By Walid Shoebat

I had a litany of so-called rebuttals on my articles I wrote [here and here] regarding Hillary’s man, Khizr Khan. In summary, they stipulated that Khan does not support Sharia or the Muslim Brotherhood. They used pure liberal sophism. There summary goes like this: an essay written by Khan about Shariah does not prove Khan is a Shariah supporting man.

This of course can be refuted by a simple question: if an orthodox Rabbi writes on Jewish law, would that mean he does not uphold such laws, and if an orthodox Christian writes on Christian ethics, would that mean he does not uphold such ethics?

To say that these do not uphold their dogmas would be absurd.

The question I ask should end the controversy, but it never does because the ignorant only uses sophism to create a controversy which creates doubt. This liberal tactic which permeates the media is not done because the American liberal is an ignoramus who knows nothing about Sharia. No no no. It is done because these Americans do not mind the agents of Shariah since Sharia goes against Christian ethics. The liberal too has tradition similar to the tribal Muslim from the middle east where:

“me and my brother are against my cousin and me and my cousin are against the stranger”.

The Christian, to the Muslim and the Liberal, is the enemy of both. Muslims and Liberals are in reality cousins. The Muslim Brotherhood had worked for decades to perfect a system where liberals would be used to advance Sharia. The Muslim Brotherhood states:

“The [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

According to the Muslim Brotherhood, there are two agents here: the liberal first, than the Muslim believer (Muslim immigrant).

The whole reason of us looking into Khan’s writings is that it debunks the notion that Khan was simply a ‘secular Muslim’ who could care less about strict Sharia.

But Sharia is Islam and Islam is Sharia. Period. The fact that Khan was Muslim should suffice. However, the fact that Khan is a Sharia scholar and an expert on Islamic jurisprudence makes it even clearer that Khan is an Islamist who thanked Saeed Ramadan, a father of the Muslim Brotherhood for using his sources.

Shouldn’t this suffice? To the anti-Christian crowds, it doesn’t, nothing will, nothing will ever will.

To the Muslim Brotherhood, if the Muslim can produce a suicide bomber, the liberal can produce national suicide. And if in doubt, just see how one man (Khan) caused Donald Trump to decline a notch.

Khan referred to Al-Wathaiq Al-Siyasiyah and Al-Muwatta, two Muslim sources for Sharia which we referred to from Khan’s own writing. And since these two are bad-apples, the liberals refuted:

“where does he give a “recommendation for Muslims to use Al-Wathaiq Al-Siyasiyah…”? I see him reference the text, but that alone is not a recommendation to use it.”

And since these two are riddled with Jihad, the liberal tried to find a way out.

The liberal media and Hillary (who are expert politicians) know that short soundbites demand entire essays to refute.

Since Americans hate long essays on how Islamic Sharia works, the veil covers the eyes of millions.

REFUTING ALL WHO SAY KHAN DOES NOT SUPPORT SHARIA
Sharia has three sources. In Khan’s scholarly essay, all he does, like all orthodox Muslims do, is to uphold the sequence, the three sources of Shariah. The top two are the Quran (which is thus says Allah) and then comes the Sunna (which is thus says the prophet Muhammad). The third is the jurisprudence of the Muslim fathers (Tradition) or what Islam calls Fiqh.

To keep it kiss, Americans need to understand this basic principle: Islam mimicked from Catholicism during the Byzantine era a system basis derived from the Catholic faith where Scripture,  Tradition and Authoritative teaching (Magesterium) all three prongs are collectively used in one structure. Similarly, an Orthodox Muslim upholds his three: Quran, Sunna and Tradition and all three are used as a single structure called Shari’ah.

Islam copied Catholicism’s structure and is why “it looks like a lamb with two horns and speaks like a dragon”. Islam therefore attempts to mimmic the real deal (Christianity) while its “red dragon” sends a flood of Jihadis (Revelation 12) who use the three stages of Jihad: the tongue (which Khan used at Hillary’s campaign), the pen (which Khan used in his writings) and the sword (which Khan’s writings support).

The “secular Muslim” whom many in the West tout as “moderate” are in reality Muslims who simply say that we need only use the Quran. These want you to believe that the Quran should be read and interpreted exclusively without tradition. This way “Jihad” simply becomes a “struggle within” and “kill” “is only in warfare and self-defense”.

Such divide is made to fool westerners into thinking that Islam is similar to Christendom’s split where good Protestants simply uphold the Bible (Sola Scriptura) while the bad Catholics continued to uphold all three: Scripture, Tradition and Authoritative teaching (Magesterium).

The difference is that Muslim ‘protestant’ scholars simply do not exist. So far, no one from the bleeding hearts in the U.S. Administration was able to find a handful of universally accepted Imams and Muslim scholars who believe in Sola Quranica. If so, produce the names? No one in the U.S. Administration so far produced one scholar.

Khizr Khan in fact does not denounce anything Sharia. His writ is simply giving the sequence of authority in Islam regarding Sharia. In his “Shari’ah Explained” and similar to how Catholics break their system, he breaks them into three, :

“A) the Quran … B) The Sunna … C) Probity of Jurists and Muslim Jurisprudence- Al-fiqh” (see pages 25-29).

The “al-Fiqh” to a Muslim is as the Magesterium to a Catholic. Khan is not simply any lay Muslim. He is a top-notch scholar on Shariah. To Khan, Al-Wathaiq Al-Siyasiyah (literally the political documents) which are the oldest collection of Muhammad’s covenants are the initial Sharia just as the Didache (the writings of the apostles) are to the primitive Church. Dr. Hamidullah collected these documents which became the Muslim’s ‘Didache‘. A search on  Al-Wathaiq Al-Siyasiyah produces zero rejection by any Muslim scholar of such documents. Such rejection would be as if a Catholic scholar would denounce and reject the Didache.

Except that, Al-Wathaiq Al-Siyasiyah is literally “political Shariah“. When it comes to these documents, Khan never denounces these, but upholds them as a secondary authority just as a Christian would do with the Didache. Khan writes:

“In reliable reference books of Sunnah, written documents dictated by the Prophet are frequently mentioned and authenticated. (v) In his book Al-Wathaiq Al-Siyasiyah, 4 Dr. M. Hamidullah records 250 documents emanating from the Prophet and written down in his presence. These limited examples may serve to present the often ignored fact that the recent famous compilations of Hadith were by no means the first written documents relating to the Sunnah. With the exception of the Quran and Sunnah, every other source, chief or supplementary, has been a matter of controversy as to its validity or definition. There were some jurists who even considered the Holy Book [Sola Quranica], on which depends the very authority of the Sunnah, as the sole basic source of all Islamic jurisprudence.2 A careful examination of those sources, and of the extensive researches relating to them, would further distinguish the line that separates the first two sources from the rest of the sources. The latter were introduced at least a century after the Prophet, and were built upon the opinions of individual jurists. Such opinions should be subordinated, as in fact they were to the Quran and Sunnah, and not placed above them.”

Therefore, Al-Wathaiq Al-Siyasiyah is not some hodgepodge of documents to be ignored, they are, as Khan states “250 documents emanating from the Prophet and written down in his presence”. They are therefore subordinates to Sunna. They are never made null-and-void. In the last line, all Khan is saying is that these should be subordinated to the top two: 1)Quran, 2)Sunna.

In other words, they are #3. They are still Shari’ah.

Khizr in fact affirms this:

“The question of the sources which the jurists relied upon, or of the opinions they derived therefrom, is always open to reconsideration as to their compliance with the Quranic and Prophetic texts (Sunnah) and the fulfillment of their objectives. The passing away of Prophet Muhammed came after the declaration of the Quran, “This day I have perfected your religion [Islam].”3 This was explicitly emphasized by him in his last sermon, “0 people, bear in mind what I am saying, for I might not see you again. I have left you two things. If you hold fast to them never will you go astray after me. They are: God’s Book [Quran] and His Prophet’s Sunnah [Hadith].”4 None of the caliphs (successors) of the Prophet claimed the right to be a new source of legislation. Abu Bakr, the first caliph, whenever passing a judgment, looked into the [1] Quran. If he found an applicable text therein, he would apply it. If not, he turned to the [2] Sunnah. If he found an applicable text therein, he would apply it. If not, he would ask the people whether any of them knew of a judgment passed by the Prophet on the particular issue. It some-times happened that some people would come forward and state that the Prophet had passed a judgment on it. If there was nothing at all, he would summon the [3] chief representatives of the people and consult with them.'”

1,2, and 3, are the legs of Islam’s footstool. This third “chief representatives of the people” is tradition, and the command to obey this literally stems from the Quran itself where it stated:

يا أَيُّهَا الَّذينَ آمَنوا أَطيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطيعُوا الرَّسولَ وَأُولِي الأَمرِ مِنكُم

O ye who believe! Obey [1] Allah [Quran], and obey the [2] Messenger [Sunna], and [3] those charged with authority among you [Tradition]. — Quran,4:59

The “authority among you” produced Al-Muwatta and Wal-Wathaiq Al-Siyasiyah. Obeying these is an instruction from the Quran itself. In other words, whatever is not in the Quran or the Sunna, it too was also established through jurisprudence (tradition) and must be obeyed so long it does not conflict with the main two.

Obeying tradition in Islam is essential or else the individual is no longer considered Muslim  just as a Catholic who denounces the other two authorities becomes no longer Catholic.

In the Muslim world, there never once arose a Martin Luther. Therefore, dividing religious Muslims who hide this truth by saying they only adhere to the Quran by asking westerners “Quranic chapter and verse please” is a farce.

Muslims, like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is literally attempting to start what he calls “The Muslim Reform Movement“. But until Jasser becomes a ‘Martin Luther’ with millions of  adherents, this discussion on Muslim reformation becomes child’s play. Jasser is no Muslim scholar or an Imam who can pit reformation articles on the doors of the Kaaba.

He says that he will (like Luther) “pin it on the doors of mosques”:

To Protestant America this sounds great. But for Shari’ah to reform, the U.S. must become the Mecca for every Muslim and Jasser becomes the Luther. This is a message palatable only to the naive.

To remove Quran 4:59 is like convincing two billion Catholics to remove or re-interpret:

“brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Removing Islamic traditional teachings is impossible. What we see in fact happening in the last few decades is quite the opposite: an Islamic revival and not Jasser’s ‘Islamic reformation’.

In NO WAY does Khan denounce these two other writs as Al-Muwatta and Al-Siyasiyah (Muslim Didache). He simply gives an example on how one Caliph, Harun al-Rashid, wanted to strictly and exclusively use Al-Muwatta for Islam’s law yet the Caliph was refuted by Al-Muwatta’s author, Malik. This is by no means a rejection but an upholding of it in the proper sequence of authority. Khan confirms this:

Khan affirms that Al-Muwatta’ like the rest of jurisprudence all of them are sincerely striving in the way of God, and he simply sets the precedence that these are the third part of Sharia:

“Jurisdiction is to be administered on the basis of [1] Quran and [2] Sunnah … Clear understanding of every case that is brought to you for which there is no applicable text of [1] Quran and [2] Sunnah. Yours, then, is a role of comparison and analogy, so as to distinguish similarities and dissimilarities-thereupon seeking your way to the judgment that seems nearest to justice and apt to be the best in the eyes of God. Never succumb to anger or anxiety, and never get impatient or tired of your litigants.

These are brief extracts from a long letter that has been held authentic by all Muslim jurists. It vividly demonstrates that the structure of Islamic law-the Shari’ah-was completed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed, in the Quran and Sunnah. This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited. All other [3] juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.” [END OF QUOTE]

Khan therefore insists:

“All other juridical works [example: Muwatta, Siyasiyeh all other Tradition] which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are “very rich and indispensable“.

These are not denounced but are upheld according to Shari’ah itself as the Quran itself referred to the Fiqh in Quran 4:59.

He stipulates that:

“they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”

In other words, this is so, so long they do not oppose Quran and Sunna.

Lesson learned? There is no Sola Quranica in Islam.

The case therefore is very clear. The problem is relating it to Americans who cannot fathom more than a 1000 words article and is why many attempted to debunk but failed to follow simple reasoning.

Hillary is not ignorant, in that she knows that Americans who are used to sound bites, will never dig deeper than a line on twitter and the typical left-wing sophist rhetoric.

The problem therefore is not fact, it is the ignorance of the citizen. America was a nation set up where for one to become citizen was required to understand American principles. The problem is not an issue of reformation as Hillary wants to change this nation to accept foreign ideas, but a restoration which Trump calls on to remove an infiltration into our nation. The issue is the same in Christendom. We need to restore not reform. Truth needs no reformation, for if this is so, it presumes that our fathers followed a lie. God forbid what Allah or socialism permits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1Eld2OqJBM