CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[irosie91]

No, I didn't see that list. What post is it in?

No problem. Worth reviewing when we're fighting over US immigration policy..

Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It

In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.

Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.

In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.

Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.

Some Islamic scholars argue that true Islamic belief cannot be coerced by the state, and therefore belief in Shariah should only come from the individual and not be codified by the state.

Please note that in the SHORT list of Muslim majority countries where Shariah plays no role ----- these are LARGELY beyond or on the fringes of "Arab culture". Whilst all those incorporating it into Govt authority in total or in part --- are smack dab CENTER of "Arab culture"...

I also know for a fact that several countries are misplaced in that list. For instance Gaza since the Hamas takeover or recently in Libya and Syria. Even THO there are civil courts, the folks IN CHARGE adopt law that is entirely compatible with Shariah -- so the distinction is MUTE. It's not just "family law" since the civil code itself is LARGELY Shariah based.

there is a significant factor that you left out. That is-----
"BACK TO THE OLD TIME RELIGION TREND". Historically
muslim societies and muslim groups wherever they are located
TREND in and out of Islamic observance which includes ---more
or less---shariah. Right now---the paragon of secular society islamo-
land-----TURKEY-----is in a "back to the old time religion" trend.
Each and any significant muslim population can be caught up
in such a trend. Such trends were very prominent in the famous
MOORISH SPAIN------and impacted significantly on non muslims and
blood levels

While simultaneously preserving Classical literature and philosophy, and building on Classical math and science, which Christians were busy destroying and/or suppressing because they predated Jesus.

The seesawing in current Islamic philosophy is not dissimilar to the U.S. pendulum swing between what calls itself conservatism and what constitutes progressivism. The very fact that pseudo-conservatives have to invent terms such as "regressive liberals" speaks for itself.

All human constructs swing to the extremes and eventually end up in the middle.

I agree with your middle paragraph---but take exception to the first and last.
Try to learn a bit more. -----Classical math and science was not "preserved" and
"built upon" ---by muslims. It was held in the hands of non muslims in lands conquered by muslims. ----that would be Zoroastrians, Christians and Jews
and "pagans" "ISLAM" did not create BAGHDAD-------Baghdad was already
there---by whatever name----and was a cultural center by virtue of its scholarly ---
Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian population---------Alexandria? ---Copts and Jews. EVEN BARCELONA-----already a cultural center when muslims stormed
in ------uhm.... and Toledo and CORDOBA. Getting back to the pendulum of Islamic ISLAMICISM-----it happens and it happens DRAMATICALLY

I was thinking of pre-Renaissance Catholic-controlled Europe, where everything not officially sanctioned by the Church was deemed heresy and punishable by death.

It took the Church five centuries to "forgive" Galileo, for example.

As for religious extremism, let's look at the people in America who presume the right to invade strangers' bedrooms and look up their skirts in the name of "safety." They're not materially different from Shia'a imams.

you said nothing

 

[Arianrhod]

No problem. Worth reviewing when we're fighting over US immigration policy..

Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It

In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.

Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.

In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.

Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.

Some Islamic scholars argue that true Islamic belief cannot be coerced by the state, and therefore belief in Shariah should only come from the individual and not be codified by the state.

Please note that in the SHORT list of Muslim majority countries where Shariah plays no role ----- these are LARGELY beyond or on the fringes of "Arab culture". Whilst all those incorporating it into Govt authority in total or in part --- are smack dab CENTER of "Arab culture"...

I also know for a fact that several countries are misplaced in that list. For instance Gaza since the Hamas takeover or recently in Libya and Syria. Even THO there are civil courts, the folks IN CHARGE adopt law that is entirely compatible with Shariah -- so the distinction is MUTE. It's not just "family law" since the civil code itself is LARGELY Shariah based.

there is a significant factor that you left out. That is-----
"BACK TO THE OLD TIME RELIGION TREND". Historically
muslim societies and muslim groups wherever they are located
TREND in and out of Islamic observance which includes ---more
or less---shariah. Right now---the paragon of secular society islamo-
land-----TURKEY-----is in a "back to the old time religion" trend.
Each and any significant muslim population can be caught up
in such a trend. Such trends were very prominent in the famous
MOORISH SPAIN------and impacted significantly on non muslims and
blood levels

While simultaneously preserving Classical literature and philosophy, and building on Classical math and science, which Christians were busy destroying and/or suppressing because they predated Jesus.

The seesawing in current Islamic philosophy is not dissimilar to the U.S. pendulum swing between what calls itself conservatism and what constitutes progressivism. The very fact that pseudo-conservatives have to invent terms such as "regressive liberals" speaks for itself.

All human constructs swing to the extremes and eventually end up in the middle.

I agree with your middle paragraph---but take exception to the first and last.
Try to learn a bit more. -----Classical math and science was not "preserved" and
"built upon" ---by muslims. It was held in the hands of non muslims in lands conquered by muslims. ----that would be Zoroastrians, Christians and Jews
and "pagans" "ISLAM" did not create BAGHDAD-------Baghdad was already
there---by whatever name----and was a cultural center by virtue of its scholarly ---
Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian population---------Alexandria? ---Copts and Jews. EVEN BARCELONA-----already a cultural center when muslims stormed
in ------uhm.... and Toledo and CORDOBA. Getting back to the pendulum of Islamic ISLAMICISM-----it happens and it happens DRAMATICALLY

I was thinking of pre-Renaissance Catholic-controlled Europe, where everything not officially sanctioned by the Church was deemed heresy and punishable by death.

It took the Church five centuries to "forgive" Galileo, for example.

As for religious extremism, let's look at the people in America who presume the right to invade strangers' bedrooms and look up their skirts in the name of "safety." They're not materially different from Shia'a imams.

you said nothing

Clear your cache.

Then ask yourself how far computer tech might have advanced without the Inquisition.

 

[JoeMoma]

Many Muslims are afraid to speak out against the minority of Muslims that want jihad.

I hear this false statement repeated many times.

Muslims are individuals and are as vocal and opinionated as any other group of people. ........

I don't believe my statement is false, nor does the truth of your reply prove my statement false. Many Muslims (not necessarily most or all) are afraid to speak out against radical muslims. My statement will be especially true in places where the radical Muslims hold power like Iraq and Syria. It will also be true in Muslim Majarity countries like Saudi-Arabia. In America, not so much; however, ask a Muslim to draw a stick figure of Mohammad (showing Mohammad in a positive way) and see if it happens.

 

[Sunni Man]

In America, not so much; however, ask a Muslim to draw a stick figure of Mohammad (showing Mohammad in a positive way) and see if it happens.

First, he would just laugh at you.

And then tell your crazy ass to get away from him. .........

 

[320 Years of History]

You DID read the list of Arab states I provided that CODIFY Islam into TOTAL or PARTIAL theocratic govt Authority --- did you not?

Are you talking about the listings below? I'm sorry. I misspoke in post 773. I did see those lists; indeed that post, post 665 -- along with posts 748 and 665 -- inspired me to write those remarks.

In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.

Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.

In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.

Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

All the actual countries emboldened are non-Arab countries that have implemented Sharia Law to varying degrees. (Gaza Strip isn't actually a country.)

The Arab World​

That was an amazing amount of clock time and ball carry to accuse me of not being able to separate religion from Arab culture and governance.

The effort was not to merely accuse you of something. The remarks I wrote are in support of at least four outcomes:

1. to assert that you have in remarks to which I referred failed to distinguish between Arabism and Muslimism
2. to assert that you have, in the remarks to which I referred, failed to incorporate into them the historic, cultural, and linguistic extant distinctions between Arabism and Muslimism
3. to cogently provide substantive and objective evidence that the two preceding assertions are true
4. to show that agreeing or disagreeing with my assertion/conclusion is not going to alter the reality that my assertion is true not because I'm smart or lucky or "whatever," but because it carries and is founded on the force of fact as opposed to being merely my opinion.
   
   (Folks, including you, can ignore the facts I linked to show that my assertion is so, but doing so, and remarking as though those facts don't exist, is "on them/you." I can't stop folks from doing that. I can only provide the means by which all who observe them doing gain information about their/your character more than anything else.)

Were I of the mind to merely make the assertion listed at #1 and leave it empty and unsubstantiated, I would have written one sentence and been done.

All that writing was included primarily for two audiences:

• flacaltenn -- in the hope you'd actually exercise forensic integrity and read what I wrote, including the content at the links I provided, in support of my assertion and
  • realize that your understanding of what it means to be Arabic and what it means to be Muslim is mistaken,
  • realize you have offered a slew of remarks (premises, inferences and conclusions) in this thread (perhaps elsewhere) that issue from your flawed understanding,
  • act to recant those flawed and fallacious remarks, offering appropriate apologies where warranted in the course of recanting/retracting your errant comments, and
  • posting updated remarks that incorporate and are in consideration of your newly found learnings about the distinctions between Arabism and Muslimism.
• Readers of my post who were not aware that Muslim does not at all also mean Arab, and vice versa -- so as to show that my assertion (#1 above) is indeed accurate, both in spirit and letter, and that I have not merely levied an empty assertion in pursuit of a puerile end, such as trying to make you look bad.

And even after making the effort to make it easy for you to see the error in your premises and inferences, and thus giving you the opportunity to shift to an intellectually and factually honest position, you yet stand on your own sense of infallibility instead of clicking on the links I provided in post #760 and discovering that you are mistaken in your understanding.

Blue:
I have no idea of what you are able to do and not able to do. I can clearly see what you have not done. One of the things you have not done is bother to find out what countries are Arab and what countries are not Arab. You could have checked any number of credibly authoritative sites to find out what states are Arab and what states are not.

• List of Arab League countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• ADC | Facts about Arabs and the Arab World
  
• Countries of the Arab World | Arabic Language Blog

Out of curiosity, what on Earth made you think Iran is an Arab nation? Their language isn't Arabic, it's Farsi....Ditto the " 'Stans," not one of which is an Arab country! Failing to confirm simple facts such as what countries are or are not Arabic is what you did, yet you presumably want folks to perceive you as credible? Really?

BTW, has it dawned on you that all Americans write at least a very tiny bit of Arabic?

Arabic Numerals​

you are WAAAY off the line of scrimage when you assert that "Sharia law gets incorporated in the daily life .. Arab or otherwise"... You DID read the list of Arab states I provided that CODIFY Islam into TOTAL or PARTIAL theocratic govt Authority --- did you not?

You and anyone else who reads the remarks above (or those from post 760), you and anyone else can see I am to no extent "off the line of scrimage [sic]" in writing "Sharia law gets incorporated into the daily life of any culture -- Arabic or otherwise -- if the culture adopts and declares Islam as its source of the law."

It's not I who didn't look at that list. I presume you looked at that list, but you spent no effort thinking about what it represented. You clearly didn't look at the countries in the list you copied from the article you cited before deciding to cite them as being Arab countries. Look at the list, which I requoted in the early part of this post. I have emboldened a slew of non-Arab Muslim countries.

I've never heard of the Protestant or Anglican churches (in modern times) continuing to run tribunals for resolutions of legal matters.

All Anglicans are Protestants, but not all Protestants are Anglican.

We are talking about Religious courts and tribunals. The Catholic church is a valid example. Call me a dunce ---- but I've never heard of the Protestant or Anglican churches (in modern times) continuing to run tribunals for resolutions of legal matters.

Red:
You're a dunce. I called you that at your behest, but the term I'd have used is ignoramus, which is similar, but subtly different. Given your clear refusal to investigate whether what you think/believe is so before sharing it in public, and/or without attesting to the fact that you have not done so, the type of ignorance you display appears to some form other than innocent ignorance. (See also: Willful ignorance)

Lest you feel inclined -- as a result of reading the content at the last link above) to accuse me of exhibiting "arrogant ignorance," I bid you look at my posting record:

• Search Results for Query: I suspect | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
• Search Results for Query: speculate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
• Search Results for Query: anecdotal | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

....You'll see that I very clearly state when I'm merely speculating, when I'm basing my remarks on anecdotal evidence, when I'm supposing/guessing, etc. I know a lot of "stuff," and I know to check that what I know continues to hold true, and that's what I do because I know "things change." Most importantly, I know the nature of that which I don't actually know, and I have enough integrity to simply say so and move on instead of standing my ground on ideas about which I know I have no rock solid basis for being certain.

In short, I'm a steadfast believer and practitioner of Reagan's recommendation, "Trust, but verify." That applies to what I think and believe as well as what others share with me about their thoughts and beliefs. Drawing specious/sophistic conclusions based on empty, untrue and unfounded assertions just isn't isn't something I'm keen to do. To me, that's just "a dog that won't hunt."

Purple:
I imagine you're unaware of such tribunals because, as you failed to do re: your remarks/impressions about Arabs/Muslims, you didn't bother to find out if what you thought to be so is indeed so.

• Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
  
• Introduction
  
• Tribunal decisions
  
• The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

 

[JoeMoma]

In America, not so much; however, ask a Muslim to draw a stick figure of Mohammad (showing Mohammad in a positive way) and see if it happens.

First, he would just laugh at you.

And then tell your crazy ass to get away from him. .........

Without doing it.

 

[irosie91]

In America, not so much; however, ask a Muslim to draw a stick figure of Mohammad (showing Mohammad in a positive way) and see if it happens.

First, he would just laugh at you.

And then tell your crazy ass to get away from him. .........

Without doing it.

try to understand-----for muslims ---muhummad is a "god"--------they cannot draw a picture of him just like jews cannot draw a picture of G-d but can draw a picture of
Moses- (something that looks like Charlton Heston) Christians do not have much
trouble drawing a picture of Jesus-------in fact, have done so INCESSANTLY.
Christians do not have the "no graven image" complex

 

[Arianrhod]

try to understand-----for muslims ---muhummad is a "god"

Incorrect. Muhammad is the Messenger. There is no God but Allah. Unless you accept that, to Christians, St. Peter (or Paul or John the Baptist or whoever is your personal favorite) is a god, and if you suggested that here, Christians would be very upset.

 

[Sunni Man]

try to understand-----for muslims ---muhummad is a "god"------

Incorrect

Muslim's do not consider Muhammad as a god. (but you already knew that)

Muslim's are not allowed to make images of Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, or any other biblical prophet. .......

 

[320 Years of History]

Classical math and science was not "preserved" and
"built upon" ---by muslims. It was held in the hands of non muslims in lands conquered by muslims.

Point made and taken, but I think Arianrhod's point was that unlike the Western European peoples, who, after Rome's fall, forgot, ignored, discarded, stopped utilizing, etc. the intellectual and technological content that had been enjoyed before the fall of Rome, the Moors did not do the same. Moreover, Christian Europeans, with the impetus of the Roman Catholic Church, upon emerging out of the Medieval Age, to ignore or outright denounce mathematical and scientific ideas that had their nascence in the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Heliocentrism is one such example. You'll find others here:

• Science and Technology in Ancient Rome - Crystalinks
  
• http://kotaku.com/5742457/the-ancie...steam-engine-cybernetics-and-vending-machines

Look how long it took the formerly Roman Empire people of Western Europe to once again have running water and plumbing. That observation alludes to a key distinction between the Romans and Greeks. Overall, Ancient Greece was a culture of philosophers, thinkers/theorists, whereas the Romans were engineers, observers and implementers. It in that distinction that we find the difference between science (philosophy) and technology. The problem is that in Medieval Western Europe, the advancement of both was for all intents and purposes "dead." There were rarefied enclaves of intellectualism that were such largely on the force of one person's endeavors, but clearly those individuals lacked the gravitas to impel the entirety of Western European culture forward at the same rate, or even nearly so, of progress enjoyed in ancient times.

You mentioned Toledo. Look closely at what Toledo, Spain is most known for. What of its major historic landmarks isn't attributable to the Moors -- which is very little -- was created during or after the start of the Gothic age. You didn't mention Grenada, but that city's single greatest attraction is the Alhambra, which is a "Dark Ages" wonder of engineering that had no equal in Western Europe of the same time.

The Eastern Roman Empire, on the other hand is a different story altogether.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

While simultaneously preserving Classical literature and philosophy, and building on Classical math and science, which Christians were busy destroying and/or suppressing because they predated Jesus.

The seesawing in current Islamic philosophy is not dissimilar to the U.S. pendulum swing between what calls itself conservatism and what constitutes progressivism. The very fact that pseudo-conservatives have to invent terms such as "regressive liberals" speaks for itself.

All human constructs swing to the extremes and eventually end up in the middle.

I have never seen anybody use the term "regressive liberal" before. What are you referring to?

Liberalism is a political philosophy that attempts to expand social justice for all, so OF COURSE it stands squarely against the introduction of this legal system that discriminates against women so very clearly.

"Regressive liberal" would be a contradiction in terms.

 

[irosie91]

try to understand-----for muslims ---muhummad is a "god"------

Incorrect

Muslim's do not consider Muhammad as a god. (but you already knew that)

Muslim's are not allowed to make images of Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, or any other biblical prophet. .......

"biblical prophet" is the issue? that's a joke ----right? of course because of
the "god" issue. The extra special sacred ----"we kiss the ass of the BIG SHOT---
culture"--------Your social structure involves --INTIMIDATION-----the big shots get
DEIFIED and worshipped

 

[irosie91]

Classical math and science was not "preserved" and
"built upon" ---by muslims. It was held in the hands of non muslims in lands conquered by muslims.

Point made and taken, but I think Arianrhod's point was that unlike the Western European peoples, who, after Rome's fall, forgot, ignored, discarded, stopped utilizing, etc. the intellectual and technological content that had been enjoyed before the fall of Rome, the Moors did not do the same. Moreover, Christian Europeans, with the impetus of the Roman Catholic Church, upon emerging out of the Medieval Age, to ignore or outright denounce mathematical and scientific ideas that had their nascence in the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Heliocentrism is one such example. You'll find others here:

• Science and Technology in Ancient Rome - Crystalinks
  
• http://kotaku.com/5742457/the-ancie...steam-engine-cybernetics-and-vending-machines

Look how long it took the formerly Roman Empire people of Western Europe to once again have running water and plumbing. That observation alludes to a key distinction between the Romans and Greeks. Overall, Ancient Greece was a culture of philosophers, thinkers/theorists, whereas the Romans were engineers, observers and implementers. It in that distinction that we find the difference between science (philosophy) and technology. The problem is that in Medieval Western Europe, the advancement of both was for all intents and purposes "dead." There were rarefied enclaves of intellectualism that were such largely on the force of one person's endeavors, but clearly those individuals lacked the gravitas to impel the entirety of Western European culture forward at the same rate, or even nearly so, of progress enjoyed in ancient times.

You mentioned Toledo. Look closely at what Toledo, Spain is most known for. What of its major historic landmarks isn't attributable to the Moors -- which is very little -- was created during or after the start of the Gothic age. You didn't mention Grenada, but that city's single greatest attraction is the Alhambra, which is a "Dark Ages" wonder of engineering that had no equal in Western Europe of the same time.

The Eastern Roman Empire, on the other hand is a different story altogether.

I do not exactly buy into your model. ----------you have cobbled some grains of truth into a FANTASTIC panorama that does not -----actually represent reality-----The "truth" upon which you depend is the FACT----that the people of the NORTH----(to wit ---western Europe) were----damned barbaric------and generally illiterate-----and somehow you ID the Christian world as THEM. ---------baths and plumbing and
the stuff of elegant living was not MOORISH------it was far more--roman and Egyptian-----. Moors conquered that stuff and MOVED IN
them as------"the christians

 

[flacaltenn]

You DID read the list of Arab states I provided that CODIFY Islam into TOTAL or PARTIAL theocratic govt Authority --- did you not?

Are you talking about the listings below? I'm sorry. I misspoke in post 773. I did see those lists; indeed that post, post 665 -- along with posts 748 and 665 -- inspired me to write those remarks.

In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.

Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.

In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.

Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

All the actual countries emboldened are non-Arab countries that have implemented Sharia Law to varying degrees. (Gaza Strip isn't actually a country.)

The Arab World​

That was an amazing amount of clock time and ball carry to accuse me of not being able to separate religion from Arab culture and governance.

The effort was not to merely accuse you of something. The remarks I wrote are in support of at least four outcomes:

1. to assert that you have in remarks to which I referred failed to distinguish between Arabism and Muslimism
2. to assert that you have, in the remarks to which I referred, failed to incorporate into them the historic, cultural, and linguistic extant distinctions between Arabism and Muslimism
3. to cogently provide substantive and objective evidence that the two preceding assertions are true
4. to show that agreeing or disagreeing with my assertion/conclusion is not going to alter the reality that my assertion is true not because I'm smart or lucky or "whatever," but because it carries and is founded on the force of fact as opposed to being merely my opinion.
   
   (Folks, including you, can ignore the facts I linked to show that my assertion is so, but doing so, and remarking as though those facts don't exist, is "on them/you." I can't stop folks from doing that. I can only provide the means by which all who observe them doing gain information about their/your character more than anything else.)

Were I of the mind to merely make the assertion listed at #1 and leave it empty and unsubstantiated, I would have written one sentence and been done.

All that writing was included primarily for two audiences:

• flacaltenn -- in the hope you'd actually exercise forensic integrity and read what I wrote, including the content at the links I provided, in support of my assertion and
  • realize that your understanding of what it means to be Arabic and what it means to be Muslim is mistaken,
  • realize you have offered a slew of remarks (premises, inferences and conclusions) in this thread (perhaps elsewhere) that issue from your flawed understanding,
  • act to recant those flawed and fallacious remarks, offering appropriate apologies where warranted in the course of recanting/retracting your errant comments, and
  • posting updated remarks that incorporate and are in consideration of your newly found learnings about the distinctions between Arabism and Muslimism.
• Readers of my post who were not aware that Muslim does not at all also mean Arab, and vice versa -- so as to show that my assertion (#1 above) is indeed accurate, both in spirit and letter, and that I have not merely levied an empty assertion in pursuit of a puerile end, such as trying to make you look bad.

And even after making the effort to make it easy for you to see the error in your premises and inferences, and thus giving you the opportunity to shift to an intellectually and factually honest position, you yet stand on your own sense of infallibility instead of clicking on the links I provided in post #760 and discovering that you are mistaken in your understanding.

Blue:
I have no idea of what you are able to do and not able to do. I can clearly see what you have not done. One of the things you have not done is bother to find out what countries are Arab and what countries are not Arab. You could have checked any number of credibly authoritative sites to find out what states are Arab and what states are not.

• List of Arab League countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• ADC | Facts about Arabs and the Arab World
  
• Countries of the Arab World | Arabic Language Blog

Out of curiosity, what on Earth made you think Iran is an Arab nation? Their language isn't Arabic, it's Farsi....Ditto the " 'Stans," not one of which is an Arab country! Failing to confirm simple facts such as what countries are or are not Arabic is what you did, yet you presumably want folks to perceive you as credible? Really?

BTW, has it dawned on you that all Americans write at least a very tiny bit of Arabic?

View attachment 76379

Arabic Numerals​

you are WAAAY off the line of scrimage when you assert that "Sharia law gets incorporated in the daily life .. Arab or otherwise"... You DID read the list of Arab states I provided that CODIFY Islam into TOTAL or PARTIAL theocratic govt Authority --- did you not?

You and anyone else who reads the remarks above (or those from post 760), you and anyone else can see I am to no extent "off the line of scrimage [sic]" in writing "Sharia law gets incorporated into the daily life of any culture -- Arabic or otherwise -- if the culture adopts and declares Islam as its source of the law."

It's not I who didn't look at that list. I presume you looked at that list, but you spent no effort thinking about what it represented. You clearly didn't look at the countries in the list you copied from the article you cited before deciding to cite them as being Arab countries. Look at the list, which I requoted in the early part of this post. I have emboldened a slew of non-Arab Muslim countries.

I've never heard of the Protestant or Anglican churches (in modern times) continuing to run tribunals for resolutions of legal matters.

All Anglicans are Protestants, but not all Protestants are Anglican.

We are talking about Religious courts and tribunals. The Catholic church is a valid example. Call me a dunce ---- but I've never heard of the Protestant or Anglican churches (in modern times) continuing to run tribunals for resolutions of legal matters.

Red:
You're a dunce. I called you that at your behest, but the term I'd have used is ignoramus, which is similar, but subtly different. Given your clear refusal to investigate whether what you think/believe is so before sharing it in public, and/or without attesting to the fact that you have not done so, the type of ignorance you display appears to some form other than innocent ignorance. (See also: Willful ignorance)

Lest you feel inclined -- as a result of reading the content at the last link above) to accuse me of exhibiting "arrogant ignorance," I bid you look at my posting record:

• Search Results for Query: I suspect | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
• Search Results for Query: speculate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
• Search Results for Query: anecdotal | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

....You'll see that I very clearly state when I'm merely speculating, when I'm basing my remarks on anecdotal evidence, when I'm supposing/guessing, etc. I know a lot of "stuff," and I know to check that what I know continues to hold true, and that's what I do because I know "things change." Most importantly, I know the nature of that which I don't actually know, and I have enough integrity to simply say so and move on instead of standing my ground on ideas about which I know I have no rock solid basis for being certain.

In short, I'm a steadfast believer and practitioner of Reagan's recommendation, "Trust, but verify." That applies to what I think and believe as well as what others share with me about their thoughts and beliefs. Drawing specious/sophistic conclusions based on empty, untrue and unfounded assertions just isn't isn't something I'm keen to do. To me, that's just "a dog that won't hunt."

Purple:
I imagine you're unaware of such tribunals because, as you failed to do re: your remarks/impressions about Arabs/Muslims, you didn't bother to find out if what you thought to be so is indeed so.

• Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
  
• Introduction
  
• Tribunal decisions
  
• The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

I read your extensive remarks.. 98% of which were COMPLETELY unnecessary -- because I've been COMPLETELY clear about the difference between Arab culture/politics and practicing the Muslim religion. Sorry you THINK I'm confused.

As far as the geography lesson -- I'll give you the Maldives and raise you that I see NO DIFFERENCE between the socio-political-religious fabric of a CLASSICAL Arab country and Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. Pedigrees are not exciting me here. They ALL contain the same distasteful elements of Arab culture that I clearly laid out. With MAYBE a few "blue stars" for Pakistan which ONCE groped and flirted with openness, tolerance and democracy.

 

[320 Years of History]

I looked it up.. Fraction of ORTHODOX Jews in America is about 10%. That's why quoting Talmudic law and talking about Bet Din is virtually irrelevant for comparisons in THIS country.. Fraction of Catholics subject to "orthodox religious law" I assume is greater than 90%.. So leave us out of the national discussion please.

Now in Israel ---- those numbers reverse and the minority of Jews are secular or Reform or Conservative. The vast MAJORITY is Orthodox..

And in US..what is the fraction of Muslims are conservative enough to seek religious arbritration? When it comes to abuse should not ALL women matter?

What concerns me is [the risk] that virtually ALL of the NEW immigrants will be "that conservative" and carrying expectations of justice and authority that do not match their new homelands.

Red:
Are you seriously telling us that your concern derives from your or other's "what if," "just in case" and "slippery slope" lines of thought?

Are you furthermore telling us that you have that concern in the midst of credible evidence to the contrary?

• "There...is no evidence of rising support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans. Data Visualizations Highlights From the Report: Slideshow | Infographic Interactive Map: Controversies Over Mosques and Islamic Centers Across the U.S. On the contrary, as found in the Pew Research Center’s 2007 survey, Muslims in the United States continue to reject extremism by much larger margins than most Muslim publics surveyed this year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project."
  -- Source: Pew Research: Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism
• Arab and Muslim Political Attitudes: Stereotypes and Evidence from Survey Research

 

[320 Years of History]

Classical math and science was not "preserved" and
"built upon" ---by muslims. It was held in the hands of non muslims in lands conquered by muslims.

Point made and taken, but I think Arianrhod's point was that unlike the Western European peoples, who, after Rome's fall, forgot, ignored, discarded, stopped utilizing, etc. the intellectual and technological content that had been enjoyed before the fall of Rome, the Moors did not do the same. Moreover, Christian Europeans, with the impetus of the Roman Catholic Church, upon emerging out of the Medieval Age, to ignore or outright denounce mathematical and scientific ideas that had their nascence in the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Heliocentrism is one such example. You'll find others here:

• Science and Technology in Ancient Rome - Crystalinks
  
• http://kotaku.com/5742457/the-ancie...steam-engine-cybernetics-and-vending-machines

Look how long it took the formerly Roman Empire people of Western Europe to once again have running water and plumbing. That observation alludes to a key distinction between the Romans and Greeks. Overall, Ancient Greece was a culture of philosophers, thinkers/theorists, whereas the Romans were engineers, observers and implementers. It in that distinction that we find the difference between science (philosophy) and technology. The problem is that in Medieval Western Europe, the advancement of both was for all intents and purposes "dead." There were rarefied enclaves of intellectualism that were such largely on the force of one person's endeavors, but clearly those individuals lacked the gravitas to impel the entirety of Western European culture forward at the same rate, or even nearly so, of progress enjoyed in ancient times.

You mentioned Toledo. Look closely at what Toledo, Spain is most known for. What of its major historic landmarks isn't attributable to the Moors -- which is very little -- was created during or after the start of the Gothic age. You didn't mention Grenada, but that city's single greatest attraction is the Alhambra, which is a "Dark Ages" wonder of engineering that had no equal in Western Europe of the same time.

The Eastern Roman Empire, on the other hand is a different story altogether.

I do not exactly buy into your model. ----------you have cobbled some grains of truth into a FANTASTIC panorama that does not -----actually represent reality-----The "truth" upon which you depend is the FACT----that the people of the NORTH----(to wit ---western Europe) were----damned barbaric------and generally illiterate-----and somehow you ID the Christian world as THEM. ---------baths and plumbing and
the stuff of elegant living was not MOORISH------it was far more--roman and Egyptian-----. Moors conquered that stuff and MOVED IN
them as------"the christians

Please reconsider your remarks in light of what is the thesis statement of my post:

I think Arianrhod's point was that unlike the Western European peoples, who, after Rome's fall, forgot, ignored, discarded, stopped utilizing, etc. the intellectual and technological content that had been enjoyed before the fall of Rome, the Moors did not do the same.​

I wasn't disputing or even debating the nature and extent to which the Moors absorbed what they found upon arriving in/conquering post-Roman Europe and North Africa. I was merely trying to put some perspective on from whence I thought Arianrhod's remarks came.

 

[flacaltenn]

You DID read the list of Arab states I provided that CODIFY Islam into TOTAL or PARTIAL theocratic govt Authority --- did you not?

Are you talking about the listings below? I'm sorry. I misspoke in post 773. I did see those lists; indeed that post, post 665 -- along with posts 748 and 665 -- inspired me to write those remarks.

In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.

Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.

In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.

Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

All the actual countries emboldened are non-Arab countries that have implemented Sharia Law to varying degrees. (Gaza Strip isn't actually a country.)

The Arab World​

That was an amazing amount of clock time and ball carry to accuse me of not being able to separate religion from Arab culture and governance.

The effort was not to merely accuse you of something. The remarks I wrote are in support of at least four outcomes:

1. to assert that you have in remarks to which I referred failed to distinguish between Arabism and Muslimism
2. to assert that you have, in the remarks to which I referred, failed to incorporate into them the historic, cultural, and linguistic extant distinctions between Arabism and Muslimism
3. to cogently provide substantive and objective evidence that the two preceding assertions are true
4. to show that agreeing or disagreeing with my assertion/conclusion is not going to alter the reality that my assertion is true not because I'm smart or lucky or "whatever," but because it carries and is founded on the force of fact as opposed to being merely my opinion.
   
   (Folks, including you, can ignore the facts I linked to show that my assertion is so, but doing so, and remarking as though those facts don't exist, is "on them/you." I can't stop folks from doing that. I can only provide the means by which all who observe them doing gain information about their/your character more than anything else.)

Were I of the mind to merely make the assertion listed at #1 and leave it empty and unsubstantiated, I would have written one sentence and been done.

All that writing was included primarily for two audiences:

• flacaltenn -- in the hope you'd actually exercise forensic integrity and read what I wrote, including the content at the links I provided, in support of my assertion and
  • realize that your understanding of what it means to be Arabic and what it means to be Muslim is mistaken,
  • realize you have offered a slew of remarks (premises, inferences and conclusions) in this thread (perhaps elsewhere) that issue from your flawed understanding,
  • act to recant those flawed and fallacious remarks, offering appropriate apologies where warranted in the course of recanting/retracting your errant comments, and
  • posting updated remarks that incorporate and are in consideration of your newly found learnings about the distinctions between Arabism and Muslimism.
• Readers of my post who were not aware that Muslim does not at all also mean Arab, and vice versa -- so as to show that my assertion (#1 above) is indeed accurate, both in spirit and letter, and that I have not merely levied an empty assertion in pursuit of a puerile end, such as trying to make you look bad.

And even after making the effort to make it easy for you to see the error in your premises and inferences, and thus giving you the opportunity to shift to an intellectually and factually honest position, you yet stand on your own sense of infallibility instead of clicking on the links I provided in post #760 and discovering that you are mistaken in your understanding.

Blue:
I have no idea of what you are able to do and not able to do. I can clearly see what you have not done. One of the things you have not done is bother to find out what countries are Arab and what countries are not Arab. You could have checked any number of credibly authoritative sites to find out what states are Arab and what states are not.

• List of Arab League countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• ADC | Facts about Arabs and the Arab World
  
• Countries of the Arab World | Arabic Language Blog

Out of curiosity, what on Earth made you think Iran is an Arab nation? Their language isn't Arabic, it's Farsi....Ditto the " 'Stans," not one of which is an Arab country! Failing to confirm simple facts such as what countries are or are not Arabic is what you did, yet you presumably want folks to perceive you as credible? Really?

BTW, has it dawned on you that all Americans write at least a very tiny bit of Arabic?

View attachment 76379

Arabic Numerals​

you are WAAAY off the line of scrimage when you assert that "Sharia law gets incorporated in the daily life .. Arab or otherwise"... You DID read the list of Arab states I provided that CODIFY Islam into TOTAL or PARTIAL theocratic govt Authority --- did you not?

You and anyone else who reads the remarks above (or those from post 760), you and anyone else can see I am to no extent "off the line of scrimage [sic]" in writing "Sharia law gets incorporated into the daily life of any culture -- Arabic or otherwise -- if the culture adopts and declares Islam as its source of the law."

It's not I who didn't look at that list. I presume you looked at that list, but you spent no effort thinking about what it represented. You clearly didn't look at the countries in the list you copied from the article you cited before deciding to cite them as being Arab countries. Look at the list, which I requoted in the early part of this post. I have emboldened a slew of non-Arab Muslim countries.

I've never heard of the Protestant or Anglican churches (in modern times) continuing to run tribunals for resolutions of legal matters.

All Anglicans are Protestants, but not all Protestants are Anglican.

We are talking about Religious courts and tribunals. The Catholic church is a valid example. Call me a dunce ---- but I've never heard of the Protestant or Anglican churches (in modern times) continuing to run tribunals for resolutions of legal matters.

Red:
You're a dunce. I called you that at your behest, but the term I'd have used is ignoramus, which is similar, but subtly different. Given your clear refusal to investigate whether what you think/believe is so before sharing it in public, and/or without attesting to the fact that you have not done so, the type of ignorance you display appears to some form other than innocent ignorance. (See also: Willful ignorance)

Lest you feel inclined -- as a result of reading the content at the last link above) to accuse me of exhibiting "arrogant ignorance," I bid you look at my posting record:

• Search Results for Query: I suspect | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
• Search Results for Query: speculate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
• Search Results for Query: anecdotal | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

....You'll see that I very clearly state when I'm merely speculating, when I'm basing my remarks on anecdotal evidence, when I'm supposing/guessing, etc. I know a lot of "stuff," and I know to check that what I know continues to hold true, and that's what I do because I know "things change." Most importantly, I know the nature of that which I don't actually know, and I have enough integrity to simply say so and move on instead of standing my ground on ideas about which I know I have no rock solid basis for being certain.

In short, I'm a steadfast believer and practitioner of Reagan's recommendation, "Trust, but verify." That applies to what I think and believe as well as what others share with me about their thoughts and beliefs. Drawing specious/sophistic conclusions based on empty, untrue and unfounded assertions just isn't isn't something I'm keen to do. To me, that's just "a dog that won't hunt."

Purple:
I imagine you're unaware of such tribunals because, as you failed to do re: your remarks/impressions about Arabs/Muslims, you didn't bother to find out if what you thought to be so is indeed so.

• Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
  
• Introduction
  
• Tribunal decisions
  
• The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

Just whooping a big pile of your "trust but verify" out there tends to cover up the flaws in your offensive line.
If you READ that PEW report you're shoveling to me -- MOST ALL of those Protestant tribunals focus EXCLUSIVELY on DISCIPLINING errant or disruptive clergy and church members. NOT a "voluntary mediation" process at all. And NOTHING like a parallel Sharia justice system that can get out of it's lane prescribed by our laws and societal norms.

I'm SURE all those good Protestant clergy do involve themselves in family life. But the advice is clearly advice and NOT intended as religious authority or a COURT.

To screw up that badly confusing Church Business and discipline with deciding disputes BROUGHT to a tribunal by outside parties to be decided on the basis of Sharia --- means you tried to hard to dispute and re-arrange what I've said and missed the salient parts of the discussion.

 

[Gracie]

What do American Muslims want?

 

[irosie91]

Classical math and science was not "preserved" and
"built upon" ---by muslims. It was held in the hands of non muslims in lands conquered by muslims.

Point made and taken, but I think Arianrhod's point was that unlike the Western European peoples, who, after Rome's fall, forgot, ignored, discarded, stopped utilizing, etc. the intellectual and technological content that had been enjoyed before the fall of Rome, the Moors did not do the same. Moreover, Christian Europeans, with the impetus of the Roman Catholic Church, upon emerging out of the Medieval Age, to ignore or outright denounce mathematical and scientific ideas that had their nascence in the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Heliocentrism is one such example. You'll find others here:

• Science and Technology in Ancient Rome - Crystalinks
  
• http://kotaku.com/5742457/the-ancie...steam-engine-cybernetics-and-vending-machines

Look how long it took the formerly Roman Empire people of Western Europe to once again have running water and plumbing. That observation alludes to a key distinction between the Romans and Greeks. Overall, Ancient Greece was a culture of philosophers, thinkers/theorists, whereas the Romans were engineers, observers and implementers. It in that distinction that we find the difference between science (philosophy) and technology. The problem is that in Medieval Western Europe, the advancement of both was for all intents and purposes "dead." There were rarefied enclaves of intellectualism that were such largely on the force of one person's endeavors, but clearly those individuals lacked the gravitas to impel the entirety of Western European culture forward at the same rate, or even nearly so, of progress enjoyed in ancient times.

You mentioned Toledo. Look closely at what Toledo, Spain is most known for. What of its major historic landmarks isn't attributable to the Moors -- which is very little -- was created during or after the start of the Gothic age. You didn't mention Grenada, but that city's single greatest attraction is the Alhambra, which is a "Dark Ages" wonder of engineering that had no equal in Western Europe of the same time.

The Eastern Roman Empire, on the other hand is a different story altogether.

I do not exactly buy into your model. ----------you have cobbled some grains of truth into a FANTASTIC panorama that does not -----actually represent reality-----The "truth" upon which you depend is the FACT----that the people of the NORTH----(to wit ---western Europe) were----damned barbaric------and generally illiterate-----and somehow you ID the Christian world as THEM. ---------baths and plumbing and
the stuff of elegant living was not MOORISH------it was far more--roman and Egyptian-----. Moors conquered that stuff and MOVED IN
them as------"the christians

Please reconsider your remarks in light of what is the thesis statement of my post:

I think Arianrhod's point was that unlike the Western European peoples, who, after Rome's fall, forgot, ignored, discarded, stopped utilizing, etc. the intellectual and technological content that had been enjoyed before the fall of Rome, the Moors did not do the same.​

I wasn't disputing or even debating the nature and extent to which the Moors absorbed what they found upon arriving in/conquering post-Roman Europe and North Africa. I was merely trying to put some perspective on from whence I thought Arianrhod's remarks came.

Oh----ok------yes-----more realistic------seems to me that most of the
western Europeans never actually -------did all that much absorbing---
when they were IN IT. They tended so be illiterates with just not
enough-----literates for awhile. -------the LITERATES even in the Moorish
areas were not entirely muslim----who also tended to be illiterate

 

[flacaltenn]

Here. I'll toss a concession in my thesis. You get the last rose..

I don't hate Islam. I believe it can be peaceably be practiced in Western tolerant permissive secular cultures. I hate Arab and other tribal cultures that seem to only reach stability in despotic theocratic cultures with little or no tolerance and freedom.

That will fix our little nit picky geographical and definition problems.

And for that reason --- I am GREATLY concerned that this country will make the same mistakes as our lefty Euro buds have made ACCOMMODATING the expectations of new immigrants from these areas that they have the sanction of government to CONTINUE seeking different forms of justice based on Sharia, that they will expect protection from being "religiously offended" OR that they will isolate themselves in enclaves that can be ignored where the CIVIL law and policing can't penetrate. Think Belgium for example..