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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

Wow.

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

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.

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.

Just thought I’d point that out…

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.

I have indeed made my own assessment and determined that those who hate and/or fear Islam suffer from a paranoid delusion.

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.

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