Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 31, 2014, 05:30:03 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83148 Posts in 2259 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Sharia 101
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Author Topic: Sharia 101  (Read 37121 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2008, 11:53:24 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/04/treasury-submits-to-shariah/

GAFFNEY: Treasury submits to Shariah

Tuesday, November 4, 2008


COMMENTARY:

The U.S. Treasury Department is submitting to Shariah - the seditious religio-political-legal code authoritative Islam seeks to impose worldwide under a global theocracy.

As reported in this space last week, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt set the stage with his recent visit to Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. His stated purpose was to promote the recycling of petrodollars in the form of foreign investment here.

Evidently, the price demanded by his hosts is that the U.S. government get with the Islamist financial program. While in Riyadh, Mr. Kimmitt announced: "The U.S. government is currently studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis."

"Islamic banking" is a euphemism for a practice better known as "Shariah-Compliant Finance (SFC)." And it turns out that this week the Treasury will be taking officials from various federal agencies literally to school on SFC.

The department is hosting a half-day course entitled "Islamic Finance 101" on Thursday at its headquarters building. Treasury's self-described "seminar for the policy community" is co-sponsored with the leading academic promoters of Shariah and SCF in the United States: Harvard University Law School's Project on Islamic Finance. At the very least, the U.S. government evidently hopes to emulate Harvard's success in securing immense amounts of Wahhabi money in exchange for conforming to the Islamists' agenda. Like Harvard, Treasury seems utterly disinterested in what Shariah actually is, and portends.

Unfortunately, such submission - the literal meaning of "Islam" - is not likely to remain confined long to the Treasury or its sister agencies. Thanks to the extraordinary authority conferred on Treasury since September, backed by the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the department is now in a position to impose its embrace of Shariah on the U.S. financial sector. The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Treasury's purchase of - at last count - 17 banks and the ability to provide, or withhold, funds from its new slush-fund can translate into unprecedented coercive power.

Concerns in this regard are only heightened by the prominent role Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari will be playing in "Islamic Finance 101." Mr. Kashkari, the official charged with administering the TARP fund, will provide welcoming remarks to participants. Presumably, in the process, he will convey the enthusiasm about Shariah-Compliant Finance that appears to be the current party line at Treasury.

As this enthusiasm for SCF ramps up in Washington officialdom, it is worth recalling a lesson from "across the pond." Earlier this year, the head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, provoked a brief but intense firestorm of controversy with his declaration that it was "unavoidable" that Shariah would be practiced in Britain. Largely unremarked was the reason he gave for such an ominous forecast: The U.K. had already accommodated itself to Shariah-Compliant Finance.

This statement provides an important insight for the incumbent U.S. administration and whomever succeeds it: Shariah-Compliant Finance serves as a leading edge of the spear for those seeking to insinuate Shariah into Western societies.

Regrettably, SCF is not the only instrument of the stealth jihad by which Shariah-promoting Islamists are seeking to achieve "parallel societies" here and elsewhere in the West. The British experience is instructive on this score, too. Her Majesty's government has allowed the establishment of at least five Shariah courts to hear (initially) family law cases. Polygamists in the U.K. can get welfare for each of their wives (as long as all the marriages beyond the first were performed overseas).

Thus far, we in this country may not have reached the point where evidence of this sort of creeping Shariah is so manifest. But Treasury's accommodation to SCF demonstrates that we are on the same trajectory - the one ordained and demanded by the promoters of Shariah, one to which we serially accommodate ourselves at our extreme peril.

After all, the object of Shariah is the supplanting of our government and Constitution, through violent means if possible and, until then, through stealthy ones. Islamists, having secured footholds via their parallel societies, inevitably use those to extend their influence over Muslims who have no more interest in living under authoritative Islam's Shariah than the rest of us do. Inexorably, it becomes the turn of non-Muslims to accommodate themselves to ever more intrusive demands from the Islamists. It is known as submission, or dhimmitude.

Soon - possibly as early as this Wednesday - the Treasury Department and the other federal agencies will be taking orders from representatives of Barack Obama or John McCain. It may be that the outgoing administration's determination to advance the Islamist agenda via "Islamic Finance 101," and what flows from it, may be the first, far-reaching policy decision inherited by the new president-elect. If he does not want to have his transition saddled with an implicit endorsement of submission to Shariah, the winner of the White House sweepstakes would be well-advised to pull the plug on Thursday's indoctrination program and the insidious industry it is meant to foist on the "policy community," our capital markets and our country.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2008, 11:58:47 AM »

Not waiting long before moving in for the kill.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31565


« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2008, 12:53:29 PM »

GM:

As a matter of more than comparitive theology, would you please post that piece on the Political Economics thread too please?

TIA,
Marc
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31565


« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2008, 10:31:09 AM »

At my request, a couple of days ago GM posted some very interesting articles on the Bush administration's proposals regarding SCF (Sharia Compliant Finance) in the Political Economy thread, but now I am thinking that the subject really belongs here, and so I incorporate those posts by reference here and apologize for the inconvenience of having to look them up there  embarassed

Following up, here's this on Sharia Finance:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31565


« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2008, 10:53:05 AM »

In their own words

http://www.islamic-bank.com/islamicbanklive/IslamicFinance/1/Home/1/Home.jsp
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31565


« Reply #55 on: November 18, 2008, 02:40:02 PM »

http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1208&p=culture&a=2
Wirasat (Succession), neglected rights of woman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Qazi Dr. Shaikh Abbas Borhany For the Yemen Times

 
 

Except Islam which attained its perfection divinely, no other religion grants and honours the share of women in Wirasat (inheritance). According to the Qur’an and Ahadith such laws, are considered and judged to be tyrannical and against the law of nature, which totally neglect the rights of women in Wirasat. Today, the so-called ‘Liberals’, who in general are also called ‘Reformists’ are in fact a group of that class who are ignorant of the Shariah. They raise the slogan of equality in the shares of men and women in Wirasat, which is totally repugnant to the Shariah. These inimical forces of Islam totally forget that neither Christians nor Jews or Hindus grant the Rights of Women in the Wirasat, as is bestowed by Islam.

Sharia law is no longer a difficult to understand in the study of Islam. Today Sharia, its role in political Islam and its impact on the daily lives of Muslim women and humanity has made headlines everywhere, almost daily. The word "Sharia" literally means "the path on sand created by camels walking to water-spots" but spiritually it means Hidayat-guidance. Islam initially restore women's rights by taking the first steps in that desert society by banning female-infanticide, preventing forcing of women into unwanted marriages, allowing women to retain their fathers' names after marriage, permitting women to be witnesses (albeit their testimony counted as half of a man's) and establishing Haq ul Wirasat- their ownership rights to property and their income. All of these advances in women's rights occurred in the Middle East when Europe was in the midst of the Dark Ages. The term "Fiqh" emerged, which literally means human understanding. "Where an explicit command of Allah or His Rasul already exists, no Muslim leader or legislature, or any religious scholar can form an independent judgment not even all the Muslims of the world put together, have any right to make least alteration to it". Believing so is regarded as alliance to Islam itself. All books on Sharia law univocally maintain this dictum. The Qur'an and the Ahadith are two of the most important sources of Sharia.

From early days to the present so-called civilized period, women have been a victim of injustice. Fourteen centuries have passed and the benedictions of Islam have covered a large part of the world, and now we are in the 15th century, but women are still deprived of their Right of Wirasat. The major reason for not acting upon the laws of Wirasat, conferred by Shariah, is due to the filthy rich selfish class. This cursed class has set aside the commandments of Shariah so that their property and estate may not get divided, and due to this reason keep their sisters and daughters unmarried. Before the dawn of Islam, daughters, whether, old or young, were not given any share in Wirasat. In the days of Jahiliyah, Arabs did not give their own daughters any Right of Wirasat but adopted a boy of some one else as their own son (Mutabanna in Arabi) and gave him the status of successor. Islam eliminated this injustice and strongly ordered to distribute the due share of their wealth and property to their women. One of the most important differences between the Qur'an and the Bible is their attitude towards female inheritance of the property of a deceased relative. According to Numbers 27:1-11, widows and sisters don't inherit at all. Daughters can inherit only if their deceased father had no sons. Otherwise the sons receive the entire inheritance. Prior to Islam, inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Qur'an abolished all these unjust customs and gave all the female relatives their just share (see Qur'an 4:7, 11, 12 and 176). It is a matter of sorrow and regret that the practice prevalent before Islam still exists and women are bereft of their share in Wirasat. To dispel this tyranny Ayat 7 of Surah al Nisa was sent down by Allah. The principle was fixed divinely so that both men and women become rightful share holders in Wirasat. Qur’an says:

“For men, there is a share in what their parents and kindred leave behind, and for women a share in what their parents and kindred leave behind, be it little, or be it much: a decreed share”.

The cardinal principal of Wirasat is to distribute the wealth among all the near relatives, and not to let it accumulate in the hands of one person, a wise and effective check on concentration of wealth in few hands. In Surah al Nisa it has been clarified:

“A man would get share equal to two women”.

This law of Wirasat contains a clarification of the shares of a man and a woman and is like other laws of Shariat, conferred by the divine institution of Wahi. It is not a law passed by any Council, Senate, Assembly, Committee or Organization, which may be approved today or amended and rejected tomorrow. After the Wahi, the matter does not rest on the opinion of any human bequeathing wealth/property. The distribution of shares and every right of Wirasat has been fixed by the Divine Law of Shariah. It cannot be amended at will by the so-called enlightened or reformist, whenever they wish to do it, and due to the Wahi, their thoughts and Aqaid become null and void in which a woman remains deprived of any share in Wirasat. If we look at the spirit of Shariah, we will find that the responsibilities of men and women are quite distinct and separate. Their duties and rights are separate and different. Men have been made responsible for supporting women; but not vice-versa. The responsibility of man in regard to the sustenance of woman has been fixed by Islam. A woman has been given half the share of man in wealth/property because there are separate laws for her sustenance, military services and punishment. A woman’s special right in the Wirasat is due to Mehar, and the right of Nufuqa. If we look at the social order of Islam, we will find that according to the law of Wirasat, a man gets two thirds while a woman gets one third because men are responsible for the expenses of women. Therefore the wealth/property of a woman remains immune from the use or grip of men, while two third share of man is spent on both man and woman. If we consider this point, we find that a woman gets a substantial share in Wirasat as an additional benefit.

In his famous book “Daem al Islam”, Vol. II., Syedna Qazi al Numan has mentioned that Abi Jafar Imam Mohammad al Baqir and Abi Abdullah Imam Jafar Assadiq have jointly declared that women are not entitled for inheritance in movable property, but are only entitled to their proper share of Wirasat according to the Law of Qur’an, the amount being taken for the price of land forming part of the heritable estate. Thus the woman would get her proper share, not in the shape of land, but in other forms of property known at that time. Syedna Qazi al Numan explained further: this is not a general rule, (very unfortunately many Fuquha (Muslim Jurists) still consider it as general rules and applying the same formula on every case) but restricted

(a) to land which had been dedicated as Waqf for the benefit of men, who had undertaken Jihad in defense of the Muslims or

(b) to land dedicated as Waqf for the benefit of one group of persons (namely men) to the exclusion of the other group (women).

According to the pre Islam customary law, females and cognate were excluded from Wirasat. The amendments in the law of Wirasat conferred by Islam fall generally under two heads:

The husband or wife and females as well as cognates are recognized as competent to inherit.

Parents and ascendants are given a Right to inherit even when there are male Wurus’a who are present.

It is a provision of Qur’an that the daughter is entitled to succeed with the son, as interpreted by the Ahl al Bait as applicable to all female Wurus’a. Fuquh’a takes the provision of the Qur’an as not restricted to individual instances of the daughter or the sister, but as establishing a new principle for the benefit of the women, which is the most important legal reform introduction by Islam when referring to the rights of women.

Summarizing this we can confirm that Islam has totally eliminated all injustices regarding the Wirasat of women, and that the double share of man in Wirasat is due to the fact that the man has to bear other burdens (family) on his budget. Also the aspect of Wirasat of a wife is on the basis of her Mehar and the right of Nufuq’a. If only an economic aspect was under consideration, Islam would not have differentiated in the rights of Wirasat of men and women, like the worshippers of the West.


The writer is Attorney at Law & Religious Scholar. He has a PhD (USA), NDI, Shahadat al A’alamiyyah (Najaf, Iraq), M.A., LLM (Shariah)and is a member, Ulama Council of Pakistan.

Email address: qazishkborhany@hotmail.com
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #56 on: January 01, 2009, 07:57:55 PM »

Swimming in modesty
Muslim women head to a Cary pool as another cultural barrier falls
BY YONAT SHIMRON, Staff Writer
Comment on this story
Salman Sheikh was organizing a swim class for his two sons last summer when fellow Muslim parents approached him about starting a class for girls.
Sheikh told them he would ask the Curran Aquatic Center in Cary whether it could accommodate a group of Muslims who preferred a women-only pool.

Yes, of course, the leaders of the aquatic center said, and showed him a 15-yard pool that could be rented for $170 an hour.

Problem was, the small pool overlooked a larger, Olympic-size pool, and Sheikh wondered whether the center could provide blinds to cover the windows and shield the women from onlookers.

Sure, the center's leaders said, but it would cost $3,000 for custom-made blinds. Sheikh was ready to drop the idea. But the Muslim community in Raleigh and Cary wouldn't let him.

Within a month, Sheikh, a native of Pakistan who works as a project manager for the state Department of Health and Human Services, raised the money and signed up 35 women for the first class.

Last month, a group of women of all ages dipped their toes into the water for the first time.

This type of accommodation to the religious requirements of their faith is something Muslims are seeing more. All-Muslim Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops have cropped up across the country. Muslims are entering politics, studying Islam at major American universities, even finding halal, or ritually slaughtered foods, at local stores.

"I see this as sign of Muslims learning to operate within American civic institutions," said Omid Safi, a professor of Islamic studies at UNC-Chapel Hill.

For many of the women who signed up for the first class, learning to swim had been a long-deferred wish.

"I didn't ever want to be in a situation where I fall in the water and can't help myself," said Tarannum Khan, 30, who signed up for the class in Cary.

Many devout Muslim women adhere to their faith's requirements to guard their modesty, which for them means covering their hair and bodies in the presence of men who aren't their relatives. By doing so, they believe they are deflecting the desires and gazes of the opposite sex and living the kind of life the Prophet Muhammad might have approved.

Deprived of a dip

In mostly Muslim countries, it is common to have separate pools for men and women. But in the United States that's virtually unheard of, and as a result many Muslim women grow up not knowing how to swim.

Saleha Bhatti of Raleigh, who accompanied her 16-year-old daughter, Sanaa, to the swim class, said that was the case in her family. Had she stayed in Pakistan, she might have taken lessons at a women's pool, but in the United States, it wasn't an option.

"We never had the chance to learn," Bhatti said.

Jenny Jaber, a convert to Islam who lives in Raleigh, said learning to swim should not be a luxury. Indeed, she said, learning to swim is encouraged in the oral sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, known as the hadith.

"I've wanted to waterproof this community for a long time," said Jaber, who worked as a water safety instructor until she converted. "We're around water all the time, and it unnerves me to see these women standing on piers."

The first swimming class for Muslim women focused mostly on the fundamentals of water safety: wading, learning to float, learning to breathe.

Many of the women came dressed in full-length Burkinis, swimming costumes that looks much like a scuba-diving suit but are made of water-protected polyester rather than rubber. Designed for Muslim women, they cover the entire body except for the hands, feet and face.

Huma Sheikh, the wife of Salman, said she considers herself a pioneer among Triangle Muslim women who have learned to swim. She is proud that her husband and her two boys, Hamza, 9, and Mohhid, 7, can swim. And proud that she can, too.

"I've learned all the strokes," she said, "but I'm best at the breast stroke."

The first class ended last month, and the Sheikhs are planning another one in March or April.

"It's created a lot of excitement," said Doracy Harrison, program manager at the Curran Aquatic Center. "It's been really neat."

For the Sheikhs, the success of the class is a lesson in cultural adjustment. "It makes sense for business and service providers to accommodate the needs of the community," Salman Sheikh said. "All it takes is dialogue to make it happen."

yonat.shimron@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4891

To sign up for the all-women Muslim swim class, send e-mail to the Sheikhs at mohni16@hotmail.com.

http://www.newsobserver.com/347/story/1351642.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2009, 07:41:10 AM »

Suicide Bombings and Islam   
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, January 19, 2009

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dr. Syed Kamran Mirza, the author of Roots of Islamic Terrorism and co-author of Beyond Jihad and Leaving Islam-Apostates Speak Out.

FP: Dr. Syed Kamran Mirza, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Mirza: Thank you Jamie.

FP: I would like to talk to you today about suicide bombing as a phenomenon in Islamic warfare. We are witnessing this horrifying pathology in Gaza today, as Hamas militants are carrying out different forms of suicide operations, using their children and women as human shields, etc.

Let me begin with this question: many apologists of Islamic suicide bombing point out that other cultures and groups employ suicide bombing and that, therefore, no one has a right to point a finger at Muslims or Islam in this regard. What would you say to that?

Mirza: Yes, Islamic apologists often argue that suicide bombings are not just committed by the Muslims, but by many other nations – among them Tamils, Jews and Japanese. According to these apologists, since these groups engaged in suicide bombings for the cause of freedom in their eyes, then it means that Muslims are doing the same. The implication here is that Muslims are committing suicide for a freedom struggle and their suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam. But a serious question can be asked here: Are all those past suicide bombings the same as Islamic suicide bombings? Are their patterns the same? Let us examine the facts:

The so called Tamil Tigers, Jews or Japanese Kamikazes may have used a technique of suicide bombings very rarely in their desperate quest—but only, in their view, to defend or free their own motherland, and their suicide acts were absolutely limited to targeting soldiers and leaders; they never targeted innocent civilians.

Tamils, Jews, Kamikazes or the IRA never blasted bombs in other countries outside their own geographical boundary; they only primarily blasted bombs within their own border or on enemy troops. Rarely, an isolated single bomb went off in the vicinity of the border, such as in the Tamils’ killing of Razib Ghandi, for his support of the Sri Lankan Government. But they never came to America, Britain, Spain, Indonesia, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Saudi Arabia etc. to blast suicide bombs inside restaurants, buses, trains, metros, ocean beaches, tourist resorts etc. None of them engaged in suicide bombings throughout the whole world like Islamists vigorously do today. How many Tamils blasted suicide bombs in Europe or America? Was there any global jihadi phenomenon of suicide bombings by Tamil Tigers like there is the one waged by Islamists?

FP: Apologists for Islam also argue that the Qur’an prohibits suicide.

Mirza: It’s a lie to say that the Qur’an prohibits committing suicide. The Qur’an only prohibits taking one’s life for no holy purpose. The Qur’an condemns killing one-self only out of frustrations and for no good reason. But to die in the process of killing non-muslims/kaffirs for the cause of Islam is considered a good deed for believers, and Allah promises many rewards for it.

FP: Ok, so expand for us on the place of suicide bombings in Islam.

Mirza: There is one most important and appropriate quote that we must consider in beginning a discussion on this issue: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” (Blaise Pascal, 1670).

The Holy Qur’an and Sahih (pure) hadiths do encourage believers to commit suicide if necessary, in order to kill infidels/kaffirs, for the sake of Islam. The Qur’an repeatedly promises terrestrial handsome rewards for those who can kill kaffirs (enemy of Allah and His messenger) and dreadful punishing hellfire for those who refuse to kill kaffirs.

Muslims believe that their actual life starts after death and they have very little desire to prolong their life in this material world. The Qur’an also incites followers to sacrifice their lives in order to kill kaffirs in exchange of a much better and lucrative after life. In the Qur’anic verse 9:111, we find the incentive for jihadis to die in battle: the rewards of paradise, which involves sex with virgins. There are many other verses that promise rewards in paradise for death in jihad (i.e. 4:74, 4:95, 3:169). Such verses clearly order devout Muslims to kill and be killed. Allah is teaching Muslims to sacrifice their own lives, to commit suicide, in His cause in order to kill infidels (enemies of Allah).

The verse 9:111 says: “Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed.”

This verse very precisely justifies suicide bombing - the most lethal, terrifying, inhuman and successful weapon Islamic terrorists are using today to kill Allah's enemies. It is the perfect example (without any ambiguity) of the suicidal method Allah has prescribed for devout Muslims. In verse 9:111 Allah is clearly saying that He has purchased life and property of believers in exchange of lustful and unimaginable lucrative heavenly pleasures for those who will die (commit suicide) for the cause of killing kaffirs. And the Qur’an is loaded with many more verses ordering the ardent followers to carry out endless killing of infidels/unbelievers until only Muslims remain to inhibit this Earth owned by the Islamic Allah (i.e. 8:39, 9:29, 3:85, 9:39, 9:73, 8:65, 8:66, 4:78, 2:193, 2:216, 5:33, 4:89, 9:5, 9:28, 8:67, 8:17, 9:23, 3:28, 5:45, 47:4, 9:123, 2:191, 8:12).

FP: The hadiths preach the same thing, yes?

Mirza: Absolutely. Killing and dying for the cause of Allah (Jihad) was sanctioned widely in sahi hadiths, which often incite Islamic suicide terrorists. Almost one-third of the fourth of nine volumes of Bukhari, Islam's principal collector of Hadith, focused on jihad as physical war. In Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44, for example, Abu Huraira narrated: “A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."

Many other hadiths stress the same themes: Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53, Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol. 1:814, Sahi Bukhari 35, page-102. etc.

Now, does it take a rocket scientist to understand the source of the fanatical will of the September 11 terrorists? Does it ring a bell from where Islamic terrorists all over the world get their inspiration and hope? Will our Islamists still say, "Islam is a religion of peace," or that "Qur'an is full of kind and compassionate advises."?

Purely and solely—the real motivation behind suicide terrorism by Islamic terrorists is the teachings of Qur’an and Sunnah (Prophetic traditions). Western politicians erroneously and ignorantly call it “radical Islam” or “evil or distorted ideology.” This is absolutely a wrong statement by the politically correct western politicians. That ideology is nothing but the ideology of pure Islam, which is the holy teaching of the Qur’an.

Palestinian problems, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan etc. are all rooted in the Islamic plea to wage Islamic Jihad. Poverty or frustrations are not the cause of terrorism, because poverty and frustrations also exist amongst millions of poor people from other religions. Will any poor Christian, Hindu or a Buddhist bother to commit suicide to kill innocent westerners? Absolutely not.

FP: And Islamic terrorists consistently refer to the teachings of their religious texts to sanction their violence.

Mirza: Absolutely. All Islamic terrorists arrested by police in Europe – like Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam, Netherlands -- readily cited the Qur’an as their teacher to commit their crimes. Bouyeri confessed his guilt and showed no remorse for his act of Islamic slaughter. During the court trial he stated to the victim’s mother: “I don’t feel your pain because I was driven by my religious conviction.” He also said, “If I were released and would have the chance to do it again…I would do exactly the same thing.” At another point he said to the victim’s mother, “I have to admit I don’t have sympathy for you. I can’t feel for you because I think you are a non-believer.”

In the train terrorism incident in Madrid, Spain, the Islamic terrorists were all longtime residents of Spain -- and North American and Syrian born. They admitted to police that they were inspired by the Qur’an and the doctrines of Islam to rise up against their adopted host country to kill 191 Spanish innocent citizen.

During 2005-2006, in Bangladesh experienced an epidemic of bomb blasts by Islamic terrorists (homegrown in Bangladeshi) which included scores of suicide bombings to kill judges in the various court premises. In this process of suicide bombing attempts, two terrorists were captured by the police. When asked by reporters why they were going to kill people by suicide, they answered: "We were doing it by the order of the Qur’anic instructions by Allah."

When Bangladesh terrorist leaders Maulana Shaikh Rahman and Bangla Bhai were captured by police, Maulana Shaikh Rahman explained their actions: "We did it to establish Allah's laws in Bangladesh and we were doing it according to the Quran." Showing one copy of the Qur’an in his hand, Maulana said: "If I am a terrorist, then the Qur’an is also a terrorist."

In America, the 20th hijacker of 9/11 terrorism, Zacaria Moussaoui, proudly declared in court: "I wish I could kill more Americans, because my religion Islam demands that I kill infidels." Moussaoui or any other Islamic terrorist never told anyone that they had been incited to engage in terrorism for the reasons of “poverty” or “political oppression.”

FP: Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda jihadis have also frequently cited many passages from the Qur’an to justify their acts of terrorism and suicide bombings.

Mirza: Yes indeed. In his famous 'fatwa' of declared war against Americans in 1998, bin Laden repeatedly used verses from the Qur’an, that I cited earlier, to incite his followers to kill Americans and infidels -- primarily by the act of suicide bombing.

All the 9/11 Islamic terrorists left their private notes (especially Muhammad Ata) citing Qur’anic killing verses and they all committed suicide to kill American infidels and kaffirs according to the Qur’anic verse 9:111. Not a single time have they have ever claimed or mentioned any other inciting agent for their killing spree. Israel has captured numerous would-be suicide bombers (who failed to detonate themselves) and they were all interviewed by western reporters in their Israeli prison cell. All of them told the reporters that they wanted to die by killing infidels because the Qur’an instructed them to do so – and they also wanted to achieve heavenly pleasures with 72 virgin houris.

FP: Dr. Syed Kamran Mirza, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Mirza: Thank you sir.

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles  Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #58 on: January 22, 2009, 08:00:42 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1126556/Muslim-cleric-tells-Australians-Husbands-allowed-rape-beat-wives.html?ITO=1490

Muslim cleric tells Australians: 'Husbands should be allowed to rape and beat their wives'
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 1:16 PM on 22nd January 2009


A Muslim cleric has sparked outrage by telling his followers it is acceptable to rape and beat their wives.

Samir Abu Hamza, who runs an Islamic centre in Melbourne, ridiculed Australian laws banning forced sex within marriage.

Hamza told a male audience in Sydney: 'Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?'

He added that wives must immediately respond to their husbands' sexual demands.

The firebrand preacher also said a man was entitled to use 'limited force' as a last resort to punish a disobedient wife.


Hamza told a male audience in Sydney: 'Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?'


Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

He explained: 'After you have advised them for a long, long time, then you smack them, you beat them and - please brothers, calm down - the beating that the Muhammad showed is like the toothbrush that you use to brush your teeth.'

'You are not allowed to bruise them; you are not allowed to make them bleed,' he added in a video of the 2003 lecture in Sydney recently posted online.

'You don't go and grab a broomstick and say that is what Allah has said.'

In another online sermon, Hamza branded Australians 'boozers who are hooked on gambling and prostitution'.

The cleric urged followers to spread the word of Islam to save Australians.

'They think happiness can be achieved by being intoxicated, by going to the casino and blowing your money away, by going from one prostitute to the other,' he said.

'They don't know what life is all about, that's why they are on the booze, why they are binge drinking... why unfortunately suicide has skyrocketed, murder, anxiety and depression.'

Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd condemned Hamza's comments about marriage, insisting that violence towards women was not permissible under any circumstances.

He said: 'Australia will not tolerate these sort of remarks. They don't belong in modern Australia, and he should stand up, repudiate them, and apologise.'

Joumanah El Matrah, the executive of the Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria state, said Hazma's comments were 'a grossly inappropriate representation of both the Quran and Muslim views on violence, both in wife beating and rape'.

'I don't like to use the word extremism, but certainly his views are outdated and a minority view that is insistent on seeing women as less human than men, she said.

Sherene Hassan, the vice president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, said research has found that some imams in Australia share Hamza's stance on domestic violence.

She said the council will hold a series of workshops aimed at changing those views.

Conflicts between mainstream Australia and its fast-growing Muslim minority, who number 400,000 in a population of 21 million, have gained a higher profile in recent years.

Australia's former mufti, Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, created a furor in 2006 which split the Islamic community with a lecture in Sydney in which he compared women who do not wear head scarves to 'uncovered meat' and said immodestly dressed women invite rape.

Mr Hamza, born in Lebanon, moved to Australia as a youth with his parents.

He has delivered contradictory lectures, at times telling his followers they should be grateful to live in Australia because it had a fair system of justice, welfare safety nets and the rights for individuals to express their views.

Tensions between Muslim and non-Muslim youths erupted into days of rioting at Sydney's Cronulla beach in late 2005.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31565


« Reply #59 on: February 24, 2009, 01:30:28 PM »

Sorry I don't have a URL for this. 

Reactions anyone?
=====================================

She turned around and was startled to see Movahedi. A moment later came the agonizing pain. Movahedi had thrown something over her. What felt like fire on her face was acid searing through her skin.

"I was just yelling, 'I'm burning! I'm burning! For God's sake, somebody help me!' "

The acid seeped into Bahrami's eyes and streamed down her face and into her mouth. When she covered her face with her hands, streaks of acid ran down her fingers and onto her forearms.

Two weeks after the attack, Movahedi turned himself in to police and confessed in court. He was convicted in 2005 and has been behind bars all along.

Bahrami's lawyer, Ali Sarrafi, said Movahedi had never shown any remorse. "He says he did it because he loved her," Sarrafi said.

Attack victims in Iran usually accept "blood money": a fine in lieu of harsh punishment. With no insurance and mounting medical bills, Bahrami could've used the cash, but she said no.

"I told the judge I want an eye for an eye," Bahrami said. "People like him should be made to feel my suffering."

Bahrami's demand has outraged some human rights activists. Criticizing acid-attack victims is almost unheard of, but some Internet bloggers have condemned Bahrami's decision.

"We cannot condone such cruel punishment," wrote one blogger. "To willingly inflict the same treatment on a person under court order is a violation of human rights."

Late last year, an Iranian court gave Bahrami what she asked for. It sentenced Movahedi to be blinded with drops of acid in each eye. This month, the courts rejected Movahedi's appeal.

Bahrami's lawyer, Sarrafi, said the sentencing might be carried out in a matter of weeks. He said he doesn't think Bahrami will change her mind. Neither does Bahrami.
Logged
Chad
Power User
***
Posts: 103


« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2009, 04:18:28 PM »

I seen this woman on FOX she was messed up but is living her life the best she can. What would make someone do this to another human being? I say good if they blind him. Really, what is a fitting punishment for permantly disfiguring and blinding somone?
Logged
Chad
Power User
***
Posts: 103


« Reply #61 on: March 02, 2009, 03:06:00 PM »

Seriously, what is wrong with these leftists. hah. a zen momment- I answered my own question.  smiley

Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Mar 9, 2009
Pakistan's Swat valley is quiet once again. Often compared to Switzerland for its stunning landscape of mountains and meadows, Swat became a war zone over the past two years as Taliban fighters waged fierce battles against Army troops. No longer, but only because the Pakistani government has agreed to some of the militants' key demands, chiefly that Islamic courts be established in the region. Fears abound that this means women's schools will be destroyed, movies will be banned and public beheadings will become a regular occurrence.

The militants are bad people and this is bad news. But the more difficult question is, what should we—the outside world—do about it? That we are utterly opposed to such people, and their ideas and practices, is obvious. But how exactly should we oppose them? In Pakistan and Afghanistan, we have done so in large measure by attacking them—directly with Western troops and Predator strikes, and indirectly in alliance with Pakistani and Afghan forces. Is the answer to pour in more of our troops, train more Afghan soldiers, ask that the Pakistani military deploy more battalions, and expand the Predator program to hit more of the bad guys? Perhaps—in some cases, emphatically yes—but I think it's also worth stepping back and trying to understand the phenomenon of Islamic radicalism.


It is not just in the Swat valley that Islamists are on the rise. In Afghanistan the Taliban have been gaining ground for the past two years as well. In Somalia last week, Al-Shabab, a local group of Islamic militants, captured yet another town from government forces. Reports from Nigeria to Bosnia to Indonesia show that Islamic fundamentalists are finding support within their communities for their agenda, which usually involves the introduction of some form of Sharia—Islamic law—reflecting a puritanical interpretation of Islam. No music, no liquor, no smoking, no female emancipation.

The groups that advocate these policies are ugly, reactionary forces that will stunt their countries and bring dishonor to their religion. But not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world—in fact, most do not. Consider, for example, the most difficult example, the Taliban. The Taliban have done all kinds of terrible things in Afghanistan. But so far, no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack over the past 10 years—including 9/11. There are certainly elements of the Taliban that are closely associated with Al Qaeda. But the Taliban is large, and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.

How would you describe Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, a judge in Afghanistan? He has banned women from singing on television and called for an end to cable television altogether. He has spoken out against women and men being educated in the same schools at any age. He has upheld the death penalty for two journalists who were convicted of blasphemy. (Their crime: writing that Afghanistan's turn toward Islam was "reactionary.") Shinwari sounds like an Islamic militant, right? Actually, he was appointed chief justice of the Afghan Supreme Court after the American invasion, administered Hamid Karzai's oath of office and remained in his position until three years ago.

Were he to hold Western, liberal views, Shinwari would have little credibility within his country. The reality—for the worse, in my view—is that radical Islam has gained a powerful foothold in the Muslim imagination. It has done so for a variety of complex reasons that I have written about before. But the chief reason is the failure of Muslim countries to develop, politically or economically. Look at Pakistan. It cannot provide security, justice or education for many of its citizens. Its elected politicians have spent all of their time in office conspiring to have their opponents thrown in jail and their own corruption charges tossed out of court. As a result, President Asif Ali Zardari's approval rating barely a month into office was around half that enjoyed by President Pervez Musharraf during most of his term. The state is losing legitimacy as well as the capacity to actually govern.

Consider Swat. The valley was historically a peaceful place that had autonomy within Pakistan (under a loose federal arrangement) and practiced a moderate version of Sharia in its courts. In 1969 Pakistan's laws were formally extended to the region. Over the years, the new courts functioned poorly, with long delays, and were plagued by corruption. Dysfunctional rule meant that the government lost credibility. Some people grew nostalgic for the simple, if sometimes brutal, justice of the old Sharia courts. A movement demanding their restitution began in the early 1990s, and Benazir Bhutto's government signed an agreement to reintroduce some aspects of the Sharia court system with Sufi Muhammed, the same cleric with whom the current government has struck a deal. (The Bhutto arrangement never really worked, and the protests started up again in a few years.) Few people in the valley would say that the current truce is their preferred outcome. In the recent election, they voted for a secular party. But if the secularists produce chaos and corruption, people settle for order.

The militants who were battling the Army (led by Sufi Muhammed's son-in-law) have had to go along with the deal. The Pakistani government is hoping that this agreement will isolate the jihadists and win the public back to its side. This may not work, but at least it represents an effort to divide the camps of the Islamists between those who are violent and those who are merely extreme.

Over the past eight years such distinctions have been regarded as naive. In the Bush administration's original view, all Islamist groups were one and the same; any distinctions or nuances were regarded as a form of appeasement. If they weren't terrorists themselves, they were probably harboring terrorists. But how to understand Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the countries "harbor" terrorists but are not themselves terrorist states?

To be clear, where there are Qaeda cells and fighters, force is the only answer. But most estimates of the number of Qaeda fighters in Pakistan range well under a few thousand. Are those the only people we are bombing? Is bombing—by Americans—the best solution? The Predator strikes have convinced much of the local population that it's under attack from America and produced a nationalist backlash. A few Qaeda operatives die, but public support for the battle against extremism drops in the vital Pashtun areas of Pakistan. Is this a good exchange?

We have placed ourselves in armed opposition to Muslim fundamentalists stretching from North Africa to Indonesia, which has made this whole enterprise feel very much like a clash of civilizations, and a violent one at that. Certainly, many local despots would prefer to enlist the American armed forces to defeat their enemies, some of whom may be jihadists but others may not. Across the entire North African region, the United States and other Western powers are supporting secular autocrats who claim to be battling Islamist opposition forces. In return, those rulers have done little to advance genuine reform, state building or political openness. In Algeria, after the Islamists won an election in 1992, the military staged a coup, the Islamists were banned and a long civil war ensued in which 200,000 people died. The opposition has since become more militant, and where once it had no global interests, some elements are now aligned with Al Qaeda.

Events have taken a different course in Nigeria, where the Islamists came to power locally. After the end of military rule in 1999, 12 of Nigeria's 36 states chose to adopt Sharia. Radical clerics arrived from the Middle East to spread their draconian interpretation of Islam. Religious militias such as the Hisbah of Kano state patrolled the streets, attacking those who shirked prayers, disobeyed religious dress codes or drank alcohol. Several women accused of adultery were sentenced to death by stoning. In 2002 The Weekly Standard decried "the Talibanization of West Africa" and worried that Nigeria, a "giant of sub-Saharan Africa," could become "a haven for Islamism, linked to foreign extremists."

But when The New York Times sent a reporter to Kano state in late 2007, she found an entirely different picture from the one that had been fretted over by State Department policy analysts. "The Islamic revolution that seemed so destined to transform northern Nigeria in recent years appears to have come and gone," the reporter, Lydia Polgreen, concluded. The Hisbah had become "little more than glorified crossing guards" and were "largely confined to their barracks and assigned anodyne tasks like directing traffic and helping fans to their seats at soccer games." The widely publicized sentences of mutilation and stoning rarely came to pass (although floggings were common). Other news reports have confirmed this basic picture.

Residents hadn't become less religious; mosques still overflowed with the devout during prayer time, and virtually all Muslim women went veiled. But the government had helped push Sharia in a tamer direction by outlawing religious militias; the regular police had no interest in enforcing the law's strictest tenets. In addition, over time some of the loudest proponents of Sharia had been exposed as hypocrites. Some were under investigation for embezzling millions.

We have an instant, violent reaction to anyone who sounds like an Islamic bigot. This is understandable. Many Islamists are bigots, reactionaries and extremists (others are charlatans and opportunists). But this can sometimes blind us to the ways they might prove useful in the broader struggle against Islamic terror. The Bush administration spent its first term engaged in a largely abstract, theoretical conversation about radical Islam and its evils—and conservative intellectuals still spout this kind of unyielding rhetoric. By its second term, though, the administration was grappling with the complexities of Islam on the ground. It is instructive that Bush ended up pursuing a most sophisticated and nuanced policy toward political Islam in the one country where reality was unavoidable—Iraq.

Having invaded Iraq, the Americans searched for local allies, in particular political groups that could become the Iraqi face of the occupation. The administration came to recognize that 30 years of Saddam—a secular, failed tyrant—had left only hard-core Islamists as the opposition. It partnered with these groups, most of which were Shiite parties founded on the model of Iran's ultra-religious organizations, and acquiesced as they took over most of southern Iraq, the Shiite heartland. In this area, the strict version of Islam that they implemented was quite similar to—in some cases more extreme than—what one would find in Iran today. Liquor was banned; women had to cover themselves from head to toe; Christians were persecuted; religious affiliations became the only way to get a government job, including college professorships.

While some of this puritanism is now mellowing, southern Iraq remains a dark place. But it is not a hotbed of jihad. And as the democratic process matures, one might even hope that some version of the Nigerian story will play out there. "It's hard to hand over authority to people who are illiberal," says former CIA analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht. "What you have to realize is that the objective is to defeat bin Ladenism, and you have to start the evolution. Moderate Muslims are not the answer. Shiite clerics and Sunni fundamentalists are our salvation from future 9/11s."

The Bush administration partnered with fundamentalists once more in the Iraq War, in the Sunni belt. When the fighting was at its worst, administration officials began talking to some in the Sunni community who were involved in the insurgency. Many of them were classic Islamic militants, though others were simply former Baathists or tribal chiefs. Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy ramped up this process. "We won the war in Iraq chiefly because we separated the local militants from the global jihadists," says Fawaz Gerges, a scholar at Sarah Lawrence College, who has interviewed hundreds of Muslim militants. "Yet around the world we are still unwilling to make the distinction between these two groups."

Would a strategy like this work in Afghanistan? David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency expert who has advised Petraeus, says, "I've had tribal leaders and Afghan government officials at the province and district level tell me that 90 percent of the people we call the Taliban are actually tribal fighters or Pashtun nationalists or people pursuing their own agendas. Less than 10 percent are ideologically aligned with the Quetta Shura [Mullah Omar's leadership group] or Al Qaeda." These people are, in his view, "almost certainly reconcilable under some circumstances." Kilcullen adds, "That's very much what we did in Iraq. We negotiated with 90 percent of the people we were fighting."

Beyond Afghanistan, too, it is crucial that we adopt a more sophisticated strategy toward radical Islam. This should come naturally to President Obama, who spoke often on the campaign trail of the need for just such a differentiated approach toward Muslim countries. Even the Washington Institute, a think tank often associated with conservatives, appears onboard. It is issuing a report this week that recommends, among other points, that the United States use more "nuanced, noncombative rhetoric" that avoids sweeping declarations like "war on terror," "global insurgency," even "the Muslim world." Anything that emphasizes the variety of groups, movements and motives within that world strengthens the case that this is not a battle between Islam and the West. Bin Laden constantly argues that all these different groups are part of the same global movement. We should not play into his hands, and emphasize instead that many of these forces are local, have specific grievances and don't have much in common.

That does not mean we should accept the burning of girls' schools, or the stoning of criminals. Recognizing the reality of radical Islam is entirely different from accepting its ideas. We should mount a spirited defense of our views and values. We should pursue aggressively policies that will make these values succeed. Such efforts are often difficult and take time—rebuilding state structures, providing secular education, reducing corruption—but we should help societies making these efforts. The mere fact that we are working in these countries on these issues—and not simply bombing, killing and capturing—might change the atmosphere surrounding the U.S. involvement in this struggle.

The veil is not the same as the suicide belt. We can better pursue our values if we recognize the local and cultural context, and appreciate that people want to find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license. In the end, time is on our side. Bin Ladenism has already lost ground in almost every Muslim country. Radical Islam will follow the same path. Wherever it is tried—in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan—people weary of its charms very quickly. The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. That's the most powerful weapon of all.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/187093
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31565


« Reply #62 on: March 06, 2009, 10:31:44 AM »

Acid Trip
In 2004, an Iranian man named Majid developed feelings for a woman named Ameneh Bahrami. She did not reciprocate his interest, and he took the rejection poorly: He splashed acid on her face, causing her to go blind.

The Associated Press reports that an Iranian court has passed sentence in the case, ruling that Majid "should also be blinded with acid based on the Islamic law system of 'qisas,' or eye-for-an-eye retribution." But there's a catch:

Bahrami, who moved to Spain after the attack to get medical treatment, said Wednesday that under Iranian law, she is entitled to blind him in only one eye, unless she pays €20,000 ($25,110), because in Iran women are not considered equal to men.
"They have told us that my two eyes are equal to one of his because in my country each man is worth two women. They are not the same," she told Cadena SER. , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #63 on: October 09, 2009, 09:25:51 AM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html

Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood

President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.
 
By Andrew Gilligan and Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 8:00PM BST 08 Oct 2009

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".

They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

"The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases."

Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women.

It also includes the controversial "Hadd offences", crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood."

The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir's website.

Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration's determination to reach out to the Muslim world.

She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.

During this week's broadcast, she described her White House role as "to convey... to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want."

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Miss Mogahed was “downplaying” Sharia Law.

“There is a reason sharia has got a bad name and it is how it has been exercised. Regrettably in the US there have been acts of injustice perpetrated against women that are driven by the Sharia-type mindset that women are objects not human beings,” she said.

She cited the example of Muzzammil Hassan, a Buffalo man who ran a cable channel aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes and was charged earlier this year with beheading his wife after she filed for divorce.

“Americans understand by example, it’s not as if we are an ignorant mass of people. Just as we don’t broad brush all Muslims, so should Dalia not downplay the serious nature of sharia law.”
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #64 on: June 03, 2010, 03:48:26 PM »

Was Marco Polo an 'Islamophobe'?
A Study in Continuity
by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
April 16, 2010

http://www.meforum.org/2637/marco-polo-islamophobe

 
Was Marco Polo an 'Islamophobe'?
A Study in Continuity
by Raymond Ibrahim

 

If the same exact criticisms being made against Islam today were also made centuries ago, is it reasonable to dismiss them all as "Islamophobic"— that is, as "unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam," as the Council on American Islamic Relations would have it?

This is the question I often ask myself whenever I read pre-modern writings on Islam. Take that elementary schoolbook hero, Marco Polo and his famous memoirs, for example. By today's standards, the 13th century Venetian merchant would be denounced as a rabid "Islamophobe." For me, however, his writings contain a far more important lesson — one in continuity — and deserve closer scrutiny.

Before examining Polo's observations, it should be noted that his anthropological accounts are, by and large, objective. Unlike simplistic explanations that portray him as a prototypical "Orientalist" with an axe to grind against the "Other" — specifically non-whites and non-Christians — in fact, Polo occasionally portrayed the few Christians he encountered in a negative light (such as those of the island of Socotra) and frequently praised non-Christians, including Muslims.

For example, he hails the Brahmins of India as being "most honorable," possessing a "hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons. They are likewise remarkable for the virtue of being satisfied with the possession of one wife (p.298)." He refers to one Muslim leader as governing "with justice" (p.317) and another who "showed himself [to be] a very good lord, and made himself beloved by everybody (p.332)."

That said, Polo clearly had no problem being blunt about Islam (political correctness being nonexistent in the Middle Ages). Whereas he praised the Brahmins for their "hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons," regarding the Muslims of Tauris, (modern day Iraq), he wrote:

According to their doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians, are considered as martyrs. If, therefore, they were not prohibited and restrained by the powers who now govern them, they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all Saracens (p.63).

In fact, based on the Muslim prophet Muhammad's numerous raiding expeditions, plundering infidels is quite standard in Islam and treated regularly in legal manuals; the Koran has an entire chapter dedicated to and named after plunder (Surat al-Anfal). As for being a martyr simply by dying at the hands of the infidel enemy, this too has ample support in Islam's texts and enjoys consensus among the ulema. The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary translates shahid (martyr) as "one killed in battle with infidels."

A more telling anecdote follows: According to Polo, a certain "Achmath" (probably "Ahmed"), one of the few Muslims to have had great influence over Kublai Khan, habitually abused the largely non-Muslim subject peoples without the Khan's knowledge: he put to death anyone he pleased, robbed them of their possessions, and, most notoriously, he and his sons regularly raped and coerced into concubinage countless women. Due to Achmath's many atrocities, he was eventually assassinated. When the Khan later discovered the extent of Achmath's crimes, his

attention [went] to the doctrines of the Sect of the Saracens [i.e., Islam], which excuse every crime, yea, even murder itself, when committed on such as are not of their religion. And seeing that this doctrine had led the accursed Achmath and his sons to act as they did without any sense of guilt, the Khan was led to entertain the greatest disgust and abomination for it. So he summoned the Saracens and prohibited their doing many things which their religion enjoined (p.173).

Of course, crimes against non-Muslim infidels have a doctrinal base and fall within the legal jurisdiction of jihad and its attendant institutions (e.g., dhimma status): war upon and death for non-subjugated infidels is a Koranic mandate (e.g., 8:39, 9:5, 9:29); the sub-human treatment of infidel slaves, particularly women, or, in the Koran's language, "what your right hand possesses," is well codified. Little wonder that Muslims like this Achmath — or today's terrorists — can act "without any sense of guilt."

(It is significant to note that, in both of Polo's block quotes above, he criticizes Muslim doctrine — not so much Muslim peoples. In other words, he allows for what would today be called "moderate" Muslims, as shown by his aforementioned praise for individual Muslim leaders.)

Polo also confirms that Muslim leaders have long relied on Muhammad's account of a lusty paradise to lure young men into becoming "martyrs." He recounts how the Shia assassins dedicated their lives to assassinating and terrorizing their opponents simply to enter into "paradise, where every species of sensual gratification should be found, in the society of beautiful nymphs" (p.78). (It is further interesting to note that the assassin leader took into his service men primarily between the ages of 12-20 — not unlike Osama bin Laden's position that Muslim men aged 15-25 are most suited for jihad and martyrdom: The Al Qaeda Reader, p.267.)

Other "Islamophobic" allusions are scattered throughout Polo's account: the caliph of Baghdad's "daily thoughts were employed on the means of converting to his religion [Islam] those who resided within his dominions, or, upon their refusal, in forming pretences for putting them to death" (p.59); and Muslims "utterly detest the Christians" (p.316­­­­­), perhaps in accordance to Koran 60:4 — still cited by today's Islamists as mandating permanent hatred for non-Muslims.

Here, then, is the problem: If today it is "Islamophobic," that is, irrational, to claim that Islam advocates war against and subjugation for infidels, permitting the latter to be abused, plundered, and enslaved in the process — what does one make of the fact that, some 700 years ago, the same exact claims were made by our Venetian traveler? Indeed, what does one make of the fact that, centuries before and after Polo, a diverse host of writers — including John of Damascus (d.749) Theophanes the chronicler (d.818), Francis of Assisi (d.1226), Joinville the crusader (d.13th century), and Manuel the Byzantine emperor (d.1425) — all made the same "Islamophobic" observations about Islam? (The latter's writings, when merely quoted by the pope, caused an uproar in the Muslim world.) This, of course, is to say nothing of the countless Muslim ulema who regularly affirm that Islam teaches war, subjugation, slavery, and plunder vis-a-vis the infidel, tracing it back to the words of the Koran and Muhammad.

In short, the word "Islamophobia" is a ruse — also permitted in Islam under the doctrine of taqiyya — meant to paralyze all discussion concerning Muslim doctrine; and it has been successful: the United Nations has already presided over a conference titled "Confronting Islamophobia" and a Council of Europe summit condemned "Islamophobia." Moreover, the influential Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) regularly lambasts the specter of Islamophobia, calling it the "worst form of terrorism," and publishing two reports on the phenomenon.

Yet, in a classic twist of irony, the opening assertion of the OIC's first report — "Islamophobia has existed since the time of inception of Islam" — contradicts its entire argument, for it begs the following question: How can something, in this case "unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam" — to use CAIR's definition of Islamophobia — be a constant aspect of Islam's fourteen-hundred year history, and yet still be regarded as "unfounded"?

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #65 on: June 03, 2010, 04:12:51 PM »

Nice find.  Fascinating  Thanks GM
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #66 on: June 29, 2010, 08:55:32 AM »

Saudi Textbooks:Still Teaching Hatred
Saudi royals are regularly hailed for their philanthropy. Their fans should take a closer look at the content of the kingdom’s 1–12 education.
 
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah will be received by President Obama in Washington today, nearly two years after the deadline by which the kingdom’s educational curriculum was to have been completely reformed. As the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom wrote to the president last week, “This promise remains unfulfilled.”

According to Arab News, the U.S. ambassador to Riyadh, James Smith, described this White House visit as a “very important” meeting, directed toward coordinating efforts to confront terrorism. The test of its seriousness will be whether President Obama uses the occasion to personally press King Abdullah to finally keep his pledge of textbook reform.

Saudi textbooks teach, along with many other noxious lessons, that Jews and Christians are “enemies,” and they dogmatically instruct that various groups of “unbelievers” — apostates (which includes Muslim moderates who reject Saudi Wahhabi doctrine), polytheists (which includes Shiites), and Jews — should be killed. Under the Saudi Education Ministry’s method of rote learning, these teachings amount to indoctrination, starting in first grade and continuing through high school, where militant jihad on behalf of “truth” is taught as a sacred duty. These textbooks are used not only in Saudi Arabia but in Saudi-funded schools around the world.

King Abdullah has presided over some welcome counterterrorism measures, such as last month’s long-overdue fatwa — issued by the Saudi clerical establishment, the Council of Senior Ulema — condemning the financing of terrorism as a criminal act. But, as Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey, America’s top financial-counterterrorism official, reminded us in a recent op-ed, despite progress in thwarting the financing of al-Qaeda, “a more difficult strategic battle remains.”

Levey stressed the primary importance of directing our policy at preventing people from embracing violent extremism in the first place. He warned, “Among other things, we must focus on educational reform in key locations to ensure that intolerance has no place in curricula and textbooks. . . . nless the next generation of children is taught to reject violent extremism, we will forever be faced with the challenge of disrupting the next group of terrorist facilitators and supporters.”

The primary “key location” is undoubtedly Saudi Arabia. The kingdom is not just any country with problematic textbooks. As the controlling authority of the two holiest shrines of Islam, Saudi Arabia is able to disseminate its religious materials among the millions making the hajj to Mecca each year. Such teachings can, in this context, make a great impression. In addition, Saudi textbooks are also posted on the Saudi Education Ministry’s website and are shipped and distributed by a vast Sunni infrastructure established with Saudi oil wealth to Muslim communities throughout the world. In his book The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright asserts that while Saudis constitute only 1 percent of the world’s Muslims, they pay “90 per cent of the expenses of the entire faith, overriding other traditions of Islam."

Given that most of the 9/11 terrorists and Osama bin Laden himself were Saudi born and educated, it has to be acknowledged that Saudi education not only is deficient, but poses a direct danger to American national security. Saudi foreign-affairs officials and ambassadors do not dispute this. Their reactions, though, have alternated over the years between insisting that reforms had already been made and stalling for time by stating that the reforms would take several years to complete, banking on the hope that American attention would drift.

Four years ago, after years of maintaining (including by taking out ads in American political magazines and on the sides of Washington Metro buses) that their textbooks had been cleaned up, when they demonstrably had not, the Saudis gave a solemn and specific promise to the United States. Its terms were described in a letter from the U.S. assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs to Sen. Jon Kyl, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security: “In July of 2006, the Saudi Government confirmed to us its policy to undertake a program of textbook reform to eliminate all passages that disparage or promote hatred toward any religion or religious groups.” Furthermore, the State Department letter reported that the pledge would be fulfilled “in time for the start of the 2008 school year.”

In its 2010 annual report on human rights, the State Department itself concluded, with diplomatic understatement, that Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks continued to contain “some overtly intolerant statements” against various religious groups, that they “provided justification for violence against non-Muslims,” and that reforms remained “incomplete.”

Meanwhile, Saudi royals have stepped up their philanthropy to higher education around the world, for which they have garnered many encomiums and awards. Hardly a month goes by without a news report that one of the princes is endowing a new center of Islamic and Arabic studies, or a business or scientific department, at a foreign university — so far, the list includes Oxford, Georgetown, Berkeley, Berlin, Harvard, Moscow, Sarajevo, Australia, and many others. The king himself founded a new university inside Saudi Arabia.

These efforts have bought the royal family much good will, but they should not distract our political leaders from the central concern of the Saudi 1–12 religious curriculum. This is not the time for heaping unqualified praise on the aging monarch for promoting “knowledge-based education,” “extending the hand of friendship to people of other faiths,” promoting “principles of moderation, tolerance, and mutual respect,” and the like (all phrases from Secretary Clinton’s “salute” last summer to King Abdullah for his philanthropy).

With Islamist radicalization spreading even within the United States — as seen from terrorist plots at Fort Hood and in Times Square, Northern Virginia, Colorado, and elsewhere over the past year — Saudi textbook reform has never been more important for American security.

— Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom. Bonnie Alldredge is a research assistant at the center.

http://article.nationalreview.com/437282/saudi-textbooksbrstill-teaching-hatred/nina-shea-bonnie-alldredge
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #67 on: October 14, 2010, 10:36:46 AM »

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/10/13/tolerance-and-diversity-teaching-girls-that-misogyny-and-beatings-are-an-honor/


“Allah honored wives by instating the punishment of beatings.” So said Cleric Sa’d Arafat earlier this year. Last month, a Wellesley, Massachusetts public school took a trip to a mosque, where the school children were taught to pray to that same Allah.

    The result is stunning: an unabashed exercise in Islamic dawa, the “call to Islam” and the manner by which the Brotherhood’s spiritual guide, Yusuf Qaradawi, promises that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe.” Qaradawi — wonder of wonders — is a trustee of the Roxbury mosque (although he is banned from the U.S. for sanctioning terrorism). As the video relates, “Dawa Net,” one Islamic organization that instructs on how to use the schools to inculcate the young, explains that public schools in America are “fertile grounds where the seeds of Islam can be sowed inside the hearts of non-Muslim students.”

Well, except for the icky girls. Cooties, and all. They were not allowed to take part in the “tolerance” indoctrination. Have to teach these girls how to show respect! And teach them a little about  the benefits of misogynistic subjugation in the Muslim world, right?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #68 on: October 17, 2010, 10:37:26 AM »

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4677.htm

    Lebanese Liberal: Cordoba Initiative Chairman Abdul Rauf Is Not Truly Moderate


In a September 19, 2010 article on the liberal website Elaph, Lebanese journalist Joseph Bishara wrote that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, does not really believe in tolerance. He stated that Rauf is deceiving the public based on the Islamic principle of taqiyya (concealing one's true beliefs) – that is, he is hiding his real intentions, which are to spread Islam in the U.S. while exploiting the liberties granted him by the U.S. Constitution.

Following are excerpts from Bishara's article:[1]   

"Abdul Rauf's Statements Raised Many Questions In My Mind – For I Do Not Believe That Islam Is Compatible With the Principles and Customs of American Society"

"Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is mentioned almost daily on the news, ever since he entered into conflict with over 70% of the American public over the mosque he wishes to build near [the former site of] the Twin Towers in New York. Until quite recently, most people had never even heard of him, but now he has become one of the [country's] biggest celebrities, pursued by news agencies and media channels [alike]. He became famous after he and some of his Muslim partners purchased an old building, only a few meters away from [Ground Zero], in order to build, according to his statement, a large public facility that will include a mosque.

"Abdul Rauf provoked the American public when he released his plan [to build his Islamic center] near the place that, in the Americans' eyes, has been sanctified by the blood of the hundreds [sic] of people who died in the 9/11 attacks.

"The American right is using all its influence to try and persuade the public to demand the removal of the planned mosque to another location. To this end, it is presenting Abdul Rauf's statements and positions [to the public], so as to show that the man is not [really] moderate, that their apprehensions are well-founded, namely that the building of the mosque will be construed by the extremist Islamists as a victory...

"The American right accuses Abdul Rauf of extremism, of supporting terrorist organizations, and of refusing to condemn terror. Among his statements that the Americans have presented as damning are his claim that the U.S. administration was behind 9/11, that bin Laden is a product of U.S. [policy], that the 9/11 attacks benefited Islam and constitute an important milestone in the history of Islam in the U.S., and that the number of Muslims killed by the U.S. is larger than the number of Americans killed in 9/11.

"The Americans have also criticized Abdul Rauf for refusing to condemn terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizbullah, and for saying that the U.S. must admit it has harmed Muslims [if it wants] terrorism to stop.

"I was disinclined to accept the position of the right-wing American media on Rauf without any evidence, so I decided... to follow his statements in order to discover what he is like and what his positions really are. One of his statements that caught my attention had to do with his efforts to Americanize Islam. He did not explain what he meant by this, so [the statements] was difficult to understand. I asked myself: How is it possible to paint Islam in American colors, when the Muslims condemn the U.S. as a land of heresy and hedonism, and as a land of perversions and licentiousness?

"Abdul Rauf's statements raised many questions in my mind, for I do not believe that Islam is compatible with the principles and customs of American society, which are based upon the sanctifying of complete freedom... I told myself: if American culture is compatible with Islam, why then do Islamic scholars associate it with the devil's unholiness, and why do most Muslims throughout the world reject it?...

"After thinking long and hard about Abdul Rauf's statements, which stirred many doubts [in my mind] about the man, I concluded that his statement [about Americanizing Islam] could have [only three possible goals]: to generate a media storm, to convince the Americans that Islam is tolerant and can advance along with the culture in which it exists, or to convince the Americans that Islam and the American culture have principles in common. I rejected the second and third goals, because I believe that Islam, which is regarded by its adherents as sacred and absolute, is not compatible with American culture, which allows individuals to reject the absolute and rebel against the sacred."       

The Islamic Shari'a Is Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution

"A few days after making his statement about Americanizing Islam, Adbul Rauf made another statement – a very strange one that increased my suspicions regarding the goals of his illogical proclamations. He said that '90% of the laws of the Islamic shari'a are fully compatible with the Articles of the American Constitution,' and that 'the disagreements between the two are few and insignificant.' This statement is not merely puzzling but [totally] ludicrous.

"Abdul Rauf seems to think, with peculiar naiveté, that all those who hear him are stupid and ignorant, and know nothing about the real facts... because I know that the Islamic shari'a grants privileges only to Muslims, and not to others. The laws of the shari'a do not treat non-Muslims as [equal] citizens, but as dhimmis, who do not have the same rights and duties as Muslims. I asked myself: how can the shari'a be fully compatible with the U.S. Constitution? How can the seven Articles of the U.S. Constitution, which safeguard its institutionalized secular democracy that guarantee freedoms and equality to [all] citizens, be compatible with the Islamic shari'a, which places the fate of countries and peoples in the hands of an unworthy religious elite?

"The U.S. Constitution is man-made, modern and compatible with [today's] reality. It separates church from state; guarantees [rights] and dignity [even] to criminals; grants freedom of speech, worship and the press; prohibits violating the citizens' right to protection; grants equal [status] to all citizens and [safeguards] the political rights of women.

"How can this constitution be compatible with the Islamic shari'a, which is immutable and not compatible with the times, makes religion a political matter and politics a religious matter, [advocates] chopping off body parts [as a punishment for criminals], designates Islam as the true religion and all other religions as heresy, threatens the safety of non-Muslims and treats them as dhimmis... and subjects women to male domination?"     

Imam Abdul Rauf Is Deceiving the Public

"Imam Abdul Rauf's statements raised many questions that I could not answer. But all these questions helped me understand that he is mocking the Americans, while counting on [the fact that] most of them are ignorant of the facts, on the American law that guarantees his rights... and on the Americans' fear of terrorism and their wish never to see another event like 9/11.

"Imam Abdul Rauf calls for moderation, but his actions say otherwise. He is not trying to Americanize Islam, as he claims, because that is not possible. [On the contrary], he is trying to Islamize America by demanding to implement the Islamic shari'a and through his attempt to convince the Americans that Islam and the Islamic shari'a are compatible with the American culture and constitution.

"Abdul Rauf says he is trying to build bridges among religions, and that he is a man of peace trying to illuminate the tolerant face of Islam. But his illogical statements and his provocative actions reveal him in a different light. He is employing [the principle of] taqiyya,[2] which is sanctioned by the shari'a, in order to Islamize America."
 
Endnotes:

[1] www.elaph.com, September 19, 2010.

[2] A principle which permits a Muslim to conceal his true beliefs or intentions, in order to protect his life or attain a worthy goal.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #69 on: November 03, 2010, 02:46:12 PM »

November 3rd, 2010

Law professor: Ban on Sharia law 'a mess'

Oklahoma's new ban on Islamic law poses potential legal hurdles.
Oklahoma voters on Tuesday approved a measure that bans the application of Islamic law and orders judges in the state to rely only on federal law when deciding cases. State Rep. Rex Duncan, a Republican, was the primary author of the measure, which amends that state constitution.

For months, legal experts had lambasted the initiative as biased toward a religion and potentially harmful to local businesses that engage in commerce with international companies. It also presents potential constitutional law problems, experts say. Is Oklahoma's state constitution now in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... "?

There has never been a previous case in the state in which Sharia law was applied, said Rick Tepker, the first member of the University of Oklahoma School of Law faculty to try a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tepker called the passage of the measure "a mess" with implications unknown until a case that challenges it arises.

"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he said. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren't going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

What is Sharia law, and how is it defined in the ban?

Businesses that engage with international companies may also find the ban is a stumbling block, Tepker said. The ban also requires all state business to be conducted in English.

Duncan has said he knew of no precedent in the state's history in which a judge applied Sharia law. But he backed the measure, he told reporters, as a "pre-emptive strike."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #70 on: November 03, 2010, 03:11:47 PM »

Gee, all these leftists suddenly can't find a dividing line between islamic theology and sharia law?

"I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments."

Oh really? What case or cases have cited the 10 commandments? The very same leftists would scream were the 10 commandment cited in a court case.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 09:26:54 PM by G M » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #71 on: November 03, 2010, 09:33:03 PM »

**Isn't it tragic that there is no possibility of a judge being able to have a rape victim stoned to death in Oklahoma now, JDN? Those unsophisticated rubes probably wouldn't want to share a stage with Cat "Death to Salman Rushdie" Stevens either.Oh well, not everyone can be as sophisticated and tolerant as you are.**


When a young, illiterate housewife named Zafran Bibi went to the police last year, pregnant and claiming a fellow villager had raped her while she was cutting grass, she didn't expect that she'd be the one to get punished. But last month, a judge in Pakistan's ultra-conservative Northwest Frontier province convicted her of adultery. "I hereby convict and sentence the accused Zafran Bibi to stoning to death," wrote Judge Anwar Ali Khan, "and that she be stoned to death at a public place."

If Pakistan is sometimes a bizarre blend of the modern and the archaic, nowhere is the archaic more powerful than in the way the country's legal system treats women who accuse men of rape. The problem lies in the so-called Hudood ordinances, a series of Islamic decrees that are enforced in tandem with the country's secular legal system. Human rights activists say these laws blatantly discriminate against women. For a rapist to be convicted, for example, his crime has to be confirmed by four adult male Muslim eyewitnesses, or the rapist must confess. If the court rules that there was consent, the woman can be convicted of adultery. Sentences under the Hudood ordinances include amputation for theft, flogging for drinking alcohol and stoning for adultery.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,238673,00.html#ixzz14HCfLI5L
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #72 on: November 03, 2010, 10:14:37 PM »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8057179.stm

The dusty streets of Kismayo in Somalia echoed to the sound of a vehicle with loudspeakers summoning residents to a new form of public "entertainment" earlier this month.

People were being invited to see a man have his hand chopped off in a public park in the city.

The young man, Mohamed Omar Ismail, had been found guilty of stealing goods from another man's house.

That afternoon, hundreds of local people flocked to Freedom Park in order to see the amputation.

After a long wait, Mr Ismail was brought out in front of the people and an official started to read out the court decision from a piece of paper.

Clothes theft

"The Islamic Sharia court of Kismayo district confirms that Mohamed Omar Ismail has been found guilty of stealing," the official announced.

"Mr Ismail stole 10 pairs of trousers, 10 shirts, eight other items and a bag. The value of all the items is estimated to be $90."

map

The official quoted a chapter from the Koran known as Surah Maida, verse 38, which is about stealing and relevant punishment.

He said that the verse decreed that punishment for stealing was that the right hand of the thief should be cut off.

A local journalist who witnessed the events unfold saw a shocked-looking Mr Ismail brought into the park.

His right hand was held up to the crowds.

It was then laid on a table and severed immediately and without ceremony at the wrist.

Bloody hand dangled

The eyewitness told of his horror as the bloody body part was dangled by its index finger in front of the crowd to prove that punishment had been meted out.

Mr Ismail is now recovering from his injury in Kismayo General Hospital, where he is being guarded by the Islamist militia who punished him.

Mohamed Omar Ismail
Mohamed Omar Ismail reportedly insists he did not commit the burglary

They do not allow him to talk to the media.

But according to an independent source, Mr Ismail insists he did not commit the burglary for which he lost his hand.

He said he was still appalled at what had happened to him and the terrible pain he had suffered.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #73 on: November 03, 2010, 10:50:58 PM »

The law in Oklahoma is a joke;
"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry,"

It will be thrown out. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #74 on: November 03, 2010, 10:54:16 PM »

Wow. That's a very compelling legal argument you've put together.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #75 on: November 03, 2010, 10:55:31 PM »

And you think the law was stand?   huh
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #76 on: November 03, 2010, 11:08:02 PM »

STATE QUESTION NO. 755 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 355
This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It
would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It
forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia
Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations
and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other.
It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also
include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

**Yeah, I think a state constitution can require that judges rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. You don't?**
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 11:12:57 PM by G M » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31565


« Reply #77 on: November 03, 2010, 11:16:59 PM »

Well, completely apart from whatever I may think on the merits FWIW I think the law will be strongly challenged.  The level of scrutiny required will probably be strict scrutiny and that is a tough standard to meet when the judge is inclined for you to fail. 

Look at how the courts have intervened in gay marriage, gays in the military, etc in contravention of longstanding tradition, state law, initiatives by the people (didn't Prop 8 in CA modify the State Constitution?  I'm not sure, , ,) etc etc I really don't see how a challenge to this law will not get serious consideration.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #78 on: November 03, 2010, 11:40:06 PM »


H.RES.372 -- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws,... (Introduced in House - IH)

HRES 372 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 372

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 3, 2007

Mr. FEENEY (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. HERGER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. ISSA, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Ms. FOXX, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. PAUL, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. CAMPBELL of California, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. FORBES, Mr. CANNON, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. TERRY, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. FORTUN.AE6O, Mr. MACK, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. GOODE, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. CARTER, Mr. POE, and Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

Whereas the Declaration of Independence announced that one of the chief causes of the American Revolution was that King George had `combined to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws';

Whereas the Supreme Court has recently relied on the judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions to support its interpretations of the laws of the United States, most recently in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2474 (2003);

Whereas the Supreme Court has stated previously in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 921 n.11 (1997), that `We think such comparative analysis inappropriate to the task of interpreting a constitution . . .';

Whereas Americans' ability to live their lives within clear legal boundaries is the foundation of the rule of law, and essential to freedom;

Whereas it is the appropriate judicial role to faithfully interpret the expression of the popular will through the Constitution and laws enacted by duly elected representatives of the American people and our system of checks and balances;

Whereas Americans should not have to look for guidance on how to live their lives from the often contradictory decisions of any of hundreds of other foreign organizations; and

Whereas inappropriate judicial reliance on foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncments threatens the sovereignty of the United States, the separation of powers and the President's and the Senate's treaty-making authority: Now, therefore, be it

      Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial interpretations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based in whole or in part on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #79 on: November 04, 2010, 12:08:57 AM »

"Measure 755 makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases"  Of course courts already are.  The point about this Sharia law would, in effect, "prevent courts from enforcing private contracts in which the parties mutually agreed upon the use of Sharia laws--restricting the right of free people to contract as they choose." Finally, the point about international law "means that an Oklahoma state court would have to disregard international agreements and treaties if those were invoked in a particular dispute... The authors of Measure 755 should read Article VI of the United States Constitution.

Time will time; I predict this law will never survive....
It's a joke....
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #80 on: November 04, 2010, 12:21:49 AM »

It's not a law, it's an amendment to Oklahoma's constitution. Do you understand the difference? I think not.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #81 on: November 04, 2010, 02:28:52 AM »

**Sharia law as part of the marriage contract allows the husband to physically punish his wife and have sex with her as he wishes, regardless her wishes. Should US courts enforce this contract?**
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/02/the-real-impact-of-sharia-law-in-america/

The Real Impact of Sharia Law in America
Posted September 2nd, 2010 at 11:00am in Rule of Law with 30 comments Print This Post

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.

In S.D. v. M.J.R., the plaintiff, a Moroccan Muslim woman, lived with her Moroccan Muslim husband in New Jersey. She was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband over the course of several weeks. While the plaintiff was being treated for her injuries at a hospital, a police detective interviewed her and took photographs of her injuries. Those photographs depicted injuries to plaintiff’s breasts, thighs and arm, bruised lips, eyes and right check. Further investigation established there were blood stains on the pillow and sheets of plaintiff’s bed.
The wife sought a permanent restraining order, and a New Jersey trial judge held a hearing in order to decide whether to issue the order. Evidence at trial established, among other things, that the husband told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” The police detective testified about her findings, and some of the photographs were entered into evidence.

The defendant’s Imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands and he refused to answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his sexual advances on his wife if she says “no.”

The trial judge found that most of the criminal acts were indeed proved, but nonetheless denied the permanent retraining order. This judge held that the defendant could not be held responsible for the violent sexual assaults of his wife because he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were “consistent with his [religious] practices.” In other words, the judge refused to issue the permanent restraining order because under Sharia law, this Muslim husband had a “right” to rape his wife.

Besides the fact that the ruling is wrong as a legal matter, and offensive beyond words, it goes to the heart of the controversy about the insidious spread of Sharia law—the goal of radical Islamic extremists. Fortunately, the New Jersey appellate court refused to tolerate the trial judge’s “mistaken” and unsustainable decision. The appellate court chastised the trial judge’s ruling, holding among other things that he held an “unnecessarily dismissive view of defendant’s acts of domestic violence,” and that his views of the facts in the case “may have been colored by his perception that…they were culturally acceptable and thus not actionable – -a view we soundly reject.” Although appellate courts typically defer to findings of fact by trial judges, under the circumstances, this appellate court correctly refused to do so, and reversed the trial court and ordered the permanent restraining order to issue.

The truth is that imposition of Sharia law in the United States, especially when mixed with a perverted sense of political correctness, poses a danger to civil society. Just last year, a Muslim man in Buffalo, New York beheaded his wife in what appeared to be an honor killing, again using his faith to justify his actions. It is doubtful that the domestic violence and rape in this recently overturned case will be the last Americans see of Sharia being impermissibly used to justify brutal acts on our soil. As former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney wrote recently:

Sharia is no less toxic when it comes to the sorts of democratic government and civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. According to this legal code of Saudi Arabia and Iran, only Allah can make laws, and only a theocrat can properly administer them, ultimately on a global basis.

The trial opinion in this case shows that, indeed, the global reach of Sharia law is expanding. The trial court allowed the testimony of an Imam to be entered so that his account of Sharia’s standards could supercede the standards set by the New Jersey legislature. This is not just about cultural defenses, which by themselves are not proper under United States law, but about giving up control of the law to a religious code citizens of this country have no control over, a theocratic code world famous for its antidemocratic, sexist nature and its human rights abuses.

So-called “cultural defenses” have existed in other contexts for a long while and, for the most part, such defenses have been rejected. As a domestic violence prosecutor in San Diego, I ran across a case where the accused was charged with assault for punching his girlfriend, and the defense wanted to introduce an expert in Latin cultures. The expert was to testify that in Latin culture, it is acceptable for a man to strike “his woman” as punishment as long as it doesn’t cause serious lasting injury. This was rejected outright by the court, as it should have been. These attempts are not uncommon, but the cultural relativism they espouse is different than the more dangerous trend here.

In S.D. v. M.J.R., the husband’s defense for sexually assaulting his wife was not just another attempt to erode the protection of our own social mores. The specific threat that comes from attempting to establish Sharia law in the United States is that justification for doing so has been couched in the protections of the First Amendment. As noted by the appeals court in its decision overturning what amounted to the replacement of New Jersey’s rape law with Sharia, “the judge determined to except [the] defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs.” Doing so was contrary to several Supreme Court decisions, which hold that an individual’s responsibility to obey generally applicable law—particularly those that regulate socially harmful conduct—cannot be made contingent up on his or her religious beliefs.

The U.S. Constitution cannot and should not be used to subvert legislatures and allow brutes such as the husband in this case to harm others simply because their actions are legal under Sharia law. It was impermissible for the trial court to act as it did in this case, and the appellate judges very correctly overturned the ruling below. This is not the last we will hear of such attempts, however, as Sharia-loving extremists are determined to establish an Islamic Caliphate around the world, especially in America. As Andy McCarthy has written, “Our enemies are those who want Sharia to supplant American law and Western culture.” We cannot allow that to happen.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #82 on: November 04, 2010, 03:50:17 AM »

**JDN, if a slave was purchased lawfully per sharia law outside the US, should those islamic property rights apply within the US? If not, why not?**
A shadow cast by the strength and perdurability of Islamic slavery can be seen in instances where Muslims have managed to import this institution to the United States. A Saudi named Homaidan Al-Turki, for instance, was sentenced in September 2006 to 27 years to life in prison, for keeping a woman as a slave in his home in Colorado. For his part, Al-Turki claimed that he was a victim of anti-Muslim bias. He told the judge: “Your honor, I am not here to apologize, for I cannot apologize for things I did not do and for crimes I did not commit. The state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. Attacking traditional Muslim behaviors was the focal point of the prosecution.” The following month, an Egyptian couple living in Southern California received a fine and prison terms, to be followed by deportation, after pleading guilty to holding a ten-year-old girl as a slave. And in January 2007, an attaché of the Kuwaiti embassy in Washington, Waleed Al Saleh, and his wife were charged with keeping three Christian domestic workers from India in slave-like conditions in al-Saleh’s Virginia home. One of the women remarked: “I believed that I had no choice but to continue working for them even though they beat me and treated me worse than a slave.”

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=27440
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #83 on: November 04, 2010, 09:45:06 AM »

Shaira Law does not supersede our Criminal State and Federal Law.

Shaira Law is VOLUNTARY; ALL parties must agree. 

Just like binding arbitration, Beth Din, etc.


I'll make a follow up note; let's just see if this Amendment/Law is challenged.    smiley
I predict it will get strict scrutiny and will be tossed by the Courts.....    grin
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #84 on: November 04, 2010, 09:57:10 AM »

Déjà vu. I could swear I recall a similar stand being taken re Sharia law in the UK, a line that was embraced throughout despite numerous cogent arguments and a fair amount of evidence that sharia law running counter to English common law was indeed being applied to British citizens.

Is this ballot issue largely symbolic? It appears so. Will folks on both sides who get their undies in a bunch over this sort of stuff duke it out? Yep, and it will hopefully keep them out of other mischief for the duration. Is sharia law a means by which some seek to foist Islamic mores on a host society? The question ought to be rhetorical instead of inspiring yet another lap around the same track.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #85 on: November 04, 2010, 02:18:55 PM »

JDN is 100% fact-proof.

So please explain how CAIR has legal standing to challenge Oklahoma's constitution.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #86 on: November 05, 2010, 09:05:00 AM »

Rarick; I find that I usually agree with your opinions, therefore I just wanted to quickly clarify....
Perhaps I was not clear....

I DO NOT in any way defend or approve
"That wife- Husband thing was obviously non-consensual, yet you defend the decision?"

It's simple.  "non consensual" means non-consensual .....
not to mention criminal....
lock the guy up!

Further, nor do I defend or approve
"A slave does not have Liberty or  Pursuit of Happiness so that violate highest law of the land, that IS agoing to War Issue (Hello McFly?)

A "slave" in America has every right to pursue Liberty or Happiness.
If his rights are violated that is a criminal action and the perpetrator should be punished (as they were).  You can throw away the key...

Sharia rulings apply to Civil Law only (not criminal law) and all parties must agree to abide by the agreement otherwise there is no agreement.
It's similar to binding arbitration....  Or the Jewish Beth Din, and similar organizations...  All parties must voluntarily agree to participate.

I don't know about your state, but CA Courts aggressively push mediation and arbitration.  The Courts here are clogged and slow.
Obviously it must be voluntary, however, if accepted by both parties,  binding arbitration is faster and cheaper than a
long drawn out legal battle.   Still, if you don't want to use Beth Din, a Mediator, or court appointed Arbitrator or follow Sharia Law, the legal system is aways available to you.  
It's your voluntary choice...

Why is this bad?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 09:12:41 AM by JDN » Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #87 on: November 05, 2010, 09:17:17 AM »

“Just going from personal experience- opinion.  The ten Commandments are not the law of the land since the are of religious origin.  They have influenced the culture though.  The Law of the Land is the Constitution.  Anyone who has had any quality education has the preamble memorized.  The traditional view has always been where the law and religion collide, basic rights/natural rights win over religion.  Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness wins.  Religions that involve Human sacrifice, Slavery, and Non-Consensual Dominance in relationships are anathema.”

While I take your point: The Constitution over rides dogmatic religious views, I want to point out the relationship between the Judeo-Christen tradition and the Constitution.

The founders were adamant that the natural rights of man came from God.  How each individual defined God falls into the realm of dogma.  They were not interested in getting between a person and God(protestant Judeo Christian belief).  The source of natural rights is the key stone for the Constitution.  If the rights come from any other source they can be taken away, they would be alienable not inalienable.

Perhaps I just restated your argument......it could just be semantics.  I think this point is critical to keep in mind in our day and age.

I will not pursue this tangent on this thread but felt the point was pertinent at this point in the conversation
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #88 on: November 05, 2010, 09:37:08 AM »

The constitution emerged from judeo-christian civilization, but our legal system is secular in nature. Judges should only concern themselves with the constitution and the laws of this nation when rendering a decision. If someone wants to live under sharia law, they need to leave the US. If someone wants to live under another judicial system, they need to move to where that system is the law. Enough of those that come here to subvert this country and the leftists that see nothing wrong with the subversion.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #89 on: November 05, 2010, 09:41:20 AM »

Sharia? What Sharia?
by  Robert Spencer
10/19/2010


As Sharron Angle, Newt Gingrich and others have started making Islamic law (Sharia) part of the national debate, and Oklahoma actually moves to outlaw it, there is a new attempt to confuse the American people about the nature of the threat we face. It’s a large-scale mainstream media effort to deny both that there is any attempt to bring Sharia to the United States, and that Sharia is anything to be concerned about in the first place. Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence of attempts to establish the primacy of Islamic law over American law, and much to indicate that Sharia is anything but benign.

Characteristic of the media campaign was a Saturday Religion News Service story by Omar Sacirbey, which asserted that “no one in Oklahoma, Michigan or anywhere else is calling for Shariah — including and especially Muslims.” Sacirbey quoted Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – without noting, of course, CAIR’s status as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case, the jihad terror convictions of various former CAIR officials, or the Islamic supremacist statements made by Hooper and CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad. Hooper said: “This is another right-wing fantasy that started on the hate blogs and worked its way into the mainstream media. Where is the evidence of the takeover?”

The RNS story goes on to cite as evidence the New Jersey judge who declined to charge a Muslim with sexual assault on his wife because under Sharia, a woman may not deny sex to her husband at any time under any circumstances. This remarkable introduction of Islamic law into American jurisprudence was overturned, leading those who would dismiss the threat of Sharia to claim that its spread in the U.S. is simply a matter of one lone example. Unfortunately, there are more.


There have been successful attempts by Muslim workers at meat packing plants in Nebraska and Colorado to force their employers to restructure the work schedule to give them special breaks at times for Islamic prayer. These efforts initially met with protests from non-Muslim workers, who complained to no avail that the special breaks given to Muslims forced the non-Muslims to work longer hours, and thus discriminated against them. The result? Muslims in these plants have special privileges that other workers do not have – in accord with the privileged status Muslims enjoy over non-Muslims in Sharia societies.

Another example of Sharia insinuating itself into American life are the footbaths that have been constructed in airports and schools for the ablutions prescribed before Islamic prayers. Imagine the outcry if holy water fonts were being placed in airports for Catholic travelers – but Islamic footbaths have been dismissed as non-religious, on the pretext that anyone can use them. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a non-Muslim tried.

Yet Sharia, claims Jehan S. Harney, an Egyptian-American filmmaker writing in the Huffington Post, “is simply the rules that govern the lives of Muslims from daily prayers and fasting to inheritance. Sharia does not -- and never will -- apply to non-Muslims.”

Harney doesn’t mention the Christian women who have been threatened and sometimes even killed in Iraq and elsewhere for not wearing the Islamic headscarf. Nor does she mention the elaborate superstructure of Sharia laws governing the conduct of non-Muslims in Islamic societies, and mandating for them a second-class status that deprives them of basic rights. Just this week, Catholic bishops have been meeting in a synod to discuss the plight of Christians in the Middle East. Reports on the status of those Christians noted that they routinely face job discrimination (in accord with the Sharia provision that non-Muslims must not hold authority over Muslims) even in states where Sharia is not fully enforced; they have immense difficulty getting permits to build new churches (which is forbidden by Sharia); and converts from Islam must always live under the threat of death (in accord with Sharia’s death penalty for apostasy).

Eventually Sharia advocates will attempt to bring even those elements of Sharia to the U.S.: there is no form of Sharia that does not contain them. But if the mainstream media has its way, Americans will sleep on as those advocates continue to work.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad (both from Regnery—a Human Events sister company) and most recently coauthor of Pamela Geller’s The Post-American Presidency (Simon & Schuster).
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #90 on: November 06, 2010, 09:53:04 AM »

I'll try once more....
You said,
"A contract is a contract and what the beth din and such is basically a witness to a contract.  Contract law is respected, therefore within the law of the land."

No that's not quite accurate.  Beth Din is an arbitrator, a kind of a judge if you will.  They are much more than a mere "witness" to a contract.  Similar to binding arbitration; let's say
if you and I have a disagreement, i.e. I don't like you tree hanging over my yard.  I have the choice to hire an attorney to pursue the matter in Civil Court; yet this alternative is slow and expensive.  Or much quicker and probably at less cost is if we both agree to hire an Arbitrator and agree that his decision will be binding.   He is more than a "witness".  But it only applies to Civil matters.  For example, if I hate your tree so much I attack you or your family that is a criminal action.  The Arbitrator has no authority; the police will come and arrest me and the Criminal System will pursue the matter.

As for Honor Killings, Apostasy killings, etc. these laws do exist in some Muslim States, as do heinous practices exist in some African States, yet no one in their right mind here in America I assume approves, but the question on the table here is ONLY  applicable to the United States of America and the state of OK. Giving examples of the law concerning Apostasy for example in Iran (death)  America (protected under the First Amendment) is not relevant.  I'm referring to America's laws and practices and by extension in this discussion, England, France, etc. And no one in America is "Being treated as a second class citizen under the law if you are not of the faith".

I will repeat; it's not "Bullcrap" but truth; in America, Sharia Law only applies, as does Beth Din now and Binding Arbitration, to Civil Law.  Not criminal law.  And participation is voluntary; all parties must voluntarily agree to participate.  Despite some posters opinion to the contrary, this fact is also true in England. 

That all said, I have no desire to live in a Muslim country governed by Sharia.  Nor would I submit to a Sharia Civil Arbitration here in America.  But then I'm not Muslim.  But I might agree to let a Minister of my Church decide our tree issue.  And if you are of the same faith, you too might agree versus protracted litigation.  And if I am a Jew, I might agree to let Beth Din hear our case.   http://www.bethdin.org/cases.asp   
Is that so bad? 


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #91 on: November 06, 2010, 12:29:36 PM »

Once there is an agreement to arbitrate, the ruling of the arbitrator is enforceable by the power of the state, yes? Should we as a society have the secular state enforcing a codified law based on a religious text?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #92 on: November 06, 2010, 01:08:08 PM »

Irfan Aleem v. Farah Aleem, No. 108, September Term 2007
HEADNOTE: The Court declines to afford comity to the Pakistani talaq divorce. The
alleged Pakistani marriage contract and the Pakistani statutes addressing the division of
property upon divorce conflict with the public policy of Maryland and the Maryland courts
will not afford comity to such contracts and foreign statutes.

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2008/108a07.pdf
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #93 on: November 06, 2010, 01:38:31 PM »

AIFD PRESS RELEASE: American Muslim organization applauds Oklahoma anti-shariah law
November 5, 2010
AIFD
American Islamic Forum for Democracy



SQ755 protects the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause and the rule of One Law

PHOENIX (November 5, 2010) - Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) issued the following statement regarding the passage of Oklahoma's State Question 755.

"As Muslims dedicated to modernity, reform and our one law system in the west and in the United States, AIFD applauds the people of Oklahoma for passing State Question 755 and making "the legal precepts of other nations or cultures" off-limits to Oklahoma courts and specifically denying the use of Sharia Law.

The issue is simple. As Americans we believe in the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, and our one law system. SQ755 reaffirms the First amendment to the Constitution and prevents the Establishment or empowerment of a foreign legal system like the specific shariah legal systems implemented in many Muslim majority nations and in western shariah courts seen in places like Britain.

By filing a lawsuit, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has wasted no time in proving once again that they are unable to stand behind public declarations that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our one law system supersede and are preferable to a sharia law system. They are using the American cover of religious freedom to try and knock down a simple law that prohibits the domination of one religion over others.

SQ755 is not about religious freedom or minority rights. It is about the inviolable sanctity of the U.S. constitution and our country's foundational belief in a legal system based in one law that is based in reason and individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The law has no impact on the personal practice of Islam or the personal interpretation of "shariah" (God's law to a Muslim), but rather SQ755 focuses on shariah as a total legal system that the people of Oklahoma wanted to make clear shall not be used or respected systemically in deciding law in Oklahoma. CAIR's assertion that it is akin to France's ban of the hijab or personal head covering for women is absurd. There is no evidence that this law prevents any of the personal manifestation of the practice of Islam or the use of personal religious principles in arguing law based in reason in state or federal court. Shariah as a legal system can just not be used as prima facie evidence in court.


SQ755 also thus prevents the establishment of separate shariah or Islamic courts in Oklahoma. As we have seen in Britain, Islamists have transformed the British arbitration system to the point that they are operating upwards of 85 shariah courts now. These courts are mostly operated out of mosques in Britain. While they claim that the courts are voluntary, as Canadians voiced loudly in their rejection of shariah courts, these groups exploit tribal pressures and coercion within Muslim communities in order to circumvent the one law and one legal system of Britain and western nations. It is naïve and ignorant to believe that such courts are purely "voluntary". Just ask many of the women who get pressured through them and pressured to stay "out of western un-Islamic courts."

CAIR's lawsuit proves that they are part of an Islamist establishment in America that do not and will not believe in the separation of mosque and state and that they promote the ideology of political Islam. This ideology is based in a belief in the supremacy of Islamic legal systems and is often a conveyer belt toward radicalization. CAIR shows once again that they are part of the problem not the solution.

To those who say "Why Oklahoma?", we say "Why not Oklahoma?" The Oklahoma precedent and example is important. It has already showed CAIR's hand and where they place shariah law in relation to the Constitution. CAIR flippantly states that the law is not necessary. By implying that Islam and shariah are inseparable they demonstrate a willful denial of the internationally pervasive draconian shariah law systems around the world in places like Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia to name a few, and how academically clear the legal system of shariah law is. Note should be made of how CAIR's response to SQ755 does not address any of the harms instituted against Muslims and non-Muslims around the world in the name of shariah law.

AIFD and most reformist Muslims believe a ban on shariah courts is necessary to protect the rights of the individual and in particular the rights of women."

About the American Islamic Forum for Democracy

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. AIFD's mission advocates for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. For more information on AIFD, please visit our website at http://www.aifdemocracy.org/

Media contact:

office 602-254-1840
email: info@aifdemocracy.org
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #94 on: November 06, 2010, 05:55:46 PM »

Once there is an agreement to arbitrate, the ruling of the arbitrator is enforceable by the power of the state, yes? Should we as a society have the secular state enforcing a codified law based on a religious text?


From what I understand Beth Din Arbitrations work pretty well here in America....

Contractual Beth Din Arbitration Provisions
When two or more people enter into a contract, they may include a provision which states that disputes arising out of the contractual relationship between the parties be resolved by an arbitration panel or organization agreed upon by the parties. If a dispute relating to the contract arises, each party is then obligated, as a matter of contract law, to appear before the designated arbitration panel. The Beth Din of America encourages people to include a beth din arbitration clause in their business contracts, since the inclusion of such a clause ensures that disputes will be adjudicated in a beth din, consistent with the requirements of Jewish law.

A din torah is the Jewish substitute for going to court. Jewish law does not allow one to be a plaintiff in a secular court without first obtaining permission from a Jewish court. In a din torah, people who have a dispute present their cases before a panel of three judges, generally rabbis.  At the end, the judges issue a decision which is binding on the parties, both as a matter of secular and Jewish law.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #95 on: November 06, 2010, 07:35:03 PM »

Last time I checked, there was no jewish version of a stealth jihad to impose sharia law on the western nations. Do you know of anything similar from  jews? Again, why should American judges enforce religious law?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #96 on: November 06, 2010, 07:44:16 PM »

Remember, CAIR leaders have stated:

    “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant.”  ~ Omar Ahmad

    “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…” ~ Ibrahim Hooper

Any jews that have said anything like the above, JDN?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #97 on: November 06, 2010, 10:29:41 PM »

Again, why should American judges enforce religious law?

 huh

You are in Law Enforcement; but perhaps you are unacquainted with the rules of Civil Law...?

Or, perhaps you did not read my immediate preceding post in your haste to identify the evils of Islam....
I already answered your question....  That IS our Civil Judicial System (contract law) and has been for many years....


"When two or more people enter into a contract, they may include a provision which states that disputes arising out of the contsractual relationship between the parties be resolved by an arbitration panel or organization agreed upon by the parties. If a dispute relating to the contract arises, each party is then obligated, as a matter of contract law, to appear before the designated arbitration panel."

Source - Beth Din (Note: a religious organization).
I am sure they have some excellent and I'm sure very religious attorneys on staff plus Arbitrators (aka Rabbis who enforce religious law) among whom I am sure could better answer your question than myself...   As I said, they seem to do an excellent job.

http://www.bethdin.org/cases.asp

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #98 on: November 06, 2010, 10:39:30 PM »

So the stealth jihad to impose sharia on the western world should be ignored? The victimization of women in the UK sharia courts there is no big deal to you?
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #99 on: November 06, 2010, 10:54:31 PM »

Creche on the front lawn of city hall? Nope, violates separation of church and state.

Prayer in school? Nope, violates the separation of church and state.

Ten Commandments on the courtroom wall? Nope, violates the separation of church and state.

Allowing a religion that has not undergone reformation and hence embraces many medieval practices to do so in the United States provided all parties are said to agree to it? No problem at all.

The whole contracting element is a nice red herring. Too bad it has little to do with the way Sharia law is practiced anywhere on the globe.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!