I recently happened upon this disinformation article by IndiaToday claiming to be factual. It is full of misdirection, omissions, and lies and I want to prove it to you all.
Sharia law courts must NEVER be allowed in India. Do not allow this horrible, disgusting system infect India because of “religious tolerance” — it is not worth it.
The Sharia is essentially Divine Command Theory put into practice; Sharia scholars can only act based on the Quran, the Quran interpreting other parts of the Quran, what the pedophilic Islamic Prophet Mohammad did in his life because he’s seen as the perfect human being in Islam, and then “verified” Hadiths are used to support following certain practices so long as the Quran allows it; after that, Sharia scholars can give an “independent opinion” so long as it follows the Quran, Mohammad’s behavior, the Hadiths, or the First Followers of the Quran. Making new and updated practices for the modern era is strictly forbidden under the rule called “bidah” (invention) in a religion. One thing should be make explicitly clear here: The Sharia Court System is Fundamentally Opposed To All Outside Logic and Reason. No non-Muslim opinion is considered valid. When a Sharia scholar gives a ruling, Muslims are divinely mandated to follow it as unquestioned fact of Islam that they aren’t allowed to dispute. Keep in mind all of the following below has to be accepted by Muslims as unquestioned fact under Divine Command Theory of Sharia.
Don’t believe me? A link to the Tafsir explanation by a noteworthy and respected Islamic Cleric. I’ve added full links next to the one-clicks, if you don’t believe me: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/205290/tafseer-on-the-basis-of-narrated-texts-and-tafseer-on-the-basis-of-individual-understanding
The Sharia means “Divine Law” and in Civil Sharia Proceedings, a woman has half the say of a man even in cases of rape. Meaning two women must be there to verify the statements of a single man in cases of rape.
The Quran supports killing Apostates so in Civil Proceedings, anyone who wants to leave Islam would be killed for apostasy. http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=89
Women and little girls being held captive to rape is considered morally justified in the Sharia: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=24
Beating your wife is acceptable under Sharia as per Quranic instructions: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=34
Violence against other religious groups, even different Islamic groups, is mandated thanks to Chapter 9 of the Quran; here’s just a small snippet: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=29
Raping little girls is legal in Sharia Civil Courts because the Pedophile Prophet Mohammad had sex with his 9 year old bride Aisha when he was around 50; it is justified by Aisha’s own admittance in the Hadiths: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/124483/age-of-the-mother-of-the-believers-aaishah-may-allah-be-pleased-with-her-when-the-prophet-blessings-and-peace-of-allah-be-upon-him-married-her
Here’s a link to a Harvard Divinity Graduate of Islamic Theology in the US justifying sex with 9 year-olds on the basis of Aisha’s age when she was raped by the pedophile Prophet of Islam.
This has real world consequences in Sharia Legal Systems across the Arab world because Sharia courts don’t consider raping women or little girls a crime: https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2017/05/mais-haddad-arab-world-laws-protect-the-rapist-not-the-victim/
Look at what happened with Sharia Courts in Great Britain
Let’s step back a bit and think over the logistics of tackling the wave of crimes that’ll occur and that the Indian police will be ill-equipped to deal with since – to the best of my knowledge – the ratio of the police force in India is 1 for every 400 people and not 1 for every 100 people.
British adaption of Sharia Courts have caused systematic discrimination against millions of women with British government officials not aware how many Sharia courts operate in their own soil once they were in effect despite not having legal authority and supposedly only being customary.
This causes systematic abuse of women and still remains a problem ever since Britain accepted Sharia courts. Large subsets of Muslim men and women willfully choose to ignore secular laws when Sharia Courts are implemented despite even when they have no legal power and act only as ceremonial decrees from the perspective of British law. Despite this, they’re treated as the de facto law of the land by a large swathe of British Muslims of Pakistani descent because they’re viewed as divine law — which is what Sharia means. Muslims must see Sharia Courts as divinely mandated by their God and thus superseding Secular Laws despite the actual codified law of the land. Islam’s Sharia Courts are Divine Command Theory put into practice.
This has had real world consequences in Great Britain with Christian British and Hindu British women being raped by Pakistani Muslim immigrants.
In Australia, Muslim men violating and beating their wives is a severe problem throughout the country.
Examine the borders close to India and see what Sharia legal systems have wrought
Raping minority Christian, Atheist, and Hindu women on the streets is normalized in Bangladesh due to support for Sharia. Massacres, arguably genocide of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, are the norm in Islamic majority countries. Bangladesh has had persecution and violence against Hindus both in recent years and going back in the recent past that still continues on nowadays. Christian groups have attempted to document abuses to defend Hindu human rights, but also suffer persecution and possibly risk death along with Hindus by doing so.
From journalist and Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at UCLA, Nushin Arbabzadah, in what was an attempt by a lecturer from a Liberal College to warn the US public about the dangers of Islam in Afghanistan with an article about the Mujahideen and Islam:
28 April marks the 19th anniversary of the mujahideen’s victory over the Red Army forces in Afghanistan. The original mujahideen of the 1980s and today’s Taliban may use the same language of holy war, but their understanding of jihad is worlds apart. The key difference between the original mujahideen and the Taliban is that the former waged a traditional type of jihad. In a traditional jihad, if waged locally, a contest over control of resources takes place between rival strongmen who each run their own private armies. In this scenario, the ultimate legitimacy to rule draws upon military strength, but the contest itself is called jihad simply because Islam is the sole language of political legitimacy.
Crucially, in a traditional jihad, the victorious party has an unspoken right to pillage, rape and loot the conquered population. This is because militia fighters are not paid soldiers in a regular army and hence looting is the material reward they receive for fighting. The original mujahideen followed this traditional pattern of jihad upon coming to power in 1992. Since competition over resources rather than ideology is key to traditional jihad, the mujahideen’s war focused on Kabul where the nation’s wealth and the foreign embassies, another potential source of funding, were to be found.
Judging by a historical account from the 1920s, back then the women and girls of the conquered populations also belonged to the pillage package offered to militia jihadis. Hence, in the diaries of court chronicler Katib Hazara on the siege of Kabul in 1929, we read that the victorious mujahideen of the time had demanded to see the list of girls registered at a Kabul school so as to allocate female students to militia fighters.
Katib’s account might be exaggerated, but the story still reveals that there was an unspoken rule that women and girls were part of the conquest package. As such, the mujahideen’s struggle over Kabul was a continuation of traditional jihad complete with internal rivalries, pillage and looting. The mujahideen were part of the realm of traditional politics in which a conquered region is a turf that can be exploited by strongmen, who call themselves mujahideen so as to appear respectable.
This had dire consequences in Afghanistan:
Three years ago, the remaining few Sikhs and Hindus threatened to leave the country if they were not given a seat, but still the majority in the Afghan parliament turned down the Hamid Karzai government’s much touted decreegranting reservation. Those against the reservation argued that the Afghan constitution prohibits any discrimination among its citizens.
Therein lies the irony. It is endemic discrimination against Hindu and Sikh minorities, who are usually clubbed together, which has driven out almost all members of these once thriving communities from their homeland to foreign countries such as India and Germany. Hindus and Sikhs have lived on this land for hundreds of years, but in a span of three decades, they are on the verge of becoming confined to the pages of Afghan history.
Until the Taliban overran Afghanistan, Hindus and Sikhs were a small but influential part of Afghan society. They were at the forefront of business and trade, engaged in money-lending and shop-keeping, selling everything from charms to herbs. Some had also joined the army and police in the last century and in the 19th century before that. President Mohammad Najibullah, who was hanged from a lamppost in Kabul by the Taliban, had also tried to involvethem politically.
An investigation by TOLO News, a leading news channel in Afghanistan, revealed that 99 percent of Hindus and Sikhs have left Afghanistan in the last three decades. The report, published in June, said that there were 220,000 Sikhs and Hindus in the 1980s, but their population came down to 15,000 after the Taliban took over in the 1990s. Now, only 1,350 Hindus and Sikhs remain. Discrimination and government neglect are responsible for the exodus.
During the Taliban regime, Hindus wore yellow badges and non-Muslims were not allowed to hold government jobs. It was because of those horrifying yellow badges that much of the world first came to know about these religious minorities living in Afghanistan. Fifteen years after the fall of the Taliban, those Hindus and Sikhs who remain are contending with growing insecurity, loss of land and property to warlords, hostile neighbours who object to their practice of burning their dead, bullying in schools, and dwindling economic prospects. More than any other time in their history, they feel like outsiders now.
In Pakistan, kidnapping and forced conversions are a continuous problem for Hindus and Sikhs by Muslim sexual predators:
After partition from India in 1947, and the creation of Pakistan as a separate state for Muslims, marriages of the Hindu minority were not officially recognized, leaving Hindu women without protection under the law.
Hindus in Pakistan are now estimated to number around 3 million out of a population estimated at nearly 190 million. Discrimination and violence against religious minorities is common.
“Our married daughters and sisters have been kidnapped by local non-Hindu influentials and forced to convert to Islam,” said lawyer Arjun Das, chairman of Pakistan Council of Meghwar, a Hindu community, who campaigned for the marriage law.
“Then they have been gotten forcibly re-married off to their influential kidnappers … without their victims’ consent.”
Sixteen-year-old Anjali Kumari was kidnapped three years ago from her home in Dharaki in broad daylight – and was forcibly converted to Islam within a day.
“We had to take refuge in Karachi as we faced murder threats by the kidnappers with connections to a local political group when we raised our voices and took to the streets calling for release of our daughter,” Kumari’s father, Kundan Mal Meghwar, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
“She was forcibly converted and married off … against her free will,” Mal Meghwar said.
A court in the port city of Karachi ruled in 2014 that Anjali should stay in a shelter in the city where her parents could visit her.
“But we were never allowed to meet our daughter, giving her the impression that we were no longer interested in saving her … from her kidnapper,” he said. “She succumbed to the pressure and eventually went away with him.”
Hindu girls as young as 6 continue to be targeted to be raped by Muslim men in Pakistan:
Finally, here’s a look at the Hadiths of the Pedophile and illiterate Prophet’s moral conduct; Muslims accept the Islamic Prophet Mohammad as the perfect human being so any conduct that he does is considered morally good.
From the Hadiths:
Bukhari (80:753) – “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'”
Bukhari (52:255) – The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.
Bukhari (41.598) – Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but rather used to pay off the debt.
Bukhari (62:137) – An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad’s men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad’s approval.
Bukhari (34:432) – Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.
Bukhari (47:765) – A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).
Bukhari (34:351) – Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.
Bukhari (72:734) – Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.
Muslim 4112 – A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.
Bukhari (47:743) – Muhammad’s own pulpit – from which he preached Islam – was built with slave labor on his command.
These Islamic teachings have real world consequences in India already; don’t make them stronger.
To conclude: This “fact file” article is full of lies. Compare what it says to what I’ve just informed you with in this blog post.