Two kinds of Muslims

The active muslims are the one's on the front lines of the jihad, committing acts of violence and terrorism and so on. And the passive Muslims simply lie in wait, quietly supporting the active Muslims, and perpetuating the misconception that they are tolerant and peaceful.

.

Hard to say for sure. The muslims that I am friends with would be classified as the passive type, and they blend into American society without any problems. The practice their faith, they love their families, they make a good living in our country, and they are quite likable. I've heard the opinion expressed that they aren't so much supportive of the radical jihadists, as that they are fearful of them, so they just keep quiet on the subject.

That's understandable.

But what I'd want to know is that if it came down to it, which side would they pick, secular law or sharia law?

That's the question, and frankly, I'm not intimate with any of them enough to ask, and if I could ask, I suspect it would cause a good deal of discomfort- for them, not for me. At this point, my instinct is that they would not feel comfortable siding with secular law, because their religion is so much a part of their psyches that this would in effect make them unable to reconcile the two.
 
If sharia law were to be fully implemented in the US, it would entail completely eliminating our federal, state and local governments, all man-made laws, all existing courts, and all elected offices.

And Ravi asks what part is incompatible. :rofl:
 
If there are Muslims that are willing to "ignore" the parts of their faith that instruct them to implement sharia law then I would call them cafeteria Muslims and they get my full endorsement.
Hello? What part of Sharia law is incompatible?

If you're going to play stupid you're going to have to play by yourself.
I recommend that she just play with herself, She is basically a dry rotted knothole full of bugshit.
 
It's a Great Unifying Condition that one can divide any group into two subgroups.

i.e., there are two kinds of people in the world, those who divide people into two kinds and those who don't.
 
If sharia law were to be fully implemented in the US, it would entail completely eliminating our federal, state and local governments, all man-made laws, all existing courts, and all elected offices.

And Ravi asks what part is incompatible. :rofl:
 
If sharia law were to be fully implemented in the US, it would entail completely eliminating our federal, state and local governments, all man-made laws, all existing courts, and all elected offices.

And Ravi asks what part is incompatible. :rofl:
Not to mention the First Amendment.

and then some...

namely the 2nd thru the 10th.
 
I was in Istanbul when I was in the service. We went to a Muslim brothel and the women gave BJ's for about 25 cents (100 Lire) and they even removed their veil.

Did they have a "M" on the front door?
Turkish brothels are not religous. Good try. Total BS.
 
I'm surprised to see such a staunch advocate for women's rights fiercely defending Islam and Sharia law.

Perhaps Ravi doesn't actually know how women are treated in Islamic cultures that practice Sharia law.

Not surprising, she's ignorant about most things.
 
The spectrum of Muslim legal systems

The legal systems in 21st century Muslim majority states can be classified as follows.
Sharia in the secular Muslim states: Muslim countries such as Mali, Kazakhstan and Turkey (which is under pressure from religious political parties) have declared themselves to be secular. Here, religious interference in state affairs, law and politics is prohibited.[37] In these Muslim countries, as well as the secular West, the role of Sharia is limited to personal and family matters.
Muslim states with blended sources of law: Muslim countries including Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Morocco and Malaysia have legal systems strongly influenced by Sharia, but also cede ultimate authority to their constitutions and the rule of law. These countries conduct democratic elections, although some are also under the influence of authoritarian leaders. In these countries, politicians and jurists make law, rather than religious scholars. Most of these countries have modernized their laws and now have legal systems with significant differences when compared to classical Sharia.[38]
Muslim states using classical Sharia: Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states do not have constitutions or legislatures. Their rulers have limited authority to change laws, since they are based on Sharia as it is interpreted by their religious scholars. Iran shares some of these characteristics, but also has a parliament that legislates in a manner consistent with Sharia.[39]
So basically, a country that allows Sharia law in total is a country that is ruled by clerics (priests).

This is not possible in the United States as it is unconstitutional.

So again, how does a mosque built in NYC mean the constitution will be come void?

And what is up with the current backlash against Muslims in general? Are we having more terrorist attacks, or less. Is this just the rightwing media and talking head GOPers trying to drum up fear because it is an *ahem* election year?
 
So basically, a country that allows Sharia law in total is a country that is ruled by clerics (priests).

This is not possible in the United States as it is unconstitutional.

Bingo! Not compatible.

Thanks for proving my point. :thup:
 
I'm surprised to see such a staunch advocate for women's rights fiercely defending Islam and Sharia law.

Perhaps Ravi doesn't actually know how women are treated in Islamic cultures that practice Sharia law.

Not surprising, she's ignorant about most things.
:rolleyes: Those countries are perverting their religion...just like fundies here pervert THEIR religion.

IMO there is no different between a fundamentalist Christian and a fundamentalist Muslim...they both suck.

You are trying to lump Muslims in the fundamentalist category and IMO that is retarded, hateful, and wrong.
 
So basically, a country that allows Sharia law in total is a country that is ruled by clerics (priests).

This is not possible in the United States as it is unconstitutional.

Bingo! Not compatible.

Thanks for proving my point. :thup:
Allowing clerics to run the country is incompatible. The laws, I doubt it. As far as I can tell they are not materially different than biblical laws.
 
So basically, a country that allows Sharia law in total is a country that is ruled by clerics (priests).

This is not possible in the United States as it is unconstitutional.

Bingo! Not compatible.

Thanks for proving my point. :thup:
Allowing clerics to run the country is incompatible. The laws, I doubt it. As far as I can tell they are not materially different than biblical laws.

Except the part that says man made governments and laws should be overthrown and replaced with Sharia law. :cuckoo:
 
I'm surprised to see such a staunch advocate for women's rights fiercely defending Islam and Sharia law.

Perhaps Ravi doesn't actually know how women are treated in Islamic cultures that practice Sharia law.

Not surprising, she's ignorant about most things.
:rolleyes: Those countries are perverting their religion...just like fundies here pervert THEIR religion.
Proof.
 
Allowing clerics to run the country is incompatible. The laws, I doubt it. As far as I can tell they are not materially different than biblical laws.

Except the part that says man made governments and laws should be overthrown and replaced with Sharia law. :cuckoo:
:confused: Where does it say that?

The Koran.

And please, the relevant verses have been linked here at least a dozen times. :eusa_hand:
 
FWIW, this is Shari'ah governance:

The term caliphate (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa) refers to the first system of governance established in Islam. The most common translation for the word which appears in the Quran is vicegerency (or caretaker). It is a constitutional republic, which means that the rulers are bound by a set of laws which they cannot break at a whim, and the people have the right to appoint their leader through their local leaders and should the leaders divert from their obligations as vicegerents, the people have the right to remove them.

It was initially led by Prophet Muhammad's companions as a continuation of the political authority the Prophet established, known in Arabic as Khulufaa'u Rashidin or English 'Rashidun Caliphate (Rightly Guided Caliphate)'. It represented the political and theological unity of the Muslim Ummah, and was the world's first major welfare state. A "caliphate" is also a state which implements such a government.

Sunni Islam dictates that the head of state, the caliph, should be selected by Shura - elected by Muslims or their representatives....

The Rashidun Caliphate is the archetypal Islamic government. That type of society will not be established in the United States unless the American people desire it (and they clearly do not.) Our goal is to establish Shari'ah in the so-called Muslim world, not in a country whose population is at most 1% Islamic. Do yourselves a favor and find a legitimate cause for concern.
 

Forum List

Back
Top