Creeping Sharia - It's not just a bumper sticker

[Hister]

kalam, how much did your wife cost you?

 

[logical4u]

Ridicules.
Anything that distracts from spreading IslAM or remembering allah or spreading mischief is unislamic .

There is nothing un-Islamic about any sort of leisure that doesn't compromise a Muslim's imaan. If these "scholars" truly thought that the Taliban were a Shari'i society, they wouldn't be using the internet to disseminate their beliefs. Allah ta'ala does not look kindly upon hypocrites.

As are acts that mimic other religions

If an act doesn't directly involve non-Islamic religious beliefs, it cannot be considered haram as long as one's niyyah is pure. Dismissing all kite-flying as a form of Hindu worship is stupid and a form of bid'ah.

BUT HEY YOUR THE "EXPERT"

My, we sure are fussy today.

Blind deference to anyone other than Allah in religious matters is un-Islamic. Every edict must be questioned unless the 'alim that issues it proves that it is firmly based in scripture.

And when it is said to them, Come to that which Allah has revealed and to the Messenger, they say: Sufficient for us is that wherein We found our fathers. What? Even though their fathers knew nothing and had no guidance? - 5:104
​

So..."Blind deference to anyone other than Allah in religious matters is un-Islamic. Every edict must be questioned unless the 'alim that issues it proves that it is firmly based in scripture. "

But when it comes to other religions, that is not honored? And if Shari'ah is considered "part" of the religion, you can't even question it because it is said to come from allah? Sorry Kalam, the more you speak about this culture/religion/government, the more it seems like a really good idea to stay away from it.

 

[logical4u]

This whole idea of Sharia law catching on is just hysteria. Inside of two generations, these women wearing black burqas and head scarves will be sporting thong underwear and huge tattoos in the small of their backs. Their toothless elders will be appalled but they won't be able to do their traditional stoning or head-cutting-offing in the US cuz that would be a hate crime. They will be Americanized.

I believe that is what was being said when the Iranians that supported the Shah left before they were killed. At that time Iran was a mix of western and ME cultures (from witnesses, it was a good mix). It is going on the second generation and the population doesn't seem to be making huge purchases of thong underwear or sporting tatoos. Just "believing" everything will turn out good, without action, usually has the opposite result.

 

[Kalam]

So... your list of successes of Shari'ah law were those of WAR states and the years immediately following WARS where other "subjugated" territories paid homage to the 'caliph'. Most of them "reformed" (that would mean it wasn't working) government systems. Most from the brutal years of islam subjugating the ME. The most recent from the 1700s, again involving WAR.

If you study Islam under the assumption that it's "evil" or "wrong", you won't learn anything. What did most of those leaders have in common?

And no, I did not say that since it isn't in use, it doesn't work. I said that the activist muslims that proclaim this is the great way, do not use it to govern themselves, yet seek to export it to the rest of the world (Kind of like a scam artist would do).

I absolutely use Shari'ah to govern myself. All practicing Muslims use Shari'ah to govern themselves; we're simply trying to institute it at a national level. Moreover, I haven't said anything about trying to "export it to the rest of the world." I have made it abundantly clear that the struggle ahead of us involves dismantling the governments in the so-called Muslim world -- not in America -- and replacing them with Shari'ah.

What I have said and will repeat: the muslim activists have had fourteen hundred years to get the system right. They haven't. Quit trying to sell it as a "great" form of government. Shari'ah as a form of government is a monumental failure. That being said, I will point out that it works great in conquering and overthrowing nations (that then get to live in abject misery under that system).

Each of those leaders' dominions was one of the most prosperous in the world at its time. Sorry, but I'm afraid that repeating lies won't make them come true.

BTW, I don't believe that a democratic republic was tried before the 1700s. It is not a perfect system. It cannot work where a majority of the people are corrupt. If the people want freedom, and liberty (and the responsibility that goes with it), I believe it has "proven" itself to be the most prosperous, and least corrupt nation to date. Maybe you can prove me wrong there, but it would be highly prejudiced to personal view. I believe the FACTS prove this nation to be the greatest to date, overall (again, that is not saying it is PERFECT).

That's highly subjective and depends entirely on the standards you use to judge "corruption" and "prosperity."

 

[Kalam]

But when it comes to other religions, that is not honored?

I said that?

 

[Hister]

But when it comes to other religions, that is not honored?

I said that?

What up Kalam? Can't afford a wife? Even an ugly one?

Anyone who follows sharia law has shit for brains.

 

[logical4u]

So... your list of successes of Shari'ah law were those of WAR states and the years immediately following WARS where other "subjugated" territories paid homage to the 'caliph'. Most of them "reformed" (that would mean it wasn't working) government systems. Most from the brutal years of islam subjugating the ME. The most recent from the 1700s, again involving WAR.

If you study Islam under the assumption that it's "evil" or "wrong", you won't learn anything. What did most of those leaders have in common?

And no, I did not say that since it isn't in use, it doesn't work. I said that the activist muslims that proclaim this is the great way, do not use it to govern themselves, yet seek to export it to the rest of the world (Kind of like a scam artist would do).

I absolutely use Shari'ah to govern myself. All practicing Muslims use Shari'ah to govern themselves; we're simply trying to institute it at a national level. Moreover, I haven't said anything about trying to "export it to the rest of the world." I have made it abundantly clear that the struggle ahead of us involves dismantling the governments in the so-called Muslim world -- not in America -- and replacing them with Shari'ah.

What I have said and will repeat: the muslim activists have had fourteen hundred years to get the system right. They haven't. Quit trying to sell it as a "great" form of government. Shari'ah as a form of government is a monumental failure. That being said, I will point out that it works great in conquering and overthrowing nations (that then get to live in abject misery under that system).

Each of those leaders' dominions was one of the most prosperous in the world at its time. Sorry, but I'm afraid that repeating lies won't make them come true.

BTW, I don't believe that a democratic republic was tried before the 1700s. It is not a perfect system. It cannot work where a majority of the people are corrupt. If the people want freedom, and liberty (and the responsibility that goes with it), I believe it has "proven" itself to be the most prosperous, and least corrupt nation to date. Maybe you can prove me wrong there, but it would be highly prejudiced to personal view. I believe the FACTS prove this nation to be the greatest to date, overall (again, that is not saying it is PERFECT).

That's highly subjective and depends entirely on the standards you use to judge "corruption" and "prosperity."

"Those leaders" were war time leaders, or immediately following the subjugation of a lot of territory. I used your links. I got the impression Shari'ah is like socialism: "it works great until you run out of other people's money" (Maggie Thatcher). I read the links and posted as I understood. Could you be more specific if you are going to call me a liar? Did any of those listed have a nation that did not do raids, or campaigns of conquest? Did the ones that "ruled" during the periods following conquest, not have reputations for "reform" (that would be changing Shari'ah)? Please be specific. I am trying to see where Shari'ah as a government system has worked. It doesn't look like it has.

 

[Hister]

Sharia law is for pigs and whores.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

We should create law based on God and God's commandments.

--Sarah Palin



At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament.

--Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

 

[Kalam]

So... your list of successes of Shari'ah law were those of WAR states and the years immediately following WARS where other "subjugated" territories paid homage to the 'caliph'. Most of them "reformed" (that would mean it wasn't working) government systems. Most from the brutal years of islam subjugating the ME. The most recent from the 1700s, again involving WAR.

If you study Islam under the assumption that it's "evil" or "wrong", you won't learn anything. What did most of those leaders have in common?


I absolutely use Shari'ah to govern myself. All practicing Muslims use Shari'ah to govern themselves; we're simply trying to institute it at a national level. Moreover, I haven't said anything about trying to "export it to the rest of the world." I have made it abundantly clear that the struggle ahead of us involves dismantling the governments in the so-called Muslim world -- not in America -- and replacing them with Shari'ah.


Each of those leaders' dominions was one of the most prosperous in the world at its time. Sorry, but I'm afraid that repeating lies won't make them come true.

BTW, I don't believe that a democratic republic was tried before the 1700s. It is not a perfect system. It cannot work where a majority of the people are corrupt. If the people want freedom, and liberty (and the responsibility that goes with it), I believe it has "proven" itself to be the most prosperous, and least corrupt nation to date. Maybe you can prove me wrong there, but it would be highly prejudiced to personal view. I believe the FACTS prove this nation to be the greatest to date, overall (again, that is not saying it is PERFECT).

That's highly subjective and depends entirely on the standards you use to judge "corruption" and "prosperity."

"Those leaders" were war time leaders, or immediately following the subjugation of a lot of territory. I used your links. I got the impression Shari'ah is like socialism: "it works great until you run out of other people's money" (Maggie Thatcher). I read the links and posted as I understood. Could you be more specific if you are going to call me a liar? Did any of those listed have a nation that did not do raids, or campaigns of conquest? Did the ones that "ruled" during the periods following conquest, not have reputations for "reform" (that would be changing Shari'ah)? Please be specific. I am trying to see where Shari'ah as a government system has worked. It doesn't look like it has.

"I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right. Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery. The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God wills; and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God wills. Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger. But if I disobey God and His Messenger, ye owe me no obedience. Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you." - Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (RA)

"Remember, I have not appointed you as commanders and tyrants over the people. I have sent you as leaders instead, so that the people may follow your example. Give the Muslims their rights and do not beat them lest they become abused. Do not praise them unduly, lest they fall into the error of conceit. Do not keep your doors shut in their faces, lest the more powerful of them eat up the weaker ones. And do not behave as if you were superior to them, for that is tyranny over them." - Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA)

"I have had my say. Now I am prepared to listen to you. If any one of you has any legitimate grievance against me or my Government you are free to give expression to such grievance, and I assure you that I will do my best to redress such grievance." - Uthman ibn Affan (RA)

"Infuse your heart with mercy, love and kindness for your subjects. Be not in face of them a voracious animal, counting them as easy prey, for they are of two kinds:either they are your brothers in religion or your equals in creation. Error catches them unaware, deficiencies overcome them, (evil deeds) are committed by them intentionally and by mistake. So grant them your pardon and your forgiveness to the same extent that you hope God will grant you His pardon and His forgiveness." - 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA)

"Rulers usually appoint people to watch over their subjects. I appoint you a watcher over me and my behavior. If you find me at fault in word or action, guide me and stop me from doing it." - Umar ibn 'Abd ul-Aziz (RA)

Regarding Sulayman al-Qanuni:

"Suleiman gave particular attention to the plight of the rayas, Christian subjects who worked the land of the Sipahis. His Kanune Raya, or 'Code of the Rayas', reformed the law governing levies and taxes to be paid by the rayas, raising their status above serfdom to the extent that Christian serfs would migrate to Turkish territories to benefit from the reforms. The Sultan also played a role in protecting the Jewish subjects of his empire for centuries to come. In late 1553 or 1554, on the suggestion of his favorite doctor and dentist, the Spanish Jew Moses Hamon, the Sultan issued a firman formally denouncing blood libels against the Jews."​

Each of them stressed the importance of accountability and ensured that justice was established for all people. The "reforms" were not changes in Shari'ah itself, but administrative reforms that involved the division of the domain into provinces and other issues of governance that had to be addressed as the nation grew. In Sulayman's case, his "reform" involved ending the deviance of his predecessors and re-establishing Shari'ah. Shari'i governance means accountability, openness to criticism, and justice.

Additionally, you'll find that the Rashidun Caliphate, the Umayyad Caliphate under Umar II, the Abbasid Caliphate, and the Ottoman Empire under Sulayman were some of the most prosperous nations in the world. This is particularly true in the case of the Abbasids, whose liberation of the Muslims from the corrupt Umayyads led to unprecedented scientific, artistic, cultural, and religious prosperity.

Compare any of them to their Christian contemporaries.

 

[Rezonator]

At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament.

--Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

Of course he would say that: he's a lying Muslim (but I repeat myself). No reason for Rauf not to try to plagiarize the Abrahamic teachings, though; that's all Muhammad, Rauf's role model, did:

"But why not steal from the infidels? They are inferiors—according to Islam.

"Even the archangel Gabriel was expropriated from the Jews and the Christians for Islam. For that matter, the very god of Islam was taken from the Jews and Christians, just given a different name: Allah instead of Yahweh. Perhaps that's why Muslims are ordered emphatically, 'do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends.' Take them for slaves, take them for killing, take them for jizya (Islamic tax of oppression on non-Muslims), take them for booty, take them for everything they've got; just don't take them for friends."​

Rauf is a mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose goal is the "introduction of the Islamic Shari'ah as the basis controlling the affairs of state and society." That's his goal, too, and he will tell any lie to bring it about.

"Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people." —Muhammad; Sira: Ahmad, 6.459. H​

 

[logical4u]

We should create law based on God and God's commandments.

--Sarah Palin



At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament.

--Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

I don't believe that is how Shari'ah is enforced. If you can accuse someone and they are not "allowed" to tesify (defend themselves), doesn't that "encourage" bearing false witness?

 

[logical4u]

If you study Islam under the assumption that it's "evil" or "wrong", you won't learn anything. What did most of those leaders have in common?


I absolutely use Shari'ah to govern myself. All practicing Muslims use Shari'ah to govern themselves; we're simply trying to institute it at a national level. Moreover, I haven't said anything about trying to "export it to the rest of the world." I have made it abundantly clear that the struggle ahead of us involves dismantling the governments in the so-called Muslim world -- not in America -- and replacing them with Shari'ah.


Each of those leaders' dominions was one of the most prosperous in the world at its time. Sorry, but I'm afraid that repeating lies won't make them come true.


That's highly subjective and depends entirely on the standards you use to judge "corruption" and "prosperity."

"Those leaders" were war time leaders, or immediately following the subjugation of a lot of territory. I used your links. I got the impression Shari'ah is like socialism: "it works great until you run out of other people's money" (Maggie Thatcher). I read the links and posted as I understood. Could you be more specific if you are going to call me a liar? Did any of those listed have a nation that did not do raids, or campaigns of conquest? Did the ones that "ruled" during the periods following conquest, not have reputations for "reform" (that would be changing Shari'ah)? Please be specific. I am trying to see where Shari'ah as a government system has worked. It doesn't look like it has.

"I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right. Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery. The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God wills; and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God wills. Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger. But if I disobey God and His Messenger, ye owe me no obedience. Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you." - Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (RA)

"Remember, I have not appointed you as commanders and tyrants over the people. I have sent you as leaders instead, so that the people may follow your example. Give the Muslims their rights and do not beat them lest they become abused. Do not praise them unduly, lest they fall into the error of conceit. Do not keep your doors shut in their faces, lest the more powerful of them eat up the weaker ones. And do not behave as if you were superior to them, for that is tyranny over them." - Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA)

"I have had my say. Now I am prepared to listen to you. If any one of you has any legitimate grievance against me or my Government you are free to give expression to such grievance, and I assure you that I will do my best to redress such grievance." - Uthman ibn Affan (RA)

"Infuse your heart with mercy, love and kindness for your subjects. Be not in face of them a voracious animal, counting them as easy prey, for they are of two kinds:either they are your brothers in religion or your equals in creation. Error catches them unaware, deficiencies overcome them, (evil deeds) are committed by them intentionally and by mistake. So grant them your pardon and your forgiveness to the same extent that you hope God will grant you His pardon and His forgiveness." - 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA)

"Rulers usually appoint people to watch over their subjects. I appoint you a watcher over me and my behavior. If you find me at fault in word or action, guide me and stop me from doing it." - Umar ibn 'Abd ul-Aziz (RA)

Regarding Sulayman al-Qanuni:

"Suleiman gave particular attention to the plight of the rayas, Christian subjects who worked the land of the Sipahis. His Kanune Raya, or 'Code of the Rayas', reformed the law governing levies and taxes to be paid by the rayas, raising their status above serfdom to the extent that Christian serfs would migrate to Turkish territories to benefit from the reforms. The Sultan also played a role in protecting the Jewish subjects of his empire for centuries to come. In late 1553 or 1554, on the suggestion of his favorite doctor and dentist, the Spanish Jew Moses Hamon, the Sultan issued a firman formally denouncing blood libels against the Jews."​

Each of them stressed the importance of accountability and ensured that justice was established for all people. The "reforms" were not changes in Shari'ah itself, but administrative reforms that involved the division of the domain into provinces and other issues of governance that had to be addressed as the nation grew. In Sulayman's case, his "reform" involved ending the deviance of his predecessors and re-establishing Shari'ah. Shari'i governance means accountability, openness to criticism, and justice.

Additionally, you'll find that the Rashidun Caliphate, the Umayyad Caliphate under Umar II, the Abbasid Caliphate, and the Ottoman Empire under Sulayman were some of the most prosperous nations in the world. This is particularly true in the case of the Abbasids, whose liberation of the Muslims from the corrupt Umayyads led to unprecedented scientific, artistic, cultural, and religious prosperity.

Compare any of them to their Christian contemporaries.

So he raised them from being "abused serfs" to "plain serfs"? What a man? Wonder if the blacks in this country would have loved that, we will change your status from abused slaves to "plain slaves".

I don't believe there were any "Christian" contemporaries. The pope wasn't the ruler of Europe. He was the closest thing, but not even in the same ballpark.

If you are implying the "muslim culture" was more advance at that point, I will agree. Why hasn't it advanced since?

From prior post:
Did any of those listed have a nation that did not do raids, or campaigns of conquest? Did the ones that "ruled" during the periods following conquest, not have reputations for "reform" (that would be changing Shari'ah)?


You said that last question didn't really apply because they were administrative changes (sounds like policy changes to me, but what do I know). Okay.
What about the first two questions?

 

[Kalam]

So he raised them from being "abused serfs" to "plain serfs"? What a man? Wonder if the blacks in this country would have loved that, we will change your status from abused slaves to "plain slaves".

Their status was elevated "above serfdom" to such an extent that they left Christian paradise in Europe to benefit from Shari'ah. Way to ignore every single positive thing in the post and attempt to twist one of them into something negative. Your intellectual dishonesty is a hindrance to real discussion. I suggest you do something about that...

I don't believe there were any "Christian" contemporaries.

"Europe"?

The pope wasn't the ruler of Europe. He was the closest thing, but not even in the same ballpark.

I didn't mention the pope. Were the rulers of Europe not all Christians?

If you are implying the "muslim culture" was more advance at that point, I will agree. Why hasn't it advanced since?

Mongol invasions followed by Ottoman conquests and topped off with centuries of European colonialism.

From prior post:
Did any of those listed have a nation that did not do raids, or campaigns of conquest?

Once Shari'ah is established, aggressors and tyrants abroad must be put to the sword.

Did the ones that "ruled" during the periods following conquest, not have reputations for "reform" (that would be changing Shari'ah)?

Please produce evidence that Shari'ah was "changed."

You said that last question didn't really apply because they were administrative changes (sounds like policy changes to me, but what do I know). Okay.

Read the articles yourself and feel free to point out anything that involves changing religious law.

What about the first two questions?

What questions?

 

[ekrem]

If the Jews have their own courts, then there is no explainable reason why Muslims should not have same privilege if the Muslim community wants problem-solving between each other infront of such courts.

 

[hipeter924]

If the Jews have their own courts, then there is no explainable reason why Muslims should not have same privilege if the Muslim community wants problem-solving between each other infront of such courts.

Jews shouldn't have courts either, always been against religious courts.

 

[Hister]

If the Jews have their own courts, then there is no explainable reason why Muslims should not have same privilege if the Muslim community wants problem-solving between each other infront of such courts.

Jews shouldn't have courts either, always been against religious courts.

Personally, I'd like to see Sharia come in with all those muslims with their hand cut off, I'd even go watch it get done. And stoning the breeders? Way cool! Could also get me a 9 year old muslim bitch!

 

[logical4u]

So he raised them from being "abused serfs" to "plain serfs"? What a man? Wonder if the blacks in this country would have loved that, we will change your status from abused slaves to "plain slaves".

Their status was elevated "above serfdom" to such an extent that they left Christian paradise in Europe to benefit from Shari'ah. Way to ignore every single positive thing in the post and attempt to twist one of them into something negative. Your intellectual dishonesty is a hindrance to real discussion. I suggest you do something about that...

I don't believe there were any "Christian" contemporaries.

"Europe"?


I didn't mention the pope. Were the rulers of Europe not all Christians?


Mongol invasions followed by Ottoman conquests and topped off with centuries of European colonialism.


Once Shari'ah is established, aggressors and tyrants abroad must be put to the sword.


Please produce evidence that Shari'ah was "changed."

You said that last question didn't really apply because they were administrative changes (sounds like policy changes to me, but what do I know). Okay.

Read the articles yourself and feel free to point out anything that involves changing religious law.

What about the first two questions?

What questions?

Europe wasn't "strictly" Christian at that time. There was still a mix of "old religion" (multiple dieties) and Christianity. There was no ruler that claimed to be the religious and political leader from the Roman emperors to Henry VIII. Hence, it was no "paradise".
When the serfs left Europe (the modern day area, not the name at that time), were they "serfs" in the islam "paradise"?

So, it IS STILL someone else's fault that Shari'ah hasn't formed a "great society"? Colonialism ended decades ago. When will the muslims implement the Shari'ah law that makes it a place to flock (like the "serfs" of ancient Europe)?

The questions (third time asked):
Aren't the examples you gave of "conquerers" (you know in the process of violently overthrowing other systems), or the leaders of newly conquered areas that were paying TRIBUTE (that would be other people's money/resources/etc)? Do you have any evidence that Shari'ah works as a government system in "peace" (or does it only work for wartime)?

In which case islam will never have peace, once it takes everything from "unbelievers" it will move on to those that believe differently than the leadership (because the actual followers, have no say).

Oh, and another question: does part of the money you give to islam, go for "jihad"?

 

[Hister]

Ever notice that the world is getting smellier by the day? Islam is trying to conquer the world one roll of toilet paper at a time.

log4u: They save money for jihad by not buying deodorant, tooth paste or soap. (of course, no toilet paper as well.) And they save by not having furniture, why buy a couch when you can sit right on the floor? They also save on cutlery and plates, everyone just grabs food with their hand from the same bowl... on the floor, like a pack of dogs.

 

[logical4u]

So he raised them from being "abused serfs" to "plain serfs"? What a man? Wonder if the blacks in this country would have loved that, we will change your status from abused slaves to "plain slaves".

Their status was elevated "above serfdom" to such an extent that they left Christian paradise in Europe to benefit from Shari'ah. Way to ignore every single positive thing in the post and attempt to twist one of them into something negative. Your intellectual dishonesty is a hindrance to real discussion. I suggest you do something about that...


"Europe"?


I didn't mention the pope. Were the rulers of Europe not all Christians?


Mongol invasions followed by Ottoman conquests and topped off with centuries of European colonialism.


Once Shari'ah is established, aggressors and tyrants abroad must be put to the sword.


Please produce evidence that Shari'ah was "changed."


Read the articles yourself and feel free to point out anything that involves changing religious law.

What about the first two questions?

What questions?

Europe wasn't "strictly" Christian at that time. There was still a mix of "old religion" (multiple dieties) and Christianity. There was no ruler that claimed to be the religious and political leader from the Roman emperors to Henry VIII. Hence, it was no "paradise".
When the serfs left Europe (the modern day area, not the name at that time), were they "serfs" in the islam "paradise"?

So, it IS STILL someone else's fault that Shari'ah hasn't formed a "great society"? Colonialism ended decades ago. When will the muslims implement the Shari'ah law that makes it a place to flock (like the "serfs" of ancient Europe)?

The questions (third time asked):
Aren't the examples you gave of "conquerers" (you know in the process of violently overthrowing other systems), or the leaders of newly conquered areas that were paying TRIBUTE (that would be other people's money/resources/etc)? Do you have any evidence that Shari'ah works as a government system in "peace" (or does it only work for wartime)?

In which case islam will never have peace, once it takes everything from "unbelievers" it will move on to those that believe differently than the leadership (because the actual followers, have no say).

Oh, and another question: does part of the money you give to islam, go for "jihad"?

Kalam,

Are you checking with your cleric or inmam?