Clearly the objective of all these initiatives, in Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama and everywhere else, is to outlaw the elements of political Islam that contradict Constitutional protections of freedom of speech and legal equality for all people. They are not intended to outlaw the private religious practice of Islam; Islam would be a matter of complete indifference to every non-Muslim were it not for its political and supremacist aspects, particularly the elements of Sharia that deny basic rights to women and non-Muslims and eliminate the freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.
Yet the Islamic groups in every state where such bills have been introduced respond with the same tired talking points: this bill will make it illegal to be a Muslim, it demonizes Islam, etc. They would be much more credible if they allowed for and participated in a public debate about the political aspects of Islamic law, and explained how exactly they understood those elements in light of the U.S. Constitution. That instead they simply deny the existence of political Islam and demonize the anti-Sharia forces is a telling indication that they are not interested in dealing on this honestly, but are, like so many other Islamic spokesmen in this country, once again trying to deceive the American people.
"Alabama senator tries to ban use of Islamic law," from the Associated Press, March 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):
ANNISTON, Ala. (AP) - A Republican senator from Cottondale has introduced a bill in the Legislature that would ban the use of Islamic law in Alabama courts.Sen. Gerald Allen can't cite any examples of Muslims trying to have Islamic law recognized in Alabama courts, but he says the bill is designed to protect future generations from erosion of the Constitution.
The president of the Birmingham Islamic Society, Ashfaq Taufique, told The Anniston Star that the bill is an effort to "demonize Islam and Muslims."...
''Islam would be a matter of complete indifference to every non-Muslim were it not for its political and supremacist aspects, particularly the elements of Sharia that deny basic rights to women and non-Muslims and eliminate the freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.''
Precisely !
The president of the Birmingham Islamic Society, Ashfaq Taufique, told The Anniston Star that the bill is an effort to "demonize Islam and Muslims."...
There's no need to demonize Islam, it's doing a very good job at demonizing itself.
Alabama senator introduces anti-Sharia bill
...............................
Yes! Joining Oklahoma. Tennessee, Wyoming, and other states. I have to admit I am both very pleased and immensely surprised to see this movement. Bravo!
More:
They are not intended to outlaw the private religious practice of Islam; Islam would be a matter of complete indifference to every non-Muslim were it not for its political and supremacist aspects...
...............................
Exactly—I do not concern myself with the private religious practices of Sikhs, or Baha'i, or Jains. How many people in the West paid much attention to Islam before it reasserted itself as a threat to the West?
More:
Yet the Islamic groups in every state where such bills have been introduced respond with the same tired talking points: this bill will make it illegal to be a Muslim...
................................
Two aspects here: one bogus, one—even more disturbingly—not.
Groups like CAIR want to conjure up images of Muslims being barred from praying or observing Ramadan—this, of course, is absolute rot, and is just meant to stir the concerns of fair-minded Kaffirs.
The other aspect, though, is that "political Islam"—including the imposition of Shari'ah law by whatever means possible—is, indeed, very much a part of "being a Muslim". These bills would bar such activity and such outcomes.
Would that "make it illegal to be a Muslim"? Only Muslims can answer that...
"Islam would be a matter of complete indifference to every non-Muslim were it not for its political and supremacist aspects,"
I would go further. I'd posit that would be no 'Interfaith industry', nor even in all likeliehood even the word 'interfaith', did other religious leaders and politicians not feel the need to prostrate themselves to Muslims; a need which itself is motivated purely by fear.
I'd like to see Democrats and Islamists live in a country run by Sharia Law. They would be pissing their pants in minutes.
Muslims may have a point in their protestations to these state proposals but their objections lie with Islam, their chosen religion, not our responses to it. If Muslims want to believe that Gabriel visited Big Mo and whispered into his ear that henceforth all Muslims should worship the historical Arabian moon god named Allah and a big black rock in Mecca among other things, who cares. That’s their choice. Do and believe what you want so long as you don't bother the rest of us who want nothing to do with Islam.
But what we non-Muslims object to is Political Islam, namely the outer manifestations of this self-inflated religion which requires both Muslim and non-Muslim to behave in certain ways.
For example, during Ramadan, an Islamic ritual held cyclically based on the moon’s movements (explaining why this ritual is not held at the same time each “solar” year), Muslims do not eat during the day. All fine and good until Muslims start DEMANDING that others don't eat in their presence or that they too must obey Muslim strictures and also fast during the day. The pages of JW have retailed just some of the countless other rules that Muslims believe it is their right to impose on others.
But making such demands of non-Islamic believers IS INHERENTLY part and parcel of Islam. To that extent these various state proposals banning Sharia law do deny Muslims the ability to be fully Muslim (as conjured up by Muslims). That is, if being fully Muslim means imposing Islam on non-Muslims until the whole world is subdued. This is expressly stated, more than once, by Big Mo himself in his Quran. The waging of holy war - strangely called the lesser jihad struggle since it seems that Muslims are quite pre-occupied with physical fights than they are with the so-called greater jihad, oddly called the personal spiritual struggle - is affirmatively imposed on all Muslims.
This then is the problem: separating Religious Islam from Political Islam. We in the West can easily do this as such separation is part of our culture. Muslims find such a separation incomprehensible.
But such separation can be done. Snake handling, once an acceptable religious practice in some American circles, is now unlawful. A larger example can be found in the admittance of Utah as one of the United States. Its admittance was conditioned upon the then-allowed Mormon practice of polygamy being legislatively banned.
We have precedent to divorce belief from practices. It can be done despite the shrieking banshee stage acts of the left and Muslims alike.
Remember the old Mafia saying, "Once your in the only way out is feet first."
Well once you are a Muslim the only way out is feet first!
According to Islam they want to teach us peace an understanding. It is amazing that they come to the most open religious country in the World where anyone can practice any faith and change religions on a daily basis if they so desire to teach us peace and understanding of a religion you can only leave "feet first".
Why aren't they taking our peaceful understanding of the respect due all people to practice their chosen faith to their countries. Could it be because it isn't about peace and understanding but control, violence, and murder.
I have long held the views that hate groups don't desolve when their chosen target is removed but they move on to other targets. The Islamic hate for anything non Islamic or non Muslim has proven this out by the fact that they kill each other because they are different sects.
How can they become American as one of the primary requirements is to integrate into our country. It is impossible for a Muslim/Islamic to do this without fear of an honor killing.
It is time we forget Political Correctness and realize these groups are here not to be peaceful and join us but to convert us and change American into countries like Iran, Egypt, Lybia etc where their religious leaders control their society.
Every State should have a law prohibiting Sharia/Shariah law from being practiced in that State. Otherwise you have two sets of laws with part of the population abiding by American/State Law and the other saying they only abide by Sharia/Shariah law. That is not working in Europe and it won't work here.
well siad and well written. I remmeber the holly month of Ramedan as we say in Farsi, Ramzan. what a brutal time. I remmeber when I was in grade school and everytime Ramadan would come around our pricipal would turn to a monster. he was a somker and also a practicing mulim. so during the day he was not able to somke and would go ape shit on us. more oppresive was my dad. sometimes Ramadan falls into te summer and long days. we had to wait for my dad to come home. what a fucked up ritual. here we were kids starving to death, he first had to hear the Azan(calls to muslims for prayer.) he then had to fucking pray. the evening prayers are the longest one! he then had to drink hot water and that when we are alloewd to eat. only to awoken in the early hours of the morning before the surise and do this shit all over again! I do miss him though!! BTW: did you know that the reason dogs are Najes(unclean) is that they fall sleep when the call for morning prayers are called! and this is the fact!!!
The text of the proposed bill (which was terribly difficult to find) can be found here:
http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/view/291977
Unless I'm mistaken, the bill does away with all judicial consideration to foreign law, even when the foreign law in question is not inherently opposed to U.S. or state law.
The AP story seems a bit hysterical. There's no suggestion in the bill that legal aspects of Islamic practice are to be banned, nor that such aspects may not be adjudicated by voluntary, private arbitration.
To the extent that some cases will involve matters that are explicitly religious, there seem to be some grounds not to get the state involved in adjudicating them: neither determining what constitutes authentic religious teaching on some point, nor using the coercive power of the state to enforce them.
Relevant changes to Alabama state law, as follows:
10 "(c) The courts provided for in subsection (a), when
11 exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere
12 to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the
13 Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code,
14 federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established
15 common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated
16 thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the
17 United States, provided the law of the other state does not
18 include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall
19 not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.
20 Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law
21 or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to
22 all cases before the respective courts including, but not
23 limited to, cases of first impression."
I hope more and more states pass anti-sharia laws. Muslims living in all non-Muslim countries should follow the laws of those countries, no two ways about it!! If they want sharia laws, there are 57 Islamic paradise where they can go. We will be very happy and so will be they. We can even buy one way tickets to those paradises!!!
"Can't cite examples"???
Oh I don't know, he could have used the Case of the 2 girls Amina and Sarah, whom th father claimed he should not held accountable, due to the killings being Honor killings
2. The Iraquian father who claimed Sharia, when he ran over his daughter, and boyfriend's mother, for her refusing to participate in arranged marriage
3. The weather man who claimed severing of his wife's head was allowed under Sharia, then later said he did it because he was abused (I suspect someMusli lawyer advised him that we havent accepted Sharia yet as an argument, and to get away scott free with murder, one must be in danger)
Congressman needs to do his homework. Simply state these cases, have Spencer quote the Sharia doctrine, and say something like
"Even though most Muslims are peaceful, this bill will prevent radicals from misinterpreting and implementing the violent articles of Sharia law"
If Muslims TRUELY were peaceful, than why do they have a problem with this??
If they want to scotch accusations of discrimination, why not disregard the laws of all religions - after all, even Mosaic Law such as the ten commandments are not considered per se in state or federal law.
Will it be a slap in the face for muslims to be informed that their religious law system has exactly the same status as those of other religions from Canon Law to Bahá'í law? Let them argue that one.
;-) As a Roman Catholic, I hereby allow any State in the US to disregard the Canon Law all they want. I can assure you that there won't be any massacre, death threats or whining about how it will demonize my religion following this decision... And I'm sure I can speak for 99% of my fellow "papists" !
Bloomberg just opened two Shariah Financial Compliant Companies in Malaysia 2/22/2011
(ISLM)Yuan Money and (MYR) Chinese Sukuk Bond Exchange.
Freedom Towers Management Sold To China NYT,NJT under Bloomberg Shariah.Chinese call it One World Beijing Plaza LTD.All Contrruction in NYC Shariah Financial.
Wall Street Is Now Shariah Compliant.401k plans moving to Malaysia by 2015 after Obama Crashes Dollar.Don't believe me Look it up! Just type Bloomberg Sahaiah,Surprise,Sold out you have been,Suckers!!
You guys....so much overreaction.....
Don't you know that Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1965 ?
Everything's cool.
Happy Friday everyone, it's the day of prayer.
@amazonas re Saudis and slavery
No, no. The Saudis were actually quite progressive.
They abolished slavery not in 1965 but in 1962.
What you think they are, barbarians?
Ironically, it was in 1964 that Malcolm X visited the kingdom and discovered a racial paradise of mythical proportions.
It's easy to get confused on the date, as there were just so dang many Muslim states late in seeing the wisdom of abolition. The list below is that of the last nations in the world to abolish slavery (from the Wiki).
Notice a pattern?
By the way, the Saudi kingdom didn't do buy back all the slaves out of the goodness of their heart. Old Nasser the Commie Pinko Red up in Egypt was having no end of fun mocking the reactionary house of Saud.
Eventually, the king's bud, a guy name Bin Laden, convinced him to give it up. (That would be OBL's pops.)
If only dad's son had devoted himself to freeing the remaining, unofficial slaves instead of blowing up infidels.
------------
Iran: 1928
Burma: 1929
Morocco: Slavery was outlawed in the 1930s.[66]
Northern Nigeria: 1936[67]
Qatar: 1952
Saudi Arabia: 1962
Yemen: 1962
United Arab Emirates: 1963
Oman: 1970
Mauritania: July 1980 (still formally abolished by French authorities in 1905, then implicitly in the new constitution of 1961 and expressly in October that year when the country joined the United Nations), actually still practiced. Slavery in Mauritania was criminalized in August 2007.
Niger: 2003. Slave markets in Niger were closed during the French colonization, but slavery in Niger was finally criminalized as late as in 2003 (came into force a year later).[68]
Nepal: 2008. The government abolished the Haliya system of forced labour, freeing about 20,000 people.[69]
If you take out the privilege and supremacy and plunder and impunity for crimes against non-Muslims and women promised Muslims by the Quran and the Sunnah/Haddith, you take away the lure and the incentive and the reward inherent in Islam. How then would people's base nature be attracted to convert or to put up with all that "submission" of one's freedom and self and very life?
There is a saying in American law that goes something like this:
Your rights to use your fists end where my nose begins.
Hopefully Alabama, OK, TN and all other states that want to bolster this principle with anti-shariah laws will go forward successfully. The fact that CAIR and others come forward to object and try to make the laws fail only shows that they want their fists to have the legal rights to reach the noses of all who are in disagreement with them. Any time, any place and the said nose will have no rights to complain when it bleeds.
Sen. Gerald Allen can't cite any examples of Muslims trying to have Islamic law recognized in Alabama courts, but he says the bill is designed to protect future generations from erosion of the Constitution.
Future generations, and present ones, must be protected from Sharia in all its forms, because it is 'inimical' to our natural Constitutionally protected Freedoms:
What is so hard to understand, that to protect us from the extreme coerciveness of Sharia is what "We the People" must do to protect our Freedoms? ... Any questions?
"To you, your religion; to me. mine." Who said that? I forget.
I read with interest the arguments on the need for Sharia to be outlawed.This is the only way to preserve our freedom,democracy, dignity and hard won human rights.
This month we have "women's Month' and we learn of the long struggle women had to achieve equality and voting rights.
Let's then proclaim the month of Ramadan every year as the Month of Islam=Submission, when we will recite,review,and discuss the Cruelty,Barbarism and Misogynism in the Koran and Hadith where the Muslims are urged never to be friends with Jews,Christians and Infidels and kill them if they refuse to convert to Islam or be subjugated and pay taxes to the muslims.Also the Apostates from Islam and the women who dishonored their family must be killed according to the Koran and hadith.
This way the world will learn the evil in those books and get disgusted.Then Islam will collapse the way the Soviet union did in 1989.
1400 years of bloody jihad for world conquest must end now.