...
Aerial...
Please, explain, in your own words, what this article means. I don't get it... How does AIG make laws that we have to obey?
Thanx.
Get it now?
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
I'll be the first to grant that the following article comes from a somewhat questionable source (the Heritage Foundation), but it does contain some interesting information that I feel is relevant as the discussion has shifted a bit toward sharia's presence in western nations.
The Real Impact of Sharia Law in America
Posted September 2nd, 2010 at 11:00am in Rule of Law
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.
I'll be the first to grant that the following article comes from a somewhat questionable source (the Heritage Foundation), but it does contain some interesting information that I feel is relevant as the discussion has shifted a bit toward sharia's presence in western nations.
The Real Impact of Sharia Law in America
Posted September 2nd, 2010 at 11:00am in Rule of Law 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.
I'll be the first to grant that the following article comes from a somewhat questionable source (the Heritage Foundation), but it does contain some interesting information that I feel is relevant as the discussion has shifted a bit toward sharia's presence in western nations.
The Real Impact of Sharia Law in America
Posted September 2nd, 2010 at 11:00am in Rule of Law 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.
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.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
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.
...
You really haven't a clue on what you are posting, do you?
The bottom line is NO religious law can override criminal law in the U.S. Our court system protects us from Shria Law overriding criminal law... from religions allowing arranged child weddings that violate sexual child abuse... from religions allowing human sacrifice to override murder... from religions dictating ten of their commandments over our basic rights.
So, you need not fret your worried little head... you will not be subjected to Shria Law like your messiah Beck is warning you of.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Byrnzie, debate with you is obviously fruitless because when you ask for somebody to prove something, and they go out of their way to do so with direct evidence and quotations that you demanded proof of, you then dismiss it as having “trawled the internet for whatever fits your bigoted rant…” Throughout this thread when you have demanded evidence or proof, I’ve tried to provide it to show that my claims are not baseless. My most recent claim was that basing law off of an unchallengeable holy text(s) is dangerous, especially when they contain language which could easily be used to support barbaric actions. I further have demonstrated that there are organized and financed groups seeking to spread such an ideology. You certainly appeared to demand proof that there was any support for my claims that islamic holy texts provided support for extremely barbaric actions, and it was provided in abundance.
You clearly don’t grasp what is being said when I tell you that if I provide evidence to you that zebras have stripes, and you retort with, “But so do tigers!” That doesn’t disprove that zebras have stripes! So I went out of my way to prove that there is language in the quran (and i’ve not yet bothered going through other available texts for further evidence yet because I felt I had already provided more than enough) proving that if the holy text is the basis of law, barbarism should come as no surprise and should be anticipated. You retort that similar language is in the Bible. Yes, you are right. It is. That is the same as saying tigers have stripes too. Do you not understand that it does absolutely nothing to nullify the argument’s validity. It is true that both the Bible and Quran contain abhorrent language to use a system of law or legal precedent. I wouldn’t advocate using either one as such. But because you have noted it is ALSO in the Bible, that does nothing to prove nor disprove that it is in the Quran (which I proved) and it makes it no less dangerous. In other words, it’s pointless to discuss in this context because THIS thread isn’t about Christianity or America, no matter how much you wish it were. I AM the sole authority on that fact, because I AM the creator of the thread and I am telling you the intention with which it was created. It was created to discuss Islam, dangers of Islamic law, and groups trying to spread it. Get the point yet?
You make claims like “…so…what? This is their culture and the way they choose to live.” However, I provide evidence that they not only want to live this way, the book on which they are basing their laws also states that the entire world should live this way or face various acts of barbarism. I say, “Whoa there... Maybe we better be paying attention and ready ourselves to confront this threat.” Furthermore, this book is not subject to challenge or change because it is supposedly the word of god and at least SOME vehemently believe so. I have provided proof that the SOME is not just a handful of whack-jobs. It’s groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Al Qaeda and other organized, large, dedicated or growing groups bent on expansion.
I show further evidence of atrocities and people being forced to convert to Islam or be burned while their wife is raped and show evidence directly lifted from holy texts SOME groups are seeking to base their laws wholly upon and it becomes very understandable why fire was used, why these people can act in the manner they factually have and why we should not anticipate this being the last event of this barbarism. Is the best defense to any of this seriously that I am just a hateful person and there is also dangerous language in the Bible so everything I say can be dismissed? Isn’t that fallacious argument by attacking the arguer instead of the evidence and then stating because you can find similar dangers in the world elsewhere that I shouldn’t bother paying attention to the ones I find, evidence and document in Islam in a thread about potential Islamic threat SOME of its practitioners pose? To use an analogy that I am trying hard to convey to you... I’m saying that Islam has some dangerous stripes that we should be wary of. You can say that Christianity or Judaism or any other group also has some dangerous stripes, but that does absolutely nothing to counter my claim that Islam has some dangerous stripes. Can you not see yet that, it IS beside the point? Either my facts aren’t facts, my evidence isn’t evidence, my claims aren’t sound or something of the sort. Attack the argument being made for something real or a problem with the validity of my claims.
My thread had no intention of attacking everything about Islam. It is attacking only a small portion of Islam’s beliefs, SOME of its practitioners who I have been identifying (such as the Muslim Brotherhood, practitioners of Sharia law, etc.). Never have I said I hate muslims, that I don’t want to protect muslims, that all muslims are bad people or anything of the sort. THAT would be bigoted. In fact, what I have been attacking are people “who are utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” In other words, bigots. Unfortunately for you, this happens to exactly match the ideology I am speaking against and of which I have provided irrefutable evidence directly from their most sacred holy texts upon which they seek to base their laws of society. They also are not content with only governing themselves in isolation. This "SOME" actively seeks to spread and expand and are encouraged to do so by the very same holy texts. Read those quotes listed earlier from the holy texts and surely even you can’t deny this logic.
Cosmo at least brings up a reasonable challenge to what I have written and seems to grasp the evidence presented. Asking the question of who are we to tell others how to rule and enforce laws, regardless of how barbaric we see them is a legitimate question which doesn’t rely upon seeking stripes on tigers to disprove those on zebras. I would argue that we have a right to have our ideas compete in rational discussion and enjoy the competition of ideas. I would argue that we have the right to be wary and defend ourselves from their desire to force Islamic laws upon us, whether slowly or rapidly (and I believe it would be slowly). I would also argue that certain systems of governance can and should be rationally evaluated as better or worse than others. I don’t believe in relativism to the point where everything is equally right all the time. Certain belief systems, legal systems and whatnot have better results for human beings than others. We can objectively see atrocities being committed at different levels in different systems and with different rulesets and I do not believe we are powerless to quantify and analyze them. Systems which forbid questioning, challenges, appeals and the like are especially bad legal systems if we evaluate them throughout history. They can objectively be shown to cause more harm than some competing systems. This goes back to part of my early argument and trying to warn that while relativism and multiculturalism often seem like virtuous beliefs, sometimes they lead us astray or paralyze our rationality. I believe, and others do not, that with effort, experience, study and analysis, we can objectively see that some systems are better for human beings than others and I believe that the sharia-style system of law and expansion of an Islamic ideology which permits gross acts of barbarism as evidenced in this thread can objectively be shown to be worse than other competing systems/ideas. I believe I can also objectively state that freedom is a good ideal to have. I am trying to compete in the realm of ideas and non-violently. I would argue that the people I am attacking through words would not offer me similar courtesy were they in a position of power over me. They would have reference to holy texts upon which they insist their laws are supreme and unable to be challenged and could rationalize my execution or other torture to silence my position. I would argue that objectively, my method is superior and a better ideal than their competing method, but I am not going to say that their method may not actually prove to be more effective at obtaining results. And that realization does trouble me.
I can see how hardcore relativists can disagree vehemently with me on this area of my debate, and I would just caution them about outcomes of taking stand and being wary vs. passive relativism in the light of such potential threats.
Ok, I'm probably going to let others run with the argument for awhile because I'm tired of typing so much. Haha
Great, then feel free to continue being afraid of the impending Muslim threat. Personally, I've never felt threatened by any Muslim at any time in my existence on this Earth. I think this fear that you're seeking to instill in us here is actually just a load of bollocks, and that so much time and effort could be better channeled elsewhere.
Great, then feel free to continue being afraid of the impending Muslim threat. Personally, I've never felt threatened by any Muslim at any time in my existence on this Earth. I think this fear that you're seeking to instill in us here is actually just a load of bollocks, and that somuch time and effort could better channeled elsewhere.
I am sincerely glad that you've not ever felt afraid of any muslim of any variety. While I don't go about living my life in paranoia, I also am not blind to the fact that there are people plotting the demise of my fellow citizens in various ways, that there are people who actively seek to abuse and undermine my legal system, who are seeking weapons of mass destruction to harm my fellow citizens, who are being financed by foreign nations and millionaires, who are preaching hatred in organized fashion, who produce videos of my countrymen being beheaded, who fly airplanes into centers of commerce, attack our military vessels at port, blow up hotels, who walk the streets chanting death to my nation and its people, who practice and preach intolerance of my disbelief in their god, who are seeking to rule multiple countries throughout the world, who set afire people who do not believe the same as them, who would base their laws exclusively upon unchallengeable holy texts, etc, etc, etc. May you be so fortunate as to never find yourself in the shoes of my countrymen or other vast areas of the globe who are presently having to deal with these lunatics. I somehow doubt you'd be willing to take a stroll through their midsts in territories under their favored system of law and speak anything but praise of their religion, their culture or their laws. It's a freedom my own system of laws, culture and government would permit you though, and I take pride in that fact. I absolutely believe that paranoia, destruction of civil liberties, ridiculous searches of citizenry and the like are foolish, but I am not going to pretend that there is no threat at all and not something out there just as foul as I have presented that deserves my opposition. May you never have to deal with having these lunatics kill your loved ones or countrymen by flying a plane into a building to help you understand that the threat is real and not utter fiction. But don't fail to realize that unless you are a member of the islamic faith, sooner or later their ideology would insist upon it or see your blood spilled.
I have faith in humanity to overcome these barbaric throwbacks, and that includes faith in muslims who are not so insane. But how can you honestly sit there and think that these people are not a threat to others, that they do not have dangerous and damaging beliefs, that they are not actively seeking to harm others, that they are not trying to expand and that I should not be concerned about them?
Hello everyone, I just became a Ten Club member and this is my first post on this forum in about 6 years. I've sifted through some of the posts in this thread and as a Muslim, I think I have an obligation to clear some huge misconceptions people here have about Islamic Shariah Law.
First of all, there are two sources of Islamic Law, The Holy Quran and the Sunnah/Hadith (actions and sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)). The legal system which is created from the interpretation of these two sources is called Shariah Law. I will seek to prove that it is NOT barbaric, in fact it is completely in harmony will human nature and logic. Also, please note that any law made against the spirit of the Quran or Sunnah is un-Islamic, even if it is being practised in a Muslim country. Finally, let me make it clear that I will not try to justify the un-Islamic actions of Muslims who claim to be following Islam. There is a huge difference between what Islam says and what Muslims do, that is the reason for all the misconceptions that non-Muslims have about Islam and only Muslims themselves are to blame.
I don't think it's possible to address every accusation levelled against the Shariah Law in one post, so I'll just start off by making some necessary corrections. Then, if someone wants to go into detail on any one subject, I'll do my best to explain further.
In a nutshell:
Adulterous couples are to be stoned to death- Wrong. The Islamic punishment for adultery is 100 stripes, not stoning to death. That too is the absolute maximum punishment which is to be given only if there are no mitigating circumstances and the crime is proven beyond doubt. It is simply wrong to suggest that the same punishment will be administered everytime, it has to be decided by a judge on a case-by-case basis. Unfamiliarity with the teachings of Islam or lack of a proper upbringing are examples of mitigating circumstances.
Prostitutes are to be hanged in public- Nope. I'm guessing the non-Muslim world thinks that Islam dishes out the death penalty like candy on halloween! Nonsense. If it is proven that a woman is a prostitute with reliable testimony from 4 separate people, then she is to be given the same punishment of 100 stripes.
Women in the company of men who are not blood relatives are to be executed- Can't help but laugh out loud at this one Absolutely and utterly false.
Rape victims should be punished- Absolutely and unequivocally false. Where do people get this from? Shariah law is not a law made by animals. It is the rapist who is to face exemplary punishment if the crime is prove. I'll go into details later.
Women cannot vote or get elected- Wrong again. This statement has absolutely no basis in Islam.
Husbands are permitted to beat their wives- This is only an extreme measure applicable to a very extreme situation. I'll go into details later if you want. Briefly, a husband can't just hit his wife because he feels like it.
Women cannot do anything outside the house without their father or husband’s consent- Women are free to work jobs if they so please, there is no such restriction. It is just recommended that a woman informs or takes permission from her father or husband before going out of the house so that he may be aware of her whereabouts, she is after all his responsibility. The role of the father and husband is similar in Islam in the sense that it is that of a protector and guardian.
Women cannot get custody of their children- No, the Shariah has not given any directive in this regard because this matter can only be decided keeping in view the welfare of the children and the circumstances of the parents, which of course vary a lot.
Women must wear the hijab outside of the house- Hijab is a word which has been misinterpreted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It was used in The Holy Quran to refer to the drapes/curtains of the house of the Holy Prophet. The Islamic dress code for women does not normally REQUIRE headscarves or veils, if that is what was implied. If a woman herself feels more secure wearing a veil, no one can force it off her, but it is in no way a religious obligation. The Islamic requirement is to dress simply and not attract attention, make sure the private parts are covered and the bosom is covered, that's all, in simple words. Again, I can discuss this in detail if required.
Let me clarify one more thing: the death penalty is only applicable in two cases according to Islam. One is if a person is guilty of murder, the other is if a person or group of people have become a nuisance to society and are a threat to the life, property and honour of it's citizens. Such a person or persons may be punished with death.
I am sincerely glad that you've not ever felt afraid of any muslim of any variety. While I don't go about living my life in paranoia, I also am not blind to the fact that there are people plotting the demise of my fellow citizens in various ways, that there are people who actively seek to abuse and undermine my legal system, who are seeking weapons of mass destruction to harm my fellow citizens, who are being financed by foreign nations and millionaires, who are preaching hatred in organized fashion, who produce videos of my countrymen being beheaded, who fly airplanes into centers of commerce, attack our military vessels at port, blow up hotels, who walk the streets chanting death to my nation and its people, who practice and preach intolerance of my disbelief in their god, who are seeking to rule multiple countries throughout the world, who set afire people who do not believe the same as them, who would base their laws exclusively upon unchallengeable holy texts, etc, etc, etc. May you be so fortunate as to never find yourself in the shoes of my countrymen or other vast areas of the globe who are presently having to deal with these lunatics. I somehow doubt you'd be willing to take a stroll through their midsts in territories under their favored system of law and speak anything but praise of their religion, their culture or their laws. It's a freedom my own system of laws, culture and government would permit you though, and I take pride in that fact. I absolutely believe that paranoia, destruction of civil liberties, ridiculous searches of citizenry and the like are foolish, but I am not going to pretend that there is no threat at all and not something out there just as foul as I have presented that deserves my opposition. May you never have to deal with having these lunatics kill your loved ones or countrymen by flying a plane into a building to help you understand that the threat is real and not utter fiction. But don't fail to realize that unless you are a member of the islamic faith, sooner or later their ideology would insist upon it or see your blood spilled.
I have faith in humanity to overcome these barbaric throwbacks, and that includes faith in muslims who are not so insane. But how can you honestly sit there and think that these people are not a threat to others, that they do not have dangerous and damaging beliefs, that they are not actively seeking to harm others, that they are not trying to expand and that I should not be concerned about them?
You still haven't answered my earlier question: How many wars of aggression have been started in the past 50 years by Muslim nations compared with so-called 'Christian' nations?
I’m very happy to have your participation in this thread and think it is highly valuable to all participants. As I have stated, I am not interested in basing arguments on incorrect information and am happy to be factually challenged. I make no claim to be an authority of Islamic information and have stated that I am early in the process of investigating what I see as a threat quite interested in expansion. I appreciate you acknowledging that there is not a defense possible or reasonable for many actions of muslims we see taking place. I admit there are things which my own nation and people do which also have no defense.
You might wonder why I would believe what I had read about shariah law when it comes to stoning to death individuals when I then observe a large group of muslims stoning to death people for adultery and read that it was approved by Islamic leaders, all while chanting that Allah is great. At most, all I feel compelled to change in my beliefs on this matter would be that I continue to see something which should be fought against and a culture I oppose yet this particular barbarity may not be based upon sharia law itself (though I am investigating further). However, I continue to find information which contradicts your claim that sharia law does not allow stoning such as the following information from what I feel most would consider a muslim-friendly source, Religious Tolerance.org (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance):
Within Sharia law, there are a group of "Haram" offenses which carry severe punishments. These include pre-marital sexual intercourse, sex by divorced persons, post-marital sex, adultery, false accusation of unlawful intercourse, drinking alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. Haram sexual offenses can carry a sentence of stoning to death or severe flogging.
Release_Me makes the claim that Shariah law is completely in harmony with human nature and logic, and I vehemently dispute this claim. While I grant that people do seem to have a propensity to latch onto supernatural things and base laws and belief systems on them, I would argue that is absolutely against rationality and logic to do so. I feel that religions are essentially our first and worst way of describing the world around us and after our deaths. And Release_Me, even if I fully accept your argument, I consider 100 “stripes” (a rather politically correct way to refer to torture), to still be barbaric punishment. I believe you would find it hard to argue that when Islamic states have been created and claim to be enforcing sharia law, we have witnessed stoning to death for the crime of adultery with regular frequency (see Iran, Taliban, etc.).
I was able to turn up the following quote which supports your claim and wish to fully acknowledge it:
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day:and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
I do find it strange that in one breath you can say that sharia law is not barbaric and then in the next tell me that it advocates severe floggings. Is death the measure by which you consider something barbaric? We do seem to have different standards of what we consider barbaric.
I find numerous examples of prostitutes being executed under sharia law courts, who I can only assume are better experts on sharia law than I will ever become, here is one such example:
“KHARTOUM, Nov 25 (IPS)—Four women have been sentenced to death by an Islamic Sharia court here for prostitution, and have been given only 15 days to appeal against the sentence.”
Taliban Hang Convicted Prostitutes
And more cases involving prostitutes, but the final line is worth noting in context of your argument and for your side of it:
AP, Feb. 23, 2001
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- More than 1,000 people watched as two women convicted of prostitution were hanged Friday in southern Kandahar, the headquarters of Afghanistan's hard-line Islamic Taliban rulers.
The women, also convicted of ``corrupting society,'' were hanged in the sports stadium, their faces hidden behind the all-encompassing burqa that women are required to wear, the Taliban-run Radio Shariat said.
Two other women were publicly lashed for adultery. One also was sentenced to 10 years in prison, the other to two years, according to the radio report, monitored in the Afghan capital of Kabul.
Ten men convicted of adultery also were lashed and sentenced to prison terms.
The Taliban, who rule about 95 percent of Afghanistan, have imposed a harsh brand of Islamic law, enforced with public punishment. Murder, adultery and blasphemy can carry the death penalty, and the limbs of thieves are amputated.
Strict rules have been imposed governing the behavior of women, who are required to travel with a male relative and use the burqa to keep themselves hidden from view. Women are not allowed to work, and schools for girls older than 8 years old have been closed.
Many Islamic scholars say the Taliban's version of Islamic law reflects tribal traditions rather than Islamic tenets.
I will take you at your word (until I can do further research) that it is not part of official sharia law, however, I assume you acknowledge prostitutes have been executed under sharia courts as I have evidenced. However, despite having evidence of prostitutes killed under sharia courts, I am not finding direct support for it in Islamic holy texts at this point. I'll have to address the rest of what you have provided later because I must be off to get some work done now. Again, thanks for taking the time to bring your information forward, I apprecaite it.
No problem Soulfire42, I will do my best to explain the true Islamic point of view as best I can and give evidence as to my assertion that Islamic Shariah Law is in complete harmony with human nature and logic. Bear with me as this will be a long but hopefully exhaustive post.
As I said before, I will not pretend that Muslims in countries like Afghanistan and Iran are not carrying out the punishments that you have alluded to. But I reiterate, it's not the Shariah that is the source of their laws. It's a combination of tribal customs, ignorance and seriously flawed interpretations of religious texts which were revealed in Arabic, a language they can't even profess to understand completely. Even Arabs who are not familiar with the style of arabic used in the Quran will struggle to make true sense out of the verses. The laws that are implemented as a result of this flawed interpretation are often repugnant to basic Islamic principles and can't be labeled as Shariah Laws. All I can do here is present the Shariah in it's true form to the best of my ability and explain the logic behind it.
Let's stick to adultery or fornication for the time being.
The initial directive of the Quran regarding the punishment of fornication is mentioned in Surah Nisa. No definite punishment is mentioned there; it is only said that that until some directive is revealed about women who as prostitutes habitually commit fornication, they should be confined to their homes, and the common perpetrators of this crime should be punished until they repent and mend their ways. This punishment may range from exhorting and reprimanding, scolding and censuring, humiliating and disgracing the criminal to beating him up for the purpose of reforming him.
And upon those of your women who commit fornication, call in four people among yourselves to testify over them; if they testify [to their ill-ways], confine them to their homes till death overtakes them or God formulates another way for them. And the man and woman among you who commit fornication, punish them. If they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. For God is Ever-Forgiving and Most Merciful. (4:15-6)
This was the punishment of fornication in the shariah before a definite directive was revealed in Surah Nur:
The man and the woman guilty of fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes and let not compassion move you in their case in the enforcement of the law of God, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. The man guilty of fornication may only marry a woman similarly guilty or an idolatress and the woman guilty of fornication may only marry such a man or an idolater. The believers are forbidden such marriages. (24:2-3)
Once this was revealed, it repealed the previous directive permanently.
The directives mentioned in these verses can be explained thus:
1. The man or woman who have committed fornication, both shall receive a hundred stripes. According to the methodology adopted by the Prophet (sws) and according to case precedents reported in our books of Hadith in this regard:
i) Whether a cane is used to flog a criminal or a lash, in both cases it should neither be very thick and hard nor very thin and soft.
ii) The criminal should not be beaten bare-bodied or while tied to a tripod.
iii) The criminal should not be flogged in a manner that wounds him nor should he be flogged on one part of the body: the flogging should be made to spread all over the body except for his face and private parts.
iv) A pregnant woman should be flogged only after she has given birth and the period of puerperal discharge has passed.
2. The criminal should be given this punishment publicly to humiliate him in front of the people, and to make him a lesson for those present. The verse directs the government or the court of justice to not show any lenience in this regard. This harsh treatment given to the criminal is necessary because the stability of a society relies on the sanctity of the relationships in a family and on their protection from every type of disorder. Fornication, a little deliberation shows, makes a society unstable and turns it into a herd of animals. It, therefore, deprives a society of its well-being and prosperity. Hence, such criminals should be dealt with without showing them any compassion. The words used by the Quran are: (and let not compassion move you in their case in the enforcement of the law of God).
3. After this punishment has been carried out, no chaste man or woman should marry men and women who commit fornication. According to the Quran, such people can only marry among their own sort or among the idolaters. It does not allow the marriage of a pious woman with a man guilty of committing fornication nor does it permit a pious man to bring home such a woman in his house. Consequently, every such marriage is not considered legal in Islam. The words (he should not marry) denote prohibition of such marriages, and to explain this very aspect, the Almighty says: (the believers are forbidden such marriages).
However, as stated earlier, this directive pertains only to the fornicators (both male and female) who have become liable to punishment once their crime has been proven. This is what grammatical rules dictate; ie the words (the male fornicator should not marry) and (the female fornicator should not marry) of the second verse refer to (the female fornicator and the male fornicator) mentioned in the previous one.
4. While stating this punishment, adjectives are used to qualify the men and women who commit fornication. This is similar to the statement in which the punishment for theft is mentioned. It is evident therefore that this punishment is the utmost punishment, which should be given only when the crime has been committed in its ultimate form and the criminal does not deserve any lenience as far as the circumstances of the crime are concerned. Consequently, criminals who are foolish, insane, have been compelled by circumstances, are without the necessary protection required to abstain from committing a crime, or cannot bear the punishment are all exempt from this punishment.
About those women whom their masters force to take to prostitution, the Quran says:
But if anyone compels them, Allah will be Forgiving and Merciful to them after their being compelled to it. (24:33)
Similarly, about the slave women who were present in the Prophet’s times, it says that they also cannot be administered this punishment because of improper upbringing and education and because of lack of family protection – so much so that if their husbands and masters have done all they can to keep them chaste and in spite of this they commit the crime, they shall be given only half this punishment ie, fifty stripes instead of hundred. The Quran says:
And then when they are kept chaste and they commit fornication, their punishment is half that of free women. (4:25)
5. The law of accusing someone of fornication, as explained below also indicates that the Almighty does not like that a criminal confess to his crime himself or that those who are aware of his crime report this matter to the authorities. The Prophet (sws) has said:
He among you who gets involved in such filth, should hide behind the veil stretched out for him by Allah, but if he unfolds the veil, we shall implement the law of Allah upon him. (Muatta, No: 1508)
Similarly, he once told a person:
If you had hidden the crime of this [person], it would have been better for you. (Muatta, No: 1499)
It is worth noting that the death penalty may be prescribed for someone who rapes or habitually commits fornication as prostitutes do, which then constitutes malfeasance in the land that is punishable according to the following verse of the Quran:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter (5:33)
This case becomes different from mere adultery as the target of the crime is society as a whole and if a judge feels that the only way to protect society from such a person is the death penalty, then he may order it. Note again, however, that this is the utmost punishment. If he feels that exile for a prostitute is sufficient, for example, he may order that instead.
Finally, if you read the details about how the flogging is to be administered, it should become clear that the purpose is not to inflict physical torture, rather to humiliate the offender and make an example out of him so that the act may not be repeated by him, or anyone else.
You may still feel this is barbaric, but that could only be because adultery is widespread in western societies and just doesn't register as THAT big a sin with you the way it does in a Muslim society. In Islam, family is a sacred institution which is to be protected at all costs. The unchecked spread of adultery in society will completely undermine this institution and it therefore has to be stopped. If you look at it from the point of view of a Muslim living in an Islamic society, Islam adopts a very just way to keep this evil from spreading by the administration of the punishments detailed above, only punishing those who truly deserve it and keeping the punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.
I know very little about religion, being brought up by two atheists so I'm not gonna even go thereI just think it's sad to see the methods chosen to execute these people, I mean shit, what a long winded and horrifically painful way to go? :?
“ "Thank you Palestrina. It’s a wonderful evening, it’s great to be here and I wanna dedicate you a super sexy song." " (last words of Mark Sandman of Morphine)
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
I know very little about religion, being brought up by two atheists so I'm not gonna even go thereI just think it's sad to see the methods chosen to execute these people, I mean shit, what a long winded and horrifically painful way to go? :?
I understand your feelings completely and considering your personal background, they are totally justified. In Islamic Shariah at least, there aren't many cases where offenders are actually to be killed. The only crimes for which death is applicable are murder and spreading mischief in the land (this encompasses crimes that threaten the life, property and honour of all citizens in the society). In the second case, death is the utmost punishment, not the only option.
All other crimes have lesser punishments, the purposes of which are to reform the offenders and make them an example for people in order to stop the crime from spreading. Physical torture is not the motive. The flogging in case of adultery, for example, has to be done in a way that the person is not wounded. You can read my last post for the details. Also, mere accusation of adultery isn't used as proof of guilt, the crime needs to be established without a shadow of a doubt. Islam actually discourages people who have commited adultery from making their sin public themselves. The authorities cannot punish them without evidence. Only if their actions come to light and proof is available, only then will the punishment be carried out. The larger purpose of administering this punishment is to safeguard the institution of family, which Islam holds sacred.
Hmmmm that's interesting, I mean don't get me wrong, I have felt like flogging guys that cheated on me in the past, perhaps even stoning them? :think: Thanks for the info, as I said, I have no idea about religion.
“ "Thank you Palestrina. It’s a wonderful evening, it’s great to be here and I wanna dedicate you a super sexy song." " (last words of Mark Sandman of Morphine)
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
You bring up a good point!
It's just unfortunate that Muslims throughout the world are putting people off Islam altogether by practising laws which are against the basic principles of the religion they claim to represent. True Islam rarely ever gets out to non-Muslims, in fact it probably doesn't even get out to the majority of Muslims themselves.
Proposed ban on kirpan slammed
Liberals, NDP defend Sikh dagger; Tories mum
By: Jonathan Montpetit
MONTREAL -- A proposal to ban a Sikh ceremonial dagger from Parliament had two of Canada's three main national parties racing to the defence of the religious symbol -- while the Conservatives refused to take a public stand.
The leaders of both the Liberals and the NDP came out strongly against the Bloc Québécois proposal Thursday, expressing sadness and even anger anyone would seek to ban a religious accessory from Parliament.
The Conservative government, however, described the dispute as a private matter.
"Our government does not believe parliamentary security should be directed by partisan politics," said an emailed statement from Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney.
"Specific questions on the security of the House of Commons should be directed to the (chamber's) Sergeant-at-Arms."
That leaves the Conservatives as the only party refusing to take a public position on the matter. The Bloc Québécois, transferring a dispute to Ottawa that originated in Quebec, wants to ask the House of Commons' board of internal economy to ban the article as a security threat.
The measure appears to have no chance of passing, now that the other major parties have quashed it. The NDP called the move shameful in a statement earlier this week.
And on Thursday, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff described the matter as one of religious freedom and tolerance, instead of a security issue.
He made his remarks in French in response to a reporter's question in Quebec, where such a ban has prompted no complaints from any prominent politician or pundit.
Ignatieff told reporters he has kirpan-wearing Sikh colleagues who represent their constituents well and who do not deserve to be excluded from Parliament because of their religious beliefs.
"All Canadians have the right to have access to democratic spaces and legislatures," Ignatieff told reporters in Montreal.
"I have colleagues in the Liberal party who wear a kirpan and who represent their riding proudly. They have the right to have access to the House of Commons."
He added: "The kirpan is not a weapon. It's a religious symbol and we have to respect it."
Liberal MP Navdeep Bains, who has spoken openly about wearing his kirpan in the House of Commons, accused the Bloc of "fear-mongering" earlier this week for portraying the kirpan as a security threat.
In issuing their own condemnation, the NDP sought to upstage the Liberals.
A statement issued by the party said New Democrats were the first to propose a parliamentary motion defending Sikhs' five articles of faith, which includes wearing the kirpan at all times.
The 2001 motion "failed to pass when the Liberals refused to support it," the statement said.
"We stand with the Sikh community in solidarity," it added.
Such opposition to the Bloc proposal might kill the attempt to change the security rules at the Commons' board of economy, which require all-party consensus for any modification.
This was a topic on AMT just a week ago and serves as a good example. Did you notice the part where Ignatieff mentioned how it was a RELIGIOUS symbol which needed to be respected? This is a governmnet buliding. Didn't you say you don't want RELIGIOUS symbols in places your tax dollars are working?
Why is there no crying out by the usual suspects against this? If someone were carrying a crucifix, it would've become an international incident and you know it. This is the new norm all over the world.
I've avoided reading everything in this thread other than the first few sentences. I saw which direction it was going in and it's not even worth my time. However I skipped to the last page and found this:
You bring up a good point!
It's just unfortunate that Muslims throughout the world are putting people off Islam altogether by practising laws which are against the basic principles of the religion they claim to represent. True Islam rarely ever gets out to non-Muslims, in fact it probably doesn't even get out to the majority of Muslims themselves.
Nice. Our resident Muslim again comes in with his facts based on absolutely nothing. What is this True Islam that only you and a select few seem to know about? On what basis do you make the claim that the majority of Muslims probably don't even know what it is? Muslims know what the hell they're doing, the only reason corrupt ideologues represent Islam incorrectly is because 1. Muslims are living in repressive societies controlled by corrupt regimes, often supported by Western democracies, such as Saudi Arabia, and are thus unable to practice "True Islam" as you call it, 2. the mainstream media takes these versions of Islam and shoves it down everyone's throat over and over again despite the fact that subscription to such beliefs is not representative of or even anywhere close to a legitimate number of Muslims, as well as the fact that even when it comes to these distorted versions of Shari`ah, the media does a brilliant job of doing a terrible job at reporting that as well. Which is why we have the brilliant "researchers" and people who "are just interested in learning more about Islam" posting the crap, intolerance, and bigotry that the OP wrote and has presumably been writing throughout this thread. I was able to tell right away that the OP has done absolutely no legitimate research, probably other than reading some websites online which is actually considered "research" to some people, and is just shoving an uneducated point over and over again. I'm sure any discussion on Shari`ah with this genius will focus on what he wants to talk about: punishments for adultery, raping women, and if he's really desperate, he'll put out the good ole female circumcision out of the box. Never can go wrong with that one. Atleast, that's what Sean Hannity tells you. Then again, maybe I'm underestimating his stupidity, and maybe he'll actually suggest that the Shari`ah preaches for Muslims to target and kill all non-Muslims. Of course, you don't even need any religious study to disregard such a bullshit claim whatsoever, but just historical study, and the fact is that Muslims and non-Muslims coexisted for centuries, and in fact Jews even fled to the Ottoman Empire from Europe to escape the anti-Semitism there. Also the whole Spanish Inquisition thing and all that, but now I'm just boring people with facts when it's much easier to discuss exciting bullshit like stoning adulterers. Oh, and lest we forget, all of this notwithstanding the fact that the OP has an obvious specific hatred toward Islam on the basis of its "inhumanity" while disregarding other more obvious threats, but if I try to point out the idiocy of the OP's arguments (and keep in mind, I've only read the first few sentences of this thread with the exception of parts of this last page), I may be here all day, so I'll end my point here.
I've avoided reading everything in this thread other than the first few sentences. I saw which direction it was going in and it's not even worth my time. However I skipped to the last page and found this:
You bring up a good point!
It's just unfortunate that Muslims throughout the world are putting people off Islam altogether by practising laws which are against the basic principles of the religion they claim to represent. True Islam rarely ever gets out to non-Muslims, in fact it probably doesn't even get out to the majority of Muslims themselves.
Nice. Our resident Muslim again comes in with his facts based on absolutely nothing. What is this True Islam that only you and a select few seem to know about? On what basis do you make the claim that the majority of Muslims probably don't even know what it is? Muslims know what the hell they're doing, the only reason corrupt ideologues represent Islam incorrectly is because 1. Muslims are living in repressive societies controlled by corrupt regimes, often supported by Western democracies, such as Saudi Arabia, and are thus unable to practice "True Islam" as you call it, 2. the mainstream media takes these versions of Islam and shoves it down everyone's throat over and over again despite the fact that subscription to such beliefs is not representative of or even anywhere close to a legitimate number of Muslims, as well as the fact that even when it comes to these distorted versions of Shari`ah, the media does a brilliant job of doing a terrible job at reporting that as well. Which is why we have the brilliant "researchers" and people who "are just interested in learning more about Islam" posting the crap, intolerance, and bigotry that the OP wrote and has presumably been writing throughout this thread. I was able to tell right away that the OP has done absolutely no legitimate research, probably other than reading some websites online which is actually considered "research" to some people, and is just shoving an uneducated point over and over again. I'm sure any discussion on Shari`ah with this genius will focus on what he wants to talk about: punishments for adultery, raping women, and if he's really desperate, he'll put out the good ole female circumcision out of the box. Never can go wrong with that one. Atleast, that's what Sean Hannity tells you. Then again, maybe I'm underestimating his stupidity, and maybe he'll actually suggest that the Shari`ah preaches for Muslims to target and kill all non-Muslims. Of course, you don't even need any religious study to disregard such a bullshit claim whatsoever, but just historical study, and the fact is that Muslims and non-Muslims coexisted for centuries, and in fact Jews even fled to the Ottoman Empire from Europe to escape the anti-Semitism there. Also the whole Spanish Inquisition thing and all that, but now I'm just boring people with facts when it's much easier to discuss exciting bullshit like stoning adulterers. Oh, and lest we forget, all of this notwithstanding the fact that the OP has an obvious specific hatred toward Islam on the basis of its "inhumanity" while disregarding other more obvious threats, but if I try to point out the idiocy of the OP's arguments (and keep in mind, I've only read the first few sentences of this thread with the exception of parts of this last page), I may be here all day, so I'll end my point here.
So you read two lines and want to call him stupid. I see you did not do your reasearch. Just more Hypocrisy on the MT.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
I've avoided reading everything in this thread other than the first few sentences. I saw which direction it was going in and it's not even worth my time. However I skipped to the last page and found this:
You bring up a good point!
It's just unfortunate that Muslims throughout the world are putting people off Islam altogether by practising laws which are against the basic principles of the religion they claim to represent. True Islam rarely ever gets out to non-Muslims, in fact it probably doesn't even get out to the majority of Muslims themselves.
Nice. Our resident Muslim again comes in with his facts based on absolutely nothing. What is this True Islam that only you and a select few seem to know about? On what basis do you make the claim that the majority of Muslims probably don't even know what it is? Muslims know what the hell they're doing, the only reason corrupt ideologues represent Islam incorrectly is because 1. Muslims are living in repressive societies controlled by corrupt regimes, often supported by Western democracies, such as Saudi Arabia, and are thus unable to practice "True Islam" as you call it, 2. the mainstream media takes these versions of Islam and shoves it down everyone's throat over and over again despite the fact that subscription to such beliefs is not representative of or even anywhere close to a legitimate number of Muslims, as well as the fact that even when it comes to these distorted versions of Shari`ah, the media does a brilliant job of doing a terrible job at reporting that as well. Which is why we have the brilliant "researchers" and people who "are just interested in learning more about Islam" posting the crap, intolerance, and bigotry that the OP wrote and has presumably been writing throughout this thread. I was able to tell right away that the OP has done absolutely no legitimate research, probably other than reading some websites online which is actually considered "research" to some people, and is just shoving an uneducated point over and over again. I'm sure any discussion on Shari`ah with this genius will focus on what he wants to talk about: punishments for adultery, raping women, and if he's really desperate, he'll put out the good ole female circumcision out of the box. Never can go wrong with that one. Atleast, that's what Sean Hannity tells you. Then again, maybe I'm underestimating his stupidity, and maybe he'll actually suggest that the Shari`ah preaches for Muslims to target and kill all non-Muslims. Of course, you don't even need any religious study to disregard such a bullshit claim whatsoever, but just historical study, and the fact is that Muslims and non-Muslims coexisted for centuries, and in fact Jews even fled to the Ottoman Empire from Europe to escape the anti-Semitism there. Also the whole Spanish Inquisition thing and all that, but now I'm just boring people with facts when it's much easier to discuss exciting bullshit like stoning adulterers. Oh, and lest we forget, all of this notwithstanding the fact that the OP has an obvious specific hatred toward Islam on the basis of its "inhumanity" while disregarding other more obvious threats, but if I try to point out the idiocy of the OP's arguments (and keep in mind, I've only read the first few sentences of this thread with the exception of parts of this last page), I may be here all day, so I'll end my point here.
Did I catch you at a bad time of the day or what? I did not at all mean to sound arrogant or all-knowing in saying what I did, I was simply conveying my thoughts on the situation I see around me. If you lived in a country where the majority of people are un-educated and base their religious understanding on what the so-called mullahs say, you would know what I mean. True Islam is nothing else other than the Quran and Sunnah, which is a fact that should be obvious to any Muslim. Yet, we have laws in our country which are completely repugnant to Islam and are yet labeled as Islamic and supported vehemently by a fair majority of people. I assume you live in a country where the situation is very different from mine, in that case, I understand why you may have been offended. I guess I ought to be more careful in qualifying my statements by saying "muslims in my country". That said, I agree with most of what you say in your post regarding the media projecting Islam negatively. As far as the intentions of the OP, I cannot claim to know them and I give him the benefit of doubt.
All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t
Posted on 20 January 2010 by Danios
CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”
Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”
But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).
According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.
Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events. If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative. It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros? Surely what he does not know does not exist!
The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews). Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.
The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims. Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent. Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country? (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.)
The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism. Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way. In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss. You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America. Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals? In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four. Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it’s grossly exaggerated.
Great thread. It's good to see that some on here are seeing sharia law for what it is and the threat it poses here in America. Like clock work though there the same posters spouting their typical pc and uninformed comments that are posted here on a daily basis.
Great thread. It's good to see that some on here are seeing sharia law for what it is and the threat it poses here in America. Like clock work though there the same posters spouting their typical pc and uninformed comments that are posted here on a daily basis.
American's always need an enemy, even if it means inventing one.
Great thread. It's good to see that some on here are seeing sharia law for what it is and the threat it poses here in America. Like clock work though there the same posters spouting their typical pc and uninformed comments that are posted here on a daily basis.
American's always need an enemy, even if it means inventing one.
Pathetic.
You just proved my point. Your one the main ones Mr. Cut and paste never an original thought. I'm not even going to waste my time on you bcos your the type of person who's mind is already made up regardless whether you have all the facts or not. All you do is either play the race card or blame America. Grow up..
Great thread. It's good to see that some on here are seeing sharia law for what it is and the threat it poses here in America. Like clock work though there the same posters spouting their typical pc and uninformed comments that are posted here on a daily basis.
Just curious, can you describe what you consider the most threatening thing that sharia law has on America?
Do you consider sharia law an immediate threat on America?
It's very easy to criticize, but one should at least know the truth about what one is criticizing. You'd think people would at least do some research on what the Shariah is before they go on about how dangerous it is. If not that, then at least read some of the posts from the other side before making up your mind. I made an effort to address some of the concerns raised about the Shariah in my earlier posts, but I guess it all fell on deaf ears.
Did I catch you at a bad time of the day or what? I did not at all mean to sound arrogant or all-knowing in saying what I did, I was simply conveying my thoughts on the situation I see around me. If you lived in a country where the majority of people are un-educated and base their religious understanding on what the so-called mullahs say, you would know what I mean. True Islam is nothing else other than the Quran and Sunnah, which is a fact that should be obvious to any Muslim. Yet, we have laws in our country which are completely repugnant to Islam and are yet labeled as Islamic and supported vehemently by a fair majority of people. I assume you live in a country where the situation is very different from mine, in that case, I understand why you may have been offended. I guess I ought to be more careful in qualifying my statements by saying "muslims in my country". That said, I agree with most of what you say in your post regarding the media projecting Islam negatively. As far as the intentions of the OP, I cannot claim to know them and I give him the benefit of doubt.
You weren't simply conveying your thoughts, you made a statement like "probably all Muslims don't represent/know about 'True Islam'." You are selling something in a statement like that, which is not even close to reality. Like I said before, even if you weren't trying to say MOST Muslims believe in that, you were atleast giving the idea that a large amount do, which is unfortunate and incorrect.
As for the rest of your points, look, my point is not to say that Muslims needn't to reevaluate the study of Islam and begin a sort of 'reformation' process (in moving away from the Salafi/Wahabbi trend), but rather that I think your criticism is far too strong on blaming all Muslims and ignoring reality/history. For example, even in your country of Pakistan, Islam was never so strict until Gen Zia ul-Haq became president in the 80s (I believe it was that time). He instituted many radical reforms in fundamentalist Islam. He was kept in power largely with American support, and instituted these reforms with Saudi money. Even with the Taliban, the story of American support for them is largely known by most people who think. It's not like all the mullahs and Islamic clerics suddenly woke up and became idiots. Lots of these clerics have been pushed by these repressive regimes, like Saudi Arabia, etc, and other clerics have been squeezed out. Which is why many times these clerics end up going to Western countries. Now the problem is that the media then capitalizes on these idiots' sermons and rulings and try to make them representative of what Islam actually teaches. It's pathetic. In a sense, I agree with you, I just don't like the way your presenting your view and I feel like that has to do with the environment you've been growing up in, one which I am not familiar with. I think in general Muslims definitely have a long way to go, but the popular movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, etc., are all good signs. This means that Muslims will finally be able to speak for themselves, and these repressive regimes with their un-Islamic laws will no longer be representative of Islam. The problem is that this issue does not solely lie in the hands of Muslims. American foreign policy largely dictates who rules what. This is just a plain fact and does not need defending. If Muslims want to speak for themselves, if they want to finally have their voices heard and be able to practice what they truly want and solve this crisis in Islam then Americans will also need to force their government to back the fuck off, stop supporting repressive Islamic regimes, and stop interfering in Muslim issues. It will be better for America and better for Muslims, but when has America done anything logical? Decades of supporting Israel at the expense of millions is proof of that.
As for actually learning about what Muslims think, I suggest reading the book "Who Speaks for Islam?" by John Esposito; he presents statistics, not his opinion, not even historical discussions, or anything. They just took polls in Muslim countries and presented them in this book to help give a better idea of what Muslims think about things like equal rights for Women, what it means to incorporate Shari`ah with democracy, terrorism, etc.
There's a problem with lots of the posters here. I tried to briefly talk about this in my earlier post but it was clearly ignored (will probably be ignored again). You all sit here talking about Shari`ah like you know anything about it. You clearly don't. Even Release_Me tried to briefly discuss it (though I don't agree with the way he did; I don't think you should have specifically addressed the rulings on certain issues. People need to learn WHAT Shari`ah is, HOW it works, etc. Obviously you can't shed light on that in simply one post so I don't expect anything from you. I don't, for example, agree with you when you say 'True Islam is only the Qur`an and the Sunnah' ... Islam and more specifically Shari`ah does involve much more. True, those are the basic sources, and they are considered infallible, though even just the Sunnah actually involves an entire science as to what you can trust and what is unreliable in it when applying to legal rulings, but you get the point)... I mean, I simply think if people want to truly discuss Shari`ah then they need to atleast read books on what Shari`ah is. And no, not books written by political pundits, but ones written by actual scholars on the issue. And reading articles online does not constitute as doing research, god dammit. Especially when it comes to such a delicate topic.
Just an example of why Shari`ah is not as clear cut as you try to make it: It's not simply 'barbaric' rulings. Some people actually consider rulings in Shari`ah less barbaric than, say, locking someone up in prison for 30 years. I mean, seriously, who the fuck are we to judge? There are actually many rational, moral arguments within this: is capital punishment necessarily worse than locking someone up in prison for who knows how long? I've met people who were in prison for years, their lives were ruined. Some even said 'if all I had to do was get my hand cut off, I would've done that.' I don't know if I even agree with them, but I was never in their position, so I wouldn't necessarily know. But it's hilarious how we make judgments on what is barbaric and what isn't without truly evaluating our own moral dilemmas (as if cutting someone's hand off is barbaric but locking them in solitary confinement for years isn't).
As for whether you think people should be punished for certain crimes in the first place, like adultery, who are we to claim moral superiority on what is good and what is bad; what should be punishable by law and what shouldn't be? For example, people in the U.S. could spend many years in jail for fucking having marijuana on them whereas it's legal in Portugal. Does that make us barbaric for locking up people in jail for years and possibly ruining their lives for something the Portuguese don't even consider a criminal offense? Obviously this is on a smaller scale, but what about things like guns being legal in certain countries like ours and illegal in others. What about things like death penalty, the U.S. has one of the highest death penalty cases and it's NOT ruled by Shari`ah. So what is truly the threat? It seems like the U.S. can invade countries on its own whim, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, support repressive regimes that oppress millions of people, and even in civil rights it imposes many criminal cases that would even in Islam be argued as immoral. This is just one of MANY issues that people here fail to recognize when discussing Shari`ah which is why it is worthless to discuss it with anyone here who has done no research whatsoever.
My statement was: "True Islam rarely ever gets out to non-Muslims, in fact it probably doesn't even get out to the majority of Muslims themselves." I admit I ought to have been more specific, because sitting here in Pakistan, I can only judge on the basis of what I see around me. And trust me, the majority of people here really do not bother to have an understanding of what Islam really is. I'm not talking about just the poor who can't afford education, I'm talking about educated people who are my friends, colleagues, etc. Sure, we are born muslims and go the mosque, pay Zakat and all, but a VERY small minority actually refers to the Quran and Sunnah for religious matters. People generally take the opinion of mullahs as indisputable facts, and those mullahs have been educated in madrassahs where they've been taught a certain version of Islam which just doesn't tolerate scrutiny. If I were to go to a mullah and ask him to give me evidence from the Quran and Sunnah that the punishment for Blasphemy is death, he'll simply say: "What more evidence do you need? We are all agreed in this matter. Do you think we are idiots?" Those are the sort of people we've entrusted Islam to, here in my country. I hope you can better understand where I was coming from now, because it really isn't a distortion of facts when I say that the majority of Pakistani muslims do not know, or do not bother to know, what Islam is. Sure, there are MANY who are against the death penalty for Blasphemy for example, but most of those are secularists or human rights activists. They don't bring forth any religious arguments because they don't have any, which is why they fail to convince the masses who are emotionally manipulated by mullahs calling for protection of the sanctity of Islam by supporting this law.
I reiterate that the situation may be different from country to country, so I shouldn't be making any sweeping statements for all muslims or even the majority of the world's muslims.
Even though I agree with your assessment of the political situation of the world at large and how muslims are being cornered by American policy and the media, it is my firm belief as a muslim that neither America nor the media controls what is happening in the world, it's only God who has that control. If we want to blame the Americans and the media, that's all good because they are certainly playing their part, but we need to look within. We need to reform ourselves and by that, I don't mean we should be moving away from Islam, rather moving towards it and away from the clerics who have clear political motives. I am familiar with Zia's policies and the fact that he was supported by the west, but the popularity of his laws and the mullahs who use these laws for their political objectives is rooted in the ignorance of the masses. Without popular support, these mullahs would be powerless.
I can see where you're coming from when you say I shouldn't be discussing specific rulings of the Shariah, it's a fair criticism. My objective in doing so was not necessarily educating people about Shariah laws, but rather making them see the obvious contradiction in what THEY believe to be Shariah and what actual Shariah entails. If anything, I hoped that this would encourage people to do some real research before they start commenting based solely on what they hear in the media or read on the internet.
As far as true Islam or Shariah being based on anything other than the Quran and Sunnah, I beg to differ. Consider a muslim who was living in Iraq 100 years after the death of the Holy Prophet. He had only knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah at his disposal if he was faced with an issue and needed guidance. Islam was as complete then as it is now, all additional books on Ahadith and Islamic jurisprudence by our scholars can be used as a helping tool for sure, but they are not independent sources of law. All their contents need to be scrutinized in the light of the Quran and Sunnah before they can be understood or accepted. By Sunnah, I mean the practices of the Holy Prophet which were passed down from generation to generation, like the method of prayer, haj, etc. Ahadith need to be kept separate from these because their contents need the Quran to give them meaning. Simply quoting a hadith out of context can create a ton of problems.
I agree that for a non-Muslim trying to understand what the Shariah is and how it works, it would serve him well to go through a book on Islamic jurisprudence. My point is simply that the Shariah itself is not dependent on these books.
Also, you make a good point about what is considered barbaric by different people. But again, if a person feels that punishing someone for adultery with a hundred stripes is barbaric, then so be it. What is acceptable to a person depends on his own personal upbringing and surroundings. What bothered me was the fact that Shariah was being grossly misrepresented by ascribing things to it that were simply untrue. Hence, I attempted to specify some of the actual rulings in the context that they were applicable. It may not have been the best approach, I'm only human
Finally, let me make it clear that I don't disagree in principle with most of what you say, it makes a lot of sense to me. I guess we just have different approaches to the same issue.
Great thread. It's good to see that some on here are seeing sharia law for what it is and the threat it poses here in America. Like clock work though there the same posters spouting their typical pc and uninformed comments that are posted here on a daily basis.
American's always need an enemy, even if it means inventing one.
Pathetic.
You just proved my point. Your one the main ones Mr. Cut and paste never an original thought. I'm not even going to waste my time on you bcos your the type of person who's mind is already made up regardless whether you have all the facts or not. All you do is either play the race card or blame America. Grow up..
If by 'an original thought' you mean making shit up and beleiving in idiotic fantasies, then you may have a point.
Comments
No. Please, explain HOW Shria Law gains a foothold in the U.S. by this ruling?
Thanx.
Hail, Hail!!!
The Real Impact of Sharia Law in America
Posted September 2nd, 2010 at 11:00am in Rule of Law
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.
I highlighted the most important facts of this case. Here is the reasoning used to overturn the original trial:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior- ... 32706.html
Hail, Hail!!!
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.
You really haven't a clue on what you are posting, do you?
The bottom line is NO religious law can override criminal law in the U.S. Our court system protects us from Shria Law overriding criminal law... from religions allowing arranged child weddings that violate sexual child abuse... from religions allowing human sacrifice to override murder... from religions dictating ten of their commandments over our basic rights.
So, you need not fret your worried little head... you will not be subjected to Shria Law like your messiah Beck is warning you of.
Hail, Hail!!!
Great, then feel free to continue being afraid of the impending Muslim threat. Personally, I've never felt threatened by any Muslim at any time in my existence on this Earth. I think this fear that you're seeking to instill in us here is actually just a load of bollocks, and that so much time and effort could be better channeled elsewhere.
I am sincerely glad that you've not ever felt afraid of any muslim of any variety. While I don't go about living my life in paranoia, I also am not blind to the fact that there are people plotting the demise of my fellow citizens in various ways, that there are people who actively seek to abuse and undermine my legal system, who are seeking weapons of mass destruction to harm my fellow citizens, who are being financed by foreign nations and millionaires, who are preaching hatred in organized fashion, who produce videos of my countrymen being beheaded, who fly airplanes into centers of commerce, attack our military vessels at port, blow up hotels, who walk the streets chanting death to my nation and its people, who practice and preach intolerance of my disbelief in their god, who are seeking to rule multiple countries throughout the world, who set afire people who do not believe the same as them, who would base their laws exclusively upon unchallengeable holy texts, etc, etc, etc. May you be so fortunate as to never find yourself in the shoes of my countrymen or other vast areas of the globe who are presently having to deal with these lunatics. I somehow doubt you'd be willing to take a stroll through their midsts in territories under their favored system of law and speak anything but praise of their religion, their culture or their laws. It's a freedom my own system of laws, culture and government would permit you though, and I take pride in that fact. I absolutely believe that paranoia, destruction of civil liberties, ridiculous searches of citizenry and the like are foolish, but I am not going to pretend that there is no threat at all and not something out there just as foul as I have presented that deserves my opposition. May you never have to deal with having these lunatics kill your loved ones or countrymen by flying a plane into a building to help you understand that the threat is real and not utter fiction. But don't fail to realize that unless you are a member of the islamic faith, sooner or later their ideology would insist upon it or see your blood spilled.
I have faith in humanity to overcome these barbaric throwbacks, and that includes faith in muslims who are not so insane. But how can you honestly sit there and think that these people are not a threat to others, that they do not have dangerous and damaging beliefs, that they are not actively seeking to harm others, that they are not trying to expand and that I should not be concerned about them?
First of all, there are two sources of Islamic Law, The Holy Quran and the Sunnah/Hadith (actions and sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)). The legal system which is created from the interpretation of these two sources is called Shariah Law. I will seek to prove that it is NOT barbaric, in fact it is completely in harmony will human nature and logic. Also, please note that any law made against the spirit of the Quran or Sunnah is un-Islamic, even if it is being practised in a Muslim country. Finally, let me make it clear that I will not try to justify the un-Islamic actions of Muslims who claim to be following Islam. There is a huge difference between what Islam says and what Muslims do, that is the reason for all the misconceptions that non-Muslims have about Islam and only Muslims themselves are to blame.
I don't think it's possible to address every accusation levelled against the Shariah Law in one post, so I'll just start off by making some necessary corrections. Then, if someone wants to go into detail on any one subject, I'll do my best to explain further.
In a nutshell:
Adulterous couples are to be stoned to death- Wrong. The Islamic punishment for adultery is 100 stripes, not stoning to death. That too is the absolute maximum punishment which is to be given only if there are no mitigating circumstances and the crime is proven beyond doubt. It is simply wrong to suggest that the same punishment will be administered everytime, it has to be decided by a judge on a case-by-case basis. Unfamiliarity with the teachings of Islam or lack of a proper upbringing are examples of mitigating circumstances.
Prostitutes are to be hanged in public- Nope. I'm guessing the non-Muslim world thinks that Islam dishes out the death penalty like candy on halloween! Nonsense. If it is proven that a woman is a prostitute with reliable testimony from 4 separate people, then she is to be given the same punishment of 100 stripes.
Women in the company of men who are not blood relatives are to be executed- Can't help but laugh out loud at this one
Rape victims should be punished- Absolutely and unequivocally false. Where do people get this from? Shariah law is not a law made by animals. It is the rapist who is to face exemplary punishment if the crime is prove. I'll go into details later.
Women cannot vote or get elected- Wrong again. This statement has absolutely no basis in Islam.
Husbands are permitted to beat their wives- This is only an extreme measure applicable to a very extreme situation. I'll go into details later if you want. Briefly, a husband can't just hit his wife because he feels like it.
Women cannot do anything outside the house without their father or husband’s consent- Women are free to work jobs if they so please, there is no such restriction. It is just recommended that a woman informs or takes permission from her father or husband before going out of the house so that he may be aware of her whereabouts, she is after all his responsibility. The role of the father and husband is similar in Islam in the sense that it is that of a protector and guardian.
Women cannot get custody of their children- No, the Shariah has not given any directive in this regard because this matter can only be decided keeping in view the welfare of the children and the circumstances of the parents, which of course vary a lot.
Women must wear the hijab outside of the house- Hijab is a word which has been misinterpreted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It was used in The Holy Quran to refer to the drapes/curtains of the house of the Holy Prophet. The Islamic dress code for women does not normally REQUIRE headscarves or veils, if that is what was implied. If a woman herself feels more secure wearing a veil, no one can force it off her, but it is in no way a religious obligation. The Islamic requirement is to dress simply and not attract attention, make sure the private parts are covered and the bosom is covered, that's all, in simple words. Again, I can discuss this in detail if required.
Let me clarify one more thing: the death penalty is only applicable in two cases according to Islam. One is if a person is guilty of murder, the other is if a person or group of people have become a nuisance to society and are a threat to the life, property and honour of it's citizens. Such a person or persons may be punished with death.
You still haven't answered my earlier question: How many wars of aggression have been started in the past 50 years by Muslim nations compared with so-called 'Christian' nations?
And these people all happen to be Muslims,right?
And who might these people be?
As opposed to preaching hatred in a disorganized fashion?
You're countrymen who just happened to be in their country engaged in an illegal war of occupation.
Sorry to break this to you, but 9/11 wasn't year zero.
How tragic. Over 1 million Iraqi's have been killed as a direct result of the U.S invasion. Where are your crocodile tears for them?
And what streets might these be? The streets of Iraq, or Palestine, where U.S bombs fall regularly?
Just as millions of Christians practice and preach intolerance of any disbelief in their god. You ever heard of the Missionaries?
I wonder where they could have gotten that idea from?
Did you learn this at the George W Bush school of philosophy?
How is the way they apply their laws any of your business?
I’m very happy to have your participation in this thread and think it is highly valuable to all participants. As I have stated, I am not interested in basing arguments on incorrect information and am happy to be factually challenged. I make no claim to be an authority of Islamic information and have stated that I am early in the process of investigating what I see as a threat quite interested in expansion. I appreciate you acknowledging that there is not a defense possible or reasonable for many actions of muslims we see taking place. I admit there are things which my own nation and people do which also have no defense.
You might wonder why I would believe what I had read about shariah law when it comes to stoning to death individuals when I then observe a large group of muslims stoning to death people for adultery and read that it was approved by Islamic leaders, all while chanting that Allah is great. At most, all I feel compelled to change in my beliefs on this matter would be that I continue to see something which should be fought against and a culture I oppose yet this particular barbarity may not be based upon sharia law itself (though I am investigating further). However, I continue to find information which contradicts your claim that sharia law does not allow stoning such as the following information from what I feel most would consider a muslim-friendly source, Religious Tolerance.org (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance):
Within Sharia law, there are a group of "Haram" offenses which carry severe punishments. These include pre-marital sexual intercourse, sex by divorced persons, post-marital sex, adultery, false accusation of unlawful intercourse, drinking alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. Haram sexual offenses can carry a sentence of stoning to death or severe flogging.
Release_Me makes the claim that Shariah law is completely in harmony with human nature and logic, and I vehemently dispute this claim. While I grant that people do seem to have a propensity to latch onto supernatural things and base laws and belief systems on them, I would argue that is absolutely against rationality and logic to do so. I feel that religions are essentially our first and worst way of describing the world around us and after our deaths. And Release_Me, even if I fully accept your argument, I consider 100 “stripes” (a rather politically correct way to refer to torture), to still be barbaric punishment. I believe you would find it hard to argue that when Islamic states have been created and claim to be enforcing sharia law, we have witnessed stoning to death for the crime of adultery with regular frequency (see Iran, Taliban, etc.).
I was able to turn up the following quote which supports your claim and wish to fully acknowledge it:
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day:and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
I do find it strange that in one breath you can say that sharia law is not barbaric and then in the next tell me that it advocates severe floggings. Is death the measure by which you consider something barbaric? We do seem to have different standards of what we consider barbaric.
I find numerous examples of prostitutes being executed under sharia law courts, who I can only assume are better experts on sharia law than I will ever become, here is one such example:
“KHARTOUM, Nov 25 (IPS)—Four women have been sentenced to death by an Islamic Sharia court here for prostitution, and have been given only 15 days to appeal against the sentence.”
Taliban Hang Convicted Prostitutes
And more cases involving prostitutes, but the final line is worth noting in context of your argument and for your side of it:
AP, Feb. 23, 2001
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- More than 1,000 people watched as two women convicted of prostitution were hanged Friday in southern Kandahar, the headquarters of Afghanistan's hard-line Islamic Taliban rulers.
The women, also convicted of ``corrupting society,'' were hanged in the sports stadium, their faces hidden behind the all-encompassing burqa that women are required to wear, the Taliban-run Radio Shariat said.
Two other women were publicly lashed for adultery. One also was sentenced to 10 years in prison, the other to two years, according to the radio report, monitored in the Afghan capital of Kabul.
Ten men convicted of adultery also were lashed and sentenced to prison terms.
The Taliban, who rule about 95 percent of Afghanistan, have imposed a harsh brand of Islamic law, enforced with public punishment. Murder, adultery and blasphemy can carry the death penalty, and the limbs of thieves are amputated.
Strict rules have been imposed governing the behavior of women, who are required to travel with a male relative and use the burqa to keep themselves hidden from view. Women are not allowed to work, and schools for girls older than 8 years old have been closed.
Many Islamic scholars say the Taliban's version of Islamic law reflects tribal traditions rather than Islamic tenets.
I will take you at your word (until I can do further research) that it is not part of official sharia law, however, I assume you acknowledge prostitutes have been executed under sharia courts as I have evidenced. However, despite having evidence of prostitutes killed under sharia courts, I am not finding direct support for it in Islamic holy texts at this point. I'll have to address the rest of what you have provided later because I must be off to get some work done now. Again, thanks for taking the time to bring your information forward, I apprecaite it.
As I said before, I will not pretend that Muslims in countries like Afghanistan and Iran are not carrying out the punishments that you have alluded to. But I reiterate, it's not the Shariah that is the source of their laws. It's a combination of tribal customs, ignorance and seriously flawed interpretations of religious texts which were revealed in Arabic, a language they can't even profess to understand completely. Even Arabs who are not familiar with the style of arabic used in the Quran will struggle to make true sense out of the verses. The laws that are implemented as a result of this flawed interpretation are often repugnant to basic Islamic principles and can't be labeled as Shariah Laws. All I can do here is present the Shariah in it's true form to the best of my ability and explain the logic behind it.
Let's stick to adultery or fornication for the time being.
The initial directive of the Quran regarding the punishment of fornication is mentioned in Surah Nisa. No definite punishment is mentioned there; it is only said that that until some directive is revealed about women who as prostitutes habitually commit fornication, they should be confined to their homes, and the common perpetrators of this crime should be punished until they repent and mend their ways. This punishment may range from exhorting and reprimanding, scolding and censuring, humiliating and disgracing the criminal to beating him up for the purpose of reforming him.
And upon those of your women who commit fornication, call in four people among yourselves to testify over them; if they testify [to their ill-ways], confine them to their homes till death overtakes them or God formulates another way for them. And the man and woman among you who commit fornication, punish them. If they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. For God is Ever-Forgiving and Most Merciful. (4:15-6)
This was the punishment of fornication in the shariah before a definite directive was revealed in Surah Nur:
The man and the woman guilty of fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes and let not compassion move you in their case in the enforcement of the law of God, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. The man guilty of fornication may only marry a woman similarly guilty or an idolatress and the woman guilty of fornication may only marry such a man or an idolater. The believers are forbidden such marriages. (24:2-3)
Once this was revealed, it repealed the previous directive permanently.
The directives mentioned in these verses can be explained thus:
1. The man or woman who have committed fornication, both shall receive a hundred stripes. According to the methodology adopted by the Prophet (sws) and according to case precedents reported in our books of Hadith in this regard:
i) Whether a cane is used to flog a criminal or a lash, in both cases it should neither be very thick and hard nor very thin and soft.
ii) The criminal should not be beaten bare-bodied or while tied to a tripod.
iii) The criminal should not be flogged in a manner that wounds him nor should he be flogged on one part of the body: the flogging should be made to spread all over the body except for his face and private parts.
iv) A pregnant woman should be flogged only after she has given birth and the period of puerperal discharge has passed.
2. The criminal should be given this punishment publicly to humiliate him in front of the people, and to make him a lesson for those present. The verse directs the government or the court of justice to not show any lenience in this regard. This harsh treatment given to the criminal is necessary because the stability of a society relies on the sanctity of the relationships in a family and on their protection from every type of disorder. Fornication, a little deliberation shows, makes a society unstable and turns it into a herd of animals. It, therefore, deprives a society of its well-being and prosperity. Hence, such criminals should be dealt with without showing them any compassion. The words used by the Quran are: (and let not compassion move you in their case in the enforcement of the law of God).
3. After this punishment has been carried out, no chaste man or woman should marry men and women who commit fornication. According to the Quran, such people can only marry among their own sort or among the idolaters. It does not allow the marriage of a pious woman with a man guilty of committing fornication nor does it permit a pious man to bring home such a woman in his house. Consequently, every such marriage is not considered legal in Islam. The words (he should not marry) denote prohibition of such marriages, and to explain this very aspect, the Almighty says: (the believers are forbidden such marriages).
However, as stated earlier, this directive pertains only to the fornicators (both male and female) who have become liable to punishment once their crime has been proven. This is what grammatical rules dictate; ie the words (the male fornicator should not marry) and (the female fornicator should not marry) of the second verse refer to (the female fornicator and the male fornicator) mentioned in the previous one.
4. While stating this punishment, adjectives are used to qualify the men and women who commit fornication. This is similar to the statement in which the punishment for theft is mentioned. It is evident therefore that this punishment is the utmost punishment, which should be given only when the crime has been committed in its ultimate form and the criminal does not deserve any lenience as far as the circumstances of the crime are concerned. Consequently, criminals who are foolish, insane, have been compelled by circumstances, are without the necessary protection required to abstain from committing a crime, or cannot bear the punishment are all exempt from this punishment.
About those women whom their masters force to take to prostitution, the Quran says:
But if anyone compels them, Allah will be Forgiving and Merciful to them after their being compelled to it. (24:33)
Similarly, about the slave women who were present in the Prophet’s times, it says that they also cannot be administered this punishment because of improper upbringing and education and because of lack of family protection – so much so that if their husbands and masters have done all they can to keep them chaste and in spite of this they commit the crime, they shall be given only half this punishment ie, fifty stripes instead of hundred. The Quran says:
And then when they are kept chaste and they commit fornication, their punishment is half that of free women. (4:25)
5. The law of accusing someone of fornication, as explained below also indicates that the Almighty does not like that a criminal confess to his crime himself or that those who are aware of his crime report this matter to the authorities. The Prophet (sws) has said:
He among you who gets involved in such filth, should hide behind the veil stretched out for him by Allah, but if he unfolds the veil, we shall implement the law of Allah upon him. (Muatta, No: 1508)
Similarly, he once told a person:
If you had hidden the crime of this [person], it would have been better for you. (Muatta, No: 1499)
It is worth noting that the death penalty may be prescribed for someone who rapes or habitually commits fornication as prostitutes do, which then constitutes malfeasance in the land that is punishable according to the following verse of the Quran:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter (5:33)
This case becomes different from mere adultery as the target of the crime is society as a whole and if a judge feels that the only way to protect society from such a person is the death penalty, then he may order it. Note again, however, that this is the utmost punishment. If he feels that exile for a prostitute is sufficient, for example, he may order that instead.
Finally, if you read the details about how the flogging is to be administered, it should become clear that the purpose is not to inflict physical torture, rather to humiliate the offender and make an example out of him so that the act may not be repeated by him, or anyone else.
You may still feel this is barbaric, but that could only be because adultery is widespread in western societies and just doesn't register as THAT big a sin with you the way it does in a Muslim society. In Islam, family is a sacred institution which is to be protected at all costs. The unchecked spread of adultery in society will completely undermine this institution and it therefore has to be stopped. If you look at it from the point of view of a Muslim living in an Islamic society, Islam adopts a very just way to keep this evil from spreading by the administration of the punishments detailed above, only punishing those who truly deserve it and keeping the punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
I understand your feelings completely and considering your personal background, they are totally justified. In Islamic Shariah at least, there aren't many cases where offenders are actually to be killed. The only crimes for which death is applicable are murder and spreading mischief in the land (this encompasses crimes that threaten the life, property and honour of all citizens in the society). In the second case, death is the utmost punishment, not the only option.
All other crimes have lesser punishments, the purposes of which are to reform the offenders and make them an example for people in order to stop the crime from spreading. Physical torture is not the motive. The flogging in case of adultery, for example, has to be done in a way that the person is not wounded. You can read my last post for the details. Also, mere accusation of adultery isn't used as proof of guilt, the crime needs to be established without a shadow of a doubt. Islam actually discourages people who have commited adultery from making their sin public themselves. The authorities cannot punish them without evidence. Only if their actions come to light and proof is available, only then will the punishment be carried out. The larger purpose of administering this punishment is to safeguard the institution of family, which Islam holds sacred.
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
It's just unfortunate that Muslims throughout the world are putting people off Islam altogether by practising laws which are against the basic principles of the religion they claim to represent. True Islam rarely ever gets out to non-Muslims, in fact it probably doesn't even get out to the majority of Muslims themselves.
Proposed ban on kirpan slammed
Liberals, NDP defend Sikh dagger; Tories mum
By: Jonathan Montpetit
MONTREAL -- A proposal to ban a Sikh ceremonial dagger from Parliament had two of Canada's three main national parties racing to the defence of the religious symbol -- while the Conservatives refused to take a public stand.
The leaders of both the Liberals and the NDP came out strongly against the Bloc Québécois proposal Thursday, expressing sadness and even anger anyone would seek to ban a religious accessory from Parliament.
The Conservative government, however, described the dispute as a private matter.
"Our government does not believe parliamentary security should be directed by partisan politics," said an emailed statement from Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney.
"Specific questions on the security of the House of Commons should be directed to the (chamber's) Sergeant-at-Arms."
That leaves the Conservatives as the only party refusing to take a public position on the matter. The Bloc Québécois, transferring a dispute to Ottawa that originated in Quebec, wants to ask the House of Commons' board of internal economy to ban the article as a security threat.
The measure appears to have no chance of passing, now that the other major parties have quashed it. The NDP called the move shameful in a statement earlier this week.
And on Thursday, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff described the matter as one of religious freedom and tolerance, instead of a security issue.
He made his remarks in French in response to a reporter's question in Quebec, where such a ban has prompted no complaints from any prominent politician or pundit.
Ignatieff told reporters he has kirpan-wearing Sikh colleagues who represent their constituents well and who do not deserve to be excluded from Parliament because of their religious beliefs.
"All Canadians have the right to have access to democratic spaces and legislatures," Ignatieff told reporters in Montreal.
"I have colleagues in the Liberal party who wear a kirpan and who represent their riding proudly. They have the right to have access to the House of Commons."
He added: "The kirpan is not a weapon. It's a religious symbol and we have to respect it."
Liberal MP Navdeep Bains, who has spoken openly about wearing his kirpan in the House of Commons, accused the Bloc of "fear-mongering" earlier this week for portraying the kirpan as a security threat.
In issuing their own condemnation, the NDP sought to upstage the Liberals.
A statement issued by the party said New Democrats were the first to propose a parliamentary motion defending Sikhs' five articles of faith, which includes wearing the kirpan at all times.
The 2001 motion "failed to pass when the Liberals refused to support it," the statement said.
"We stand with the Sikh community in solidarity," it added.
Such opposition to the Bloc proposal might kill the attempt to change the security rules at the Commons' board of economy, which require all-party consensus for any modification.
This was a topic on AMT just a week ago and serves as a good example. Did you notice the part where Ignatieff mentioned how it was a RELIGIOUS symbol which needed to be respected? This is a governmnet buliding. Didn't you say you don't want RELIGIOUS symbols in places your tax dollars are working?
Why is there no crying out by the usual suspects against this? If someone were carrying a crucifix, it would've become an international incident and you know it. This is the new norm all over the world.
Nice. Our resident Muslim again comes in with his facts based on absolutely nothing. What is this True Islam that only you and a select few seem to know about? On what basis do you make the claim that the majority of Muslims probably don't even know what it is? Muslims know what the hell they're doing, the only reason corrupt ideologues represent Islam incorrectly is because 1. Muslims are living in repressive societies controlled by corrupt regimes, often supported by Western democracies, such as Saudi Arabia, and are thus unable to practice "True Islam" as you call it, 2. the mainstream media takes these versions of Islam and shoves it down everyone's throat over and over again despite the fact that subscription to such beliefs is not representative of or even anywhere close to a legitimate number of Muslims, as well as the fact that even when it comes to these distorted versions of Shari`ah, the media does a brilliant job of doing a terrible job at reporting that as well. Which is why we have the brilliant "researchers" and people who "are just interested in learning more about Islam" posting the crap, intolerance, and bigotry that the OP wrote and has presumably been writing throughout this thread. I was able to tell right away that the OP has done absolutely no legitimate research, probably other than reading some websites online which is actually considered "research" to some people, and is just shoving an uneducated point over and over again. I'm sure any discussion on Shari`ah with this genius will focus on what he wants to talk about: punishments for adultery, raping women, and if he's really desperate, he'll put out the good ole female circumcision out of the box. Never can go wrong with that one. Atleast, that's what Sean Hannity tells you. Then again, maybe I'm underestimating his stupidity, and maybe he'll actually suggest that the Shari`ah preaches for Muslims to target and kill all non-Muslims. Of course, you don't even need any religious study to disregard such a bullshit claim whatsoever, but just historical study, and the fact is that Muslims and non-Muslims coexisted for centuries, and in fact Jews even fled to the Ottoman Empire from Europe to escape the anti-Semitism there. Also the whole Spanish Inquisition thing and all that, but now I'm just boring people with facts when it's much easier to discuss exciting bullshit like stoning adulterers. Oh, and lest we forget, all of this notwithstanding the fact that the OP has an obvious specific hatred toward Islam on the basis of its "inhumanity" while disregarding other more obvious threats, but if I try to point out the idiocy of the OP's arguments (and keep in mind, I've only read the first few sentences of this thread with the exception of parts of this last page), I may be here all day, so I'll end my point here.
Did I catch you at a bad time of the day or what? I did not at all mean to sound arrogant or all-knowing in saying what I did, I was simply conveying my thoughts on the situation I see around me. If you lived in a country where the majority of people are un-educated and base their religious understanding on what the so-called mullahs say, you would know what I mean. True Islam is nothing else other than the Quran and Sunnah, which is a fact that should be obvious to any Muslim. Yet, we have laws in our country which are completely repugnant to Islam and are yet labeled as Islamic and supported vehemently by a fair majority of people. I assume you live in a country where the situation is very different from mine, in that case, I understand why you may have been offended. I guess I ought to be more careful in qualifying my statements by saying "muslims in my country". That said, I agree with most of what you say in your post regarding the media projecting Islam negatively. As far as the intentions of the OP, I cannot claim to know them and I give him the benefit of doubt.
All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t
Posted on 20 January 2010 by Danios
CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”
Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”
But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).
According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.
Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events. If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative. It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros? Surely what he does not know does not exist!
The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews). Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.
The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims. Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent. Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country? (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.)
The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism. Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way. In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss. You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America. Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals? In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four. Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it’s grossly exaggerated.
American's always need an enemy, even if it means inventing one.
Pathetic.
You just proved my point. Your one the main ones Mr. Cut and paste never an original thought. I'm not even going to waste my time on you bcos your the type of person who's mind is already made up regardless whether you have all the facts or not. All you do is either play the race card or blame America. Grow up..
Just curious, can you describe what you consider the most threatening thing that sharia law has on America?
Do you consider sharia law an immediate threat on America?
As for the rest of your points, look, my point is not to say that Muslims needn't to reevaluate the study of Islam and begin a sort of 'reformation' process (in moving away from the Salafi/Wahabbi trend), but rather that I think your criticism is far too strong on blaming all Muslims and ignoring reality/history. For example, even in your country of Pakistan, Islam was never so strict until Gen Zia ul-Haq became president in the 80s (I believe it was that time). He instituted many radical reforms in fundamentalist Islam. He was kept in power largely with American support, and instituted these reforms with Saudi money. Even with the Taliban, the story of American support for them is largely known by most people who think. It's not like all the mullahs and Islamic clerics suddenly woke up and became idiots. Lots of these clerics have been pushed by these repressive regimes, like Saudi Arabia, etc, and other clerics have been squeezed out. Which is why many times these clerics end up going to Western countries. Now the problem is that the media then capitalizes on these idiots' sermons and rulings and try to make them representative of what Islam actually teaches. It's pathetic. In a sense, I agree with you, I just don't like the way your presenting your view and I feel like that has to do with the environment you've been growing up in, one which I am not familiar with. I think in general Muslims definitely have a long way to go, but the popular movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, etc., are all good signs. This means that Muslims will finally be able to speak for themselves, and these repressive regimes with their un-Islamic laws will no longer be representative of Islam. The problem is that this issue does not solely lie in the hands of Muslims. American foreign policy largely dictates who rules what. This is just a plain fact and does not need defending. If Muslims want to speak for themselves, if they want to finally have their voices heard and be able to practice what they truly want and solve this crisis in Islam then Americans will also need to force their government to back the fuck off, stop supporting repressive Islamic regimes, and stop interfering in Muslim issues. It will be better for America and better for Muslims, but when has America done anything logical? Decades of supporting Israel at the expense of millions is proof of that.
As for actually learning about what Muslims think, I suggest reading the book "Who Speaks for Islam?" by John Esposito; he presents statistics, not his opinion, not even historical discussions, or anything. They just took polls in Muslim countries and presented them in this book to help give a better idea of what Muslims think about things like equal rights for Women, what it means to incorporate Shari`ah with democracy, terrorism, etc.
There's a problem with lots of the posters here. I tried to briefly talk about this in my earlier post but it was clearly ignored (will probably be ignored again). You all sit here talking about Shari`ah like you know anything about it. You clearly don't. Even Release_Me tried to briefly discuss it (though I don't agree with the way he did; I don't think you should have specifically addressed the rulings on certain issues. People need to learn WHAT Shari`ah is, HOW it works, etc. Obviously you can't shed light on that in simply one post so I don't expect anything from you. I don't, for example, agree with you when you say 'True Islam is only the Qur`an and the Sunnah' ... Islam and more specifically Shari`ah does involve much more. True, those are the basic sources, and they are considered infallible, though even just the Sunnah actually involves an entire science as to what you can trust and what is unreliable in it when applying to legal rulings, but you get the point)... I mean, I simply think if people want to truly discuss Shari`ah then they need to atleast read books on what Shari`ah is. And no, not books written by political pundits, but ones written by actual scholars on the issue. And reading articles online does not constitute as doing research, god dammit. Especially when it comes to such a delicate topic.
As for whether you think people should be punished for certain crimes in the first place, like adultery, who are we to claim moral superiority on what is good and what is bad; what should be punishable by law and what shouldn't be? For example, people in the U.S. could spend many years in jail for fucking having marijuana on them whereas it's legal in Portugal. Does that make us barbaric for locking up people in jail for years and possibly ruining their lives for something the Portuguese don't even consider a criminal offense? Obviously this is on a smaller scale, but what about things like guns being legal in certain countries like ours and illegal in others. What about things like death penalty, the U.S. has one of the highest death penalty cases and it's NOT ruled by Shari`ah. So what is truly the threat? It seems like the U.S. can invade countries on its own whim, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, support repressive regimes that oppress millions of people, and even in civil rights it imposes many criminal cases that would even in Islam be argued as immoral. This is just one of MANY issues that people here fail to recognize when discussing Shari`ah which is why it is worthless to discuss it with anyone here who has done no research whatsoever.
I reiterate that the situation may be different from country to country, so I shouldn't be making any sweeping statements for all muslims or even the majority of the world's muslims.
Even though I agree with your assessment of the political situation of the world at large and how muslims are being cornered by American policy and the media, it is my firm belief as a muslim that neither America nor the media controls what is happening in the world, it's only God who has that control. If we want to blame the Americans and the media, that's all good because they are certainly playing their part, but we need to look within. We need to reform ourselves and by that, I don't mean we should be moving away from Islam, rather moving towards it and away from the clerics who have clear political motives. I am familiar with Zia's policies and the fact that he was supported by the west, but the popularity of his laws and the mullahs who use these laws for their political objectives is rooted in the ignorance of the masses. Without popular support, these mullahs would be powerless.
I can see where you're coming from when you say I shouldn't be discussing specific rulings of the Shariah, it's a fair criticism. My objective in doing so was not necessarily educating people about Shariah laws, but rather making them see the obvious contradiction in what THEY believe to be Shariah and what actual Shariah entails. If anything, I hoped that this would encourage people to do some real research before they start commenting based solely on what they hear in the media or read on the internet.
As far as true Islam or Shariah being based on anything other than the Quran and Sunnah, I beg to differ. Consider a muslim who was living in Iraq 100 years after the death of the Holy Prophet. He had only knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah at his disposal if he was faced with an issue and needed guidance. Islam was as complete then as it is now, all additional books on Ahadith and Islamic jurisprudence by our scholars can be used as a helping tool for sure, but they are not independent sources of law. All their contents need to be scrutinized in the light of the Quran and Sunnah before they can be understood or accepted. By Sunnah, I mean the practices of the Holy Prophet which were passed down from generation to generation, like the method of prayer, haj, etc. Ahadith need to be kept separate from these because their contents need the Quran to give them meaning. Simply quoting a hadith out of context can create a ton of problems.
I agree that for a non-Muslim trying to understand what the Shariah is and how it works, it would serve him well to go through a book on Islamic jurisprudence. My point is simply that the Shariah itself is not dependent on these books.
Also, you make a good point about what is considered barbaric by different people. But again, if a person feels that punishing someone for adultery with a hundred stripes is barbaric, then so be it. What is acceptable to a person depends on his own personal upbringing and surroundings. What bothered me was the fact that Shariah was being grossly misrepresented by ascribing things to it that were simply untrue. Hence, I attempted to specify some of the actual rulings in the context that they were applicable. It may not have been the best approach, I'm only human
Finally, let me make it clear that I don't disagree in principle with most of what you say, it makes a lot of sense to me. I guess we just have different approaches to the same issue.
If by 'an original thought' you mean making shit up and beleiving in idiotic fantasies, then you may have a point.