Posted on 03/21/2015 9:30:48 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Excerpted from Mad World News: The first Islamic Sharia Court in the U.S. just got some very bad news, and Muslims are not happy.
In a close 5-4 vote, the city of Irving ruled to back the Texas state bill banning foreign law from the state. It basically would slam the door in their faces, preventing them from spreading Sharia throughout the country. Now they are accusing the city council of unfairly being targeted.
All four of the “voluntary” court’s lawyers were unlicensed in the state of Texas, a third degree felony. Mayor Beth Van Duyne received several phone calls on the matter. It seems that the Islamic Tribunal not only was unlicensed, but they failed to notify the city of their illegal court being operated in city limits. She promised to get to the bottom of it, and she did.
By their own website’s admission, if U.S. law conflicts with Sharia law, “we follow Sharia law.” It also openly admitted separate rules for men and women in their proceedings, discriminating and humiliating women which is against the U.S. Constitution. The Islamic Tribunal also openly declared that they hope will “set a precedence that will be emulated and duplicated throughout the country.”
The more the mayor looked into it, the more it was apparent that they were attempting to establish a foothold using her city. She made a public Facebook post stating that she would back the new Texas law. She states that it was apparent that Zia Sheikh, imam at the Islamic Center of Irving, and the other Imams were “bypassing American courts” to make rulings under Sharia. Sheikh demanded an apology and wanted her Facebook post removed, which stated she would “fight with every fiber of my being” if the group was violating basic rights.
heikh says he just “asked her to clarify a statement … which seemed very Islamophobic.”
“She flat-out refused,” he said. “She said, ‘My statement wasn’t inflammatory in any way, shape or form.’” (Dallas Morning News)
Her office then asked for them to support the American Laws for American Courts bill and to abide by the Constitution. Sheikh instead flew off the handle.
“We don’t care about the bill,” Sheikh said. “It’s not going to affect us in any way, shape or form. The bottom line is the foundation of this bill is anti-Islamic.” (Dallas Morning News)
The meeting was filled by Muslims from the Council for American-Islamic Relations, a known terrorist organization. They even tried to paint the vote as Islamaphobia and bigotry.
“This continues efforts by elected officials who seek to score points with their voting base by demonizing Muslims,” Alia Salem, who directs the North Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the City Council before Thursday’s vote. She said it had a choice between “diversity” and “hatred, fear and bigotry.” (Dallas Morning News)
The state bill doesn’t even mention Muslims or Islam. It states no specific foreign law. Keep reading
““...By their own website’s admission, if U.S. law conflicts with Sharia law, “we follow Sharia law.””
The Star Trek Club can say that US law conflicts with United Federation of Planets law, but I don’t think they should be arrested.
Unfamilar with infowars.
Houston Chronicle okay?
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Feds-raid-Texas-secessionist-meeting-6096637.php
OK, looked up infowars. Alex Jones and Conspiracy Central. Even an association with David Ickes, my favorite conspiracist!
See post #92.
Islam makes no distinction between secular and religious.
That group in Irving stated plainly that if the u.s. law conflicted with sharia law, then they would ignore the u.s. law and follow sharia.
How much more clearly can it be stated?
Islam and sharia govern EVERYthing in their view of things.
EVERYTHING.
Good one.
“It does not break any US laws.”
Do you know that for a fact?
It looks like 4 were intimidated.
Yes, and that is exactly how they will eventually win when their numbers get large enough. Only a matter of time if we do not change course.
If and when their following sharia law rather than US law causes them to break US law, then arrest and prosecute them?
Why is this such a difficult issue? Why are you so threatened by people talking big? I suspect very few of them would actually follow through and risk arrest and prosecution to uphold sharia.
If they do, who cares? They’re in jail. Where they belong for breaking the law of this nation.
It is rather simple.
Any crime can be prosecuted by the state and if you are put on trial by the state, you have to show up to court.
The Muslim court cannot prosecute you.
If somebody wrongs you, you can sue them in a real court, or you can both agree on mediation.
If someone sues you in the Muslim Court, you do not have to show up, but you can if you want.
The difference being...Star Wars if fiction.
Islam is not.
If you two want to live under Sharia...I wish you both luck.
I do not.
Thomas Jefferson: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them.”
Beliefs are no business of the government, no matter how vehemently I disagree with them.
Freedom of Association would prevent the state from prohibiting two parties to come to an agreement.
Well, Emperor Norton was right in his above quote. This still applies.
Then don’t move to a country where Sharia is the law.
It isn’t the law here and I don’t think it ever will be. And I’ll gladly fight alongside you to keep it from being given any legal authority.
“If you two want to live under Sharia...I wish you both luck.”
I don’t have to go to the Sharia court if I do not want to.
Yup. He was apparently there during the Vigilance Committee periods and various riots. He should have known.
Perhaps I should inform you that you are now and henceforth under the authority of Sherman’s Law.
My rulings must be obeyed, or else.
Scared you, didn’t I?
Well Sherman’s Law has exactly the same legal standing in the US as sharia law. And frankly I think it’s got more style.
Sherman logan,
“If and when their following sharia law rather than US law causes them to break US law, then arrest and prosecute them?”
I was going to put the issue to you in this manner:
they said they would break the US law if it conflicted with sharia
But you answered it already, that if they broke US law, they should be arrested and prosecuted.
Oliviaforever,
Do you agree, that if that group breaks US law in the course of going with sharia law, that they be arrested and prosecuted?
“I don’t think it will ever will be”
THINK being the operative word. I never THOUGHT we would be at the point we are in this country. Why the heck should this even be a question?
According to the statements made in the article..these folks will trump their own law over US law.
If that is ok with you...okey dokey. Maybe we could honor Russian law and Chinese law, etc as well.
Our laws ignore sharia. As it should.
Let us assume a sharia “court” in this country issues a death penalty. Any attempt to enforce that ruling would be attempted murder, and would expose all participants in the “court” proceeding to trial on conspiracy to murder. Of course, if the sentence was carried out, all would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree.
I’d have no problem with a death penalty.
“Do you agree, that if that group breaks US law in the course of going with sharia law, that they be arrested and prosecuted?”
Yes.
Any violation of the state and federal law by the group or member should be prosecuted in a real court.
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.