Sharia Law Is Not Making Inroads In The U.S. [Abe Foxman mega-hurl alert!]

The threat of the infiltration of Sharia, or Islamic law, into the American court system is one of the more pernicious conspiracy theories to gain traction in our country in recent years.

The notion that Islam is insidiously making inroads in the United States through the application of religious law is seeping into the mainstream, with even some presidential candidates voicing fears about the supposed threat of Sharia to our way of life and as many as thirteen states considering or having already passed bills that would prohibit the application of Sharia law.

Louisiana and Tennessee were among the first to approve such measures. The bills were based on model legislation issued by the American Public Policy Alliance, an advocacy group that defends the legislation as seeking to "protect American citizens' constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Sharia Law."

When the legislation was introduced in the Tennessee state Senate in early 2010, the bill defined Sharia as a "legal political military doctrine and system adhered to, or minimally advocated by, tens of millions of not hundreds of millions of its followers around the world."

In defense of the bill, state Sen. Bill Ketron said it "deals solely with a single part of Sharia that is strictly political in nature," and "in no way inserts itself into the religious laws of Islam."

The language was nearly identical to that of similar bills considered in other states, some of which were thinly disguised in terms of protecting against "the application of foreign law."

All of this anti-Sharia activity has come despite the complete absence of evidence of the unconstitutional application of foreign or religious law in our judicial system. It has also come with a great deal of political handwringing - and myth making - about the threat of Sharia overtaking this country. This has led, in turn, to a false perception among a growing number of Americans that Sharia is a very real threat to our way of life and constitutional freedoms.

In fact, these legislative efforts are the proverbial solution in search of a problem. The separation of church and state embodied in U.S. and state constitutions prohibits our courts from applying or considering religious law in any way that would constitute government advancement of or entanglement with religious law.

But the anti-Sharia bills are more than a matter of unnecessary public policy. These measures are, at their core, predicated on prejudice and ignorance. They constitute a form of camouflaged bigotry that enables their proponents to advance an idea that finds fault with the Muslim faith and paints all Muslim Americans as foreigners and anti-American crusaders.

It is true that Sharia is being used elsewhere around the world in dangerous ways. While Sharia law can address many daily public and private concerns, it is nonetheless subject to radical interpretation by individuals or groups who subscribe to a more puritanical form of Islamic jurisprudence.

Some individuals try to interpret Sharia law for their own radical agendas. It raises more serious concerns when it comes to implementing Sharia law in its entirety, as can be seen with the examples of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Taliban. But that certainly doesn't apply to America, where concerns about a "creeping Sharia law" are the stuff of pure paranoia.

If the hysteria over Sharia law continues to percolate through our political and social discourse, there is bound to be unintended consequences.

As we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, in an uncertain economy with millions of Americans still out of work, we also face the prospect of a political season in which more political candidates may be tempted to invoke this mythological threat in an effort to pander to bigotry and fear, and to score political points.

We stand at a crossroads in American society. We have the option of heading down a path toward a greater tolerance of anti-Muslim xenophobia and fear of the "stranger in our midst," or we can rededicate ourselves to the ideal of an America that is open and welcoming to immigrants as well as minority groups who have been here for decades.

Let us hope that the better nature of America will enable us to proceed down the second path and reject those who seek to divide us for political gain, or those who wish to stereotype and scapegoat an entire people because of their religious faith.

We should never diminish the very real threat of terrorism motivated by Islamist fundamentalism coming again to our shores. But as responsible, free-thinking Americans we must be careful to distinguish between the true threats to our freedoms, and identifying their sources, and those who loudly declaim against phantom threats that don't really exist.

Sharia law vs the Constitution:

Cynicism of the Islamists to promote barbaric “Sharia-based Islam” in the west is going on uninterrupted due to the utter ignorance of the westerners about Islamic ideology in general, democratic convenience, and also by the “politically correct nonsense” spewed by many western politicians by their selfishness and forceful ignorance about the inherent danger of Islamic Sharia.

Many hypocritical western residing Islamists are trying relentlessly to soft-sell Islam through their speeches and write-ups and so called “interfaith nonsense” only to fool the westerners. All these Islamists are portraying Islam being compatible with western values. Using cynicism and soothsaying techniques, they are trying hard to convince the westerners that Islam is democratic, Islam is tolerant of other faiths, Islam encourages the pursuit of religious freedom, etc. They conveniently ignore/hide the fascism in Islam that originated from the primary (Quran) and secondary (Hadith) texts in the form of Sharia (Islamic law).
The barbaric laws and rules of Sharia are causing the Muslims to suffer the most. Fact of the matter is, these so called Allah’s laws are nothing but the ancient Arab Paganic ruthless tribal social justice which had been cleverly ingrained in Islam and now causing the humanity to suffer.

These Islamists are often bluffing westerners by citing some non-Arab Muslim majority nations such as Bangladesh as the proof that there is no inherent discord between Islam and democracy.
Many of these countries are nascent western style democracies and are not governed by Islamic Sharia law at all. Outside Middle East, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has adopted partial Islamic laws and one can see the brutality and barbarism happening there in the name of Islam. To understand Islam, one of the important aspects is to understand the “Sharia law”.

What is Sharia law?

Some common laws of “Islamic Sharia” which are regularly practiced in the Islamically ruled (Sharia-based) nations with some minor variations:

1- Jihad defined as “to war against all non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- The head of an Islamic State (Caliph) cannot be charged, let alone be punished for serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape (Hudood cases) – Codified Islamic Law Vol 3 # 914C of and page 188 of Hedaya the Hanafi manual.

4- A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam (apostate) must be killed immediately.

9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : a) an apostasy b) an adulterer c) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave. Slavery still exists amongst Arab Muslims.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, for sins like killing, adultery, prostitutions; and other Quranic corporal punishments like: amputation of limbs (chopping hands and feet), floggings, beatings and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for the sins like: stealing, sexual promiscuity, robbery, burglary etc.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia (pay Zizzya: poll tax) if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their own religious scriptures, or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, Muslims can curse, criticize or say anything derogatory they like to the religions of others.

15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

19- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23- There is no common property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits. Sister gets half of what brother gets.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and wife has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and also with women captured in battle (concubines), and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man; that is, two women equal to one man.

29- A woman looses custody if she remarries.

30- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

31- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

32- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

33-It is obligatory for a Muslim to lie if the purpose is obligatory and is known as Taqiyya (Islamic Deception). That means that for the sake of abiding with Islam’s commandments, such as jihad, a Muslim is obliged to lie and should not have any feelings of guilt or shame associated with this kind of lying.
The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life.

34. The perpetrators of genocide, mass rape and plunder will not be punished if they repent – Codified Islamic Law Vol 1 # 13.

35. To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses. Women’s testimony is not accepted – Pakistan’s Hudood ordnance 7 of 1979 amended by 8B of 1980. Thousands of raped women and girls in many countries have been charged with Zena (physical relations outside marriage) and punished by Sharia courts for want of witnesses.

36. All modern music including sexually explicit music of any kind is strictly prohibited and punishable by Islamic Sharia code of justice. Only Islamic songs are allowed.

The above are the most important parts of Islamic Sharia law which were devoutly practiced by the early Islamic rulers (Holy Prophet and his four rightly guided Caliphs) and also by the Caliphs of Ummyad and Abbasid Dynasties ruled from Baghdad (Today’s Iraq) and later by Ottoman Empire with very little variations.

What parts of our US Constitution would you be willing to abandon in order to accommodate Sharia Law?

Don’t think Christie’s judge would impliment Sharia?

Islam permits devout Muslims to lie, cheat, and deliberately bluff non-muslims to protect or promote his religion of Islam, anytime, anywhere. And this tactic is know as “Islamic Taqiyya”

Part of the plan of Islam to take over America is to get Muslims into government positions.

A Muslim is a Muslim.
They are ruled by the Koran.
The Koran commands them to fight, to make Sharia law and
Islam the ruler of the world.

From the Koran:

“AND FIGHT THEM UNTIL THERE IS NO PERSECUTION , AND RELIGION SHALL BE ONLY FOR ALLAH 2:193

Allah’s law (Sharia) is binding to all…4:135

Allah accepts only Sharia and no other laws…7:29, 57:25

Allah is the Law-giver; He appointed Muhammad to implement the only correct laws (Sharia laws)…45:18

THE FOUNDER OF CAIR HAS TOLD US PLAINLY OF ISLAM’S OBJECTIVE IN AMERICA:

“ISLAM ISN’T IN AMERICA TO BE EQUAL TO ANY OTHER FAITH, BUT TO BECOME DOMINANT. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth. Everthing we need to know is in the Koran. We don’t need to look somewhere else.”
OMAR M. AHMAD, CHAIRMAN OF CAIR, the mainsteam Muslim advocacy group.

‘Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist. The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire. For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.’

Ali Sina
(Ex Muslim, established ‘Faith Freedom Int’
to awaken the world to the dangers of Islam)

http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/political-islam/us-dept-of-justice-and-sharia-law/

"No, not that there were inquisition tribunal judges, just that there were Spanish court judges at the time of the Spanish Inquisition."

I have never heard that. I would be fascinated to see a citation of some kind regarding that assertion, because it speaks to a tolerance heretofore not associated with post-reconquista Spain. Can you provide a link?

"Some admitted terrorist operatives? My understanding, based on the original article, was that the alleged terrorists he represented were acquitted."

From the additional article I provided: "Mohammed was the lawyer for Mohammed Qatanani, a Muslim Brotherhood operative who pled guilty to membership in the jihad terror group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood."

"Even if they might have actually been guilty in spite of their acquittal, they are due adequate representation."

No argument there.

"Is there anything from his conduct of the case that suggests a sympathy for their cause?"

Yes. Repeatedly seeking out similarly placed defendants. By analogy, as the article I provided demonstrates, if a lawyer continually represented members of the KKK, and was himself, say, a southern white male, we may be able to deduce that he has sympathies for this class of defendant, and thus may not be the most suitable person to elevate to the judiciary. Choosing a member of the judiciary is an entirely discretionary act. Given this man's history, his seeming affinity for Islamic terrorist defendants, and knowing the true nature of Islam - one that cannot be denied - it's a highly questionable appointment and makes concerned citizens, we so-called 'crazies,' doubt Christie's judgment. The truth is, NJ has a large Islamic population, Christie made a political choice to ingratiate himself to that community, and he disregarded the dangers of his choice to make himself look pluralistic. If I were a woman or a Jewish defendant in his court, I would be extremely concerned. In the final analysis, given the discretionary nature of the appointment, why take the chance? If I thought a judge was potentially a liberal, and might be inclinded to be an activist, I would not appoint them, period. You only have so many appointments as a governor, and you best make them count. This is the man Christie chose? I don't believe for one moment that this man was the best possible appointee for the NJ Superior Court - it was an ill-considered political choice, and it goes not only to the heart of Christie's judgment, but bespeaks a grave concern for conservatives regarding his future. What if this man were picking our next Supreme Court justice?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.