Former Muslim: Islamic teacher admits that islamic state resembles the Fascist and Communist state

(..,)Sheikh Abul Ala Maududi, defining the Islamic Sharia State as follows: “…It seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity…. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states. (Quote from his book “Islamic Law and Constitution”. (page 262).) Maulana Maududi’s comparison of the Islamic State with fascism and communism was not meant as negative...

Sharia law also exempts Muslim head of State from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking.” (Imam Abu Hanifa, Codified Islamic Law Vol 3 Law# 914 C) Also under Sharia: o25.5: “It is obligatory to obey the commands and interdictions of the caliph, even if he is unjust.”. This is also confirmed several times in the same book, for example also as an enormity:“Rebellion against the Caliph, even if he is unjust.” W52.1(317-18) P.984 . Thus Sharia is dictator friendly, a dictator’s dream. Any wonder why Muslim countries are all ruled by dictatorships? Don’t blame American foreign policy.

> "In this article I found interesting observation that in Quran word "love" is never mentioned..." ["The word 'love' was never mentioned in the Quran." article]

Of course not. 'Love' is an English word, and the book is written in Arabic. :-) I assumed the claim referred to translations into English, though, and it seemed unlikely to me that a book of that length and variety of topics would not refer to the concept of love. So I checked. One Koran search site lists 'love' in 83 passages.

I won't bother to trace these words to the literal meanings of the Arabic originals, but I'd expect that at least some of them would mean 'love'.

I'm not at all sympathetic with Islam, and do see some similarities with totalitarian regimes. Even the worst of regimes and ideologies, though, will tend to say some things that are positive.

Totalitarians of a feather...(from the article page 1)...

“The bottom line in every society is the LAW. There will always be criminals and bigots in every society, but what establishes human rights is whether societal laws protect everyone equally—women, men, black, white, Christian, Jew, or Muslim. How does Sharia measure up to basic human rights?”

OK, then try “The Law” - Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850...

I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling — which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes — can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848 — long before the appearance even of socialism itself — France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.

The Law Defends Plunder

But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.

This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations — and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

...end excerpts

Fascists, socialists, communists, islamists are plunderers...totalitarian collectives diametrically opposed to individual rights.

Witness history (and current events).

Live - free - republic

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.