Jump to content

Shariah: The Threat to America


Recommended Posts

This is a lot of reading, which admittedly I haven’t done because it doesn’t seem to want to download it all. I have high speed but for some reason it’s stalling.

Anyhoo, we know that Ontario came fairly close to allowing a part of Shariah into our law, and that there are attempts in other countries do introduce parts of it, so it really is incrementalism, a bit at a time.

Shariah: The Threat to America

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18523.xml

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah%20-%20The%20Threat%20to%20America%20%28Team%20B%20Report%29%2009142010.pdf

The Contemporary Threat

Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah. Translated as “the path,” shariah is a comprehensive legal and political framework. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah as a “religious” code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere – economic, social, military, legal and political.

Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam’s internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates – figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and leader of the world’s largest libertarian Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama – whose members embrace the Enlightenment’s veneration of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms. On this side of the divide, shariah is a reference point for a Muslim’s personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society.

By contrast, the other side of the divide is dominated by Muslim supremacists, often called Islamists. Like erstwhile proponents of Communism and Nazism, these supremacists – some terrorists, others employing stealthier means – seek to impose a totalitarian regime: a global totalitarian system cloaked as an Islamic

state and called a caliphate. On that side of the divide, which is the focus of the present study, shariah is an immutable, compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to install and the world required to adopt, the failure to do so being deemed a damnable offence against Allah. For these ideologues, shariah is not a private matter. Adherents see the West as an obstacle to be overcome, not a culture and civilization to be embraced, or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of governments peacefully to coexist with the end-state they seek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The portion of Sharia that could possibly be implemented is the Sharia system civil law. And its literally impossible to stop this because we are a free society. If I have a dispute with my friend, or my wife, or anyone else, we are completely free to decide that dispute in any manner we can agree on. We could do it regular civil courts, or we could enter binding arbitration and hire a third party to decide, or we could agree that My Uncle Pete will rule on the manner after drinking a fifth of burbon.

So you cant stop alternate systems from emerging, you can just make sure they dont conflict with THE OFFICIAL legal system... which is essentially British Common law, with a few Canadian tweaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The portion of Sharia that could possibly be implemented is the Sharia system civil law. And its literally impossible to stop this because we are a free society. If I have a dispute with my friend, or my wife, or anyone else, we are completely free to decide that dispute in any manner we can agree on. We could do it regular civil courts, or we could enter binding arbitration and hire a third party to decide, or we could agree that My Uncle Pete will rule on the manner after drinking a fifth of burbon.

I agree, as long as no crime has been committed, people can and should be able to resolve disputes among themselves in whatever way they wish, including silly religious rules if they so desire. However, the moment that something is done in contravention of Canada's laws, it is our criminal system that must take jurisdiction.

The difficulty comes when certain civil disputes result in punishments that are considered wildly inappropriate by Canadian standards. For example, if a woman is punished for sex before marriage or for adultery via corporal punishment, even if it is mutually agreed upon by the families involved, it is not something that should be condoned in our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, as long as no crime has been committed, people can and should be able to resolve disputes among themselves in whatever way they wish, including silly religious rules if they so desire. However, the moment that something is done in contravention of Canada's laws, it is our criminal system that must take jurisdiction.

The difficulty comes when certain civil disputes result in punishments that are considered wildly inappropriate by Canadian standards. For example, if a woman is punished for sex before marriage or for adultery via corporal punishment, even if it is mutually agreed upon by the families involved, it is not something that should be condoned in our society.

If a woman receives corporal punishment, a crime has been committed - it is against the law for anyone to abuse anyone else (except children between the ages of 2 and 12 - they are the only people that can legally be hit in Canada - but that is for another thread). If Sharia law doesn't contravene Canadian law, fine, but once it crosses the line of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is no longer valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a woman receives corporal punishment, a crime has been committed - it is against the law for anyone to abuse anyone else (except children between the ages of 2 and 12 - they are the only people that can legally be hit in Canada - but that is for another thread). If Sharia law doesn't contravene Canadian law, fine, but once it crosses the line of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is no longer valid.

What if the woman consents (for whatever reason)? Is that still a crime? I can see defenders of Shariah arguing that it is not a crime. After all, women (and men) can consent to receive physical pain in certain other contexts as well...

I think this just opens a whole big can of worms which wouldn't need to be opened if we weren't being swamped by hundreds of thousands of immigrants, a substantial fraction of which who wanted these kinds of laws.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the woman consents (for whatever reason)? Is that still a crime? I can see defenders of Shariah arguing that it is not a crime. After all, women (and men) can consent to receive physical pain in certain other contexts as well...

I think this just opens a whole big can of worms which wouldn't need to be opened if we weren't being swamped by hundreds of thousands of immigrants, a substantial fraction of which who wanted these kinds of laws.

I lead a sheltered life... sado-masochism hadn't occured to me. :o Maybe someone out there has a better understanding of the Criminal Code, but I think that, even with consent, no one can do bodily harm to someone else with impunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the woman consents (for whatever reason)? Is that still a crime? I can see defenders of Shariah arguing that it is not a crime. After all, women (and men) can consent to receive physical pain in certain other contexts as well...

I think this just opens a whole big can of worms which wouldn't need to be opened if we weren't being swamped by hundreds of thousands of immigrants, a substantial fraction of which who wanted these kinds of laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I lead a sheltered life... sado-masochism hadn't occured to me. :o Maybe someone out there has a better understanding of the Criminal Code, but I think that, even with consent, no one can do bodily harm to someone else with impunity.

You're right. "Consent" doesn't override the law/criminal code. People who consent to/practice SM have to be very aware of the law and how it could affect them.

-----------

As to the idea that Sharia law could never become an issue in America, as some people seem to be suggesting, this case in New Jersey indicates otherwise.

Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling

A New Jersey family court judge's decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife.

In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

Seems to me Sharia in this instance most certainly did pose a threat to America, as it certainly, according to this judge, deprived the woman involved of her rights as a woman in America. Fortunately the ruling was overturned.

The issue of Sharia law is going to be on the Oklahoma ballot in November: Sharia (Islamic Law) Not O.K. in Oklahoma

Some people say it's ridiculous to even put such a law on the ballot since it would never happen, that it's nothing but anti-Muslim bigotry, but I say what's the problem with insuring that religious beliefs can never overrule our country's principles? And that goes for all religions. Or any beliefs. Including SM. If someone is injured or killed because of consensual SM behavior, our laws definitely should overrule their beliefs.

If such a law had been on the books in New Jersey, the judge in the case I cited wouldn't have made his ruling and it wouldn't have had to go to the Appellate Court and the woman wouldn't have had as difficult a legal battle to have her rights as a woman in America recognized and upheld by the court. The idea that the judge took the man's beliefs as to his "rights" is difficult to understand considering our nation's laws, so perhaps a law such as the one going on the OK ballot is necessary.

******

I'll include a postscript for those who are going to make this about me: Yes, I recognize that my posting this makes me a bigot. I recognize that by making the comments I have that I am Islamophobic. I realize that by commenting on this topic at all I am hysterical that Shariah law is going to take over America. I realize I should just not comment at all or I am showing my hate, my fear, my bigotry, and that by pointing this out, I am whining and crying victim. I hope that covers everything ....... <_<

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll include a postscript for those who are going to make this about me: Yes, I recognize that my posting this makes me a bigot. I recognize that by making the comments I have that I am Islamophobic. I realize that by commenting on this topic at all I am hysterical that Shariah law is going to take over America. I realize I should just not comment at all or I am showing my hate, my fear, my bigotry, and that by pointing this out, I am whining and crying victim. I hope that covers everything ....... <_<

Not so much that, but the point is "Is it a threat to America ?". You have provided one case, i.e. "in this instance most certainly did pose a threat to America".

That's just not what is meant by a threat to America, so you need to come up with something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Not so much that, but the point is "Is it a threat to America ?". You have provided one case, i.e. "in this instance most certainly did pose a threat to America".

That's just not what is meant by a threat to America, so you need to come up with something else.

Way to selectively just quote part of my statement, as if it's all I said. This is what I said, and I'll emphasize the point I was making, since apparently it's necessary to do so: "Seems to me Sharia in this instance most certainly did pose a threat to America, as it certainly, according to this judge, deprived the woman involved of her rights as a woman in America."

If one judge can rule according to religious rights, what's to say others can't? Unless there is a law prohibiting it, which was clearly my point. So clearly, if it's a threat to people living in America, it's a threat to America; when something threatens to override our laws, our ideals, it's a threat to America. Unless you have some other interpretation of what a threat to America entails, in which case it would be just that. Your interpretation. I also clearly said it should apply to all religions, organizations. And I stand by what I said.

So no, I won't be coming up with anything else.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to selectively just quote part of my statement, as if it's all I said.

I'm not trying to misrepresent what you said - it's a summary sentence that addresses the point of the thread, and ties your post to it.

This is what I said, and I'll emphasize the point I was making, since apparently it's necessary to do so: "Seems to me Sharia in this instance most certainly did pose a threat to America, as it certainly, according to this judge, deprived the woman involved of her rights as a woman in America."

But is it a threat overall ?

If one judge can rule according to religious rights, what's to say others can't? Unless there is a law prohibiting it, which was clearly my point. So clearly, if it's a threat to people living in America, it's a threat to America; when something threatens to override our laws, our ideals, it's a threat to America. Unless you have some other interpretation of what a threat to America entails, in which case it would be just that. Your interpretation. I also clearly said it should apply to all religions, organizations. And I stand by what I said.

So no, I won't be coming up with anything else.

Ok... I confess I didn't read the details closely enough. There is a ruling that took the defendant's religious background into account and that does have wider implications. Is it a threat ? I'd say no, but it's at least more debatable.

It's hard to tell from the article what exactly the judge was taking into consideration - the individual's mindset, or his background:

""The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.""

And the wife's lawyer even said: "He may not have said 'Shariah law.' But I think it's indicative that, in trying to be respectful of religion, judges venture into a very slippery slope."

So, she's talking in general about judges. They do have to take other things into account (motives, for example) but defendants shouldn't be able to use their religion as defense of abuse either. Other religions have had similar conflicts with law (such as religions with young wives, polygamy) so this will have to be tested.

I still don't think any of this will take hold in America in any significant way, nor will it threaten America in any significant way. There will always be religious enclaves, and I trust that America will likely tolerate them to the maximum reasonable amount the constitution allows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the woman consents (for whatever reason)? Is that still a crime? I can see defenders of Shariah arguing that it is not a crime. After all, women (and men) can consent to receive physical pain in certain other contexts as well...

She could claim sexual kink, but this is not likely for a conservative family. But as punishment, no, it is illegal. The victim's "consent" is not relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a lot of reading, which admittedly I haven’t done because it doesn’t seem to want to download it all. I have high speed but for some reason it’s stalling.

Anyhoo, we know that Ontario came fairly close to allowing a part of Shariah into our law, and that there are attempts in other countries do introduce parts of it, so it really is incrementalism, a bit at a time.

Shariah: The Threat to America

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18523.xml

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah%20-%20The%20Threat%20to%20America%20%28Team%20B%20Report%29%2009142010.pdf

Many parts of Canadian law are in agreement with Shari'a. To mention but a few:

1. Laws against murder and theft. Shari'a prohibits these.

2. Laws against fraud. Shari'a has no law against fraud as such, but it does have laws against lying and against theft. Seeing that fraud is really just theft through lying, therefore our anti-fraud laws are also Shari'a compliant.

3. Laws placing certain restrictions on gambling and drinking, such as age limits. Shari'a prohibits these altogether, but certainly these laws move us closer to Shari'a.

4. Laws against indecent exposure in public. Shari'a also requires decent dress in public places.

I could go on, but I think you see the point. To eliminate all laws that are compliant with Shari'a or that move in its direction would be chaos, seeing that many rules of Shari'a are also generally accepted by most civilized societies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One court decision(that was overturned) does not make a threat. The judge should has used his brains and the law, instead of excusing the crime becuase the accused thought he had the right to do so. But we are hardfly witnessing the beginning of the imposition of sharia law in the United States.

As for the Oklahoma proposed law, it is a waste of voters' time. As the Appeal Court in the New Jersey made it clear, the law of the land already supercedes religious-based codes of confuct.

Edited by CANADIEN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

One court decision(that was overturned) does not make a threat.

That's your opinion. Furthermore, it's one court decision that we're aware of. Doesn't mean it's the only one, or that it hasn't been a factor in possible outcomes of other cases. Furthermore, when you are the one involved, it's not quite so easily dismissed.

The judge should has used his brains and the law, instead of excusing the crime becuase the accused thought he had the right to do so.

Yes, he should have, but he didn't. Which is why I said that having a law such as the one going on the OK ballot in November would be a good thing.

But we are hardfly witnessing the beginning of the opposition of sharia law in the United States.

And no one has claimed that we are.

As for the Oklahoma proposed law, it is a waste of voters' time. As the Appeal Court in the New Jersey made it clear, the law of the land already supercedes religious-based codes of confuct.

Yes. A real waste of time. Because it takes so much time to mark a ballot. :rolleyes:

As for what the Appellate Court in New Jersey "made clear," it doesn't speak for the nation. It doesn't insure that this will not happen again. A law, on the other hand, would. So what is your objection? What's the problem with having such a law on the books? And you'll have to come up with something better than "it's a waste of time."

The threat of 'sharia' to America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your opinion. Furthermore, it's one court decision that we're aware of. Doesn't mean it's the only one, or that it hasn't been a factor in possible outcomes of other cases. Furthermore, when you are the one involved, it's not quite so easily dismissed.

Yes, he should have, but he didn't. Which is why I said that having a law such as the one going on the OK ballot in November would be a good thing.

And no one has claimed that we are.

Yes. A real waste of time. Because it takes so much time to mark a ballot. :rolleyes:

As for what the Appellate Court in New Jersey "made clear," it doesn't speak for the nation. It doesn't insure that this will not happen again. A law, on the other hand, would. So what is your objection? What's the problem with having such a law on the books? And you'll have to come up with something better than "it's a waste of time."

The threat of 'sharia' to America

Oh surprise, my opinion is my opinion, and your opinion is your opinion. :o

What we have here is a judge failing to apply a fundamental principal of Western law system, that ignorance of the law (or in this case, acting under another set of laws) is no excuse or explanation for acting illegally.

We could debate for weeks abut whether or not there have been or will be other judges who will take similar leave of their judicial senses; until there is evidence that we are witnessing more of one (or a few) isolated cases of judges not understanding the law properly, there is non proof that the laws are they are (instead of individual judges) are the problem. As for saying that it's the judges, it is not a dismissal of what happened to this New Jersey woman, it's saying that it,s the judge.

My opinion that an anti-sharia law is not needed is based on the fact that ignorance of the law (or the claim one was following another set lf law) is not an excuse or a justification for crime. Furthermore, sharia law is already not recognized as the system of law (except in some limited civil law applications). The only thing an anti-Sharia law would add is "we are talking about this particular set of religious law".

Now, you are welcome to bring as often as you want the "but the judge did render a bad judgement anyway" argument. I find it unconvincing, as it does not prove the point for or against an anti-Sharia law. Simply put, there is nothing to prove that a judge (or judges) would not make the same error. After all, the judge in this case did not say that Sharia law made what the husband did legal, or anything of the sort; it looks to me (and yes, it is my OPINION) that the judge did not apply the law correctly. And that the Appeal Court corrected it.

I am not convinced that a new law in the books is necessary to do what existing laws already do when applied properly - that is, establish the primacy of the laws of the land. You will have to come with a far better argument than "but the judge ignored the law" to convince me otherwise.

Edited by CANADIEN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could go on, but I think you see the point. To eliminate all laws that are compliant with Shari'a or that move in its direction would be chaos, seeing that many rules of Shari'a are also generally accepted by most civilized societies.

Who said anything about eliminating "...all laws that are compliant with Shari'a or that move in its direction "?

That sounds totally unnecessary and cumbersome. All we have to do is recognize only our own country's laws and legal system, period and end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds totally unnecessary and cumbersome. All we have to do is recognize only our own country's laws and legal system, period and end of story.

We can't do that really. Sometimes, common law systems have to reach outside themselves (our's often looks to the UK, US, and Australia) when precedent doesn't exist within our own system. They may even refer to international law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...