No Muslim can reject the sharia, to do so is to automatically place him/herself outside of the mainstream of Islamic thought, and into the realm of apostasy. An automatic death sentence.
That has been the success of Islam throughout it’s 1400 years of indoctrination/brain washing countless generations, and this unpleasant truth is what they (mainstream Muslims) would like to keep us from informing the rest of society about, hence the threats, intimidation’s and lawsuits for the ludicrous ”defamation of religious beliefs”.
Ali Sina: There is no such thing as moderate Islam. This is the ultimate taqiyah. This trap is deadly. It may cost your liberty and your life. Moderate Islam is an oxymoron. It is as attainable as perfumed dung; although I may be wrong about the latter.
For that reason alone, Islam has to be impugned, ridiculed, mocked and maligned, as all ideologies have been, it’s no different, and to do so, is to treat it like all ideologies that have had to endure the free exchange in the public square of ideas. Islam rests or falls on the merit of its logic, to be either championed as a beacon of enlightenment, or relegated to the ash heap of the intolerable. The former is beyond Islam’s reach, the latter is not beyond ours.
Ali Sina: Taqiyah is like an onion. One layer hides another layer, which hides yet another layer and so on and so forth. There is nothing surprising for a Muslim to realize Islam is not compatible with our time and leave it. I made the transition myself and have helped thousands to do it. However, those who come to see the truth, leave Islam. They don’t go around promoting a moderate version of Islam. There is no such thing. You either accept the inhuman and backward teachings of Islam or you don’t accept Islam at all.
Maajid claims to be a Muslim who rejects the Sharia. He is not alone. There are a few more in Canada and USA who make such claim. Among them are, Tarik Fatah, Irshad Manji, Zuhdi Yaser, just to name a few. Can these people be trusted? Can a Muslim reject any part of the Quran?
Who has not heard of taqiyah? But did you know that it is onion shaped? Taqiyah sounds and means the same as the Sanskrit word thugee from the root sthag. They may be related. The idea behind the taqiyah is to deceive the victim and when he is least prepared overpower him and subdue him. This was also the philosophy of the Indian thugs.
Taqiyah has many layers. The most common form is when Muslims deny that certain Islamic behaviors have anything to do with Islam.
On October 27, the BBC aired a documentary in which Mo Ansar, a Muslim activist in UK, was shown addressing a group of English Defense League members. He wanted to meet them in order to dispel their misunderstandings of Islam and to prove that Islam poses no threat to their country and their way of life. How could he do that when Islam’s goal is to become dominant over all religions and nations? Well, he did it like any Muslim would do. He lied. (Mo’s speech to EDL is at minute 10).
Mo starts by saying “as somebody who was born in this country and is British, I think I uphold British values. I am also a Muslim. Islam is not here to take over the country. Islam is not here to take over the world. That is not the Islam that I know. Islam that I know is one that believes in co-existence and honors and respects British values.”
Nothing can be further from the truth. The British and Islamic values are diametrically opposed. They cannot co-exist. The British values are based on democracy. Democracy implies equality. Iranian Journalist Amir Taheri says, “Equality is unacceptable in Islam. Un-believers cannot be equal to believers and women are not equal to men. Even the non-Muslims are not deemed to be equal. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are accepted as second class citizens and allowed to live in an Islamic state provided they pay the protection tax; Jizyah. But the pagans, atheists and idolaters are not regarded as fully humans. According to the Quran, the idolaters are to be killed wherever they are found.” (9:5)
In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.
100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man,
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman,
50,000 riyals if a Christian man,
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman,
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man,
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.
According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and the Sharia. How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?
This is not a quirk of Saudi Arabia. The prophet of Islam advised Muslims not to aid non-Muslims to seek justice if they are abused by a Muslim. In his much celebrated edict of Medina, he declared, “A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.” The same document states, “Whoever is convicted of killing a believer… the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.”
The Quran 3:28 prohibits Muslims to take non-Muslims as their leaders, or even as friends. If Muslims tell the truth about their hostile intention, they will be kicked out from the countries that they intend to overtake. The same verse allows them to lie, “by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them.”
Co-existence? Yes there is co-existence in Islam, but only if the non-Muslims are reduced into dhimmis, and accept to pay tributes to Muslims while feeling themselves humiliated and subdued. (Q. 9:29)