Sharia: Threat or Promise? FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Billboard sparks controversy in Detroit The non-profit group United American Committee has erected a controversial 48 ft. long billboard on Interstate 75 south of Detroit, MI with a statement in opposition to Islamic Sharia Law, a legal system that many believe is a growing threat to the U.S. Constitution. DETROIT, MI (November 25th, 2008) – The billboard, located just south of Luna Pier Rd. on the south bound side of the Detroit-Toledo Expressway, states “Sharia Law Threatens America”. Sharia Law is a legal system recognized in many Islamic countries such as the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, and currently Saudi Arabia, and is a legal system which dictates beheadings, stonings, and other punishments for what are listed as crimes under Sharia such as homosexuality and adultery, and according to critics views women as inferior granting them little rights. Days after the billboard went up, emails from angry Muslim residents began coming in to the offices of the United American Committee, the organization behind the billboard. “Muslims are the biggest victims of Sharia Law in the world.” remarked Tom Trento, a spokesperson for the UAC. Trento continued “We hope this message inspires the Muslims of America who came to this country to escape Sharia, to stand up against it.” If one goes to the website listed on the board ( ) they will find a video of Wafa Sultan, a Syrian Muslim who escaped from the middle-east and has become an outspoken critic of Sharia Law. “At times, it feels to me, that Sharia is following me to the United States” Sultan says in the video, referring to Islamic charities and organizations in America who have pushed for support for Sharia Law in parts of America. Sultan also points out that in Great Britain and France, Sharia Law is being enforced in various ways in certain communities. Most recently Great Britain has officially sanctioned the establishment of Sharia courts for civil matters among Muslims. “Our constitution is not compatible with Sharia” Sultan states, a view shared by many in America. The United American Committee is a leading non-profit educational group dedicated to awakening the nation to the threats of radical Islam and works to educate Americans on the nature of Islamic extremism. Its mission is to fight the ideological aspects of the War on Terror to counter elements of radical Islam in America. ## MEDIA CONTACT Tom Trento 561-767-0982 I say it is both threat & promise; a threat to the entire non-Muslim world and a promise to Muslims. Allah has promised them victory; that they will obtain succession to rule the world; total domination. Allah has commanded perpetual war against all who do not embrace Islam or submit to its dominion as Dhimmis. The primary commands are contained in two verses: 8:39, which commands Muslims to fight pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped everywhere in the world and 9:29, which commands Muslims to fight “people of the book” until we are subjugated and extorted. Because Allah uttered those commands and Moe obeyed them, they are forever enshrined in Islamic law. Malik’s Muwatta was an early attempt to codify Sharia, but it is basically a collection of sayings; oral tradition about Moe’s words & works. “Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller) is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence.” Here is the Wikipedia entry. Scribid displays a scanned image of the book with a search engine so you can look up any reference. Justice is the subject of Book O. The imperatives of war are found in O9.8 & 9.9.

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29),

Regular readers of this blog have seen extensive quotations from Reliance of the Traveller, a relatively small but extremely important sample of a large volume. There is more; much more. Sharia dictates almost everything Muslims and Dhimmis do, wife beating included. M10.11: Dealing with a Rebellious Wife When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz, dis: p42) (O: whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (O: without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, “Fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me,” or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, “Your obeying me [def: (3) below] is religiously obligatory”). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (O: and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (A: bruise her,) break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (O: It is unlawful to strike another’s face). He may hit her wether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may not hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness. (N: To clarify this paragraph, we mention the following rulings: -1- Both man and wife are obliged to treat each other kindly and graciously. -2- It is not lawful for a wife to leave the house except by the permission of her husband, though she may do so without permission when there is a pressing necessity. Nor may a wife permit anyone to enter her husband’s home unless he agrees, even their unmarriageable kin. Nor may she be alone with a nonfamily-member male, under any circumstances. -3- It is obligatory for a wife to obey her husband as is customary in allowing him full lawful sexual enjoyment of her person. It is obligatory for the husband to enable her to remain chaste and free of want for sex if he is able. It is not obligatory for the wife to serve her husband (dis: w45.1); if she does so, it is voluntary charity. -4- If the wife does not fulfill one of the above-mentioned obligations, she is termed “rebellious’‘ (nashiz), and the husband takes the following steps to correct matters: (a) admonition and advice, by explaining the unlawfulness of rebellion, its harmful effect on married life, and by listening to her viewpoint on the matter; (b) if admonition is ineffectual, he keeps from her by not sleeping in bed with her, by which both learn the degree to which they need each other; (c) if keeping from her is ineffectual, it is permissible for him to hit her he believes that hitting her will bring her back to the right path, though if he does not think so, it is not permissible. His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family; (d) if the disagreement does not end after all this, each partner chooses an arbitrator to solve the dispute by settlement, or divorce.) Honor killing is also mentioned peripherally.

O1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation: -1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim. The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) ); -2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim; -3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences); -4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring;

Sharia also dictates what you do in the privy, which pales in importance to the laws of war, which require it to be prosecuted against us. Now is the time to begin learning about the real, proximate & continuing threats posed by Islam, both that of Jihad and that of infiltration & subversion. Why not join the UAC and participate in our Jihad Resistance forum?

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.

Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.10.3


As for the first fifth that is taken from the spoils, it is divided in turn into five parts, a share each going to:

-1- the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and after his death, to such Islamic interests as fortifying defenses on the frontiers, salaries for Islamic judges, muezzins, and the like;

-2- relatives of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) of the Bani Hashim and Bani Muttalib clans, each male receiving the share of two females;

-3- orphans who are poor;

-4- those short of money (def: h8.11);

-5- and travellers needing money (h8.18).

Bottom Line:
  • Why does the ‘religion of peace’ have a legal ruling on the division of spoils?
  • Why do 8:1 and 8:41 exist in the Qur’an?
  • Why does this hadith exist?

Muslim Book 019, Number 4327:
The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.

It is time to pull your head out of your anal orifice, wipe the drek from your eyes, and take a clear eyed look at objective factual reality. You have been lied to; fed excrement and you swallowed it. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is not a religion. Islam is permanent war.

In the Myth vs Fact series, I showed you the relevant Qur’an verses. I showed you many of the relevant hadith. I showed you the relevant Sharia. I gave you links to those documents so that you can verify what I posted.

Ibn Kathir, in his Tafsir, which explains the meaning of the Qur’an, rolls the Qur’an & Hadith together with extreme clarity. Here, once more, is a concentrated list of the most relevant Tafsir topics. Click the links and read them all for review.

None of that is consistent with ‘religion of peace’; not the orders to fight, not the promise of world domination.
Islam is not peace, it is permanent war until we are dead or subjugated and extorted. The previous sentence contains a link to an ebook, written by an Indian radio journalist, which documents the same facts brought out in this series.

The Myth vs Fact series is in the public domain. Readers are encouraged, even exhorted to share it by:

  • cross posting
  • email
  • printing & distribution.

Most of the installments are available for download from Crusader’s Armory. You can download them and paste them into your own blog or web site.

  1. Myth vs Fact: 34 daily installments. [26KB Zipped] More to come. See sample below.
  2. Myth vs Fact 35-73. [37KB Zipped]
  3. Myth vs Fact 74-102 [30KB Zipped]
  4. Myth vs Fact 103-166 [54KB Zipped]
  5. Myth vs Fact 167-218 [47KB Zipped]
  6. Myth vsFact 219-285 [70.9KB Zipped]
  7. Myth vs Fact 286-307 [141KB Zipped]
  8. Myth vs Fact 408-490 [992KBZipped]

The early issues are being revised & extended and republished at Moe’s Murder Cult.

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.

Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.10.2


As for personal booty, anyone who, despite resistance, kills one of the enemy or effectively incapacitates him, risking his own life thereby, is entitled to whatever he can take from the enemy, meaning as much as he can take away with him in the battle, such as a mount, clothes, weaponry, money, or other.

Bottom Line:
  • Why does the ‘religion of peace’ contemplate war?
  • Why does the ‘religion of peace’ have a legal ruling on personal spoils?

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.

Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.10.1

Chapter O10.0: The Spoils of Battle


A free male Muslim who has reached puberty and is sane is entitled to the spoils of battle when he has participated in a battle to the end of it.

After personal booty (def: o10.2), the collective spoils of the battle are divided into five parts. The first fifth is set aside (dis: o10.3), and the remaining four are distributed, one share to each infantryman and three shares to each cavalryman. From these latter four fifths also, a token payment is given at the leader’s discretion to women, children, and non-Muslim participants on the Muslim side.A combatant only takes possession of his share of the spoils at the official division. (A: Or he may choose to waive his right to it.)

Bottom Line: What need has the ‘religion of peace’ for legal rulings on the division of spoils of war?

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.

Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.9.16

O9.16: Truces

(O: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as:

-1- “An acquittal from Allah and His messenger…” (Koran 9:1);

-2- “If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also” (Koran 8.61);

as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim.

Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (o25) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions.

There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo.

Allah Most High says,

“So do not be faint-hearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost” (Koran 47:35).

Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of members or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.

The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: o11); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires.)

Tafsir The Command to Facilitate Peace when the Enemy seeks a Peaceful Resolution

Publicizing the Disavowal of the Idolators

Nullifying the Disbelievers’ Deeds and the Command to chase Them

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.

Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.9.15


It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy’s trees and destroy their dwellings.

Bottom Line: It is ok to destroy the assetts which make life possible for your victims, their crops and their shelter. Why in Hell does the ‘religion of peace’ have such rulings in its canon of jurisprudence?

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.

Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.9.14


When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

Bottom Line: Why does the ‘religion of peace’ have a legal ruling on prisoners of war? Why is it so detailed?
Why does the “religion of peace” have a legal ruling on captive women & children? The incongruity stands out like a pig’s snout.