} jihad is a communal obligation … upon the Muslims each year.  The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can"; "The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)) ... until they become Muslim or else pay the [jizya] ... The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions ... are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim"; "Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.  When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled" (plus p. 932 w37.1 (2nd para.: "whom their right hands own" refers to their slaves; the Arabic chapter on slavery has not been translated)); "Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim … If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary … It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years."  Jihad al-talab (offensive jihad) is the sharia-law-based imperative to subjugate the world:

See p. 607>o11.0 - 609>o11.11 on non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state.

There are other sections of similar interest to non-Muslims (e.g p. 652>p1.0 - 653>p1.3 (on "shirk"); 664>p17.0 - 665>p17.3 (on homosexuality); p. 846>w4.0 - 851>w4.7 (on religious supersession, unbelievers, finality of Islam: for example, "Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses of the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam … {I}t is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as 'Christianity' or 'Judaism,' are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final Messenger … to the entire world … This is a matter over which there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars, and if English-speaking Muslims at times discuss it as if there were some question about it, the only reason can be that no one has yet offered them a translation of a scholarly Koranic exegesis (tafsir) to explain the accord between the various Koranic verses, and their agreement with the sunna"; "The Prophet … said: 'By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell.'  This is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith"); p. 1040>x91 (on an element of Islamic eschatology, stating "The Antichrist ... is Ibn Sayyad al-Masih al-Dajjal of Bani Isra'il" {False Messiah of the Children of Israel}); and others; note that non-Muslim Arabic-reader Mark Durie has stated that p. 59>e4.3 on circumcision has been mistranslated and should read "Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris").

While it may not be tactful (toward Muslims who are not sharia-supremacists) nor prudent to ask the Prime Minister to affirm publicly the Islamic nature of the attack, surely asking her to confirm a falsehood as truth publicly undermines the nation's clarity and security?

With best wishes, yours sincerely