The threat of 'sharia' to America
 

The threat of 'sharia' to America
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow
28 Jan 2009

An Egyptian-born woman whose father died as a martyr for jihad says the West continues to remain ignorant of the threat that Islamic "sharia" law poses to Americans' religious and political freedoms.

Author Nonie Darwish claims she was a virtual slave to Islamic law for the first 30 years of her life. In her latest book Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, she continues her personal mission to warn the West, by exposing efforts to force and enforce sharia law on unsuspecting nations around the globe.

There is a reason, says Darwish, why the title of her book is Cruel and Usual Punishment. "Unfortunately Islamic law is usual [practice] in the Middle East, in the Muslim world," she explains. "I'm familiar with how it can brainwash people. It can be devastating for the healthy growth of society."

Darwish says now that she is in the West, she has noticed many Muslims who are demanding that Islamic sharia law be given to them as a religious right. But according to Darwish, shaira has nothing to do with religion.

"This is a very elaborate legal system that can [order you be put] to death if you leave Islam," the author points out.

Darwish says no one can afford to be ignorant about the threat of sharia law.

You can find her book available here:
http://www.amazon.com/Cruel-Usual-Pu...3261810&sr=1-7

Warrior-Mentor,
Thank you for posting this. It's going to creep in like "gun control", a tenth of an inch at a time.
Britain is facing this issue now http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

X2 - That was just what I was thinking. I am always dismayed that so many people are blind to things like this and even find myself wondering why I don't see it like they do.

Warrior-Mentor, thanks for posting about this book. I will be sure to read and add it to my "library".
In the UK, there are already Sharia courts that are not only handling the civil cases but also some criminal cases. Sharia law contains numerous provisions that deny tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Conversion from Islam is punishable by death; non-Muslims are second-class citizens; a woman's testimony is not admissible in her own rape case, etc. Sharia Law vs. Constitutional Law (ie Magna Carta)?? :confused:. Why anyone would consider incorporating or even replacing the later with the former...baffles me!!
I saw the interviews with Nonie Darwish in the video, "Obsession", informative but disturbing.
IMMHO, with the flow of muslims into this country, unfortunately, it will come to pass in the good ol' USA. It has already started with finances/insurance...look at AIG. That was all over the news late last year:
http://smithfiles.com/2008/12/07/aig...ia-in-america/. (this is just one of many articles)

They will never quit and they are not tolerant of anyone else. Why do we have to change to conform to immigrant....?????

Because that's what the PC lefist liberal appologists want us to do??? :(

That is why we need to build a nature preserve with a High Fence and guards and sendthem all into their natural habitat and let them live their little PC Lives with they other idiots and we will keep them safe from any external threat and see how they like their new friends with Sharia as the foundation..... Maybe NJ and DE as the test bed.........

NJ? Well, it is the Garden State! Why not throw in NY as well? :lifter

I have a few friends there.... NY NY yes but the state no...... Unless we give them notice. Only problem is moving the stock exchange but a couple of good Tech Guys and the system is out of there. We do not need the people as they are a major reason for some of our problems........

I concur wholeheartedly! I am ready to help "build the wall" :lifter
I have friends in NY as well but I am sure they would move! :D

I had read this some time ago, the transcript of Nonie Darwish's speech at UC Berkley and how horribly she was mistreated. It was a good speech, if anyone is interested. She has been in my interest for some time as I know another outspoken Egyptian woman who turned me onto Nonie.

http://frontpagemag.com/blog/Read.as...9-9d9e2ce66f72
There is a link in the first sentence "words of Nonie Darwish" which will take you to the page of her speech. She speaks about Sharia and the damage it has caused and the affects it will have here.

I think she is the 1 hr film Obsession (radical islam's war against the west)

http://obsessionthemovie.com/

What amazes me is that devout Muslims demand that Shar'ia law be implemented, yet the implementation of such law goes against the core beliefs of the Muslim world. Without a caliphate in place to rule over such a system of law, it is invalid and unholy. This to me is one of the MOST glaring inconsistencies in the drive for fundamentalist laws.

Not to say the caliphates weren't as corrupt as the current individual kingdoms on the peninsula, but at least they represented a single entity of law that afforded some objectivity. Shar'ia, as it is promoted now is as arbitrary as the breeze.

Noni Darwish is a very impressive lady. I have been reading her work for some time now.

Doug

What is great is if you start tieing these two threads together.....

http://professionalsoldiers.com/foru...ght=defamation

So is arguing against implementation of Sharia-law a defamation of Islam? Well that would make you subject to prosecution...by.....:confused:

I think the set-designer for "Escape from New York" might provide some insight BHT ;) It might be beneficial to move select embassies out of NW DC to the new "zone". Or set up an exchange trip for the PC crowd into the Swat Valley for a year or two and see what their opinion is following that trip.

Tony Blair: Iran extremism like rise of 1930s fascism
 

Actually it's closer to this:

Islamist extremism is similar to “rising fascism in the 1920s and 1930s”, Tony Blair said last night in his first major speech since leaving office.

At a prestigious charity dinner in New York, the former Prime Minister said that public figures who blamed the rise of fundamentalism on the policies of the West were "mistaken".

He told the audience, which included New York governor Eliot Spitzer and mayor Michael Bloomberg, that Iran was the biggest exporter of the ideology, and that the Islamic republic was prepared to "back and finance terror" to support it.

“Out there in the Middle East, we’ve seen... the ideology driving this extremism and terror is not exhausted. On the contrary it believes it can and will exhaust us first," he said.

“Analogies with the past are never properly accurate, and analogies especially with the rising fascism can be easily misleading but, in pure chronology, I sometimes wonder if we’re not in the 1920s or 1930s again.

“This ideology now has a state, Iran, that is prepared to back and finance terror in the pursuit of destabilising countries whose people wish to live in peace.”

He added: “There is a tendency even now, even in some of our own circles, to believe that they are as they are because we have provoked them and if we left them alone they would leave us alone.

“I fear this is mistaken. They have no intention of leaving us alone.

“They have made their choice and leave us with only one to make - to be forced into retreat or to exhibit even greater determination and belief in standing up for our values than they do in standing up for their’s.”

Mr Blair, who represents the Quartet of the US, Europe, Russia and the United Nations on the Middle East, was speaking at the 62nd annual Alfred E Smith Memorial Foundation dinner at the Waldorf Astoria hotel.

Mr Blair went on: “I said straight after the attack of September 2001 that this was not an attack on America but on all of us. That Britain’s duty was to be shoulder to shoulder with you in confronting it. I meant it then and I mean it now.”

He added: “America and Europe should not be divided, we should stand up together.

“The values we share are as vital and true and, above all, needed today as they have been at any time in the last 100 years.”

Mr Blair received three standing ovations during the evening.

Earlier, the former Prime Minister said: “Out of this region the Middle East has been exported a deadly ideology based on a perversion of the proper faith of Islam but nonetheless articulated with demonic skill playing on the fears and grievances of Muslims everywhere.

“It did not originate from the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, of course, far from it. But this dispute is used to great effect as a means of dividing people, sowing seeds of hatred and sectarianism.

“The impact of this global ideology is now no longer felt simply in the terrorism that afflicts Lebanon or Iran or Palestine. It is there also now in Pakistan, Afghanistan, in India, of course in Europe, in Madrid and London, and in the series of failed attempts to create terror across our continent.

“And here in New York you felt it in the thousands who died and who still mourn their lost ones.”

On several occasions the dinner chairman said he would have liked to see Mr Blair run for US president in 2008.

continued:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2693173.ece

Team Sergeant,
Thank you.

Well said Mr. Blair.

One could almost read those comments as a bit of sage advice to some current leader here in the United States.

SF_BHT,

That is an excellent point,Why?..............:mad:

GB TFS :munchin

I have to disagree with you Doug. Sharia governs everything in their lives and religion, since they do not have follow a rule of separation of church and state. However, the different sects of Islam have different views on whether there should be a caliphate that governs. And IMHO the whole religion is a glaring inconsistency. Since its conception by the warring, raping, pedophile, lying con-artist Mohammad, it has a foundation of violence and deception {taqiyya; according to the Quran, allows the Muslim to conform outwardly to the requirements of unislamic or non-Islamic government, while inwardly "remaining faithful" to whatever he conceives to be proper Islam, while waiting for the tide to turn}

The precepts of Sharia (a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society), which translates approximately as "way" or "path." The precepts of Sharia are derived from the commandments of the Quran and the Sunnah may be divided into two parts:

1. Acts of worship (al-ibadat), which includes:
Ritual Purification (Wudu)
Prayers (Salah)
Fasts (Sawm and Ramadan)
Charity (Zakat)
Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj)

2. Human interaction (al-muamalat), which includes:

Financial transactions
Endowments
Laws of inheritance
Marriage, divorce, and child care
Food and drink (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
Penal punishments
War and peace
Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)


IMHO I think he is being rather PC here, himself. From my readings and what I have learned over the years, what they are doing is the proper faith of Islam. Everything in their religion dictates that they will make Islam the universal religion and they will create Islamic political states.
In one aspect, I have to agree with some when they say we brought this on ourselves. We did, we turned a blind eye, we apologized for them, we lived in denial, we had a lasseiz-faire attitude toward their emigration around the world. Nobody bothered to look back at history and take notice. I have heard some call it another chapter of the Crusades, is it possible that that is what we are in again? If I remember correctly, the last major push of the crusades was in 1683, and the Turks were driven down through the Balkans but never fully expelled from Europe. After that, there were coninuous abductions and murders of Christians. It never fully stopped; however, it hasn't been as heavy an assault on the West until recently. Through emigration and infilitration into Western societies through politics and economics, they have established themselves again for another major wave of Jihad (or what we have called the Crusades).

With our permanent Government's (NSA, CIA, ect.) ideology and the mood of U.S. civilians; I don't think there is any reason to worry about "sharia" law being adopted as a religious freedom. Is there any indication of this other than some Muslims' complaining?

Saoirse-

I don't see how AIG's promotion of a fund that doesn't pay interest nor benefit from gambling, entertainment, alcohol or pork and Muslin immigration will lead to the US adopting "sharia" law.

If it makes you feel better about those damn NY'ers: Unlike your friends here I wouldn't move if you started building a wall around me; I would shoot you.;)

Added: I did not know Saoirse was female when I wrote this. It was before her avatar and there was nothing to indicate gender in her profile at the time - but that is no excuse for lack of thorough research on my part.

I am sure there were many people in Europe that thought the same way you do "I don't think there is any reason to worry about "sharia" law being adopted as a religious freedom". that are regretting it NOW. AIG is not the only corporation, there are indicators that other corporations are starting to play ball. Little by little. And lets face it, corporations (through their lobbyists) help, it not outright, heavily influence how this country operates. That is how it starts .... it creeps! I would not worry about Sharia being adopted if more people spoke out against it. But the IslamoFacists are making it clear that speaking out against Sharia and Islam should be a crime (and if they get their way through those "some Muslims complaining", it will be), thus making people hold their tongues in fear.
If you had read any of my other posts that included missives of my life in NYC (which to me equates as a prison sentence that I have since been paroled from), I find nothing redeeming about the city as a whole. MY FRIENDS there, feel the same way as MY FRIENDS here. Unfortunately, they are not members of the ruling leftist liberal party.
And I will take your last comment with the ;), as a cute bit of sarcasm.

Nothing cute or sarcastic about my last comment. But obviously you won't take my house, you will just joke about it online, so it's a non-issue.

I don't see your line of reasoning. If you think that financial companies would lobby to have the rule of law changed to "shiria"- read more.

Who says I am joking? ;)

Regarding the corporations, a good example would be that IF Sharia is adopted, a corporation cannot be sued for the actions/inaction of it's employees if performed in the course of their work. This is a case that is still pending but it shows where a corporation would benefit from the use of sharia law:
http://www.newsobserver.com/front/story/1112843.html
U.S. company: crash lawsuit governed by Islamic law
Company is sister to N.C.-based Blackwater

IF this case is allowed to be adjudicated under sharia law, then I can foresee many more CEOs converting. Most of what I have read over time indicates that any compliance with sharia on a corporate level is keeping with the multi-culturalism and the fear of being labeled islamphobic that is pervasive in the PC living West.

6.8SPC DUMP - Saoirse
 

Keep the conversation civil, don't get heated.

Saoirse - Blackwater is a poor choice to use to support your position.

You mean to tell me that the islamo-fascists are going to change our legal system?

They've already started.

Edited to add:

Here's what they've done in the United Nations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrvi_uGSnuU

Given the chance, they'll do the same here.

In case anyone is interested...
 

In my readings today, I came across this article with a link to a PDF file of a comprehensive explanation of sharia finance.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024725.php#respond

The article, "Shari’ah's 'Black Box”: Civil Liability And Criminal Exposure Surrounding Shari’ah-Compliant Finance," can be found in pdf form at that link. If you are at all interested in becoming informed on this all-important subject, this article is the single best resource.

In the article is the link to the PDF, it's very lengthy but informative.

No to Islamic Law
 

No to Islamic Law
By: Daniel Pipes
Tuesday, August 04, 2009


Why the West must not accommodate Shari’a.

Those of us who argue against Shari'a are sometimes asked why Islamic law poses a problem when modern Western societies long ago accommodated Halakha, or Jewish law.

The answer is easy: a fundamental difference separates the two.

Islam is a missionizing religion, Judaism is not. Islamists aspire to apply Islamic law to everyone, while observant Jews seek only themselves to live by Jewish law.

Two very recent examples from the United Kingdom demonstrate the innate imperialism of Islamic law.

The first concerns Queens Care Centre, an old-age home and day-care provider for the elderly in the coal town of Maltby, forty miles east of Manchester. At present, according to the Daily Telegraph, not one of its 37 staff or 40 residents is Muslim. Although the home's management asserts a respect for its residents' "religious and cultural beliefs," QCC's owner since 1994, Zulfikar Ali Khan, on his own decided this year to switch the home's meat purchases to a halal butcher.

His stealthy decision meant pensioners at QCC could no longer eat their bacon and eggs, bangers and mash, ham sandwiches, bacon sandwiches, pork pies, bacon butties, or sausage rolls. The switch prompted widespread anger. The relative of one resident called it "a disgrace. The old people who are in the home and in their final years deserve better. … it's shocking that they should be deprived of the food they like on the whim of this man." A staff member opined that it's "quite wrong that someone should impose their religious and cultural beliefs on others like this."

Queried about his decision, Khan, lamely replied he ordered halal meat for the sake of (nonexistent) Muslim staff. Then he backtracked: "We will be ordering all types of meat" and went so far as to agree that religious beliefs should not be imposed on others. His retreat did not convince one former QCC staffer, who suspected that Khan "intended to serve only halal meat at the home but has had to think again because of the row."

A second example of imposing Shari'a on non-Muslims comes from southeast England. The Avon and Somerset police force patrols the cities of Bristol and Bath as well as surrounding areas has just issued hijabs to female officers. The hijabs, distributed at the initiative of two Muslim groups and costing £13 apiece, come complete with the constabulary's emblem.

Now, issuing hijabs as part of uniforms in Great Britain is nothing new – the London police led the way in 2001, followed by other police forces, at least one fire brigade, and even the furniture chain Ikea. What sets the Avon and Somerset hijabs apart from these others is their being intended not just for pious Muslim female staff but also for non-Muslim staff, in particular for their use upon entering mosques.

Rashad Azami of the Bath Islamic Society finds it "highly pleasing" that the constabulary took this step. One of the seven non-Muslim officers to receive a hijab of her very own, Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts, calls it "a very positive addition to the uniform and one which I'm sure will be a welcome item for many of our officers."

Dhimmitude is the term Bat Ye'or coined to describe subservience to Shari'a by non-Muslims. Assistant Chief Constable Roberts' enthusiasm for the hijab might be called "advanced dhimmitude."

"Hijab bullies" (as David J. Rusin of Islamist Watch calls them) who coerce non-Muslim females to cover up are just one stripe of Islamist imposing Shar'i ways on the West. Other Islamists focus on impeding the uncensored discussion of such topics as Muhammad and the Koran or Islamist institutions or terrorist financing; still others exert to bring taxpayer-funded schools, hospitals, and jails into conformity with Islamic law, not to speak of taxi cabs and municipal swimming pools. Their efforts don't always succeed but in the aggregate, they are rapidly shifting the premises of Western, and especially British, life.

Returning to pork: both Islam and Judaism abominate the flesh of pigs, so this prohibition offers a direct and revealing comparison of the two religions. Simply put, Jews accept that non-Jews eat pork but Muslims take offense and try to impede pork consumption. That, in brief, explains why Western accommodations to Halakha have no relevance for dealing with Shari'a. And why the Shari'a as public policy must be opposed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

I think specific elements of Sharia - much like specific elements of canonical law from so many other religions practiced in America - can and will be tolerated until such time as they present more than a rumored infringement of and challenge to our codified system of laws - and then we'll see. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

AIG’s Islamic Religious Activities
 

There's no rumor. It is an infringement.

What's the supreme law of the land?

The US Constitution? or Sharia?

Both say they are.

So which is it?

This is just the start. PM inbound.

I know many Muslims who practice Islam much as the majority of Christians practice Christianity or Jews practice Judaism - selectively. And then there are those who... :eek:

MOO - it can be an infringement - as can any of the others - but will it and to what extent is TBD - and eventually will be up to us to determine. I wholeheartedly agree, though, it can be a danger to us all and bears considerable thought and watching. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Trying to draw an important distinction here. We are not debating what people door don't do. We are debating the legal doctrine.

First, you cannot separate church from state in islam. They are absolutley intertwined.

Second, you can (and must) distinguish Muslims from islam.

Third, the law is the law. We're not debating what's a better flavor here. The law is the law. If you don't like hanbali, we can discuss hanafi, maliki, shafi'i, or jafari. It's comparing them against US Law.

Within that construct, it's not that sharia can be an infringement. It is an infringement and it is a danger. There's no denying that.

Wonder how my non-Sharia practicing jacques-Muslims who are third and fourth generation American are going to deal with this issue? :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

You are proving mundus vult decipi.

"The world wants to be deceived."*





________________
* See Josef Pieper's "Abuse of Language - Abuse of Power" (Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1992)

Shariah Islamic Law in America: What YOU Need To Know...
 

Shariah Islamic Law in America: What YOU Need To Know...

Crash course in the challenges we face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7iHxl90CD0

Maybe, maybe not...

One thing about the Internet - it so readily allows so many to lead lives of noisy desperation.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy, a Washington DC based Think-Tank.

Here's his remarks titled "A Virus Called Sharia."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nixnG8N3qns

Yale chose Shariah over U.S. Constitution
 

Yale chose Shariah over U.S. Constitution
Diana West
Examiner Columnist
October 11, 2009

Last week's column was about something that doesn't exist -- a multilevel strategy to combat the advance of Shariah (Islamic law) across the West.

The strategy doesn't exist because there's little understanding that the entrenchment of Shariah in the Western world poses a threat to liberty in the Western world.

This understanding doesn't exist because the critique of Shariah (a legal system best described as sacralized totalitarianism) required to devise a defensive anti-Shariah strategy is not considered possible.

Why not? The main obstacle is, well, the advance of Shariah across the West. In other words, we cannot criticize the spread of Shariah simply because Shariah's influence has spread. Thus, the reflex reaction to critical commentary -- even a newspaper page of political cartoons -- is to follow Islamic law and stop it (or try), or just shut up.

That's certainly what Yale has done, as events beginning in August demonstrate. That's when news broke that Yale and its press were omitting the Danish Muhammad cartoons (and other Muhammad imagery) from a forthcoming Yale University Press book expressly about the Danish Muhammad cartoons.

This sudden act of censorship, Yale said, was due to fear of Muslim outrage over the Muhammad cartoons again turning into Muslim violence. (Roger Kimball, Stanley Kramer and I have laid out evidence that Yale's censorhip was also due to fear of alienating Muslim donors.)

This violence, along with general Muslim outrage, has its roots in Islamic legal prohibitions against life imagery, criticizing Muhammad and sarcasm about Islamic law -- all outlawed by the standard Al Azhar University-approved Shariah manual, "Reliance of the Traveller," but all tools for the political cartoonist moved to comment on the connection between Muhammad and jihad violence. And why not? Indeed, the Islamic-world-renowned Sheik Yussef al-Qaradawi calls Mohammed "an epitome for religious warriors."

The publication of the Danish cartoons forced the question: What is more important to the West -- freedom of speech, or Islamic law masquerading as something Orwellian known as community harmony?

With its censorship of the Muhammad imagery, Yale chose Shariah. But that wasn't all. Wearing my hat as vice president of the International Free Press Society, I asked Yale's Steven Smith, master of Branford College, one of Yale's 12 residential colleges, if he would host Kurt Westergaard, the most famous of the Danish cartoonists, at a "master's tea" for students.

The IFPS was then finalizing Westergaard's U.S. tour long planned to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the publication of the cartoons on Sept. 30. Smith agreed and held the event on Oct. 1. And Yale, it seems, will never be the same.

Even now, institutional consternation at Yale over Westergaard continues. In the pages of the Yale Daily News, ire is directed at Westergaard's Yale host, Smith, simply for having issued the invitation, as attested by letters from University Chaplain Sharon Kugler and "coordinator of Muslim Life for the University" Omer Bajwa, and even Smith's fellow Yale masters, Davenport College's Richard Schottenfeld and Tanina Rostain.

At a panel this week sponsored by the Chaplain's Office and the Yale Muslim Student Association, several Yale professors discussed "what made the cartoons offensive ... and how the West's response heightened tension."

The lesson here? Free speech about Islam at Yale is a liability, something to censor, oppose, even remove physically, as symbolized by the administration's decision to bus students to the edge of campus to attend Westergaard's talk.

Campus security -- bomb-sniffing dogs, two SWAT teams -- was so extreme it stood as a reproach to critics of Islam, and perhaps as justification for Yale's decision to censor the cartoons in the first place.

Having shrouded free speech in the Islamic veil, Yale stands exposed.

Examiner Columnist Diana West is syndicated nationally by United Media and is the author of "The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-63888332.html

Sharia -vs- U.S. Constitution
 

DING - DING - DING...

IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE "AMERICAN EXPERIMENT" - A SOURCE OF PROTECTION FOR OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.

AND IN THIS CORNER, AN OTHER OPTION, WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO CONVERT TO ISLAM AND BEAT YOUR CHILDREN IF THEY DON'T PRAY.

YOU MAKE THE CALL:

http://www.annaqed.com/en/content/show.aspx?aid=16242

Sharia Law and the US Constitution
By Louis Palme
Oct 14, 2009

Americans are among the most tolerant and patriotic people in the world. As a nation of immigrants, there is a certain appeal to the idea of multiculturalism where people of different backgrounds are accepted in our communities. Our nation was founded on the principles of equality and freedom, and we have invested our resources and blood over and over again to defend those principles.

Our constitution guarantees not only the freedom of speech, but also the freedom to practice our religion of choice. So it is not surprising that many Americans see Sharia Law as a Muslim religious prerogative which we should support or at least tolerate. Banks have rushed to provide Sharia-compliant banking, and public institutions like universities and airports have spent taxpayer dollars to help Muslims comply with their religious requirements, providing special foot-baths and prayer rooms for them.

If anyone speaks out against Sharia Law, there is often a strong reaction within the Muslim community. This month, Dalia Mogahed, President Obama’s advisor on Muslim affairs, complained on British television that the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and misunderstood.

While acknowledging that even Muslims associate Sharia with draconian criminal punishments and laws that seem unequal for women, she stated, “Part of the reason there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.”

The London-based Islam Channel panel she was on made repeated attacks against secular “man-made Law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism.” Ms. Mogahed described her government role as “to convey . . to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.”
(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nderstood.html)

A similar reaction took place in a recent US Congressional hearing on the dangers posed by political Islam. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, one of the most prominent Muslim reformers in the United States, testified, “I think if Muslims want credibility and we want to be respected equally, we need to stand for reform within our faith of [Sharia] laws that are still in the 15th and 16th Century.”

He explained that the jihadists will not be defeated until Muslims start to recognize that their ideology is on a slippery slope toward radicalism. In response to this testimony, Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D, Mn) delivered a verbal tirade that accused Dr. Jasser of encouraging anti-Muslim bigotry and attempting to censor Islamists.

Ellison said to Dr. Jasser, “I think you give people license for bigotry. I think people who engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that. You say, ‘yeah, go get after them.’ . . Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter’s hijab off, call her a horrible name, and spit on her because of something you said, Dr. Jasser? I worry about that.”
(Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/...-reforms-value )

So, to better understand whether Sharia Law is desirable (or even legal) in the United States, it might be instructive to compare it with the US Constitution. This isn’t too difficult for the layman because the U.S. Constitution is only 17 pages long, including its 27 amendments. [COLOR=“Red”]Sharia Law is well-documented in the 1,200 page Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, “The Reliance of the Traveler” by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri[/COLOR], and published in the United States by Amana Publications.

While the original document dates to the late 14th Century, it has been updated in the 1990’s and bears the approval of the Fiqh Council of North America as well as the authoritative Al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy in Egypt. The introduction to this manual states, “The four Sunni schools of Islamic Law . . are identical in approximately 75 percent of the legal conclusions. . . [T]he authors of the present volume and their positions do represent the orthodox Muslim intellectual and spiritual heritage that has been the strength of the Community for over a thousand years . . to the present day.”

While this volume of Sharia Law is primarily about the religious practice of Islam, the 800 pages of the manual devoted to rules and regulations also include sections on Trade, Inheritance, Marriage (suitable partners, legal rights, custody), Divorce, and Justice which would fall under civil law in the United States. Those sections comprise 35% of the manual, and are among the most controversial because they impose draconian punishments, authorize jihad, and sanction discrimination on the basis of religion and gender.

The summary below highlights the serious disconnects between the provisions of the US Constitution and those of Sharia Law.


LEGISLATIVE POWERS:

U.S. Constitution

Article I - All legislative Powers shall be vested in the Congress.


Sharia Law

The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. (a1.1) It is not a sin to comply with man-made laws that require buying auto insurance or having a photo ID because “the authorities are responsible for the sin, not the individual forced to comply.” (w42.3 and w50.4)


POWER TO DECLARE WAR:

U.S. Constitution

Section 8 – Powers of Congress include to levy taxes, to make laws, and to declare war.


Sharia Law

It is obligatory to obey the commands and interdictions of the caliph or his representative in everything that is lawful, even if he is unjust . . because the purpose of his authority is Islamic unity, which could not be realized if obeying him were not obligatory. (o25.5) The caliph or his representative have the duty of undertaking jihad if their territory borders on enemy lands, of dividing the spoils of battle, and of remitting a fifth for “deserving recipients.” (o25.9(8))

Jihad is obligatory for everyone when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims. (o9.3) It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy’s trees and destroy their dwellings. (o9.1)


PRESIDENT (CALIPH):

U.S. Constitution

Article II, Section I -- Qualifications of a President – He must be a natural born citizen, thirty-five years old, and a resident for fourteen years. The President is elected by ballot by the people (via the Electors) and shall serve for no more than 2 four-year terms.

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Sharia Law

A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave, a male, of the Quraysh tribe, etc. (o25.0)

The Caliph appoints a group to select his successor among themselves. There is no a term of office. However, the caliphate of someone who seizes power is considered valid, even though his act of usurpation is disobedience, in view of the danger from anarchy and strife that would otherwise ensue. (o25.4(3))

(Note: The Islamic Caliphate was disbanded the Turkish Parliament in 1924.)


REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS:

U.S. Constitution

Section 4 – The President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from office if found guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Sharia Law

(No provision for removal from office.)


LEGAL AUTHORITY:

U.S. Constitution

Article VI – This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made under it shall be the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound by them.

Senators and Representatives, legislative officers, all executive and judicial officers both of the United States and the several states shall be bound by a Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution.



Sharia Law

The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. (a1.1)