K
KendraDZ1902
Guest
I just don’t see our basic rights of free speech and freedom of religion going anywhere. It will take A LOT to basically change our Bill of Rights. That’s the foundation of this country.
- Status
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
The way some people are talking about this you would think the US does not already have and use religious based laws and courts for members of various faiths.
K
KendraDZ1902
Guest
It seems to me that people sensationalize things. CONSTANTLY.
G
GuyNextDoor
Guest
Agree. If we are to look at those laws I posted among many others which I have not, we are able to predict where the Sharia Law will lead the country(s) to, if and when the conditions are right.
Islam is not a religion of peace. A certain portion of the Islamic religious community may be a peaceful bunch, but the fundamentals and structure of Islam itself is not peaceful. Rather, it instigates fear on the pretence of false peace. And the Sharia Law is the cheese.
I believe that due to the current situation in the Middle East being unstable and all, a persistent objection at the present time may cause political unrest and an uproar in the Muslim community, thus the delay in the decision.
However I do not think I have answered the questions you posed well, would love your (name removed by moderator)ut Gabriel.
G
GuyNextDoor
Guest
I believe the Jewish laws which you were trying to compare with the Sharia Law, does not at all have anything to do with that much death and amputation, much less consuming a marriage with a 9 year old.
I would opt for Jewish laws any day, instead of the Sharia Laws. Unless of course someone is able to show me that the Jewish laws are no different, then I humbly retract my post.
Correct me if I am wrong. I hope I am not.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
And are these Jewish laws used for civil or criminal matters or both; and do the usage of such laws require both parties to agree to their usage?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
That is key, “if and when the conditions are right”. The two most ancient forms of a successful war is; To cause division and confusion among the enemy and then attack them, the second one is to cause an Empire to fall from within itself. The enemy integrates it’s politics and migrates it’s members into the host’s population, raises it’s members to leadership roles within the host society and cause the Empire to fall from within itself. Islam uses both of these ancient war techniques today. In addition the Muslim who is obedient to the Quran that; teaches all Muslims the good virtue to lie and deceive those whom Muslims deem are Islam’s enemies.
A true practicing Muslim of Islam who follows the Quran knows Islam’s final goal is to conquer all nations and convert them to Islam by all means.
One should understand Islam’s interpretation between “conquer” and conversion by peaceful means. In both cases the Muslim seeks to integrate Shairah law because it places the fear on an individuals obedience to the rulers of the Islamic religion and places fear on Muslims to follow Shariah law.
.
Islam is a peaceful religion when it is not met with question or objection to it’s Shariah law and Islamic practices, but this peace is always short lived. What is interesting is the fact that Islam practiced in a predominant Muslim society governed by Muslims has a historical record of never being at peace among it’s own Muslim cities and neighboring Muslim societies. I find no historical peaceful model in a predominant Muslim society of Islam to date, that could represent Islam as a peaceful religion.
Historically speaking, Shariah law may appear civil and tame compared to it’s contemporary pagan and barbaric religions, which encompassed the Arabs who worshipped over 33 different deities in Mecca. Muhammad removed the false idols from the Arabs and converted most, but not all Arab tribes to Muslim that worship one God under the banner of Islam. **Shariah in this time of history would appear civil and peaceful./B]
**Shariah law in it’s infant stage of history would be peaceful and civil all things considered from antiquity. Shariah law today appears to be barbaric and uncivil compared to today’s civil laws. Shariah is not only a law for Muslims, it can apply to non-Muslims also. It is not possible for a non-Muslim to walk around in a Muslim pre-dominant society, holding a bible in hand and wearing a crucifix, or a priest or nun to be seen in public with their religious garb, for one example./B]
Shariah law has not matured nor has it keep up with the development of languages, diverse cultures and civil laws that protect the dignity of human life. By the way, these civil laws to protect the dignity of human life comes from Catholic Church’s influence on developing societies to protect life, such as the new Americas.
This is the dichotomy of Islam’s Shariah law and the laws in the West which protect the dignity and respect of human life and an individual’s freedom and liberties in life.**
Shariah law has to creep in our free societies and when it can or when the conditions are ripe for Shariah law, it is a guarantee Muslims will happily enforce Islam’s Shariah law.
The question remains; Will Shariah law change it’s obedience to it’s Quran? so as to conform itself to the free world and her civil liberties and protection of human life and dignity of a person? Or does Shariah law remove all existing laws that resist and reject Shariah law?
You maybe correct here. Being that laws passed objecting to Shariah law are being contested by Muslims, and have reached the Supreme Court. I pray our Supreme Court still remains independent from all active administrations and influences by law at least. Under this present Administration, I have lost the congruency of our politics in action today, to what I have been accustomed to in the past presidencies.
Maybe? The Supreme Justices are weighing in the evidence from the Muslim community. It could be the Justices are working with the Muslims to be able to practice their Shariah law within their religion, which I would applaud. But Shariah law as it stands violates human rights and the dignity of human life. There is no getting pass this, unless Muslims reject their U.S citizenship, so as to practice their Shariah law as a foreigner within our borders? But then Shariah law faces the UN Charter of laws that protect human life and the dignity of life. Although the U.N laws are mocked by Muslims in a predominant Islamic country. Our nation sometimes follow the UN charter of human rights, so the UN charters must be weighed in, unless the Supreme Court outlaws a UN human rights charter just for the Muslims?
Thank you TheGuyNextDoor
your response is most valuable to the discussion.Peace be with you**
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
This is not going away soon. If and when the Muslims reach the popular vote majority in any state, these laws would be met with violence and mobs to overturn them, should they remain law and become activated. One European country tried to outlaw the bercca head covering, and some newspaper drew a cartoon of a Muslim figure, which resulted in riots and public and private property damages. Sounds silly doesn’t it? Not when wanted terrorist are known to exist among their own citizens.
I have my reasons for stating that our Congressman/woman and State legislatures who outlaw Shariah law, will be looked at as great wise Fathers of our nation by our future generations and will be grateful for their insight and wisdom to act early on against the outlawing of Shariah law in the greatest country of all ages, so long as Shariah law does not change our Constitution.
Peace be with you
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
When exactly did Congress pass laws concerning Sharia?
G
GuyNextDoor
Guest
Those are the exact questions which are bothering me. What bothers me more is how some people are echoing what everyone else is saying without using discernment. An example from one of the poster here is:
The above is only true to a certain extent, especially when it comes to religious issues. Yes there should be religious freedom, I totally agree. I live in Singapore where we are a multi-racial and multi-religious society. However after careful discernment, should I agree to the rights of the Islamic community having their Sharia law which violates the most important rights of the people: the rights of humanity in this day and age?
**Should I allow an adult to consumate a marriage with a 9 year old?
Should I allow amputation of the hand publicly for a theft crime?
Should I allow the beheading of someone publicly for criticizing the Quran, Mohammed or Allah?
Should I allow them to behead non-Muslims for leading a Muslim away from Islam?
Should I allow a non-Muslim and Muslim couple to be put to death because they are so in love and wishes to be married?
Should I allow a woman being raped and not being able to sue the rapist until she has 4 male witnesses to testify that she was indeed raped?
Should I allow a woman who wishes to seek justice for herself in court but unable to do so because a man’s testimony in court holds more credibility than the said woman?
Should I allow a man to beat his wife using excuses of insubordination, and get away with it?
Should I agree that a woman cannot divorce her husband if she is ill-treated because the husband won’t give his consent?
Should I agree to disallow a woman from speaking to any man alone if the man is not a relative or husband?**
What human rights? What freedom of speech? What religious freedom do these people see in these?
It is both disturbing and appalling to see some people echoing what others are saying without truly sitting down to discern and weigh the factors. If a government agrees to everything due to human rights without weight the pros and cons on what it will lead to, it will be like being in huge traffic collision. Will people drive and crash headlong into other cars just because all the traffic lights are green, because they can?
Where have all the discernment gone to? Human rights are not only about me or you, or him or her. Its not even about any particular community. Its about the well-being & protection of the entire world in this current age.
The above is not meant to be offending to any poster(s) out there, just giving my 2 cents worth.
I share your views closely Gabriel. Always good conversing with you.
God Bless
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
:
If the United States of America politicians have moved to pass laws outlawing Shariah law post 911, in their respective states, prove that Shariah law is something of a reality among us.
My personal last time frame of Shariah law was being addressed was back in 2009. When states were passing laws and Congress was introducing law, which to my late knowledge also passed years ago. I never doubted that Shariah law was ever going be a threat.
Upon a background check to these laws today prove that, they are being held up in higher courts.
Update; Both the states and federal laws need not pass new laws to out law Shariah law. Because both Congress and State laws already have laws protecting an individual rights. Thus most courts are dismissing these new laws against Shariah laws. Here is one quote from an attorney who comments on our discussion here.That the laws passed by Congress already objects and rejects Shariah law, and new laws need not be introduced, this is the update of passed laws against Shariah law summed up.
"Leerberg says he’s not concerned that Sharia or any foreign law can take precedence over American rights.
“Something that violates the North Carolina constitution violates it regardless of whether this statute is passed,” he says. **“Something that violates the United States constitution violates it regardless of whether the statute is passed.”
The supremacy clause of the Constitution supplies that no law or judge can render a decision that violates it, “anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”**For that reason, the North Carolina Bar Association calls the legislation unnecessary. The American Bar Association has opposed similar bills in other states.
But proponents point to cases around the country, like Mussa v. Palmer-Mussa, where courts have considered Sharia in divorces, child custody or domestic violence cases. Leerberg says it is common to analyze a person’s religion and country of origin for context in a family law case.
“The principal risk of the bill is that it could be misinterpreted or misused to chill discussions of religion and religious law that tend to bounce around in these kinds of family law cases,” he says.
Constitutional lawyer and UNC law professor Michael Gerhardt says state laws also already offer protection against spousal abuse and other state crimes, and religion does not factor into it.
“There’s a general law in this state—it’s in every state—that prevents one citizen from violently abusing another citizen,” Gerhardt says. “There’s no question that the United States Supreme Court would uphold that law, regardless of what the religion happens to be of the people involved.”
Even if the law has no legal effect, Rose Hamid, president of the organization Muslim Women of the Carolinas, worries the North Carolina legislation would have another consequence.
The only place Shariah law may have an impact is in family law. Although in family law, laws exist that protects children and spouses, and have to be taken on a case by case.
In the U.S we already have laws protecting an individuals freedom of religion. But if a member practicing a religion who violates any human rights, the law of the land supersede the religious practice. Thus the Federal Constitution does not out law the religion of Islam’s Shariah law. It will outlaw any one who violates a human right practicing or interpreting his/her Shariah law. In short the U.S Constitution is blind to Shariah law, unless one violates the Constitution, Shariah law plays no precedent in the law of order.
Where the threat of Shariah law exists is in family law, for those who are converting to Islam or marrying a Muslim. Shariah law becomes complicated.
It is here then where Shariah law creeps into free societies by converts, marriage, children. It appears Islam will not change it’s shariah law. The leaders in power of a country when the majority is Muslim, can change any countries Constitution of laws to Shariah law. Will we see this in our lifetime? remains to be seen. Is this Islam’s goal, we need to take your advice and discern the creeping of Shariah law.
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
See post #35 and then get update from post #71
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Yeah, still not actual citations of Congress passing laws concerning Sharia which is what you claimed. In fact, your last post pretty much invalidates your own argument that Congress has pass such laws. Thanks for letting me know that you now believe your initial position was incorrect.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Correction; The Constitutional law passed already outlaws Shariah law, secondly the bill of Rights passed by Congress and updated outlaws Shariah law.Yeah, still not actual citations of Congress passing laws concerning Sharia which is what you claimed. In fact, your last post pretty much invalidates your own argument that Congress has pass such laws. Thanks for letting me know that you now believe your initial position was incorrect.
The laws introduced back in 2009-2012 were all passed, some remain in higher courts, others have quietly disappeared into the already Congressional laws and Constitutional laws which in effect already grant what the laws passed introduced.
In short; Congress has federal laws passed to out law Shariah law. So your presumption that Congress did not pass any laws that object to shariah law is a myth on your part.
I have proven without violating forum rules, that laws in deed passed outlawing shariah law both at the State and Federnal levels. Are these laws evident? I did not pursue them any further, most state laws that were passed could not be found and do not exist anymore, upon finding the updates of these passed laws.
I do plead my ignorance, of not following up the laws which passed 20010-20012, to which have in effect been nullified by existing federal and state law mandates which outlaws the disciplines of Shariah law, should a Shariah law, if? acted upon violates Federal and State law mandates? that protects an individual rights not to exclude the bill of Rights.
Never the less post 911 laws passed proved to our political systems, that worked to prevent the creeping of Shariah law from derailing our judicial system, proves any myth of shariah law to be a reality, that all free societies should discern.
In short, presently it does not serve any purpose to locate passed laws in limbo or nullified from years ago, which have been passed at least by 32 different states post 911, let alone federal laws from years ago. Because presently as the Federal laws stands, any effort by congress to pass post 911 laws to reject Shariah law proved fruitless including state laws that passed that I could not find, nor did I give any more effort to your myth, when I came across the updates of Federal laws and State laws which already in effect nullified any new laws, because they presently outlaw disciplines of Shariah law.
So, my post remain as they stand with the updates.
W
WilT
Guest
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
The only myth here is the existence of laws passed by Congress to outlaw Sharia. One would think you would be able to cite at least one instance of Congress passing such a law.
T
TypesAndShadows
Guest
If you’re going to say things like “ask Britain”, you should be aware that we are not some exotic country with no internet access or insummountable language barriers to communicating with you. There are, in fact, many of us on this board available to be asked, and none of us are living in some Sharia-ruled wasteland. If someone has told you that that is what Britain is like, they have deceived you.
Sure, there are some Muslims who would like to have recourse to Sharia law, just as there are Orthodox Jews who want to be able to adapt public areas to better suit their Sabbath needs. There was an interesting thing a while ago about areas of London that had wires strung across between buildings, so that the areas enclosed counted as being indoors for Jewish religious purposes? And, after all, it was only in the 19th century that Catholics were allowed to re-establish the hierarchy and dioceses in Britain, which really does look like an alternative system of governance and laws. Invading Catholics, bringing creeping Papal rule!
None of this is cause for concern, because groups will always push for accomodation, and we always have to balance that with the need for a single law of the land for everyone. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Don’t panic.
Sure, there are some Muslims who would like to have recourse to Sharia law, just as there are Orthodox Jews who want to be able to adapt public areas to better suit their Sabbath needs. There was an interesting thing a while ago about areas of London that had wires strung across between buildings, so that the areas enclosed counted as being indoors for Jewish religious purposes? And, after all, it was only in the 19th century that Catholics were allowed to re-establish the hierarchy and dioceses in Britain, which really does look like an alternative system of governance and laws. Invading Catholics, bringing creeping Papal rule!
None of this is cause for concern, because groups will always push for accomodation, and we always have to balance that with the need for a single law of the land for everyone. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Don’t panic.
W
WilT
Guest
Sorry, but…I just don’t agree with you.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I have, and the higher courts have spoken and speak today, that Congress has already passed laws that outlaw Shariah law in our federal laws and amendments to the Constitution.
Thus, the states and congress need not pass or amend anymore laws to this effect. That is why many State laws which specifically passed laws against Shariah law cannot be found today, because the higher courts saw in them a repeat of existing laws both federal and by all states protecting her citizen and human rights.
Did any of the state and congressional moves to pass and did pass laws to outlaw Shariah law post 911 exist today? No and I did not pursue any further state or federal laws after I read updates by the higher court ruling on these passed laws . Which prove states and congress moved against Shariah law, with legal legislation and passing of laws, is all what my posts commented on to remove your myth of Sharah law.
Did Congress pass laws against Shariah law. Yes in our Constitution and amendments passed by Congress. Did any new laws come into effect which supersede our constitution that outlaws Shariah law? No, those that passed did not and do not supersede our Constitution, and did not become law after they were passed, when the higher courts did not see a need to pass new laws to duplicate existing laws in our Constitution.
The question remains here? Can Congress pass laws to activate Shariah law in the united States? Yes, by a Majority of Muslims members in the white house and Congress, a Majority of Muslims can change our Constitution peacefully by majority vote to enact Shariah law.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Just put the shovel down. You’ve dug yourself a big enough hole already. In order to defend your position you have switched from trying to prove that Sharia has been outlawed by citing fictitious passages of laws by Congress your presented as fact and avoided actually citing when called on it, citation of bills being introduced into Congress trying to outlaw Sharia as fact laws have been passed, and using state passages of such laws as proof the federal government has to your current position of they don’t need to pass such laws because such laws already existed under current law.
You also apparently have no real understanding of how governance in the US works. I refer to, and this is just one example, to your statement- “No, those that passed did not and do not supersede our Constitution, and did not become law after they were passed, when the higher courts did not see a need to pass new laws to duplicate existing laws in our Constitution.” The courts don’t actually pass laws. They have no Constitutional power to pass legislation.
Finally, I need to address your scaremongering above about Muslims peacefully enacting Sharia by changing the Constitution. Doing such would require a lot more than just a majority of Muslims in Congress and in the populace in general (here apparently we are to assume that all Muslims of course want Sharia in effect and that they all agree on what Sharia is). Assuming that all Muslims in the US agree on what Sharia is and all want it and that they have the necessary super majority to get it through the necessary votes in both Congress and by the states it would in effect be an already Muslim society adopting laws and governance that reflect their identity as a Muslim society. Oh noes, a society adopts laws and governance that reflects what the vast majority of the society views as fair and just and what the vast majority of the society want. The injustice of that.
- Status