James
Arlandson, Ph.D., is recognized in academic circles as an expert in
philosophy and world religions, especially the religion of Islam and the
history of its founder, Muhammad. While we may not agree with Dr.
Arlandson's application of certain New Testament passages or his
interpretation of some of the teaching of Jesus, this article clearly
illustrates the dangers of making allowances for Islamic sharia law to
be practiced Western societies.
Top Ten
Reasons Why Sharia Law Is Bad For All Societies
By
James
Arlandson
Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that
sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all
societies. It is the will of Allah.
But is
Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?
This
article says no for ten verifiable reasons.
Here are
four points you must read, before reading this article:
First,
sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they
quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the
Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the
article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and
excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists
who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come
directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in
the hadith.
Second,
each of these ten reasons has a back-up article (or more) that is long
and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the
hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also
examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If
the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these
ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the
supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid
down these excessive punishments and policies.
Third, it
must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be)
imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must
be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that
case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these
punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess
is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.
Fourth,
in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view
on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal
injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these
Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has
also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a
nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by
virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament
Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity
dignity.
'Islam'
in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical
legal scholars.
Here are
the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.
10. Islam
commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
In 2001,
Iranian officials
sentenced three
men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also
for drinking alcohol.
In 2005,
in Nigeria a sharia court ordered
that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.
In 2005,
in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were
caned
in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could
see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty
for gambling.
After
going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on
drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling
in Sura 5:90-91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but
the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became
angry:
The
Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present
in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's
presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774-6775)
Thus, we
see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before
Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation?
Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?
The later
classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not
need to examine them here.
It is
sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is
decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic
countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that
Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.
Here is
the
article
that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic
verses on drinking and gambling. It analyzes the hadith and later legal
rulings.
9. Islam
allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear
highhandedness in their wives.
In 2004,
Rania al-Baz, who
had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal
public to
raise awareness about
violence
suffered by
women in
the home in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi
television
aired
a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three-fourths of the
way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up
sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.
The Quran
says:
4:34 . .
. If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the
teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.
If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most
high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)
The
hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering
from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Rifa'a
divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married
her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and
complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot
on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to
support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have
not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her
skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)
This
hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu
Bakr: Muslim no.
2127:
'He
[Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'
It is
claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and
adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing
veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings.
But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have
unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of
women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights,
the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi
Arabia women are not allowed to
drive cars.
In Iran, the law
oppresses women.
For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more
women than men are stoned to death for adultery.
Here is
the supporting
article
for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of
Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating
around the web. This longer
article has
many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law
(scroll down to 'Further discussion').
8. Islam
allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge – physical eye for
physical eye.
In 2003,
in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth
extracted
under the law of retaliation.
In 2003,
a court in Pakistan
sentenced a
man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his
fiancé.
In 2005,
an Iranian court
orders
a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding
him in both eyes.
The Quran
says:
5:45 And
We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose,
ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone
remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an
expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has
revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .).
(Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
This
passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the
literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with
this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option
to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the
process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.
The
hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option
was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.
Please go
here
for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal
rulings.
Islamic
law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to
re-impose the old law of retaliation – literally, and the evidence
suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out
literally, as the supporting article demonstrates.
7. Islam
commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
Warning!
This short
article
has photos of severed hands (WARNING: These photos are very
graphic). The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this
punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It
does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick
radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.
The Quran
says:
5:38 Cut
off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment
for what they have done – a deterrent from God: God is almighty and
wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends,
God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful.
(Haleem)
At first
glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is
cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is
acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his
own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand
should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari,
Punishments, no. 6788)
If the
reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this
indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical
solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting
article or
this
shorter
one.
6. Islam
commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
In
September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced
crucifixion
in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a
crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British
embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind
of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty
years.
In 2002
Amnesty International
reports that
even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention
against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both
Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded
thirty-three amputations and nine cross-amputations where the alternate
hand or foot is mutilated.
The Quran
says:
5:33
Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread
corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the
amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the
land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment
in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in
that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
It may be
difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these
next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the
historical context of Sura 5:33-34. The explanations in parentheses have
been added by the translator:
Narrated
Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . .
[T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of
the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that
their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded
with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not
be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)
The next
hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because
Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith
after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they
died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of
blood.
See this
short
article
for details on another example of Muhammad's use of torture.
Islamic
law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in
some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.
For more
information on Muhammad's brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out
of it, go to the back-up
article.
5. Islam
commands that homosexuals must be executed.
In
February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan,
ordered a
stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives
were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive
when the stones were removed.
In its
1991 Constitution, in Articles 108-113, Iran
adopted the
punishment of execution for sodomy.
In April
2005, a Kuwaiti cleric
says
homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.
On April
7, 2005, it was
reported that
Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay
conduct.'
These
homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these
hadith demonstrate.
Ibn
Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith,
reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of
homosexuals: . . .
'If you
find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it,
and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).
This
hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall
pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas
and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who
does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn
Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law] had two people
burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a
wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed
Punishments)
Though
this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban
were merely following the origins of their religion.
If the
reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of
homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of
classical fiqh, they should see the supporting
article. This
longer
one
has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals
(scroll down to 'Supplemental material').
4. Islam
orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned
to death.
Fornication:
In 2001,
Iranian officials
sentenced three
men to flogging for illicit sex.
The Quran
says:
24:2 The
fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred
stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment
prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a
party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for
unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if
married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them
to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).
The
additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the
support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried
fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.
The
classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we
do not need to analyze them here.
According
to a report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge
sentenced him to be lashed with eighty—five stripes. He died from the
punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is
cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.
Adultery:
In
December 2004, Amnesty International
reports:
An
Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next
five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last
month. Her unnamed co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by
hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to
the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.
She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.
This
gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest
and stoned to death:
And when
he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her
breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came
forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood
spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)
The
Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully,
though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community
murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad
told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with
irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her.
However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have
forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
Later
Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do
not need to analyze them here.
Here is
the back-up
article
that supports this fourth reason.
3. Islam
orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of
Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
In 1989,
Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate
Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which
includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the
Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently
renewed
the fatwa.
In 2005,
The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two
pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam.
Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors
have been
convicted based
on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to
read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer
representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing
their conviction.
In 2005,
British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech
law in England's parliament. They have
succeeded. Their
ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say
that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and
Islam.
Here are
the classical legal rulings.
First,
the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of
the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):
(1)
Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's
name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3)
denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus
belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4)
holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to
deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being
sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah
intended 'the Prophet's message... to be the religion followed by the
entire world.'
It is no
wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can
never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the
scholars' head.
The
non-Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the
following (p. 609, o11.10(1-5)):
(1)
Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of
hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something
impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.
According
to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments
for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement,
(3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for
money. These punishments also execute free speech – even repulsive
speech – and freedom of religion or conscience.
Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's
position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one
could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its
prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia
itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare
to differ.
How
confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had
to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and
persuasive argumentation?
For the
supporting article that analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which
orders death to critics, click
here.
2. Islam
orders apostates to be killed.
In Iran
an academic was
condemned
to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that
he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with
apostasy.
Apostates
are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article
in No. 3 above), whether they become atheists or convert to another
religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the
hadith, and later legal rulings.
See the
previous point (No. 3) for acts that entail leaving Islam according to
Islamic law.
Here are
the articles that support reason No. 2.
This is a
short, but full
article
on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.
Sayyid
Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this
booklet argues
that Sura 9:11-12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to
death (scroll down to 'The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to
Execute Apostates').
This
Muslim website has an
overview of
Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they
refuse, they must be killed.
And the
number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .
1. Islam
commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
Muhammad
is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging
war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah
(Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he
either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or
full-scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill
anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against
the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was
mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000
jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on
northern Christians and Jews.
Money
flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation
to dry up this money flow?
What are
some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and
classical legal opinions?
(1) Women
and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may
'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon
their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali,
Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, did this. (3) Women and children must
not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when
visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A
captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or
an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even
tortured a
citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about
where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted
could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive
that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong
could resist this coercion and remain a non-Muslim. (7) Civilian
property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9)
Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert
or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.
(11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura
9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat
tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax.
The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so
why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?
Thus,
jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed
to Muhammad to stop these practices.
For an
analysis of the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades, click
here.
For the
supporting article of reason no. one, please go
here.
It also has a segment on the differences between jihad in Islam and the
wars in the Old Testament. Another article on that topic can be read
here.
There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic.
Therefore, Islam is violent – unjustly and aggressively.
Conclusion
The
nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries.
Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not
do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many
passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they
cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through
Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform? But
reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh
(interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind
the Quran and Muhammad's example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic
nations do this?
In
contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason
(c. 1600-1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of
reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least
when Christianity reformed (c. 1400-1600), the reformers went back to
the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason
in the West permit justice to be found more readily – the Medieval
Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New
Testament are.
Can
Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran
and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims
with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention
denying them.
Since
Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original
and authentic Islam – the one taught by Muhammad – then a second plan
must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least
that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article
demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for
it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.
One of
the most tragic and under-reported occurrences in the West in recent
years is the existence of a
sharia court
in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting
Australia
as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and
legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard.
Whether sharia is imposed
gradually or
rapidly, Canada should promptly
shut down any
sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should
never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in
the world that is battling Islam.
It is
true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches
critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny.
It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics
teaches the West that excess is never just.
Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This
is the right initiative.
Sharia
ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.
Supplemental material:
In
private emails to me or on websites, Muslim apologists (defenders) claim
that the Islamic way of dealing with vices is superior to the western
way, even in Islam's punishments like flogging and stoning. It is true
that the West is filled with decadence, but are Islamic countries pure
and pristine through and through, as these Muslim apologists imply? To
anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to
Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. Alcohol and
other intoxicants and gambling serve as test cases.
This
article
states that Bahrain, an island and independent state that is connected
to Saudi Arabia by a causeway, provides opportunities for Saudis to
escape Saudi laws banning alcohol and the mixing of the sexes.
This
article
reveals how Iranians get around the official ban on alcohol, like beer
and vodka and other intoxicants, like opium. A black market has sprung
up—just like the one in America during Prohibition.
This
report
shows that even though the Taliban, the tyrants who formerly ruled
Afghanistan, outlawed the growth of poppies, which are the source of
opium, the leaders of the Taliban may have profited from the drug trade.
The new and democratic government has a hard time keeping this drug
under control.
Turkey
has threaten to imprison online gamblers, and
this page
links to a report (scroll to "Islamic Finance Forum Calls for
Adaptability") that discusses how Turkey must deal with the problem of
monetary interest, alcohol, and gambling. It is revealing to see how
Muslim religious leaders try to squirm out of Quranic laws against
interest, in order to help Islamic financial institutions make money.
The
purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert
that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many
problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries
have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries
are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work
entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime
underground.
James M.
Arlandson may be reached at
jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com
Jim
Arlandson (Ph.D.) teaches introductory philosophy and world religions at
a college in southern California. He has published a book, Women,
Class, and Society in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 1997)
From:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/05/jesus_and_muhammad_major_diffe.html
|