God's Law vs the laws of man
Shortly after the Fort Hood Shooting, I published an article entitled Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Major Nidal Hasan Violated Islamic Doctrine, in which I detailed how Islamic doctrine dictates that Muslims are religiously obligated to obey the laws of the land. (This is similar to the Jewish concept of dina d’malchuta dina.) The article generated an interesting discussion, with Islamophobes struggling to prove that Major Nidal Hasan’s treason was sanctioned by the Islamic religion.
An Islamophobe who routinely comments on our site posted the following:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 203:
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
The ‘Prophet said, “It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler’s orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it.”
This hadith, and others similar to it, are used by Islamophobes to call into question the loyalty of Muslim Americans. Muslims must obey the Sharia over and above the Constitution, they bellow. Yet, what these self-proclaimed defenders of the Western Judeo-Christian tradition fail to mention is that Christians believe in obeying God’s Law (the Christian Sharia) over and above the laws of the land. If God’s Law and the Constitution were to be in conflict, the Christian would be religiously obligated to follow the former.
Let’s take a gander at some reputable Christian “fatwa sites”…The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry decrees:
[Question:] Shall we obey God’s Law or human law?
[Answer:] …The simple answer is that Christians are to obey human law except where that human law violates God’s Law. Our supreme duty is to obey God. Since God tells us to also obey human laws, we should. But, when they come in conflict, we are to “obey God rather than men.”
GotQuestions.org says (emphasis is mine):
Question: “Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?”
Answer: …We are to obey the government God places over us…
The next question is “Is there a time when we should intentionally disobey the laws of the land?” The answer to that question may be found in Acts 5:27-29, “Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’ Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men!’” From this, it is clear that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, we are bound to obey the law of the land. As soon as the law of the land contradicts God’s command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God’s law…
And the same site says elsewhere:
God commands us to obey the governmental authorities. The only allowance we have for disobeying the authorities is if they demand that we disobey something God has commanded (Acts 5:29)
And:
Romans 13:1-7 makes it abundantly clear that God expects us to obey the laws of the government. The ONLY exception to this is when a law of the government forces you to disobey a command of God (Acts 5:29).
In fact, the Christian apologist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)–who is called “the father of modern international law”–writes in his book The Law of War and Peace (as quoted on p.184 of William J Federer’s The Ten Commandments and Their Influence on American Law):
Among all good men one principle at any rate is established beyond controversy, that if the authorities issue any order that is contrary to the law of nature or to the commandments of God, the order should not be carried out. For when the Apostles said the obedience should be rendered to God rather than to men they appealed to an infallible rule of action.
In Judaism as well, there are times when a Jew is obligated to break the laws of the land; Rabbi Israel Schneider writes:
Indeed, there are times when the civil law, in conflict with the halacha [Jewish Law], is not binding.
In fact, this has created problems for the peace process, with some Jews refusing to evacuate the illegal settlements, thereby breaking international law in favor of their interpretation of the Halacha. The Jerusalem Post writes:
Ex-IDF rabbis: Halacha is above military orders
A group of seven former IDF rabbis, including the former chief rabbis of the air force, the navy and the IDF Educational Division, have declared that in situations where Halacha and military orders clash, Halacha takes precedence.
So this belief, of following God’s commands above man’s, is shared by all three of the Abrahamic faiths. It is strange then that Islamophobes, the self-proclaimed defenders of the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, only fear monger when it comes to Islamic beliefs. It is this huge double standard that we have come to expose on our site.
Addendum:
A Muslim is religiously obligated to obey the laws of the land he lives in. But he is only religiously permitted to live in non-Muslim lands in which he is free to practice his religion. If the laws of the land would compel him to sin, then the Muslim is commanded to emigrate to another land where this is not the case. (He is advised to leave the land, but is not permitted to rebel against the authority.) Muslim Americans feel comfortable living in the United States of America, because of the country’s dedication to maintaining the freedom of worship. As such, they feel there is no conflict between being an observant Muslim on the one hand and an American citizen on the other.
Muslim Americans are naturally weary of fighting their coreligionists in foreign wars that they feel are illegal and immoral. However, there is currently no draft, and there has not been one for over thirty years. (The draft is unconstitutional.) As such, Muslims are not forced to fight in wars they feel are religiously impermissible, and thus there is no conflict. At the same time, Muslim Americans feel that they have a very important role to play, building lines of communication and understanding between Muslims and Americans. Muslim Americans believe in using all legal and peaceful political means at their disposal to bring their country away from war and to the path of peace.
January 24th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Another brilliant article Danios. This reminds me of a very recent story.
http://www.modernghana.com/news/255710/1/christian-registrar-sacked-for-refusing-to-conduct.html
The introduction of equality laws in the West has produced more and more of these same type of conflicts, and, contrary to what Islamophobes say, not all involve Muslims trying to “impose” their values on the wider population.
January 24th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
You can trust Danios to take on any topic and knock it right it outta the ball park! Thanks once more!
January 25th, 2010 at 2:34 am
Salaam,
Dear brother,
I am new to this site. The articles are really amazing. Alhamdulliah (All praise due to Allah). May Allah(swt) give you enough strength and knowledge to refute the islamophobes. Ameen. Jazakkallahu khair…
Your brother,
Aashiq Ahamed
January 25th, 2010 at 3:52 am
Danios,your ignorance is beyond belief.You are like an empty vessel,which makes much noise.Jesus-THE Christ said:Render unto Caesar,what ever is Caesars and unto God whatever is God,s.As a good Muslim,you are ignorant and to protect a false god Allah,a false prophet Mohammad and a false book quran.Mohammad broke all the ten commandments given by God to Moses.He left no sin uncommitted.Unfortunately,you keep fighting the lost cause.Either you are brainless on brain dead.
January 25th, 2010 at 5:00 am
“…away from war and to the path of peace.”
H’mm.
The absence of war is not always “peace”, (especially when “absence” actually means “retreat”.)
It can instead mean the victory of oppression.
If the US leaves the Taliban (for example) alone, will there be “peace” in Afghanistan, or even in the US? Will the Taliban grow more bold, and with its many resources seek revenge on the US?
Or do I not understand you when you talk about “peace”?
January 25th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Short and sweet hit job, Danios. Keep ‘em coming!
January 25th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Danios article is a tu quoque moral equivalence argument that doesn’t hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny. First of all, there is no codified manual of “God’s Laws” for Christians comparable with Sharia Law, as found in “The Reliance of the Traveler.” Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a exception for “God’s laws.” Compare that with the constitutions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc., which make a specific provision that no civil law can be contrary to Sharia Law. With regard to International laws, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam states in Article 24, “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.” There is no corresponding provision in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In short, this is why there is a big disconnect between Muslims and non-Muslims living in the West. Sharia Laws are hostile to civil laws, and they cannot coexist in a free society. Look how Muslims in Malaysia actually have fewer civil rights than their Chinese and Indian counterparts.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Chris, I’m not entirely convinced you understand the mechanics of a “tu quoque” fallacy. Regardless, Christians treat the Bible as a manual of God’s laws, “codified” or not. Additionally, I am quite thoroughly convinced that you don’t understand Shariah. “The Reliance of the Traveler” represents, like most treatises on Shariah, a set of scholarly juridical rulings on various issues. However, it is just that: an opinion. It is non-binding, and many other scholars may (and do) offer totally different opinions. Muslims do not have a “codified manual of ‘God’s Laws.’”
January 25th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Nobody has a problem with muslims living in the west as long as they don´t intend to bring sharia law into our societies.
Sharia law as practised in Saudi-Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, the Yemen terrorist areas or the Taliban areas is a totalitarian piece of barbarism. Before you call anyone opposed to this an “islamophobe”, think about that.
January 25th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
‘Danios,your ignorance is beyond belief.’
Hmm,okay
‘You are like an empty vessel,which makes much noise.Jesus-THE Christ said:Render unto Caesar,what ever is Caesars and unto God whatever is God,s.’
You don`t even know the story behind the verse or it`s meaning and it ahs nothing to do with this topic.Jesus was responding to people who asked him whweether it was alright to pay what they owe.Before you quote something ,you ought to read your own book.
As a good Muslim,you are ignorant and to protect a false god Allah,a false prophet Mohammad and a false book quran.’
You are confusing Mohammad with Paul,Islam is so false that it`s growing everyday.Try coming to Europe,better yet Canada,all these churches are [snipped]
Allah is the word for God in Arabic,even Arab Christians use that word too
‘Mohammad broke all the ten commandments given by God to Moses.He left no sin uncommitted.’
Mohammad(pbuh) did not do anything that any other prophet did not do.Read up on Moses,King David,Solomon,then come back and repeat that,But then again,you have never read your own ‘truth’,you obviosuly do not know your own teachings.
‘Unfortunately,you keep fighting the lost cause.Either you are brainless on brain dead.’
You just described yourself here,you did not even address what Danios said,you adressed nothing,all you did was insult the author.Way to stand up for what you believe in.You just made a fool of yourself.
January 25th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Shuama,
Although I appreciate you coming to my defense, I would kindly advise you not to disparage the Christian religion. We here at LoonWatch are not trying to promote one religion over another. Rather, our goal is to combat xenophobia and bigotry. This is often done by exposing the profound double standards that are at play. Nonetheless, we must ask you to be respectful towards people of other faiths. It is for this reason that I will be editing your response. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Danios.
January 25th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Another enjoyable article by Danios. I hope next you can write up on the matter of Hjiab and how the Burqa identifies with that matter. Is the Burqa part of Hijab? If so, how does a Muslim women handle the matter of banning the Burqa in France? Or in other countries? France is pretty darn near to banning it so I’m sure it’ll be a good read. We’ll also learn a thing or two. Of course if you have time.
Sidenote: Pamela Geller thinks Imam Zaid Shakir is a radical Imam. I have no words LOL!
January 25th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Chris Says:
January 25th, 2010 at 10:54 am
….Sharia Laws are hostile to civil laws, and they cannot coexist in a free society…. The above quote is the most ignorant thing I’ve read for someone throwing around the “tu-quoqe” fallacy accusation. I watch a lot of debates, read a a number of writings and books, and the “tu-quoqe” fallacy gets thrown around now in any “Islam vs West” intellectual discourse without fully understanding the point of the discourse itself.
I don’t think Danios was debating anything, just elucidating the double standard purported by many right-wing islamophobes. There is no need to defend the Hadith in question. Hadith need to be understood in it’s proper context. If any right winger said they questioned my loyalty to the U.S. because of the above hadith and used the Ft. Hood shootings as the example, I would say it’s first a very inaccurate representation of the Hadith. I would counter with “Does the Hadith mention anything about killing innocents if the person does not agree with the laws of the land” and secondly, this hadith should be referenced in conjunction with the scholarly opinion that if conflicts between the national law and that of the Shariah are apparent and real, then the muslim EMIGRATE and move to a different land, not shooting the innocent. Third, I can think of no real world analogy in which this Hadith would be applicable except in the Military. Considering we have a number of Muslims already in the Military, and have had long before Nidal’s rampage, even before 9/11, there is no reason to doubt the patriotism of the many number of Muslim’s serving in the Military with the actions of one.
Fourth, speaking of the military, the military has what’s called Conscientious Objector status, and so anyone including muslims have the option to file for that status if serving in a specific military campaign conflicts with their religious belief, thereby making the hadith in question moot. I don’t see any other law the U.S. has which would make me use the hadith above to be disloyal.
The attempted twisting of Nidal’s action as a muslim problem is incorrect. It’s not a muslim problem, it’s a human problem. He was a deeply disturbed individual and signs were apparent before the shootings.
Going back to the Shariah Law quote. Implementation of Shariah must not be confused for Shariah itself. That’s where education comes into play. The whole goal of Shariah Law is to protect the human. One doesn’t just read a few lines of “Reliance of the Traveler” lift the rulings that SEEM “out of whack” in the western frame of mind, and then say, “Shariah is not compliant with a free society.” I kindly advise Chris actually have a conversation with the Shaykh who translated the work itself, Shaykh Nuh Ha Meem Keller, who himself is a convert to Islam, to gain insight on Fikh matters dealing with the Sha’fi school of jurisprudence.
I’m tired of those who put forth weak arguments and have no critical thinking skills in conversation. They read one book on islam, and they feel they are the expert. They read a wiki entry and feel they are an expert, and even then, their research is bias and not objective, but I digress, and God knows best.
January 25th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
‘Tu quoque’ is the Islamaphobes new favourite term since Robert Spencer has been using it. Tu quoque is the new taqqiya. They may not know what it actually means, but that small obstacle shouldn’t stop them from using it liberally.
“The Reliance of the Traveler” as a codified manual of “God’s Laws”. Bahaha. Seriously, how wooden can someone be? The best thing about Islamaphobes is if you just let them waffle on, within a minute flat they’ll reveal their own idiocy. Just give them enough rope…
January 25th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
@Danios
I was just as repectful as he was towards my religion.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Nat, I agree with you. “Tu quoque” is their only defense. But it does not apply here, because LoonWatch is not a religious/Islamic website trying to prove the veracity of Islam. Rather, this is a website that approaches the matter as a neutral outsider, exposing the huge double standards that are at play. So it is truly odd when Robert Spencer and company go crazy about something that they find inherent in Islam, when they are completely silent about their own religion which also has the same belief in it.
They really hate being hit back hard. They can’t stand it, so now they are crying like babies saying “Tu quoque, tu quoque, stop hitting me please!” Remember: their entire argument is “Islam has such-and-such belief, hence it cannot be tolerated.” Well, their own religion has such-and-such belief, so why is it not only tolerated by them but championed?
We are just applying the same standards they use with Islam to their own religions. Remember: Robert Spencer is, at the end of the day, just a Catholic warrior. He tries to play off his religion, but really, he is biased as hell. (There’s nothing wrong with being Catholic…but just not a hate mongering one like Spencer is.)
Shuama:
“I was just as repectful as he was towards my religion.”
That is the problem. Remember: your own religion says to respond with something that which is better.
Sincerely,
Danios.
January 26th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Laokoon,
Thos countries you mentioned that use ’sharia’ base their laws off of cultural, traditional and heritage values. It can’t be called ’sharia’ if some muslim countries contradict islamic teachings.
January 26th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
“Your own religion says to respond with something that which [sic] is better.”
Really? Please tell that to the man who attacked the Danish cartoonist recently. And plenty of others who might need to hear this wonderful Islamic wisdom, which is no doubt in the texts but needs to be understood in context, which was why I missed it.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:57 am
PG:
First, thank you for pointing out my grammatical mistake.
Second, I definitely think it should be told to the man who attacked the Danish cartoonist. As the Quran says: “O believers, let not the hatred of a people towards you move you to commit injustice [against them].”
Sincerely,
Danios.
January 27th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Danios
[snipped]
It would seem to me that many of our western morals and laws have evolved from the judeo-christian ethic.Show me how sharia law has evolved and how it can be compatible with western secular values. Spencer has frequently stated that is all he wants from Muslims. If he is in error why not show him that the interpretive traditions in Islam have resulted in values which do not directly confront western values.Maybe a place to start would be in countries, like Saudi Arabia, which have a history of Muslim values and traditions.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Danios, so to point out the truth is bigoted? Is there no relationship between the behavior of one’s religious alter-egos and the behavior of the people who hold in esteem those same alter-egos?
Now Islam and all it’s violent short comings still makes more sense then the absolutely absurd “other worldliness” of Christ and his comment about turning the other cheek or doing good to those who abuse and use you[to paraphrase a few verses], these ideas have been rationalized and re-adapted and have in part contributed a certain extent to our western ideal of humanism and human rights. So Danios; the challenge for you is to show that sharia law has also fallowed a tradition of taking some inspiration from it’s source but by enlarge disassociating itself from it’s mythological connections. It would seem to me that modern day Islam does not have such a history and in fact has only reinforced ideas typical of 600 CE Bedouin desert culture which spawned the great religion of Islam. A good start would be to ask Muslims if the Koran is the indisputable word of God or whether Mohammad is really a holly prophet.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Since the apostasy thread is old in th epast, I post this here. Shall I say “this is the last word”. From Egypt 1 27 10:
[snipped]
Comment from Danios: Please do not cross post.
January 28th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
“Now Islam and all it’s violent short comings still makes more sense then the absolutely absurd “other worldliness” of Christ and his comment about turning the other cheek or doing good to those who abuse and use you[to paraphrase a few verses], these ideas have been rationalized and re-adapted and have in part contributed a certain extent to our western ideal of humanism and human rights”
maybe christians should bend over and thank the pagans who talked about “absolutely absurd ” turning the other cheek concept?
“Ancient Babylonian sacred teaching from two thousand years before
Jesus was born: “Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with
kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your
enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.” (Akkadian Councils of Wisdom, as
cited in Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts)
Buddhist holy teaching: “Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on
him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate
us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good,
falsehood by truth.” (written centuries before Jesus was born)
Buddhist holy teaching: “In this world hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate. This is the law, ancient and
inexhaustible.” (The Dhammapada)
Taoist holy teaching: “Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great
hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end
in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement
but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your
neighbor’s gain as your own and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others.” (written
centuries before Jesus was born)
The Greek poet Homer: “I will be as careful for you as I should be for
myself in the same need.” (Calypso, to Odysseus, in Homer, The
Odyssey, bk. 5, vv. 184-91. Roughly late 8th century BCE.).
Excerpts from a pagan’s prayer: “May I be the friend of that which is
eternal and abides…May I love, seek, and attain only that which is
good. May I wish for all men’s happiness…May I reconcile friends who
are wroth with one another. May I, to the extent of my power, give all
needful help to all who are in want. May I never fail a friend in
danger…May I know good men and follow in their footsteps.” (”The
Prayer of Eusebius,” written by a 1st-century pagan, as quoted in
Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion. Interesting Note: A few
Christians on the internet have incorrectly attributed this prayer to
a 3rd-century Christian also named Eusebius. They should read Murray’s
book instead of assuming that everything positive has to be
“Christian.”) “
January 29th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Joseph: I appreciate the historical context and “overview” of Christs teaching. I do not believe that any human concept or idea has evolved in a vacuum. There are always ideas behind an idea before it crystallizes into a concept. What I am alluding to is that if such a teaching is actualized in its complete form without being rationalized it becomes a formula for self or cultural annihilation.{The Jews and their cultural pacifism might be a good example]. Islam and it’s aggressive survival strategies which I believe evolved from the adaptations to a harsh nomadic desert culture came out of the desert and conquered or humiliated the worlds greatest empires [Roman and Persian] and cultures [Indian and Chinese].
February 1st, 2010 at 5:20 am
This one’s hilarious: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/jihad-groups-set-up-camp-in-haiti.html
———————————-
Jihad groups set up camp in Haiti
[video of Islamic Relief setting up camps for homeless people]
Islamic Relief USA and the Islamic Circle of North America, both groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” are operating in Haiti — ostensibly working in relief efforts, but no doubt doing a good bit of dawah on the side. Creeping Sharia has the story (thanks to herr Oyal).
Robert Spencer
———————————-
Needless to say, both groups are independent organisations not connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the statement Spencer quotes is *not* found in any official Muslim Brotherhood document, but an obscure dated minute to a meeting - see Louay Safi’s piece here: http://www.isna.net/articles/News/Fear-mongering-Muslim-Americans-and-Fort-Hood-tragedy.aspx (also reproduced in the Muslim Brotherhood’s official English website: http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=22030 )
On the other hand, a church in America has been accused of child trafficking in Haiti: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/02/01/church-accused-of-haiti-child-trafficking-115875-22010148/ - this I think could be more accurately described as “Crusaders Christianising Children in Haiti Devestation” (although of course I never would!). But the above is truely ridiculous.
February 12th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
“neutral outsider”
Because of the labeling and hostile tone of some of the posters (as you know from previous comments I am no fan of such style of dialogue), and the fact that Muslim misunderstanders of Islam are not taken to task as the Non-Muslim misunderstanders of Islam, I find this site to be for the most part informative and helpful, but not neutral.
If the objective is to show how others have distorted Islam, it should not matter if that person distorting it is Muslim or Non-Muslim. Just as someone like Spencer is wrong, for instance, about needing four witnesses to a rape to prove it was not adultery, so are those Muslims in Somalia who stoned to death a 13 year old girl who had reported that she was gang raped. That is a reason why I take this site with a grain of salt.