The difference between 'hoods' in America and Muslim communities a.k.a "No go zones" in Europe is that the 'hoods' are not part of a plan to ultimately impose a foreign set of laws on a host nation.
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Are you serious??
Coulter identified you pretty well, here:
"Whenever liberals are in a tight spot, they adopt the scorched-earth policy of argumentation. With no answer, they start demanding that you define words: What do you mean “liberal”? What do you mean “democracy”? What do you mean “patriotism”?"
Coulter is an idiot.
Again, what evidence do you have that there is some kind of plan " to ultimately impose a foreign set of laws on a host nation"?
Actually, you've proven to be not simply an idiot, but 'idiot par excellence.'
That's laughable. Coming from you
Here you are pretending to be equipped to discuss even the most rudimentary aspect of Islam, and you are not aware of the single most basic aspect.....jihad, designed to impose Islam on the entire world.
Translation:
pull out index card with Anti-Islamic Talking Point #1 (scare the masses with disinformation)
1. "By any clear reading of the Quran, the hadith (reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran), the histories, the biographies and the law books on early Islam, jihad cannot exclude military warfare in the cause of Allah in order to expand Islam."
Jihad The truth about the rules of Islamic warfare
Translation:
pull out index card with Talking Point #3.5 (cherry picked out of context Quranic quotes from an anti-Muslim site)
2. "The article says that ICNA [the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Circle of North America] is sponsoring the "roughly $3 million dollar campaign" that "will feature billboards in at least 15 U.S. cities, 'Shariah seminars' on 20 college campuses, and town hall-style forums and interfaith events in 25 cities."
Here's the thing: "U.S. Muslim groups insist they have no desire to introduce Islamic law on themselves or others," so why should they be blocking efforts to outlaw it?
Legislation banning "Sharia" is a violation of freedom of religion (seriously now, this is pretty basic stuff) and such legislation is only being used to single out Muslims. No call to ban Jewish law. No call to ban Christian laws.
It's also pretty pig-ignorant and symptomatic of the mass hysteria infecting the idiots we elect into office. Banning "Sharia" means no Halal meat for example, it means that US courts can't recognize marriages, divorces or business contracts contracted in countries where Sharia is used in legal contracts and in banking.
The Sharia penal codes have no chance in hell of every becoming law in this country. There is no desire amongst American muslims for it, it would require the complete dismantling of the Consitution and, quite frankly - decades worth of the Christian Right attempting to force Christianity into our legislative system with no success, why on earth do you think Sharia would fly?
Sharia
....a
new study has found that Shariah has already been used as a determining factor in court cases in 23 states."
Articles Defending Shariah in America
The True Story of Sharia in American Courts The Nation
The true story of Sharia in American courts is not one of a plot for imminent takeover but rather another part of the tale of globalization. Marriages, divorces, corporations and commercial transactions are global, meaning that US courts must regularly interpret and apply foreign law. Islamic law has been considered by American courts in everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, and the awarding of damages in commercial disputes and negligence matters.
As an attorney, consultant or expert witness, I have handled more than 100 cases involving components of Sharia. In a case I tried in 2002, Odatalla v. Odatalla, a New Jersey couple had signed an Islamic marriage contract consistent with their cultural traditions. When the wife filed for divorce, she asked the court to enforce the mahr, or dowry provision, in her contract, which called for the husband’s payment of $10,000 upon the dissolution of their marriage. Superior Court Judge John Selser found the marriage contract valid under New Jersey law, concluding, “Clearly, this court can enforce a contract which is not in contravention of established law or public policy.”
In a 2003 case involving Exxon Mobil and a Saudi oil company, the parties had agreed as part of a commercial transaction that Saudi law would govern any potential disputes. After the Saudi company sued its former business partner, Exxon Mobil, the Delaware Superior Court heard testimony on Saudi law, which applies traditional Sharia, and the judge instructed the jury to base its decision accordingly. The jury returned a $400 million–plus verdict in favor of Exxon Mobil and against the Saudi firm.
Finally, in a more recent case I was involved in, a state judge declined to recognize a Syrian court order that would have transferred the custody of a child to her father because of the mother’s remarriage. The judge reasoned that remarriage alone is not sufficient to transfer custody. Far from deferring to judgments from foreign countries, US courts regularly refuse to recognize such orders due to the constitutional and due-process implications.
Had an anti-Sharia ban been in place in these courts, Exxon could not have won its verdict, nor would the wife in Odatalla have been able to enforce her marriage contract. The ban would have stripped those judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider the cases. For litigants in states where such a ban exists, these statutes are an unconstitutional infringement of the people’s freedom of contract, free exercise of religion and right to equal protection. And what the anti-Sharia movement ignores is that, whether a US judge considers Sharia as a foreign law, as in the Exxon case, or as a way to better understand a dispute between parties, as in Odatalla, the extent of its applicability is always dictated by American law.
The Sharia scaremongers often rely on a single New Jersey case, S.D. v. M.J.R., as proof that Islamic law is seeping into our court system. In it, a wife sought a restraining order against her husband, alleging that he repeatedly beat and sexually assaulted her. The judge denied her request, holding that the defendant did not form the criminal intent necessary to commit the crime, because his genuine religious beliefs dictated that he was entitled to sexual relations upon demand. The ruling was wrong—both under state law and Sharia—and, not surprisingly, the New Jersey Appellate Court reversed it in 2010.
Pamela Gellar? Are you serious?
