Islamic Censorship: Blasphemy Law

Islamic Censorship:
Blasphemy Law
Reliance of the Traveller is the all purpose handbook of Shari'ah. Book O deals with "Justice", including Islam's blasphemy law. O8.0 specifies the punishment for apostasy. Apostates are executed. Chapter O8.0: Apostasy from Islam (Ridda) (O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, ``Trim your nails, it is sunna,'' and he replies, ``I would not do it even if it were,'' as opposed to when some circumstance exists which exonerates him of having committed apostasy, such as when his tongue runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone, or says it out of fear.) O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

O8.7 lists twenty acts and attitudes which entail apostasy. O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are: -1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah; -2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

Islamic Censorship: Blasphemy Law

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief; -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace); -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1); -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat; -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it; -8- to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is''; -9- to reply to someone who says, ``There is no power or strength save through Allah''; ``Your saying `There's no power or strength, etc,' won't save you from hunger''; -10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, ``This is through the decree of Allah,'' to reply, ``I act without the decree of Allah''; -11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also ``kafir''); -12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, ``La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah'' (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it; -13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr); -14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4); -15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

Islamic Censorship: Blasphemy Law

(n: `Ala' al-din' Abidin adds the following: -16- to revile the religion of Islam; -17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah; -18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens; -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; -20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 42324). ) There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

how does that apply to us?

Since we are not Muslims, that should not apply to us. But Shari'ah is imposed upon people intimidated or conquered by Islam. Conquered and intimidated Jews & Chistians are placed under a treaty of protection, which, being violated by certain acts listed in Reliance 911.10, exposes the violator to a harsh penalty. O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people: -1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her; -2- conceals spies of hostile forces; -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam; -4- kills a Muslim;

Islamic Censorship: Blasphemy Law

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam. O11.11 When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14). If you revile Moe, Allah or Islam, deny any part of the Qur'an or any part of Shari'ah, you are to be punished. The punishment is specified in section 9.14. O9.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy. If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen. The bottom line: criticizing Islam carries the death penalty.

but we ain't conquered

Not yt, but our elected leaders have been intimidated. Each year the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council pass resolutions condemning "defamation of religions" and calling upon member states to criminalize criticism of Islam. The last two resolutions dropped explicit reference to defamation, substituting "negative stereotyping of persons", but the net effect is the same. The new meme is "consequences": if you burn a Qur'an and Muslims riot in Pakistan, you will be subject to civil and criminal penalties. The State Department is cooperating with the OIC to implement HRC 16/18 through the Istanbull Process. Meanwhile, below the radar, the Ad Hoc Committee on Elaboration of Complementary Standards. is working on a binding protocol to ICERD, which will make Islamic blasphemy laws internationally and nationally enforcible. This quote from the Daily Caller serves as a wake up call.
Will you tell us that this administrations Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion? Frank asked four times. Perez refused to answer, saying it is a hard question, in the sense that when you make threats against

Islamic Censorship: Blasphemy Law

someone. Perez then suggested he would respond to draft legislation from the committee, but again refused to answer Franks question about free speech rights. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/doj-official-refuses-to-denounce-demands-for-saudi-styleblasphemy-law/#ixzz2257y755s

Perez stubbornly refused to supply a direct answer to Rep. Trent Franks who propounded a simple yes or no question. That evasion speaks volumes about the threat to our first amendment rights. The video of this disgusting exchange is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wwv9l6W8yc.