Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
kiss my hairy white ass you fucking bigot
Better work on that conversion and learning Arabic my stupid friend.
better saddle soap your triceratops harness, my dimwitted acquaintance.
Now THIS is telling!
If Muslims aren't for forcing sharia on the country, why would they object to a measure banning sharia?
Just two days after Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure banning state courts from considering Islamic or international law when ruling on cases, a local Muslim has filed a federal lawsuit saying the measure is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit against ballot measure, State Question 755 or better known as "Save Our State" -- seeks a temporary restraining order to block the results of the election from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.
Oklahoma residents approved the measure with 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's election.
But Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma who filed the lawsuit, said that the measure is unnecessary because there is no threat of an Islamic takeover of state courts. Muslims make up only 30,000 of the state's nearly 4 million residents less than 1 percent.
Awad said the measure violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it singles out Islam. He said the measure is just another way to politically savage Muslims.
Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure - FoxNews.com
Two things I notice?
The law banning sharia is "unnecessary?"
Well then why worry about banning it?
It would be like OK banning opening umbrellas during a zombie apocalypse.
If you don't think there will ever BE a zombie apocalypse, why worry then about the law? It will never effect you, so let the electorate look silly voting for such a law.
BUT, if you intend to FORCE sharia to be the law of the land, THAT is why you object.
And he cites the first amendment as a reason to object to such a law?
HOW is the first amendment served by FORCING a religious law on ANYONE?
I mean if YOU choose to privately live by sharia (where it doesn't violate already known law, like I don't think we are going to let ANYONE stone someone to death), well goody for you!
But sharia isn't about voluntary compliance. It's about FORCING people to live under the edicts of Islam.
THAT is the only reason to object to such a law.
CAIR reveals what they are really about with this law suit.
And people thought OK was being silly putting this on the ballot.
That CAIR objects reveals they weren't being silly.
THIS is very telling.
The problem with allowing someone to 'privately' live under Sharia law is that it would be illegal for, say, a Catholic or a Baptist to beat his wife, but a muslim would be legally beating his wife in 'private.' Our law is today makes it illegal for anyone to beat his wife.
Allowing the practice of Sharia in private would give them the right to stone to death any woman ajudicated, in private of course, of adultery. Keep it private and you can stone one another to death under Sharia.
Your logic is a little skewed.
Believe it or not, the courts have gone around on this one before. If you don't believe it have a big camp meeting that involves the handling or snakes, or refuse to allow your sick child a blood transfusion for religious reasons. You will see how fast the courts will get involved with the 'private' pratice of your religion.
That's a conundrum. But as far as I can tell the Jewish religion does not treat their women like shit.
It seems like polygamous families in Utah are getting away with violating the law. No one can say with certainty that judges don't consider religion and culture in their decisions. This was a pre-emptive statute that will prevent that. Good for OK. If ME immigrants don't trust the US system, then move back to the fucking desert. Or Utah.
Not all Muslims are ME immigrants, Chanel. Many were born and bred here. They have as much right to be here as anyone else. As do immigrants who choose to come here.
This law is nothing but bigotry against a religious group. Same as if it were aimed at Catholics or Jews or any other religious group.
Does Sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife, even in America? A New Jersey trial judge thought so. In a recently overturned case, a trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault but did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim. Fortunately, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial judge. But make no mistake about it: this is no isolated incident. We will see more cases here in the United States where others attempt to impose Sharia law, under the guise of First Amendment protections, as a defense against crimes and other civil violations.
To make it all worse, President Obama chose Harold Koh as the legal adviser for the State Department. Harold Koh says that theres nothing wrong with Sharia law. The
NY Post reported that:
JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations legal norms. Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an axis of disobedience along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.
Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US governments top lawyers: Harold Koh.
President Obama has nominated Koh until last week the dean of Yale Law School to be the State Departments legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
Its a job where you want a strong defender of Americas sovereignty. But thats not Koh. Hes a fan of transnational legal process, arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.
What would this look like in a practical sense?Weve seen Sharia courts at work
Fleeing Sharia Law in America?
The plight of an Ohio teen who fled her Muslim family last month for fear that her father would kill her for becoming a Christian should be a wake up call to those folks with the naïve Coexist bumper stickers.
In fact, it should be a smack upside the head to those who insist Americas liberties are unrelated to our heritage as a Christian nation.
Rifqa Bary, 17, who took a bus to Orlando in late July, is awaiting a custody hearing that might send her back to her family, or to Sri Lanka, either of which she says would be a death sentence. In some Muslim circles, the penalty for leaving the faith or dallying with the wrong man is an honor killing.
In July 2008, a Pakistani man living near Atlanta was charged with beating his 25-year-old daughter to death for declining to go along with an arranged marriage to a cousin twice her age.
In Irving, Texas, on New Years Day 2008, Amina Said, 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot to death by their father for having unsanctioned boyfriends.
In Canada, where hate speech laws are strangling public discussion of any unpleasant aspects of militant Islam, certain segments of the growing Muslim population are applying Sharia law to wayward females. About a dozen cases have arisen, according to Amin Muhammad, a professor at Memorial University in Newfoundland. A much-cited 2001 stat from the United Nations Population Fund estimates the worldwide number of honor killings at 5,000 annually.
In Kingston, Ontario, the Shafia sisters -- Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13, -- were found dead in a submerged car on June 30, 2009, with their father's first wife, Rona Mohammed, 50. The sisters' parents and 18-year-old brother have been charged with four counts of first-degree murder in what police suspect is an honor killing.
In May, an Ottawa jury convicted an Indian native born to Afghan parents of gunning down his 20-year-old sister and her fiancé in 2006 because the couple had moved in together before their wedding.
On Dec. 10, 2007, Aqsa Parvez, a 16-year-old Ontario girl who fought with her parents over not wearing a hajib, was stabbed to death by her father in an honor killing while her mother held her down.
In St. Johns, Newfoundland, a 14-year-old girl who had been a rape victim was strangled in 2004 by her father and brother in order to restore the familys honor.
In England, which is struggling with an aggressive Muslim minority demanding that the British legal system incorporates Sharia, a father and uncle were convicted on July 29, 2007 of arranging the torture, rape and murder of a 20-year-old Kurdish immigrant woman who had walked out of a marriage arranged when she was 17 and had fallen in love with another man.
The killings are hauntingly similar to events taking place in largely Muslim countries.
The Jordan Times reports that a man in Amman was charged on August 11 with shooting his niece, a rape victim, nine times. The 16-year-old girl had been raped by two relatives and had given birth to a child. Although the girls father had taken her to the hospital and supported her, the uncle killed his niece to cleanse his familys honor, a source told the paper.
In Pakistan, an attorney shocked lawmakers a year ago by defending the honor killing of five women who were beaten, shot and then buried alive because some of them wanted to choose which man to marry.
These are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them, Israr Ullah Zehri, who represents Baluchistan province, said to Pakistans parliament, according to the AP. Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid.
Sharia law flies in the face of the laws of the US and its individual states - and, moreover, in the "laws" of human decency. In America we don't prosecute and condemn rape victims to prison or execution - we prosecute and imprison the perpetrator. Rape is not a crime of passion. Same with murder - the perpetrator gets punished. While theft is against the law in the US, we don't chop off hands and/or arms as punishment. I know of NO OTHER religion on the face of the earth - Christianity, Judaism, Buddism, Shinto, or any other - that requires the harsh, unjust outcomes of Sharia law as payment for some real crime or imagined "crime."
Laws in this country are supposed to be applied equally across the board to everyone. If these people want Sharia law, then they should go back to wherever the hell it is they came from so they can carry out their despicable actions.
And they wonder why the world looks upon them with such destain?
That's a conundrum. But as far as I can tell the Jewish religion does not treat their women like shit.
It seems like polygamous families in Utah are getting away with violating the law. No one can say with certainty that judges don't consider religion and culture in their decisions. This was a pre-emptive statute that will prevent that. Good for OK. If ME immigrants don't trust the US system, then move back to the fucking desert. Or Utah.
Not all Muslims are ME immigrants, Chanel. Many were born and bred here. They have as much right to be here as anyone else. As do immigrants who choose to come here.
I realize that CG. But I don't think it's native Muslim Americans that would be pushing for Sharia Courts. Just a hunch.
Of course many immigrants have the right to come here. But they do not have the right to demand that our laws be changed to accomodate them. I stand by my statement.
you know what i notice?
you're a fucking idiot
Based on what? You are on the side of CAIR?
Nice to have that on record!
no, based on your complete inability to post in the correct forum.
idiot.
Sharia law is already forbidden under the United States Constitution.
Your hysteria is nothing but hysteria.
One, it is a law that isn't needed. Laws that aren't needed are a waste of time and money.IF sharia is already forbidden in the US Constitution, then why object a ballot initiative that says so.
The same people who are screaming that it could never happen here are the same ones who will say there's nothing wrong with it if and when it comes to their state. That's how it creeps.
Fortunately there are people who could give a rat's ass about being called Islamophobic when it comes to stopping this shit.
"If Muslims aren't for forcing sharia on the country, why would they object to a measure banning sharia?"
Because there are idiot Muslims as well as in other religions.
