Pennsylvania: Anti-Sharia bill offends Muslims

Sorry, Muslims, you have NO "right" to not be offended when we Americans call out your back-assward ways. The message that more true Americans are learning is that "Sharia equals slavery" and that "Jihad equals treason".

That's right :

SHARIA EQUALS SLAVERY, JIHAD EQUALS TREASON !!!!

Say it LOUD ::

SHARIA EQUALS SLAVERY, JIHAD EQUALS TREASON !!!!!

Q.E.D.

Any bill that restricts the practice of full sharia (and all that that entails, most notably the subjugating of certain classes of individuals, non-muslims, women, slaves, and so forth) operates, to the thinking of muslims, as an infringement on islam. That is a bedrock principle of islam.

This demonstrates in high relief the utter incompatibility of islam with the enlightened principles of Western civilizations.

As to lawmakers, they're going to have to fish or cut bait. No way of compromising on this.

So what's it going to be, America? Are no-go zones on their way?

Pennsylvania: Anti-Sharia bill offends Muslims
.................................

And all good Americans with an ounce of sense are *offended by the attempt to impose Shari'ah*.

More:

"This is not a new faith we are not a foreign faith and yes this dangerous, clearly stated discriminatory purpose on a publicly circulated document, you just don't get any more troubling than that," said Chaudhry.
.................................

Islam *is not* a new faith—and that is why we can see where the imposition of Shari'ah leads.

And even this statement is only partially correct—Muslims being present in the United States in sufficient numbers to begin to think about imposing aspects of Shari'ah *is* a new thing.

More:

Professor Khalid Blankinship of Temple University compares following Sharia to the Catholic teaching that divorce is not allowed.

"That would be like going into the Catholic Church and telling them that you can't marry people the way you want or saying you have to allow divorce of people even if the Pope ruled otherwise," said Blankinship.
.................................

*What utter crap*. That's *exactly* what the law does in the United States. While Catholics are free to disallow divorce for religious marriages, American Catholics have been getting civil divorces for decades and decades now.

Whether they choose to recognize such divorces as religiously valid is up to the conscience of the individual Catholic.

More:

State Representative Rosemarie Swanger of Lebanon County, who authored the bill, says it is designed to preserve rights of liberty that do not exist in some foreign legal systems. She has said recognizing foreign laws could allow women to be treated as second-class citizens. In a letter she sent to colleagues, Swanger called Sharia law "inherently hostile to our constitutional liberties."
.................................

Pennsylvania Congresswoman Swanger might have put it better, but this is still pretty clear...

"It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would release his water (semen) while he was fasting. Ahmed says: " What I see is that he can release the water without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has a "Ammah" (i.e. slave girl) whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible."
(Bada'i al-Fawa'id by Sheikh Ibn al Qayyim p. 603)

That's Shari'ah law for you, it allows sex slaves (child ones!).

Khalid Blankenship I think very adroitly lays down a smokescreen concerning the "rights" at risk. He questions the "rights" of inheritance that might be made invalid if sharia law were disqualified from consideration in Pennsylvania courts. Such as the "right" to give a daughter only one-half the inheritance of a son? Similarly he moans about divorce "rights." Such as the right of a husband to divorce his wife merely by saying "talaq" to her three times? Or his "right" after the divorce to take the children older than seven away from their mother?

The preemptive disqualification of foreign law, particularly sharia, in American courts simply must be established now, if we are to avoid rulings of the kind that are occurring in the UK and Europe, "hurt feelings" be damned.

"Council on American-Islamic Relations Attorney Amara Chaudhry says this would block freedom of religious expression."

Shar'ia law is a wee bit more than mere "religious expression"....

State Representative Rosemarie Swanger of Lebanon County, who authored the bill, says it is designed to preserve rights of liberty that do not exist in some foreign legal systems.

Be offended. Cat's out of the bag. We don't care anymore. Sharia is out. Our liberties are not negotiable, and neither is our First Amendment. Start packing... your Sharia paradise awaits you... over there in the 7th century. Good bye and good riddance.

Well at times like these I can only say ......... Fuck Islam

"It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would release his water (semen) while he was fasting. Ahmed says: " What I see is that he can release the water without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has a "Ammah" (i.e. slave girl) whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible."
(Bada'i al-Fawa'id by Sheikh Ibn al Qayyim p. 603)

Reference(1): http://www.alkitab.com/714.html

Reference(2): http://www.wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109:kissingtouching-small-girl-who-is-ones-wife&catid=60:present-century-propagandas&Itemid=61

Reference(3): http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/bida_alfawaid_p603.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------
That's Shari'ah law for you, it allows sex slaves (child ones!).

And then there is always this approach......

If you don't like the system we have here in America, then SLITHER BACK TO THE CESSPOOL THAT YOU CAME FROM!!!!!!

Bye bye now.

God bless America!

hmmm CAIR is offended...affronted, annoyed, antagonized, bitter, chafed, choleric, convulsed, cross, displeased, enraged, exacerbated, exasperated, ferocious, fierce, fiery, fuming, furious, galled, hateful, heated, hot, huffy, ill-tempered, impassioned, incensed, indignant, inflamed, infuriated, irascible, irate, ireful, irritable, irritated, maddened, nettled, offended, outraged , piqued, provoked, raging, resentful, riled, sore, splenetic, storming, sulky, sullen, tumultous/tumultuous, turbulent, uptight, vexed, wrathful....

but yet pretends it promotes a peaceful religion...It seems whenever you see the word CAIR it is followed closely by "Offended"...

"Pennsylvania: Anti-Sharia bill offends Muslims"

I would have to say it must be a pretty good bill then!

From The Real Impact of Sharia Law in America

Does Sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife, even in America? A New Jersey trial judge thought so. In a recently overturned case, a “trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault” but did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim. Fortunately, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial judge. But make no mistake about it: this is no isolated incident. We will see more cases here in the United States where others attempt to impose Sharia law, under the guise of First Amendment protections, as a defense against crimes and other civil violations.

Reliance of the Traveller, a standard Islamic law reference text certified by Al-Azhar, the chief center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world, supports extreme discrimination against women and non-Muslims:

From page 590 of The Reliance of the Traveller/Umdat Al-Salik:

The indemnity [compensation for damages] for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity for a Jew or a Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim.

The indemnity for a Zoroastrian [the Persian pre-Islamic religion, to which some Iranians still adhere] is one-fifteenth of that of a Muslim.

From the back cover of Reliance of the Traveller:

"There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language."
- Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought

...is the first translation of a standard Islamic legal reference in a European language to be certified by Al-Azhar, the Muslim world's oldest institution of higher learning. It presents an explanative interpretation of Umdat al-Salik, a classic Sunni manual of Sacred law...

They have to hunt to find the holy grail of prohibited discrimination. It is not in the bill. The courts have stated that the words in legislation matter, because any decision based on intent rather than the legislation is problematic.

The objectors admit that they can find no discrimination in the legislation:
"clearly stated discriminatory purpose on a publicly circulated document"

Reading exercise:
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 US 709 (2005) is a case where the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses get all twisted up and then sort of disentangled.

For comparison, what the gay marriage proponents insist on is not the right to privacy as to consensual intimate activity by adults behind bedroom walls as protected in Lawrence v. Texas but rather a public proclamation that it is the embodiment of all that was good in the world, and that saying anything contrary is the embodiment of evil.

If a bill said Sharia is good, and named it specifically, then the objectors here would not object to the specific mention in the legislation. They would take that specific mention as a legislatively determined fact, to then use it as a club (evil, %#$@, $&^%$ etc.) against anyone that might contend otherwise, even against anyone that sought only to strip Sharia from specific mention in legislation.

The absence of discrimination among religions here -- just like the First Amendment itself -- is somehow considered offensive. I say let them make their case, based on the First Amendment, that the First Amendment is offensive.

Read the Cutter case noted above, where federal Spending and Commerce Clauses are cited. I might yet convince someone that no religious entity should be gifted any money for being faith-based, because it necessarily gives CAIR implicit recognition that Islam is the embodiment of all that was good in the world, even if the strongest case that can be made is that proceeds were distributed without discrimination among religions. (My bias is that of an Atheist, but it should not matter. The court would reject my objections to promotion of religions, at the expense of the non-religious. Still, I do not wish to be viewed as less worthy than Islamic Supremacists that get paid to pal around with the President.)

Amara Chaudhry would deserve, in my opinion, a Rule 11 sanction for bringing a facial discrimination action to the legislation, in addition to a dismissal of the case.

Newton Gingrich:

Sharia is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and the world as we know it.

I'm confused. Muslims keep telling me that they don't want to bring Sharia law to the US. So why are they complaining when we want to outlaw something they have no intention of bringing here?

How dare they come to America and behave in this way.They should embrace America and relinquish their religion.

House Bill 2029 would ban Pennsylvania courts from considering any foreign legal code or system that isn't identical with the Constitution.

Any part of Sharia that is 100% compatible with the American Constitution is redundant, and any part of Sharia that is not 100% compatible with the American Constitution is illegal.

Simple as that!

Kuffars who don't believe that robust anti-Sharia legislation is absolutely vital to protect America should take note how Sharia is devouring Britain: http://pjmedia.com/blog/sharia-law-already-devouring-uk/

Sharia law in its application vilifies itself it is so unreasonable, male-chauvinistic, supremacists, and political. It is only those ignorant about the Islamic principles that Sharia law enforces, such as women are the property of men and less than men, non-Muslims are to be plundered (jizya - tribute), raped, abused and murdered for being non-Muslims, etc., etc., who champion it as non-Muslims. Besides, this is the U.S. with a Constitution and Bill of Rights which supersede and cannot be opposed by any other law. Sharia law is in exact opposition to the freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience (Sharia law condemns criticism of Islam or Mohammad under penalty of death, to convert from Islam is punishable by death, and unquestioning submission to Sharia law is required). Sharia law restricts women as property subject to the whims of their husbands (Sharia gives husbands the right to beat their wives into submission to their whims and to rape their wives). Sharia allows Muslim men to take non-Muslim women as captive sex-slaves and to plunder, abuse, and murder non-Muslims. Sharia law claims worldwide jurisdiction over Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and it is that fact which these anti-Sharia laws address. More are needed to prevent encroachment of Sharia into our legal system.

Now, this is real evil!

We see the moderate muslims - business suits, cultivated ladies with sunglassis, even a dumb-quislingish female rabbi - all of them advocating: Sharia for their ilk.

These sweat-mouthed folks are much, much worse, than some bearded vitriolically violent terrorists from a desert.
Get rid of them, dear Americans - at any cost.

patently obvious here, some jewish spokespeople are their own worst enemies here ... they must be on the payrole, or perhaps they like it under sharia?
oh! ... that idiot from temple, sheesh!

Ironically, the Muslim Brotherhood is all deceit about their intentions and their "rivals" just lay it all out on the table. Either way, they both seek to impose Sharia law which enforces Islamic principles like making women completely responsible for any sexual crime committed against them and which allows men to beat their wives into submission to their every whim (those who refuse to believe that have not read the Qur'an or the Sunnah). Either way there are fools who fall for the deceit and fools who pooh-pooh the truthfulness. That is why the rest of us are uniting against the imposition of Sharia law period.

"That would be like going into the Catholic Church and telling them that you can't marry people the way you want or saying you have to allow divorce of people even if the Pope ruled otherwise," said Blankinship.

I'm not clear what the argument is here. You do have to allow for divorce in America even if the Pope ruled otherwise.

If the Catholic Church marriage included human sacrifice of a virgin before the ceremony, the law does say you couldn't marry people that way even if you wanted to.

Notice that the complainers here implicitly want all of Sharia to be capable of implementation in America, in this instance in Pennsylvania. But no American legislator or legislature wants to make unconstitutional any aspect of any legal system which does not run up against the Constitution. For instance, Sharia mandates washing before prayers. Well, no way this is unconstutional and thus OK.

But let's see now. Sharia also mandates amputation for theft and this is disallowed by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Sharia disallows criticizing or mocking Islam or Mohammed and this directly goes against the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. Sharia most definitely doesn't allow for equality across the board between Muslims and non-Muslims or between men and women and these provisions of Sharia are completely at odds with the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Probably most important is that Sharia is utterly in opposition to Article VI's provision that the Constitution "shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

So when whiners, be they Muslims or clueless dhimmis, protest that disallowing Sharia is discriminatory, the retort should always be that not all of Sharia is being disallowed, only those provisions (and there are so many) which are directly in opposition to the American Constitution. If the protest continues after this, then the agenda should be clear to all. Which it is to more and more Americans with each passing year.

If muslims are saying this legislation should NOT be passed because it OFFENDS them them, then Islam itself should be banned because it offends ME! Same idiotic logic.

Islam is exceptional at conquering other countries by use of its own legal system. It all begins with enforcement of Islamic law.

Another example of Catholic law being trumped by the legal system of the U.S. is abortion. This is a much hotter issue than divorce. If Catholics were anywhere near the same level with Muslims on this issue, we would have seen open warfare in this country long ago. This is what is happening in other countries that are doing this. And that is exactly what we can expect if we attempt to implement Islamic law in this country.

In other words, Islamic law (And nationalism) is at war against us.

Rabbi Linda Holzman wins the "out of context" bingo prize.
Her comments could very easily apply to the Nazis: The harshest aspects were hi-lighted for vilification, and other aspects "taken out of context" in a campaign of prejudice and hate against the poor, innocent Nazis.

And as for that Temple Professor: I am not an expert on Catholicism, but I am pretty sure the Catholic Church does not forbid divorce. Rather, it forbids re-marriage after divorce.

"That would be like going into the Catholic Church and telling them that you can't marry people the way you want or saying you have to allow divorce of people even if the Pope ruled otherwise," said Blankinship.

No, dear Professor Blankenship (his name lends itself to mockery, e.g., shooting blanks), this is not the same thing. You see, and in case you haven't noticed, the Catholic Church has no POLITICAL power in this country. Its doctrines have been banished from our politics. There are no laws that compel Americans to genuflect or make the sign of the cross or even cast a pall on divorce. The Pope has no power over here. This is aside from the issue that Sharia allows honor killings, pedophilia, and other Islamic cultural abominations. Or, don't you read?

Then there’s Amara Chaudhry, a nice looking woman who’s probably the window-dressing and pin-up girl for the Islamists. I’m betting she “troubles” Abraham Hoople and other Muslim “moderates” with carnal thoughts and wild nocturnal fantasies. And then there’s the dhimmi rabbi, Linda Holtzman, worrying about anyone vilifying Islam and a “whole people,” selectively neglectful of how Muslims and the Koran vilify Jews. I wonder if she’d have joined “Jews for Himmler” in 1938.

There is no "political Islam" versus "religious Islam" just as there is no "radical Islam" - there is only Islam - a totalitarian political ideology hiding behind religious trappings as it pursues a political agenda: the establishment of Sharia in every jurisdiction it touches. Under Islam you are born a Muslim. If you leave Islam, that is apostasy and requires punishment by death.

To borrow a quote...Allah you magnificent bastard, I read your book...

I also read your other books, Hadith, and 'Reliance of the Traveler', about your sacred Islamic law...Did you really mean that people should amputate the limbs, fingers and heads, of people who don't believe in you? Did you mean it when you said women should be publicly lashed or stoned to death for something called zena, or illegal sex? Are you really in favor of wife beating? When did you stop beating your wife? Reading all your restrictive attitudes about women, I get the impression you don't like them much...Other than Eve, what did women ever do to you? And I can see you have no patients and zero tolerance with apostates...You also said gays should be killed...Why do you hate gays? You said there was no penalty for a Muslim to kill a kuffar, unbeliever, and you also said there was no penalty for parents killing children or grandchildren...What do you have against children? What happened that made you so mean? Did your father beat you? Did your mother reject you? Your law system sharia is a study in meanness...I don't think your laws fit very well with the US Constitution, and I don't think the average American will want that stuff going on in their neighborhoods...So please, if you don't mind, keep sharia over there, and not over here...Thanx...

"Being offended is default mode for Islamic Supremacists"

Robert's opening sentence, says it all. Lets see if we can change "default", to "tilt" mode. or better yet, "deport mode"

Most of the "posters" here already know this, but for anyone just visiting this site, "sharia law" makes ALL non-muslims 3rd and 4th class people. The "Offense mode" the "Islamophobia defense" ... are just tactics to inplement sharia law, using "taqiyya," a muslim/islamic term meaning "deception". It is a means to the muslim or islamic "end"; that end being "sharia law, aka, quranic law (the "religious law" on which is it based). Muslims, use the "Free" laws of the democratic nations against them. Also, sadly, they use "people" within a democratic system to help them. Thus, the statement, "you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but not all the of people all of the time."

In non-muslim countries, sharia law is incremented in steps, through several means. One of the "tools," "steps" is called, taquyya; whcih simply is "deception". Taquyya, deception is an acceptable means to an islamic" end. It was revealed to muslims by allah through mohammed as a "righteous" deed, if done for islamic reasons.

Therefore, any anti-sharia law legislation thwarts the agenda of muslims to implement sharia law. That is why muslim fight this type of legislation (anti-sharia law). The instituting of "sharia law" worldwide, is a mandated command of the quran.

Under "sharia law," non-muslim lose their citizenship, the right to vote, hold governmental office or even a job of any significance in the government; such as police officer, judge, etc.. Under sharia law, non-muslims have no voice in legal matters, "civilian or criminal"; they cannot even testify in court. Non-muslims live under the "thumb" of muslims, and their lives are at the discretion of their muslim masters. Non-muslims who live under shari law are considered inferior, and live in "Servitude".

Shari law, at least "in part" is seen in muslim countries such as, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonisian and Egypt.

The muslim agenda here (America), and worldwide is to bring the whole world under sharia law. This is the islamic, muslim objective.

The issue of muslims not being able to fully excute marriages, Wills, Divorses etc. is just a "smoke screen". The religious faiths in the United States all have laws governing marriage that differ from the "civil law". Example if a believer divorses and remarries under civil law without the "blessing" of the church, such as a Catholic, this may leasve the believer with "religious" repercussions, but it does not "nun or void" their right to a 2nd "civil" marriage under "civil laws. The same can apply to "other" civil matters.

If muslims want to live under sharia law and not the Constitution of the the United States or another "FREE" country, the simply solution is for muslims, to live in a country where sharia law is recognized. In a free society "ALL" the people have rights.

No one is telling muslims they don't have a right to worship freely, just as no one is telling Jews or Christians (Prostatant or Catholic), nor any other faith. The free people of the land are making "civil laws" for all people.

Readers should observe how the Islamist straw-man arguments usually fall apart upon examination. Comparing Sharia Law with the Catholic Church's prohibition of divorse ignores the fact that Catholics aren't killed if they leave the church. Death for apostasy and the parent's right to kill deviant offspring make Sharia Law infinitely more compelling than the disdain of a local priest.

To all those people who are so offended by American laws, and so want to live under sahria. You are free to leave and set up house in saudi-arabia, iran or pakistan to name a few sharia compliant countrys.

Most of those places have thousands of people everyday trying to excape. Why, because they,re utopian societys. NO!! because they,re shit holes where the law stinks. Hamas linked cair need to be outlawed along with two dozen other terrorist linked muslim organisations that want to bring the dark ages to the US. A country so superior they can,t stand it.

CNSNews -- Clinton: Every Gov't Has Duty to Protect People From Discrimination and Intimidation Motivated by Religion

"So we believe that it is the duty of every government to ensure that individuals are not subject to violence, discrimination, or intimidation because of their faith or their lack of faith."

If Islam merges religion and politics into one amorphous blob could we not just as easily label Islam as a Political Party like any other? We could then look at it in like manner to other political parties, and treat the private organization to the same level of government meddling as discussed in California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 US 567 (2000) (open primary).

"In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee. * * *"

"The evidence in this case demonstrates that under California's blanket primary system, the prospect of having a party's nominee determined by adherents of an opposing party is far from remote—indeed, it is a clear and present danger."

Clinton already openly recognizes the two biggest vote getters in Egypt's election as political parties, not religious organizations (Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular, don't you know, and thus less like a religion than political party).

snippet from the case, illustrating the possible consequences:

"* * * a single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party. In the 1860 Presidential election, if opponents of the fledgling Republican Party had been able to cause its nomination of a proslavery candidate in place of Abraham Lincoln, the coalition of intraparty factions forming behind him likely would have disintegrated, endangering the party's survival and thwarting its effort to fill the vacuum left by the dissolution of the Whigs"

more:

"In sum, Proposition 198 forces petitioners to adulterate their candidate-selection process--the 'basic function of a political party,' ibid. --by opening it up to persons wholly unaffiliated with the party. Such forced association has the likely outcome--indeed, in this case the intended outcome-- of changing the parties' message. We can think of no heavier burden on a political party's associational freedom. Proposition 198 is therefore unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest."

How does one resolve the inconsistent characterizations of what Islam is? Religion or political party? The OIC-56 mob have, of their own accord, hoisted Islam and Sharia inextricably into the realm of a political party, and thus stripped it completely of any shield from mockery as some sort of super-fragile-istic-liquid-nitro-sensitive religion.

So long as Sharia (Islam or the Quran or Hadith etc.) forms any part of the legal or political basis for government anywhere in the world, then it automatically forfeits recognition as a religion.

Clinton is more nutty than David Duke. Both both are still less nutty than each and every Nitro-Headed Sheik demanding recognition of Sharia law, where incitement of violent mob action as the preferred enforcement tool.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ergo, there can be no "establishment of religion" in the United States of America, not Sharia, not anybody's, as part of our Constitutional laws. If Islam's 'war covernant' with Allah demands Sharia, it's shit-out-of-luck, it's violation of our First Amendment."

So, islam itself must be outlawed. We are not in position to disect the faith, from Jihad or Sharia, the only course that would end a growing threat would be a outlawing of the "faith" of islam. Outlaw the faith based on its internal requirements, requirements that place the "faith" and it's followers against the country's laws, that place islam itself in "violation of our First Amendment".

To speak of only this (Jihad), or that (Sharia) , places the foot of islam in the door, .

Otherwise, why do partitions at a swimming pool really matter?

American Islamic Leadership Coalition on Cinton OIC Pow Wow

WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 15, 2011) - A group of American Muslim leaders have expressed disappointment with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department for giving a platform to the Saudi-Based Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) campaign to suppress freedom of thought, expression and conscience, by hosting a 3 day conference in Washington, D.C. The American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) issued a statement which said:

* * * Rather than be intimidated by charges of "Islamophobia" or "defamation of religion," the U.S. and other Western governments should challenge OIC member states to realize the highest values of Islam, by allowing their citizens full freedom of thought, expression and conscience -- as expressed in Qur'anic exhortations "to think," "remember," "inquire" and "understand deeply" -- for "there shall be no coercion in matters of faith" (Qur'an 2:256).

Is support for the emphasized text above just a lie? Or is it just a call to delay a call to fully implement Sharia?

They could help answer this by changing their name to American Leadership Coalition. Have I got this right? They reference abrogated provisions so it must be a lie, and a smoke screen for those that have not yet taken elementary Islamic propaganda class.

Did anyone note the revision to the ridder on the military appropriations bill would allow the government the right break down your door, place in prison any US citizen and detain indefinitely without benefit of trial or even court hearing? Obama has stated this is ok as long as personally is the one in charge of the program! When are we going to give him a banana republic dictators hat?

Does anyone think this law will be used to stop the treason of Islam? We know who the law is aimed at. My door and yours.

I really don't care about the rights of persons who were not born in the USA but I care deeply about those of us who are of American pioneer stock who hold liberty sacred and are willing to die to maintain that liberty.

The real question is not Islamic law but are we still willing to keep liberty. There is no liberty without without it being under God.

Recommended, for those new to this site and this subject, are two things: ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish's little book on sharia, 'Cruel and Usual Punishment'; and a nicely-produced, easy-to-read booklet put out by The Barnabas Fund, entitled 'What is Sharia?'

The Barnabas Fund was founded by an ex-Muslim who is now a Christian, Patrick Sookhdeo, and supports and lobbies on behalf of persecuted Christians, especially those in Islamic countries.

They have put together - and sell, for an entirely nominal price - a set of information booklets that are accurate and can be used by persons of any non-Muslim belief system, not just Christians, to inform and warn friends and family and casual acquaintances. example, there is a booklet entitled 'Islam and Slavery'. The one on 'Islam and Truth' is ironically named: for it covers the subject of taqiyya, Islamic lying.

http://www.barnabasfund.org/UK/Act/Order-free-print-media-resources/?&page=barnabasbooks&first=no&pages=all

These little booklets cost exactly one dollar each (Australian currency).

The one on Sharia includes a section that flatly states "Five main areas in which Sharia is incompatible with human rights" and then specifies: Hudud punishments; Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims - 'Discrimination on the basis of religion is fundamental to sharia. Islam must be dominant, and only Muslims are full citizens, so Muslims are treated as far superior to all others'; Muslim heretics and apostates (Barnabas explains the apostasy and blasphemy laws); Holy War - Jihad; and Status of Women - 'sharia also discriminates on the basis of gender. Men are regarded as superior. Women are treated as deficient in intelligence, morals and religion".

The tone is coolly detached, unemotional, 'just the facts'.

And at the back it has a 'further reading' note, naming two contemporary, standard, popular (among Muslims) and readily-accessible orthodox Muslim sharia texts that may be perused by the horrified kuffar. One of these is Al Qaradawi's "The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam" (and what is considered 'lawful' will make the average kuffar's hair stand on end...).

I believe these booklets should be set circulating throughout the English-speaking non-Muslim world - and the sooner they are translated into other languages, the better.

Buy yourself a sackful and start passing them around.

Just offended? Not shocked, humiliated, inscensced, their favorite... OUTRAGED!! - that's a bit of a surprise.

Just offended? Not shocked, horrified, dismayed, disgusted, angered or their all time favorite.... OUTRAGED!!! - gee, I think we need to add a bit more to this bill.

All you need to know about these people is when he uses the phrase," our law".