Creeping Sharia - It's not just a bumper sticker

[jillian]

And? Maybe you should ignore trash like Town Hall.

 

[jillian]

So then that's a yes? Got it.

You really are coming across as a simpleton on this.....

...life is not about simple yes and no's.

...Making a decision on a subject takes critical thinking - something you are refusing to do.

You state that I agree with Sharia courts. I posted no such thing. I disagreed, sat on the fence, and also agree with it depending on how it is applied.

Maybe you are only capable of thinking in simplistic terms. As you are a conservative, this does not surprise me.

you sure she's refusing to engage in critical thinking? perhaps she's just incapable and we should feel sorry for her.

 

[Dr Grump]

From the May edition of Townhall Magazine:

"With the growing controversy surrounding the proposed Mosque at Ground Zero we felt this article, featured in the May issue of Townhall Magazine, should be revisited.

"America is under attack from within.

"If you're like most Americans, you're likely unfamiliar with the Muslim Brotherhood--their history and their agenda.

"Our fellow citizens need to know that the Muslim Brotherhood is leading the way for radical Muslims to infiltrate American society and government. Their goal is simple: control the United States and impose Shariah law.

"Don't think this is a realistic threat? Well, they've already started."

And David Koresh wanted the US to think he was God
The weathermen wanted anarchy
The Black panthers wanted a black america
The KKK wanted a white America
The Nation of Islam want all black people in the US to be Muslim

How's it worked out for those institutions?

 

[Dr Grump]

you sure she's refusing to engage in critical thinking? perhaps she's just incapable and we should feel sorry for her.

Possibly...we'll see what she comes back with....

 

[AquaAthena]

From the May edition of Townhall Magazine:

"With the growing controversy surrounding the proposed Mosque at Ground Zero we felt this article, featured in the May issue of Townhall Magazine, should be revisited.

"America is under attack from within.

"If you're like most Americans, you're likely unfamiliar with the Muslim Brotherhood--their history and their agenda.

"Our fellow citizens need to know that the Muslim Brotherhood is leading the way for radical Muslims to infiltrate American society and government. Their goal is simple: control the United States and impose Shariah law.

"Don't think this is a realistic threat? Well, they've already started."

And from Kevin McCullough:

SNIP:

Simply put Muslims number close to 1 billion and nearly 2 million muslims on the planet wish to kill those who refuse to convert... like me.

No Mr. President, these are not merely people that have taken a "good world religion" and "hi-jacked it" or "perverted it." To say as much is to be even more dishonest than all the ninnies running around claiming that you have some secret wardrobe in the people's house where you choose to bow the knee to Mecca or Medina

Townhall.com

 

[chanel]

Ah Jillian - your insults are getting so boring. This is not a complicated question. Do you or do you not support the British system of Sharia Courts? Dr. Grump has stated the following:

To answer your question.
Do I like or not like Sharia law. It is not a yes or no answer. There are degrees of answer.
1) Sharia law as it is practised in Saudi Arabia and The Sudan and Iran. ABSOLUTELY SUCKS. So the answer is no.
2) Sharia law as it is applied on moderate Muslim countries who aren't so strict about it. Depends. In some cities in Pakistan it is handled in an even, fair manner, but in Pushtan and the Hindu Kush which are still stuck in the 18th century, they are a little more literal. So the answer is yes and no.
3) As it is practiced in England, where they are small, petty disputes that don't tie up courts (ie tax payers money), where both parties have to agree to the outcome and it doesn't - and never will -supercede British law? I think it is a yes.

You stated:

There are jewish courts called Bet Din that deal with issues between members of the orthodox jewish community. it doesn't supercede state or federal law. it is just a means of internal dispute resolution.... including the granting of religious divorce since they don't recognize civil divorce as effective in dissolving a religious bond.

it is no different than the catholic church granting anulments.

why would i feel threatened if the muslim community avails itself of something similar? why would you?

I have clearly shown that Sharia in Britain is not just "granting anulments".

Why can't libs answer a simple yes or no question? This is not about the degree of Sharia Law. This about the permissability of the British system here in the U.S. Yes or no?

 

[jillian]

Ah Jillian - your insults are getting so boring. This is not a complicated question. Do you or do you not support the British system of Sharia Courts? Dr. Grump has stated the following:

To answer your question.
Do I like or not like Sharia law. It is not a yes or no answer. There are degrees of answer.
1) Sharia law as it is practised in Saudi Arabia and The Sudan and Iran. ABSOLUTELY SUCKS. So the answer is no.
2) Sharia law as it is applied on moderate Muslim countries who aren't so strict about it. Depends. In some cities in Pakistan it is handled in an even, fair manner, but in Pushtan and the Hindu Kush which are still stuck in the 18th century, they are a little more literal. So the answer is yes and no.
3) As it is practiced in England, where they are small, petty disputes that don't tie up courts (ie tax payers money), where both parties have to agree to the outcome and it doesn't - and never will -supercede British law? I think it is a yes.

You stated:

There are jewish courts called Bet Din that deal with issues between members of the orthodox jewish community. it doesn't supercede state or federal law. it is just a means of internal dispute resolution.... including the granting of religious divorce since they don't recognize civil divorce as effective in dissolving a religious bond.

it is no different than the catholic church granting anulments.

why would i feel threatened if the muslim community avails itself of something similar? why would you?

I have clearly shown that Sharia in Britain is not just "granting anulments".

Why can't libs answer a simple yes or no question? This is not about the degree of Sharia Law. This about the permissability of the British system here in the U.S. Yes or no?

you've shown nothing except a continued refusal to be honest. unlike grump, i don't think it's intentional though. i think you're just really ignorant. if it is intentional, you're worse than ignorant.

bummer re the insults. feel free to up your game. we're rooting for you.

 

[chanel]

Ha ha. I'll take that a yes as well. Thanks for sharing that useless post.

I'm sure there's some Alinsky rule about never answering a direct question. So predictable. And boring.

 

[AquaAthena]

Ha ha. I'll take that a yes as well. Thanks for sharing that useless post.

I'm sure there's some Alinsky rule about never answering a direct question. So predictable. And boring.

I like that I don't have exposure to her comments.... And as I have informed her.

 

[jillian]

Ha ha. I'll take that a yes as well. Thanks for sharing that useless post.

I'm sure there's some Alinsky rule about never answering a direct question. So predictable. And boring.

you're the one obsessed with alinsky. not me.

but keep on lying, nutbar.

 

[jillian]

Ha ha. I'll take that a yes as well. Thanks for sharing that useless post.

I'm sure there's some Alinsky rule about never answering a direct question. So predictable. And boring.

I like that I don't have exposure to her comments.... And as I have informed her.

*yawn*

it's funny how the worst hacks are the ones who get all bent out of shape the quickest.

and someone who ostensibly has me on ignore shouldn't be commenting about me. but feel free to think you're a decent person.

 

[Modbert]

I've never seen one person on the left here ever talk about following Alinsky's book. If anyone is obsessed with the man and his book, it's righties on here.

 

[jillian]

I've never seen one person on the left here ever talk about following Alinsky's book. If anyone is obsessed with the man and his book, it's righties on here.

they do that because they know how they work. so the hacks figure everyone else does what they do.

isn't the 'ihopehefails' crowd embarrassing?

 

[RadiomanATL]

I think it's more dishonesty...but that is my opinion.

Possibly.

The problem with this board is there are a few conservatives on here who are absolutely stupid (Willow and Steph for example). Then there are those that are very bright, but are diliberately obtuse and word smith thinking they are being smart, but even they know they are taking the piss (PC and Meister come to mind).

The only people the latter are fooling are the former. Lefties and centrists can see them coming a mile away....and I'm not too sure which category Chanel falls into....yet.

You're leaving out conservatives like myself.

We are a minority, but we do exist.

 

[Queen]

If there is one thing I have learned in 45 years, is never underestimate the power of leftist guilt, and it's desire to comfort it.
Sharia courts in America?
It would in no way surprise me.

You're out of your fucking mind.

Liberals are the only ones fighting to defend the constitution these days.

It's the right who wants to dismantle our laws and take up new ones to punish Mexicans and others who aren't white Christian males.

Our Constitution gives the feds the "authority" to protect our borders; are they doing that?
Why that answer would be NO.

There are more people being deported now than at any time during the Bush administration. There are more guards at the border now than at any time during the Bush administration. There are less illegal immigrants getting through the border than at any time during the Bush administration.

Our Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the individual CITIZEN; are they doing that?

The Constitution was designed to PREVENT the US government from infringing on the rights of US PERSONS. US persons are anyone on US soil or in the custody of the US government.

Why the answer would be NO, they are trying to void the Constitution by passing the healthcare bill, unethically and against the majority of the population.

The constitution has nothing to do with healthcare. The majority of Americans WANT health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions and kids up to the age of 25 to stay on their parent's policies. They don't want the insurance companies to be able to kick them off the policy when they get seriously ill.

They are trying to give LAWBREAKERS all the benefits of citizens while empowering them to continue breaking the laws (that would be the ILLEGAL immigrants).

That's silly. No one's trying to do that.

Our Constitution's Bill of Rights states that the freedom of speech shall not be infringed; did our government honor that?
Why, the answer would be NO; there is now legislation to prohibit speech under the guise of "hate crimes".

Freedom of speech ends when you're infringing on the rights of your neighbor. Don't use the constitution to spread hate and hurt other people.

Our Constitution supports the individual.
Our government supports elevating groups (based on race, religion, sexual preference) over the rights of the individual.

False. Give examples of this ridiculous assertion.

Shari'ah is against individual rights and gives ABSOLUTE POWER (and we all know the saying about power) to a small group, while subjugating the rest of the population. No wonder the leftist radicals are supporting it.

Who are these mystery leftist radicals?

Is some right wing radio talker telling you wacky stories again?

 

[Dr Grump]

Yet another thread where alarmits neocons whackjobs (not you Radioman!) are honed, boned and owned....

 

[Queen]

Yet another thread where alarmist neocons whackjobs (not you Radioman!) are honed, boned and owned....

Fun ain't it?

 

[Dr Grump]

Yet another thread where alarmist neocons whackjobs (not you Radioman!) are honed, boned and owned....

Fun ain't it?

Seriously? I used to think so. Really did. Then I began to realise that people who think like this actually have traction in society and are allowed to vote.

Honestly? Wouldn't be a problem if they didn't effect outcomes that affect me.

So, while it is fun, it is a little scary too....and sad...

 

[chanel]

Yes. We should take away the vote from people we disagree with.

Back to topic: The leading opposition to Sharia in Canada were Muslim women. Canada got it right.

A staunch crusader against the new law is social activist Homa Arjomand who fled Iran in 1989 with her husband and two toddlers after being tipped off that her life was in danger. She has set up an International Campaign Against Setting Up Sharia Court in Canada which has already been signed up by thousands of women. The petition states that the proposed Sharia tribunals are anti-freedom, anti-women, misogynist, anti-modernist and racist. It calls for religion to be declared the private affair of the individual and complete separation of religion from education for children under age 16 as well as prohibition of inhuman religious ceremonies and practice of religion that is incompatible with people’s civil rights and liberties.

The petition states, “We believe that all people who live in Canada are citizens with equal rights and should live according to same social laws and norms. We do not divide society into cultural, religious, national and racial majorities and minorities. We stand for equal and universal laws and freedoms for all humanity, which should embrace all, irrespective of sex, race, ethnicity.”

Arjomand cites a case to bring home the fact that Muslim law and secular law can be at odds. “I have a client in Toronto,” she states, “who was taken out of school by her parents at the age of 15 and was pushed to marry a 29 year old man under the Sharia law. According to the eyes of the Sharia they are married but according to the Canadian legal system they are not. At the age of 16 this young pregnant girl is going through separation because of abuse (verbal, mental, financial and sexual). In a secular court, the fact that she was forced to marry at a young age is considered a crime and her husband will be charged for assault and child abuse. As for her parents, they too will be charged…..however, in the eyes of the Sharia tribunal no crime has taken place and the matter is civil and can be resolved.”

She also cited another case where a Pakistani Canadian lady banker used to give all her salary to her husband and had to ask him for money even to buy a cup of coffee. She wanted to keep just $50 per month for her needs but the husband refused. They took the matter to an elder who decreed that because the wife had disobeyed her husband he could stop having sexual relations with her and could take another “temporary” wife to satisfy his needs. The woman now wants a divorce but is devastated because according to Sharia the custody of the children goes to the father.

Sharia Law: A Canadian Controversy

Freedom of religion?

 

[Dr Grump]

No, you should take away the vote from people who do not have the ability to think critically.