Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist? NO!!!!

[Clementine]

I support Trump's decision to limit immigration from countries who have large populations of extremists. It's bad enough some want us to honor their sharia law in our courts. They ask because our laws are very different from theirs. Their laws do not recognize women's rights, or human rights. Despite this, the left cheers whenever a Muslim is elected to government. Currently, the Muslims are taking over Dearborn, MI. They are building more mosques and forcing nightclubs that serve alcohol to shut down. Never mind that the city was known for it's awesome nightclubs and that they bought a lot of money to the city. Mosques do not bring in revenue.

Many areas in Europe are controlled by sharia patrols. Woman have been attacked in large numbers. Many raped. Some killed. A pregnant woman was murdered in England because she walked too close to a mosque. In France, mosques were searched after a terror attack and many were found to have stockpiles of weapons. Real peaceful, right?

In Muslim countries, infidels are treated horribly. Gays and Christians are murdered. In fact, anyone who disagrees with them is murdered. And people cheer when infidels are murdered. Even some Muslims are treated horribly. Woman have few rights. Men are allowed to beat their wives. The few women who escaped live in fear for their lives because leaving Islam is a crime punishable by death. Those women who stay after being accused of shaming their families or disobeying their husband are often murdered because many believe in honor killings. Young girls suffer abuse by way of genital mutilation. Thousands of these girls were operated on by Muslim doctors here in the United States.

When they come here, they do not leave their fucked up culture behind. They bring it with them and demand that we allow it.

Islam is more government than religion. They insist on dictating how everyone must live. No exceptions. There is no such thing as separation of church and state because it's impossible. Islam and government are one and the same.

So, why do we want to let more in, especially those who are willing to murder because they do not believe in freedom of religion? We have freedom of religion here. Sadly, Islam goes beyond that. We do not allow people to come and create countries within our country where they have a different form of government that is opposite of our constitution.

 

[Markle]

Impossible!

They are the antithesis of each other.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I support Trump's decision to limit immigration from countries who have large populations of extremists. It's bad enough some want us to honor their sharia law in our courts. They ask because our laws are very different from theirs. Their laws do not recognize women's rights, or human rights. Despite this, the left cheers whenever a Muslim is elected to government. Currently, the Muslims are taking over Dearborn, MI. They are building more mosques and forcing nightclubs that serve alcohol to shut down. Never mind that the city was known for it's awesome nightclubs and that they bought a lot of money to the city. Mosques do not bring in revenue.

Many areas in Europe are controlled by sharia patrols. Woman have been attacked in large numbers. Many raped. Some killed. A pregnant woman was murdered in England because she walked too close to a mosque. In France, mosques were searched after a terror attack and many were found to have stockpiles of weapons. Real peaceful, right?

In Muslim countries, infidels are treated horribly. Gays and Christians are murdered. In fact, anyone who disagrees with them is murdered. And people cheer when infidels are murdered. Even some Muslims are treated horribly. Woman have few rights. Men are allowed to beat their wives. The few women who escaped live in fear for their lives because leaving Islam is a crime punishable by death. Those women who stay after being accused of shaming their families or disobeying their husband are often murdered because many believe in honor killings. Young girls suffer abuse by way of genital mutilation. Thousands of these girls were operated on by Muslim doctors here in the United States.

When they come here, they do not leave their fucked up culture behind. They bring it with them and demand that we allow it.

Islam is more government than religion. They insist on dictating how everyone must live. No exceptions. There is no such thing as separation of church and state because it's impossible. Islam and government are one and the same.

So, why do we want to let more in, especially those who are willing to murder because they do not believe in freedom of religion? We have freedom of religion here. Sadly, Islam goes beyond that. We do not allow people to come and create countries within our country where they have a different form of government that is opposite of our constitution.

They are not interested in becoming Americans they want us to be Sheetheads OR ELSE DIE and they are willing to help. Kid you not there have been hundreds of murders, acid thrown in faces, burning. They live in close knit areas controled by leader and enforcers. The Progressives just love it, for now, b ut in time all hell will break out when they start to take over the Democratic party. Sorry but I don't welcome them. I can almost welcome any other Nations rejects as long as they are of good reputation and record. and don't go on welfare.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Muslims at 4% of the population are telling the Dutch to get out of the Netherlands.

Muslim party leader in the Netherlands tells Dutch to leave their country if they don’t like diversity

 

[karpenter]

I support Trump's decision to limit immigration from countries who have large populations of extremists. It's bad enough some want us to honor their sharia law in our courts. They ask because our laws are very different from theirs.

Why Was Preference Given To Rescue Muslims From Muslims
The Direct Result Of Obama's Regime Change Meister Delusions

When Ancient Christian Communities
Were Being Completely Eradicated By ISIS

And The Christians Would Easily Assimilate

 

[night_son]

I support Trump's decision to limit immigration from countries who have large populations of extremists. It's bad enough some want us to honor their sharia law in our courts. They ask because our laws are very different from theirs. Their laws do not recognize women's rights, or human rights. Despite this, the left cheers whenever a Muslim is elected to government. Currently, the Muslims are taking over Dearborn, MI. They are building more mosques and forcing nightclubs that serve alcohol to shut down. Never mind that the city was known for it's awesome nightclubs and that they bought a lot of money to the city. Mosques do not bring in revenue.

Many areas in Europe are controlled by sharia patrols. Woman have been attacked in large numbers. Many raped. Some killed. A pregnant woman was murdered in England because she walked too close to a mosque. In France, mosques were searched after a terror attack and many were found to have stockpiles of weapons. Real peaceful, right?

In Muslim countries, infidels are treated horribly. Gays and Christians are murdered. In fact, anyone who disagrees with them is murdered. And people cheer when infidels are murdered. Even some Muslims are treated horribly. Woman have few rights. Men are allowed to beat their wives. The few women who escaped live in fear for their lives because leaving Islam is a crime punishable by death. Those women who stay after being accused of shaming their families or disobeying their husband are often murdered because many believe in honor killings. Young girls suffer abuse by way of genital mutilation. Thousands of these girls were operated on by Muslim doctors here in the United States.

When they come here, they do not leave their fucked up culture behind. They bring it with them and demand that we allow it.

Islam is more government than religion. They insist on dictating how everyone must live. No exceptions. There is no such thing as separation of church and state because it's impossible. Islam and government are one and the same.

So, why do we want to let more in, especially those who are willing to murder because they do not believe in freedom of religion? We have freedom of religion here. Sadly, Islam goes beyond that. We do not allow people to come and create countries within our country where they have a different form of government that is opposite of our constitution.

This is absolutely not a racial issue, and is completely an issue of cultural incompatibility--unless Muslims allow themselves to be assimilated by the cultures they emigrate into. Unfortunately, once Muslim numbers rise in a small geographical area, they are much more likely to resist assimilation, while attempting to assimilate or isolate the native culture themselves. Peace can be possible with Islam, speaking from a Christian point of view, but when brought together dogmatic politics must be left out of the mix or bad things will go down.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Simple Solutions "

* Supremacist Separatist Sectarian Edicts Espousing Non Aggression Principles Violations *

This is absolutely not a racial issue, and is completely an issue of cultural incompatibility--unless Muslims allow themselves to be assimilated by the cultures they emigrate into. Unfortunately, once Muslim numbers rise in a small geographical area, they are much more likely to resist assimilation, while attempting to assimilate or isolate the native culture themselves. Peace can be possible with Islam, speaking from a Christian point of view, but when brought together dogmatic politics must be left out of the mix or bad things will go down.

It is " absolutely not a racial issue " for which side , because genetic continuance is success criteria of naturalism ?

Whereas geographic isolation selects a prevalence for particular codons that express distinct phenotypes within demographics , given random selection of mates in a heterogeneous gene pool the integration of darker clads with lighter clads includes statistical expected values for eventual representation of those disparate clads .

If one is resigned to discriminate between mates to ensure an outcome to maintain ones own diversity of clad from others , that includes various scopes from states , to countries , to global identities , then one is resigned to informed consent about the meaning of survival in heterogeneous demographics according to non aggression principles with antinomianism .


* Nomian Non Sense Balking *

Hisbah - Wikipedia

Hisbah (Arabic: حسبة‎‎ ḥisbah) is an Islamic doctrine which means "accountability".[1] Hisbah is the divinely-sanctioned duty of the ruler (government) to intervene and coercively "enjoining good and forbidding wrong" in order to keep everything in order according to sharia (Islamic law).[2] The doctrine is based on an expression from the Quran ( Enjoining good and forbidding wrong - Wikipedia ).[1][3][page needed] Some Salafists suggest that it is the sacred duty of all Muslims, not just rulers.[2]

A claim of religious exception does not exist in us first amendment that entitles individuals to threaten or to commit illegitimate aggression against the self ownership or self determination of others .

Individuals subject to such threats or actions are entitled to invoke self defense that includes exclusion of the illegitimate aggressors .

The qurayn directives which violate non aggression principles to implement the religious polity of qurayshism cannot be extricated .

At issue is that numbers translate into votes and public policy , such that self defense , by controlling political representation through curtailing or exclusion from citizenship , is an entitlement to those asserting individual liberty and non aggression principles against those with espouse allegiance to the nomian edicts of fictional ishmaelism .

 

[Sunni Man]

Sharia = Freedom ....

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Suspension Between Chasms "

* Objective Evaluation Of Doctrine *

Sharia = Freedom ....

Torahnism is a genetic religion for preservation of the patriarchal lineage of eponymous isaac , where the tenets , cultural traditions and city state laws ( 613 mitzvot ) , as proposed in the torah , would only apply within israel .

Qurayshism is a genetic religion for preservation of the patriarchal lineage of eponymous ishmael, where the tenets , cultural traditions and city state laws ( sharia ) , as proposed in the qurayn , would only apply within hejaz .

Any pretense that qurayshism applies outside of hejaz is debase and termed fictional ishmaelism .

Surah 8:75 - And those who believed after [the initial emigration] and emigrated and fought with you - they are of you. But those of [blood] relationship are more entitled [to inheritance] in the decree of God. Indeed, God is Knowing of all things.

#I_SLAM_A_PHOBIA - implies fictional ishmaelism is the paranoia and delusion invoked from surah 9 for over 1400 years to defend hejaz when it was not ever under duress .


* Can Knot Be Imagined *

The perceptions of legalism for the genetic religion of qurayshism are arcane against individual liberty and are not universal to qualify as sufficient precepts for valid legal systems based upon antinomianism and non aggression principles .

A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist if sharia contracts do not violate state and federal laws.

The orthodox Jewish sects have been contracting within their religious beliefs for a century and more here in the US. The contracts cannot violate federal and state law.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Ignoring Responsibility Of Decisions "

* Degeneracy Seeking To Implement Pluralism For Staging Separatism And Supremacy *

Of course Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist if sharia contracts do not violate state and federal laws.
The orthodox Jewish sects have been contracting within their religious beliefs for a century and more here in the US. The contracts cannot violate federal and state law.

" Ire Rational "
* Separate System Within A State Justice System *

The willful intents or prenuptial agreements in contracts should be written in common legalese so that any judge or magistrate or jury would be able to litigate a civil dispute ; but , that is not the guise and it does not fit the diminutive scheme .

Our Constitution - ISLAMIC TRIBUNAL (IT)

Islamic Tribunal (IT)
Article 1
The objective of this Court is to resolve any dispute among Muslims residing in USA while complying with the federal laws of the United States and Texas state laws under the approval of the Texas Judicial system.
...
Article 7
The judges of IT must have a degree in Islamic law approved by a renowned Islamic institution.

" No Exceptions "
* Awl Included *
The same non binding stipulation will be applied to beth din .
Sorry , but we are not going back to millet systems .
Beth din - Wikipedia

" Flipped Side "
* Precisely *
If a deceased wrote a will that its property is to be dispositioned according to the qurayn , without further description , that is not acceptable for civil resolution .
* Particulars *
If one contests the arbitration of a tribunal in civil court , even if the arbitration is presumed to be binding , it will be non binding , when the references for claims allude are vague references such as the property is to be dispositioned according to the qurayn .
* Estranged *
If the will is a general reference that the property be dispositioned according to the qurayn , such would not be acceptable for disposition in a civil court and any which sought to prevail under civil resolution would prevail ; precisely because it would violate an establishment clause .

" Forsaking Bastardization Of Liberty "
* Generalized Self Reference *
- Surah (Chapter) 4. An Nisaa
* Conscripted Gambling *
One cannot concede an intention to be legally bound , without knowledge for the elements of the contract , and a tribunal is therefore without an ability to render a binding decision , without first relating a recommendation and then negotiating an offer and acceptance by the participants .
And if an authority to render binding decisions before presentation of a contract is granted to a tribunal , then a plural legal system exists based upon religion which violates the establishment clause .
Contract - Wikipedia
* Unacceptable *
That statement is false , whenever an establishment of a plural system exists , whether a system within the civil law system , or whether a system separate from the civil law system , that is based within religion through a designation of title in venue , or of title by position , or by requisite of denomination , such violates the establishment clause .

" Non Compromising "
* Lock Down *
As indicated , plan ahead in transferring wilful intents or agreements into contracts that do not require the judge or the jury to reference a religious document .
Once a " prior agreement of both parties " enters civil court , a reference to a religious document as the basis of the agreement is not be acceptable and the case will be summarily dismissed without prejudice .
Such does not prevent any from practising their religion and it does not establish it either .
* Denying Consequences *
How long would those religious freedoms last given a statistical majority or minority of fictional ishmaelism adherents , or are those questions something not to be considered ?
Is being overwhelmed by bandwagon belief , especially from those whose ideology grants credence for violence , something that should be facilitated ?

" Actions Directed Buy Words "
* Castigation Deserved *
As for the manner that anyone dispositions their private property , it is their own business , except when others are remanded to determine those willful intents through a civil court system . And , those individuals remanded as judges , as administrators , as jurors , should not be subject to a violation of any establishment clause by the process of litigation ; and , from that , it is demanded that neither shall a separate system of jurisprudence be allowed to germinate or proliferate , because of the credence for subversion it manifests .

The presumptions for separatism , for supremacy , for self serving exclusivity , for the overt malicious declarations of civil and criminal statutes that form sharia , which establish fictional ishmaelism , should be impugned until it is socially reprehensible . Its despicable and horrendous history should be incriminated for the systemic foundation of militancy , of genocide , of subjugation against individualism and liberty through centuries that is directed by its doctrine .

" Blocking Misgiven Weighs "
* Doubtful Rendering *
Simply stating that the disposition of inheritance property , or the disposition of divorce proceedings , or other willful intents , is to be consistent with sharia of the qurayn is not sufficient and it will not be accepted as a basis of claims .
If the details of any contract are spelled out such that the claims are not reliant upon reference to the qurayn before the court or its officers , or by jurors , then the claims may be adjudicated according to civil law .
However , a reason those tribunals are sought is because the administrators are presumed to hold specialized education to render decisions based upon the qurayn ; and , if that not were the case and the terms were sufficiently detailed so that the qurayn were not required as a reference , then a presumed need for the tribunal would not exist .
Such begs the question , " Then , for what is the purpose are such tribunals ? " , which invokes evidence , both contemporary and historical , that the purpose is to establish an independent and separate legal system to implement religion through government .

" Playing With Terminology "
* Do Not Pass Go *
If the contract is such that it is not specific and clear in its claims , by making general claims in reference to the qurayn , or to sharia , or requires an interpretation thereof in any way by officers of the court or by jurists , it will not be acceptable .
And , where participants agree in advance to conclusions by a tribunal that are based upon similar presumptions for claims , those conclusions are not acceptable as a contract or binding agreement .
* Do Not Start *
There is not any purpose in letting it get to a point where it is even supposed to be slightly legitimate .
* Ounces of Prevention *
Rather than pretending wilful intents by direct references to the qurayn found a basis of claims presentable in civil court , or that tribunals can direct binding contracts through a prior agreement of participants to accept its conclusions , the solution to resolve the issue is simple , have any wilful intents to be used as a basis of claims be transcribed into legal contracts which do not require officers of the court or jurists to directly reference the qurayn to disposition the case , and maintain a single and not a plural system of jurisprudence .
* Two Fore Example *
Suppose individuals are married by virtue of community association according to religious pretences of the qurayn and one spouse dies without a will .
The family may contest inheritance and prevail according to statutes of civil law , even when the spouse wishes to disposition the estate according to the qurayn .
Likewise a spouse will prevail according to statutes of civil law , if they did not wish to disposition the estate according to the qurayn even though family may contest the inheritance .
If for some reason the spouse or family was brought before a tribunal and both agreed to accept its conclusions , neither would not be bound to the decision of the tribunal .

" Stupidity of I Slam Courts Places Britain Under Duress "
* Insidious Parallel Legal System *
Non binding arbitration is all sharia arbitration should ever be allowed ; and , for anything further , all willful intents , prenuptial agreements , etc . , must be written in common legalese whereby than any magistrate or jury could understand and rule on claims without reference to the qurayn .
Red Flags are noted of liars and deceivers who malevolently swear that the goal is not that of treason and conquest to supplant british peoples and to dismiss british laws .
Britain's Sharia courts under scrutiny over treatment of women - UPI.com

The British government has launched an investigation into Sharia courts in the U.K., following sustained criticism from rights groups over their treatment of women. The Home Office said an independent panel will examine whether the courts are acting in a "discriminatory and unacceptable way," legitimizing forced marriage and issuing unfair divorce settlements.
More than 30 Islamic courts or councils operate in Britain, run by imams who offer advice on family matters and issue divorce certificates in line with Islamic law. Under the Arbitration Act, consenting adults can use these councils to resolve civil or commercial disputes as long as any ruling doesn't conflict with U.K. law. Supporters of the courts say they are used on a voluntary basis and are not intended to replace the British legal system.
A recent survey carried out by the research agency ICM found 23 percent of British Muslims want Sharia law in the U.K.

" Sticking With Focus "
* All Or None Pundits *
It seem you are confusing the term law as a legal statute for public policy with suggested behaviour for social norms .
As of yet , none has established that pundits for the nomian legalism of the qurayn are at liberty to selectively implement its statutes as public policy , unlike non nomian legalism .
* Most Relevant *
My statements relate that the qurayn and sharia are not to be referenced as a standard for legally binding civil agreements ; in other words , any use of the qurayn as a reference for its pundits would be limited to non binding resolutions and not accepted in civil court .
As such , any civil agreements or wilful intents must be written in common legal terms that could be litigated before any magistrate or any jury , without reference to the qurayn and without deference to some specialized adjudicator .

" Cutting Off The Heads Of Slithering Serpents "

* Non Mincing Weasel Words *

It is irrelevant whether individuals voluntarily agree or not ; once that presumed agreement enters civil court , its basis of validity is null and void and non binding .

* Prepare Ahead *

There will not be any religious references in a civil contract for consideration presented before or within a legally binding civil court .

" Constitutional Traitors At Large "

* Revelation Of Usurping Goals *

Such depravity as you are relating will not be allowed to take root .

Once that contract enters civil court it violates the establishment clause to force either judges or jury to reference the qurayn as a basis of civil contract .

You have been told to prepare ahead , which means to write all wilful intents in common legal terms such that no reference to the qurayn is required by the judge or jury to litigate a case , which means that one may practice their creed without violating the establishment clause .

" Fictional Ishmaelism Caste Out "

* Hard And Fast Rule *

The qurayn is not written in common legal terms and it will not be accepted as a basis of evidence for a civil agreement in a court of law ; even though you are seeking to establish the contrary .

It is from that point forward by which the merits of such agreements will be litigated in the contexts of local , state and federal laws .

" Spelled Out "
* Selling Lies *
That assertion is subversion , as it necessarily implies a defacto acceptance by a civil court for a binding agreement , where the participants had conceded in advance to abide by the directives of a separate administrative institution ( ex . sharia tribunal , sharia courts ) .

When the basis of agreement for such a faux contract is generated from interpretations or references to a religious document ( ex . qurayn ) such an agreement is non binding in a civil court .

Further , any reference to that religious document would not be acceptable as a basis of claims as it violates the establishment clause .

Simply , willful intents and contracts must be phrased with clear and direct statements that do not require reference to a religious text .

" Seeing Things As They Are "

* Rules of Etiquette *

It seems we understand each other that the establishment clause is not to be violated .

A court could neither be required to interpret or otherwise reference a religious document to render a decision , nor accept upon the same an agreement as binding from a separate body .

Alternatively , an agreement that is written in a form that is acceptable to civil law , yet guided by some religious concept , that could be adjudicated by any jury or magistrate without direct reference to a religious would not violate the establishment clause .

There is a ploy afoot to violate the establishment clause by giving credence to a separate legal system ; expunge it before it is granted any credence .

" Simple Sky Man Met A Fly Man "

* Get Used To It *

If the contract is phrased in terms that are consistent with religious preferences that do not allude to a religious document or an interpretation as the cause for claims , so be it .

And , a contract will not be accepted as binding when it has been decided by tribunal on a religious document or an interpretation thereof , even when participants have agreed in advance to accept the conclusion of the tribunal .

* Thick Schtick *

Perhaps you are not understanding the critical nuances of this debate , rather than simply being disingenuous about trying to violate the establishment clause and the establishment of religion within the court system or as a separate entity parallel with it .