In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Grande Strategy

Imposing Shariah Law


'Imposing Sharia Law' (From Abdullah Al-Andalusi)

What do many media outlets, Western government reports, politicians speeches, 'Muslim' modernist rhetoric and Islamophobe propaganda all have in common? They all agree on one thing - to characterise the desire of 'Islamists', 'extremists' and 'radical muslims' as seeking to 'IMPOSE' Sharia on the world.

The reason they use this line of rhetoric is simple, it makes non-Muslims, and Muslims ignorant about the aims of Islamic revival, to think that the work to re-establish an Islamic state involves going against people's consent, and forcing people to live under a law system against their will.

The truth is actually ironic.

Firstly, 'Sharia law' is a tautology, since the word Sharia means 'Law' and thus the sentence literally translates as 'Law law'! The reason they use the word 'sharia' is because it sounds foreign and maximises fear to the ears of non-Muslims.

Secondly, the phrase 'Imposing Sharia law' is idiotic, since what law isn't imposed? Are there voluntary laws? The reason law is called law, and not 'guidelines', is because law is obligatory, whereas guidelines isn't. By definition, enforcing the law is in imposition on those who break it!

Thirdly, Is there any citizen of the U.S., France, UK or Italy that can opt-out of the laws they live under without having to leave the country? No. What if a citizen in these countries doesn't believe in the law, must they be under it? Yes - there is no options given to its citizens to be an exception to the laws.

In fact, many Christians and Muslims have been sent to jail, or are forced to cease following their religious conscience because the law IMPOSED upon them a set of rules they didn't believe it.

In Western Secular countries, we find Women banned from wearing hijab in schools and Niqab bans across europe. Catholic adoption agencies (despite being privately funded) are forced to close for not adopting children to same-gender couples. Christians and Muslims arrested by police for preaching same-gender sexual intercourse is sinful. Christian hoteliers prosecuted for not allowing a same-gender couple to use a room in their hotel. Christian counsellors lose their jobs for refusing to counsel a same-gender couple. Muslims are prosecuted for criticising Western foreign policy. Two non-violent Muslim political parties are banned (which was upheld by European Court of Human Rights) for espousing ideas against Secularism and Liberal Democracy etc etc the list goes on.

Was not the Secular Liberal law imposed upon these tax-paying citizens? Did they have a choice in the matter? No. So Secular Liberal Democracy (Liberalism) doesn't care whether you agree with it or not, it will make ALL SUBMIT to it, whether you consent or not. As Secularists say 'One Law for All'... their law.

Islamic law actually DOESN'T impose itself on people without their consent. Every time a Caliph comes to power, the Muslim community must consent through Bayah (pledging allegiance after a decision/election process) to the new Caliph. This then forms a consensual contract with the leader which establishes his authority to rule with Islamic law upon the Muslims. In fact, the Muslims establish a Caliph precisely to rule with Islamic law - and thus discharge their collective obligation to God.

When the Islamic state is created, it will start off with consent of the Muslims, and continue getting its consent with every new Caliph - the same can't be said for the Western system.

In the West, whether you vote or not, all must obey the government. The so-called 'democratic' elections do not give people a choice to affirm a national law or ideology (like whether they want Communism, Liberalism or Islam), but only to select the leader to rule over them according to a pre-arranged system. The people are not requested to consent to their government in the modern democratic system, only to consent to its rulers...and even then, not exactly, since Western rulers tend to generally be elected on a fraction of the actual population).

Just ask yourself, while Mohammed el Morsi, the so-called 'Islamist' was obtaining a referendum to get national consent on a new constitution - how many Western countries historically have conducted referendums on their constitutions? Did the so-called 'free' country of USA ask its citizens to consent to their famous constitution? No.

Remember when Western politicians were decrying Morsi for not involving more Christian input in the constitution's drafting? It was said that since Christians are 10% of the Egypt, the constitution should represent them, however, I somehow don't see France caring if its anti-hijab and anti-Niqab laws represents the 10% Muslim population there (which as you know France can ignore because Democracy tilts towards the majority, and doesn't care about minorities...unless they are a minority in a Muslim country).

It seems the West wants Muslims to be more Democratic than even Western Democracies are!

Lastly, under Islamic law, non-Muslims are not to be subject to laws they don't believe in. Non-Muslims get to live under their own law systems, under their own regional government in autonomous areas - which historically are either regions like Millets, or city Quarters. Jews lived under Jewish law, Christians lived under Christian law, Zoroastrians lived under their own law (no matter how strange Muslims found it, like 'self-marriage', which was legalised incest!).

History and Islamic teaching demonstrates that Islamic law is the only law system that actually DIDN'T impose itself. The same can't be said for the totalitarian system of Secular Liberal Democracy, which spreads only its own definition of 'human rights' and enforces only its vision on the world's populations whether or not they have their own differing conceptions of human rights. law to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them...

Vision Without Glasses


Post a Comment