Sharia law? Vetoed in 3 minutes.

[Guest American Woman]

He basically posts the same type of response in every thread. Usually cutting and pasting from his website.

Perhaps he "basically posts the same type of response in every thread" because it reflects his beliefs. You think your responses vary? Of course not - they always reflect your views - same as his do, whether you agree with him or not. That doesn't make him a "troll."

[Guest Peeves]

This has already been pointed out in the past. The Muslim Canadian Congress does not speak for Muslims in Canada and in fact has been heavily criticised. Nearly the entire board resigned, due to the anti-Muslim direction the MCC was taking. The MCC no longer speaks for Muslims in Canada and hasn't since 2006 when that mass resignation took place. They formed the Canadian Muslim Union following the split. This is the statement about their resignations. The board members that resigned indicated that the MCC was no longer a voice for Muslim Canadians, but a voice against Muslim Canadians. They wrote, "the public face of the MCC has deviated from its stated priorities. The message that MCC has been giving out is 'not addressed to Muslims, it is aimed at making Muslim haters feel secure in their thinking'." The CMU is certainly against Sharia Law in Canada and Sharia banking, but the MCC is not a credible source to point to as the voice of Muslims in Canada.

They are legitimate spokespersons for the moderate Muslim Canadians.

Those wanting to understand what sharia is need only look at Saudi Arabia where it is the law.

Of course one may cherry pick aspects of sharia that are innocuous and similar to Judaic or Christian followings as to charitable gifts etc. However, like Islam, fundamentalist mean only one thing FUNDAMENTAL.

You may enjoy the link below for a view of sharia through rose colored glasses.

http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2011/07/shariah.html

I have done a great deal of study on religion and I find the laws of countries that practice sharia to be draconian and anachronistic FROM a Western view of our equal and human rights. If you support sharia laws, you support ALL sharia laws because that's Islam.

Ignoring for a moment if that's good or bad, first understand sharia or forgetaboutit. The link I provide below is for anyone with an open mind to view and opine on.

http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034

This excerpt is but one aspect of sharia and a fair one I suggest as it exists and practiced in some sects and countries. I state that the extremes are just that, but, it is sharia that drives the

Controversy: Punishment and Equality under Sharia

Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge's discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (ie., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses--flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution--get a significant amount of media attention when they occur. These sentences are not often prescribed, however. "In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments," says Ali Mazrui of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies in a Voice of America interview. These punishments remain on the books in some countries but lesser penalties are often considered sufficient.

Despite official reluctance to use hadd punishments, vigilante justice still takes place. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one's family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor (National Geographic). Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules, elicit as much controversy. There is significant debate over what the Quran sanctions and what practices were pulled from local customs and predate Islam. Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. "With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people's problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events," says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.

[Shady]

That doesn't make him a "troll."

We can agree to disagree.

[Guest Peeves]

Perhaps he "basically posts the same type of response in every thread" because it reflects his beliefs. You think your responses vary? Of course not - they always reflect your views - same as his do, whether you agree with him or not. That doesn't make him a "troll."

How can I post the

same type of response

I wonder on subjects all over the gamut of daily news?

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Only the ones on Islam result in the charges of troll. Why don't they show where the posts are wrong?

I didn't see these whining 'people' bitchin or calling names on my post about church of LDS.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Peeves

[Wild Bill]

Well, you expressed support for the idea in the thread above. I'm confused here, have you changed your mind or are you just working through the idea in your posts ? I don't have a strong opinion on it, myself.

You just shocked me so much that I went back and re-read what I had posted, Michael!

I said that I could accept religious law deciding a divorce as far as it was recognized by a church. I did NOT say I supported that church making legal decisions as to a settlement of assets! You can be married in the eyes of a church but the true legality rests with civil law. The same should be true as far as a divorce.

So if a Sharia court wishes to rule on the validity of a divorce as far as their religious authority goes I am indifferent but if that same court tried to give all assets to the man or even worse, refused to allow the woman to go her own way then I would say that Sharia court should have NO legal recognition!

Sharia law is perhaps one of the most repressive legal systems towards women in the modern world.

[Michael Hardner]

I see - the wording got me, I think.

[cybercoma]

They are legitimate spokespersons for the moderate Muslim Canadians.

Those wanting to understand what sharia is need only look at Saudi Arabia where it is the law.

Of course one may cherry pick aspects of sharia that are innocuous and similar to Judaic or Christian followings as to charitable gifts etc. However, like Islam, fundamentalist mean only one thing FUNDAMENTAL.

You may enjoy the link below for a view of sharia through rose colored glasses.

http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2011/07/shariah.html

I have done a great deal of study on religion and I find the laws of countries that practice sharia to be draconian and anachronistic FROM a Western view of our equal and human rights. If you support sharia laws, you support ALL sharia laws because that's Islam.

Ignoring for a moment if that's good or bad, first understand sharia or forgetaboutit. The link I provide below is for anyone with an open mind to view and opine on.

http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034

This excerpt is but one aspect of sharia and a fair one I suggest as it exists and practiced in some sects and countries. I state that the extremes are just that, but, it is sharia that drives the

I don't support Sharia and neither does the CMU, but the MCC certainly does not speak for Muslims in Canada as you suggest. The evidence is in my previous post.

[Yukon Jack]

How long would it take in the Parliaments of Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc. etc. to veto and defeat any bill that would promote women's rights?

[jbg]

How long would it take in the Parliaments of Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc. etc. to veto and defeat any bill that would promote women's rights?

Depends upon whether Saudi Arabia or Iran has a majority or minority government.

[Guest Peeves]

I don't support Sharia and neither does the CMU, but the MCC certainly does not speak for Muslims in Canada as you suggest. The evidence is in my previous post.

You miss the point. Muslims an others, organized and not, are against sharia law in Western-Democartic countries.

Some Muslim countries like Turkey are secular for the most part and many Muslims embrace secularism. Sharia is not for the most part compatible with Western laws. Sharia is for the most part an abomination that would be practiced nowhere where human rights, equality of the sexes and a free press exists.

And, whatever my personal beliefs are is not important. ANY religion is subject to scrutiny and criticism. Any post I make is from the news (usually), so if you take issue, do so with facts to dispute.

Those that would suggest that anyone that criticizes Islam is a troll or is singling out Islam are avoiding any debate rather than address the subject.

Such a poster is quite simply an apologist for that or any other religion.

[Guest Peeves]

How long would it take in the Parliaments of Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc. etc. to veto and defeat any bill that would promote women's rights?

Turkey is pretty much secular, but moving towards sharia. Women have been treated better in Turkey than in most Arab states.

[cybercoma]

You miss the point. Muslims an others, organized and not, are against sharia law in Western-Democartic countries.

Some Muslim countries like Turkey are secular for the most part and many Muslims embrace secularism. Sharia is not for the most part compatible with Western laws. Sharia is for the most part an abomination that would be practiced nowhere where human rights, equality of the sexes and a free press exists.

And, whatever my personal beliefs are is not important. ANY religion is subject to scrutiny and criticism. Any post I make is from the news (usually), so if you take issue, do so with facts to dispute.

Those that would suggest that anyone that criticizes Islam is a troll or is singling out Islam are avoiding any debate rather than address the subject.

Such a poster is quite simply an apologist for that or any other religion.

That's fine. All I'm saying is that the MCC doesn't speak for Muslim Canadians.

[kactus]

Turkey is pretty much secular, but moving towards sharia. Women have been treated better in Turkey than in most Arab states.

Can you substatiate how Turkey is moving towards sharia? Just because they have a government with islamic lieniency doesn't validate this argument.

[kactus]

Those that would suggest that anyone that criticizes Islam is a troll or is singling out Islam are avoiding any debate rather than address the subject.

Such a poster is quite simply an apologist for that or any other religion.

Nonesense! People dramatise things and blow it out of proportion to make a case. That doesn't mean that you are right. If I disagree with you on this that doesn't make me an apologist. Whilst there are practises within islam which require change there are practises within the old testament that should also be critisized without labelling one as anti semite.

[DogOnPorch]

Nonesense! People dramatise things and blow it out of proportion to make a case. That doesn't mean that you are right. If I disagree with you on this that doesn't make me an apologist. Whilst there are practises within islam which require change there are practises within the old testament that should also be critisized without labelling one as anti semite.

Like...?

[kactus]

Like...?

Plenty of sources on the web. Google it!

[DogOnPorch]

Plenty of sources on the web. Google it!

Coward.

[Jack Weber]

Plenty of sources on the web. Google it!

So ya got nothin',huh?

[kactus]

Coward.

Google it doggie.

[cybercoma]

I hate it when people play fetch. If there are plenty of resources, take two seconds to post some of them.

[Guest Peeves]

Can you substatiate how Turkey is moving towards sharia? Just because they have a government with islamic lieniency doesn't validate this argument.

I can substantiate nothing. All I can do is form an opinion by reading and express that by posting my conclusion. However there is some speculation that seems to support my position or I would not have opined as I did.

You may peruse the link and the brief excerpt provided free of charge and at your leisure friend.

http://www.meforum.org/2047/islamists-approach-europe

Since their electoral landslide victory in November 2002, Islamists within Turkey's Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP) have camouflaged themselves as "democratic Islamic conservatives."[1] The AKP claims to be the Muslim equivalent of the Christian-Democratic parties of Western Europe. Such an analogy is false, however. What the AKP seeks is not "Islam without fear," to borrow the phrase of Trinity College professor Raymond Baker,[2] but rather a strategy for a creeping Islamization that culminates in a Shari‘a (Islamic law) state not compatible with a secular, democratic order. The AKP does not advertise this agenda and often denies it. This did not convince the chief prosecutor of Turkey who, because of AKP efforts to Islamize Turkey, sought to ban the party and seventy-one of its leaders. While the AKP survived a ban, the majority of justices found that the AKP had worked to advance an Islamist agenda and undermine secularism.

Emphasis mine.

[Guest Peeves]

That's fine. All I'm saying is that the MCC doesn't speak for Muslim Canadians.

Indeed. Then for whom do they speak?

Of course the Muslim group speaks for some Muslim Canadians, and while the NDP were leaning towards sharia in Ontario, it was the MCC and other Canadian Muslims that rallied Muslims to defeat any such government acceptance.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-20050909.html

Here's another group against sharia, and there are more that speak for Muslims.

http://www.nosharia.com/

Of course there are also some Muslim groups, more fundamental Islamists, that speak for sharia in Canada and the Western world. They wanted sharia in Ontario. Thankfully Rae and the NDP were shot down

Your silly protestations that these groups DON'T speak for Muslims implies conversely that they speak for someone else.

Muslim groups opposed to Sharia law in Ontario

Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC)

Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW)

Homa Arjomand

Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC)

Zuair Kashmeri; & one of founders is Tarek Fatah

website: www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/

a secular organization

says backdoor approach by fundamentalists to bring in traditional Islamic law

presented a brief to Marion Boyd (see below)

opposed to any form of theocracy - they believe in the "separation of religion and state in all matters of public policy"

also "oppose gender apartheid that is practiced in parts of our community"

Fatah is also host of the weekly Vision TV show "The Muslim Chronicle"

Fatah is against Ishad Manji's book The Trouble with Islam since he says she wrongly argues Muslim complicity with the holocaust [RJA comment: I think the criticism is overstated]

Fatah playfully calls his daughter Sushi (half Sunni, half Shia)

Raheel Raza says: "Some of our members pray five times a day. Some haven't prayed in five years. We are comfortable with both narratives."

MCC is inspired by the teachings of the Koran, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rghts Act

MCC argues that shariah is flawed because it does not view women as equal and therefore cannot provide equal justice to all parties

Back to Top

[Guest Peeves]

I see - the wording got me, I think.

Wording does that sometimes, that's logomachy for you, pure unadulterated verbiage.

[cybercoma]

Indeed. Then for whom do they speak?

Of course the Muslim group speaks for some Muslim Canadians, and while the NDP were leaning towards sharia in Ontario, it was the MCC and other Canadian Muslims that rallied Muslims to defeat any such government acceptance.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-20050909.html

Here's another group against sharia, and there are more that speak for Muslims.

http://www.nosharia.com/

Of course there are also some Muslim groups, more fundamental Islamists, that speak for sharia in Canada and the Western world. They wanted sharia in Ontario. Thankfully Rae and the NDP were shot down

Your silly protestations that these groups DON'T speak for Muslims implies conversely that they speak for someone else.

Muslim groups opposed to Sharia law in Ontario

Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC)

Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW)

Homa Arjomand

Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC)

Zuair Kashmeri; & one of founders is Tarek Fatah

website: www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/

a secular organization

says backdoor approach by fundamentalists to bring in traditional Islamic law

presented a brief to Marion Boyd (see below)

opposed to any form of theocracy - they believe in the "separation of religion and state in all matters of public policy"

also "oppose gender apartheid that is practiced in parts of our community"

Fatah is also host of the weekly Vision TV show "The Muslim Chronicle"

Fatah is against Ishad Manji's book The Trouble with Islam since he says she wrongly argues Muslim complicity with the holocaust [RJA comment: I think the criticism is overstated]

Fatah playfully calls his daughter Sushi (half Sunni, half Shia)

Raheel Raza says: "Some of our members pray five times a day. Some haven't prayed in five years. We are comfortable with both narratives."

MCC is inspired by the teachings of the Koran, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rghts Act

MCC argues that shariah is flawed because it does not view women as equal and therefore cannot provide equal justice to all parties

Back to Top

I've already posted why they don't speak for Muslim Canadians. I'm not speaking on Sharia law, as I've already made it clear that I'm against it and so are more important Muslim groups that work with and speak for Muslim Canadians. All I'm saying is that the MCC are not the spokespersons for the Muslim community, as illustrated in by my post earlier. I understand that you like them because they attack Muslims and that suits your ideological agenda, but don't say they speak for Muslim Canadians because they don't.

[Wolf Larsen]

Sharia Law is not applicable to the United States, so there is no reason for the politicians to vote on it. I don't see how it's applicable to Canada either. The only reason the politicians vote on it is in order to pander to anti-Muslim hysteria to get more votes. The whole anti-Muslim campaign is just a distraction. They don't want Americans thinking about all the unemployment, all the bailouts for the rich and big corporations, all of foreclosures, etc.

The whole anti-Muslim hysteria thing is a distraction throughout the capitalist West. From France to Australia to Canada to the USA the capitalist politicians want to distract us from the real issues of our day. Basically, the Muslims are the new scapegoats. The Muslims are the new Jews. In the old days when the politicians/dictators wanted to distract everyone they just inflamed anti-Semitism. Anti-Muslim sentiment being inflamed by the politicians is similar.

Apparently somebody got angry when I said that the born-again Christian fanatics are more of a problem in the USA than the Muslims. In fact, the Muslims are not a problem. Not in the USA. The vast majority of religious fanatics in the USA who are trying to shove their "morality" down our throats are Protestant Christians. And not just any kind of Protestant Christian, these people are fanatics.

Now somebody might disagree with me. Apparently, somebody feels that anybody who disagrees with him/her is a troll. A troll is someone who seeks to provoke a response from others using inflammatory means. I just speak my opinions. Since my opinion is very different from those that defend capitalism, that makes me a troll in their eyes. But then I might find the comments of right-wing people to be inflammatory, so then I can label them as trolls as well. And no, I do not cut and paste from my website. I "write" the vast majority of my responses here using voice recognition software. Anyway, I thank those who defend freedom of speech. And actually I feel it is often the right-wingers who engage in trolling, but that is my opinion.

I like to post on political posting boards when I have time. And I will continue to do so. I guess Shady doesn't like the First Amendment.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Wolf Larsen