Feisal Abdul Rauf–the now infamous “moderate” imam doggedly pursuing a triumphal mosque near Ground Zero–has yet another opportunity to confirm his putative “ecumenism.” The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) has issued a series of traditional Islamic legal rulings, or “fatwas” that are wholly consistent with the Sharia (Islamic Law), but entirely inconsistent with Imam Rauf’s brazen assertion that the Sharia’s “principals of justice” guarantee religious minority (i.e., Non-Muslim) rights and freedom of conscience as steadfastly as these principles are upheld in America’s Bill of Rights and Constitution.
Accordingly, Imam Rauf must denounce the rulings of his esteemed co-religionist Islamic clerics of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America issued over the past 4-years which sanction hatred of non-Muslims, including their lethal punishment for “blaspheming” the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and the killing of Muslims who leave Islam, becoming so-called “apostates.”
This task may prove challenging for Imam Rauf given the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s mission statement, maintaining the organization was, “…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America. AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities.” Indeed, as Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America cleric Katem Al-Hajj, an Egyptian cleric explained in a 23 pp. 2007 fatwa forbidding US Muslims to work for the FBI or US security services because of the ostensible harm these institutions cause Muslims, Muslim minorities in non-Islamic countries are “…subject to man-made laws, which Islamic law [shari’a] does not recognize, either fully or in part.”
Rauf’s continued failure to repudiate these odious Sharia-based rulings–extracted below–would be concordant with his ongoing refusal to denounce the jihad terrorism of Hamas, providing more evidence that he is indeed a traditional Sharia-supremacist who shares an Islamic societal vision incompatible with America’s founding ideals.
Germane 2006-2009 rulings by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America which Imam Rauf must repudiate, are recorded below:
On “Unbelievers,” i.e. Non-Muslims
Our belief is that Islam is the final divine religion, supersedes all other divine religions, and that all other religions are abrogated by the prophet hood of Mohammad PBUH. In another words; no one has the right to stay on his/her Christianity or Judaism after the prophecy of Mohammad PBUH. Based on the above, if any one from the people of scriptures has received the message of Islam clearly, yet, insisted on his belief, then he is- from an Islamic perspective- a disbeliever. Our doctrine is that paradise is granted for all original Muslims, and for those who embraced Islam after acknowledging the prophecy of Mohammad PBUH. Meanwhile, we believe that hellfire is granted for the disbelievers, which include anyone did not believe in the prophethood of the messenger that he/she lived during his/her life. This includes anyone that received the message of Islam, and passed away before embracing Islam.
On “Blaspheming” Muhammad
[F]or those scholars who say that repentance of a person who insults Allaah or His Messenger shall not accepted, [they] mean that repentance does not lift up the set punishment for cursing and insulting the Prophet, i.e., execution. Because the Prophet is the one who was actually wronged and insulted and he is no longer alive, therefore, he is not alive to practice his right to forgive him [the blasphemer] for what he did. Also, no Muslim is ever is entitled or authorized to forgive on the Prophet’s behalf.
As for the Shari`ah ruling, it is the punishment of killing for the man with the grand Four Fiqh Shari`ah scholars, and the same with the woman with the major Shari`ah scholars, and she is jailed with Al-Hanafiyyah scholars, as the prophet, prayers and peace of Allah be upon him, said: “Whoever a Muslim changes his/her religion, kill him/her”, and his saying: “A Muslim`s blood, who testifies that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, is not made permissible except by three reasons: the life for the life; the married adulterer and the that who abandons his/her religion”.
Under the authority of the Muslim state, the People of the Book have the right to stay on their belief without being compelled to embrace Islam. But if one of them has embraced Islam, it would not be acceptable from him to go back to his original religion. The same rule applies to those who are born into Muslim families. According to the Islamic Law, they cannot commit apostasy.
As for the second one, the “people” in this hadith means either the apostates who had become Muslim and then retreated to disbelief thereafter, or the polytheists who do not attribute themselves to any divine religion. This second possible meaning has been mentioned in Imam Al-Nasa’i’s narration: “I have been commanded to fight against the polytheists until they…” In Islam, neither of these categories of people is allowed to remain on their religion. The fact that there is no compulsion in religion does not negate the other fact that someone who has embraced Islam cannot change his mind afterward and embrace polytheism.