Change the Constitution to Embrace Sharia, per Rauf!

[gautama]

If this TAQIYAH spouting arsehole Rauf claims that the CONSTITUTION is almost identical to the fucking SHARIA, as well as the sayings of Mohahahahahamed (Hadith) except for changing the (brutal) interpretations of SHARIA to render it more "modern"......THEN WHY NOT ACCEPT THE CONSTITUTION ?????

Then why, in REALITY, in other words FACTUALLY, do these Muslim turds clamour for SHARIA as if the CONSTITUTION is the work of Beelzebub, THE GREAT SATAN ??????

 

[Jarhead]

In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.

Nice try.

In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.

The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter.

Also, I'm pretty sure Christians have strived for laws that don't go against the bible. Or does outlawing Abortion (it's not in the bible though) or Gay Marriage not protested by Christians because it goes against their faith?

What the Muslims want in their own countries is no different then what Christians want here in America in many cases. It's also no different then what many other religions want. This is no surprise at this point.

If, in fact, that is what he meant, I stand corrected.

However, seeing as the paragraph that says what I bolded started with In America, WE....he is referring to him as an American. SO I took him referring to what HE wants for HIS country/religion.

I then read his NEXT paragraph as a separate issue of what OTHER countries people want to do.

I saw him applyingt his belief to America (His country) and OTHER countries as well.

It can be read both ways.

So it was not a "nice try" by me.

It was a valid interpretation.

 

[AllieBaba]

If this TAQIYAH spouting arsehole Rauf claims that the CONSTITUTION is almost identical to the fucking SHARIA, as well as the sayings of Mohahahahahamed (Hadith) except for changing the (brutal) interpretations of SHARIA to render it more "modern"......THEN WHY NOT ACCEPT THE CONSTITUTION ?????

Then why, in REALITY, in other words FACTUALLY, do these Muslim turds clamour for SHARIA as if the CONSTITUTION is the work of Beelzebub, THE GREAT SATAN ??????

 

[AllieBaba]

"Throughout the 20th century, and at present, Sufi ideologues and mass movements (especially the Naqshbandiya) have been engaged in defensive—offensive jihad campaigns designed not only to expel real (or perceived) 'colonial powers', but also to create supra—national (regional) shari'a states, or even a frank Caliphate (i.e., a single unified global shari'a state). The restored Shi'ite theocracy in Iran, whose contemporary shari'a—based system of dhimmitude was drafted by a leading Sufi—Sultanhussein Tabandeh—provides a sobering example of what 'Sufi ecumenism' towards non—Muslims means in practice. "

American Thinker: Sufi Jihad?

 

[Modbert]

If, in fact, that is what he meant, I stand corrected.

However, seeing as the paragraph that says what I bolded started with In America, WE....he is referring to him as an American. SO I took him referring to what HE wants for HIS country/religion.

I then read his NEXT paragraph as a separate issue of what OTHER countries people want to do.

I saw him applyingt his belief to America (His country) and OTHER countries as well.

It can be read both ways.

So it was not a "nice try" by me.

It was a valid interpretation.

He brought up America in order to give people insight in order to have something to compare what he's talking about to.

Like I said previously, on a somewhat related note, the fact there are Muslims out there who want to enforce their beliefs on America is no different then Christians who want to do so. Or any religion for that matter.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Muslims in Arab countries as well as some born and bred in the West are aggressively pushing to impose Sharia law, or Islamic law, in countries such as Britain and the United States, among others, claims Nonie Darwish, who lived under Sharia law for 30 years in Egypt.“To live under Islamic Sharia law is to live in the world’s largest maximum-security prison, and I for one don’t want to be incarcerated again,” writes Darwish in her new book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.
.
For many Westerners, it is hard to believe that cruel punishments, extreme oppression of women’s rights, and unjust marriage customs as seen in Sharia can still exist in the 21st century.


(Credit: Matt57)
But it does exist, Darwish says, and is applied in strict Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, and Sudan. Some states in northern Nigeria also have Sharia courts, and recently the Northwest region of Pakistan was allowed to enact Sharia law to appease terrorists.

In the West, Canada allowed Sharia family arbitration from 1991 to 2006, and Great Britain allows it on a limited scale.

Women’s Rights (or lack thereof)

Under the Islamic legal system, women without a headdress on in public can be flogged, rape victims under certain circumstances can be punished, and adulteresses can be beheaded.

In her book, Darwish tells the story of a Saudi woman who was gang raped by seven men, but sentenced by the court to flogging because she was allegedly seen talking to a man who was not her relative. Her attackers said they saw that violation as justification to rape her and the judge agreed. Under Sharia law, women are not even allowed to make eye contact with men that are not their relatives.

Women are further at a disadvantage in courts because their testimony only counts as half the value of a man’s.

Sharia law is especially cruel when it comes to rape cases. To prove rape, either the rapist has to confess or there must be four male witnesses of the rape that testify on behalf of the victim.

Darwish, a former Muslim who became a Christian after coming to America, calls Sharia “the most inhumane, cruel and punitive system of laws practiced today.”

Marriage Laws

In her book, Darwish also writes extensively about the marriage contract in Muslim society. Under Islam, a man is allowed up to four wives. On the marriage contract, there are a number of lines under the heading of wife that a man can fill with several names.

But the author – who has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Al-Arabiya, National Public Radio and Israeli TV – says the “most shocking sexual privilege Sharia grants to men is that they are allowed to seek sexual gratification with children.”

There is no legal age of marriage under Sharia and a girl can be given in marriage as young as the age of one. But marriage can only be lawfully consummated with a girl when she reaches the age of nine.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah between 1979 and 1989, said in an official statement, which appears in his book, Tahrirolvasyleh:

“A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by Sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives…It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.”

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/04/former-muslim-warns-west-about-threat-of-sharia-law/

Let's hear it for sharia in the US. After all, Luser thinks it sounds great.

 

[NYcarbineer]

By golly, that sounds WONDERFUL! Let's throw over the Constitution and replace it with the Koran and Haddiths! After all, this Rauf guy says that's the best thing to do and he's a SAINT!

What is wrong with a desire to amend the Constitution?

That is as constitutionalist as you can get.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He wants an America that follows the Ten Commandments of the Bible.

Where does that conflict with the Christian Conservative consensus?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Three quarters of the states have to ratify an amendment to the Constitution, after 2/3 of both houses of Congress have passed it.

Only in Conservatopia, in fact, only in the looney bin INSIDE Conservatopia, could anyone honestly believe that 3/4's of the states of this country are going to amend the Constitution to impose Sharia law on the U.S.

You people are an embarassment.

 

[AllieBaba]

If, in fact, that is what he meant, I stand corrected.

However, seeing as the paragraph that says what I bolded started with In America, WE....he is referring to him as an American. SO I took him referring to what HE wants for HIS country/religion.

I then read his NEXT paragraph as a separate issue of what OTHER countries people want to do.

I saw him applyingt his belief to America (His country) and OTHER countries as well.

It can be read both ways.

So it was not a "nice try" by me.

It was a valid interpretation.

He brought up America in order to give people insight in order to have something to compare what he's talking about to.

Like I said previously, on a somewhat related note, the fact there are Muslims out there who want to enforce their beliefs on America is no different then Christians who want to do so. Or any religion for that matter.

I knew it would just be a few seconds before you asswipe apologists said he didn't really MEAN what he said...and that America and/or Christianity is still worse.


"The truth is that the American constitution and the Sharia law are opposite of each other. It is interesting however, how Rauf composed his statement. He did not say that the Sharia is in compliance with the US constitution, but the other way round. By doing so he wanted to establish the superiority of the Sharia over the US constitution.

The fact is that the American Constitution and the Sharia differ fundamentally. For example, the Sharia does not recognize

Freedom of speech,
Freedom of conscience
Equality of all people before the law
Equality of the rights of women with men

Of course, as an Imam he can’t reject the Sharia. He will reject the constitution when not in compliance with the Sharia."

http://formermuslimsunited.american...ali-sina-on-ground-zero-mosque-cordova-house/

 

[Gunny]

In is own words:

But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.

In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.

The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter.

Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is.


Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: What Shariah Law Is All About

I was thinking the Communist Manifesto. Islam might suck, but at least they're still willing to fight for who and what they are.

 

[AllieBaba]

"You can’t serve two masters. Muslims will have to either submit to the Sharia law or to the US constitution. If they submit to one, they are in violation of the other.

But the disturbing part in Rauf’s statement is the fact that he compares Islamic laws with the secular laws of America. This is proof that his goal is to supplant the latter with the former. Statements such as this make it clear that the ambition of Muslims in America is political.

Rauf ignores the fact the in the USA religion and state are kept apart. When he says “America would need invite the voices of all religions in shaping the nations’ practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws,” he is not talking about Jews, Christians or other religions. In fact adherents of these faiths want to keep state and religion separate. Rauf wants these rights solely for Muslims. He aspires to convert America into an Islamic theocracy.

The Sharia law does not just regulate the rights of the Muslims but also the non-Muslims must submit to it. How is that going to work according to this imam? Well that part will have to wait until Muslims become the majority and convert America into a Sharia compliant state, like Saudi Arabia. Then no one has any right anymore.

As far as Muslims are concerned the Sharia law is from God and it supersedes all constitutions that are written by men.

The implication is grave. It means that Muslims who uphold the Sharia law are a subversive group whose aim is to destroy our system of government. Muslims present Islam as a religion whereas their agenda is political and subversive.

When in 2007, Rauf published his book in the Muslims world, he did not call it What is Right with America is What is Right with Islam. He called it A Call to Prayer from the WTC rubbles: Islamic Da’wa from the Heart of America Post 9/11.

This is the kind of talk that resonates in Muslim world. The message that Rauf wants to send to Americans is that the Sharia is very similar to their constitution and hence they should not fear Islam. But his message to his fellow coreligionists is different. To them he is announcing that a da’wa is being issued to Americans from the rubbles of 9/11.

What is Da’wa? Da’wa means invitations to submit to Islam. Jihad has two phases. The first phase is the invitation. Disbelievers are to be warned first and given a chance to submit. If they refuse the next stage is qital (fighting). Da’wa and qital are integral parts of jihad.

The Cordova House will be the ultimatum, a line drawn in the sand for the Americans. After the da’wa is issued, Americans will have two choices: They must either submit to Islam or face more terrorism."

http://formermuslimsunited.american...ali-sina-on-ground-zero-mosque-cordova-house/

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Maybe Pelosi should investigate this Imam and where all the funds are coming from to build this Mosque? There's an idea. I think most will be very disturbed when they do finally find out where most of the funding for this Mosque comes from. We need to find out though.

 

[AllieBaba]

Pelosi is busy calling for an investigation into anyone who criticizes the proposed mosque.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Anytime a politician defends Islam under the guise of “tolerance” and “community cohesion,” I think about money. Chances are you’ll find a skeleton in their closet. I am not accusing anyone in particular. I don’t know the facts. But I won’t be surprised if one day we find out that the politicians who defend the construction of this Islam Trojan horse on Ground Zero were paid for their support.

Mayor Bloomberg calls patriotic Americans who don’t want this mosque, “un-American.” He should know that it is very American to defend the American constitution against any creeping alien ideology whose adherents do not hide their intention to bring down America and “sabotage its miserable house from within.” What is un-American is to open the gates of the country to its sworn enemies. Whether the Mayor is bribed, or he is merely a useful idiot is not for me to decide. It is one or the other and in either case he is not qualfied to be the mayor of New York. But one thing is certain and that is his support for Islamists against the interests of America is very un-American."

http://formermuslimsunited.american...ali-sina-on-ground-zero-mosque-cordova-house/

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'll ask AGAIN.

What is fundamentally wrong with wanting to amend the Constitution?

How does that make this clown any different than the clowns who want an anti-abortion amendment,

or an anti-gay marriage amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If 3/4's of America wanted Sharia law imposed, it would be a principled exercise in democracy to impose it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does Sharia law allow abortion and same sex marriage?

 

[Modbert]

I'll ask AGAIN.

What is fundamentally wrong with wanting to amend the Constitution?

How does that make this clown any different than the clowns who want an anti-abortion amendment,

or an anti-gay marriage amendment?

But don't you see Allie's logic?

Christians want to change the Constitution? That's okay. Muslims? EVIL!

Makes perfect sense!

 

[Jarhead]

If, in fact, that is what he meant, I stand corrected.

However, seeing as the paragraph that says what I bolded started with In America, WE....he is referring to him as an American. SO I took him referring to what HE wants for HIS country/religion.

I then read his NEXT paragraph as a separate issue of what OTHER countries people want to do.

I saw him applyingt his belief to America (His country) and OTHER countries as well.

It can be read both ways.

So it was not a "nice try" by me.

It was a valid interpretation.

He brought up America in order to give people insight in order to have something to compare what he's talking about to.

Like I said previously, on a somewhat related note, the fact there are Muslims out there who want to enforce their beliefs on America is no different then Christians who want to do so. Or any religion for that matter.

I see how it canbe interpreted your way as well.

I find this man quite interesting and eerily similar to Mr. Obama. They both have a way of saying things that can be taken two different ways...and when they are blasted for one way, they simply say they meant it the other way. I guess that is the way of all politicians and leaders.