re the inimitable rushdie in article bafa d i dbstu rz tu bs de i dbstu rz tu bs de benedikt rosenau writes yes but fortunately religions have been replaced by systems that value human rights higher secular laws seem to value criminal life more than the victims life islam places the rights of society and every member in it above the rights of the individual this is what i call true human rights by the way do you actually support the claim of precedence of islamic law in case you do what about the laws of other religions as a muslim living in a non muslim land i am bound by the laws of the land i live in but i do not disregard islamic law it still remains a part of my life if the laws of a land conflict with my religion to such an extent that i am prevented from being allowed to practise my religion then i must leave the land so in a way islamic law does take precendence over secular law but we are instructed to follow the laws of the land that we live in too in an islamic state one ruled by a khaliphate religions other than islam are allowed to rule by their own religious laws provided they don t affect the genral population and don t come into direct conflict with state laws dhimmis non muslim population are exempt from most islamic laws on religion such as fighting in a jihad giving zakat alms giving etc but are given the benefit of these two acts such as military protection and if they are poor they will receive zakat if not what has it got to do with rushdie and has anyone reliable information if he hadn t left islam according to islamic law or is the burden of proof on him benedikt after the fatwa didn t rushdie re affirm his faith in islam didn t he go thru a very public conversion to islam if so he is binding himself to islamic laws he has to publicly renounce in his belief in islam so the burden is on him mas c i t i z e n c a d e n c e d e s i g n s y s t e m s inc masud ahmed khan mas cadence com all my opinions
