Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
Extra! Extra! Shariah Takeover of U.S. Averted by Oklahoma Vote!
The Council on American-Islamic Relations announced yesterday that it is suing Oklahoma over a newly adopted law banning the use of international or Islamic law in state courts. Islam-fearing websites went wild. Here’s a sampling of headlines and excerpts from some of the more colorful postings Thursday:
From WorldNetDaily.com:
Headline: “CAIR sues Oklahoma for banning Islamic law. Unindicted terrorist co-conspirator reacts after 70% of voters approve”
Excerpt:
“CAIR, whose national office is in the nation’s capital, describes itself as a civil-rights group, but FBI evidence points to its origin as a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot Hamas, and the Justice Department designated it an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history.”
(Editor’s note: According to Politico, CAIR, along with 245 other unindicted co-conspirators, was never charged with a crime. In July 2009, a federal judge found that the government had violated these groups’ First Amendment rights by including their names on a publicly filed document.)
From Pamela Geller at the anti-Islam hate site, Atlas Shrugs:
Headline: “Hamas-Linked CAIR Suing Oklahoma, Wants to Impose Sharia Law. Who is funding our Destruction?”
Excerpt:
“Just as the Ground Zero mosque revealed the true face of Islamic Supremacists to the American people and unmosqued their real goals, so too will the lawsuit being brought by the Hamas-linked, Muslim Brotherhood front CAIR against the good people of Oklahoma. … By their fruits we shall know them, and so once again, we know Islamic supremacist CAIR. … Who is funding this lawsuit? We are talking millions here. Who is funding our destruction from within?”
From Jihad Watch:
Headline: “Hamas-linked CAIR suing to stop Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia law”
Excerpt:
“CAIR is in a hard place with this one: if they don’t challenge Oklahoma’s measure, the whole stealth jihad agenda could be thwarted. If they do, it could be exposed. They must be counting on their stooges and useful idiots in the government and mainstream media to do a lot of heavy lifting for them on this one.”
From Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network:
Headline: “CAIR Tips Hand; Sues OK Over Anti-Sharia Law”
Excerpt:
“CAIR is like the ACLU that it claims to emulate, at least in some ways. Both groups push radical agendas while posturing as protectors of the persecuted. CAIR is a master at tapping into and manipulating the guilty multiculturalism that infects a lot of newsrooms and government agencies in order to get the coverage or policy changes it seeks.”
From BareNakedIslam (Motto: “It isn’t Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you”):
Headline: Terrorist Front Group CAIR to sue Oklahoma over ban on Shari’a Law
Excerpt:
“We knew this was coming.”
From Islamization Watch:
Headline: “CAIR sues Oklahoma for banning Islamic Shari’a law – Hmm…”
Excerpt:
“It is clear they want to take over the USA!! Another dictatorial Islamic nation to call their own!!”
on November 5th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
It’s disgusting how bigots are usin 911 as an excuse to spout hatred.
on November 5th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
It would be interesting to see an Oklahoma murderer challenge his conviction on the basis that murder is prohibited in Sharia law and Sharia law is prohibited in Oklahoma! What utter nonsense this whole business is. Perhaps Oklahoma will pass a law banning dinosaurs next. Oh wait. That would affect too many of the politicians there.
on November 5th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Sharia law (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) is an abomination. It not only allows–even encourages–men to beat their wives and even to rape them (a muslim woman is NOT ALLOWED to refuse sex with her husbant under ANY circumstances) but it even goes so far as to encourage so-called honor killing (it’s already happening here in the US) of women and girls who displease their lords and masters (fathers, brothers, and husbands). This law simply prohibits any sharia court from ever having jurisdiction in Oklahoma. Good for them–just 49 to go . . .
on November 5th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Tattoomama,
I’m so sure! 49 to go? You’re kidding right! Do you really believe some of the stuff that you are writing? If so, then our country really does have problems, and it’s sad to see this country progress then digress in the last 10 years.
on November 5th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I could have a better grip on what Sharia is EXACTLY, but observing and engaging in politics for 15 years I have never heard anything about Sharia being anything but horrible for women in a muslim society. I’d also like to see some more details of the law that was passed and the law-suit from CAIR, but I can’t find another article about this from a source i trust as much as hatewatch.
I’m not saying the sources mentioned in the post aren’t islamaphobes, they are, and they are certainly reacting hysterically. I would also say I have a fair amount of material on my blog challenging anti-muslim bigotry (and on a related note, there’s a ton of stuff supporting the palestinians)- that’s at http://devlin-mcaliskey.blogsp.....%20bigotry .
Tom
on November 5th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Wrong tatoomama. Sharia law is whatever an Imam (or whatever) says it is. Maybe some say it’s OK to beat your wife but others don’t. It sounds a lot like what so called Christians espouse as “God’s law.” Oklahoma’s action was and is ridiculous because the constitution already prohibits “religious law” from governing civil affairs. If only the right wing crazies realized that!
on November 5th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
A minor point is that this measure is clearly unconstitutional since it singles out a particular religion. How would you right wing “Christians” feel if the state constitution forbade the consideration of the ten commandments? Absolutely ridiculous! in other words exactly what we have come to expect from Oklahoma.
on November 5th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Tom you can find the text of the ballot measure at http://www.ballotpedia.org/wik.....%282010%29. It defines Sharia law as Islamic law. Most of that is identical to Christian and Jewish law. What are these idiots thinking?
on November 5th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Oh wait. I know what they’re thinking. “Let’s come up with something that will make the morons in our state think we’re doing something. It’s pretty clear we don’t have the brains to resolve any of the real issues facing our state.”
on November 5th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Tom
At the ballotpedia URL above you can also find a link to the very cogent argument Muneer Awad makes for an injunction to prevent certification of the election results on this unconstitutional measur.
on November 5th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Mitch Beales,
isn’t this something that the race-baiters have found another reason to harass minorities! No one, and I mean no one has filed a lawsuit to challenge the growing number of sovereign citizens law – meaning, they believe they don’t have to follow laws of the U.S.
And what’s most interesting, as I have noted on the post about the judge saying liberal judges are considered to be like Al-Qaeda – the republicans in San Diego County are doing the same thing, targeting Latinos – now, let’s look at this scenario, it is alleged that 2 of the 9-11 hijackers had apartments in San Diego, and just last week 3 Somalis from San Diego was allegedly charged with helping a terrorist group. This makes me wonder what is happening in San Diego! This should make some question this also, because when you look at the entire picture, you can see the discriminatory practices. So here goes, most, and I mean most Latino immigrants in Califas are living in the Rampart district (MacArthur Park/Union area)-at least when most immigrate to the U.S., we’ve had the Cubans living in this area also – yet, in San Diego, the immigrants are living in prime real estate areas, and I’m talking about the recent immigrants that allegedly practice or arrive from a country that practices Islamic religion.
Now, let’s also look at the fact that Muslims in the U.S. have not committed crimes that far outnumber, say, people that are grouped in with militia type groups, it’s only a handful. And, since the prez took office, membership have grown tremendously among militia/sovereign citizens type groups.
on November 6th, 2010 at 12:17 am
I have been doing some research of a sort on this issue. First, I have learned that Sharia varies from Imam to Imam,- some are very extreme, others very moderate, some Sharia courts are used just for arbitration I’ve been told.that in ANY Sharia court, the word of a woman counts for less than the word of a man. Also, Sharia is very homophobic.
Considering those last two bits, in the end I have to say that I oppose Sharia Law.
On the other hand, a couple people explained to me WHY the law was proposed, something that I somehow didn’t rrealize myself. The idea is that it was done simply to bait Muslims, just like burning the Koran was supposed to get a reaction from Muslims and more generally to promote division and hatred.. Assuming that’s true and I think it is, does that mean that CAIR should drop the law-suit? I don’t know. I mean, the way it singles out one religion doesn’t seem right.
(Also, Mitch is right that they are using it to distract people from the real issues facing OK)
I tried to find the piece by Muneer Awad and couldn’t.
So, I have mixed feelings about the law-suit (the Awad piece might clear that up for me) but do oppose Sharia, even in it’s most moderate form, since that would still treat women as being unequal to men and I’m generally against laws steeped in religion (I could also use a refresher on how American law is steeped in Christianity, but as far as I can tell it’s not comparable to Sharia).
Tom
on November 6th, 2010 at 12:25 am
If you stop and think about it,the Sharia law isn’t that far removed from the Puritan laws, in that they repress any view that is contrary to its own, and allows for the abuse of women and children. This Sharia law and edicts just like it are the very reason for the separation of church and state.
Freedom of worship. Something that would not be allowed under Sharia law.
on November 6th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
SPECTRE,
You are correct in that Sharia law, rooted in Abrahamic religious traditions, does have a lot in common with Puritan laws, especially given its frequent sexism and resistance to change. Interestingly enough though, the complexity of Sharia law means that its implications for non-believers can vary widely, and in fact, have varried quite a bit throughout the entire history of Islam.
Traditionally, Muslims have identified similarities between their own religion and that of Christians and Jews, so in much of the Muslim world, followers of these religions were granted a status called “Dhimmi”. Followers of these religions were free to maintain their own beliefs and, in most cases, needed to request an Islamic trial in order to be brought under Sharia law. Otherwise, they maintained their own courts and traditions, with a few exceptions, and were burdened with the requirement that they pay a special tax. These rights were not afforded to polytheists, and pagans were offered the choice of conversion with the threat of slavery or death, more or less the same ‘choice’ given to pagans (and often to Jews and Muslims) in the Middle Ages. As the Muslim world expanded, the concept of Dhimmi spread to include Hindus and Buddhists.
Obviously, things are different today, in some places much better, in others, much worse, and as mentioned above, interpretations of Sharia law and where it applies differ dramatically. In Iran and Saudi Arabia, Sharia law is omnipresent and applies to everyone, while in India, Israel and the UK Sharia applies only to Muslims and only in specific circumstances. In overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey, religious leaders have no legal authority at all, and secularism is strongly enforced by the constitution.
None of this is to say that Sharia law is not or cannot be backward, homophobic, sexist, religiously intolerant (particularly toward converts away from Islam) and frequently violent in its implimentation, only that the way it has been interpreted toward non-Muslims is complex enough that it is difficult to argue that Sharia law automatically means an end to freedom of worship.
Any religiously based legal system is unlikely to be tolerant of alternative viewpoints, but Sharia law has (on occassion) been surprisingly tolerant compared to other Abrahamic legal systems.
on November 6th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Tom
Here’s the direct link to Awad’s complaint. http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/argument.pdf It’s really tiny on the other page so I’m not surprised you missed it. I certainly wouldn’t want to have to follow some Mullah’s interpretation of Sharia law anymore than I’d want to keep Kosher. I love my BBQ! On the other hand I suspect that, given the long Islamic presence in Europe prior to the Dark Ages, a great deal of US law has been influenced indirectly by Sharia law via Spain and many other countries. It could be a whole new area of law looking for a chain of Sharia influence to throw out OK laws. Just what we need. More lawyers! (Sorry Morris.) I also don’t have any desire to be governed by religious law but, since most law has religious roots, trying to throw out anything that has anything to do with religion would be a huge mess.
on November 6th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Why not call it a preemptive strike against what is sure to rear itself under YOUR type of governance?! You DO want islam to flourish in the states don’t you?!
on November 7th, 2010 at 12:20 am
The US has FAR more to fear from Christian dominionism than Sharia law. Dominionists have had far more political influence on society and within politics as well.
on November 7th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Geo, one day you will have to realize that not everybody is so generally afraid as you. Maybe you should try going outside some day. I promise you won’t be blown up by terrorists.
on November 7th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
The comments appear to be less adament than they were six weeks ago. They seem to be tentative and lack the degree of conviction they had when we responded to those morons from V. A. J.
Incidently, there are three States that have banned
Shari’ ah. Do the research and stop these ego inspired comments. However, you’ll need to take it easy at first, until you get used to it.
on November 7th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
You don’t have to agree with Sharia to understand that this law’s passing sets a horrible precedence and is a clear assault on another faith. Soon we will see American laws making religious head garb or other non-Christian associated activities/paraphernalia illegal. With the growth of the Tea Party and all their cries that the constitution doesn’t prevent them from making this a country run on Christianity I really do expect to see more of these laws popping up.
on November 7th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
The 1st Amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Therefore a grouping of specifically religiously-based laws: specific to one religion may be un-Constitutional if codified. This would be analogous to a law banning working on specific days of the week on the grounds that the Christian based Bible equates that with dis-obeying the Ten Commandments, or eliminating non-Kosher food for sale to the public
The higher court challenges to this would be very simple as those who WOULD volunteer for such punishment would not have legal binding obligation to comply. Therefore the voluntary following of religiously based laws would be similar to voluntarily following a stated religion. It would be legal to do so but not binding. Therefore enactment of binding law, so based, would not be Constitutional for all those who do not follow that particular faith.
Laws demanding that those individuals of Scandinavian descent worship Norse Gods & their methods of worship would be similar in their lack of Constitutionality.
on November 7th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I have just finished reading the document that Awad has submitted to the court. I am now very supportive of the law-suit.
In this whole discussion I’ve learned a few things on this blog and also elsewhere about Sharia. I still oppose it and still wonder what can be done to prevent it from hurting women, LGBTQ folks and others in America. I agree that the Christian Right is MUCH more of a threat to us than Sharia is.
I keep trying to answer that question- what can be done to address Sharia that won’t be seen as anti-muslim (by both Muslims and potential Islamaphobes)? I’ve got one weak idea, but would like to hear from the rest of you.
I’m also not sure if I have an accurate idea of how likely is it that Sharia will be a problem in the US. Would it be safe to say that a Muslim who rapes his wife won’t be acquited if he refers to Sharia? (of course, I’ve gotten the impression that even without Sharia, a man might get away with that). I wouldn’t be surprised if that sort of thing is VERY unlikely to happen.
I need to still discuss this some more with some friends of mine to nail down what if anything should be done about stopping Sharia in America.
Tom
on November 7th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
There IS some precedent for this in the Amish community via the practice of “Shunning” however this action (Religiously based) is entirely voluntary and is in no manner legally binding. Thus a practicing Amish individual would co-operated with community based religious principals. However any other Amish individual may voluntarily speak with, interpose oneself, etc with the shunned individual with no threat of legal repercussions per se’.
I DO see a serious issue with the rights of women in this country & their adherence with Islamic interpretation of theological elements. However that is a wholly differing agenda & deals with the “Westernization” of Islamic tradition in certain quarters. Many Islamic countries are more secular (or perhaps interpretive) of the rights & position of women within society.
In North America, Tribal Tradition is distinctly different than codified law; even within a given Nation & it’s boundaries. Tribal understanding of Tradition & the “Law” bears reflection when discussing aspects of the interposing of The Nation’s Laws & it’s obligations to those who may be members of a Tribe however choose not to practice Traditional elements.
There is Supreme Court rulings on this issue that bear a similarity to the discussion.
on November 7th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Aaron,
What needs to be understood, is that Shari’ ah is not simply a form of Juris-prudence. Shari’ah is a political ideology which is inseperable with it’s theocratic tenets.
Wheather you consider Shari’ah a threat,or not, it is it’s political implications we need to be concerned with,
Shari ‘ah is Islam
on November 8th, 2010 at 7:36 am
It’s encouraging to see that we are at the very least,
seeking answers.The quest for those answers have been made simple for us, if we examine Europe’s current history, Especially the precipitive political policies that have resulted in a populous who were once unconcerned, and now overwhelmed with the negative societal changes caused by Shari ‘ah.
What’s happening in Europe is Political and has very little, to do with, religious freedom Unlike the Amish or for that matter ALL other religious beliefs, Islam is not sustained through love and understanding. It sustains itself through fear and the controlling dictates of Shari ‘ah law.
Make your own assessment.
on November 8th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Domenick, Anotheroneofthemfools
Anti-Muslim rhetoric in Europe has exactly the same roots as the anti-Islam amendment in Oklahoma and Hitler’s final solution. If your country has problems and you don’t have any idea how to solve them create a diversion and blame it all on a group that is already hated and feared. You make your ignorance apparent when you suggest that all religions are based on love and understanding. Most are based on appeasing an angry and vengeful god or gods. My guess is that the laws in Oklahoma today allow parents and probably teachers as well to beat children and in the recent past permitted wife beating and other abuses of women as well. It is not Sharia law that we should fear but ignorance and injustice whatever it’s source.
I have indeed made my own assessment and determined that those who hate and/or fear Islam suffer from a paranoid delusion.
on November 8th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Mitch,
Your comments were fairly predictable, your assertions wrong and your assessment baseless.
The vast majority of Europeans, don’t appear to be delusional. They are just sorry to have subscribed to your brand of hunky dory metality.
I wish that your assertions were correct. However, we don’t live in a college philosophy class. Shari ‘ah is real, promotes violence, oprressive and should be banned.
All you need to do, is ask the millions of muslims who live under it’s doctrines. especially their women.
Unlike you and I, the people who are entrusted with our defense and well being, don’t have the luxury to debate these issues soley on a conceptual level. They use facts.
on November 8th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Contempory Islamic law allows non-religious courts for civil and criminal matters (as distinct from the religious courts dealing with personal conduct of Muslims that most people associate with Sharia).
Just thought I’d point that out…
on November 8th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Domenick the vast majority of Europeans do not suffer from your delusional fear of Islam. This may be why they do not appear to be delusional. I chaIlenge you to provide data (data – not the paranoid rants of Islamophobic bloggers) to the contrary.
I also challenge your assertion that, “the people who are entrusted with our defense and well being,” use facts appropriately. Unfortunately they have been known to use delusional fears of “weapons of mass destruction” to drive our relations with the Islamic world from bad to worse, not to mention ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
on November 8th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Aadila
Thanks for the reality check. Unfortunately I suspect that most of the Islamophobes who post here lost contact with reality some time ago.
on November 8th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Aadila said:
“Contempory Islamic law allows non-religious courts for civil and criminal matters (as distinct from the religious courts dealing with personal conduct of Muslims…. ”
Could you please show an example of this within a state institution & how this would work under Western judicial system: either wherein a Suni has the option of not being judged by a court of Shia or whether that individual would HAVE to comply with specific interpretive Islamic law simply becasue of his or her religious identity?
What of the Islamic peoples of the former Yugoslavia & their rights to worship Islam in a manner distinct from middle eastern interpretive view points? Is their identity as a Muslim any less if they separate the religious from the judicial-civic elements?
The analogous element I am alluding here is the Coptic Christian orthodoxy and it’s relationship to both Greek and Russian Christian Orthodoxy in their interpretation to civic law in their respective states.
Sudan (which still recognizes slavery) & Saudi Arabia (which uses mutilation) are not the best examples.
on November 8th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Mitch,
There are two, that quickly come to mind.
Geert Wilders and Elizabeth Sabaditsch-
Wolf both on trial for describing and or citing Verses from the Koran.
More to come
on November 8th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
UPDATE: A Federal judge earlier today hath issued a temporary injunction against the ballot plebiscite taking effect, pending further review.
on November 8th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
The funniest part of this whole thread is this is a website devoted to monitoring and combating intolerance, bigotry and the growing influence of extremist groups trying to force intolerance down the throats of the American people… and here we are with someone who sounds like they should be carrying a flaming cross on their shoulder trying to preach to us the evils of not being a part of the religious majority.
on November 8th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
But the long and short of if is America is a nation of over 300 million people. Less than ten million of them are Muslim and there’s only a couple, two at most, in a position of political power… and somehow people think they’re taking over our country. They somehow think that our political system is being hijacked and turned into a clone of their former lives.
Wow.
on November 8th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Temporary restraining orders are more often than not, predictably granted, pending subsequent hearings.
Mr. Awad, could have argued that the 70 % who voted for the amendment were all under a spell and still have secured a restraining order.
We’ll just have to wait until the decision is made and the amendment passes. I don’t see why it wouldn’t
on November 9th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Domenick
The amendment won’t pass judicial muster because the constitution of the United States excludes any law “prohibiting the free exercise ” of religion. This amendment to the constitution of OK clearly prohibits the free exercise of Islam. Your posts here make it clear that you applaud such a prohibition and, in so doing, oppose the constitution of the United States.
on November 9th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Domenick,
In response to your comment that you don’t see why it wouldn’t pass, here’s your answer: It can’t pass as long as the Constitution exists.
No law can ever be passed that would show preference towards any one religion or would trivialize the beliefs of a religion and make it seem like that religion is not ok to practice. The ballot measure was two fold. It forbids international law from being considered in the first part and in the second, Sharia. The ballot measure goes on to define Sharia as Islamic law.
Were the amendment to be reworded to something along the lines of “The courts may not consider any laws outside the already established laws recognized by the American legal system” it would be alright. It would be a little redundant and a waste of tax payer money but it would be alright. But it specifically targets Islam, singling it out so to speak, and that makes it unconstitutional and it should never have been allowed on the ballot to begin with.
Its funny how we hear all the time that our government has forgotten about the constitution but at the same time there are cries from the public to ignore the very thing they claim to want restored.
on November 9th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Aaron,
Thank you for the clarification. You don’t need to be a lawyer to derive logic from your and Mitch Beale’s comment. I again wish to thank you both.
However, as I posted earler, Islam Is not simply and soley a religion, it is a form of Government and Governence.
There is no seperation of church and state. Therin lies the issue. That’s why it’s called ISLAMIC LAW.
Fror example,Islamic law and the Islamic religion says it’s a husband’s right to beat his wife. Should that be protected under our constitution ?
Please don’t misunderstand my vantage point. I take our Constitution very seriously because I fought for it, my friends died for it and I took an oath to defend it.
I believe that it is legally, but more importantly morally wrong, to protect a religious theocracy that promotes violence and oppresses the freedom’s you and I hold sacred.
on November 9th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Carter said,
on November 8th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Could you please show an example of this within a state institution & how this would work under Western judicial system:
——–
In a bankruptcy or other such dispute involving a multi corporation domiciled in Islamic countries and/or doing business in those countries for example, the issue might come up in Western courts.
I recall some US firms recently moved to tax havens in the Middle East, and they seem fairly comfortable with it. The religious courts you are probably thinking of apply to Muslims primarily and I don’t see how that would affect anyone in Oklahoma.
on November 9th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Mitch Beales,
What I find is that in different countries the laws vary. Here is something that may interest you, http://hurryupharry.org/2010/1.....ar-police/ this talks about the police in Tehran that allegedly arrested a group of young girls and boys for using vacant homes to videotape rap music. According to the article, it says that an official said that the groups ‘use the most trashy, juvenile and street-like words and phrases that have no place in proper grammar.’ Don’t know if this is true, but, it was indeed an interesting article.
on November 10th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Oklahoma law says it is a parent or teacher’s right to beat a child. In the all too recent past I’m certain that Oklahoma law (in the way it was enforced at least) also allowed husbands to beat wives. There are those who would argue that both are supported by “Judeo-Christian” tradition. Catholic bishops have threatened, if not carried out, excommunication of political leaders who do not vote as instructed by the “theocracy.” Some claim that the US must always back Israel because god gave that land to the Jews. The inappropriate intrusion of religion into government is definitely a threat and we must always be vigilant to prevent it. The fear of Sharia law demonstrated by Oklahoma voters and other Islamophobes is simply way out of proportion to any real threat and is therefore delusional.
The fact that Sharia law is used to justify government abuses in some countries is no more an argument that Sharia law must be exterminated everywhere than the fact that socialism or “the free market” are used to justify abuses mean that either of these constructs are in and of themselves dangerous. There have been enough brutal regimes unrelated to Islam to make it clear that brutal rulers will find an excuse to be brutal regardless of their religious traditions.
on November 10th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Domenick it is very difficult to carry on a conversation with you. Your posts consist of unsupported assertions (Islam is a form of government) and, when asked for documentation you don’t seem to understand what sort of information might support your assertions. In an earlier post you cited two European Islamophobes who are being prosecuted in Europe for their anti-Islamic rhetoric as support for implicating “the vast majority of Europeans” in your Islamophobic world view. While it may be true that “we don’t live in a college philosophy class,” perhaps some time in one would increase your capacity for rational discourse.
on November 10th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Mitch,
It’s seems almost uncanny, how I predicted what you were going to say in your last comment.
The use of the word Islamaphobe, by radical Islamists and decieved apologists,
is to make it appear, that it’s rediculous to think, that we Islamaphobe’s have anything to fear at all. The operative word is APPEAR.
This clever phrase has evolved as a catchall, when one has exhausted their means of intellegent retort.
I don’t think that I can ever convey or prove anything thats acceptable to you in the future and I now, know why.
on November 10th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Domenick,
There are over 300 million Americans and of those over the 300 million less than ten million are Muslims. Until this past election cycle there were 2 Muslims in positions of any power nationwide. The very idea that a minority group that has such a small number in comparison to the greater whole of the nation with no viable form of influence over the law making process could be in the process of overthrowing our current system in favor of their own is completely irrational and bordering on outright delusional.
The threat just isn’t real.
No one, with the exception of a few extremists of whatever faith, will ever argue against the statement that the various punishments outlined in Sharia are barbaric. And no one is claiming that the courts should look the other way when religious beliefs conflict with the law. People suspected of Honor Killing have been and will continue to be brought to trial, convicted and punished in accordance to the laws of America. Just as Christian’s who believe not in medicine but in the Lord have been convicted in the deaths of their children when they die because life saving medical procedures were withheld because of religion.
The argument, as I said previously, is simply that it is unconstitutional and just down right wrong to target one faith on the basis of pure fear.
And as much as you may not like it, this situation is the epitome of the idea of minority based phobia. It’s very reminiscent of the old south and the propaganda spreading the fear of hordes of doped up black savages rampaging through the streets raping and killing every white woman in their path.
on November 10th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Mitch:
I think Dominic did not notate his material deeply enough. However I believe his premises are in some issues quite true. Please see the the following:
Essential Features of the Islamic Political System
by Abul Ala Maududi
“The political system of Islam is based on three principles: Tawhid (unity of Allah), Risalat (Prophethood) and Khilafat (vicegerency). It is difficult to appreciate the different aspects of Islamic polity without fully understanding these three principles. I will therefore begin with a brief exposition of what they are.
Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it, organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use. Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it, organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use. Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it, organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use.
This principle of the unity of Allah totally negates the concept of the legal and political independence of human beings, individually or collectively. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler and His commandments are the Law.
The medium through which we receive the law of Allah is known as Risalat. We have received two things from this source: the Book in which Allah has set out His law, and the authoritative interpretation and exemplification of the Book by the Prophet, blessings and peace be on him through word and deed, in his capacity as the representative of Allah. The Prophet, blessings and peace be on him, has also, in accordance with the intention of the Divine Book, given us a model for the Islamic way of life by himself implementing the law and providing necessary details where required. The combination of these two elements is called the Shari‘ah. ”
http://www.islam101.com/politi.....system.htm
“In Islam the judiciary is not placed under the control of the executive. It derives its authority directly from the Shari‘ah and is answerable to Allah. The judges will obviously be appointed by the Government but, once appointed, will have to administer justice impartially according to the law of Allah. All the organs and functionaries of the Government should come within their jurisdiction: even the highest executive authority of the Government will be liable to be called upon to appear in a court of law as a plaintiff or defendant. Rulers and ruled are subject to the same law and there can be no discrimination on the basis of position, power or privilege. Islam stands for equality and scrupulously adheres to this principle in the social, economic and political realms alike.”
See notation:
The Sabr Foundation. 4/26/09
on November 10th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Well Domenick, if you can’t prove anything it’s not worth making allegations then is it?
on November 11th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Domenick you have supported your assertion that you “predicted” something about as well as you have supported your other assertions. It may be true that, “The use of the word Islamaphobe, by radical Islamists and decieved apologists, is to make it appear, that it’s rediculous to think, that we Islamaphobe’s have anything to fear at all.” Since I am neither of the above I certainly would not suggest that you have nothing to fear at all. What you and all of us have to fear is those who would, on the basis of irrational fears, subvert or ignore the Constitution that has served us so well for more than 200 years.
on November 11th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Carter your post sounds very much like the claims that most religions, or more accurately some proponents thereof, make that the law of god supersedes the laws of men. If individuals act on the notion that, “Islam stands for equality,” regardless of what the laws of a nation or the dictates of a mullah demand I applaud their action. The fears of Islamophobes that Islam and the state are inseparable is disproved by Abul Ala Maududi’s own country of Pakistan which, contrary to the dictates of Sharia, has a constitution which is immune from the Shariat court. Indonesia, the nation with the largest Muslim population in the world also has a constitutional government.
on November 12th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Please understand my position.
I love my country and respect and support it’s Constitution & Bill of Rights.
However I also recognize that the 1st Amendment has two very important issues that it presents. It presents the freedom to worship and the freedom to be free from religious strangleholds.
It was written quite well in that – it is focused on individual liberty (which I deeply love & respect).
In my past query I wondered (rhetorically) how a concept such as Sharia would affect the various peoples who embrace Islam. They are not entirely in agreement on several issues albeit, they are Muslim individuals.
Would this interpretation of the Religious Law allow for the individual Muslim to be free from a particular interpretation yet maintain his or her identity [should that person refuse Sharia]?
The citation quoted was from an Islamic scholar & we know that the Qoran is written in Arabic [& included] with translations within other languages (often beside the original). Example:
In the Bible when it had been translated from original writings offered translations from the original quotation in Leviticus (I believe) changing the term “slave” to the word “servant”. This is a powerful alteration; as a servant or worker may leave his position whereas a slave may not…..
Differing Islamic groups may worship and embrace slight differences in their [religious] lifestyle.
I wonder how that individuality would be protected if Sharia came from a single (or several of like) minded men.
Personally I don’t see this as a solely religious question as much as a issue of protection of Americans of Islamic denomination.
on November 13th, 2010 at 8:27 am
Aaron,
Your rationally tempered comments make alot of sense. They’re not inspired by ego, nor are they ever offensive. I would like to believe and wishfully hope that what you have described will remain “A Threat That Just Isn’t Real”
My belief however, is that your statement will loose it’s conviction and gradually erode as time passes. Let us hope that I am wrong and you Aaron, are right.
on November 13th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Carter,
IMHO, it is truly hard to judge. This is because, in different countries the laws varies. For example, in some countries, there is alcoholic beverages in tourists areas only, I’m no expert, but, again, the language – meaning some words are different in some countries of Arabic speaking peoples. Usually I look at the website hurryupharry.org to see some of the videos they have with their articles. I think you will find it interesting (they also have a section devoted to this actually). Yet, we also need to remember, that things are different here (from Europe).
on February 22nd, 2011 at 1:37 am
Point of note: CAIR is a hate-speech spreading organization. They do indeed have ties to Hamas and even the Saudi government. They support the aims of the Palestinian leaderships to destroy (read: ethnically cleanse) Israel. And they are indeed in favor of Sharia Law which is, as another commenter has already stated, awful for the people living under it, especially women and homosexuals.
Meanwhile I agree with the points the blogger has made about the anti-Muslim rhetoric that the Right-Wingers started spouting.
I did a search on this blog for “islamism” and “islamist” and found nothing. This is disturbing given the goals of this blog and those of the SPLC. Don’t become like the ADL and lose your moral high ground because you acknowledge some offenses and not others.