Sharia law: A threat to our Constitution, yes or no?

[Kathianne]

Road House.

I don't get the post. Probably too old? Me, not the post.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've never doubted your sincerity, though I sometimes find your choice of words to be over the top. So be it. My position would be to say what I think without hyperbole and let others take that as they do.

An honest man may be over the top . May be colorful in speaking his mind. But will back up his words because they come from his core principles. If he doesnt then he was never an honest man to start with. I do not fault others that post with little or no use of hyperbole because I'd rather judge their words by comparing their content against truth and well known principles of decency.
Apparently Im far more fair in the respect that I give here than are some others. Thats because I dont play games , mean what the hell I say and do not care too much what others think about my posts being PC enough or appeasing enough. No apology do I ever issue for my refusal to bow to the whims and dictates of others. I treat others as I would have them treat me. To anybody that finds that all to be just big talk I say tough shat. It is how I am and nothing short of a face to face confrontation will get the truth out and my point across about who I am so why bother? I damn sure am not going to change my attitude nor my ways unless I find fault with them ,certainly not because others do, logroller included!-Tyr

[Thunderknuckles]

An honest man may be over the top . May be colorful in speaking his mind. But will back up his words because they come from his core principles. If he doesnt then he was never an honest man to start with. I do not fault others that post with little or no use of hyperbole because I'd rather judge their words by comparing their content against truth and well known principles of decency.

I dare say that may be quote worthy

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I dare say that may be quote worthy

Perhaps but only because it appears to be a contradiction in itself but does so because the purpose is to cultivate a stirring of thought from the usual complacency while maintaining a resolved principle of truth.-Tyr

[jimnyc]

More rabblerousing, color me NOT surprised. You talk a big game; doubtful you back it up. I'm not saying you're a pussy or coward or anything; just that every person Ive ever known to be a man of action had very little to say beforehand. George Washington, for example, didn't sign the declaration of independence.

Here's the thing, Log... Many in the Islamic faith, here in the USA, would rather answer to Islam and their way of life than they would our way of life and laws. I can't understand why, but some would. I do admit that this is a very small amount that have been vocal, it's not like we have a mass Muslim revolution going on for the implementation. But, IMO, even one looking to have ANY portion implemented is too many. As to a prior post of mine, and a judge taking any Islamic law into account when pondering a decision in a case, would be beyond wrong. But it is argued as a defenses already, although unsuccessfully. That's why some conservatives even sought out assurances that Shariah would never be implemented. I don't think their line of thinking is "Islamaphobia" as some would like to say. I just think Shariah Law is royally fucked up and some people would like to ensure it never even has a remote chance of being used here.

[jimnyc]

These are examples of things that have brought blasphemy charges. This first set is examples of "Blasphemy against holy personages" which brought forth charges:

speaking ill of Allah.
finding fault with Muhammad.
slighting a prophet who is mentioned in the Qur'an, or slighting a member of Muhammad's family.
claiming to be a prophet or a messenger.
speculating about how Muhammad would behave if he were alive
drawing a picture to represent Muhammad or any other prophet, or making a film which features a prophet.
writing Muhammad's name on the walls of a toilet.
naming a teddy bear Muhammad.
invoking God while committing a forbidden act.
speaking against Islamic leaders.

This 2nd set is "Blasphemy against beliefs and customs" that have resulted in charges:


finding fault with Islam.
saying Islam is an Arab religion; prayers five times a day are unnecessary; and the Qur'an is full of lies.
believing in transmigration of the soul or reincarnation or disbelieving in the afterlife.
finding fault with a belief or a practice which the Muslim community (Ummah) has adopted.
finding fault with or cursing apostles (Rasul or Messenger), prophets, or angels.
expressing an atheist or a secular point of view or publishing or distributing such a point of view.
using words that Muslims use because the individuals were not Muslims.
praying that Muslims become something else.
whistling during prayers.
flouting the rules prescribed for Ramadan.
reciting Muslim prayers in a language other than Arabic.
consuming alcohol.
gambling.
being alone with persons of the opposite sex who are not blood relatives.
finding amusement in Islamic customs.
publishing an unofficial translation of the Qur'an
practicing yoga.
watching a film or listening to music.
wearing make-up on television.
insulting religious scholarship.
wearing the clothing of Jews or of Zoroastrians.
claiming that forbidden acts are not forbidden.
uttering "words of infidelity" (sayings that are forbidden).
participating in non-Islamic religious festivals.
converting from Islam to Christianity or publishing or distributing such a point of view.
talking about or trying to convert others from Islam to Christianity or publishing or distributing such a point of view.

And lastly, a 3rd set, "Blasphemy against artifacts" which have brought charges of blasphemy:

touching a Qur'an or touching something that has touched a Qur'an because the individuals were not Muslim.
damaging a Qur'an or other books of importance to Islam, for example, hadith.
spitting at the wall of a mosque.

These examples from Wiki, along with proof via citations... These are not things coming from the Quran or from the Hadith, but rather Shariah. What is a crime will vary depending on which Islamic country you are in and then further down to what areas of the country you are in, and whether or not they are even ruling based on Shariah law. But if they are, "The penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading."

Look over that list from above and realize what people can possibly be hung or beheaded for. Amputation? For what, disagreeing or having a different belief? Or being disrespectful? Maybe a monetary fine would be more suitable than a limb?

Now go over the list again, this time changing the Quran examples to the Bible. Change the religion when necessary to Christianity. Change the artifacts to Christian artifacts. All of the holy people, make them Jesus & other prominent names from Christianity. Change the beliefs and customs to those that Christians/Catholics would observe.

Now, imagine the United Kingdom and the United States implementing those laws and punishments to everyone who is accused of blasphemy against Christianity. Imagine either country beheading someone for leaving the Catholic Church and converting to Islam. Or being publicly hung for burning a set of Bibles. Or public flogging or caning because you believed in homosexuality. Convicted and sent to prison because you named a Teddy Bear "Jesus". Major fines because you spoke ill of Jesus.

Just imagine ANY government or state issued penalties because you don't adhere properly to the religion of their choice. And imagine if any of these penalties included force or injury to the body, or worse. Even just thinking of something like this being applied to our countries is unfathomable. We have little choice but to sit back while others receive such punishments elsewhere. But we CAN speak out and do whatever humanly possible to NEVER see this type of archaic crap reach our shores.

[Dilloduck]

As far as I know we still have due process in the United States. Are you proposing that a law be passed that forbids the implementation of Sharia Law ? A constitutional amendment ?

[jimnyc]

As far as I know we still have due process in the United States. Are you proposing that a law be passed that forbids the implementation of Sharia Law ? A constitutional amendment ?

If a local community full of Muslims would rather hold their own court, and implement their own punishments, then yes, I would be in favor of something preventing it from taking root. I'm no politician so I don't know the best way to ensure this doesn't happen. All Americans should be treated under the laws of the United States and the individual states within. In no way should Shariah law be implemented or recognized in our judicial system. People should not receive relief based on Shariah law nor should they be punished based on Shariah.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If a local community full of Muslims would rather hold their own court, and implement their own punishments, then yes, I would be in favor of something preventing it from taking root. I'm no politician so I don't know the best way to ensure this doesn't happen. All Americans should be treated under the laws of the United States and the individual states within. In no way should Shariah law be implemented or recognized in our judicial system. People should not receive relief based on Shariah law nor should they be punished based on Shariah.

Here is a good example of how it starts and gains a foothold.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2819217/posts

Sharia Law Already Devouring UK
| 12 December 2011 | Paul Diamond

Posted on Monday, December 12, 2011 7:16:37 AM by IbJensen

In 2008, while arguing for the need to formally introduce Sharia law into the law of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed Sharia law was “inevitable” in the UK . He denied it was an “alien” system and called for “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law. He did this in a calculated and provocative manner, while denying a place for its more “extreme punishments.” It is unlikely that many members of the Muslim community would be satisfied with an Anglican primate determining the limitations of the Quran and Sharia law.

This argument was rapidly followed by the Lord Chief Justice: Lord Phillips helpfully said there was a place for Sharia law, particularly in mediation. He lamented the “widespread misunderstanding” of Sharia law. The newly established Muslim Arbitration Tribunals immediately put a picture of the Lord Chief Justice on their website in appreciation of his endorsement.

In the United Kingdom, the many thousands of Sharia courts can quietly go about their business of implementing “justice” in a form totally “alien” to the Judeo-Christian tradition, denying human rights to many of our citizens — particularly women. The “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law reached a logical conclusion with the declaration this year of Sharia law controlled zones in a number of areas geographically spread over the country, where the Islamist militants enforce their will. Their posters declare: “No music or concerts, no porn or prostitution, no drugs or smoking, no gambling, no alcohol.” A reign of terror has begun, with threats of implicit violence against anyone who “insults” Islam, changes religion, or fails to dress appropriately. I have already been contacted about assisting two individuals subject to Islamist threats.......

Any doubting that Sharia can and does advance into Western culture should simply look to what is happening in Britain now! The squeaky wheel gets the grease and Islam squeaks longer and louder than any , threatening to blow out(blow up) if not appeased. One little appeasement at a time friends, that's how it is done. They have Sharia courts in Britain NOW..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

And let me add, so as not to be accused of having a "phobia" against Islam.

I don't think ANY other countries laws should be taken into account or implemented here. I don't think ANY faith should be used to make law or implement punishment.

[Drummond]

To say the least, I'm no form of 'expert' on your Consitution, and I've no idea whether it bulletproofs you against Sharia incursions. One thing I am sure of, though, is that it doesn't pay to be complacent.

In the UK, we have a guiding legal principle which has it that no practising of Sharia Law can be legally recognised, IF in doing so, existing English law is defied in its favour.

Sounds good, eh ?

BUT .. our laws are, to some extent, 'fluid' .. this says nothing about overturning laws, framing wordings of new ones, ones which may allow more leeway. And, we're slowly but surely seeing more Muslims gain positions of authority in Britain. More Muslims in Society .. the greater the likelihood of Muslim MP's .. and the greater the likelihood, particularly courtesy of Leftie collusion, that on 'PC' grounds, laws will be amended or introduced to facilitate Muslim sensibilities, allowing for freer interpretations in our British courts.

Lefties aside, though, the first Muslim to be a Cabinet Minister, rose through the CONSERVATIVE ranks ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12237958

Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to be a Cabinet minister, has apologised to Prime Minister David Cameron over a ministerial trip to Pakistan with her business partner.

As chairman of the Conservative Party, Baroness Warsi has faced criticism over the official trip with Abid Hussein after it was alleged that she had failed to declare a stake in a company.

Labour has called for an inquiry.

The Conservative peer, who before being made chairman was shadow minister for community cohesion, has a reputation for speaking her mind.

She came to public prominence in 2009 after a well-reviewed performance on BBC One's Question Time when BNP leader Nick Griffin was on the panel.

There had been nervousness in Tory circles beforehand, as she was seen as somewhat gaffe-prone.

But David Cameron had long valued her plain-speaking approach - and the fact that she represented the sort of multicultural, classless party he wanted to build.

A comprehensive-school-educated Asian woman, who speaks with a Yorkshire accent, she has risen rapidly to the top of a party opponents often depict as being dominated by white, privately educated men. She arrived at her first cabinet meeting in May dressed in a traditional South Asian shalwar kameez.

Cameron wants his Party to be politically correct. Labour, the other mainstream political Party here, has been championing their brand of political correctness for decades. So there's precious little to get in the way of Muslim inroads .. and, why ?

Because societal pressures have been such that people dare not counter the trend.

So you see, complacency is not the approach to adopt, because the Left feeds on it, shaping minds and attitudes on the back of it. Without strong opposition to cultural incursions being evident, the Left WILL seize the opportunity to fill that void with their own pap.

The only question is whether you have such Constitutionally-protected due processes in place to ensure that you avoid losing your identity as a nation.

[Kathianne]

To say the least, I'm no form of 'expert' on your Consitution, and I've no idea whether it bulletproofs you against Sharia incursions. One thing I am sure of, though, is that it doesn't pay to be complacent.

In the UK, we have a guiding legal principle which has it that no practising of Sharia Law can be legally recognised, IF in doing so, existing English law is defied in its favour.

Sounds good, eh ?

BUT .. our laws are, to some extent, 'fluid' .. this says nothing about overturning laws, framing wordings of new ones, ones which may allow more leeway. And, we're slowly but surely seeing more Muslims gain positions of authority in Britain. More Muslims in Society .. the greater the likelihood of Muslim MP's .. and the greater the likelihood, particularly courtesy of Leftie collusion, that on 'PC' grounds, laws will be amended or introduced to facilitate Muslim sensibilities, allowing for freer interpretations in our British courts.

Lefties aside, though, the first Muslim to be a Cabinet Minister, rose through the CONSERVATIVE ranks ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12237958



Cameron wants his Party to be politically correct. Labour, the other mainstream political Party here, has been championing their brand of political correctness for decades. So there's precious little to get in the way of Muslim inroads .. and, why ?

Because societal pressures have been such that people dare not counter the trend.

So you see, complacency is not the approach to adopt, because the Left feeds on it, shaping minds and attitudes on the back of it. Without strong opposition to cultural incursions being evident, the Left WILL seize the opportunity to fill that void with their own pap.

The only question is whether you have such Constitutionally-protected due processes in place to ensure that you avoid losing your identity as a nation.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, appeasement?

[logroller]

Why didn't he sign the Declaration, in your opinion? History gives an explanation, you seem to be insinuating something else.

My understanding is that Washington was preparing an army to defend/enforce the document. What, in your opinion, did i insinuate? thought I was white clear in what I meant, that men who actually use force rarely run their mouth beforehand. There are exceptions, eg George Patton, though in my opinion his tough talk was his greatest fault (he likely would have enjoyed more battlefield opportunities had he not been such a thorn in the side of his commanders.)

[Drummond]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, appeasement?

It amounts to that, in my opinion.

But it's not quite that simple. Sensibilities, attitudes, can be worn down over time. There are plenty here who take pride in their 'PC' attitudes, thinking they are being enlightened through their own choice .. not realising the extent of social pressures, over DECADES, that have shaped today's realities.

This is why complacency is such a great enemy. It allows the Left to subvert free will.

[Kathianne]

It amounts to that, in my opinion.

But it's not quite that simple. Sensibilities, attitudes, can be worn down over time. There are plenty here who take pride in their 'PC' attitudes, thinking they are being enlightened through their own choice .. not realising the extent of social pressures, over DECADES, that have shaped today's realities.

This is why complacency is such a great enemy. It allows the Left to subvert free will.

I'm a simple person, regardless of how they got there, it's appeasement. If allowed, Obama would do the same.