Tag Archives: politics

Did Jesus (p) abolish Jewish Kosher?

Did Jesus (p) abolish Jewish Kosher?

Question Mark

Introduction

 

It is highly probable that the Christian next-door is into an all-inclusive dietary practice. S/he would not be scrupulous with the foods being consumed as Jew (or a Muslim) would be. It is almost considered lawful to consume food items which are prohibited in the Bible. Sadly enough, many Christians try to prove their position from the Bible itself! In fact some Bible versions have taken it for granted that Jesus (peace be upon him) allowed every food for them rescinding Mosaic Laws! One such incident happened at this very blog when a Christian used biblical passages to support his view.

Therefore, we have decided to take a close look into the matter if it is really permissible that a Christian consume any food that s/he like even those forbidden in the Bible. We would consider one of the most famous of the New Testament passage herein.

 

The Jesus (p) Yardstick

 

The Jews to this date scrupulously observe what is called as the “Kosher”. Kosher is basically the Jewish dietary law. The practice of Kosher does get its support from the Bible. Consider the following passage for instance:

 

Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.  For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.  (Leviticus 11:42-47, King James Version)

 

Jesus (peace be upon him) for the known fact that he was a “Jew” must have observed the dietary Law. In fact, not just “dietary” Law, Jesus (peace be upon him) wanted to surpass every Pharisee and Scribe of his time by observing all the Laws of the Old Testament:

 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20, King James Version)

 

 

Did Jesus (p) allow all kinds of food?

 

 

 

On the foregoing it is hard to assume that Jesus (peace be upon him) would have allowed dietary practices against God’s Laws! Then what did Jesus (peace be upon him) mean when he said,

 

 

There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. (Mark 7:15, King James Version)

 

 

Apparently it seems like Jesus (peace be upon him) allowed consumption of all foods irrespective of the Old Testament rulings on them. In fact the Good News Edition of the Bible has already construed Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement as permission for every kind of food. In between verse 19 and 20, Good News Editions brackets the following declaration:

 

 

In saying this, Jesus declared that all foods are fit to be eaten

 

Nevertheless, a closer look into the passage reveals that Jesus (peace be upon him) never intended to allow all foods lawful for his disciples. It is vitally important to understand the setup and context which led to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement:

 

Chapter 7 begins with Pharisees and doctors of the Law in a dispute with Jesus (peace be upon him). For the Pharisees, Jesus’ (peace be upon him) disciples were not up to the mark as far as observing the rituals were concerned. The Pharisees were particularly upset with the disciples not ritually cleaning their hands before eating food:

 

 

Some Pharisees and teachers of the Law who had come from Jerusalem gathered round Jesus. They noticed that some of his disciples were eating their food with hands which were ritually unclean – that is, they had not washed them in the way the Pharisees said people should” (Mark 7:1-2)

 

 

For the Pharisees it was important to wash hands ritually since they inherited it from their forefathers (c.f. Mark 7:3). However, Jesus (peace be upon him) had other views. For him the act (of cleaning hands) was mere show of hypocrisy devoid of any sincere God-consciousness:

 

 

Jesus answered them, “How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you! You are hypocrites, just as he wrote: These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really far away from me….” (Mark 7:6)

 

 

Jesus (peace be upon him) also recognized that the ritual of washing hands before eating was a man-made innovation which was never part of God’s Laws:

 

 

It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach man-made rules as though they were God’s laws!’ “You put aside God’s command and obey the teachings of men”” (Mark 7:7-8)

 

 

It is not difficult to understand the perspectives of Pharisees and Jesus (peace be upon him). While the Pharisees would act as sticklers, ironically, not to God’s Laws but to mere mundane innovations, Jesus (peace be upon him), on the other hand, would not only denounce any innovation in God’s religion but he also would strive for spirituality and God-consciousness even in the rituals. It was under this context that Jesus said,

 

 

Listen to me, all of you, and understand. There is nothing that goes into a person from the outside which can make him ritually unclean. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that makes him unclean” (Mark 7: 14-15)

 

 

Consider the construction of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement in the first place: If Jesus’ (peace be upon him) intent would have been merely to allow all foods permissible for his disciples then he would not probably had started his statement with a strong exhortation to “listen” him carefully and “understand”. Obviously there was much more to be understood than what would apparently appear from his words. Through such a cautious expression, Jesus (peace be upon him) wanted his disciples to be careful to second part of his statement where he alarms his audience from the evils that “comes out of a person that makes him unclean”.

 

 

As obvious as it is, Jesus (peace be upon him) definitely shifted the focus from mere man-made formalities to higher acts of spirituality. For him, the need of the hour was not bickering over “rituals” and systems but inner uprightness. In fact, Jesus (peace be upon him) explicitly chided the Pharisees, in the same context, merely a few statements earlier, towards their moral degradation in the name of observing “rituals”:

 

 

And Jesus continued, “You have a clever way of rejecting God’s law in order to uphold your own teaching. For Moses commanded, ‘Respect your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever curses his father or his mother is to be put to death.’ But you teach that if a person has something he could use to help his father or mother, but says, ‘This is Corban’ (which means, it belongs to God), he is excused from helping his father or mother. In this way the teaching you pass on to others cancels out the word of God. And there are many other things like this that you do”” (Mark 7:9-13)

 

 

Understand that for Jesus (peace be upon him) the Pharisees were not qualified to be talking about ritual niceties when they had devised ways how they could be excused from helping their own aging parents! For Jesus (peace be upon him) the demand of ritual cleaning was as folly as the excuse of the “Corban”, let alone the fact that the ritual it was an innovation. In this context, therefore, when Jesus (peace be upon him) stated that nothing that goes in defiles a person, then Jesus (peace be upon him) was not really talking about permissibility of foods as he was concerned about refuting the snares of Pharisees.

 

We can further appreciate that (i) Jesus (peace be upon him) did not construct his statement more obviously as “nothing that a person eats”; rather he said “nothing that goes into a person”! This is more than just a hint that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not really concerned about food here. Furthermore, (ii) Jesus (peace be upon him) is comparing food (goes in) and actions (comes out), or at least talking about both of them simultaneously, when both are quite disparate! These should help us interpret Jesus (peace be upon him) correctly that he was not as much concerned and discussing food and its rulings as he was vexed with the inner corruption of the same Pharisees advocating their (man-made) rituals. This understanding is further corroborated by the fact that where Jesus (peace be upon him) devotes only a verse (v.19) for things going into a person, he devotes four verses (vv. 20-23) into explaining about the evils emanating out of men.

 

 

 

 

 

Being Consistent

 

 

We expect persisting Christians to argue that Jesus (peace be upon him) allowed all foods since it does not enter into the heart – where intentions for actions emanate – rather it goes straight into the stomach where it is digested and is done with:

 

 

You are no more intelligent than the others,” Jesus said to them. “Don’t you understand? Nothing that goes into a person from outside can really make him unclean, because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then goes on out of the body.”(Mark 7: 19)

 

 

Obviously the reasoning is very narrow and does not accommodate the context. Furthermore, such an argument is awfully inconsistent with the food offered to idols since, of surety, they also do not enter the heart but go to stomach and yet Christians are forbidden to eat them:

 

 

It is my opinion,” James went on, “that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been offered to idols;” (Acts 15: 19-20)

 

Much like the Pharisees, James is also concerned with “ritual uncleanness”. If Jesus (peace be upon him) has declared that “nothing” going in defiles men then James should not be concerned about the food offered at idol altars especially when James and every other Christian believer knows that every eatable is in reality created by the living God and not dead idols. Consequently, Christians should consistently obey Jesus (peace be upon him) and eat the food offered to idols as, “because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then goes on out of the body.

 

 

Paul was also against eating food offered to idols:

 

Consider the people of Israel: those who eat what is offered in sacrifice share in the altar’s service to God. Do I imply, then, that an idol or the food offered to it really amounts to anything? No! What I am saying is that what is sacrificed on pagan altars is offered to demons, not to God. And I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink from the Lord’s cup and also from the cup of demons; you cannot eat at the Lord’s table and also at the table of demons. Or do we want to make the Lord jealous? Do we think that we are stronger than he? (1 Corinthians 10: 18-22)

 

 

 

If food is just-food without any scruples of God-consciousness since they merely have to enter stomach and not heart then why is Paul so concerned about food offered to idols! If, “Nothing that goes into a person from outside can really make him unclean” then why is it an issue whether the food is offered at the altar of God or “demon”? Similarly, how does one become a partner of demon when Jesus (peace be upon him) declared the “outside” food cannot really make him “unclean”?

 

On the same line of reasoning, if that “what comes out of a person that makes him unclean” (Mark 7:20) and the (Christian) believers have become pure in their association with Christ (peace be upon him) then how come anything constitute “the cup of demons”.

 

These queries are irreconcilable if we continue to misinterpret Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement merely to satisfy our eating appetites.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

 

Therefore, it seems that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) expression is more about moral sanctity of men than rulings on foods. In fact, we do not find any real reason why Jesus (peace be upon him) need to discuss food-rulings at all since (i) Jews were abreast of Mosaic commandments already and Jesus (peace be upon him) had initially upheld every facet of the Laws. And (ii) there is no hint that Jesus (peace be upon him) ever ate food which was condemned as defiling by the Laws. Add to it that Jesus (peace be upon him) considered the act of ritually washing hands as mere innovation. Consequently, a mere innovation could not possibly decide cleaning/defiling of men and thus Jesus (peace be upon him) could say that nothing going “in” without this man-made ritual cleansing could defile men as an expression to debunk innovations in the religion! Furthermore, if Jesus (peace be upon him) is (mis) understood for permitting “any” food then, consistently, even food offered to idols would become lawful! This obviously is a problem.

 

On the foregoing, if we are to be careful towards the text and sincere towards the speaker, especially when he himself is not around to explain the imports, then we would have to accept that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not really gave permission to the Christians to choose dietary at their free will.

 

 

Notes:

 

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical texts taken from the Good News Edition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burma’s Genocide of Muslims

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

 

This image shows the vast amount of destruction done against an exclusively Muslim section of a Burmese town. In excess of 800 homes have been destroyed, 60+ killed and many injured. The follow article was sourced from the Guardian UK:

Burma’s president has admitted an unprecedented wave of ethnic violence has targeted his country’s Rohingya Muslim population, destroying whole villages and large parts of towns.

Thein Sein’s acknowledgement follows the release of satellite imagesshowing the severe scale of the destruction in one coastal town, where most – if not all – of the Muslim population appears to have been displaced and their homes destroyed.

The pictures, acquired by Human Rights Watchshow destruction to the coastal town of Kyaukpyu in the country’s west. They reveal an area of destruction 35 acres in size in which some 811 buildings and boats have been destroyed.

The images confirm reports of an orgy of destruction in the town which occurred in a 24-hour period in the middle of last week after violence in the province broke out again on 21 October.

The attacks in Arakan province in the country’s west – also known as Rakhine – appears to have been part of a wave of communal violence pitting Arakan Buddhists against Muslims that has hit five separate towns and displaced thousands of people.

“There have been incidents of whole villages and parts of the towns being burned down in Arakan state,” Thein Sein’s spokesman said.

A government spokesman put the death toll up until Friday at 112. But within hours state media revised it to 67 killed from 21-25 October, with 95 wounded and nearly 3,000 houses destroyed.

The president’s comments followed a warning from the office of the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, that ethnic violence was endangering political progress in Burma.

“The vigilante attacks, targeted threats and extremist rhetoric must be stopped. If this is not done … the reform and opening-up process being currently pursued by the government is likely to be jeopardised,” the statement said.

The Burmese government is struggling to contain ethnic and religious tensions suppressed during nearly half a century of military rule that ended last year.

Inter-ethnic violence broke out earlier this year, triggered by the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman by three Muslim men.

Releasing the satellite images, Human Rights Watch said it had identified 633 buildings and 178 houseboats and floating barges which were destroyed in an area occupied predominantly by Rohingya.

A committee of MPs led by the Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi called on Friday for security reinforcements and swift legal action against those behind the killings and destruction.

According to Reuters, dozens of boats full of Rohingyas with no food or water fled Kyaukpyu, an industrial zone important to China, and other recent hotspots and were seeking access on Friday to overcrowded refugee camps around the state capital, Sittwe.

Some 3,000 Rohingya were reported to have been blocked from reaching Sittwe by government forces and landed on a nearby island.

“These latest incidents between Muslim Rohingyas and Buddhists demonstrate how urgent it is that the authorities intervene to protect everyone, and break the cycle of discrimination and violence,” Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific deputy director, Isabelle Arradon, said.

The latest violence erupted as a Burmese website in Norway – the Democratic Voice of Burma – reported it had acquired a document by a group calling itself the All-Arakanese Monks’ Solidarity Conference. calling for all Rohingya to be expelled from the country.

“Burma’s government urgently needs to provide security for the Rohingya in Arakan state, who are under vicious attack,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Unless the authorities also start addressing the root causes of the violence, it is only likely to get worse.”

Human Rights Watch fears the death toll is far higher, based on allegations from witnesses fleeing scenes of carnage and the government’s well-documented history of underestimating figures that might lead to criticism of the state.

The Rohingya are officially stateless. Buddhist-majority Burma’s government regards the estimated 800,000 of them in the country as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, and not as one of the country’s 135 official ethnic groups, and denies them citizenship.

But many of those expelled from Kyaukpyu are not Rohingya but Muslims from the officially recognised Kaman minority, said Chris Lewa, director of the Rohingya advocacy group, Arakan Project.

It’s not just anti-Rohingya violence anymore, it’s anti-Muslim,” she said.

It was unclear what set off the latest arson and killing on Sunday.

Muslims have experienced large scale persecution for centuries, the Bosnian massacres, Iraqi war, Afghanistan war, Gazan genocide are just some of the conflicts in which Muslims were the targets, often times women and children being the main victims.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Christian Missionaries Paying Muslims to Convert in Syrian Refugee Camps

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This Muslim sister, from a Syrian refugee camp, details how the Christian missionaries are flooding the camps with Christian literature and offering to pay rent, buy clothes and food if the Muslims take the Bibles and learn them. They are attempting to pay Muslims to read their Bible to convert them, but it isn’t working thus far, this young sister from Syria explains:

May Allaah protect the Muslims from the Shayataan Bashar al Alawi and from the Missionaries, Ameen.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Saudi Mother Pardons Son’s Murderer

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In one of the most heart wrenching stories of the year. A Muslim Saudi woman, has forgiven her son’s murderer and by that act has saved the murderer from execution or any form of punishment by the state. The woman who has no house of her own and lives with her three orphaned daughters said:

Marzooghah Al-Blewi of Tabuk refused an offer of property and millions of riyals to pardon the man who took her son’s life more than two years ago.

Instead, in a dramatic scene after the sentencing in court, the mother of the victim asked to see her son’s murderer after which she said that she forgave him without conditions. This was documented in the presence of the judge, and the grateful young man asked the woman to accept him as her son to serve her for the rest of her life.

The victim’s mother said that she could not forget the night when her 19-year-old son Suhail was murdered, while she was waiting for him to drive her to visit some relatives.

She accepted the matter as fate and test of her patience from God. She said the killer’s family had constantly contacted her offering property and money and seeking forgiveness to spare their son from execution.

She said she resides in Prince Sultan Charitable Housing with her three orphaned daughters, one of whom is completely paralyzed, and her 80-year-old father who is also partially paralyzed.

They live on her deceased husband’s pension of SR2,000 in addition to SR1,000 from social insurance. She forgave her son’s killer seeking God’s recompense.

The perpetrator’s father, Ayed Al-Blewi, spoke of the many attempts to have the distraught mother drop the charges by offering SR2 million and his property, but she refused many times, until that day in court.

He offered his sincere thanks to her and to the relatives of the deceased.

Such an act due to the laws of Islam and to the piety that Islam instills in us, allows for such acts of great kindness to occur. This news most certainly demonstrates the mercy of Islam and the compassion it grows within us, for the betterment of society. You can read the article at its original source, The Saudi Gazette. It is most certain that you will not see this story on David Wood’s website, Pamela Geller’s website, or Ali Sina’s website, yet this is one law (forgiveness of murderers), that is found in Shari’a law and only in Shari’a law.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

A Christian’s Love for Muslims

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’m sure we’ve all heard that emotional mumbo jumbo about ‘love’ from our Christian friends. That Muslims don’t have a God that loves them, that Muslims  don’t know what love is, that Islam is a religion void of love, that we Muslims need to embrace Christianity to truly understand and know what love is. We’ve all seen Christians preach that whole, ‘turn the other cheek’ mantra, too bad I felt too much Christian love from this group of Christians discussing Islam:

I’m not exactly sure where the Qur’an says that we have to convert the world or kill everyone in the world, perhaps someone who agrees with Clark can show me. Feel free to post your response in the comments section and I’d address the claim. Let’s return to our pal’s comments now. Strangely enough, our friend Clark makes it clear that he rather buy a gun, than debate/ discuss his concerns with Muslims. I’m thinking that this is the “shoot first, ask questions later”, kind of mentality.  If it isn’t enough to just buy a gun, our friend Clark has a brilliant master plan to bring peace and stability to the world. Kidnap a few Muslims, have them dig their graves, kill them and throw a pig’s carcass in their just for the heck of it. Just to be sure that they got the message, shout at their graves and let them know that they are not allowed to commit any future terrorist acts. At the end, Clark turns into some sort of a philosopher and decides that killing pigs and not humans may be a bad thing. I did some digging and well, Clark is just about Christian as they come:

Our loving Christian friend Clark, isn’t alone. He’s got a pal that also shares similar views:

I’m not sure that I can add much commentary to these images, it’s pretty clear to me that we’re dealing with persons who are actively discussing and intending to act violently towards Muslims. Their mentality is absolutely horrendous and quite shocking to say the least. Normally you’d expect folks who are discussing these things to do so privately, but to make such comments public and to share them among large groups of persons is disturbing to say the least. I can’t begin to imagine the outrage if Muslims had said this about Christians or Jews! I did some further digging and as it turns out, our buddy Louis supports Pamela Geller, the infamous Islamophobe who incited the Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist attacks against Muslims and Muslim friendly groups in Norway.

It should be noted that Christian Missionaries, David Wood and Sam Shamoun both support and promote Geller’s views. A quick look at David Wood’s Answering Muslims website shows numerous videos of Pamela. Two peas in a pod. Similar to the self declared “Crusader”, Anders not only discussed killing Muslims online, but he shared many of the same views as our friends Clark and Louis. If this trend is anything to base our suspicions on, we’re looking at persons intent on mass murdering Muslims and those who sympathize with Muslims, in the name of their Lord, Christ.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

The Bible Command Christians to Obey Islamic Governance

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Often times we hear Christians (see: Pamela Geller, David Wood, Sam Shamoun, Christians on FFI, Answering Islam, Answering Muslims), who align themselves with political groups claiming that the, “Shari’a” is immoral, backward, barbaric, archaic and ‘harmful to society’. Yet, if we were to ask them to define what Shari’a is, they wouldn’t seem to know. Some may point you to a Fiqh manual titled, “Reliance of the Traveller“, or quote for you some ahadith (plural of Hadith) or Qur’anic ayah as evidence of, “the creeping Shari’a“. However, they don’t know what the Shari’a actually is. The Shari’a is a body of law, which is both interpersonal and intrapersonal. It is sourced from the Qur’an, the Sunnah (Ahadith, Seerah), Ijma (consensus of scholars based on Qur’an and Sunnah) and Qiyas (analytic deduction). Therefore, as it is, there is no one ‘fiqh’ manual that embodies the Shari’a as a whole for Muslims. Fiqh can be defined as Islamic jurisprudence. What does this mean?

Shari’a is not:

  • Based on one man’s opinion.
  • Based on one scholar’s opinion.
  • Based on one fiqh manual.
  • Based on crowd justice (there are courts to try criminals!).
  • Based on a few Ahadith.
  • Based on a few Qur’anic verses.
  • Based on a few men’s opinions.

Shari’a depends on a vast consensus of scholars who hold positions verified and validated through noted certification by institutions of high academic standards (see: Umm al Qura University, the University of Madina, Al Azhar, Dar al Ulum, etc). A single mufti’s (Molvi, Maulana, Shaykh, Sheikh, Ustadh, Sidi, etc) legal ruling (fatwa) is not binding because it is one man’s legal opinion, unless it is verified through Qur’an, Sunnah and Ijma (previously defined above).

Intrapersonal Shari’ah:

This involves the personal beliefs and actions of an individual, this can involve performing Salaah, eating halaal, dressing appropriately, using appropriate language etc). In other words, it’s your personal moral standing that is dependent upon you and the Shari’a intends that you do good actions and not sin.

Interpersonal Shari’ah:

This involves the dealings and interactions of one person with another person, group of persons, his community and his legal obligations to the state. Usually this involves providing food for one’s family, obeying traffic laws, not stealing from others, not injuring or causing undue harm to anyone, paying taxes etc. In this form of Shari’a, this is what Islamophobes usually refer to as the creeping Shari’a. Nowhere in the Shari’a is one allowed to take justice into their own hands, we often hear of public whippings, beheadings, honour killings etc. However nowhere in the Shari’a are Muslims or non-Muslims for that matter, allowed to take justice into their own hands, in fact we have courts that are governed by Judges (a judge is a Qadhi), where matters are dealt with. One popular misconception is the rulings concerning rape and the punishment of the victim in Islam, I have previously written on this topic here.

The Bible Commands the Following of the Islamic Shari’a:

This might surprise many Christians, but the Bible actually commands its adherents to obey Islamic law. If you’ve read Macbeth or almost any Shakespearean play, you’d have come across the ‘Divine Right of Rulership’, wherein it is believed that rulers are destined by God to rule and therefore to rebel against a monarch would mean rebelling against God. Protestant England and Shakespeare did not invent this belief, it’s actually based on one of Paul’s Epistles:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.  Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. – Bible : Romans (13): 1 – 7.

If I could have put that entire passage in bold, I would have. Clearly it is saying that the one in power, the governing authorities are instituted by God. Your God. What does this mean? Well, quite simply, if you are a Christian living in Muslim lands and their are Islamic laws, you must obey them. That’s right, this means living under Shari’a is condoned by Jehova, YHWH, Yeshua, Jesus, or whatever you call him. It doesn’t get much better for Tea Party followers in the United States, as opposing your President is tantamount to opposing God, similarly campaigning against Muslim politicians or liberties allowed by the law for Muslims, means you’re practically incurring God’s wrath upon yourselves.

Some might dismiss this understanding of the aforementioned passage by claiming that I’m a Muslim, therefore I am twisting ‘scripture’, therefore in response to this claim, let’s examine Christian Exegete, Adam Clarke’s commentary on the verses:

This is a very strong saying, and most solemnly introduced; and we must consider the apostle as speaking, not from his own private judgment, or teaching a doctrine of present expediency, but declaring the mind of God on a subject of the utmost importance to the peace of the world; a doctrine which does not exclusively belong to any class of people, order of the community, or official situations, but toevery soul; and, on the principles which the apostle lays down, to every soul in all possible varieties of situation, and on all occasions. And what is this solemn doctrine? It is this: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Let every man be obedient to the civil government under which the providence of God has cast his lot. 

As God is the origin of power, and the supreme Governor of the universe, he delegates authority to whomsoever he will; and though in many cases the governor himself may not be of God, yet civil government is of him; for without this there could be no society, no security, no private property; all would be confusion and anarchy, and the habitable world would soon be depopulated. In ancient times, God, in an especial manner, on many occasions appointed the individual who was to govern; and he accordingly governed by a Divine right, as in the case of Moses, Joshua, the Hebrew judges, and several of the Israelitish kings. In after times, and to the present day, he does that by a general superintending providence which he did before by especial designation. In all nations of the earth there is what may be called a constitution-a plan by which a particular country or state is governed; and this constitution is less or more calculated to promote the interests of the community.

The civil governor, whether he be elective or hereditary, agrees to govern according to that constitution. Thus we may consider that there is a compact and consent between the governor and the governed, and in such a case, the potentate may be considered as coming to the supreme authority in the direct way of God’s providence; and as civil government is of God, who is the fountain of law, order, and regularity, the civil governor, who administers the laws of a state according to its constitution, is the minister of God. But it has been asked: If the ruler be an immoral or profligate man, does he not prove himself thereby to be unworthy of his high office, and should he not be deposed? I answer, No: if he rule according to the constitution, nothing can justify rebellion against his authority. He may be irregular in his own private life; he may be an immoral man, and disgrace himself by an improper conduct: but if he rule according to the law; if he make no attempt to change the constitution, nor break the compact between him and the people; there is, therefore, no legal ground of opposition to his civil authority, and every act against him is not only rebellion in the worst sense of the word, but is unlawful and absolutely sinful. – Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Romans 13:1-2.

Conclusion:

Therefore, in closing, I conclude that those who fear Islamic Shari’a do not have a holistic and educated teaching of what it actually is, that they are playing on emotional fears for their own gain, whether monetary or otherwise (see: Argumentum ad Baculum). Following the Shari’a is no different to following a constitution of any nation where you reside according to Pauline doctrine, whom according to the Christian’s own belief is taught/ inspired by God Himself. Political Christians who are opponents of Shari’a simply do not understand it and are going against Biblical teachings.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.