Wednesday, November 25, 2015

How peculiar - Obama suddenly is almost silent on Chicago Police Murder of Black Man


After inflaming racial tensions by condemning police treatment of Blacks in Ferguson and Baltimore on television and in the media, suddenly Obama uses Facebook

Here was the lead news story today, from Chicago, the number one city in America in murders in 2014 and for several years.

Journalist Brandon Smith, left, and activist William Calloway talk to reporters Thursday, Nov. 19, 2015, after a Cook County judge ordered the Chicago Police Department to release a video of an officer fatally shooting 17-year-old Laquan McDonald on Nov. 25, in Chicago. The video is said to show the officer shooting McDonald 16 times in October 2014. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

ABC News

By don babwin and jason keyser, associated press
CHICAGO — Nov 25, 2015, 1:54 AM ET

Officer Charged With Murder in Teen's Death

A white Chicago police officer who shot a black teenager 16 times last year was charged with first-degree murder Tuesday, hours before the city released a video of the killing that many people fear could spark unrest.

City officials and community leaders have been bracing for the release of the dash-cam video, fearing the kind of turmoil that occurred in cities such as Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, after young black men were slain by police or died in police custody.

Obama goes from press conferences and television interviews to condemn police actions to just posting in his new Facebook account saying he is "deeply disturbed" by what happened!  Now wait a minute, this time there is no doubt the event was unjustified, an abuse of power, and an excessive use of a firearm and Obama is only "deeply disturbed."

Perhaps the media is protecting him from the real story.  Chicago, of course, is Obama's home.  The Mayor of Chicago is Obama's former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.  Not only was Rahm his right hand man, he was also the top fund raiser for the Obama campaigns because of his relationship as an executive in Goldman Sachs before he went to work for Obama.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Warren Buffett

The year-long lack of action by the prosecutor in Chicago and the brutal and senseless killing by firing sixteen shots into the victim, who was high on PCP at the time, were about as conclusive of evidence as possible.

A video from a camera mounted on a Police car was suppressed by the Chicago authorities, and only came to light when a judge order the release, which happened today, a year later.  It showed sixteen shots in fifteen seconds.

The City of Chicago seemed to try to minimize the impact of any evidence and keep the whole case out of the media while Rahm Emanuel ran and got re-elected as Mayor during the past year by paying $5 million in hush money, before any charges were even filed.

Maybe it is about time a federal investigation of the role Emanuel had in withholding the video and paying off the family should be investigate.  You might add to that investigate why Obama nearly ignored commenting on this racial incident after being all over the news on all previous incidents.

It seems awfully like a cover-up in Obama's hometown.  Emanuel won a run off for mayor just last April after none of the five candidates were able to get 50% of the vote.  Strange how the liberal media is selectively silent when it comes to our president.

Here is what he had to say about police actions before the incident happened in his hometown.

President Obama's Facebook post says he's "deeply disturbed" by video showing teen shot by Chicago police officer.  November 25, 2015


The Washington Times

Obama says Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson ‘stains the heart of black children’

By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times - Sunday, September 28, 2014

President Obama said the shooting death of a black teen by a white police officer last month in Ferguson, Missouri, exposed the racial divide in the American justice system that “stains the heart of black children.”

Speaking at the annual Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner in Washington on Saturday night, Mr. Obama said the death of Michael Brown “awakened our nation” to a reality that black citizens already understood.

“In too many communities around the country, a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement,” Mr. Obama said. “Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.”


Obama on Baltimore: ‘No Dispute’ Men of Color Disproportionately Targeted by Police
by Tina Nguyen | 4:08 pm, May 4th, 2015

And that sense of unfairness and of powerlessness, of people not hearing their voices, that’s helped fuel some of the protests we’ve seen in places like Baltimore and Ferguson and right here in New York. The catalyst of those protests were the tragic deaths of young men and a feeling that law is not always applied evenly in this country. In too many places in this country, black boys and black men, Latino boys, Latino men — they experience being treated differently by law enforcement. In stops and in arrests and in charges and in incarcerations. The statistics are clear up and down the criminal justice system. There’s no dispute.

Obama: 'No excuse' for violence in Baltimore

By Eric Bradner, CNN
Updated 5:08 PM ET, Tue April 28, 2015

The growing violence in Baltimore, just 40 miles from the White House, represents another challenge for the Obama administration in addressing racial unrest across the country. Since the police killing of an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, last summer, the administration has worked to acknowledge deep frustrations in minority communities while also supporting law enforcement.

Obama said he spoke with Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan on Monday. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who was sworn in Monday, said the Justice Department is investigating Gray's death.

Just hours after she was sworn in, Lynch was at the White House on Monday evening meeting with Obama to discuss the violent protests unfolding in Baltimore. She said she will send Vanita Gupta, the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and Ronald Davis, director of Community Oriented Policing Services, to Baltimore "in the coming days" to meet with religious and community leaders.

Federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms arson investigators are aiding local authorities in investigating 60 fires — 10 structure fires like a CVS and a nursing home construction site, the others vehicles — in Baltimore on Monday night.

The White House sent three representatives to Baltimore on Monday for Gray's funeral: Broderick Johnson, a native of the city and the chairman of the My Brother's Keeper Task Force; Heather Foster, an adviser in the White House Office of Public Engagement; and Elias Alcantara, the associate director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

When Greed Dominates the Public Interest we get this! Pharmaceutical Giant Finds New Use for Viagra - Screwing the Public!


Prolonged Erection Proves Profitable!

IT'S OFFICIAL: Pfizer agrees to a $160 billion deal to avoid US taxes

By Sam Ro 

The pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Allergan will combine to form a $160 billion global drug behemoth.

Allergan shareholders will be receiving $363.63 worth of Pfizer stock as payment. Specifically, for each share of Allergan, investors will receive 11.3 shares (based on the Pfizer's Friday closing price of $32.18) of the new combined company.

Importantly, the combined businesses will be renamed Pfizer Plc but legally will be combined under Allergan Plc. This means the combined company will officially be domiciled in Ireland.
"Upon the closing of the transaction, the combined company is expected to maintain Allergan's Irish legal domicile," management said.

This type of deal, also known as a tax inversion, has been embraced by more and more US companies as a way to dodge relatively high US tax rates by moving to low-tax regions like Ireland.
For Pfizer, this means billions of dollars in savings.

"Pfizer anticipates the transaction will deliver more than $2 billion in operational synergies over the first three years after closing," management said. "Pfizer anticipates that the combined company will have a pro forma Adjusted Effective Tax Rate of approximately 17%-18% by the first full year after the closing of the transaction."
"The proposed combination of Pfizer and Allergan will create a leading global pharmaceutical company with the strength to research, discover, and deliver more medicines and therapies to more people around the world," Pfizer CEO Ian Read said. "Allergan's businesses align with and enhance Pfizer's businesses, creating best-in-class, sustainable, innovative, and established businesses that are poised for growth."

The combined company will continue to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker PFE.
Here are the bullets summarizing the deal via Pfizer:
·                          Creates a new global biopharmaceutical leader with best-in-class innovative and established businesses
·                          Enhances revenue and earnings growth profile of innovative and established businesses

·                          Broadens innovative pipeline with more than 100 combined mid-to-late stage programs in development
·                          Transaction expected to close in the second half of 2016
·                          Expected to be neutral to Pfizer's Adjusted Diluted EPS1 in 2017, accretive beginning in calendar year 2018 and more than 10% accretive in 2019 with high-teens percentage accretion in 20202
·                          Expect combined Operating Cash Flow in excess of $25 Billion beginning in 2018
·                          Increased financial flexibility facilitates continued investment in the United States
·                          Preserves opportunity for a potential future separation of innovative and established businesses


Monday, November 23, 2015

CPT Terrorism Update - Part 5. Articles of Interest to those who want to be informed


Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Since 1948, almost 10 million Muslims have died at the hands of fellow Muslims
August 24, 2011 6:52 am By Marisol Seibold

Where is the outrage over that? Double standards abound. As the Israeli envoy Dan Gillerman said in 2008: “When Christians kill Muslims, it’s the Crusades. When Jews kill Muslims it’s murder, and when Muslims kill Muslims, it’s like talking about the weather. Nobody really cares about it.”
And as the late Samuel P. Huntington observed: “Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors. The question naturally rises as to whether this pattern of the late 20th century conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim groups is equally true of relations between groups from other civilizations. In fact, it is not. Muslims make up 1/5 of the world’s population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization….Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards.”
Note also the Ahmadinejadesque (to coin a new term) rhetoric from Turkey’s Erdogan. “Why Golda Meir was right,” by Burak Bekdil for the Hurriyet Daily News, August 23 (thanks to Joshua):

It has been more than two and a half years since Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan told to Israeli President Shimon Peres”s face, “You (Jews) know well how to kill.” Prime Minister ErdoÄŸan has also declared more than a few times that the main obstacle to peace in this part of the world is Israel, once calling the Jewish state “a festering boil in the Middle East that spreads hate and enmity.” In this holy month of Ramadan full of blood on Muslim territories, let’s try to identify who are the ones who know well how to kill.
As the Syrian death count clicks every day to come close to 2,000, the Turkish-Kurdish death count does not stop, already over 40,000 since 1984, both adding to the big pool of blood called the Middle East. Only during this Ramadan, the Kurdistan Workers” Party, or PKK”s, death toll has reached 50 in this Muslim Kurds vs. Muslim Turks war. This excludes the PKK casualties in Turkey and in northern Iraq due to Turkish military retaliation since they are seldom accurately reported.

Let’s speak of facts.
Sudan is not in the conventional Middle East, so let’s ignore the genocide there. Let’s ignore, also, the West Pakistani massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) totaling 1.25 million in 1971. Or 200,000 deaths in Algeria in war between Islamists and the government in 1991-2006.

But a simple, strictly Middle East research will give you one million deaths in the all-Muslim Iran-Iraq war; 300,000 Muslim minorities killed by Saddam Hussein; 80,000 Iranians killed during the Islamic revolution; 25,000 deaths in 1970-71, the days of Black September, by the Jordanian government in its fight against the Palestinians; and 20,000 Islamists killed in 1982 by the elder al-Assad in Hama. The World Health Organization’s estimate of Osama bin Laden’s carnage in Iraq was already 150,000 a few years earlier.
In a 2007 research, Gunnar Heinsohn from the University of Bremen and Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, found out that some 11 million Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, (0.3 percent) died during the six years of Arab war against Israel, or one out of every 315 fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.

It bears repeating that the Arab nations went to war with Israel with the expectation of annihilating the Jewish state once and for all. But the Arab states kept losing the wars.
According to Mssrs. Heinsohn and Pipes, the grisly inventory finds the total number of deaths in conflicts all over the world since 1950 numbering around 85 million. Of that, the Muslim Arab deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict were at 46,000 including 11,000 during Israel’s war of independence. That makes 0.05 percent of all deaths in all conflicts, or 0.4 percent of all Arab deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In another calculation ignoring “small” massacres like the one that goes on in Syria and other deaths during the Arab Spring, only Saddam’s Iraq, Jordan, the elder al-Assad’s Syria, Iran-Iraq war, the bin Laden campaign in Iraq, the Iranian Islamic revolution and the Turkish-Kurdish conflict caused 1.65 million Muslim deaths by Muslims compared to less than 50,000 deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950, including fatalities during and after Operation Cast Lead which came after the Heinsohn-Pipes study. For those who don’t have a calculator ready at their desks, allow me to tell: 50,000 is three percent of 1.65 million.
Golda Meir, the fourth prime minister of Israel, or rather the “Mother of Israel,” had a perfectly realistic point when she said that peace in the Middle East would only be possible “when Arabs love their children more than they hate us.”

CPT Terrorism Update - Part 4. Articles of Interest to those who want to be informed


Who's killing Muslims?

By Dean Obeidallah
Updated 11:33 AM ET, Thu January 15, 2015

Story highlights

Dean Obeidallah: Al Qaeda kills more Muslims than non-Muslims

Al Qaeda and ISIS focused on power, not principles, he says

Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM's weekly program "The Dean Obeidallah Show." He is a columnist for The Daily Beast and editor of the politics blog The Dean's Report. He's also the co-director of the documentary "The Muslims Are Coming!" Follow him on Twitter: @TheDeansreport. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN)We have all seen a great deal of hypocrisy from politicians, pundits and the like. But there's a new king of hypocrisy: al Qaeda.

On Wednesday, al Qaeda released a video featuring Nasr Ibn Ali al-Ansi, one of its top commanders in Yemen, claiming responsibility for the horrific attack last week on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. He gave two reasons for the attack.

First, he claimed it was in revenge for Charlie Hebdo's printing of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammed. Al-Ansi then went on to state in much greater detail that the attack was in response to France and the West killing Muslims: "We will tell you once again ... stop spilling our blood." And then he urged Muslims across the world to "take vengeance for Muslim blood spilled."

Well, if spilling Muslim blood is the deciding factor for us Muslims to decide who we should take vengeance against, then al-Ansi and others in al Qaeda should immediately go into hiding. Simply put, al Qaeda has been slaughtering Muslims for years. Islamic clerics, doctors, nurses, women, children, etc. -- you name any type of Muslim, and al Qaeda has butchered them.

In fact, a report released in 2009 by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point documented the people killed by al Qaeda between 2004 and 2008. It found that only 12% of the victims of al Qaeda were Westerners. That suggests that al Qaeda has killed seven times as many Muslims as non-Muslims. And these attacks were just the ones for which al Qaeda had publicly claimed responsibility.

And since that report, al Qaeda in Yemen has engaged in even more vicious attacks on Muslims. Keep in mind that 99% of the population of Yemen is Muslim (65% Sunni and 35% Shia) so with a few exceptions, virtually every person the group kills there is a Muslim.

In December 2014, for example, an al Qaeda bomb killed 15 children and 10 adults when the bus they were on was blown up by an al Qaeda car bomb intended for a competing militia leader in the area.

This attack followed another in which al Qaeda sent a suicide bomber into a crowd of protesters in the nation's capital, killing 47 people and injuring 140.

And back in December 2013, al Qaeda launched an attack on a hospital, killing 52 people and wounding 167 with two car bombs before gruesomely shooting patients and doctors in the hospital.

The list goes on, but al Qaeda is not alone in killing Muslims who stand in its way. ISIS has done the same in Iraq and Syria.

A U.N. report released late last year found that ISIS had killed thousands of Muslims -- both Sunni and Shia -- between July and September of that year. This includes the slayings of three nurses in Mosul, Iraq, because they refused to provide medical care to ISIS fighters. ISIS also killed numerous Sunni imams for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS, and beheaded another Sunni leader for refusing to support the group.

And the reality is that that's truly what al Qaeda and ISIS are about. They are not about the concept of "submit to Islam or die," as some have claimed. It's submit to ISIS/al Qaeda or die. Both organizations clearly don't care how many Muslims they kill. Yet at the same time they will both claim they are carrying out their actions in the name of Islam. In fact, al-Ansi stated in Wednesday's video that the terrorist brothers who carried out the attack on the Charlie Hebdo officers were "two heroes of Islam."

He couldn't be more wrong.

But that isn't to say there weren't heroes of Islam in Paris that day -- it's just that they are two quite different people.

Ahmed Merabet was the French police officer shot in cold blood while lying on the sidewalk by the so-called "heroes of Islam." As his brother stated at a press conference, Merabet was a proud Muslim who gave his life defending French values of "liberty, equality and fraternity."

And there was Lassana Bathily, the Muslim employee at the kosher deli in Paris who reportedly saved the lives of seven Jewish patrons by helping them hide when Amedy Coulibaly entered the store with guns blazing. Bathily's actions exemplified the famous Quranic verse, "Whoever saves one -- it is as if he had saved mankind entirely."

Obviously, calling out the hypocrisy of al Qaeda and ISIS won't change these organizations' goals -- they will continue to invoke Islam as cover for their political ambitions because it helps them entice new recruits and raise funds which are vital for their continued existence.

But maybe if their hypocrisy is consistently laid bare then it might help all understand the true motivation of these terrorist groups and hopefully even give pause to any Muslims thinking of joining their un-Islamic cause. After all, al Qaeda and ISIS aren't interested in upholding the principles of Islam. They are focused only on power, however many Muslim lives they take.

CPT Terrorism Update - Part 3. Articles of Interest to those who want to be informed


Tears of Jihad

These figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.

Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.
120 million Africans

The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:
60 million Christians

Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
80 million Hindus

Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam) everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.] 10 million Buddhists

Oddly enough there were not enough Jews killed in jihad to significantly affect the totals of the Great Annihilation. The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective, but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that, the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.

This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

CPT Terrorism Update - Part 2. Articles of Interest to those who want to be informed


The Sunni-Shia divide: Where they live, what they believe and how they view each other

By Michael Lipka

The ongoing and intensifying conflict in Iraq has fallen – at least in part – along sectarian lines, with the Sunni Muslim militant group ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) advancing against the Shia Muslim-led Iraqi government and Shia militias. Sectarian affiliation has played a role in the politics of the region for hundreds of years.

Iran and Iraq are two of only a handful of countries that have more Shias than Sunnis. While it is widely assumed that Iraq has a Shia majority, there is little reliable data on the exact Sunni-Shia breakdown of the population there, particularly since refugees arriving in Iraq due to the conflict in Syria or leaving Iraq due to its own turmoil may have affected the composition of Iraq’s population.

The few available survey measures of religious identity in Iraq suggest that about half the country is Shia. Surveys by ABC News found between 47% and 51% of the country identifying as Shia between 2007 and 2009, and a Pew Research survey conducted in Iraq in late 2011 found that 51% of Iraqi Muslims said they were Shia (compared with 42% saying they were Sunni).

Neighboring Iran is home to the world’s largest Shia population: Between 90% and 95% of Iranian Muslims (66-70 million people) were Shias in 2009, according to our estimate from that year.

Their shared demographic makeup may help explain Iran’s support for Iraq’s Shia-dominated government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Iran also has supported Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, where only 15-20% of the Muslim population was Shia as of 2009. But the Syrian leadership is dominated by Alawites (an offshoot of Shia Islam). Under Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, which was dominated by Sunnis, the country clashed with Iran.

The Sunni-Shia divide is nearly 1,400 years old, dating back to a dispute over the succession of leadership in the Muslim community following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632.

Despite periods of open conflict between Sunnis and Shias in countries such as Lebanon and Iraq, the two groups are not all that different in terms of religious beliefs and commitment. In Iraq, for example, both groups express virtually universal belief in God and the Prophet Muhammad, and similar percentages (82% of Shias and 83% of Sunnis) say religion is very important in their lives. More than nine-in-ten Iraqi Shias (93%) and Sunnis (96%) say they fast during the holy month of Ramadan.

In some countries, significant shares of Muslims don’t even see the distinction between Sunni and Shia Islam as relevant. A survey of Muslims in 39 countries that we conducted in 2011 and 2012 found, for example, that 74% of Muslims in Kazakhstan and 56% of Muslims in Indonesia identified themselves as neither Sunni nor Shia, but “just a Muslim.” In Iraq, however, only 5% answered “just a Muslim.”

On some religious issues, including whether it is acceptable to visit the shrines of Muslim saints, the differences between the sects are more apparent. For some, the divide is even exclusionary. In late 2011, 14% of Iraqi Sunnis said they do not consider Shias to be Muslims. (By contrast, only 1% of Shias in Iraq said that Sunnis are not Muslims.) Even higher percentages of Sunnis in other countries, such as Sunni-dominated Egypt (53%), say that Shias are not Muslims.

Topics: Middle East and North Africa, Muslims and Islam

CPT Terrorism Update - Part 1. Articles of Interest to those who want to be informed


Sharia  Law - Divine Law of the Muslim World

Last updated 2009-09-03
All aspects of a Muslim's life are governed by Sharia. Sharia law comes from a combination of sources including the Sharia  Law, the sayings of the prophet and the rulings of Islamic scholars.

Sharia is a now a familiar term to Muslims and non-Muslims. It can often be heard in news stories about politics, crime, feminism, terrorism and civilization.
All aspects of a Muslim's life are governed by Sharia. Sharia law comes from a combination of sources including the Qur'an (the Muslim holy book), the Hadith (sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad) and fatwas (the rulings of Islamic scholars).
Many people, including Muslims, misunderstand Sharia. It's often associated with the amputation of limbs, death by stoning, lashes and other medieval punishments. Because of this, it is sometimes thought of as draconian. Some people in the West view Sharia as archaic and unfair social ideas that are imposed upon people who live in Sharia-controlled countries.
Many Muslims, however, hold a different view. In the Islamic tradition Sharia is seen as something that nurtures humanity. They see the Sharia not in the light of something primitive but as something divinely revealed. In a society where social problems are endemic, Sharia frees humanity to realize its individual potential.
Sharia in the UK
Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave his comments on implementing Sharia in the UK in a Radio 4 interview.
A discussion of Sharia

Dr Usama Hasan is the imam of the Tawhid Mosque and an advisor to the London Sharia Council. Faisal Aqtab is a barrister and head of the Hijaz College Islamic University. Dr Haleh Afshar is Professor in Politics at York University.
They discuss the Muslim vision of Islamic law, the source and interpretation of Sharia, punishments and the status of women.
The philosophy of Sharia

The philosophy of Sharia - the Clear Path
In this section, Faraz Rabbani explains that there is a comprehensive Islamic philosophy underpinning Sharia.
For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had God willed, He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He has given you. So vie one with another in good works. Unto God yQou will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein you differ.
ur'an, 5:48

For Muslims, life did not begin at birth, but a long time before that. Before even the creation of the first man. It began when God created the souls of everyone who would ever exist and asked them, "Am I not your Lord?" They all replied, "Yea."
God decreed for each soul a time on earth so that He might try them. Then, after the completion of their appointed terms, He would judge them and send them to their eternal destinations: either one of endless bliss, or one of everlasting grief.
This life, then, is a journey that presents to its wayfarers many paths. Only one of these paths is clear and straight. This path is the Sharia.
Divine guidance

In Arabic, Sharia means "the clear, well-trodden path to water". Islamically, it is used to refer to the matters of religion that God has legislated for His servants. The linguistic meaning of Sharia reverberates in its technical usage: just as water is vital to human life, so the clarity and uprightness of Sharia is the means of life for souls and minds.
Throughout history, God has sent messengers to people all over the world, to guide them to the straight path that would lead them to happiness in this world and the one to follow. All messengers taught the same message about belief (the Qur'an teaches that all messengers called people to the worship of the One God), but the specific prescriptions of the divine laws regulating people's lives varied according to the needs of his people and time.
The Prophet Muhammad (God bless him and give him peace) was the final messenger and his Sharia represents the ultimate manifestation of the divine mercy.
"Today I have perfected your way of life (din) for you, and completed My favour upon you, and have chosen Islam as your way of life." (Qur'an, 5:3) The Prophet himself was told that, "We have only sent you are a mercy for all creation." (Qur'an, 21:179)
Legal rulings
The Sharia regulates all human actions and puts them into five categories: obligatory, recommended, permitted, disliked or forbidden.
Obligatory actions must be performed and when performed with good intentions are rewarded. The opposite is forbidden action. Recommended action is that which should be done and the opposite is disliked action. Permitted action is that which is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Most human actions fall in this last category.
The ultimate worth of actions is based on intention and sincerity, as mentioned by the Prophet, who said, "Actions are by intentions, and one shall only get that which one intended."
Life under the Sharia

The Sharia covers all aspects of human life. Classical Sharia manuals are often divided into four parts: laws relating to personal acts of worship, laws relating to commercial dealings, laws relating to marriage and divorce, and penal laws.
Legal philosophy
God sent prophets and books to humanity to show them the way to happiness in this life, and success in the hereafter. This is encapsulated in the believer's prayer, stated in the Qur'an, "Our Lord, give us good in this life and good in the next, and save us from the punishment of the Fire." (2:201)
The legal philosophers of Islam, such as Ghazali, Shatibi, and Shah Wali Allah explain that the aim of Sharia is to promote human welfare. This is evident in the Qur'an, and teachings of the Prophet.
The scholars explain that the welfare of humans is based on the fulfillment of necessities, needs, and comforts.
Necessities are matters that worldly and religious life depend upon. Their omission leads to unbearable hardship in this life, or punishment in the next. There are five necessities: preservation of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and wealth. These ensure individual and social welfare in this life and the hereafter.
The Sharia protects these necessities in two ways: firstly by ensuring their establishment and then by preserving them.
·    To ensure the establishment of religion, God Most High has made belief and worship obligatory. To ensure its preservation, the rulings relating to the obligation of learning and conveying the religion were legislated.
·    To ensure the preservation of human life, God Most high legislated for marriage, healthy eating and living, and forbid the taking of life and laid down punishments for doing so.
·    God has permitted that sound intellect and knowledge be promoted, and forbidden that which corrupts or weakens it, such as alcohol and drugs. He has also imposed preventative punishments in order that people stay away from them, because a sound intellect is the basis of the moral responsibility that humans were given.
·    Marriage was legislated for the preservation of lineage, and sex outside marriage was forbidden. Punitive laws were put in placed in order to ensure the preservation of lineage and the continuation of human life.
·    God has made it obligatory to support oneself and those one is responsible for, and placed laws to regulate the commerce and transactions between people, in order to ensure fair dealing, economic justice, and to prevent oppression and dispute.

Needs and comforts
Needs and comforts are things people seek in order to ensure a good life, and avoid hardship, even though they are not essential. The spirit of the Sharia with regards to needs and comforts is summed up in the Qur'an, "He has not placed any hardship for you in religion," (22:87) And, "God does not seek to place a burden on you, but that He purify you and perfect His grace upon you, that you may give thanks." (5:6)
Therefore, everything that ensures human happiness, within the spirit of Divine Guidance, is permitted in the Sharia.
Sources of the Sharia

The primary sources of the Sharia are the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Qur'an
The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet gradually, over 23 years. The essence of its message is to establish the oneness of God and the spiritual and moral need of man for God. This need is fulfilled through worship and submission, and has ultimate consequences in the Hereafter.
The Qur'an is the word of God. Because of its inimitable style and eloquence, and, above all, the guidance and legal provisions it came with, it ensures the worldly and next-worldly welfare of humanity.
God Most High said, "Verily, this Qur'an guides to that which is best, and gives glad tidings to the believers who do good that theirs will be a great reward." (Qur'an, 17:9) And, "There has come unto you light from God and a clear Book, whereby God guides those who seek His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of darkness unto light by His decree, and guides them unto a straight path." (Qur'an, 5:15)
The Prophetic example (Sunna)
The Prophet's role was expounded in the Qur'an, "We have revealed the Remembrance [Qur'an] to you that you may explain to people that which was revealed for them." (16:44)
This explanation was through the Prophet's words, actions, and example. Following the guidance and the example of the Prophet was made obligatory, "O you who believe, obey God and obey the Messenger," (4: 59) and, "Verily, in the Messenger of God you have a beautiful example for those who seek God and the Last Day, and remember God much." The Prophet himself instructed, "I have left two things with you which if you hold on to, you shall not be misguided: the Book of God and my example." [Reported by Hakim and Malik]
Derived sources
There are two agreed-upon derived sources of Sharia: scholarly consensus (ijma') and legal analogy (qiyas).
Scholarly consensus
The basis for scholarly consensus being a source of law is the Qur'anic command to resolve matters by consultation, as God stated, "Those who answer the call of their Lord, established prayer, and whose affairs are by consultation." (42:38) Scholarly consensus is defined as being the agreement of all Muslim scholars at the level of juristic reasoning (ijtihad) in one age on a given legal ruling. Given the condition that all such scholars have to agree to the ruling, its scope is limited to matters that are clear according to the Qur'an and Prophetic example, upon which such consensus must necessarily be based. When established, though, scholarly consensus is decisive proof.
Legal analogy (Qiyas)
Legal analogy is a powerful tool to derive rulings for new matters. For example, drugs have been deemed impermissible, through legal analogy from the prohibition of alcohol that is established in the Qur'an. Such a ruling is based on the common underlying effective cause of intoxication.
Legal analogy and its various tools enables the jurists to understand the underlying reasons and causes for the rulings of the Qur'an and Prophetic example (sunna). This helps when dealing with ever-changing human situations and allows for new rulings to be applied most suitably and consistently.
Beyond ritualism

New Caliphate

The ultimate aim of those who submit to the Sharia is to express their slavehood to their Creator. But the Sharia does bring benefit in this world too.
This way has been indicated in a Divine statement conveyed by the Prophet.
My servant approaches Me with nothing more beloved to Me than what I have made obligatory upon him, and My servant keeps drawing nearer to Me with voluntary works until I love him. And when I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he seizes, and his foot with which he walks. If he asks Me, I will surely give to him, and if he seeks refuge in Me, I will surely protect him.
Prophet Muhammad, reported by Bukhari
If the legal dimension of the Sharia gives Islam its form, the spiritual dimension is its substance. The spiritual life of Islam, and its goal, was outlined in the Divine statement (mentioned above).
The Prophet explained spiritual excellence as being, "To worship God as though you see Him, and if you see Him not, [know that] He nevertheless sees you.
The spiritual life of Islam is a means to a realization of faith and a perfection of practice. It is to seek the water that the Sharia is the clear path to, water that gives life to minds and souls longing for meaning.
It is this spiritual life, at its various levels, that attracts Muslims to their religion, its way of life, and to the rulings of the Sharia.
And those who believe are overflowing in their love of God.
Qur'an 2:165

A personal view of Sharia
A personal view of Sharia
In this section Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, a British Muslim, addresses some common questions about Sharia.
These are the author's views and not the views of the BBC nor a definitive treatment of the topic. This is a controversial area and no personal view can provide a definitive analysis of the subject; other people may approach it differently and hold different views and interpretations.
How did Sharia start?
The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) laid down the laws - some of them were direct commands stated in the revelation of the Qur'an; other laws grew up based on the Prophet's own example and the various rulings he gave to cases that occurred during his lifetime. These secondary laws are based on what's called the Sunnah - the Prophet's words, example, and way of life.
So, all the laws of Sharia are based primarily on Qur'an and then on Sunnah, and after that, if there was no information in those two sources, judges were free to use their intelligence to make analogies. As in most legal systems, cases could then be referred to by later judges.
What, nowadays, is the authoritative source of Sharia?
Just the same as outlined above. What is important, however, is that judges are highly educated in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and this is an area where some damage was done during the colonial periods when Islamic schools of law were closed down with a great loss of knowledge and expertise which is only now being repaired slowly. The problem is that it is all too easy for an individual judge to make some pronouncement or invoke some penalty without full knowledge of the background of Sharia and the spirit behind the various laws and penalties.
What are the basic principles of Sharia?
These are to see the will of God done on earth as it is in Heaven (as in the Christian Lord's Prayer). How can we possibly know this will? By study of the revealed scriptures and by choosing talented, intelligent and far-sighted merciful people of excellent character as our judges. The whole principle of God's will is to bring about compassion, kindness, generosity, justice, fair play, tolerance, and care in general, as opposed to tyranny, cruelty, selfishness, exploitation etc. All the rules of Sharia are towards those ends.
The usual criticisms of Sharia - that it is so cruel as regards execution, flogging and cutting off hands - totally ignore all the extenuating circumstances that would lead to these penalties not being applied. They are known as hadd penalties (pl. hudud), the extreme limit of the penalty. Thus, if a person was sentenced to having a hand cut off, he or she should not be sent to prison and/or be fined as well. People who regard these practices as cruel will never be persuaded otherwise, so Muslims usually leave that aside. Their point is that the cutting of the hand for theft is a very powerful deterrent - Muslims care less for the callous and continual thief than they do for the poor souls who are mugged and robbed and hurt by the thieves.
The Middle East is certainly not full of one-handed people - as any traveller would tell you. What we have lost here is the horror of dishonour that true Muslims still have. They would do anything rather than offend Allah, and they of course believe that Allah sees every single thing that is done - there are no secrets. Even if you get away with something on earth, it has been seen and recorded and you will have to face judgement for it eventually, and the people hurt by your action will be recompensed. Of course, if you do not believe in God, or a judgement, or a life to come, the whole system is quite meaningless to you. In Sharia law, if a thief could prove that he/she only stole because of need, then the Muslim society would be held at fault and made to supply that need, and there would be no hand-cutting. Most thieves would think twice before risking a hand on mugging an old lady for her handbag!
In the west, adultery has become so commonplace because of sexual freedoms - all the emphasis these days seems to be on finding sexual satisfaction; in Muslim societies, there is far less emphasis on sex - it is usually regarded as a weakness that can lead to all sorts of trouble. Family is far more important; the notion of a million unborn children per year being aborted, and single mothers, is abhorrent in Islam.
Sharia law for murder allows the death penalty, but is kinder than western law in one respect - after judicial judgement has been made, appeals are then allowed to the family of the murdered victims, and they are begged to be merciful. In Islam, it is always regarded as the height of mercy to forgive a murderer, even though one may have the right to take his/her life in reprisal.
The form of execution is not specified in Islam - i.e. it is not usually a stoning. Beheading used to be regarded as the quickest and most merciful way (as in Roman law, and the French guillotine); these days other methods may find approval. There are apparently far fewer executions in most Muslim countries than in the USA, for example. The penalty for adultery is open to debate. Most scholars will insist that the penalty as laid down in the Qur'an was 100 lashes, and there were various rules for regulating how lashes were to be given too. Other scholars maintain that the old penalty for adultery as laid down by the previous prophets was stoning (as in the Old Testament). By New Testament times, the prophet Jesus had the famous case where a guilty woman was forgiven and sent away, told only to sin no more.
In some Muslim societies, judges and populaces might stone out of mistaken belief that this was what Islam required. In fact, Islam made it virtually impossible - to be sentenced to death for adultery, the couple had to be actually witnessed performing the physical act by four people who were in a position to identify both parties without doubt; this virtually ruled out the penalty, since adultery is taken for granted as a secret act and something not done in public.
Is Sharia the same in all countries?
I'm afraid I do not know the answer to this, but certainly the principles are exactly the same in whatever country they are applied.
Individual rights vs needs of society?
Basically in Islam the needs of society always come first, with the proviso that injustices should always be able to be taken to judges who are not corrupt. The old Arab system allowed any person, no matter how humble, to take his/her case to the highest in the land personally. Islam brings a very strong sense of justice, and care of the oppressed and exploited.
Does Sharia make life easier or harder for the ordinary Muslim?
Much easier for those who strive to live the correct life pleasing to God and in kindness and peace with the neighbour; much harder for the one who is selfish, callous, cruel, exploitative, dishonest etc. There is virtually no sympathy for such people - unless they really are mentally ill, in which case they are not regarded as culpable in Sharia. All those before the age of puberty, or not of sound mind, are not regarded as culpable.
Why has Sharia become a synonym for cruelty and lack of compassion?
I think through two things - ignorance of the reality of Sharia law, and much publicised cases where Muslims in positions of authority have been very poor Muslims, if not non-Muslims in Muslim disguise. For example, 100 years ago we had stories of awful Turkish sultans, and people being rushed to blocks to have their hands cut off etc. The media picks out certain cases and blows them up to make a big drama of them - they might pick on one particular murderer on death row in the USA and rouse everyone's feelings, but totally ignore all the others due to be executed that day!
A case like the Nigerian woman in danger of being stoned for adultery is a case in point. She might have been stoned by irate villagers, but on being taken into custody and judged by Sharia law she gets the opportunity to appeal and explain etc. In her case, if it is true that she was raped, she most certainly would not be sentenced to death. What interests me is who were the rotten people who brought the case against her anyway?
Incidentally the correct Islamic method of stoning according to Sharia was similar to that advised by the Pharisees at the time of Jesus - the person was held fast in a fixed position, and a stone or rock that it took two men to lift (i.e. was heavier than one man could lift alone) was to be dropped to crush the head - it was not someone tied to a post and rocks hurled at them, although this has been done in some cultures. The point was that if someone really had to be executed, it was to be done swiftly, with as little torture as possible, and usually publicly so that no vindictive person could do further nasty things behind the scenes and get away with it.
Sharia should promote gender equality. In fact, the natural Islamic tendency is to always consider women as the weaker sex in need of care and protection, and come down hard on the men who allow their womenfolk to get into difficulties.
Sharia does not require women to wear a burqa. There are all sorts of items of dress which are worn by Muslim women, and these vary all over the world. Burqas belong to particular areas of the world, where they are considered normal dress. In other parts of the world the dress is totally different. The rule of dress for women is modesty, the word hijab implies 'covered'.
Some Muslim women feel that they should cover everything from neck to ankle, and neck to wrist. Others also include a head veil (this is the most controversial bit, and millions of Muslim women choose to wear it, or alternatively choose not to wear it - and there is much disagreement between the types!), and finally some choose to cover even their faces, although there is no Islamic text requiring this extreme. My own preference is a long black dress and a white headscarf - I have never worn a burqa in my life. Incidentally, when men try to enforce Muslim dress on women, this is forbidden - no aspect of our faith is to be done by coercion. It is up to the woman what she chooses to do - some choose full hijab and their men hate it!
Forced and arranged marriages
In Sharia Law any marriage that is forced or false in any way is null and void. It is not a proper marriage. This is a problem that seems to plague Muslim women from India/Pakistan/Bangladesh and nowhere else in the Islamic world - and it also applies to Hindus and some Sikhs from those areas too.
Forced marriage is totally forbidden in Islam. False marriage is too - for example, some of our teenage girls are sent back to Pakistan for a holiday when they are about 15, and sign things they do not understand, and then find out later that they have been 'married' even if it has not been consummated. UK lawyers are getting far better at studying Sharia these days, in order to protect these girls from this particular culture.
Forced marriage is not at all the same thing as arranged marriage. Muslims from many countries have a system of arranged marriages, in which the spouses may not have seen each other before marriage, but it always has to be with their free consent. The Prophet himself advised prospective spouses to at least 'look' at each other, until they could see what it was that made them wish to marry that person as opposed to any other. Women forced into marriage, or seeking divorce for general reasons, have the same sort of grounds in Sharia as in the west - cruelty, mental cruelty, adultery, abandonment, etc. They may even request a divorce for no specific reason whatever, so long as they agree to pay back the mahr (marriage payment) made to them by their husband if the husband does not wish to let them go but are obliged to.
Men having many wives?
Men and women can have as many spouses as they can fit into a lifetime; but this is not generally approved. Women are requested to have only one husband at a time (there is evidence that wealthy Arab women were polyandrous before the coming of Islam - certainly wealthy men were polygynous), and men are limited to four at one time, whereas previously there had been no limit, and a wealthy and generous man was expected to cater for as many women as he could afford (in the absence of a welfare state).
Allah sent the proviso that no Muslim was ever to deliberately cause hurt or harm to another Muslim, so a man might not take extra womenfolk into his home if it would cause upset and distress (it was recommended when there were lots of widows after warfare, if the women were willing to be generous to bereft 'sisters'). Also, if a man could not provide equal treatment of his wives - equal food, clothing, money, living quarters, time spent with - he was refused permission for polygamy.
Equal sexual activity was not ruled on, however. Some wives had no sexual relationship with their husbands at all after a while, or if they came into the household as widows of relatives. Don't forget that most widows also came with their children. When the Prophet married the widow Sawdah he took on six of her children, and with Umm Salamah another four, for example.
Sharia and food
The rules are those of haram (banned) and halal (allowed). All vegetable, fruit, grain and seafood is halal. Meat is halal providing it has been killed in the kindest possible way by a sharp instrument that pierces and kills swiftly (sharp knife, bullet, sword), and the appropriate prayers are said at its death (or at the time of eating if one is not certain).
Muslims may not eat any food that has been sacrificed to idols (e.g. Hindu meat), but kosher is fine. They may not eat any pork product or flesh with blood undrained from it; the most extreme Muslims will not touch anything that has animal fat included - even a biscuit - in case it is pork lard or gelatine from an animal not killed in the halal manner. If Muslims eat haram food without realizing it is harem (i.e. some butchers 'fake' their halal tickets), they are not held to blame, but judged by their intention. In cases of necessity, Muslims may eat anything available, even pork, rather than suffer hardship. Alcohol is haram.
The Prophet's wife Aishah
No-one is absolutely certain of her age when she married the Prophet, but it could have been as young as 6; some scholars believe she was ten years older. However, the majority go for the age of 6. The marriage that took place then was an agreement on paper, there was no physical relationship until Aishah reached puberty - but this in itself could have been at around 9 or 10 years old. That is not an unusual age for menstruation to start in hot climates, and once a girl is capable of producing a child she is regarded as technically a woman. Sex for children under 16 is forbidden by law in the UK at the moment, but this has not always been the case and it is nonsense to suppose that there is no sexual activity amongst children under 16 in this country. No-one is able to stop them and if the girls get pregnant they frequently have abortions.
In Muslim countries it is considered far better to get youngsters married as soon as they show inclinations to have sex - then they can have it honorably, as much as they like, and the children born are not illegitimate. Many Muslim countries in fact do try to keep to the age of about 16 for marriage (as is the legal age in the UK), and prefer not to marry off their girls too young. Some societies expect marriages to be life-partnerships, but in others divorces are frequent if things do not work out and girls choose other husbands. In the Prophet's day, the normal age for boys to marry was about 15 and girls between 13-15, although some girls preferred to defer the role until their twenties if they had their own money. Don't forget, there was virtually no contraception and marriage implied having a baby every two years or so. The used to feed babies as long as possible to avoid too frequent pregnancy. As far as I know, the Virgin Mary was around 12-13 when she had baby Jesus, and she was living with her husband in one of these non-physical arrangements. The Prophet was certainly not a paedophile! He did not marry his first wife until she was 40, and he had no other wife until she died at the age of 65; then his second wife was in her 40s, to help him out while he was a single parent!
In countries where Sharia law is enforced, how are specific punishments decided on and who makes these decisions?
The specific punishments are decided on by the lawyers of the land, many of whom have been educated and trained in the west!
Would many Muslims in Britain be in favour of Sharia law being implemented here?
I think many Muslims in the UK would be in favour of Sharia law being implemented here, but true Sharia law is only really possible in a Muslim society, not in a non-Muslim or mixed society. Flogging for public drunkenness, for example, might make some of our louts and cruel men folk think twice before acting as they do, and thinking nothing of it.
I once left my expensive camera on a wall in Egypt and it was gone when I returned for it - no big surprise. What was a surprise is that someone in that village found out where my coach had gone next and took the trouble to travel nearly 100 miles to find me and return the camera - they had picked it up for safe-keeping and did not want any of their summer tourists (it is hard for Egypt to get tourists in August!) to think there was a thief in their village! I was also very impressed by the way people just left shop tills and went off to mid-day prayers, trusting that no-one would steal their money or stock.
I don't think lawyers in the UK would ever bring back the death sentence, but many people here think that they should. Personally, I could never bring a case against a man seeking his death for adultery, and I would not be willing to put even the worst of criminals to death myself. I feel the electric chair is far more barbaric than stoning. Incidentally the correct Islamic method of stoning according to Sharia was similar to that advised by the Pharisees at the time of Jesus - the person was held fast in a fixed position, and a stone or rock that it took two men to lift (i.e. was heavier than one man could lift alone) was to be dropped to crush the head - it was not someone tied to a post and rocks hurled at them, although this has been done in some cultures. The point was that if someone really had to be executed, it was to be done swiftly, with as little torture as possible, and usually publicly so that no vindictive person could do further nasty things behind the scenes and get away with it. People gathering at executions were often those who had come to pray for and support the person being executed and not just ghoulish onlookers. I would feel just the same about witnessing such an execution as I felt about hanging when it was done here. I prayed all night before the execution of Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hung in the UK.
What areas of law do Muslims in Britain think are mishandled by British state law?
I think Muslims generally are shocked by the general lack of respect and discipline here, especially if they are immigrants and not born here. They are particularly shocked by lack of discipline in schools and the difficulties faced by so many teachers in getting children to behave in class and actually learn.
They are shocked by the appalling rates of theft, drunkenness, drug addiction, sex outside marriage, abortions, rape of children and old ladies, homosexuality - especially when it is being put forward as quite normal and an acceptable alternative sexual lifestyle; homosexuals in positions of authority (from teachers to MPs).
They are also shocked by the general lack of respect for those in authority, and older people in general. In Muslim homes, children would probably be expected not to smoke in front of parents, not to sit down or start eating before them.

Further reading
Further reading
Islam: A Sacred Law: What Every Muslim Should Know About the Shariah, Feisal Abdul Rauf, Kazi Pubns. ISBN: 0939660709
Teach Yourself Islam (Teach Yourself), Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, pub. Teach Yourself. ISBN: 0340859687
Islamic Sharia and the Muslims, M.S. Siddiqui, Kazi Publications. ISBN: 0686639057
Woman in Islamic Shariah, Maulana Khan, Goodword Books. ISBN: 8185063761
World of Fatwas: Shariah in Action, Arun Shourie, Sharad Saxena (illustrator), pub. ASA. ISBN: 8190019953
Bibliography for 'The philosophy of Sharia - the clear path'
Al-Madkhal li Dirasat al-Shariah al-Islamiyya (Abd al-Karim Zaydan)
Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami (Wahba Zuhayli)
Al-Muwafaqat (Shatibi)
Hujjat Allah al-Baligha (Wali Allah al-Dahlawi)
Reliance of the Traveller (tr Nuh Keller)
Al-Tahrir (Ibn al-Humam)