Sharia!

[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.

Islamic Arbitration.

Murder of Lee Rigby - Wikipedia

Pity you are such a cowardly scaredy cat and too afraid to visit. Go and buy yourself a spine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. A creeping sharia making its way across the West.

Of course there is resistance to the destruction of values and tradition….


“October 2005, the British home secretary Charles Clarke declared that: [T]here can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Shariah law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech. These values are fundamental to our civilisation and are simply not up for negotiation.” Contesting the Threat of Terrorism


Do you have a problem with what Clarke said?

Islamists do.

“ This defense of British society against attack was promptly inverted to represent an assault on Islam. Dr. Imran Waheed of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain said: "These latest comments from Clarke have clearly exposed the reality of this so-called war on terror.... These offensive comments about the Shariah and the Caliphate will leave no doubt in the Muslim world that this is a war against Islam and not about individuals or groups committing acts of violence.

In February 2006, Dr. Patrick Sookdheo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, warned that the day was coming when Islamic communities in Britain would form "a state within a state." He said he believed that "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim Sharia law.


It is already starting to happen—and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue.... The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of Sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that.""
Phillips, Op.Cit.





And, we have seen from the Washington Post, any resistance to the march of sharia will be categorized as ‘Islamophobia’ rather than a defense of western values.

 

[alang1216]

“October 2005, the British home secretary Charles Clarke declared that: [T]here can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes;

Do you have a problem with what Clarke said?

Islamists do.

Americans do too. The full text of the as-yet-to-be-ratified Equal Rights Amendment (ERA):

• Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
• Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
• Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

 

[the other mike]

The shoe bomber has never come out of his cell here.
They have to force -feed many inmates here to keep them alive.
(Colorado)

And?


Better he be in that middle seat next to you on Delta?

You're very predictable . Did you know that ?
You assume everyone here has a political agenda, but overlook the possibility that some of us are simply sharing information.

You want my solution to radical Islamic terrorism ?
Get a time machine , go back to 1953 and stop the UK and the US from interfering in Iran.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

We're 'one nation under God', doesn't that mean his laws take precedence?
We're endowed with 'inalienable rights' by God, doesn't that mean his rights take precedence?
There is a Religious Liberty movement in this country to overturn or prevent laws that conflict with religions.
Jews, based on the Bible, keep Kosher laws without violating the Constitution but they are instructed in that same Bible to stone adulterers to death, should they be prohibited from practicing any Jewish laws?

How many times will imbecile....like you.....try to pretend that the religion on which this nation was built, the Judeo-Christian faith, .....is exactly the same as when the Bible was collated.....some three and a half millennia ago.


1.In a study of the historicity of Islam, several rather significant…and dramatic… issues stand out.

First, it is based on 7th century tribal aims, meaning the dominance of one’s tribe over all others.

Second, the design for domination is not to win over others by good works and good examples, but rather by murder and threats.

Third, and most essential in understanding the contemporary ramifications, unlike Judeo-Christian iterations, it has not undergone a reformation: these same doctrines apply for large segments of the Muslim ummah, community:

A) Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion

B) Kill those who insult Islam or the Prophet

C) Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions

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

H) Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys




2. If we choose as a Litmus Test the sanctity of human life, then we find Islam, Marxism, Nazism, Progressivism, Liberalism, and every Democrat candidate for the presidency on the same side. Edwin Black in his book, “ The Farhud: The Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust” points to the extermination of the Jews of Medina represents the iconic moment in Islam, just as the Sermon on the Mount is the iconic moment of Christianity, or the parting of the Red Sea is for the Jews.



3. “Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.” Bill Donohue



Please don't waste space with another of your inane and fallacious posts.

I know you love to write your own version of history so let's compare then:

First, it is based on 7th century tribal aims, meaning the dominance of one’s tribe over all others.

• Isn't that what the Israelites did after the Exodus? They just did it first.

Second, the design for domination is not to win over others by good works and good examples, but rather by murder and threats.

• There were neither murder or threats used to convert Indonesia to Islam.
  
• On the other hand, both were used in the conversions of Native Americans to Christianity

Third, and most essential in understanding the contemporary ramifications, unlike Judeo-Christian iterations, it has not undergone a reformation: these same doctrines apply for large segments of the Muslim ummah, community

• There are certainly many fundamentalist Muslims that do some incredibly barbarous acts. Islam is <1400 years old. If you compare it to Christianity of the 1400s, there were plenty of similar atrocities.

Remember the Holocaust was done by a Christian country and Jews were taken in by the Islamic world when they were expelled from their home by Christians.

As ignorant as you are, you post drivel like this.


I know you don't read, but here is the indictment as to what an imbecile you are:

I read books.


You should consider same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The shoe bomber has never come out of his cell here.
They have to force -feed many inmates here to keep them alive.
(Colorado)

And?


Better he be in that middle seat next to you on Delta?

You're very predictable . Did you know that ?
You assume everyone here has a political agenda, but overlook the possibility that some of us are simply sharing information.

You want my solution to radical Islamic terrorism ?
Get a time machine , go back to 1953 and stop the UK and the US from interfering in Iran.

Information informs my political agenda.

Clearly haven't the slightest understanding of the history of Islam.


Set that time machine for 531.

 

[the other mike]

CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup

The shoe bomber has never come out of his cell here.
They have to force -feed many inmates here to keep them alive.
(Colorado)

And?


Better he be in that middle seat next to you on Delta?

You're very predictable . Did you know that ?
You assume everyone here has a political agenda, but overlook the possibility that some of us are simply sharing information.

You want my solution to radical Islamic terrorism ?
Get a time machine , go back to 1953 and stop the UK and the US from interfering in Iran.

 

[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

Pity you are such a cowardly scaredy cat and too afraid to visit. Go and buy yourself a spine.

bwwwwaaaaahhhhaaaaa, I bet that soldier wished he had a spine and a gun when those 2 "Muslims" started killing him. Over here where the Royals haven't taken the guns away from US, those Muzzies would of been shot and buried with pink panties on their head and pork shoved into the mouths.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Polygamy! So every woman can marry a nice guy.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

“October 2005, the British home secretary Charles Clarke declared that: [T]here can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes;

Do you have a problem with what Clarke said?

Islamists do.

Americans do too. The full text of the as-yet-to-be-ratified Equal Rights Amendment (ERA):

• Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
• Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
• Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Equality of rights, unless you are a male, Christian, heterosexual, then you have no rights.

 

[eagle1462010]

Move to our country then you need to respect our laws and our culture. We have a legal system here and not Sharia Law.

If you don't like the culture or our laws..........Then you shouldn't have came here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup

The shoe bomber has never come out of his cell here.
They have to force -feed many inmates here to keep them alive.
(Colorado)

And?


Better he be in that middle seat next to you on Delta?

You're very predictable . Did you know that ?
You assume everyone here has a political agenda, but overlook the possibility that some of us are simply sharing information.

You want my solution to radical Islamic terrorism ?
Get a time machine , go back to 1953 and stop the UK and the US from interfering in Iran.

False.


Here comes the 'information' you so sorely require.


Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. The following is from his recent lecture on that subject.


1. The event that has come to define perceptions of U.S. meddling is the coup that ejected the popularly elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953. Both former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and President Obama have acknowledged America’s role in the coup in speeches that were widely taken to be apologies. http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5280

2. Prior to 1951, Britain controlled Iran’s oil industry. The US foresaw how the one-sided dominance would result in a nationalist uprising, and warned Britain, but they refused to alter the agreements, claiming that they knew how to deal with the ‘natives.’

a. Mossedeq was the nationalist leader of the Iranian Parliament, becoming so via democratic process, and the first thing he did was nationalize the oil industry. Britain wanted to attack Iran, but Truman wouldn’t allow it. Then the Brits tried to get the Shah to use the army to throw Mossadeq out…but the Shah refused to do anything illegal.

3. When the communists attacked Mossadeq, the nationalists, the middle class, the merchants and even a broad swath of clerics—Islamists such as Ayatollah Abolgasem Kashani, a mentor of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—had initially supported Mossadegh.

4. But by November of ’52, try as they may, the US could not make a deal with Mossadeq, who demanded 100% control of oil, which would never be accepted by Britain. The US began to agree with overthrowing the Prime Minister.

a. The power of the communists was increasing in Iran…and the economy suffered a downturn. Both factors caused a loss of popular support for Mossadeq- but due to the loss of support, he felt the need to gravitate toward the communists. This scared off the clergy.

b. Brits and the US began to send in agents provocateurs to act as communists to further cause rifts between the clergy and Mossadeq.

c. As compensation for his support, Ayatollah Kashani began to demand veto rights on legislation, and Islamic laws, and laws against Baha’is. Mossadeq refused, and lost the cleric’s support.

1. Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq with General Fazollah Zehedi. “When pro-Shah soldiers went to arrest Mossadegh, they instead were captured.” http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_14-15.pdf The Shah fled to Rome.
2. By August 19th, crowds filled the streets, attacked Mossadeq’s home, and took over the radio station. The question is whether these crowds were simply concerned Iranians, nationalists, communists, as the Shah’s supporters claimed, or paid CIA operatives, and the CIA claims.

a. Professor Milani, using the latest declassified archival documents, suggests two things: a) the crowds were combinations of both, and b) “Although declassified CIA documents confirmed many details of his account, which Roosevelt told with the relish of a John le Carré thriller, his version was exceptionally self-serving. For instance, despite knowing little about Iranian society and speaking no Persian, Roosevelt launched by his own description an instantly potent propaganda campaign. Dwight Eisenhower, president during the 1953 coup, was to characterize Roosevelt’s report as seeming “more like a dime novel.” The CIA claimed more power that it actually had. http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5280



BTW.....did I mention that I'm never wrong?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Move to our country then you need to respect our laws and our culture. We have a legal system here and not Sharia Law.

If you don't like the culture or our laws..........Then you shouldn't have came here.

If it so remains......

I have serious doubts......look at the posts in this thread.

 

[eagle1462010]

Move to our country then you need to respect our laws and our culture. We have a legal system here and not Sharia Law.

If you don't like the culture or our laws..........Then you shouldn't have came here.

If it so remains......

I have serious doubts......look at the posts in this thread.

**** those wankers..............This America.........time to tell them like it is.

When they whine.........pour salt on the wounds .........I care less.

 

[the other mike]

CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup

The shoe bomber has never come out of his cell here.
They have to force -feed many inmates here to keep them alive.
(Colorado)

And?


Better he be in that middle seat next to you on Delta?

You're very predictable . Did you know that ?
You assume everyone here has a political agenda, but overlook the possibility that some of us are simply sharing information.

You want my solution to radical Islamic terrorism ?
Get a time machine , go back to 1953 and stop the UK and the US from interfering in Iran.

False.


Here comes the 'information' you so sorely require.


Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. The following is from his recent lecture on that subject.


1. The event that has come to define perceptions of U.S. meddling is the coup that ejected the popularly elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953. Both former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and President Obama have acknowledged America’s role in the coup in speeches that were widely taken to be apologies. http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5280

2. Prior to 1951, Britain controlled Iran’s oil industry. The US foresaw how the one-sided dominance would result in a nationalist uprising, and warned Britain, but they refused to alter the agreements, claiming that they knew how to deal with the ‘natives.’

a. Mossedeq was the nationalist leader of the Iranian Parliament, becoming so via democratic process, and the first thing he did was nationalize the oil industry. Britain wanted to attack Iran, but Truman wouldn’t allow it. Then the Brits tried to get the Shah to use the army to throw Mossadeq out…but the Shah refused to do anything illegal.

3. When the communists attacked Mossadeq, the nationalists, the middle class, the merchants and even a broad swath of clerics—Islamists such as Ayatollah Abolgasem Kashani, a mentor of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—had initially supported Mossadegh.

4. But by November of ’52, try as they may, the US could not make a deal with Mossadeq, who demanded 100% control of oil, which would never be accepted by Britain. The US began to agree with overthrowing the Prime Minister.

a. The power of the communists was increasing in Iran…and the economy suffered a downturn. Both factors caused a loss of popular support for Mossadeq- but due to the loss of support, he felt the need to gravitate toward the communists. This scared off the clergy.

b. Brits and the US began to send in agents provocateurs to act as communists to further cause rifts between the clergy and Mossadeq.

c. As compensation for his support, Ayatollah Kashani began to demand veto rights on legislation, and Islamic laws, and laws against Baha’is. Mossadeq refused, and lost the cleric’s support.

1. Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq with General Fazollah Zehedi. “When pro-Shah soldiers went to arrest Mossadegh, they instead were captured.” http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_14-15.pdf The Shah fled to Rome.
2. By August 19th, crowds filled the streets, attacked Mossadeq’s home, and took over the radio station. The question is whether these crowds were simply concerned Iranians, nationalists, communists, as the Shah’s supporters claimed, or paid CIA operatives, and the CIA claims.

a. Professor Milani, using the latest declassified archival documents, suggests two things: a) the crowds were combinations of both, and b) “Although declassified CIA documents confirmed many details of his account, which Roosevelt told with the relish of a John le Carré thriller, his version was exceptionally self-serving. For instance, despite knowing little about Iranian society and speaking no Persian, Roosevelt launched by his own description an instantly potent propaganda campaign. Dwight Eisenhower, president during the 1953 coup, was to characterize Roosevelt’s report as seeming “more like a dime novel.” The CIA claimed more power that it actually had. http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5280



BTW.....did I mention that I'm never wrong?

Correction. The Internet is never wrong, because for every fact there is a lie to dispute it.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

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."

There you have it

 

[PoliticalChic]

CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup

The shoe bomber has never come out of his cell here.
They have to force -feed many inmates here to keep them alive.
(Colorado)

And?


Better he be in that middle seat next to you on Delta?

You're very predictable . Did you know that ?
You assume everyone here has a political agenda, but overlook the possibility that some of us are simply sharing information.

You want my solution to radical Islamic terrorism ?
Get a time machine , go back to 1953 and stop the UK and the US from interfering in Iran.

False.


Here comes the 'information' you so sorely require.


Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. The following is from his recent lecture on that subject.


1. The event that has come to define perceptions of U.S. meddling is the coup that ejected the popularly elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953. Both former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and President Obama have acknowledged America’s role in the coup in speeches that were widely taken to be apologies. http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5280

2. Prior to 1951, Britain controlled Iran’s oil industry. The US foresaw how the one-sided dominance would result in a nationalist uprising, and warned Britain, but they refused to alter the agreements, claiming that they knew how to deal with the ‘natives.’

a. Mossedeq was the nationalist leader of the Iranian Parliament, becoming so via democratic process, and the first thing he did was nationalize the oil industry. Britain wanted to attack Iran, but Truman wouldn’t allow it. Then the Brits tried to get the Shah to use the army to throw Mossadeq out…but the Shah refused to do anything illegal.

3. When the communists attacked Mossadeq, the nationalists, the middle class, the merchants and even a broad swath of clerics—Islamists such as Ayatollah Abolgasem Kashani, a mentor of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—had initially supported Mossadegh.

4. But by November of ’52, try as they may, the US could not make a deal with Mossadeq, who demanded 100% control of oil, which would never be accepted by Britain. The US began to agree with overthrowing the Prime Minister.

a. The power of the communists was increasing in Iran…and the economy suffered a downturn. Both factors caused a loss of popular support for Mossadeq- but due to the loss of support, he felt the need to gravitate toward the communists. This scared off the clergy.

b. Brits and the US began to send in agents provocateurs to act as communists to further cause rifts between the clergy and Mossadeq.

c. As compensation for his support, Ayatollah Kashani began to demand veto rights on legislation, and Islamic laws, and laws against Baha’is. Mossadeq refused, and lost the cleric’s support.

1. Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq with General Fazollah Zehedi. “When pro-Shah soldiers went to arrest Mossadegh, they instead were captured.” http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_14-15.pdf The Shah fled to Rome.
2. By August 19th, crowds filled the streets, attacked Mossadeq’s home, and took over the radio station. The question is whether these crowds were simply concerned Iranians, nationalists, communists, as the Shah’s supporters claimed, or paid CIA operatives, and the CIA claims.

a. Professor Milani, using the latest declassified archival documents, suggests two things: a) the crowds were combinations of both, and b) “Although declassified CIA documents confirmed many details of his account, which Roosevelt told with the relish of a John le Carré thriller, his version was exceptionally self-serving. For instance, despite knowing little about Iranian society and speaking no Persian, Roosevelt launched by his own description an instantly potent propaganda campaign. Dwight Eisenhower, president during the 1953 coup, was to characterize Roosevelt’s report as seeming “more like a dime novel.” The CIA claimed more power that it actually had. http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5280



BTW.....did I mention that I'm never wrong?

Correction. The Internet is never wrong, because for every fact there is a lie to dispute it.

Brilliant, Eisnstein.

 

[the other mike]

PC is on the bomb Iran train.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is on the bomb Iran train.

Try this:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?



Be very careful.....if this is the first time you've tried to think, you could be susceptible to an aneurysm.

 

[otto105]

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......

The american christian taliban really must envy those muslims.