Eminent American Muslim Jurist, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, Declares Devout Muslims Must Observe Shari'a In All Aspects Of Life

March 15, 2011 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, has attained an unchallenged eminence among American Muslims, despite his problematic associations.

He is the past President of the Islamic Society of North America, notorious for it having been named by government prosecutors in U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation [the largest and most successful - all defendants convicted on all 108 charges - American prosecution of Hamas funding] under the heading, "List of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers*"

The group was specifically identified under the additional heading, "The following are individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood." [source, view the government document here, archived at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, List of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers*

Mr. Siddiqi is so prominent an authority among American Muslims that he is the Chairman of the Executive Council of The Fiqh Council of North America - itself an affiliate of ISNA - [source, http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/node/6].

The Fiqh Council is entrusted with making determinations regarding Islamic law, Shari'a. It issues fatwas, legally binding opinions, regarding such matters. One might liken it to an Islamic court of appeal.

A very popular Islamic website, IslamOnline, a kind of semi-official Muslim web portal, contains a section where Muslims can ask guidance on matters regarding their faith. That section is called "Ask the Scholar." Pronouncements made here represent what are in the eyes of Muslims, legitimate decisions, they carry weight.

In a 3/13/2011 posting, the question is posed:

"I want to know the role which Islam and Allah play in your goals and your success in life. Should religion be kept away from school, athletics, and work? Must you pray for guidance from Allah or keep religion separated and just work hard?"

The response bears heavily on the current discussion in America and the West in general as to the linkage between the practice of Islam and Shari'a , and the degree to which observant Muslims are required to not only live by its all-encompassing precepts, but work, conduct jihad, to fight or struggle in the path or way of Allah to make Islam supreme.

In the newly released study by the Center for Security Policy Shari'a is thoroughly deconstructed, "Translated as ?the path," shariah is a comprehensive legal and political framework. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah as a ?religious" code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere - economic, social, military, legal and political... shariah is an immutable, compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to install and the world required to adopt, the failure to do so being deemed a damnable offence against Allah..."

The study expands upon the above in the following description of the doctrine an, "all-encompassing Islamic political-military-legal doctrine known as shariah. It obliges them to engage in jihad to achieve the triumph of Islam worldwide through the establishment of a global Islamic state governed exclusively by shariah, under a restored caliphate.[see, Shariah: The Threat Posed To America, CSP, 2011, pg. 6., pg. 11, Download Here]

With that in mind, let us turn to the answer, provided by Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi:

"Answering your question, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), states the following:

"Allah Almighty says in the Quran: "O you who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the Evil One; for he is to you an avowed enemy." (Al-Baqarah:208)

He Almighty also says, "Say: Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds; no partner has He: this am I commanded, and I am the first among those who submit to Him." (Al-An`am: 163).

Faith in Allah has everything to do with every aspect of our lives. We cannot compartmentalize religion or life. Islam requires that we live our whole life, every aspect of life in obedience to Allah. We are not part-time servants of Allah. We belong to Allah. We are for Allah, by Allah and moving towards Allah. We are His servants every moment of our life and we must live our whole life in obedience to Him. Our work, school, athletics activity, family life, economics, politics everything must be according to Allah's Rules. Whatever He Almighty has allowed is allowed for us, and whatever He Almighty has forbidden is forbidden. All His rules are for our own good and we must live by them...."[source, http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/shariah-based-systems/imamate-and-political-systems/174334-separation-between-religion-and-life.html?Political_Systems=]

At the conclusion of this answer, Mr. Siddiqi takes pains to counsel "tolerance," and being "courteous."

These words take on a very different meaning within a framework of Shari'a and properly parsed, amount to little but reassuring sounding sophistry.

As noted earlier, Shari'a as understood by the ilk of Siddiqi is not just for Muslims, it was intended as applying to mankind in general. If you are fully supportive of Shari'a, if a Muslim believes, in the words of Mr. Siddiqi that, "Islam requires that we live our whole life, every aspect of life in obedience to Allah," then that would invariably include the obligation to struggle to bring the faith to all.

This understanding has been the case from the religion's earliest classical period when Islamic jurists including the learned historian, philosopher and economist, ibn Khaldun [1332-1406] were unanimous in agreeing that Islam's mission was universal, that all mankind should operate under its principles.

"...The consensus on the nature of jihad from all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence is clear. Summarizing this consensus of centuries of Islamic thought, the renowned Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun, who died in 1406, wrote:

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force," he wrote. "The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense."

Only Islam, Ibn Khaldun added, "is under obligation to gain power over other nations." [source, Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy Of Jihad: Islamic Holy War And The Fate Of Non-Muslims. Web reference, http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Cults/Muslims/jihad_warfrom_the_prophet_muham.htm]

Dr. Siddiqi, in his IslamOnline posting unselfconsciously is fully in agreement with this proposition. Looked at another way given his long association with the Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA] it should stand to reason that his and the MB's ideology be in alignment.Perhaps the clearest modern statement expressing the idea of Islamic supremacy/triumphalism can be found in the 1991 document written by Mohamed Akram, "...a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood official in the U.S. at the time, and approved by the MB?s Shura Council and Organizational Conference..." [see, http://bigpeace.com/jguandolo/2011/03/12/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america-part-iii-the-settlement-process/].The 18 page document [available here General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, archived at the Investigative Project on Terrorism] was a key piece of evidence entered into the record by government prosecutors in the aforementioned U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation trial.In the English preface, Akram states quite categorically:

"Understanding the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America:

The process of settlement is a ?Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan 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 so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

It should be clear then that for some Muslims, Islam can't be delimited within a solely personal sphere, that, according to their belief structure, it's naturally destined to encompass everything, even the secular.

This iteration of Islam, call it Islamism, political Islam or Muslim fundamentalism, ceases to be a religion, rather it morphs into a political ideology, one which is intent upon replacing the mechanisms whereby the West governs itself. Therefore it represents a civilizational challenge which must be countered.

With the ultimate intent of undermining and eventually replacing the U.S. Constitution, Shari'a does not deserve nor should it be allowed to masquerade as a religion, protected by the First Amendment. It's a seditious threat doctrine which at its core is anti-freedom, anti-liberty and violative of paragraph 2 of the Sixth Amendment, the so-called "supremacy clause," making it additionally, unconstitutional.

As the threats, accusations and scare tactics of key American Islamist organizations preceding last week's first panel of Representative Peter King's hearings on the rise of domestic Islamic radicalism made clear, proponents of the ideology of Shari'a are manifestly intolerant. Not only do they reject the right of others to criticize their actions and motivation, but they are forcefully pushing for laws to make such criticism rise to the level of being hate crimes, a tactic which they have pulled off rather successfully in Europe, where people can be fined and/or jailed for violating the Islamist principle that one can't insult or criticize Islam without grave consequences.

The full court press to destroy Peter King's reputation and shut down his hearings, on the grounds that mere criticism of Islam or self-appointed Muslim spokesmen is Islamophobic should provide an important [in lefty parlance] a "teachable moment," for it was clearly an attempt to force Shari'a compliance on a Congressional committee, to hold the U.S House hostage to Shari'as blasphemy statutes, a concept so alien and un-American that it must have had knowledgeable viewers scratching their heads, questioning whether the rants against the hearings they were watching were taking place in America's capitol city or Islamabad, Pakistan.

2011 PipeLineNews.org. All rights reserved.