Sharia!

[PoliticalChic]

1.It’s the ‘constitution’ of Islam. And when a member of that movement is asked to decide whether they answer to our Constitution, or to sharia, we know whether we have a citizen of America, or a fifth columnist.


In America, the Constitution is the ‘law of the land,’ we are not a theocracy, and that should be clear to all. The Constitution is the only law the people of the United States have agreed to be governed by.

“Now we are faced with the same kind of threat that has been seen in the past-a system of compulsory laws which has the use of force at its very core and which claims to emanate from God. It is called Sharia Law.
… concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as Shariah.” The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law



But the elected leader of our nation won’t allow it to be accepted in our country……will they?


2.Don’t get your hopes up. Here is the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, papering the way for sharia in America:

“…on the whole and with legally imposed hard limitations, sharia courts, using Islamic law, can adapt to the American experience and become a part of the religious arbitration landscape of America.

Islamic courts are becoming common in North America. Muslims are building religious communities in America, and religious courts are part of the structure of many of these communities. These so-called sharia tribunals do what courts everywhere do: They provide a means for hearing and resolving disputes between members of their communities.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...america/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d3b0262ceb1f



3. And if you don’t agree, well….you’re bigoted, small-minded, Islamophobic, …and fearful.

“…of course, there are a lot of people who are just haters of all things Muslim,…”

Sounds a lot like the Muslim President… “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…”





4. While the Great Yogi made the point, “'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future',” if we look to the UK, our sister nation,we may see the march of sharia into the public arena. In England, Islam has no intention of remaining either moderate, nor a minority.


Small pockets of Muslim-majority towns and communities demand that they be governed by sharia…..but with a far wider intention. Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), the aim is clear and evident in Britain.


And America?

That depends......

 

[DGS49]

Well...if Muslims in America CHOOSE to be subject to Sharia law and Sharia courts, they are simply an overlay on the criminal justice system and the civil court system, not a substitute.

Say I have a disagreement (or a family dispute) with my neighbor about a business transaction, and we both agree to have it adjudicated by a Sharia judge. Who cares? If both parties are agreeable.

Unless their is a conflict - say w/r/t polygamy - who cares?

And the way our courts are going, polygamy will be "legal" here within a generation anyway.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well...if Muslims in America CHOOSE to be subject to Sharia law and Sharia courts, they are simply an overlay on the criminal justice system and the civil court system, not a substitute.

Say I have a disagreement (or a family dispute) with my neighbor about a business transaction, and we both agree to have it adjudicated by a Sharia judge. Who cares? If both parties are agreeable.

Unless their is a conflict - say w/r/t polygamy - who cares?

And the way our courts are going, polygamy will be "legal" here within a generation anyway.

Arbitration is a big business over here and cheaper than going to court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well...if Muslims in America CHOOSE to be subject to Sharia law and Sharia courts, they are simply an overlay on the criminal justice system and the civil court system, not a substitute.

Say I have a disagreement (or a family dispute) with my neighbor about a business transaction, and we both agree to have it adjudicated by a Sharia judge. Who cares? If both parties are agreeable.

Unless their is a conflict - say w/r/t polygamy - who cares?

And the way our courts are going, polygamy will be "legal" here within a generation anyway.

The handwriting's on the wall.....


5. “…Britain is sleepwalking into its relentless transformation. In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States, which explained the Islamic Agenda in Europe. When Muslims lived as a minority, it said, they faced theological problems, because classical Islamic teaching always presupposed a context of Islamic dominance. The book told Muslims to organize themselves with the aim of establishing a viable Muslim community, to set up mosques, community centers and Islamic schools. The ultimate goal of this strategy was that the Muslims should become a majority and the entire nation be governed according to Islam.

A poll conducted by the Guardian newspaper found that 61 percent of British Muslims wanted to be governed by Islamic law, operating on Sharia principles—"so long as the penalties did not contravene British law." A clear majority wanted Islamic law introduced into Britain in civil cases relating to their own community. In addition, 88 percent wanted to see British schools and workplaces accommodating Muslim prayer times as part of their normal working day.


The Association of Muslim Lawyers went even further, saying that it wanted formal recognition of a Muslim man's right under Sharia law to have up to four wives. Ahmad Thomson, a member of the AML, said: "Under the Human Rights Act they actually have a right to live and practise as Muslims and part of that is having this principle recognised by the law of the land." Thomson, who has given the Blair government legal advice on official recognition of the Sharia legal system, is now one of the advisers to the British government on dealing with Muslim extremism.” Phillips, “Londonistan,” p.96-97




How do you suppose American jurists…..deeply enmeshed in Liberal activism, will respond?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Well...if Muslims in America CHOOSE to be subject to Sharia law and Sharia courts, they are simply an overlay on the criminal justice system and the civil court system, not a substitute.

Say I have a disagreement (or a family dispute) with my neighbor about a business transaction, and we both agree to have it adjudicated by a Sharia judge. Who cares? If both parties are agreeable.

Unless their is a conflict - say w/r/t polygamy - who cares?

And the way our courts are going, polygamy will be "legal" here within a generation anyway.

So, if lets say you happen to walk out of a Muslim store and you forgot that you put a pack of gum in your pocket, you have now been caught doing theft. By Sharia law, you are to lose your right hand. Is this what you want?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Well...if Muslims in America CHOOSE to be subject to Sharia law and Sharia courts, they are simply an overlay on the criminal justice system and the civil court system, not a substitute.

Say I have a disagreement (or a family dispute) with my neighbor about a business transaction, and we both agree to have it adjudicated by a Sharia judge. Who cares? If both parties are agreeable.

Unless their is a conflict - say w/r/t polygamy - who cares?

And the way our courts are going, polygamy will be "legal" here within a generation anyway.

Arbitration is a big business over here and cheaper than going to court.

Islamic Arbitration.

Murder of Lee Rigby - Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Might be appropriate here to point out what a mistake it would be to allow sharia to even start in this country......you know, 'let the camel get his nose in under the tent......'


6. “In 2008 a Moroccan man and his 17-year old wife immigrated to America.

Not long after she filed a restraining order against him, claiming her husband was raping her. The husband did not deny their sexual relations were non-consensual, but said that in his religion, the wife was supposed to submit and do all that he desired of her. The New Jersey judge found that given his understanding of Islam, he did not intend to commit a crime, and was therefore innocent. The restraining order was denied.

Cases like this set off alarm bells that shariah law is coming to America, and in fact is already here. Called “creeping shariah,” this case is given as just one further example of our nation forsaking its heritage in an effort to be politically correct and yield to the pressures of local Muslims to live by their own laws, and not our own.”
The Application of Sharia Law in the United States

( “…overturned by a higher court which granted the restraining order.” Ibid.)




It is not difficult to see where this is going, with the schools, Democrats, and media preaching that America need be destroyed.

 

[Sunni Man]

Jews living in America have had Beth Din religious arbitration courts for decades in their communities to settle civil disputes based on Torah law.

Sharia arbitration civil courts in America function the same way to settle disputes between Muslim people based on the Qur'an.

Both religious courts do not rule on criminal cases. ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jews living in America have had Beth Din religious arbitration courts for decades in their communities to settle civil disputes based on Torah law.

Sharia arbitration civil courts in America function the same way to settle disputes between Muslim people based on the Qur'an.

Both religious courts do not rule on criminal cases. ...

There is a significant difference, having to do with global aspirations.

But one aims to restrict its spread, while one intends for the entire nation to be under its control.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7.“Shariah is Anti-Constitutional

Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values:

1. the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;

2. the democratic republic governed by the Constitution;

3. freedom of conscience; individual liberty

4. freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);

5. economic liberty (including private property);

6. equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);

7. freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate "resistance"); and

8. an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of our democratic republic, not wanton violence. The subversion campaign known as "civilization jihad" must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework.”
The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law


Could Islam/sharia take over?


Do you know the history of Islam?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jews living in America have had Beth Din religious arbitration courts for decades in their communities to settle civil disputes based on Torah law.

Sharia arbitration civil courts in America function the same way to settle disputes between Muslim people based on the Qur'an.

Both religious courts do not rule on criminal cases. ...

Sunni, I recognize you as the no.1 American patriot.....but in this one area, for obvious reason, we will not be agreeing.

I do look forward to your observations, though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Britain is the ‘canary in the coal mine.’




“As government officials noted, "There are tentative moves towards developing Islamic jurisprudence for Muslims living in Europe and the Western World."

…the aims of the Islamic Sharia Council—the Muslim body that is developing claims for such a parallel jurisprudence—could not be plainer.

Although there is at present no question of English family law being so adapted, there is a slow acceptance of a parallel jurisdiction taking place.



….the British authorities are falling over themselves to help this process along. The Inland Revenue revealed that, after representations from Muslims, it was considering recognizing polygamy for tax purposes. Existing rules allow only one wife for inheritance tax purposes. Officials have agreed to consider relaxing this rule to allow a Muslim with up to four wives to divide his estate between them. And while polygamy is not recognized in English law, Britain is turning a blind eye to the practice. Muslim men are entering into polygamous marriages by going through mosque ceremonies not recognized under English law. This leaves many such "wives" in a parlous state, with no rights to their husband's income, pension, benefits or share of the family home should the relationship break up.”
Phillips, Op. Cit., p. 98


Perhaps they could move to Utah....

 

[Third Party]

1.It’s the ‘constitution’ of Islam. And when a member of that movement is asked to decide whether they answer to our Constitution, or to sharia, we know whether we have a citizen of America, or a fifth columnist.


In America, the Constitution is the ‘law of the land,’ we are not a theocracy, and that should be clear to all. The Constitution is the only law the people of the United States have agreed to be governed by.

“Now we are faced with the same kind of threat that has been seen in the past-a system of compulsory laws which has the use of force at its very core and which claims to emanate from God. It is called Sharia Law.
… concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as Shariah.” The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law



But the elected leader of our nation won’t allow it to be accepted in our country……will they?


2.Don’t get your hopes up. Here is the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, papering the way for sharia in America:

“…on the whole and with legally imposed hard limitations, sharia courts, using Islamic law, can adapt to the American experience and become a part of the religious arbitration landscape of America.

Islamic courts are becoming common in North America. Muslims are building religious communities in America, and religious courts are part of the structure of many of these communities. These so-called sharia tribunals do what courts everywhere do: They provide a means for hearing and resolving disputes between members of their communities.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...america/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d3b0262ceb1f



3. And if you don’t agree, well….you’re bigoted, small-minded, Islamophobic, …and fearful.

“…of course, there are a lot of people who are just haters of all things Muslim,…”

Sounds a lot like the Muslim President… “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…”





4. While the Great Yogi made the point, “'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future',” if we look to the UK, our sister nation,we may see the march of sharia into the public arena. In England, Islam has no intention of remaining either moderate, nor a minority.


Small pockets of Muslim-majority towns and communities demand that they be governed by sharia…..but with a far wider intention. Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), the aim is clear and evident in Britain.


And America?

That depends......

What can you say? Its like Opus Dei whipping themselves. If they do step outside their sacred circle, they will learn Americans have their own ideas about justice.

 

[Vastator]

1.It’s the ‘constitution’ of Islam. And when a member of that movement is asked to decide whether they answer to our Constitution, or to sharia, we know whether we have a citizen of America, or a fifth columnist.


In America, the Constitution is the ‘law of the land,’ we are not a theocracy, and that should be clear to all. The Constitution is the only law the people of the United States have agreed to be governed by.

“Now we are faced with the same kind of threat that has been seen in the past-a system of compulsory laws which has the use of force at its very core and which claims to emanate from God. It is called Sharia Law.
… concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as Shariah.” The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law



But the elected leader of our nation won’t allow it to be accepted in our country……will they?


2.Don’t get your hopes up. Here is the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, papering the way for sharia in America:

“…on the whole and with legally imposed hard limitations, sharia courts, using Islamic law, can adapt to the American experience and become a part of the religious arbitration landscape of America.

Islamic courts are becoming common in North America. Muslims are building religious communities in America, and religious courts are part of the structure of many of these communities. These so-called sharia tribunals do what courts everywhere do: They provide a means for hearing and resolving disputes between members of their communities.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...america/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d3b0262ceb1f



3. And if you don’t agree, well….you’re bigoted, small-minded, Islamophobic, …and fearful.

“…of course, there are a lot of people who are just haters of all things Muslim,…”

Sounds a lot like the Muslim President… “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…”





4. While the Great Yogi made the point, “'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future',” if we look to the UK, our sister nation,we may see the march of sharia into the public arena. In England, Islam has no intention of remaining either moderate, nor a minority.


Small pockets of Muslim-majority towns and communities demand that they be governed by sharia…..but with a far wider intention. Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), the aim is clear and evident in Britain.


And America?

That depends......

All governance is the implied, or explicit use of force. That isn't unique to "Sharia".

 

[Vastator]

8. Britain is the ‘canary in the coal mine.’




“As government officials noted, "There are tentative moves towards developing Islamic jurisprudence for Muslims living in Europe and the Western World."

…the aims of the Islamic Sharia Council—the Muslim body that is developing claims for such a parallel jurisprudence—could not be plainer.

Although there is at present no question of English family law being so adapted, there is a slow acceptance of a parallel jurisdiction taking place.



….the British authorities are falling over themselves to help this process along. The Inland Revenue revealed that, after representations from Muslims, it was considering recognizing polygamy for tax purposes. Existing rules allow only one wife for inheritance tax purposes. Officials have agreed to consider relaxing this rule to allow a Muslim with up to four wives to divide his estate between them. And while polygamy is not recognized in English law, Britain is turning a blind eye to the practice. Muslim men are entering into polygamous marriages by going through mosque ceremonies not recognized under English law. This leaves many such "wives" in a parlous state, with no rights to their husband's income, pension, benefits or share of the family home should the relationship break up.”
Phillips, Op. Cit., p. 98


Perhaps they could move to Utah....

Utah doesn't allow polygamy... Though where the government gets the nerve to get involved in marriage is a question for another thread altogether...

 

[Dogmaphobe]

We should not have parallel legal systems, especially inasmuch as one seeks to supplant the other.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.It’s the ‘constitution’ of Islam. And when a member of that movement is asked to decide whether they answer to our Constitution, or to sharia, we know whether we have a citizen of America, or a fifth columnist.


In America, the Constitution is the ‘law of the land,’ we are not a theocracy, and that should be clear to all. The Constitution is the only law the people of the United States have agreed to be governed by.

“Now we are faced with the same kind of threat that has been seen in the past-a system of compulsory laws which has the use of force at its very core and which claims to emanate from God. It is called Sharia Law.
… concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as Shariah.” The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law



But the elected leader of our nation won’t allow it to be accepted in our country……will they?


2.Don’t get your hopes up. Here is the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, papering the way for sharia in America:

“…on the whole and with legally imposed hard limitations, sharia courts, using Islamic law, can adapt to the American experience and become a part of the religious arbitration landscape of America.

Islamic courts are becoming common in North America. Muslims are building religious communities in America, and religious courts are part of the structure of many of these communities. These so-called sharia tribunals do what courts everywhere do: They provide a means for hearing and resolving disputes between members of their communities.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...america/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d3b0262ceb1f



3. And if you don’t agree, well….you’re bigoted, small-minded, Islamophobic, …and fearful.

“…of course, there are a lot of people who are just haters of all things Muslim,…”

Sounds a lot like the Muslim President… “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…”





4. While the Great Yogi made the point, “'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future',” if we look to the UK, our sister nation,we may see the march of sharia into the public arena. In England, Islam has no intention of remaining either moderate, nor a minority.


Small pockets of Muslim-majority towns and communities demand that they be governed by sharia…..but with a far wider intention. Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), the aim is clear and evident in Britain.


And America?

That depends......

All governance is the implied, or explicit use of force. That isn't unique to "Sharia".

So you are one of those willing to submit.


Duly noted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Britain is the ‘canary in the coal mine.’




“As government officials noted, "There are tentative moves towards developing Islamic jurisprudence for Muslims living in Europe and the Western World."

…the aims of the Islamic Sharia Council—the Muslim body that is developing claims for such a parallel jurisprudence—could not be plainer.

Although there is at present no question of English family law being so adapted, there is a slow acceptance of a parallel jurisdiction taking place.



….the British authorities are falling over themselves to help this process along. The Inland Revenue revealed that, after representations from Muslims, it was considering recognizing polygamy for tax purposes. Existing rules allow only one wife for inheritance tax purposes. Officials have agreed to consider relaxing this rule to allow a Muslim with up to four wives to divide his estate between them. And while polygamy is not recognized in English law, Britain is turning a blind eye to the practice. Muslim men are entering into polygamous marriages by going through mosque ceremonies not recognized under English law. This leaves many such "wives" in a parlous state, with no rights to their husband's income, pension, benefits or share of the family home should the relationship break up.”
Phillips, Op. Cit., p. 98


Perhaps they could move to Utah....

Utah doesn't allow polygamy... Though where the government gets the nerve to get involved in marriage is a question for another thread altogether...

The reference to Utah was historic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We should not have parallel legal systems, especially inasmuch as one seeks to supplant the other.

Especially with one that requires submission to the Q'ran.

 

[Vastator]

You're 0 for 2...