The Roots of "Sharia" Hysteria

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Thank you for wonderful words, honestly this is how I expect an American to speak.

By leap and bounds, it is clear US law modified and advance in lots of ways. It is clear to me also that sharia law was there and applied earlier than most (all?) modern law systems. Both have some weakness and advantage.
I'm not sure about US law regarding accepting nationality while rejecting the law/order, examples would be like the US Nazi Division, White Power, Black Brothers, Communist etc. They're US citizens but disregard US law and oppose it.
In a comparable way, Islam as a way of life, have sharia tightly knitted to it. Hence on accepting faith in Islam ones have to also accept sharia. Accepting Islam but rejecting sharia is like saying I'm USA citizen but USA dont exist. That is how tightly knitted Islam and shariah compared to USA and its law.

Symbolically speaking, Islam come in a complete package, to open the package, you must put a "signature", the "signature" is deem valid or not by your own faith and sharia law, which is inside the package (remember, its a complete package!). You can learn what the package is all about, evaluate, judge whatsoever and its up to you to accept it or not, no force to you to accept it. If you agree and put the "signature", sharia will start apply to everything you do, some may call it "indoctrination" .
You can put "signature" without faith and sharia will not work because there is no faith, but then, you are not really a Muslim at all. That, you answer with god alone.

Guess what ? All these can happen while you are under ANY secular law or government type! The Chinese Muslim do this all the time under Communist which is more oppressive than secular law. And I also believe most Muslim do this (apart from Arab Saudis and Iran that maintain full sharia law). You accept the package as a whole or never at all.

To allow Sharia Law, or any other law, to be upheld in any one of our courts, is a very clear step backwards. Those who are fortunate enough to find their own fortunes here, should embrace everything the land (and laws) has to offer.
I'll tell you what most Americans are afraid of. We are afraid that our equality, kindness, and charity will be seen as weakness and used against us in a way that takes the very core of this great nation for granted.

We will accept you, we will embrace you. Is it too much to ask for the same in return? I mean, it is our house that you have been invited into. If you come here for a better life, I would hope you want the same for your wives and daughters.

To upheld sharia is out of question for a Muslim, its already on them since the "signature" time.
To upheld in your judicial system is never a step backwards, instead its a step forward in secular law, recognizing ones religion, it actually strengthen the secular law!. A dual system is the best solution for all parties, the secular law is pillared by religion sub law. I think even the Jews agree with these. They have their own Halakha to begin with. On conflict, its up to the country lawmaker to adjust where necessary. Partial sharia is usual way for most country (except Arab Saudis and Iran).

There is no attack or abuse of of secular law, why ? Because sharia law already applied to a Muslim before you even realized it , and yet, did you notice any difference all this time ?

Thanks for embracing and welcoming Islam, after decades, we just start to get something work, sure there is quite a conflict but all in time will take their place, not to worry, forced Islamization is never on a Muslim agenda, Islam prefer honesty in faith instead of fake puppet. Some Muslim may come to you offering the Islam package, do learn, inspect, scrutiny it yourself, and if you like/dont like it, just tell and question him honestly and he will be away/answer truthfully. Theres never a force to choose a religion.

Originally posted by OldDragger
Thanks for The Bronze Age viewpoint!
What would "christians" do without somebody persecuting them?
Get a life maybe?

Actually it's the muslim religion and the Islamic countries that are stuck in 'the bronze age'. (your words). Their religion is what Christianity was 1,000 years ago. It's paranoid and bloodthirsty. Christians nowadays have grown up. Those few that haven't, are kept in check by secular governments. That's the OPPOSITE of what happens in Muslim countries. Islam is the rule of the land ... and it's a disgusting rule .... one look at women's lack of rights should scare the puddn' out of ya'.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by OldDragger
Thanks for The Bronze Age viewpoint!
What would "christians" do without somebody persecuting them?
Get a life maybe?

Actually it's the muslim religion and the Islamic countries that are stuck in 'the bronze age'. (your words). Their religion is what Christianity was 1,000 years ago. It's paranoid and bloodthirsty. Christians nowadays have grown up. Those few that haven't, are kept in check by secular governments. That's the OPPOSITE of what happens in Muslim countries. Islam is the rule of the land ... and it's a disgusting rule .... one look at women's lack of rights should scare the puddn' out of ya'.

1,000 years ago?

Just 250 years ago Africans were in slavery to Christians who justified it based on the bible.

Native Americans where wiped out in the name of Christ, by Christians, NOT 1000 years ago maybe closer to 2 or 3 hundred.

They were still burning people at the stake not 1000 years ago but in the 17th and 18th century; then there is the inquisition, burning witches in America in the nineteenth century while murdering millions of Indians and enslaving Africans.

Christian Church endorses Slavery, Racism & subordination of women IN THE 19 TH CENTURY!

Woman in this country couldn’t vote in the twentieth century

I think you ought to study your history before you make blanket false statements

I have starred posts on all sides of the issue. Most of the arguments here are logical and persuasive.

My objection to the idea of dual systems is what happens when the laws conflict?

For example, spousal abuse is a crime in this country, one that usually entitles the person who is abused to get custody of the children and also demand some sort of child support. I think the woman in the N.J. case had rights under American law.

She did not have these rights under Sharia law. She was smart to take her case to an American court. Yes, under Sharia she might have been granted a divorce due to her husband's rape, but from what I understand of Muslim culture it doesn't seem likely she would. She more likely would have been told to "put up and shut up" because that is what happens in Muslim societies.

It's true that the wife could choose to convert to another religion. However, it is very, very difficult to reject a religion and a culture one has been raised in and taught to respect. Especially if it is one that is by far the dominant religion and legal system in the country of her birth. She would have to be unusually educated and bold to take such a step.

Certainly there are also religious groups, including some Christian denominations, in this country that I would not join because of the second-class status given to women. So we have some variance in the treatment of women from group to group even in America. The difference is that we live in a culture where changing one's religion is socially acceptable and also a legal system in which the courts will uphold rights that might be denied a woman in her particular faith. In most of these cases I consider that her religion is a woman's free choice and therefore none of my business.

I concede to anybody the right to choose and practice their religion in a free country. I have no problem with others who choose to abide by Sharia or any other religious law EXCEPT WHEN THEIR PRACTICES BREAK THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND.

This is where, in my mind, the conflict arises. And while I am perfectly willing to "live and let live" as far as faith and culture are concerned, if there is a conflict between American law and any other law then the American law must be upheld.

Western democracies are secular, where state and church are separated.

Therefore, Sharia, where not in contradiction with the constitution, is a
private affair and has no say in jurisdiction.

Where it contradicts, it is just plain illegal.

reply to post by Sestias


Well said.
A reasonable and thoughtful opinion that was respectfully delivered.

Originally posted by Sestias
I have starred posts on all sides of the issue. Most of the arguments here are logical and persuasive.

My objection to the idea of dual systems is what happens when the laws conflict?

For example, spousal abuse is a crime in this country, one that usually entitles the person who is abused to get custody of the children and also demand some sort of child support. I think the woman in the N.J. case had rights under American law.

She did not have these rights under Sharia law. She was smart to take her case to an American court. Yes, under Sharia she might have been granted a divorce due to her husband's rape, but from what I understand of Muslim culture it doesn't seem likely she would. She more likely would have been told to "put up and shut up" because that is what happens in Muslim societies.

It's true that the wife could choose to convert to another religion. However, it is very, very difficult to reject a religion and a culture one has been raised in and taught to respect. Especially if it is one that is by far the dominant religion and legal system in the country of her birth. She would have to be unusually educated and bold to take such a step.

I concede to anybody the right to choose and practice their religion in a free country. I have no problem with others who choose to abide by Sharia or any other religious law EXCEPT WHEN THEIR PRACTICES BREAK THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND.

This is where, in my mind, the conflict arises. And while I am perfectly willing to "live and let live" as far as faith and culture are concerned, if there is a conflict between American law and any other law then the American law must be upheld.

As I mentioned I my post and I have to reiterate here,
As a Muslim, she took the wrong path and I believe shes not well into Muslim way of life, thus why she refer to a secular law first. Normally a Muslim women will refer her case to a qadhi for resolution. She can ask for faskh or taqliq or khul. And if she still not satisfied, then the secular court, in that order. Her marriage was governed by sharia, registered through secular and yet she ask secular law to deal with the matter ? As a Muslim, I see something not right - her lack of education about Islam.

On dual system, she will be referred to sharia even though she ask for secular, after sharia resolution, if shes not satisfied with the resolution then she can foward to the secular law and will take place as final. See how she actually have more option available?

It may sound superfluous and redundant, but actually most of Muslim cases can be solved at this lower level and at the same time strengthen secular law.

WHEN THEIR PRACTICES BREAK THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND.

This is simple, it is illegal then! No doubt If Muslim still want to implement it, certain workaround have to be created by them.

Consider looking across the world where dual system implemented. Lots of country have their workaround on sharia implementation and it works for them fine.

Why American so sensitive about this, I left that for readers to do their own research.
From my part, Americans have lots more important stuff to attend than this and it doesnt even deal with Islam.

Anyway, I think my words and explanation will go with the wind, for, who am I to talk about America in the first place ? .

reply to post by inforeal


I think this post misses the point. Maybe some forms of Christianity did have an influence on politics well into the 19th century (infact I'll one up you). Love v. Virginia, the SCOTUS case that overturned racial segregation marriage laws in the 1960s came off of a lower courts decisions that segregating marriages was fine because, in part, the Bible doesn't mind. That is the 20th Century!

But the story of Christianity's role in slavery and other atrocities is extremely mixed in the Western world starting around 300 years ago. And, I think, if you look at it carefully without any blanket statements on either side of this argument you'd see a pattern/theme that speaks to the current danger of shariah law, etc.

Some churches did call for slavery well into the 19th century, but it was christian abolitionists who were calling for an end to it decades before the Civil War. The same goes for just about every moral conflict that Christians 'supported.' Now, let me be the first to say, that for every extremist muslim out there there are 2 moderate, tolerate muslims - I'm not trying to make the history of Christianity look 'better' than the history of Islam. There's no way to even judge that.

But the story of Christianity in the western world since the time of Martin Luther has been the story of its subjugation to secular governments. It was a long, violent, piecemeal, and above all slooooooow process but it happened.

The printing press, technology, more avenues to attain education led to the rise of protestantism. Check for rationality and advancement, now we at least have COMPETING religions. What followed was bloody civil wars, persecution, religious wars, etc. Check for intolerance and bloodthirstiness. These conflicts partially lead to classical-liberal thinking and efforts to create peace through diplomacy and also government structures in all Western nations, especially the United states that tampered down the violence that comes from faction. Check for rationality and advancement. But we have a long way to go. Slavery, and other moral evils, vestiges of more draconian times lived on. Humanity had made giant leaps forward from the days of all out theocracy in Europe. So what do you expect the arguments for Slavery, etc to be? They're going to be the same justifications given at the time they were began. So those who argued for slavery, etc would be expected to use Christianity as their defense...its just the perpetuation of evil, out-dated desires, coupled with out-dated princples.

But western society was set on a path. We could have and some founding fathers already did want to abolish slavery around the time of the revolution. But we made political compromises because the Union was weak. England abolished slavery long before America because of Christian abolitionists -and through a more democratic process then we used, I might add. Rome couldn't be dismantled in a day, and when its influence was finally dismantled it was christian v. christian, brother vs. brother, and all the violence and death that often goes along with social advancement.

So what do we have today? We have the end result of a bloody and often shameful relationship between Christianity and Secular government. But who won in the West? Secular government did. Intolerance will always rear its ugly head but the new ways have bested the old ways and will probably continue doing so. From the time that christians were allowed to read and interpret the Bible on their own, it has conformed to a more personalized, tolerant religion overall.

The same cannot be said of the story of Islam and government in the middle east. We can sit around all day debating who killed or enslaved the most people historically, who was to blame for wars in the 1100s, etc but none of that really matters. The people who are scared of islamization today carry the voice of people who fought against christian theocracy and anarchy hundreds of years ago. Today, the only large-theocratic governments left on earth are Islamic. That makes the West instinctionally uncomfortable because of our own dark history. So giving our admittedly Dark history, tell me, what is it about the perceived threat Islam poses to the west today that's not understandable?

reply to post by snusfanatic


That was truly deserving of a star and hopefully some applause,

reply to post by 23refugee

Star for your post. If I had the authority to I would give you an applause. Well said.

reply to post by RainCloud

I have starred your post because you make your points clearly for someone like me who does not know that much about the Muslim faith or Sharia law.

You certainly have a right to your understanding and opinions and you can back them up by reference to your religion.

The difficulty with us communicating is the fact that you were probably raised in a Muslim culture and that is the moral and ethical system which you know best and which feels "right" to you.

I, on the other hand, have been raised in a nominally Judeo-Christian, but for all practical purposes a secular culture. Some things that seem right and appropriate to you don't seem so to me.

I do understand the need for we westerners to understand and accept other cultures and not become a mob which persecutes those of another faith. We need to live in peace with our neighbors. That was the main idea when I started this thread.

My considered response, though, boils down to this: You are now in a western country and culture. We welcome you to this country. You can hope and expect to be able to introduce us to your culture and have it understood and accepted more widely.

But you also need to assimilate to some extent to your chosen country. It is important to understand, for example, that we do afford women more rights in certain ways than Muslims do, and that we do not intend to change back to earlier ways. It is important to understand that these rights are part of our law, which we do not wish to exchange for a different legal system.

I think that a dual court system is probably asking too much from Americans, at least at this point in time. You may not agree with this but it is your free choice to remain in a western culture. You are free to either adapt or return to a country where Sharia law reigns.

This is by no means a rejection of you or the Muslim faith. It is merely the conclusion I draw from our discussion.

reply to post by Sestias


"I think that a dual court system is probably asking too much from Americans, at least at this point in time. You may not agree with this but it is your free choice to remain in a western culture. You are free to either adapt or return to a country where Sharia law reigns."

exactly!

the us justice system, as flawed as it is, works for everyone.

but sharia doesn't. what if a domestic rape accured by a no-muslim?
wouldn't they go to a shria court? for sympathy? and a lessor sentence or judgment?


and then who's law will trump and how long and how much money would it take?

dual laws will never be an option.

not even the klingons have dual laws.

Originally posted by inforeal
Just 250 years ago Africans were in slavery to Christians who justified it based on the bible.

250 years ago. Again ... THE PAST.
BTW .. google up Barbary pirates.
And slavery in Islam still goes on today.

Native Americans where wiped out in the name of Christ, by Christians, NOT 1000 years ago maybe closer to 2 or 3 hundred.

Again .... IN THE PAST.

They were still burning people at the stake not 1000 years ago but in the 17th and 18th century; then there is the inquisition, burning witches in America in the nineteenth century while murdering millions of Indians and enslaving Africans.

Burning at the stake .. witch trials ... 1692. (not nineteenth century) Again .. THE PAST
The Inquisition ... 1500's ... Again .. THE PAST
Millions of indians weren't murdered. That number is high. And again .. THE PAST
Enslaving Africans ... again ... THE PAST. (and Islam STILL has slavery)

Christian Church endorses Slavery, Racism & subordination of women IN THE 19 TH CENTURY!

Again .. THE PAST. However, Islam still preaches it TODAY.

Woman in this country couldn’t vote in the twentieth century

Not due to Christianity. But even if you want to say it was ... it is IN THE PAST.
In Islamic couintries women can't vote, can't drive, can't go to the doctor, are worth less then men, are punished when they are raped, ... and it's all based on Islamic law TODAY.

I think you ought to study your history before you make blanket false statements

Right back atchya