Creeping Sharia - It's not just a bumper sticker

[bodecea]

They can only be prosecuted if they are reported. People who are ignorant of the law (child brides) are not going to be calling child protective services. Sheez.

We've seen that with the Mormon crowd.

Is this not true regardless of religious persuasion if any? How about the Catholic Church clamming up about priest pedophiles?

 

[Sky Dancer]

As I understand Kalaam's answer, American Muslims shouldn't be supplanting our laws with Shari'ah Law.

 

[Kalam]

Modern socialism is worse than Nazism or Stalinism. First it steals all your money to make 'everyone equal', next it steals your soul and makes your life the total property of the state, last it takes away your nations identity destroying the pre-existing uniting culture and language (tower of babel).

Depends on where you are. The EU is alright for the most part. You'll notice that the governments are no longer sending political dissidents and other "sub-humans" to extermination camps...

I prefer the terror of Stalins Russia or Nazi Germany, because at least their aims were clearly written unlike the Socialist propaganda machine in the EU. Socialists at heart want their government to be their god, kinda like Orwell's 1984 big brother.

Orwell the POUM Marxist?

 

[maineman]

They can only be prosecuted if they are reported. People who are ignorant of the law (child brides) are not going to be calling child protective services. Sheez.

We've seen that with the Mormon crowd.

so you admit that these issues you bring up in opposition to Islamic non-judicial arbitration of CIVIL cases are not unique to Islam?

Sheez

 

[chanel]

Yep. And most educated people learn from mistakes, are pro-active, don't argue that three wrongs make a right.

 

[maineman]

Yep. And most educated people learn from mistakes, are pro-active, don't argue that three wrongs make a right.

do mormons have arranged marriages for child brides because of some mormons only non-judicial voluntary civil arbitration process?

 

[chanel]

I don't know But I do know that the police look the other way. Freedom of religion and all. That's unAmerican and to say that "the Mormons do it" is an awful argument. Its wrong in Utah and it will be wrong in Ny and NJ and MI etc. I am glad that states are reading the writing on the wall and being pro-active. Wish our federal govt had the same scruples.

 

[Hister]

As I understand Kalaam's answer, American Muslims shouldn't be supplanting our laws with Shari'ah Law.

You obviously didn't understand what kalam said.

 

[maineman]

I don't know But I do know that the police look the other way. Freedom of religion and all. That's unAmerican and to say that "the Mormons do it" is an awful argument. Its wrong in Utah and it will be wrong in Ny and NJ and MI etc. I am glad that states are reading the writing on the wall and being pro-active. Wish our federal govt had the same scruples.

you don't KNOW???? Why bring up mormons as your argument for standing in the way of Islamic non-judicial arbitration if mormons do NOT use such similar arbitration to accomplish this travesty of creating child brides?

my question is: why do you think it would take the establishment of non-judicial voluntary Islamic arbitration services to suddenly START putting young muslim girls at risk of becoming child brides? Don't you think that happens already here in America?

 

[logical4u]

We have a secular government with separation of church and state. Islam is not just a "religion"; it's a political doctrine. Any political organization that violates basic human rights or the constitution can not hide under the veil of "freedom of religion". (no pun intended) Sharia law has done both in the U.K.

I would just like to point out that Christianity is a political movement actively working to change US law. Christianity is no longer just a religion.

link?

 

[logical4u]

Kalam--

Tea Party reductionists equate Shariah Law with Islamic extremism. Can you explain how Shariah Law works for moderate to liberal Muslims and Sufis?

It can be difficult to explain. Do you mean Shari'ah as it's observed by individuals or as it would be used to provide the framework for an Islamic society?

Basically, it never worked. Where it "almost" worked it discrimminated against "unbelievers"... there were different punishments for the same crime if the crime was against an "unbeliever" compared to a "believer".

That is the point: Shari'ah is a legal system that is not just. It has seperate laws for "believers" vs "unbelievers". It encourages deception and crimes against "neighbors". It allows those 'that claim' to be believers to use corruption and deception to ruin communities and societies. There is no way to stop it. There is no way to change it without bloodshed. That is the whole "policy" of islam: conquer, kill or convert. Once that is done, the fights start within the "believers". It never stops. Look at the societies that are over 90% muslim with muslim leaders. They subjugate their people and export their political policies (I mean hatred for human life) to every corner.
Until the "believers" seperate their religion from government, it will continue. We do not want that type of government here.

 

[logical4u]

You're aware that Madinah is and was an actual place, correct?


There have been few examples of properly implemented Shari'ah since the Rashidun in the 7th century. I'll tell you what: withdraw completely from the Middle East and quit propping up the corrupt regimes that are currently in power there. We'll then be able to establish Shari'ah and you can decide for yourself whether you like it or not!

So your answer is: there is no place that shari'ah is used today that is a good place to live?
But......IF (we will blame you for all our shortcomings) we could do it the way we wanted to do it, it would be great.
Sounds like the liberals or the communists, or the socialists, same qualifier, same results.

Nope. The type of society I'm describing has actually existed and was able to sustain itself for quite a long period of time. The same can't be said for communism.

Was that the society that was conquering the ME at that time (taking what belonged to other societies and selling the people into slavery)? Or was this the mythical civilization that was easily infiltrated (by "unbelievers") and corrupted?

 

[logical4u]

Lest you think that this will not become a problem in the United States, think again. Shariah is already starting to appear in our courts, especially in the area of family law:

* You probably didn't know that there is something called the "Texas Islamic Court." It decides cases according to Shariah and its rulings sometimes end up in actual state court:
* The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing conviction in US history (United States versus Holy Land Foundation), runs arbitrations here in the US according to Shariah:
* There have been dozens of instances in which Shariah has been invoked in US courts, mostly unsuccessfully, but not always. Here are two of the most infamous cases, brought to our attention by Stephen Gele of Lawyers Against Shariah:

* In S.D. v. M.J.R. in the state of New Jersey, a New Jersey judge saw no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife - not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Fortunately, an appellate court overturned this atrocious decision, and a Shariah ruling by a U.S. court was not allowed to stand.
* In a Maryland case, Hosain v. Malik, 108 Md.App. 284, 671 A.2d 988 (Md.1996), a Maryland Court granted comity and enforced a Pakistani custody order turning a child brought to the US by the mother over to the father. The Maryland Court held that: the burden was on the mother to prove the Pakistani court did not apply law in "substantial conformity with Maryland law" by a preponderance of the evidence; the case was "not about whether Pakistani religion, culture, or legal system is personally offensive to us or whether we share all of the same values, mores and customs, but rather whether the Pakistani courts applied a rule of law, evidence,or procedure so contradictory to Maryland public policy as to undermine the confidence in the trial"; the best interest of the child should not be "determined based on Maryland law, i.e., American cultures and mores," but rather "by applying relevant Pakistani customs, culture and mores";"a Pakistani court could only determine the best interest of a Pakistani child by an analysis utilizing the customs, culture, religion, and mores of ... Pakistan"; "in the Pakistani culture, the well being of the child and the child's proper development is thought to be facilitated by adherence to Islamic teachings"; the Pakistani order was not the result of "a trial by fire, trial by ordeal, or a system rooted in superstition, or witchcraft"; the "longstanding doctrine [of Hazanit1] of one of the world's oldest and largest religions practiced by hundreds of millions of people around the world and in this country, as applied as one factor in the best interest of the child test, is [not] repugnant to Maryland public policy"; and, the granting of the order by the Pakistani Court without representation for the mother was not repugnant to Maryland public policy because although she may have been arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the custody proceedings and have been subject to "public whipping or death by stoning," such punishments were "extremely unlikely."

Center For Security Policy

State lawmakers across America are starting to take action to prevent the US from ending up like Western Europe, a victim of Creeping Shariah.

Some of you may have heard of the upcoming ballot initiative in Oklahoma to outlaw Shariah law. This initiative will appear on the ballot there in November.

Most people do not realize, however, that, along with Tennessee, Louisiana already took the lead in preventing Shariah from creeping into our legal system with a new law which has been nicknamed "American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts."

Oooga Booga!

A great comeback! Did you learn that in second grade?

 

[Ava]

Kalam--

Tea Party reductionists equate Shariah Law with Islamic extremism. Can you explain how Shariah Law works for moderate to liberal Muslims and Sufis?

It can be difficult to explain. Do you mean Shari'ah as it's observed by individuals or as it would be used to provide the framework for an Islamic society?

Basically, it never worked. Where it "almost" worked it discrimminated against "unbelievers"... there were different punishments for the same crime if the crime was against an "unbeliever" compared to a "believer".

That is the point: Shari'ah is a legal system that is not just. It has seperate laws for "believers" vs "unbelievers". It encourages deception and crimes against "neighbors". It allows those 'that claim' to be believers to use corruption and deception to ruin communities and societies. There is no way to stop it. There is no way to change it without bloodshed. That is the whole "policy" of islam: conquer, kill or convert. Once that is done, the fights start within the "believers". It never stops. Look at the societies that are over 90% muslim with muslim leaders. They subjugate their people and export their political policies (I mean hatred for human life) to every corner.
Until the "believers" seperate their religion from government, it will continue. We do not want that type of government here.

No, but it is slowly on it's way. America as we have known, fought and died for her, is changing into the world government Obama wants, and we can only stop that which is within our power. This means that the proposed Mosque, has to get built, because it is a legal real estate transaction even though there is a Mosque, just two blocks from the proposed one in question. I have sadly, acquiesced to this. It will be the radical element of the Muslim community that will have a second victory on their hands. If they were true "bridge builders" they would not be doing this. We, the opposition, will adjust to a new way of dealing with them, to the best of our abilities. Sharia Law is coming to town.

 

[Kalam]

Basically, it never worked. Where it "almost" worked it discrimminated against "unbelievers"... there were different punishments for the same crime if the crime was against an "unbeliever" compared to a "believer".

Incorrect. 'Abd ar-Razzaq transmitted a narration in which Muhammad (SAWS) ordered a Muslim to be executed for murdering a dhimmi. The authenticity of this account is confirmed by this statement of 'Ali (RA):

"Whoever has accepted our dhimma, his blood is like our blood and his blood money is like our blood money."​

It should also be noted that when 'Ali was khalifah, a Jew filed a lawsuit against him and 'Ali had to appear in court as any normal citizen would. Your understanding of Shari'ah is based on popular misconceptions, not on the statements of Rasul Allah (SAWS) and his companions (RA).

That is the point: Shari'ah is a legal system that is not just. It has seperate laws for "believers" vs "unbelievers". It encourages deception and crimes against "neighbors".

Examples?

It allows those 'that claim' to be believers to use corruption and deception to ruin communities and societies.

Examples?

 

[Article 15]

Center For Security Policy

Oooga Booga!

A great comeback! Did you learn that in second grade?

Thanks! I actually learned it in nursery school (I was kind of a prodigy).

 

[logical4u]

Basically, it never worked. Where it "almost" worked it discrimminated against "unbelievers"... there were different punishments for the same crime if the crime was against an "unbeliever" compared to a "believer".

Incorrect. 'Abd ar-Razzaq transmitted a narration in which Muhammad (SAWS) ordered a Muslim to be executed for murdering a dhimmi. The authenticity of this account is confirmed by this statement of 'Ali (RA):

"Whoever has accepted our dhimma, his blood is like our blood and his blood money is like our blood money."​

It should also be noted that when 'Ali was khalifah, a Jew filed a lawsuit against him and 'Ali had to appear in court as any normal citizen would. Your understanding of Shari'ah is based on popular misconceptions, not on the statements of Rasul Allah (SAWS) and his companions (RA).

That is the point: Shari'ah is a legal system that is not just. It has seperate laws for "believers" vs "unbelievers". It encourages deception and crimes against "neighbors".

Examples?

It allows those 'that claim' to be believers to use corruption and deception to ruin communities and societies.

Examples?

You gave the link. The rules are very discrimminitory against "unbelievers". The rules do not give the same "rights" to "unbelievers".

Examples:
a school teacher being destroyed because her class voted to name a teddy bear, mohammed
any woman that is raped, and denied justice because four men will not testify for her
any young girl or woman that was raped or molested by her family members and then was rewarded with a "honor killing"
any person that was falsely accused, and then punished "under Shari'ah" because they did not have the right to defend themselves
Daniel Pearl

Is that enough? If it isn't you can go to any news website and find examples, almost daily of the violence done to "unbelievers" in the name of allah.

 

[Kalam]

You gave the link. The rules are very discrimminitory against "unbelievers". The rules do not give the same "rights" to "unbelievers".

Examples:
a school teacher being destroyed because her class voted to name a teddy bear, mohammed

Please prove that this punishment is Shari'i by linking it to a specific injunction from Islamic scripture.

any woman that is raped, and denied justice because four men will not testify for her

Four witnesses are only required in cases of adultery. They are not required for a qadi to pass judgment on a rapist.

any young girl or woman that was raped or molested by her family members and then was rewarded with a "honor killing"

Please prove that this punishment is Shari'i by linking it to a specific injunction from Islamic scripture.

Rape and molestation by family members is comprised of two crimes - rape and incest. The punishment is death.

any person that was falsely accused, and then punished "under Shari'ah" because they did not have the right to defend themselves

Please give a scriptural example of this. Everyone has the right to defend themselves in court.

Daniel Pearl

Due process was not observed.

Is that enough? If it isn't you can go to any news website and find examples, almost daily of the violence done to "unbelievers" in the name of allah.

It's abundantly clear that you have no idea what Shari'ah is - you're using it as a general label for any sort of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam. Shari'ah is the system of divine law contained in the Qur'an and authentic hadith collections; if a punishment cannot be found there, it cannot be considered Shari'i.

 

[Rezonator]

You gave the link. The rules are very discrimminitory against "unbelievers". The rules do not give the same "rights" to "unbelievers".

Examples:
a school teacher being destroyed because her class voted to name a teddy bear, mohammed

Please prove that this punishment is Shari'i by linking it to a specific injunction from Islamic scripture.

Sunan Abu-Dawad Book 38, Number 4349:
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

Sunan Abu-Dawad Book 38, Number 4348:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

 

[Kalam]

Sunan Abu-Dawad Book 38, Number 4349:
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

When the slain person is a criminal, the punishment obviously doesn't apply.

Why did you run away from our last discussion?