Category Archives: Sharia Law

The following interview has gone viral on Twitter and other places on the net. It is a German journalist, one I would suspect is of the left, interviewing an Imam. Keeping in mind that in Suni Islam as I understand it, pretty much anyone can be an imam as the authority is the koran followed by the rest of the cannon such as the Hadiths, the Sunna and Reliance of the Traveler and so on.

So while it is natural to accept the authority of this speaker from his “headgear” (A favorite term of mine coined by the Canadian media when Sikhs demanded exceptions to all our various laws concerning helmets for their turbans) as we do that in general for religious figures and musicians alike, what this man is saying is really just orthodox and near universally accepted belief among Muslims based on Koran and Hadiths.

Following this allegedly shocking interview, the journalist adds post script explaining that there is nothing to worry about here, as it is only a tiny minority who believe these things.

To be clear, it is not. But it might be a tiny minority who act on these beliefs to kill homosexuals. The thing about sharia law which this journalist misses entirely, and it is THE thing about it, is that any and all Muslims are deputized to implement death penalty sentences to people who they deem are guilty of death penalty offences in Islam.

These include ‘offences’ such as sexual misconduct as according to Islam, and belief offences such as apostasy. (Or Trudeau’s favourite, the catch-all of “Making mischief upon the land” which Canada has abbreviated to just ‘Mischief’.)

It is worth noting also that there was also only a tiny minority of Nazis who were in the SS. This doesn’t mean that the rest of them didn’t support the mission of the SS, or supply the needed material support for them.

Beyond that, the issue is the jurisprudence. There is no presumption of innocence, and there is no due process. A person is thought to be guilty of homosexuality or improper belief and they are killed for it.

I am reminded of a case in Pakistan which was my first exposure to sharia law in terms of my personal awareness of it. Two teenagers were in front of a judge, accused of throwing a blasphemous piece of paper towards a mosque from a motorcycle. They faced the death penalty for it. The judge was only allowed to see the box within which was alleged to contain the piece of paper. The judge, according to sharia in that time and place, was not allowed to see anything blasphemous. So he had to convict them, which he did, on the basis of being told there was a blasphemous piece of paper in the box which, he had been told, was thrown towards a mosque by the two boys.

In that case there was the appearance of jurisprudence because there was a judge and a court. But the way it operates makes it really just a conviction-machine with a veneer of confirmatory process. Often there isn’t even that, Muslims act on their own, as Koran makes it clear that the only way into heaven is to die fighting in Allah’s way (Jihad). (If anyone wants to challenge me on that, do it in the comments and I will respond.)

The journalist made two critical errors. First, being horrified at execution of people for certain crimes, and second the nature of the crime.

This allowed the ‘imam’ to counter him on one of them, but he missed the opportunity on the other, to counter that the United States executes people with the electric chair. He might have also pointed out that the West pretends to punish people who have sex with children, and occasionally does if they aren’t in any real position of power or influence. And many people in the West would like to see the death penalty for that.

So once again, the ‘journalist’ managed to create opportunities for Muslims to use relativism to justify sharia, without addressing the real issues with sharia. And those are the total lack of evidence or reality based debate between defence and state, in other words, due process, and any presumption of innocence. So at the end of the day, this interview actually creates space to justify sharia law in the West. After all. this ‘shocked journalist’ did not tell us anything all of us didn’t already know, and almost certainly he already knew it as well. And his lack of meaningful questions tends to make one think this was more predictive programming than an actual opposition of sharia law.

As Diana West often says, quoting a US intel officer, “Beware of anyone claiming to be an expert or on the inside who doesn’t tell you anything you don’t already know”.

Every culture codifies its beliefs and values into law. That is all law is, and this is why multiculturalism is an oxymoron. You cannot have two sets of laws operating in the same area unless you do so in order to destroy one or both. The issue with sharia law is that it codifies a different set of values for sure. But also a different set of processes. Sharia is created to protect the authority of Islam in all ways and in all places. It is not in any way about what is best for the people, or what is true.

It is always about what expands or confirms the authority of Islam, and all decisions will reflect that. Much like communism for that matter. Those people whose actions are counter-revolutionary will be guilty, even where the crime is undefinable or non-existent, like JP Ayout’s. Those who commit actual crimes to the advancement of the revolution will likely not be charged or molested by the police, (see BLM riots from 2020) but if they are, a defence of their ideology from on high will follow and punishments will not be equivalent to those who are counter revolutionary.