Creeping Sharia - It's not just a bumper sticker

[Kalam]

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 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?

"inmam"

I don't have any religious leaders. Do you think you can keep your panties on for a little while longer?

 

[Hister]

"inmam"
I don't have any religious leaders. Do you think you can keep your panties on for a little while longer?

More proof that kalam is a fake mooslim, I bet he even uses toilet paper!

Since Mohammed had no access to bumwad or soap back then, I bet he got his camel to lick his ass clean after a crap.

 

[Jos]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEzwJDjdzAo&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - From Shas to Hamas - The South Park Hate Preacher Group[/ame]

 

[Kalam]

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.

I wonder why the Islamic world was so prosperous relative to the rest of the world when it followed Shari'ah? Why does the opposite seem to be true about Europe and Christianity?

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"?

If you read the article, it says that their status was elevated above serfdom.

So, it IS STILL someone else's fault that Shari'ah hasn't formed a "great society"?

I think I've provided plenty of evidence showing that it has on multiple occasions. You seem to be opining that if a society doesn't last into perpetuity, it is a "failure." Could it be that you're simply unwilling to recognize the benefits of Shari'i governance and are coming up with impossible standards in an attempt to discredit it?

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)?

It takes more than a few decades to build a utopia from ashes. These kinds of questions were addressed by Sayyid Qutb. It may take centuries, it may not. If the end result is the same regardless of the amount of time needed to bring it about, does it truly matter?

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)?

Can you name a single society targeted by Shari'ah that was just and equitable? Consider this question and perhaps you'll begin to recognize a trend. The jizya is paid by non-Muslim males of fighting age in exchange for exemption from military service. There are other payments, namely zakah, that are exclusive to Muslims.

Do you have any evidence that Shari'ah works as a government system in "peace" (or does it only work for wartime)?

'Abdul Hamid I was known for his pacifistic nature. Shari'ah can exist in peace when there is no more oppression of Muslims and all acts of aggression against us cease.

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).

Your insistence on repeating false statements in spite of the incontrovertible proof that has been presented to you only underscores the weakness of your argument. Can you prove that the "followers have no say"?

And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and whose affairs are conducted by counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them... - 42:38​

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

Is this question about Muslims in general or is it directed at me specifically?

 

[GHook93]

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.

The Jews don't even have their own courts in Israel, ya Turkish Whore!

 

[GHook93]

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.

I wonder why the Islamic world was so prosperous relative to the rest of the world when it followed Shari'ah? Why does the opposite seem to be true about Europe and Christianity?

Yes after the Muslim Arab Crusades where they took North Africa, the entire Arabian Pennisula, Afghanistan, Pakistan, into India, Turkey, Up into the Balkans, Iran, and even into Europe (Spain and Portugal), an age of Muslim enlightenment took place.

After the Arabs were stopped by the Franks the enlightenment age started. However, nothing is ever stated about Sharia being practiced in Islamic Spain. Actually its quite the opposite!

BBC - Religions - Islam: Muslim Spain (711-1492)
The Golden Age
The Muslim period in Spain is often described as a 'golden age' of learning where libraries, colleges, public baths were established and literature, poetry and architecture flourished. Both Muslims and non-Muslims made major contributions to this flowering of culture.

A Golden Age of religious tolerance?
Islamic Spain is sometimes described as a 'golden age' of religious and ethnic tolerance and interfaith harmony between Muslims, Christians and Jews.

Some historians believe this idea of a golden age is false and might lead modern readers to believe, wrongly, that Muslim Spain was tolerant by the standards of 21st century Britain.

The true position is more complicated. The distinguished historian Bernard Lewis wrote that the status of non-Muslims in Islamic Spain was a sort of second-class citizenship but he went on to say:


Second-class citizenship, though second class, is a kind of citizenship. It involves some rights, though not all, and is surely better than no rights at all...

...A recognized status, albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular assent, is not to be despised.


Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, 1984

Life for non-Muslims in Islamic Spain
Jews and Christians did retain some freedom under Muslim rule, providing they obeyed certain rules. Although these rules would now be considered completely unacceptable, they were not much of a burden by the standards of the time, and in many ways the non-Muslims of Islamic Spain (at least before 1050) were treated better than conquered peoples might have expected during that period of history.

they were not forced to live in ghettoes or other special locations
they were not slaves
they were not prevented from following their faith
they were not forced to convert or die under Muslim rule
they were not banned from any particular ways of earning a living; they often took on jobs shunned by Muslims;
these included unpleasant work such as tanning and butchery
but also pleasant jobs such as banking and dealing in gold and silver
they could work in the civil service of the Islamic rulers
Jews and Christians were able to contribute to society and culture
The alternative view to the Golden Age of Tolerance is that Jews and Christians were severely restricted in Muslim Spain, by being forced to live in a state of 'dhimmitude'. (A dhimmi is a non-Muslim living in an Islamic state who is not a slave, but does not have the same rights as a Muslim living in the same state.)

In Islamic Spain, Jews and Christians were tolerated if they:

acknowledged Islamic superiority
accepted Islamic power
paid a tax called Jizya to the Muslim rulers and sometimes paid higher rates of other taxes
avoided blasphemy
did not try to convert Muslims
complied with the rules laid down by the authorities. These included:
restrictions on clothing and the need to wear a special badge
restrictions on building synagogues and churches
not allowed to carry weapons
could not receive an inheritance from a Muslim
could not bequeath anything to a Muslim
could not own a Muslim slave
a dhimmi man could not marry a Muslim woman (but the reverse was acceptable)
a dhimmi could not give evidence in an Islamic court
dhimmis would get lower compensation than Muslims for the same injury
At times there were restrictions on practicing one's faith too obviously. Bell-ringing or chanting too loudly were frowned on and public processions were restricted.

Many Christians in Spain assimilated parts of the Muslim culture. Some learned Arabic, some adopted the same clothes as their rulers (some Christian women even started wearing the veil); some took Arabic names. Christians who did this were known as Mozarabs.

The Muslim rulers didn't give their non-Muslim subjects equal status; as Bat Ye'or has stated, the non-Muslims came definitely at the bottom of society.

Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the dhimmi Christians and Jews.

Bat Ye'or, Islam and Dhimmitude, 2002

The Muslims did not explicitly hate or persecute the non-Muslims. As Bernard Lewis puts it:

in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims is one not of hate or fear or envy but simply of contempt

Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, 1984

An example of this contempt is found in this 12th century ruling:

A Muslim must not massage a Jew or a Christian nor throw away his refuse nor clean his latrines. The Jew and the Christian are better fitted for such trades, since they are the trades of those who are vile.

12th Century ruling

 

[Jos]

The Beth Din of America is a Beth Din (Court of Jewish Law) which serves Jews throughout the United States of America.

Beth Din of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jewish Divorce - Jewish Dispute Resolution – Bet Din

A beth din, beit din or beis din (Hebrew: בית דין, "house of judgment"; plural battei din) is a rabbinical court of Judaism. In ancient times, it was the building block of the legal system in the Biblical Land of Israel. Today, it is invested with legal powers in a number of religious matters (din Torah, "matter of litigation," plural dinei Torah) both in Israel and in Jewish communities in the Diaspora, where its judgments hold varying degrees of authority

Beth din - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kalam]

Yes after the Muslim Arab Crusades where they took North Africa, the entire Arabian Pennisula, Afghanistan, Pakistan, into India, Turkey, Up into the Balkans, Iran, and even into Europe (Spain and Portugal), an age of Muslim enlightenment took place.

After the Arabs were stopped by the Franks the enlightenment age started. However, nothing is ever stated about Sharia being practiced in Islamic Spain. Actually its quite the opposite!

It wasn't the opposite by any means. The governments of Al-Andalus were mostly Islamic in character, but were led in many cases by sexual deviants and other sinners who were unfit to be called Commanders of the Faithful.

You're aware that Jews flocked to the Ottoman Empire during the Inquisition, correct?

 

[Rezonator]

SUNG: "My, my, my Sharia!"

 

[Rezonator]

COME ON—SING ALONG! "My, my, my Sharia!"

 

[Kalam]

Can we get someone in here to clean up this giant pile of excrement that someone left in the middle of the thread?

 

[GHook93]

It wasn't the opposite by any means. The governments of Al-Andalus were mostly Islamic in character, but were led in many cases by sexual deviants and other sinners who were unfit to be called Commanders of the Faithful.

True, but the golden age of Islamic Enlightened occured after Spain fell. Muslims were the leaders in science, literature and cultural advancements. At that time they were not enforcing Sharia Law!

You're aware that Jews flocked to the Ottoman Empire during the Inquisition, correct?

Some did, but most went to neighboring European countries and Morocco!

 

[Hister]

Can we get someone in here to clean up this giant pile of excrement that someone left in the middle of the thread?

You ran out of toilet paper? You finally decided to get right with Allah.

 

[Rezonator]

Can we get someone in here to clean up this giant pile of excrement that someone left in the middle of the thread?

Kalam, I'm shocked! Is that any way for a good slave to talk? By the way, why are you a slave, Kalam? That's something I'd like to understand better, and you seem reticent to talk about it. Aren't you proud to be a good slave?

 

[logical4u]

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.

I wonder why the Islamic world was so prosperous relative to the rest of the world when it followed Shari'ah? Why does the opposite seem to be true about Europe and Christianity?

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"?

If you read the article, it says that their status was elevated above serfdom.


I think I've provided plenty of evidence showing that it has on multiple occasions. You seem to be opining that if a society doesn't last into perpetuity, it is a "failure." Could it be that you're simply unwilling to recognize the benefits of Shari'i governance and are coming up with impossible standards in an attempt to discredit it?


It takes more than a few decades to build a utopia from ashes. These kinds of questions were addressed by Sayyid Qutb. It may take centuries, it may not. If the end result is the same regardless of the amount of time needed to bring it about, does it truly matter?


Can you name a single society targeted by Shari'ah that was just and equitable? Consider this question and perhaps you'll begin to recognize a trend. The jizya is paid by non-Muslim males of fighting age in exchange for exemption from military service. There are other payments, namely zakah, that are exclusive to Muslims.



'Abdul Hamid I was known for his pacifistic nature. Shari'ah can exist in peace when there is no more oppression of Muslims and all acts of aggression against us cease.

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).

Your insistence on repeating false statements in spite of the incontrovertible proof that has been presented to you only underscores the weakness of your argument. Can you prove that the "followers have no say"?

And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and whose affairs are conducted by counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them... - 42:38​

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

Is this question about Muslims in general or is it directed at me specifically?

You still did not answer the question about the examples you gave.... Were those leaders of conquest or immediately following conquest when other territories were "paying" tribute (in other words, another society's resources)?

Not only will you not answer the question, you remove it from your answering post, maybe you think others will forget that you were asked the same question, four times.

You say how great they were for the muslim people at that time, but refuse to acknowledge they were living off of plunder from their conquest of all the surrounding territory. I got that from the links you gave, if you are saying the links are wrong, it is from you. My point was that you provided NO evidence that Shari'ah will hold a society together without another culture's money/resources.

As for the question of money given to islam being assigned to jihad, that is both for you personally (since you volunteered that you use Shari'ah, in your personal life), and for muslims in general?

You keep calling me a liar, but I see no evidence (without qualifiers) to prove my statements incorrect. I have said that I do not know the Quran. I am making observations off of "your" statements, links, and what I see in the world (islam takes poverty and misery to any country where the muslim population increases over 50%).
The ME has people that have money beyond our comprehension from oil revenues. Why isn't that used to improve the living standard for every citizen? Why don't you see "muslim charities" that are actually used to improve the standard of living for the poorest living among islam countries?

 

[Kalam]

You still did not answer the question about the examples you gave.... Were those leaders of conquest or immediately following conquest when other territories were "paying" tribute (in other words, another society's resources)?

I answered your question directly. 'Abdul Hamid I did not conquer anything; military expenditures were reduced during his tenure due to his pacifistic nature. Even "leaders of conquest" did not subsist off of plunder. Taking anything from civilians in enemy territory without full compensation is forbidden in Shari'ah.

Not only will you not answer the question, you remove it from your answering post, maybe you think others will forget that you were asked the same question, four times.

That's funny -- I'm looking at my last post as I type this and I see both parts of the question that I already answered. Do you need someone to point it out for you?

You say how great they were for the muslim people at that time, but refuse to acknowledge they were living off of plunder from their conquest of all the surrounding territory. I got that from the links you gave, if you are saying the links are wrong, it is from you.

Can you please provide evidence from any of those links that most of the Ummah's subsistence came from plunder?

My point was that you provided NO evidence that Shari'ah will hold a society together without another culture's money/resources.

It would first be necessary for you to provide specific evidence to support your claims, something you have consistently failed to do...

As for the question of money given to islam being assigned to jihad, that is both for you personally

No.

(since you volunteered that you use Shari'ah, in your personal life), and for muslims in general?

I suppose it varies from person to person.

You keep calling me a liar, but I see no evidence (without qualifiers) to prove my statements incorrect.

Was the Qur'anic ayah that directly contradicted your claim not sufficient?

I have said that I do not know the Quran.

Yet your participation in this argument implies that you think your knowledge of Shari'ah is sufficient to reject it categorically...

I am making observations off of "your" statements, links, and what I see in the world (islam takes poverty and misery to any country where the muslim population increases over 50%).

Poverty and misery:
Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're going to keep making asinine statements like that without specific proof, you should stick to posting in the Romper Room.

The ME has people that have money beyond our comprehension from oil revenues. Why isn't that used to improve the living standard for every citizen?

These people?

Saudi Arabia has donated £49 billion in aid in the past three decades - making it the world's most generous donor nation per capita​

Saudis donate aid to non-Muslims - Telegraph

As for those who don't donate, we ask them the same question:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGoD-IzXix8]YouTube - Muhammads in Africa[/ame]

Why don't you see "muslim charities" that are actually used to improve the standard of living for the poorest living among islam countries?

Take your pick.

Islamic Charity - Ummah Welfare Trust (UWT) Commited to 100% Donations
Zakat Foundation of America
Islamic Relief Home
Helping Hand -- for Relief and Development
Hidaya Foundation - Home
Life for Relief and Development: Home
MuslIm Aid Donate Now : Muslim Aid 25 years of serving humanity
Muslim Charity - Home Page

Watch this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA9_bySZgSU]YouTube - Pakistan flood victims receive aid from Jamaat-e-Islami (FRANCE24 Report)[/ame]

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

 

[Old Rocks]

The spread of sharia law to the entire world is part of jihad. In Canada and Britain, jihad is advancing.

The first Sharia Council was begun in Birmingham, England in 1982. Muslim tribunal courts begun passing sharia judgments in August 2007 in Great Britain. In September 2008, Richard Edwards of the Telegraph reported that five sharia courts had been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford, and Manchester, and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The British government had "quietly sanctioned" the sharia courts and made their rulings "enforceable with the full power of the judicial system."

... "the proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgments. Nor is there any real right to appeal." Sharia law is absolute.

By June 2009, "at least 85 Islamic sharia courts" were operating in Britain. This figure was "17 times higher than previously accepted." Academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin stated that "among the [sharia] rulings, we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts."

In a Spring 2010 report entitled "An Unjust Doctrine of Civil Arbitration: Sharia Courts in Canada and England," author Arsani William scrutinizes the gender-biased discrimination of sharia. The report examines the former Canadian Attorney General Marion Boyd's examination about the use of Muslim sharia law in private arbitration. Interestingly, it was Canadian Muslim women who claimed that sharia law would treat women in the Islamic community in ways contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights. Boyd, however, concluded that sharia law would not be problematic when used in private arbitration.

Russel Bywaters, an English lawyer known for his work in marital and inheritance settlements, points to the "horror at Malaysia's attempts to run the two systems -- a civil code/Sharia." The fact that sharia law conflicts with many of the precepts of the Human Rights Act of 1998 makes it incompatible with Canadian law, and it was these fears that "prompted its ousting from the Canadian system."

It behooves every American to seriously consider what is happening as sharia law advocates (e.g., Obama appointee Dalia Mogahed) continue to insinuate their beliefs into this country. As Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the British One Law for All Campaign, has written, "The existence of a parallel legal system that is denying a large section of the British population their fundamental human rights is scandalous." Sharia law is antithetical to freedom and equality. Oklahoma is leading the way and has already established a firewall against sharia law. The evidence continues to mount that the Islamists will keep chipping away if we do not push back, and push back hard!

American Thinker: Sharia Law in Canada and Britain

Conservative Stupidity, it's not just a bumper sticker.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can we get someone in here to clean up this giant pile of excrement that someone left in the middle of the thread?

Kalam, I'm shocked! Is that any way for a good slave to talk? By the way, why are you a slave, Kalam? That's something I'd like to understand better, and you seem reticent to talk about it. Aren't you proud to be a good slave?

Is that the same guy that Bush was kissing?

 

[elvis]

Can we get someone in here to clean up this giant pile of excrement that someone left in the middle of the thread?

Kalam, I'm shocked! Is that any way for a good slave to talk? By the way, why are you a slave, Kalam? That's something I'd like to understand better, and you seem reticent to talk about it. Aren't you proud to be a good slave?

what the hell are you talking about?