These people interpreted the Quran and Muhammad’s teachings according to their own minds, which resulted in serious schisms among the Muslims. These divisions in turn spawned many Sharia laws. Then the followers of these schools of thought further expanded these writings to boundaries wholly unrecognizable based on the Quran and Muhammad’s teachings. Which Sharia law you followed depended on which Imam or school of thought you followed. Worse, it depended on which derivative subgroup or sect you followed.

So what’s my point? Simply this: there exists no one recognizable Sharia law that even a Muslim country could follow. And I cannot think of one Muslim country that has the Sharia law across the board. Indeed even during the “Golden Age of Islam” I cannot think of a land where the Muslims implemented Sharia law across the board. Combine with all that the stalwart fact that the US Constitution strictly bars implementation of any laws, Sharia or not, that stand at variance with it.

Sharia law in America? Yes, there is a chance. But it is only as much as that of a meteor falling on my head during the next five minutes, or for that matter, on Kobach’s. Anti-Sharia law movement in America, or Europe, therefore should be justifiably regarded as hate-mongering and bigotry against Muslims.

The same attitude was seen back in the 1840s to Irish immigrants, because of their Catholicism.

And we all know about the hatred of Jews and the prattle about Jewish rituals, e.g., “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which is still trotted out by hardened anti-Semites and cynical opportunists.

Lawrence Swaim
Executive Director
Interfaith Freedom Foundation

Honor killings have taken place in all societies, were common in Mediterranean Europe through the third quarter of the Twentieth Centuries, have figured in some classic ril uhMerikun feuds, and happen among us to this day, though we call them domestic violence. I have meanwhile known quite a few Muslims, male and female, with not one honor (or any) killing among them. In their society, as in ours, it was a trait of ril hilbilles. Like you, maybe. Now, take two Excedrin, and if you’re not all better, call your doctor in the morning.

Comments?

Ah, and a homophobe too….

There are corporations that get on their employees about “time theft” (not working while you are being paid and instead goofing around or doing other stuff). How about “legislative session theft?” And any monies recovered could be put in a fund for use by battered women’s shelters or public defenders or food banks or anything else that could actually be helpful to people who really could use the help.

…Words to live by…

But do you really expect Kobach to honor Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which expressly endorsed birthright citizenship and was the most widely referenced (note FOREIGN) source for jurisprudence by the early Supreme Court?

Given that SCOTUS still references Blackstone, I wonder if Kobach will argue that States have the right to defy Supreme Court rulings under the anti-foreign law laws passed by the States.

This guy just gets nuttier and nuttier.

I’m not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that it is not so rare for people to enter into agreements in their business or personal live where the parties agree to be bound by a religious law or authority. This can be sharia law, but I have read that it is more typically a Jewish rabbinical law that is cited.

The point being that this agreement is legally binding in US courts as long as it is otherwise legal. (Lawyers on this site can correct me if this is not true.) In other words, if you agree to be bound by the decision of a rabbi or imam, the US courts will enforce that action unless there is a substantial reason to invalidate it.

What these right wingers want to do it to take away your right to enter into these kinds of agreements.

§ 1-200. The common law.

The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.

(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)

And: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bi.....+cod+1-201

§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament.

The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly.

(Code 1919, § 3, § 1-11; 2005, c. 839.)