Not that a constitution which is said to be merely inspired by Sharia's supremacist and authoritarian principles would be good news. But the Salafists, that supposed Tiny Minority of Extremists that has gotten between a quarter and a third of the vote between the first two rounds of Egypt's elections, intend to make sure Sharia is not merely the basis of legislation, but features in its contents. Indeed, both Islamic parties' strength in numbers ensures that.
A democracy is only as good as the values that inform its participants. "Salafi party forms committee to influence constitution," by Hamdi Dabash Mohamed Abu Elenen for Al Masri Al Youm, December 26:
The Nour Party has formed a legal committee to prepare a new constitution for the country, said Emad Abdel Ghafour, president of the Salafi Nour Party.
“It would be based on previous constitutions and experiences so as to arrive at the best formula,” Abdel Ghafour said, adding that the draft would be presented to the public for discussion.
Party spokesman Yousry Hammad explained that the proposed constitution disposes of the presidential system. “We don’t want power to be in the hands of one person,” he said.
Hammad added that article two of the proposed constitution stipulates that the “provisions” and not the “principles” of Islamic Sharia law are the main sources of legislation. “We shall apply Sharia gradually so as not to cause distortions,” he said.
Applying it all at once might provoke resistance. But the journey of a thousand years' regression of human rights begins with a single step.
But the party has denounced the “Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Authority” that some of its members have already formed, taking after the Saudi model. “This was an individual endeavor that the party is not responsible for,” said Abdel Ghafour.
The authority’s founders said, in their first statement on Facebook, that they are not working under the umbrella of the Nour Party.
Typical lack of transparency, with an odd twist:
“We assure you that we would not resort to force or violence, but rather to dialogue and advice in applying Sharia,” the statement said, adding that the founders would reveal their identities once they accumulated a sufficient number of members in their Facebook group.
A deceptive half step to hell?
WE ARE AT WAR!
1:20 “…We are not in war with Islam
BUT Islam is at war with us”
http://newstime.co.nz/islamic-concepts-misunderstood-by-westerners.html
Sharia is just like pregnancy. You can't be just a little bit pregnant in principle or have just a little bit of sharia and only in principle and not materially.
Islam is a whole deal package. You either take it all or you leave it, if you can. The loser takes it all.
Ah, the "provisions" of Sharia:
Got a disobedient wife? Why not just beat her with a club?
Scared that she may cheat on you? Accuse her of adultery, and unless she provides four witnesses to testify, she'll be flogged and stoned to death... Or you could always just say "Talaq" three times straight and get a new wife, after all she doesn't have the right to divorce you.
Got a minority Christian community defying you? Not anymore! Demand from them the Jizya, then go to war!
Homosexuals coming out of the closet? Then throw them off tall-buildings and then they won't need a closet.
Ah, the "provisions" of Sharia.
Sources:
Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, in particular the quotations below: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/001-adultery_punishment.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/004-jizya.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/002-rape_adultery.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/003-wife-beating.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/005-triple-talaq.htm
Minhaj al-Muslim:
http://store.dar-us-salam.com/product/133.html
"We assure you that we would not resort to force or violence, but rather to dialogue and advice in applying Sharia."
Huh-uh. The plain English of which is you get the dialogue and advice first and then if you still disagree you get the force and violence. Damn, Muzzies are so easy to figure out as long as one's brain isn't clouded by PC/MC-think.
John Quincy Adams nailed it, way back in 1829.
" The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.
"The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat:
"but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective.
"The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. "
'Dialogue and advice' = 'fraud' (trickery, deception, suckering people in).
It's like a psychopath who'd prefer not to have to use physical force to drag his intended rape-torture-murder victim into his car or into his flat, if he can sweet-talk her into it instead.
“We assure you that we would not resort to force or violence"
And the moon is made of green cheese.
God help the Copts.
Now the Mullahs work, writing Federalist Papers in invisible ink.
When the Mullahs start drafting constitutions, they do it by way of diminution,
This is so cuz the Holy Ko-Ran is the only constitution, apostasy is its dilution.
Ain't no apostate Mullahs that I know, but I try to steer clear of their hairy kind,
Riding fake Unicorns in a straight path herd, it's more than just a state of mind.
- the Holy Prophet APF
"Move along now, there's nothing to see here." - Barack Obama
The State of Oklahoma will have to let the affirmative action appointee, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, who is preventing OK from enacting changes to its own constitution, know what shariah and its provisions are all about as she "mulls over" her already predetermined final ruling on the change to the OK Constitution, approved by more than 70% of OK voters.
Egypt: Salafist party forms constitutional committee, says Sharia's "provisions," not just "principles" will be present in new constitution
...........................
That's right—you can't have amputations and stonings without the "provisions" of Shari'ah—wouldn't want to miss out on those, after all...
More:
A democracy is only as good as the values that inform its participants.
...........................
That's right—and a "democracy" informed by Islam is no democracy at all—not in the sense we mean it...
More:
Party spokesman Yousry Hammad explained that the proposed constitution disposes of the presidential system. “We don’t want power to be in the hands of one person,” he said.
...........................
More crap. A president in a democracy is constrained by checks and balances, both constitutional and systemic—a proper president is *not* a potentate. the idea that Egypt will be *more* democratic under full Shari'ah is just utter b*llsh*it.
More:
Hammad added that article two of the proposed constitution stipulates that the “provisions” and not the “principles” of Islamic Sharia law are the main sources of legislation. “We shall apply Sharia gradually so as not to cause distortions,” he said.
...........................
Boiling water, frogs...
More:
But the party has denounced the “Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Authority” that some of its members have already formed, taking after the Saudi model. “This was an individual endeavor that the party is not responsible for,” said Abdel Ghafour.
...........................
So—will this be the end of the "Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Authority" in Egypt? I wouldn't count on it...
More:
“We assure you that we would not resort to force or violence, but rather to dialogue and advice in applying Sharia,” the statement said, adding that the founders would reveal their identities once they accumulated a sufficient number of members in their Facebook group.
...........................
So—*this* is where the "Facebook Revolution" stands now in Egypt. Not exactly what Wael Ghonim had in mind when he used the term back in the "Arab Spring"...
JQA knew, dda. No doubt about that. Too bad our current crop of politicians in the West do not. Actually, one could make a very good case for the fact that clueless Westerners, be they in Australia, America, Britain, Germany, The Netherlands or wherever, especially the ones in charge right now, are the real problem and not the Muzzies. If most everyone in the West were on the same page regarding the menace to liberty which Islam poses, vanquishing Islam's designs on the West would be relatively easy. Not there yet.
Hope you're enjoying the Christmas season. Certainly the last post of yours to me on a previous thread indicated that you were. Wonderful time of year it is. My best to you and yours.
I hope you are having a wonderful Christmas season as well, Wellington!
Of course, stories like the one above can go far in quashing the gladdest heart...
But we know what we're fighting for, and being able to enjoy a happy holiday season is high on that list...
WaPo: Gaza’s premier in Egypt on his 1st trip outside territory since Hamas takeover
This necessarily raises the following question:
Will the Secretary of State soon be forced to designate the Egyptian government a "foreign terrorist organization"?
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
The case discusses the word "fungible" a lot.
The dissent summarizes their argument as follows:
Does anyone think that the Muslim Brotherhood did not get advance authorization from Obama/Clinton about publicly hosting a visit from a Hamas (declared terrorist group) representative?
Perhaps Obama/Clinton allowed the visit as a fig leaf for getting the Muslim Brotherhood to insist that the Salafists do as Congress does a lot: form a committee. This could be a face saving way to say not yet -- and that it would be too much too fast for the American public to withstand . . . before the next Presidential election in the US?
“We shall apply Sharia gradually so as not to cause distortions,” he said.
So, just a few stonings to begin with. Nothing to get people to-o-o upset. Then a few private amputations, before going public in Tahrir Square. Then there's 'democracy'. We'll gradually suggest that there's really no need for this inconvenience because Allah has appointed his keepers of the sacred flame and they can decide what's good for Egypt. Y'know?
Yes, it'll be a smooth, distortion-free implementation of the most brutal system of 'law' the world has ever seen.
Clowns!
JQA knew, dda. No doubt about that. Too bad our current crop of politicians in the West do not.
And the reason for that is political correctness and simpering cowardice. Deep down they ought to know it is Islam, but we in the West are ruled by cowards, ARE cowards, because we and they have been taught to be cowards who are afraid of saying anything that might offend 'the other'. This fear of 'trampling on toes or breaking eggshells' is consigning us to the ash heap of civilization.
Sharia is a trap...
Most's kuffar think of sharia in terms of it's advocacy for depraved and evil punishments...But there is a whole lot more than the legalistic's of it's penal code and other legal matters such as who gets what, and who is worth the most, who should live and who should die...there is a whole lot more requirements than that...So many in fact, that no Mahoundian can fulfill all of them, and often don't need to fulfill them thanks to modern plumbing...What this means is that according to sharia, there are so many laws, that every Mahoundian is guilty of something...Allah set it up that way to control the masses...it is Islams version of 'original sin'...You were born guilty and you have been guilty all your meaningless life, even if you are pious...Allah has set you up for failure thanks to sharia, and now you have to face him and explain yourself...The Mahoundian thus trapped, has to hope Allah is in a good mood and willing to listen to reason...There is no evidence that Allah is ever in a good mood, so good luck with that...
Very enlightening duh_swami--the Sharia Trap.
Why am I not surprised? This has been going on since Bosnia. Muslims get the Dhimmi West to over throw secular or Christian regimes pretending to be totally miserable and oppressed. Then they turn around and implement Sharia.
Bill Clinton gave them Bosnia.
The Bush family gave them Iraq.
Churchill gave them Iran.
Obama gave them Egypt and Libya.
History is proceeding according to islamist plans.
The only people who have opposed them are the brave Jews in Israel. Even they have numerous Dhimmis among them and I fear for Israel in the long term.
Article:
"Hammad added that article two of the proposed constitution stipulates that the “provisions” and not the “principles” of Islamic Sharia law are the main sources of legislation. “We shall apply Sharia gradually so as not to cause distortions,” he said."
________________________________________
I've been reading and re-reading the above paragraph for a couple of days now, and the thing still has my head spinning. I must be confused.
Would somebody help me here, please? ... and I'm not being sarcastic.
____________________________
Are not "provisions", by their common understanding, those notions put in place in order to satisfy the prior dictates of the Law (through legislation and enforcement)as governed by a particular, already exigent Constitution?
If the provisions, and not the principles, are the main source of legislation, then, by God, the speaker of the words above is merely telling the whole, unvarnished and terrible Islamic truth.
_________________________________________________________
Translation of Mohammedan Sharia Double-Speak:
"The main source of our religious legislation will focus on various punishments for infringement upon our principles as they are determined, vis a vis the Sharia.
The source and supremacy of the legislation, itself, is secondary, by design."
I too have been puzzled by the reference to "principals."
My guess, by analogy, is that it is like a state statute that incorporates by reference building codes that are set out somewhere else and designed and approved by some other body. The Salafist's democratic legislation could be as simple as incorporating the Koran by reference.
==========
Do the “provisions” of Islamic Sharia law mandate that Muslims pay zakat and that a portion of zakat must be dedicated to waging jihad, including violent acts?
The Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project case I linked above, including its disposition based on the idea of "fungible," should resolve -- at least analytically -- whether Egypt must eventually be declared a foreign terrorist organization.
The ballot box did not cause Hamas to be removed from the terrorist list. Nor should the ballot box excuse Egypt from a similar designation.
Every political move looks like an act of political brinkmanship, to advance Islamic Sharia law.
(This is all just a guess.)
Oops, I used "principals" when I should have used "provisions"
This game of doublespeak gets me flustered.
Incorporate "provisions" -- non "principals" -- of the Koran by reference. This would avoid having to codify things like stoning for this and that, etc., and voting on them individually. They could do it instead with one big whack.
So much for Arab "spring"; or should we say Egyptians are springing gradually from the Mubarak pot into the Sharia frying pan.
Oh Husni please come home (quickly), all is forgiven.
David Dowse wrote:
"Hammad added that article two of the proposed constitution stipulates that the “provisions” and not the “principles” of Islamic Sharia law are the main sources of legislation. “We shall apply Sharia gradually so as not to cause distortions,” he said."
________________________________________
I've been reading and re-reading the above paragraph for a couple of days now, and the thing still has my head spinning. I must be confused.
Would somebody help me here, please? ... and I'm not being sarcastic.
...........................
David and pdxnag, quite a number of Muslim states have some general proviso in their constitutions that "Islam is the religion of the state", or that the nation "follows the principles of Islam", or some such.
Such was the case with Egypt itself.
And yet—as bad as Egypt has been with regards to rampant antisemitism, the quashing of women's rights, and oppression and violence against the Copts, it was hardly a full Shai'ah state under Mubarak.
My guess is that this pious Salafist is making a strong statement that Shari'ah will not be some vague "principle" under the "Islamists", but a pure Shari'ah state with all its barbarity...