Sunday, 22 January 2012

Tawfik Hamid on Oklahoma's Rejection of "Unalienable Rights"

Ealier this month, a federal appeals court unanimously upheld a ruling that blocked implementation of an Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that would have prohibited state courts from considering what is broadly described as Islamic “Sharia law” and “international law.”

The court concluded that by "singling out Islam for unfavorable treatment" in state courts, the law likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The court further explained:

“Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted . . . that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.”

One of the problems with the many anti-sharia laws that are being put forward on the state level in the US is that many of their proponents seem unable to put forward a coherent case in support of them. For example, while it may be true that Oklahoma is not one of the documented states in which sharia has been applied in an American court (there are 23 states where this has in fact occurred, by the way), the proponents of the bill could have pointed to other examples from around the country, and warned about the seriousness of considering the possibility that such a thing could happen, and acting to prevent it. But they apparently did not do this.

They should have also made the point that the anti-sharia laws are aimed at Islam's political doctrines, and so do not infringe upon the First Amendment religious rights of American Muslims in any way. But they have not done this effectively, either, and so the clueless dhimmis have ended up triumphant this time.

It is extremely telling that one of the most passionate denunciations of the court's decision that I have seen comes not from anti-jihad warriors such as Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller, but from a Muslim: Tawfik Hamid.

Hamid is an Egyptian Muslim who was formerly a member of the terrorist group Jamaah Islamiyah, and studied for a time under the tutelage of the current al-Qaeda head honcho Ayman al-Zawahiri. After renouncing the group, Hamid has become perhaps the world's foremost proponent of a tiny Islamic reform movement that seeks to fundamentally rewrite the tenets of Islam - not by denying that any problematic texts or doctrines exist, but by confronting these problems head-on and seeking to construct new understandings of Islam that challenge the mainstream interpretations that have prevailed for fourteen centuries. Unsurprisingly, in the process of engaging in this courageous exercise, he is regularly subjected to death threats by others who label themselves "moderate Muslims".

In a recent article, Hamid brilliantly skewers the critics of the anti-sharia bill. Below are some lengthy extracts from his piece, which make plain the importance of these issues, and highlight how vital it is that true moderate Muslim reformers such as Hamid are supported and encouraged throughout the Islamic world:

The above comments about Sharia law do not properly depict how controversial the risks to society would be if considered. Fundamental principles of Sharia law that are not only approved but also unchallenged in Islamic Jurisprudence include the killing Muslims who convert from Islam to another faith, the stoning of adulterers, and the killing of gays.

Furthermore, it justifies polygamy, pedophilia, and beating women to discipline them. If the judges of the Oklahoma court knew that the basic principles of Sharia law promote such inhumane and derogatory acts and still lifted the ban on it, it would subsequently end in catastrophe.

Not only would it be disastrous to our society but it would also show a level of ignorance within the U.S. judicial system.

If one day Awad wanted to kill another Muslim who converted to Christianity (or any other faith), would the Oklahoma court uphold his ‘constitutional right’ to practice Sharia Law and kill that Muslim — as Sharia law dictates — or will they uphold the constitutional right of the other Muslim to practice his freedom of religion?

In other words, should the court in Oklahoma protect such constitutional rights that arouse criminal activity (an example being the killing of apostates) but not protect such constitutional rights that allow citizens to freely select their faith and convert out of Islam without being threatened? The court MUST explain this discrimination in respecting one constitutional right over another.

Courts must be able to find sources for Sharia Law that illustrate how it DOES NOT promote the above mentioned criminal activities. Such sources must be cited appropriately and it must be noted whether any major Islamic institution approves it. Removing the ban on Sharia Law — without showing even one single approved Sharia text that rejects the crimes mentioned above — can be seen as a form of endorsement for legalizing such criminal acts....

The judges who lifted the ban on Sharia law must explain to us how allowing a law that justifies the above mentioned crimes can fit with our “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Accepting Sharia Law that shamelessly allows killing apostates, adulterers and gays AND that promotes beating women, pedophilia and slavery is ultimately destructive to our unalienable rights.


  1. One thing should be made clear. Which is that all Muslims violent and non-violent believe in the Quran. With that stated it need too be clear that the Christian church thoughout time and also today has had the Gospel of Christ, First Corinthians 15:1-8. In contrast, what Muhammad gavethe world was the Quran which is in reality another gospel. Muhammad even claimed, att times to get the information that he received from an angle that eventually went into the composition of the Quran[another gosple]. Such a thing was forseen and warned about in the Bible. For it reads "Though we are an angle from heaven, preach any other gosple unto you let him be accursed. AS we said before, so I say I now again, if n=any man pre4ach any other gosple unto you then ye ye have received ,let him be accursed."
    Galatiuons 1:8,9. [KJV]

  2. An important question: is the Quran the Word of God or is it a fabrication of a man. Thus, is the Quran the truth or a fiction and a hoax? The jihadists use many verses from the Quran as the Main source of justification for their violence, mayhem and murders. There, the question is clearly given on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Quran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Quran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]? The above is inconsistent and illogical. Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Quran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Quran is right.” Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Quran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Quran. Furthermore, the Muslims claim that “the Quran is the direct, literal word of God unmodified in any way by the Prophet who uttered them at the bidding of God.” Nevertheless, in the book UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet and Eethi Caner has shown that the Quran was modified in the following account on pages 45. “Muhammad felt the need to improve on the words of Allah, since he changed Allah’s wisdom for his own on several occasions. A hadith tells of the nonchalant emendations of Muhammad:’ On a number of occasions he [a scribe] had, with the Prophet’s consent changed the closing words of verses. For example, when the prophet had said ‘God is mighty and wise ‘ Adbollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down ‘Knowing and wise’ and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Adbollah renounced Islam on the grounds that revelations, if from God could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.’ Other writers reveal that later Muhammad and his people did go war with the Qorayshites and he personally killed Abdollah. Obviously Abdollah knew too much and Muhammad wanted Abdollah’s knowledge to die with him.” In conclusion, the Quran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.

  3. The Bible reads in Proverbs 15: 15 “A simple man believes every word he hears; a clever man understands the need of proof.” [NEB]. Likewise, It’s a good idea not to take at face value the claim that the word Islam means “peace.” For example, the ENCARTA WORLD ENGLISH DICTIONARY copyright 1999 defines Islam as “submission” based on the word “aslama” meaning “he surrendered.” Given the definition it’s an odd phenomenon that after about fourteen hundred years starting on September 12, 2001 the meaning changed from “submission” to “peace.” It’s very well known that if the police are questioning someone and he changes his story something is wrong. Nevertheless, when it comes to Islam no one gets suspicious of the change. The jihadists brag that they will win the war against the West by using the Western ignorance and naive gullible mindset on the subject of Islam against us. It seems that they do have some basis in that claim since so many Westerners are beguiled by the Muslim disinformation campaign.

  4. A claim by Islamic scholars as well as jihadists is that no one can produce something as beautiful as the Quran in the way the words are arranged and thus it can only be of God. This claim should be answered.
    First, all someone has to do is examine some of the great works of literature to fine much written beauty. Such as the Greek epic poet Homer with his Iliad and Odyssey and then Virgil who produced the Aeneid has beauty. Even one of the non-Bible books in the Apocrypha called The Song of Three Children is also very beautiful. Thus just because someone sees a work that is written in great beauty doesn’t mean it’s inspired by God.
    Second, the scholar Edward Gibbon wrote after an examination of the Quran that it is an “incoherent jumble of fable and precept and declamation which seldom excites a sentiment or an idea, sometimes craws in the dust and is sometimes lost in the clouds…” The writer Thomas Carlyle wrote the Quran is “A wearisome jumble, crude, incondite [with] endless iterations [and] longwindedness…” Likewise, the philosopher David Hume was NOT favorably impressed after reading the Quran.
    [Source of the three scholars mentioned – Secrets of The Koran: Revealing Insight Into Islam’s Holy Book .56,66, by Don Richardson]

    Furthermore, the following should be taken into consideration.

    Of course the Muslim who reads the Quran will see great beauty in the way the words are arranged. This is, in part, because of the power of suggestion after being told so many times that the Quran is so beautifully written. That’s an old brainwashing method, repeating and being told that same thing again and again. Since he or she is always being told the same lie will end up believing that lie. In addition to that, the Imams try to discourage their people from reading other works, such as the Bible, so then they don’t have much or anything to compare or contrast the Quran with. Of course there are some Muslim’s that do read other works, but they are exceptions and they read other things only after they were already brainwashed by the Imams. In short, the Muslims can’t read the Quran objectively because their Imams have programmed them to have a strong bias towards it.

  5. If Islam is represented as a tree then thefruit of this tree are the many different Islamic terror groups, Such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Ansar al-Islam, PIJ etc. Those menbers of these groups put practice the murderous violence of Islam's militant jihadism, the Quran Sura 9:122. 47:4. In the light of this statement the teachings of Jesus very much apply. For Jesus taught "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thisles ? Even so every good tree bringth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." After this Jesus told them what He told them when He stated "By their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:16,17,18,20. [KJV]
    In conclusion, Islam is a corrupt tree and Islam is a false religion.

  6. On the subject of the founder and prophet of Islam and also Islam itself, which is an important topic. It thus needs to be stated that it should be known that Muhammad was false prophet and that Islam is a false religion. To back this statement up the teaching of warning of the words of Jesus are place to start. For Jesus warned “Beware of false prophets , which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew 5:15. That the above words and warnings may apply to Muhammad is further explained in the Bible in Isaiah 8:20. Which teaches “To the law of the Testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is not light in them.” [KJV] In other words if a teacher or prophet has teachings or doctrines that are in contradiction to the Word of God [the Bible]the that person is a false teacher or false prophet. This also may apply to a religion that has doctrines that are in contradiction to the Bible. Islam denies the teachings that Jesus is God. This is in great contrast to the Bible as well as Christianity. For example, that Jesus is God may be in John 1-13. Romans 9:5. Colossians 1:15-17. Hebrews 1:8. Second Peter 1:1. Titus 2:13. First John 5:20. Moreover, alone needs to do to further find out that Jesus is God is to compare the Old Testament with the New Testament. Just two example is to compare Isaiah 45:22,23 with Philippians 2: 5-11. Likewise to compare Psalm 89:8,9. with Matthew 8:23-27 will further confirm Jesus to be God. Furthermore, just comparing the New Testament with itself will also show Jesus to be God. As comparing John 5;22 with Romans 14:12. These are just a few of the many places in the Bible where the Deity of Christ may be found. The imams and mullahs to try to cover this up by claiming that the Bible has been corrupted through time by Christians. There are many things wrong with this claim. One of them is that by saying this these Islamic clerics are denying the Power of God to protect His Word and preserve it from corruption of evil men. What kind of powerless god can’t keep his word intact through time from the corruption by wicked men. The True God of the Bible is almightly and has the Power to preserves and keep His Word in tact through time from the corruption of heinous men. In Short, Muhammad was a false prophet and Islam is a false religion.