Replies

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011843.php

June 15, 2006

Fitzgerald: Obey those Infidel laws/

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald comments on the
slippery

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011839.php

Sistani fatwa:

In the various Muslim websites of the "Ask Mr. Fatwa" or
www.islam-online
type, one of the Most Frequently Asked Questions from Muslims living in
the
Lands of the Infidels is: "Do I have to obey the laws of these
Infidels"?

The answer given, very gingerly, is: "You may obey any laws of the
Infidels
that do not contradict Islam."

The clear implication is that you have no duty to obey the laws of the
Infidel nation-state in which you have been allowed to settle or in
which
you live, none at all, if those laws somehow are seen to contradict
Islam.

And this, of course, is how those Muslim websites, in English, give
advice
now, after having become well aware that Infidels are monitoring them.
Since
all Muslim groups are keenly aware of the need to watch out for those
pesky
prying Infidels, they do not go on to spell out all the ways in which
Infidel laws -- manmade laws, laws that are made without reference to
Allah,
the sole source of authority, of legal and political and every other
kind of
legitimacy for a Believer -- are flatly contradicted by the Shari'a.

Nor is it only a question of laws, of the kind that regulate some areas
of
behavior through norms and sanctions. Islam offers a Complete
Regulation of
Life. It goes far beyond what any non-Muslim legal system does.

Furthermore, outside the hearing and viewing of those Infidels, another
attitude and other kinds of advice are given by at least some clerics.
The
hukm (not fatwa, I was recently reminded) against Rushdie is a clear
call to
commit murder, as a righteous and rewardable act, by a Muslim or
Muslims in
the Lands of the Infidels. That has the full weight of Muslim (Shi'a)
authority.

Many Muslims appear to regard the Lands of the Infidels as, by right,
theirs
-- they need only wait, and wait, for the right demographic changes.
Bruce
Bawer describes a Muslim cleric in Norway telling his followers that
they
could steal as they wished from the Infidels, for this was not theft --
it
was helping themselves to the Jizyah that they had every right to
demand.
That attitude, that it is licit, even admirable, to take the property,
or
have one's way with the women, of the Infidels, is certainly reflected
in
the criminal statistics in every single European country, where Muslim
crime
kicks the beam. If 70% of the rapes in Scandinavian countries are
committed
by Muslims who make up 2-3% of the population, is one not entitled to
draw
certain conclusions? If 50% or more of the prisoners in France are
Muslim
when they make up 10% of the population, yet Islam supposedly offers
them
those family values and stability that Muslim groups like to talk about
when
pretending they have something, anything, in common with
"conservatives"
(see the sly appeal, for example, by the young Turk -- not Young Turk--
Mustafa Akyol), are we supposed not to notice?

What is most telling, what is most amazing, what must never be
forgotten,
about the Sistani fatwa is that Muslims living in the West are being
told,
in the view of uncomprehending and misreporting Infidels, by a cleric
living
in Iraq, that they may, that they should, obey the laws of Canada if
they
live in Canada, but only insofar as Muslim values are "not ridiculed."
This
is really a milder, clever version of the statement to be found every
day at
Muslim websites in answer to queries from Muslims Who Want to Know:
"You may
obey the laws of the Infidel land in which you happen to live [seldom
is the
particular country specified -- why should it be? What does that
distinction
matter to Muslims?] as long as those laws do not contradict Islam in
any
way." Al-Sistani's formulation -- you should obey the local laws of the
local Infidels [in this case those of Canada] "insofar as Islamic
values are
not ridiculed" is softer in expression, with possibly just a little
leeway
in that phrase "Islamic values" rather than the flat-out appeal to the
Shari'a.

But here we are. 2006, and in Canada, some are pleased that a cleric
who
lists as "unclean" or "najis" at his official website "blood, spit,
excrement, semen and Infidels" should be hailed for his "moderation"
and his
generous concession. How nice of him to tell Canadian Muslims who
follow his
views that they should, whenever "Islamic values are not ridiculed,"
take
the trouble to obey those Infidel laws, of that Infidel state of
Canada.

No doubt Canadians should be grateful to Al-Sistani. How nice of him,
and
how nice of those Muslims in Canada who will heed him, and try to obey
those
laws -- just so long, of course, "Islamic values are not ridiculed."
And
that formulation, of course, depends on just how thin-skinned and quick
to
take offense Muslims are -- we saw the mass riots and boycotts and
threats
of murdering every single Dane, the reaction to the publication of
twelve
largely anodyne cartoons. What else might be taken to offend or violate
or
"ridicule" Islamic values?

At least Sistani did not say, as Muslim clerics and individual Muslims
have
said (in Norway as mentioned above and elsewhere), that they are
entitled to
take property from the Infidels as Jizyah due them. At least he did not
say
they could do what they wished with those Western women, whose dress
apparently makes some Muslims conclude that they deserve what they get
(see
the "Lebanese" -- i.e. Lebanese Muslim -- gang rapes in Sydney a few
years
ago).

Worse and still worse.

Posted by Robert at June 15, 2006 09:27 AM | Print this entry

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2006/06/011843print.html

| Email

http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-bin/mt-popupemail.cgi?entry_id=11843

this
entry