1.There are two undeniable truths, let me state them, and then prove them.
a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution
b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.
2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays
What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.
3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)
Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:
“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.
In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts
4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.
“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.
He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.
“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
Recognize the enemy?
a.Sharia, Muslim law, is diametrically opposed by the Constitution
b. The Democrat Party is not merely willing to accept Sharia in America, but actively putting both Sharia and Muslim immigration to the forefront.
2. Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” points out key elements of Sharia, which the devout adherent of Islam must support.
A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion
B) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions
C) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys
D) Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax
E) Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur
F) Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days
G) Kill gays
What must one say about any who claim to be Americans, who support Sharia in our nation? This: they are a fifth column, the enemy within our gates. This is the Democrat Party.
3. Yesterday, the Democrat Party put on its impeachment show by bringing noted constitutional scholars….or so they claim….to bear witness against Trump. One of them was Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Much of his work is devoted to analysis of law and religion. (Wikepedia)
Feldman, consistent with his Democrat allies, is a supporter of Sharia. He wrote:
“To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.
In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.” Shariah - Muslims - Islamic Law - Islam - Courts
4. Law Scholar Democrat Feldman seems unaware of the reason that the Constitution is called the law of the land. When Oklahoma passed a law against Sharia, Feldman couldn’t disagree more.
“Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor specialising in US constitutional law and religious studies, told Al Jazeera that the ban in Oklahoma “almost certainly” violates the First Amendment rights of of Muslims.
He called the ban “a surprising piece of legislation that came out of the Islamophobia that has unfortunately surfaced in the US in the past few months”, and said that striking the ban down is the right course of action for the courts to take.
“Under existing law, you cannot endorse or disfavour a particular religion, and the passage of this constitutional amendment is intended to disfavour Islam,” said Feldman, who was unaware of any similar precedent.”
Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman: Okla. anti-Sharia law almost certain to be struck down | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
Recognize the enemy?
Last edited:
