By Kamala
Dec 27, 2011

Apple. Google. Facebook. Sharia?As will be made clear below, accusing a Muslim of kufr (disbelief) is no small thing; under Sharia, it's an offense to be punished by death.

To justify his argument, the author cites dozens of verses from the Qur'an and many works of Islamic scholars.

Abdur-Rahmaan shows no signs of struggling with those "thousands" of interpretations of Sharia, or how to identify "legislative systems that go against the shari'ah." Sharia means nothing less than stoning, amputation, and polygamy. He includes an excerpt from one Shaykh Ash-Shanqeeti (pp. 340-341), with emphasis added:

But promulgating legislative systems that go against the shari'ah of the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and referring to them for judgement, constitutes kufr or disbelief in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, such as claiming that giving preference to males over females in matters of inheritance is not fair, and that they should be given equal shares; or claiming that plurality of marriage is oppression, or that divorce is unfair to women, or that stoning and amputation of hands, etc., are bestial acts which cannot be justifiably done to anyone, and so on.

Minhaj Al-Muslim

Minhaj Al-Muslim, by Abu Bakr Jabir Al-Jaza'iry, is one of only 11 books in the top-level "Books" section of the MCA bookstore, featured next to books such as the Pocket Size Quran and Jimmy Carter's classic, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The bookstore's web page for the book describes Al-Jaza'iry as a "great scholar," summing up the book as "a comprehensive work" "comprising all that concerns a Muslim regarding creed, manners, providing direction for righteous character, acts of worship, and dealings with his colleagues."


Minhaj Al-Muslim was written (in Arabic) in 1964, and was translated into this English edition in 2001. The publisher translates the book's title as "The way of a Muslim." The book begins with the author's introduction, explaining why he wrote the book. While visiting Morocco to spread Islam, "the brothers asked me to compose a book for the righteous believing youth there as well as the Muslims in the general area, to serve as a law or a statute for them."

The author is proud of his work: "...it is a book which no Muslim house should be without." He's also quite sure of its authenticity: "I spared no effort in investigating and searching for the most sound opinion of the eminent scholars such as Imams Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ash Shafi'i, and Ahmad..." (naming the Islamic scholars behind today's four major schools of Sunni jurisprudence). He continues, "I have not the least doubt that he who behaves in accordance with the rules of this Minhaj ... actually behaves in accordance with the Shari'ah of Allah the Almighty and with the guidance of His Messenger." (emphasis added)

Before diving into some detailed examples of the Sharia-compliant rules in this book, it's worth revisiting a few key facts:

• The MCA made the decision to feature this book on its own online bookstore. It's one of a select few "authentic" books on the site. If this book somehow represents – to borrow a favorite phrase from author Robert Spencer – a "misunderstanding of Islam," then an obvious question arises: why did the MCA choose to highlight it? And moreover, if this book is some kind of "misunderstanding," how exactly is it incorrect? Where is a book on Sharia that isn't a misunderstanding?

• The MCA decided to feature yet another book, Man-Made Laws vs. Shari'ah, which, as explained above, makes clear that any law inconsistent with Sharia – even opposition to stoning or hand amputation – is a "deviation from Islam." If this book is a "misunderstanding" as well, why too is it among the short list of books on the MCA online bookstore?

• The MCA constitution requires its members "to recognize Islam as a total way of life." Its web site asserts that in Islam there is "no division between secular and sacred" and that "Shari'a should be taken seriously."
  

And now, on to some of Minhaj Al-Muslim's rules for this "total way of life."

Jihad

Muslim apologists constantly tell gullible non-Muslims that jihad means "struggle," not holy war. Liar Reza Aslan tells us that "in its primary religious connotation (sometimes referred to as 'the greater jihad'), it means the struggle of the soul to overcome the sinful obstacles that keep a person from God." John Esposito similarly says that "Jihad in Islam means the struggle to be a good Muslim. That's its primary meaning in the Quran." Yasir Qadhi's #1 myth about Islam is that "The term 'jihad' signifies holy-war, 'killing the infidel', and political dominance." Rather, "the term ‘jihad’ means ‘struggle’, and signifies many things, including struggling internally to fight one’s desires and living a better, more righteous life."

Yet Minhaj introduces its section on Jihad with a different, simple definition: "The specific ruling of Jihad – which is fighting against the disbelievers and those who wage war against Islam – is that it is a collective compulsory duty." (Vol. 2, p. 165)

Four types of jihad are listed. The first: "Performing Jihad against disbelievers and those who wage war against the Muslims." Number two is jihad against "rebellious sinners," and number three is jihad against "Satan." Only the fourth type is "Jihad against one's self." While Minhaj acknowledges that this type "has even been called the greatest Jihad," this claim is accompanied by a footnote pointing out that "this is based on a weak Hadith [saying by or about Muhammad]..." (Vol. 2, p. 167)

In his fascinating book, Inside Jihad, former Egyptian Islamic Jihad member Tawfik Hamid explains the significance of this specific attribution:

Abu Bakr Al-Jazairy – a lecturer in the Nobel Prophetic Mosque in Saudi Arabia – wrote in his well-known, widely-distributed book, Minhaj Al-Muslim, that this hadith "...is based upon a weak Hadith..." As we can see, on the one hand Islamists show non-Muslims a peaceful Hadith to improve Islam's image, and on the other teach Muslims, that it is weak (and by implication, that Muslims should not follow it). In contrast, Islamists teach Muslims that the following hadith is sahih, or "strong,"accurate" and "authentic," and thus cannot be ignored:

I have been commanded to fight all mankind until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped except Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah... (Agreed upon) – Minhaj Al-Muslim, Vol 1, p. 402

The phrase "agreed upon" at the end of the above hadith means that it is narrated as sahih by both Al-Buchary and Muslim, which communicates to Muslims that it is extremely powerful... In this case, Muslims are taught that the violent hadith is strong and the peaceful hadith is weak. This theological tactic deceives countless non-Muslims. (pp. 106-107)

Feisal Abdul-Rauf, of Ground Zero Mosque infamy, explains in his 2000 book, Islam: A Sacred Law, that a weak hadith "is a hadith against which serious doubts can be raised." (p. 151) Thus, the notion that self-Jihad is the "greatest Jihad" – a view Islamic spokesmen are always quick to espouse – is a dubious one.

When apologists do concede a martial element to Jihad, they almost always argue that Jihad is only allowed in self-defense. According to Esposito, "jihad also means the right, indeed the obligation, of a Muslim to defend himself, herself, Islam or the Muslim community. In that sense, it's a legitimate defense." Even the US Army buys this argument; in a handbook for its soldiers, definition of Jihad only mentions warfare as "the communal military defense of Islam and of Muslims when they are threatened or under attack."

Minhaj shatters this myth. Jihad must also include offensive warfare, to bring Islamic dominance around the world:

...it is incumbent upon the Muslims, whether they belong to one nation or separated nations that they make ready and prepare combative arms and ammunitions. It is also obligatory that they train some men in the disciplines of war and fighting as much as possible. This should not be merely for defending against the attacks of the enemy only. Rather, it should also be for performing battle expeditions in Allah's way in order to raise the Word of Allah, to spread justice, goodness, and mercy on the earth. (Vol. 2, pp. 174-175, emphasis added)

Guidelines are spelled out for offensive warfare: "Calling the disbelievers to the Path of Islam before declaring war against them and attacking them, or seeking their surrender with the condition that they pay the Jizyah (tax upon non-Muslims). If they refuse (these two options), then they should be fought (in war)." (Vol. 2, p. 180)

This is in fact a classical formulation of offensive warfare in Islam, justified by Muhammad's own words. Minhaj goes on to recount a hadith (saying) from a respected book of Hadith, known as Sahih Muslim, articulating this exact recipe.

Unsurprisingly, once one looks beyond the lying apologists for Islam, it's not difficult to find Muslims expressing this same view. This past March, as part of the blossoming "Arab Spring" in Egypt, a senior official from the Egyptian Islamic Jihad named Sheik Abdel Shehato was released from prison. In an interview with an Egyptian daily newspaper, he was asked, "If you rise to power in Egypt, will you launch a campaign of Islamic conquest?" His answer:

Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari'a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see the shari'a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah's help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]...

Apologists may reflexively label Sheikh Shehato an "extremist" who has "hijacked" or "misunderstood" his peaceful religion. But if that's the case, why again is the MCA promoting a book that advocates the same message? (And further, how exactly is this message incorrect?)

The importance of this point cannot be overstated. The West has formulated policy after policy, at immense cost in dollars and lives, all to try to assure Muslims that "we are not at war against Islam." As described above, even the US Army defines Jihad as only a defensive paradigm, framing current conflicts in this light: "Today radical Muslim groups consider Islam to be perpetually under attack by the 'secular West' – morally, spiritually, economically, politically and militarily." The implication is clear: if only we could convince Muslims that we aren't attacking Islam, then there could be peace. But according to Minhaj Al-Muslim, and the authentic Islamic sources it cites, this effort is futile: whether or not we're at war with Islam, Islam is at war with us – in a perpetual, religiously-motivated struggle to bring Islamic dominance everywhere in the world.

Dhimmis and other disbelievers

As Minhaj spells out, non-Muslims are to be given the choice to surrender to Islamic conquest and pay a tax known as the Jizya. This tax is part of a broader status of living as a non-Muslim under Islamic rule. Minhaj has a section dedicated to these rules, titled "The Agreement of Protection given to the Non-Muslim Subjects under the Islamic Government, and its Regulations." (Vol. 2, p. 182) (Such "Non-Muslim Subjects" are referred to as dhimmis in Arabic.)

Non-Muslims under Islamic rule are afforded neither the same rights nor the same respect as Muslims: "it is not permissible to stand for them, nor is it to precede them with the greetings of peace. Also, they should not be given seats of honor at gatherings." (Vol. 2, p. 183)

Non-Muslims are "forbidden" from "Constructing Churches or Synagogues, or renovating the demolished ones." (Vol. 2, p. 184) Is it any wonder that the recent deaths of dozens of Coptic Christians of Egypt resulted after Muslims rioted in response to church construction? Arab Spring indeed.

"Erecting the residence of non-Muslims above the homes of the Muslims" and "publicly drinking intoxicants or eating swine (pork) in front of the Muslims" are also prohibited. Non-Muslims "must conceal whatever things are forbidden to Muslims." (Vol. 2, p. 184)





The instructions get remarkably specific: "When walking along a path, the Muslim should make the non-Muslims walk along a narrow portion of the path." (Vol. 1, p. 227)

In a section on compensation for wrongful death ("blood money"), Minhaj gets right to the point: "If the victim was a non-Muslim under the protection of the Islamic State (Dhimmi), whether he was a Jew, a Christian, or of some other religion, his blood money is half the blood money of the Muslim," citing Muhammad's blunt statement that "The blood money of the disbeliever is half the blood money of the (Muslim) man." (Vol. 2, p. 493) Tawfik Hamid, talking about his own indoctrination into Islamic Jihad, described this Hadith as "the most dangerous quote... When you devalue the life of non-Muslims, that is the root cause of the problem. Terrorism is the last stop."

How many MCA members are reading Minhaj Al-Muslim and drawing the same conclusions?

Homosexuality

Switching gears, consider Minhaj's position on homosexuality. This book certainly cannot be criticized for subtlety. "The Hadd [punishment] of homosexuality is stoning to death, with there being no difference between the married or unmarried person." (Vol. 2, p. 511)

After justifying this punishment based on Muhammad's own words, Minhaj points out that there may be some disagreement in Islam on the topic.

Disagreement about what?

Well, it seems Islam just isn't unanimous about the best way to kill a gay person:

The methods of killing them (the two who committed the homosexual act) that have been related from the Companions have differed. From among them there were who burned them with fire. Others among them killed them by stoning them with stones. Ibn 'Abbas said about them, "The highest building in the village should be sought, then they should be thrown from it upside down (i.e., on the their heads). Then they should stoned [sic] after that." (Vol. 2, p. 511)

Finally: some evidence of Sharia's "tremendous diversity."

Again, unsurprisingly, it doesn't take much work to find Muslims who agree that homosexuals should be killed in the name of Sharia – Sharia they want to live by.

In a telling video interview, taken at "Muslim Day" at the Capitol in Washington, DC in 2009, an unnamed Muslim explains: "I am a Muslim... All my family is Muslim... Muslims live by Sharia. Sharia is like the law ... the Muslims' law... anything you do in life, you have to go by Sharia. Sharia is the law, the constitution, of the Muslims." The interviewer then asks, "Do you think the Muslim community would like to see Sharia law in America?" The immediate answer: "Of course." And in response to a question about homosexuality: "It's against our religion. It's not acceptable at all to be a homosexual... We have capital punishment." The interviewer asks the obvious question that arises: "if Sharia Law was accepted in America and being homosexual is a capital offense, do you believe that we should kill homosexuals?" After a bit of diversion, the Muslim man finally offers a clear answer: "If Sharia law was implemented in this, then he's gonna be killed, yes."

Even learned American Muslim professors draw the same conclusion. In a Q&A session at a Muslim Student Association event at Vanderbilt University, Awadh A. Binhazim, Professor of Pathology at a Nashville medical school and Muslim chaplain at Vanderbilt, was asked about the Islamic position on homosexuality. After numerous attempts by Binhazim to avoid giving a straight answer, the relentless questioner asks one more time: "Under Islamic law is it punishable by death if you are a homosexual?" Finally, Binhazim replies: "Yes. It is punishable by death." Just a couple minutes earlier, Binhazim had said, "I don’t have a choice as a Muslim to accept or reject teachings. I go with what Islam teaches."

Notably, when asked to explain the Islamic punishment for homosexuality, both men above felt compelled to argue that Christianity and Judaism condemn homosexuality as well. This diversionary tactic is a logical fallacy known as "tu quoque." In a worthwhile lesson in debating slippery Islamic apologists and spokespersons, commentator Hugh Fitzgerald completely dismantles Binhazim's evasive responses:

So what is the first thing that Binhazim attempts? It's Tu Quoque. It's this: an immediate refusal to answer the question, and instead, a shifting attention to Judaism, to Christianity, to "other religions" that "condemn homosexuality." We do it, You do it, Everybody does it. Well, he, Awadh A. Binhazim, Ph.d. (Professor Pathology at Meharry College, and Adjunct Professor, no doubt hoping and scheming for more, at Vanderbilt), ignores the precise question, eliminates the part about the death penalty, and simply reduces it to "disapproval of Islam" and then, quickly, alludes to what he would have his questioner and the larger audience believe is identical "disapproval of homosexuality" in other religions, in all of them, in fact. At this point the most obvious thing must surely come to mind: well, some religions do condemn homosexuality, but which of them, in doctrine or in present-day practice, condemns homosexuals to death?

Are these men just more misunderstanders of Islam? Who just happen to misunderstand Islam exactly the same way Minhaj Al-Muslim does?

In reality, the MCA is a beacon of intolerance in California's Bay Area. On one hand, companies like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Adobe, Cisco Systems, Electronic Arts, Yahoo, Pixar, and LinkedIn join campaigns to discourage suicide by (and bullying against) gays and lesbians. San Francisco is of course a leading city for gay rights and acceptance, with synagogues for gay Jews and churches for gay Christians. And on the other hand, the Muslim Community Association of the Bay Area eagerly offers up books to its members advocating Sharia and leaving no doubt that gays should be killed under Sharia. The only doubt is around how best to kill them.

Apostasy

Minhaj minces no words regarding the punishment for leaving Islam. First, the book spells out a precise decision for an apostate:

The apostate is someone who leaves the religion of Islam for another religion, such as Christianity or Judaism, for example, or for something that is not a religion, like atheism or communism. One is considered an apostate if he does while being sane, and of his own free-will, without being forced. (Vol. 2, pp. 522-3)

And what is to be done with an apostate?

The ruling of the apostate is that he is invited for three days to return to Islam and he is encouraged intensely to do so. If he returns to Islam, he will be left alone, and if not, he is killed with the sword as a Hadd punishment. This is due to the Prophet's statement: "Whoever changes his religion (away from Islam), then kill him" (Al-Bukhari) (Vol. 2, p. 523, emphasis added)

This stunningly simple analysis is consistent with the death sentence recently handed out to Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani for converting from Islam to Christianity. Curiously, according to his lawyer, Nadarkhani was "brought to court to repent for three days. He denied repentance on all three days." Is it just a coincidence that Iran's mullahs misunderstand the apostasy ruling exactly the same way as MCA's recommended reading? And if this is all just one big misunderstanding, will the MCA explain how Minhaj and Iran both happened to get it so wrong?

To make matters (far) worse, Minhaj spells out many more "statements and beliefs that make one a disbeliever" (Vol. 2, p. 524) and thus yield the same punishment: the offender is offered three days to repent, else "he is killed." (Vol. 2, p. 526) To be clear, Minhaj dictates nothing less than the death penalty for any of the following, many of which are simply words or thoughts: (Vol. 2, pp. 524-525)

Everyone who reviles Allah the Almighty, or reviles a Messenger from His Messengers or an angel from His angels, then verily he has disbelieved.
...

Everyone who makes something lawful (Halal) that is agreed upon as being forbidden (Haram) and known by necessity from the Islamic Law, like illegal sex (Az-Zina) or drinking (or taking) intoxicants (Al-Khamr) or stealing, or committing murder, or dealing with magic, for example, then he has disbelieved. [Ed: Note that this ruling matches the main point of the first book discussed here, Man-Made Laws vs. Shari'ah, which argues that encouraging any system of laws inconsistent with Sharia constitutes "disbelief."]

Everyone who denies a chapter (Surah) from the Book of Allah (the Qur'an) or a verse from it, or a letter, then verily he has disbelieved.
...

Everyone who openly makes light of the religion (Islam) regarding its obligations or its recommended acts, or he mocks these things or despises it (Islam) or he throws the Qur'an into an unclean place, or steps on it with his foot in order to disgrace it and show hatred towards it, then he has disbelieved.
...

Everyone who shows open mockery of Allah or His Attributes or His Law (Shari'ah) or His Messengers, then he has disbelieved.

Got that? According to a book the MCA itself has decided to highlight on its web site, the penalty for a Muslim who mocks Islam (or Muhammad or the Qur'an or Sharia) is simply death.

Women

Regarding treatment of women in Islam, Minhaj again cuts to the chase. Here are the specific instructions for a man to discipline his wife:

He must also discipline her if he fears recalcitrance on her part in the way that Allah the Almighty has ordered women to disciplined.First, he is to advise her while neither abusing her, swearing at her, or shaming her. If she obeys him, that is the end of the matter. If she does not obey him, then he separates from her in their bedding. If she then reforms herself, the matter is concluded. Otherwise, he may beat her lightly, not in the face and not in a bruising manner or one which would cause bleeding, tearing of the skin, breaking of a bone or the the like. These are his responsibilities in accord with the verse: "As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance)." (4.34) (Vol. 1, p. 192, emphasis added).

Note the great level of effort to temper the severity of the condoned beating. Is this level of wife-beating acceptable to the MCA and its members?

As is self-evident, this ruling on wife discipline is derived directly from chapter 4, verse 34 of the Qur'an. It's worth noting that the translation presented in Minhaj, where the word "beat" is carefully qualified with the words "lightly, if it is useful" in parentheses, is a rare translation. This verse is – unsurprisingly – a source of controversy, since Muslims consider the Qur'an the "literal word of God."

Author Robert Spencer recently surveyed eleven popular translations of this verse:

Pickthall: "and scourge them"
Yusuf Ali: "(And last) beat them (lightly)"
Al-Hilali/Khan: "(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)"
Shakir: "and beat them"
Sher Ali: "and chastise them"
Khalifa: "then you may (as a last alternative) beat them"
Arberry: "and beat them"
Rodwell: "and scourge them"
Sale: "and chastise them"
Asad: "then beat them"
Dawood: "and beat them"

Note that Islamic apologist (and liar) Sumbul Ali-Karamali recommends Arberry's ("beat them") and Asad's ("beat them") translations in her book.

There's no shortage of videos of Middle Eastern Islamic authorities explaining just how to best beat one's wife. In this one, Egyptian Cleric Sa'd Arafat proudly proclaims that "Allah honored wives by instating the punishment of beatings." He recounts the same instructions espoused in Qur'an 4.34, culminating in a beating – albeit with some "rules to the beating," rules that make the beating such an honor in Arafat's view. The beatings can be "with a short rod," and "should be on the body," and "he must not break her bones." You see, "There is a beating etiquette."

Apologists would no doubt argue that Sa'd Arafat is just one more misunderstander of Islam. But why then is the MCA is promoting a book that makes the same shameful point: that wife beating is not only allowed in Islam but is ordained by Allah's explicit words.

And yet, beating is only part of the story. MInhaj spells out some additional "honors" for women:

The wife must not leave the house except with her husband's permission and approval. She must also lower her gaze, keep her voice low, keep her hands from reaching out to anything evil and keep her tongue from any lewd or foul speech. (Vol. 1, p. 196)

In this regard, the MCA-promoted vision of Sharia is no worse than the laws of those misunderstanders of Islam ruling the "new" Afghanistan – brought to you, of course, by American dollars and lives: in 2009, Hamid Karzai signed a law that states, "A wife cannot leave the house without the permission of her husband, unless for reasons to address a serious pressure or difficulty.”

Minhaj is also clear that Sharia takes child marriage for granted. In a (long) section about the rules of divorce, several pages are dedicated to a woman's "waiting period," a required delay preceding remarriage to eliminate paternal confusion in case of pregnancy. Numerous rulings assume marriage, sex, divorce, and remarriage with prepubescent girls:

• "The prescribed waiting period for a woman, who does not have menstrual cycles due to her old age or due to her being a minor, is three months." (Vol. 2, p. 381, emphasis added)

• A woman with irregular bleeding "should wait three months like a woman whose menstruation has ceased due to aging or who is too young to menstruate." (Vol. 2, p. 383, emphasis added)

• No stone is left unturned, including the case of "a divorced woman who is too young and never menstruated," (Vol. 2, p. 384, emphasis added) who gets her first period in the middle of her waiting period.
  

A little knowledge of Muhammad's life explains the legitimacy of child marriage in Islam. Consider the writings of al-Bukhari, described by Reza Aslan as "the most respected" collection of "the most reliable" episodes that "recount Muhammad's words and deeds." Muhammad's third wife was Aisha. According to a Bukhari hadith about Aisha, "the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old."

Also according to Bukhari, Aisha herself said:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (emphasis added)

And from Bukhari again, Aisha also said:

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)(Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Note that the parenthesized and emphasized comment is from Fateh-al-Bari (Fath al-Bari), the "most celebrated" commentary on Bukhari's book.

Why is Muhammad's example so important? In short, Muhammad is the perfect role model in Islam. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, once wrote, "As Muslims, we need to ... ask ourselves, 'What would the Prophet Muhammad do?'"

As Robert Spencer noted, Time magazine reports that "In Iran the legal age for marriage is nine for girls."

Coincidence?

Finally, consider the horror of honor killings – when family members kill women to preserve family "honor." Worldwide, 91% of honor killings are perpetrated by Muslims. Minhaj points out that there is no retaliatory punishment for killing a child: "Retaliation is not obligatory for murder" unless, among other conditions, "the murderer is not the parent of the murdered person, whether a father or mother, or a grandfather or grandmother. This is due to the Prophet's statement: 'A parent is not killed for its child.'" (Vol. 2, pp. 482-3) In a glimmer of sanity, a footnote explains that one Islamic scholar, Malik, of the eponymous Maliki school of jurisprudence, disagrees – stating that parents are indeed to be punished for murdering their children; the Maliki school is said to influence 15% of the Muslim world (p. 13). Despite assurances from apologists like Ali-Karamali that honor killings "are not Islamic," honor killers in Muslim-majority countries continue to get shamefully light sentences (if at all), and Islamists continue to cite Sharia in their sustained efforts to prevent significant penalties against such killers. In Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood argued against efforts to cancel a law that exempted men from punishment for killing wives or female relatives found committing adultery; doing so "would contradict the shari'a."

Alas, MCA's issues with women's rights extend beyond the books it chooses to highlight: it also won't permit women to lead its own organization. The MCA constitution stipulates that it “shall be managed by an Executive Committee consisting of a President, six members at large, and a Women’s Representative,” and the rules are clear: “All members of the Executive Committee other than the Women's Representative shall be men.”


Perhaps this restriction was inspired by Muhammad, who said women are "deficient in intelligence and religion." Muhammad also said "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." The Salafist Al-Nour party in Egypt, which won a staggering 28.8% of votes (3.2 million ballots) in Egypt's recent election, also asserts that women may not lead, due to Muhammad's same words.

Reliance of the Traveller

There’s actually another book on Sharia featured on the MCA online bookstore: Reliance of the Traveller. One might think, given Sharia’s supposed “tremendous diversity” – and MCA’s self-described mainstream credentials – that perhaps Reliance would offer a vastly different perspective on Sharia. Perhaps even a peaceful one, advocating coexistence with non-Muslims as equals, and equal rights for women and gays?

Alas, this isn’t the case.



Dr. Alan Godlas, Associate Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia, calls Reliance a "carefully translated manual of the proper practice of Islam (shari'a) according to the Shafi'i madh'hab. It has been an essential book in the library of any serious English speaking Muslim or scholar of Islam since its publication in 1991."

Below is a sampling of self-explanatory excerpts from Reliance. Note that comments from the different Muslim scholars (and the translator) are marked with parenthetical annotations labeled "O:", "A:", "N:", and "S:"

The rulings will look familiar. How odd that both Minhaj and Reliance misunderstand Islam so severely and so consistently. And how odd that the MCA deems these two books as the only books on Sharia worth highlighting on its web site.

Jihad

• O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. (p. 599)
  
  
• The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya))… (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.” (Koran 9:29)... (p. 602)
  
  
• [Note that elsewhere in the book, Reliance makes clear (pp. 638-9) that “the caliphate is Obligatory… The caliphate is a communal obligation just as the judgeship is (S: because the Islamic community needs a ruler to uphold the religion, defend the sunna, succor the oppressed from oppressors, fulfill rights, and restore them to whom they belong.)"]
  

Dhimmis

[Non-Muslim subjects under Islamic rule]:

• are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

• are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

• must keep to the side of the street;

• may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings...;

• are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

• and are forbidden to build new churches. (p. 608)
  

Homosexuality

Apostasy

• (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.) (p. 595)
  

• When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. (p. 595, emphasis added)

• (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

• to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

• to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

• to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;

• to revile the religion of Islam;

• to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

• to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

• 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;

• There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless... (pp. 596-598, emphasis added)
  

Women

• When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his (O: whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (O: without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, ``Fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me,'' or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, ``Your obeying me is religiously obligatory''). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (O: and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (A: bruise her,) break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (O: It is unlawful to strike another's face.) He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may not hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness.

[To help “clarify this paragraph,” Reliance lists different obligations of a wife; failing to fulfill any of them makes her “rebellious.” They include:]

• It is not lawful for a wife to leave the house except by the permission of her husband, though she may do so without permission when there is a pressing necessity. Nor may a wife permit anyone to enter her husband's home unless he agrees, even their unmarriageable kin. Nor may she be alone with a nonfamily-member male, under any circumstances;

• It is obligatory for a wife to obey her husband as is customary in allowing him full lawful sexual enjoyment of her person. (p. 541)
  
  ...
  
  

• If the wife does not fulfill one of the above-mentioned obligations, she is termed "rebellious" (nashiz), and the husband takes following steps to correct matters.

• [first, "admonition and advice" should be tried; if that "is ineffectual, he keeps from her by not sleeping in bed with her..."]
  
  ...
  
  
• if keeping from her is ineffectual, it is permissible for him to hit her if he believes that hitting her will bring her back to the right path... (p. 542, emphasis added)
  
  

[As for honor killings, Reliance absolves parents who kill their children. In a section titled "Who is Subject to Retaliation for Injurious Crimes," "Retaliation is obligatory ... against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right..." Reliance clarifies, however, that "The following are not subject to retaliation" and then lists – after the lovely, egalitarian "Muslim for killing a non-Muslim" and "Jewish or Christian subject ... for killing an apostate" – "(4) a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring" (p. 583)]


[Reliance, like Minhaj, also takes prepubescent marriages (including sex) for granted: "A waiting period is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty, or one has and the other has not." (p. 567)

Finally, while Minhajis silent on the topic of female circumcision, Reliance delivers a blunt ruling (for Shafi'i jurisprudence, about 28% of the Muslim world):

Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called khufaad). (p. 59)

See here and here for further explanation.]

Other books and videos

Beyond the three books described above, the MCA online bookstore features works by two more authors of note: Ibn Taymiyyah and Yusuf Qaradawi.

Ibn Taymiyyah

The actual book by Ibn Taymiyyah sold on the MCA book store is called The Concise Legacy, a short missive that isn't particularly controversial. But Ibn Taymiyyah, a 13th century Islamic scholar, is a critically important figure. Many authors cite him as the theological inspiration for Osama bin Laden. Historian Philip Jenkins, who argues that the Bible is more violent than the Qu'ran and has discounted concerns about the rise of Islam in Europe, wrote this about Ibn Taymiyyah:

Ibn Taymiyyah's life was shaped by the disasters of the Mongol wars, which forced him into exile in Egypt, and he saw his goal as the militant restoration of Islam in the face of its enemies at home and abroad. His work has had a long afterlife. Ibn Taymiyyah is regarded as the spiritual godfather of the Wahhabi movement, and of most modern extremist and jihadi groups. Among many others, Osama bin Laden cites him as a special hero. (emphasis added)

In his 2011 book Christianity, Islam and the West, Robert Burns, director of religious studies at the University of Arizona, echoes the same view: "...the opinions of ibn Taymiyyah remain relevant today and have inspired the military and religious world view of organizations such as Osama bin Laden's al-Quaeda network."

Now why would the MCA feature a book by bin Laden's "special hero" on its web site?

After all, innumerable apologists have announced innumerable times that bin Laden "hijacked Islam" and "grossly misinterpreted Islam" and "distorted [Islam's] pristine teachings."

In reality, apologists for Islam often present Ibn Taymiyyah as the "bogeyman" behind bin Laden and al-Qaeda in an effort to prove that these "extremists" have deviated from the true, peaceful Islam of the Qur'an and Sunnah. It's all ibn Taymiyyah's fault, you see; he was the grand misunderstander of all misunderstanders. As apologist (and liar) Reza Aslan writes, 9/11 was "un-Islamic act." For its guidance, al-Qaeda – or more broadly, the "Global Jihadist" movement – "looks not to the Qur'an for its doctrinal basis but to the writings of the thirteenth century legal scholar Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah." If only this were true. Reza Aslan just can't keep his story straight, because he also writes that "ibn Taymiyyah is widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest thinkers in Islamic history," a man of "famed piety," honored as one of the "most supreme legal authorities." How can al-Qaeda simultaneously be both "un-Islamic" and driven by one of the most pious, highest legal authorities in Islamic history? (Further, the specific unsavory teachings that Aslan pins on ibn Taymiyyah – that jihad could be anything but a collective, imam-authorized defensive struggle – were in fact articulated by respected Islamic scholars well before his time.)

So which is it? By highlighting a book by ibn Taymiyyah on its web site, is the MCA promoting a highly esteemed Islamic scholar? Or bin Laden's hero? Inescapably, the answer is simple: both are true.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Another author featured on the MCA web site is Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi is one of the Muslim Brotherhood's "spiritual leaders in the world" and was once offered the post of "supreme guide" of the Brotherhood. After years of exile in Qatar, Qaradawi made a triumphant return to Cairo's Tahrir Square in February, 2011, where more than 200,000 Egyptians turned out to hear him lead Friday prayers.

Qaradawi's immense popularity in the Muslim is not in doubt – a fact that must be considered in light of his long track-record of anti-semitic, anti-Western, and anti-gay statements.

January, 2009 was quite a month for Qaradawi. On the 9th, Al-Jazeera broadcast a Qaradawi sermon featuring this message of peace:

oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people. Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.

Just a few weeks later, he finished another speech on a similar note:

To conclude my speech, I’d like to say that the only thing I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Allah’s mercy and blessings upon you.

And two days after that, Qaradawi topped himself by applauding Adolf Hitler:

Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers.

Qaradawi has also repeatedly expressed his support for suicide bombings in Israel, claiming that "Israeli society was completely military in its make-up and did not include any civilians."

Given the discussion of Sharia here, it shouldn't be surprising that Qaradawi has also spoken out in favor of the death penalty for apostates and homosexuals and has also said that it's acceptable to beat a disobedient or rebellious wife – lightly, of course.

Qaradawi has also spoken explicitly about Islam's forthcoming "conquest" of Europe and America: "Conquest through Da'wa [proselytizing], that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through the sword but through Da'wa."

Really, it's hard to imagine a more damning set of statements. One would think praising Hitler would alone be enough to disqualify any author from being featured on any mainstream organization's web site – not true, apparently, for the MCA.

Videos

Books aren't the only problems at the MCA web site. The site also offers a multimedia section with videos from lecturers on record saying the following:

• Zakir Naik: "In [Qur'an verse] 3.85 it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam, therefore knowing that Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion." Naik was banned from entering Britain in 2010, in part for saying this about Osama bin Laden in 1996: "If you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. If he is terrorizing the terrorists, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist." Here's the MCA video from Naik.

• Zaid Shakir: “Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country." If they were better organized, they could "take over this country…in a very short period of time." Shakir, talking about America's system of law and politics, said "As Christians and Jews of this country have rejected the divine law and created their own secular system of a rule, the legal and political system of America is sinful and constitutes open rebellion against Allah. For a Muslim to join with the Jews and Christians in this system is to join them in their rebellion against Allah. Allah explicitly orders against this.” Shakir is also not exactly sure who committed the 9/11 atrocities (even though new Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri shows no such confusion): "the glaring weaknesses and inconsistencies in the official narrative call for such an examination." "I don't really know what happened on 9/11." Shakir can be seen on the MCA site here.

• Yasir Qadhi: Apparently Qaradawi isn't the only Hitler fan featured on the MCA. Qadhi once ranted that "Hitler never intended to mass-destroy the Jews... The Hoax of the Holocaust – I advise you to read this book, you'll want to write this down – The Hoax of the Holocaust, a very good book. All of this is false propaganda..." Qadhi's MCA video is here.
  

• Siraj Wahaj: Speaking to an audience of Muslims in New Jersey in 1992: "If we were united and strong, we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him... take my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us." Wahaj is not only featured in a video on the MCA web site, he was also invited to speak to "over 1,000 brothers and sisters" at an MCA "community night" in 2008.

• Tariq Ramadan: Grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ramadan has said this about his grandfather: "I have studied Hassan al-Banna's ideas with great care and there is nothing in this heritage that I reject... His commitment also is a continuing reason for my respect and admiration." More on the MCA's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood in a moment, but keep in mind that Hassan al-Banna, the grandfather Ramadan admires and whose ideas Ramadan doesn't reject, once said "the Islamic banner must wave supreme over the human race." Ramadan's MCA video is here.
  

Are these the best representatives of Islam that the MCA could find to highlight as leaders and role models?

MCA History

What is it about the MCA that lends itself to misunderstand Islam so dramatically in its choice of books and videos?

For some clues, consider the MCA’s history: it was founded in the early 1980s by Mahboob Khan, an Indian immigrant. Khan was also a founder of both the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

These are Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

In the Federal terror funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the US government presented a 1991 document from the Muslim Brotherhood, written in Arabic, that states (in translation):

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes...

This same document includes a list of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends,” with a subtitle stating, "Imagine if they all march according to one plan!!!" Number one on the list is none other than ISNA, the “Islamic Society of North America.” Number two is MSA, the "Muslim Students' Association," and number three is the MCA, “The Muslim Communities Association.”

In another document presented by the US government at this trial, the ISNA is listed as a primary “apparatus” of the Brotherhood.

The ISNA and other Islamic groups had protested that they were incorrectly named as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 trial. But in 2009, a federal judge refused to remove ISNA from the list, and this order was upheld in 2010 by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge wrote that “Maintaining the names of the entities on the List is appropriate in light of the evidence proffered by the Government,” and went on to cite both documents mentioned above.

To summarize: Mahboob Khan founded the Bay Area chapter of the MCA, the MSA and the ISNA. These are all organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose American mission – in its own words – is “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” With this legacy, is it any wonder that the MCA today is peddling the books and speakers covered here?

Conclusion

In a sane world, the MCA would be pariahs – it's an organization that delivers an explicitly seditious message of Islamic supremacism, aiming to bring Sharia to America:

• Its founder started key organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, aiming (in their own words) to destroy Western civilization and make Islam “victorious over all other religions.”

• Among a small number of books for sale on its web site, the three covered here paint a disturbing yet consistent (and uncontested) view of Islam. According to Man-Made Laws vs. Shari’ah, showing support or encouragement for any legal system other than Sharia – or even rejecting most extreme elements of Sharia such as stoning and amputation – makes one a disbeliever, the worst of fates in Islam. In Minhaj Al-Muslim, the details of Sharia are covered bluntly and succinctly: defining Jihad as warfare against non-believers until they submit to Islamic rule; humiliating, second-class status for non-believers under Islam; death for homosexuals, though there is some disagreement about the best way to kill them – throwing them head-first from the tallest building, followed by stoning, seems to be one of the favorites; death for apostates, where even mocking Muhammad or Sharia counts as apostasy; beatings for disobedient wives and requiring wives to ask for permission to leave the house; prepubescent marriage (and sex); and absolution for parents that kill their own children. A second book on Sharia, Reliance of the Traveller, approved by the highest worldwide authority on Sunni Islam, lays out a definition of Sharia oddly consistent with the horrific rules presented in Minhaj – despite apologists’ constant refrain about Sharia’s diversity. Then again, Reliance does throw in a few extra bonus rulings, including one that stipulates obligatory female circumcision.
  

• The MCA highlights videos from (and sometimes invites to their events) contemporary Muslim speakers that have repeatedly called for Islam to come to power in America and dominate – not to mention some lovely verses thrown in praising bin Laden, denying the Holocaust, and questioning the “truth” behind 9/11.

But alas, this world isn’t sane. The MCA and its leaders aren’t shunned at all. Rather, local politicians – including Cupertino’s mayor Gilbert Wong, Santa Clara City Councilwoman Jamie McLeod, and Los Altos Councilmember David Casas – flock to MCA events to show their support.

But this situation can change.

Contact the Bay Area politicians who were the "important guests" at the MCA Open House and point them to this article: Gilbert Wong (gilbertswong@gmail.com), Jamie McLeod (jamie@jamiemcleod.org), and David Casas (dcasas@losaltosca.gov). Ask them to reject the teachings on the MCA web site and dissociate themselves from the MCA. Let them know (politely) that supporting the MCA hurts their standing.


Perhaps this article will bring the MCA some unwanted attention. Of course, if confronted with any of this, the MCA itself will likely become defensive.

Their first reaction might be to simply remove all of the offending material from the web site and play dumb. It’s a common yet pathetic technique. In 2008, a Toronto mosque's web site was exposed by the Toronto Star for having some unsavory answers to its list of "frequently asked questions," such as explaining that circumcision "is an honour for women" and that that wearing high heels is a "wicked" practice that "has its origin among the Jewish women." The mosque's response? Remove the offending document and refuse all interviews.

Another favorite technique is to deflect all questions and instead simply accuse the questioner of hate speech, racism, Islamophobia, bigotry – you name it. It’s a remarkably effective approach, since in today’s atmosphere of political correctness, there’s not much worse than being called a bigot or racist, even if that label is unduly applied. Of course, Islam isn’t a race at all, so that accusation is a particularly galling (and desperate) ploy. As for “hate speech,” the rules of the game as played by Muslim apologists and spokesmen are simple – and go something like this:

• Muhammad calling for apostates and homosexuals to be killed: not hate speech.

• Muslim scholars calling for apostates and homosexuals to be killed, based on Muhammad’s words: not hate speech.

• Minhaj Al-Muslim and Reliance of the Traveller pointing out that Muhammad called for apostates and homosexuals to be killed: not hate speech.

• MCA promoting books on its web site that call for apostates and homosexuals to be killed: not hate speech.

• A non-Muslim pointing out any of the above: hate speech!
  

Muslim apologists will try other techniques, several of which have already been covered here.

Be prepared to hear the claim that another religion (like Christianity or Judaism) “does it too,” no matter what “it” is, and no matter whether the other religion actually does “it” at all. When confronted about Islam’s death penalty for gays, two apologists covered here both reacted by saying that Christianity condemns homosexuality too. But of course, there is nothing at all in Christian doctrine related to killing gay men or women.

Another favorite response is to argue that there just aren’t enough Muslims to merit any concern. For liar Reza Aslan, the small number of American Muslims is reason enough to pretend the Islamic obligation to pursue bringing the rule of Sharia is all a big joke: “But in all the secret Muslim gatherings I have attended to discuss our plans for destroying democracy and taking over the White House (we meet every Friday night directly atop Ground Zero), we have come to the conclusion that we will need to raise our numbers from the 1% of the US population we currently represent, to at least 2% before we can begin stoning people at random.” Note that he does not deny the Islamic obligation to bring about Sharia. As a point of comparison, would anyone accept the argument that the Ku-Klux Klan's message is benign because their membership numbers are small?

Specific to the issue of Sharia, perhaps the most common response from Islamic apologists and spokesmen is that Muslims only want to bring the non-controversial aspects of Sharia to Western life. According to Reza Aslan, "...most Muslims when they talk about wanting Sharia to play a role in their lives really mean it in so far as it talks about family law, you know, issues like, as I said marriage, divorce." Talking about Sharia's compatibility with Western legal systems, Ground Zero Mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf argued in August, 2011 that “the only truly clashing area is the penal code, and no Muslim has the intention of introducing that to America. The penal code is the area that people in the Western world are worried about – but these are things that aren’t even observed today in most of the Muslim world. Apart from the Taliban and a few places like that, where do you see this happening?” But, as Robert Spencer noted at the time, "If Muslims believe that the Sharia, including its penal code, is Allah's perfect and immutable law, why wouldn't they want to bring it to America and Europe?" In fact, a decade earlier, Feisal Abdul Rauf sang a different tune. In his 2000 book, Islam: A Sacred Law, he offered a full contradiction to his statement above – and agreed with Spencer: "And since a Shari'ah is understood as a law with God at its center, it is not possible in principle to limit the Shari'ah to some aspects of human life and leave out others." (p. 58)

The best technique for dealing with any of these apologists and their obfuscations is simply persistence. Resist the redirections and come back to the same basic questions: do they want to see Sharia (Islamic law) take hold in America (or anywhere else in the non-Muslim world)? If not, why not: how exactly are the many organizations, authors, scholars and speakers mentioned here – the Muslim Brotherhood, Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Salih al-Mahmood, Zaid Shakir, Siraj Wahaj – wrong? And if they do acknowledge their desire and/or obligation to bring Sharia rule, can they point to any detailed book of Sharia that does not call for the obscene rulings found in Minhaj and Reliance?