The Shariah Conspiracy

reply to post by babloyi


Yes, we've clashed the sword a few times, and I remember you, a worthy person to debate with, I give you that. However, what I say about Islam, the Qur'an, and sharia law is based on knowledge. As a Christian, I read the Qur'an in order to know how to get by when Islam takes over the world, because it will. But I won't follow it. It's important to know what to say when pressured so that they don't kill you, yet you don't have to deny the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ. It's all about knowing abrogation and how to apply the right text at the right time.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by freakjive

 

a radical insane media-mongering personality from the UK who has no history with the US

Fair enough. As I go back through the links I've visited none of the rally videos were taken in America (at least as far as I can tell)...
And I did find this as well:
www.aifdemocracy.org...

On the other hand, we have American Muslims who bypass our standard court system to implement their own private justice by way of Sharia. It's worth taking notice by Americans who want to protect our foundation.

reply to post by babloyi

Of course there are extreme interpretations of the legal aspect of Shariah law. It's the same with all religions. Heck, you could interpret Judaism to be advocating killing your son if he talks back, or tries marrying outside of Judaism, and it'd be a lot more explicit than the Islamic scripture.

.

Firstly, Orthodox Jewish Law has NEVER prescribed the type of penalties you find in Islamic law, ie; the cutting off of hands for theft, which in Judaism is penalized humanely by forcing the thief to pay back twice that which he stole. In Orthodox Islamic juriprudence, you'll have Handless, Feetless, tongueless, noseless people walking around for a variety of crimes.

You can talk all you like about the "potential" possibilities in interpretation, but the fact is Orthodox Jewish law has always been lenient, and merciful towards those who commit crimes.

Additionally, what is humane, or even rational about forcing women to walk about completely covered in the same outfit day in day out? This has been historical orthodox Islamic practice. Woman have to wear either a full covering, like a nun, or in more extreme schools of thought, even cover the face with only a screen or slit to look through.

Is this fundamentally Islam? Thats not the issue, The issue is this is how Islamic law has been traditionally interpreted, and practiced, and hence is Orthodox in every sense of the term.

Furthermore, Islam separates the world into Dar Al Islam - House of Submision, and Dar Al Harb - House of War. Meaning those in the house of war are destined to be conquered through acts of war, and as i am learning through my study of Islamic jurisprudence, war can mean a whole lot of different things. Theres the sufi sense, which is called the "greater Jihad" but than theres the much more common sense in which Jihad is understood by the ignorant muslim masses: War on Infidels ie; disbeliever in Allah and Muhommad His prophet.

You cant say the same thing for the Jews though. They are much more innocuous in their distinctions between Goyim (meaning nations, a innocent term for non Jews) and Yehudim. Furthermore, the Talmud says explicitly in Sanhedrin 105a "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come". Whats the Islamic view about Infidels? Pretty much, all infidels are destined for hell.

The Quran and Islamic law has an incredibly parochial view about G-d. Apparently, unless all people adopt the exact same beliefs, and abide by the same exact system of law, they are evil, and bad. Instead of concerning themselves with issues of MORALITY, as Judaism does (as in the above verse which assures heaven for all righteous non Jews ie; concerned with behavior, and not monolithic political power) Islam is bent on dominating all peoples and instituting Islamic law (sharia) whereever they go. This is pure evil, and regardless of what you say this is the simple truth of the matter.

If Islam were more like Judaism, or for that matter, if Christianity were more like Judaism, and both religions werent bent on some manifest destiny that involves all peoples who dont share their beliefs to eventually submit to them, this world could become a very beautiful place. In other words, if Islam was satisfied with morality, and allowed Jews, who are not idolators, and who follow a strict morality to remain as Jews (but of course this is still an evil thing to many muslims jurists) and Christians to remain Christians, albeit, even though there is some idolatry amongst them, and allow others to atleast preserve their unique ancestoral traditions the world would achieve the vision percieved by Isaiah

"The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them."

This verse describes the messianic future, and the main feature of it is PEACE amidst diversity. with a spirit of child like innocence reigning among them....

This is the teaching of orthodox Judaism and only this very docile and incredibly wise teaching will be fulfilled. The insanity of the Hadith and the insanity of Christian doomsday predictions will both fail.

Lets not fight, debate or instigate colourful religions.Lets learn how to respect each other in civilised manner.Lets focus on our daily lives.It's 2011 baby

reply to post by solid007


Best idea ever, too bad nobody will listen.

The term "religous law," in my opinion is an oxymoron. I am not going to say much, only this:
It is a must for any civilized nation to implement the separation of church and state. I know this isn't exactly in-tune with this thread, but I just wanted to offer that up into the discussion.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


That is patently ridiculous.

What is it do you mean by "civilized" society? Because the "civilized" socieites, those who separated Church from state have historically been the most brutal and shameless about the evils they have inflicted on some population they felt didnt fit their "civilized" standards.

Romans...separation between church and state, and we all know what they did. European Colonialism..... Nazi Germany? Communist Russia... Its pure totalitarianism.. Even America in its beginnings preserved the relationship between belief in G-d and state and look at how wonderful it was in its beginnings. Not until they abolished such principles did depravity and corruption begin to creep in.

But of course, you will show me the Catholic Church and Islam, both of which have been colossal moral failures in the eyes of contempory civilization.

What is the idea behind the separation between church and state? Spiritually speaking, dualism. As long as one separates church from state, he will have dual values, or at the very least will be overcome by the conflicts and thrust of the atheistic, debauched Secular society, and his own personal religious beliefs. If you dont like social manipulation, then understand that this situation is the most corrosive and manipulative of them all. The state controls every manner of this inner conflict and thus maintains its power through this inner struggle, a result of the basic dynamic of church vs. state.

But when one LEGISLATES, what is right and what is wrong, and theres a social understanding that one has an OBLIGATION to act with a certain moral standard, lets say, not to Murder, steal, or harm nature (animals etc), basic things that even a humanist society can understand. But more important elements like belief in a universal power which demands moral behavior from man, and desires that we do acts of kindness, etc.... A society which institutionalizes these principles will be a stable, peaceful and entirely humane society.. Most importantly, there wont be that struggle inherent to the dual church vs state dynamic. One can actually achieve these goals by merging mans highest ideals with ordinary life. In this sense i completely agree with the Muslim model (which was derived from Judaim, mind you) where G-d is present in the affairs of everyday society.

Spiritually speaking, a society which wants to separate religion from state believes in the power and authority of the devil, and the devil will always have his way as long as the temporal powers here on earth insist that G-d be excluded from human society..

And peace will only come when mankind institionalizes the following principles:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry - To acknowledge the unity of G-d. That is, in creation, and in Human society.
2. Prohibition of Murder - respect for life
3. Prohibition of Theft - respect for property. Both these principles are important facets of the bill of rights.
4. Prohibition of Sexual immorality - respect for sexuality. That is, illegalize pornagraphy which enslaves men to their desires and allows social technicians to take advantage of that. All these laws are designed to give man freedom from the baseness of animal desires. Mind > Emotion.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy - To respect the power of speech. To not speak evilly about others, not to gossip, to get rid of this ridiculousy asinine pop culture of paparazzi, tabloids, etc, all of which promotes dishonesty, frivolity and overall stupidity...giving power to the social manipulators to program us.
6. Prohibition of Harmind animals, or damaging nature. - Respect for nature, animals, and the earth.
7. Establishment of law courts - Respect for the rule of law.

Society will not find its peace until mankind submits to these extremely logical and humane principles.

Originally posted by Firefly_

Originally posted by Fromabove
Sharia law dehumanizes women, oppresses people of other faiths, demands death, dismemberment and beatings of those convicted under it. Sharia law is not a valid system of law. It is brutal, and totalitarian in form and practice. No matter how many ways one tries to paint a happy face on Islam or sharia, it still comes out the same. These people intend to rule the entire world one day, or will destroy it in the attempt to rule it. When will people wise up and look it in the face for what it is.

The same could be said about other religions too, look at the past history for christianity and judaism for example. Look at the state of the planet now they are in charge.

Perhaps you should underline PAST we have progressed islam has not.

muslims seem to think we are all stupid-islam means conquest not peace & allah is really illah the moon god.They think that if they change an i to an a we won't catch on,they forget that they live in 600a.d. and we live in 2011a.d.

reply to post by glen200376


umm... Islam means "sumbission", not conquest.

And Allah is derived from the Aramaic Elah, which in turn is derived from the Hebrew Eloah..

And as for the moon and its symbolism is Islam, it is not a worship of the moon. Allah is very much G-d and anyone who has studied Islam even cursorily would know that.

This idiotic idea that Muslims worship the moon is complete nonsense....and i am by no means a big supporter of Islam, but if your going to criticize it get your facts straight. This idea is just such amateurish, conspiracy mumbo jumbo without the slightest awareness that the moon is a symbol for something else, that something else being the"spiritual", and for G-ds inclusion in ordinary life. This is why the cresent moon is basic in Islam, and why the islamic calendar is lunar. Whereas the Sun is more associated with the physical, and masculine, the moon is feminine, hence the femine conjugation of the Arabic "Allah".

reply to post by babloyi


The simple fact is no one other than the super rich and a bunch of cry baby leftist traitors want them in our country. As citizens we have a right to say no! to unwelcome guest's.

reply to post by dontreally


Before the name change with the birth of Islam, the peoples there worshiped many god's and among them was Ellah, illah, allah, but the character was the same, and was represented in the moon, hence the crescent. The use of the star and crescent came far before Islam and is mentioned in the Bible (Judges 8:21). In an attempt to unify people under one god, Muhammad chose the worship of this god, and the rest is history.

reply to post by Fromabove


And where in Judges 8:21 does it mention the moon? I read Hebrew and no where in that verse is the moon mentioned. The word for moon in Hebrew is Levanah (from the root, Lavan, meaning white) and another word for moon is Yareach, and a less used word for moon is sahar. The word saharanim appears in this verse, but it is spelled with a shin, and not a Samech. Furthermore, I dont see how even this verse, even if you want to trace the meaning of this word to the word sahar, has anything to do with moon worship. The "crescents" (if you insist on this translation) are taken OFF the camel, implying a cessation of a certain form of service.

The problem with conspiracy theoriests trying to make connections between words to prove their thesis of Muslims being moon worshippers is their altogether ignorance of metaphysical ideas.. This world is seen as a reflection of a higher reality, and all physical things, particularly major signs like the Sun and Moon correspond to general spiritual ideas, like the masculine and feminine. This world is identified with the feminine, and Islam particularly concerns itself with serving G-d in this world, thus its use of the moon symbol and its correlating its calendar with the moon.

It is true that people in earlier times worshipped the moon, and did so for entirely Pagan and idolatrous purposes, but most of that appears on the surface atleast to be different from Islam.

Why do i say this? How does the Quran present Allah? Hes called the creator of heaven and earth, thus, he is G-d in the same sense that the Bible speaks of Elohim - who created the heaven and the earth.

The obvious problem with Islam is its one dimensionalness... Judaism is the only religion which has a Luni-Solar calendar - and in fact the Hebrew calendar is the oldest calendar in the world, being in its 5771 year. The basic calendar is lunar, but every few years and additional month is added to the calendar - Adar - to keep it in line with the seasons, and thus the Solar calendar. This means that Pesach will always be celebrated in Spring, unliek in Islam where Ramadan or some other holiday is celebrated at a different season every year......Something that doesnt make too much sense....

So on the one hand, you have the christian gegorian calendar - in the west (associated with physicality) that goes by the sun, and in the East (associated with the spiritual) you have the Islamic calendar that only goes by the moon. Whereas in the middle, between these two extremes you have Israel - Judaism, which sagaciously combines these two different calendars into one.

reply to post by freakjive

I realise you are not my foe. Nobody here is my foe. We're all just having a discussion.
Shariah/Sharia is an arabic word, so as long as the pronunciation is correct (which it probably isn't, in the case of many here, but not much I can do about that ), and the letters correspond basically to the arabic word, the spelling shouldn't matter to anyone. I know some people who like to spell it "Koran" instead of "Quran", because they think Koran is offensive to muslims. That sort of mentality is just hilarious.
If you want to get technical, it's spelt (in arabic) Sh-r-y-'-th/h. Since probably nobody wants to get technical to that level, it doesn't really matter .

Originally posted by freakjive
I'm also arguing that there I find no harm in developing laws to prevent Sharia from being practiced here. I don't see the bringing about of said laws to be any type of witch-hunt, badgering or otherwise.

I'm glad you researched it up, and found that there are no mass muslim desire to implement Shari'ah in the US. However, I would argue that there certainly IS harm, even aside from the harms I already mentioned. The reason I say it amounts to nothing more than a witchhunt or badgering is because there is ALREADY wording in place in the constitution that prevents foreign laws from trumping US law.

Let me explain it with an example. Let us say there is a society that was founded with the concepts of "Equality for all people". Then, a couple hundred years later, a wave of some new immigrant culture (lets pretend asians) entered that country. Some of the people who were in that country before grew resentful of these asians. They started pushing for a law to be passed that stated "No company will favour Asians over the people who were in the country before".
Now see, considering there is ALREADY a law in place that ensures equality for all people, the ONLY reason to be pushing for a second law to specifically target the asians is xenophobia and bigotry.


reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
In Orthodox Islamic juriprudence, you'll have Handless, Feetless, tongueless, noseless people walking around for a variety of crimes.

Feetless, tongueless, noseless? For what? There is nothing about this in Islam.
See, again, my point is that a term like "Orthodox Islamic jurisprudence" is a misnomer. There were literally dozens and dozens of variations of Islamic jurisprudence (the term used is "fiqh"). They got condensed down to 4 at some point in the middle ages, but now are expanding again. There is no such thing as "Orthodox Islamic Jurisprudence".

Originally posted by dontreally
You can talk all you like about the "potential" possibilities in interpretation, but the fact is Orthodox Jewish law has always been lenient, and merciful towards those who commit crimes.

Considering that there hasn't been a "Jewish" (which I take in the religious sense, as always) state or country that could apply these laws in historical memory...aside from the Khazars(?), I'd say that's not really a verifiable claim to make.
And considering some of the punishments met out in the Hebrew Bible, I wouldn't exactly call it lenient. Because a man married (or had sexual intercourse(?)) with a woman from another tribe, they were both run through with a spear? Then there is the command to kill your son if he is being disobedient? Then there is the command to stone adulterers (which, hilariously enough, isn't in the Quran, but the practice was inherited and incorporated from the Jews).

Originally posted by dontreally
Additionally, what is humane, or even rational about forcing women to walk about completely covered in the same outfit day in day out? This has been historical orthodox Islamic practice. Woman have to wear either a full covering, like a nun, or in more extreme schools of thought, even cover the face with only a screen or slit to look through.

What same outfit? Once again, it might have been a "historical" practice (in some places), but it certainly wasn't "orthodox". In this case, it was mostly a matter of class, and idea imported from Pre-Islamic Persia-. For example, rich women, or royalty felt that they should not be seen by "common people", so when they were travelling out and about, they donned the "purdah".

Originally posted by dontreally
Furthermore, Islam separates the world into Dar Al Islam - House of Submision, and Dar Al Harb - House of War. Meaning those in the house of war are destined to be conquered through acts of war, and as i am learning through my study of Islamic jurisprudence, war can mean a whole lot of different things. Theres the sufi sense, which is called the "greater Jihad" but than theres the much more common sense in which Jihad is understood by the ignorant muslim masses: War on Infidels ie; disbeliever in Allah and Muhommad His prophet.

Actually, no. This division is not scriptural at all. It's got nothing to do with Islam. And as for a "sufi" sense, again you are mistaken. It isn't only the sufis or a "sufi sense" that talks about greater Jihad. It's a common, well known narration of Muhammad, known by anyone who has any knowledge of Islam.

Originally posted by dontreally
The Quran and Islamic law has an incredibly parochial view about G-d. Apparently, unless all people adopt the exact same beliefs, and abide by the same exact system of law, they are evil, and bad. Instead of concerning themselves with issues of MORALITY, as Judaism does (as in the above verse which assures heaven for all righteous non Jews ie; concerned with behavior, and not monolithic political power) Islam is bent on dominating all peoples and instituting Islamic law (sharia) whereever they go. This is pure evil, and regardless of what you say this is the simple truth of the matter.

Again, no. The Quran also explicitly states that those who didn't have proper knowledge will not be punished. It also says that all who believe in God and do good deeds (and it specifically mentions christians, jews and sabians as an example), will have nothing to fear in the afterlife. As for the verse you quoted, I found (through a quick google search) that Sanhedrin 90a says that the those who don't believe in the resurrection and don't believe that the Torah was divinely inspired, or one who is an Epikoros (variously translated or interpreted as meaning "heretic" or "one who disrespects a Torah scholar").

But I'm sorry, dontreally. I think your involvement in this thread started when I made an offhand general comment about how all religions could be interpreted wrongly. I didn't mean to start a Judaism vs. Islam comparison. Anyhow, whatever your opinions, I'm glad that your love/interest(?) for the history of judaism and religion in general prevents you from accepting comments like the whole Allah=moongod due to their intellectual dishonesty. But again, that is going off-topic.


reply to post by korathin

Originally posted by korathin
The simple fact is no one other than the super rich and a bunch of cry baby leftist traitors want them in our country. As citizens we have a right to say no! to unwelcome guest's.

And if that is the fact of the matter, then I wish more people would be outright and open about it. They don't like it because they're xenophobic and bigoted. It has nothing to do with shariah. It would make things much clearer.
PS: How is a muslim american citizen an "unwelcome guest"?

reply to post by babloyi


i guess it should be adjudicated in the country of origin?

how can you expect 1 countries laws solve problems from totally a different set of judicial rules?

and why should a country try to accept it? go to the world court.

reply to post by Fromabove


Wow....I think you proved my point. no matter how much evidence to the contrary is given you. You will ignore it....that is the definition of ignorance my friend. Also you don't know many Muslims I take it.....I have. They are just like everyone else...good, bad, and indifferent. The majority I have known HATE extremism. You will likely never let yourself get close enough to a Muslim in order to see that, and that is quite sad my friend. I can only pity it.

reply to post by Firefly_


I never doubted that my friend....my message was more to those that refuse to see that...as there are extremists, there are also moderates.

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by babloyi

 

The simple fact is no one other than the super rich and a bunch of cry baby leftist traitors want them in our country. As citizens we have a right to say no! to unwelcome guest's.

not as citizens of the United States of America. for us, there are no unwelcome guests. we accept everyone, all of the huddled masses, and tolerate any and all viewpoints, provided that they don't hurt anybody or infringe upon their rights to pursue happiness the way they see fit. i'd rather our enemies came here so we can talk some sense in to them. being the "good guys" of the world is a tiring, thankless job and if you don't like it, get the heck outta here. I believe that this nation was put here by a higher power to provide a safe haven for those living under tyranny and oppression across the world. if you disagree... well, we had one civil war already...

reply to post by korathin


I'm muslim, and was born and raised here so who the **** are you to act like I don't belong? Read a book

Some good news for once!
Common sense is prevailing among the public, and support for these anti-sharia movements is waning.

Although there are a number of states with bills attempting to ban the use of shariah, they don't really have popular support. Only 14% of Americans think that muslims want to establish Islamic law in the land, while 68% disagree. 88% of Americans, however, believe that the US was founded on the idea of religious freedom for EVERYONE, so yay that.

It really is quite funny. Originally, the bills mentioned Shariah explicitly, but then an appeals court struck down Oklahoma's version of this bill, because that made it discriminatory. So then the language was made vague and generalised. This had an adverse effect, though: the generalising put the Jewish Halacha laws and Catholicism under the hammer as well. The bill could give jews who want to settle divorces, inheritance in the traditional way many problems, and could effectively prohibit the Catholic church from owning parish buildings and schools in the US.

Still, the bill was going ahead, until one group that legislators couldn't ignore spoke up: businesspeople. When worries were voiced that these bills could hinder business dealings with companies based abroad, the bill had to be sent back to committee.

It'll be interesting to see what twisting about the legislators do to try and get it to pass now.

The state of anti-sharia bills