Sharia law? Vetoed in 3 minutes.

[bud]

THE MUSLIMS ARE TAKING OVER!!!!!111

[Shady]

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.

That's because you're ignorant of the issue. Sharia law has been attempted to be used in place of the Canadian justice system, and the American justice system on a handful of occasions. Albeit by a small minority of Muslims. It could be that states, and even provinces may be looking to get ahead of the issue.

Ontario Premier rejects use of Shariah law

Premier Dalton McGuinty said today Ontario will reject the use of Shariah law and will move to prohibit all religious-based tribunals to settle family disputes such as divorce.

His announcement comes after hundreds of demonstrators around the world this week protested a proposal to let Ontario residents use Islamic law for settling family disputes.

CBC

Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit

TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

Tampa Tribune

See, you're completely wrong. Please be sure to better inform yourself of a subject before posting on it. It will save you future embarrassment.

The Muslims are the new Jews

Actually, Christians are the new Muslims, who were the new Jews. And with each post, you're proving my point.

[Guest Peeves]

All I know is that I joined a Muslim site and have now two E mails in a week asking me to support the demonstration and sign a petition because those in favor of the sharia move weren't allowed to speak at the meeting when it was turned down.

Maybe I'll post them if they continue.

BTW, I didn't sign their petition or attend the demonstration.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

THE MUSLIMS ARE TAKING OVER!!!!!111

No they ain't the The Illuminati are, helped by the flat earth society.

The Jews used to was but the A-rabs found oil and done bought them out.

It's rumored that one Saudi King owns China.

[cybercoma]

Sharia law has been attempted to be used in place of the Canadian justice system ... on a handful of occasions.

You make it sound like Muslims were trying to replace the entire system. There are religious tribunals in Canada for Jews and Christians for family law. Muslims were actually asking for the same thing. Frankly, all religious tribunals should be abolished. Edited March 8, 2012 by cybercoma

[DogOnPorch]

No they ain't the The Illuminati are, helped by the flat earth society.

The Jews used to was but the A-rabs found oil and done bought them out.

It's rumored that one Saudi King owns China.

Ahhh...a fellow Gnome of Zurich perhaps?

[kactus]

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

It is from Talmud....The problem is with the double standard when people deny the deficiencies in their religion whilst magnifying others. The emphasis in bold is mine:

Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile the wages owed him for work.

Jews Have Superior Legal Status

Baba Kamma 37b. If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full.

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews

Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned.

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

WAIT...THERE'S MORE -

Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.

Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

Gittin 70a. On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: "Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave."

What Jewish Scholars Are Saying:

Rabbi Meir Kahane, told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs are "dogs" is derived "from the Talmud." (CBS 60 Minutes, "Kahane").

University of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein's philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence against goyim," a Hebrew term for non-Jews. (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

ENTER THE US GOVERNMENT.

U.S. Government Lays Groundwork for Talmudic Courts: "Our" government under Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton, has provided, under the euphemism of education (for example, House Joint Resolution 173 and Public Law 102-14), a groundwork for the establishment of Talmudic "courts of justice" to be administered by disciples of Shneur Zalman's Chabad successor, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

Full article:

http://www.rense.com/general21/tal.htm

[DogOnPorch]

It is from Talmud....The problem is with the double standard when people deny the deficiencies in their religion whilst magnifying others. The emphasis in bold is mine:

Full article:

http://www.rense.com/general21/tal.htm

Who is Don Tallbot and why if I Google your quote does it lead to Stormfront?

[Guest Peeves]

In comparing apples and pears.

"It is from Talmud....The problem is with the double standard when people deny the deficiencies in their religion whilst magnifying others."

Any references to the Judaic old testament are of course an anachronism and disingenuous since they no longer apply.However sharia laws still are used by some Muslim countries.

.and you know that.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Peeves

[kactus]

In comparing apples and pears.

"It is from Talmud....The problem is with the double standard when people deny the deficiencies in their religion whilst magnifying others."

Any references to the Judaic old testament are of course an anachronism and disingenuous since they no longer apply.However sharia laws still are used by some Muslim countries.

.and you know that.

It is not the question of whether such practises no longer apply or question their validity but rather the mindset behind the principles of these quotes and opens a room for extremism.

Books are open to misinterpretation and Koran, Talmud or Bible are no exception. This coupled with the fact that there are always certain extremists who take a view from these books to justify their means. Then it becomes the war of religion.

You already know my view on sharia law so no further comment.

[DogOnPorch]

It is not the question of whether such practises no longer apply or question their validity but rather the mindset behind the principles of these quotes and opens a room for extremism.

Books are open to misinterpretation and Koran, Talmud or Bible are no exception. This coupled with the fact that there are always certain extremists who take a view from these books to justify their means. Then it becomes the war of religion.

You already know my view on sharia law so no further comment.

Can you post a vid of these primitive Jews stoning and beheading folks?

Plus, why doesn't the text you posted Google back to a website detailing the Talmund? Rather, it leads to dubious anti-Semitic websites like Stormfront. 'Who is Don Tallbot?' was my other question.

[jbg]

Sharia Law is not applicable to the United States, so there is no reason for the politicians to vote on it.

What happens if the prevailing party in a "Sharia Court" argues that the Court is a form of arbitration, that the parties "agreed" to arbitrate and that they want the Sharia Arbitration Award confirmed as a judgment?

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.

I guess you aren't much of a believer in Canadian and American policies of equal rights for women and gays.

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.

The main difference is that Jews wanted to merge into their host societies and integrate; Muslims by and large don't want that.

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.

Christian fanatics have engaged in acts of terror, twice; in Oklahoma City and Waco. And in the former there are Muslim footprints. Can you say that Muslim terror is that rare? They managed three huge ones in one day.

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.

I welcome your expressions of opinion, even if I find them vile. You will not find me in lockstep with Bernie Farber, pushing for hate speech laws. Let the cranks make fools of themselves.

[Shady]

You make it sound like Muslims were trying to replace the entire system. There are religious tribunals in Canada for Jews and Christians for family law. Muslims were actually asking for the same thing. Frankly, all religious tribunals should be abolished.

I tend to agree with you. However, that particular poster claimed that Sharia law doesn't apply at all to Canada or the United States. I just wanted to point out the truth in that it does have some application, esepcially over the last few years.

[Jack Weber]

Who is Don Tallbot and why if I Google your quote does it lead to Stormfront?

Yeesh...

Say "Hi!" to Lictor when you're there looking for Mr. Talbot...

[DogOnPorch]

Yeesh...

Say "Hi!" to Lictor when you're there looking for Mr. Talbot...

Well, you know I have to point out the obvious.

[kactus]

In comparing apples and pears.

Any references to the Judaic old testament are of course an anachronism and disingenuous since they no longer apply.

Really? You mean where Bibi takes a text from the old testament here is a myth?

Take the gift Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bestowed upon President Obama on Monday: a copy of the Book of Esther. This book, which appears both in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament tells a tale that Jews commemorate on Thursday with the holiday of Purim.

In this tale, set in the Persian Empire in the 5th century BCE, Persians plot to destroy the Jews. The villain of the story is Haman, whom Netanyahu described in his AIPAC speech on Monday as “a Persian anti-Semite [who] tried to annihilate the Jewish people.” The hero is Esther’s cousin Mordecai, who urges Esther, the queen to Persian king Ahasuerus, to prevail upon her husband on behalf of the Jews.

And it carries on....

It’s not hard to imagine how Netanyahu wants Obama to read this ancient story. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Haman, threatening Israel with destruction by a nuclear bomb. Netanyahu is Mordecai. And Obama is King Ahasuerus who needs to decide whose side he is really on.

But this isn’t the only way to read the story.

I was in Jerusalem on the eve of Purim a couple years ago. It's a raucous celebration that commemorates the events of the Book of Esther. I say raucous because it is actually a commandment during this joyous holiday to drink to excess. Jews are supposed to drink until they cannot distinguish between the evil Haman and the virtuous Mordecai.

In a Purim sermon I heard at the Wailing Wall, an Orthodox rabbi spoke of driving into the city every day through an Arab section, and greeting the Muslims he saw there not with fear and anxiety but with love and joy. He then urged his listeners to drink of wine and God until they could not tell the difference enemies and friends, Arabs and Israelis, the cursed Haman and the blessed Mordecai.

So perhaps the Book of Esther is telling Obama to play the king, to give the Jews a green light to destroy their Iranian enemies, and lay waste to 75,000 Iranians in the process.

Full article:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/08/my-take-does-netanyahus-bible-gift-to-obama-mean-war/?iref=allsearch

[Yukon Jack]

All this kow-towing and sucking up to Muslims started when George W. Bush uttered the words, on the smoldering and smoking remains of the World Trade Centre, which inevitably will go down as the stupidest, most insane and laughable statement in the known and written history of mankind:

"Islam is a religion of peace".

Edited March 11, 2012 by Yukon Jack

[Guest American Woman]

All this kow-towing and sucking up to Muslims started when George W. Bush uttered the words, on the smoldering and smoking remains of the World Trade Centre, which inevitably will go down as the stupidest, most insane and laughable statement in the known and written history of mankind:

"Islam is a religion of peace".

That's actually one of the few times I supported and applauded Bush. Islam is a religion of peace - it's not the religion that's responsible for extremism, it's the followers who believe what they do - and act violently upon their beliefs. This is why I don't understand why we have to be so PC where Islam in concerned - why we have to tiptoe around it when Muslim extremists are being extreme. Perhaps if we called them on it, they would feel less empowered.

I don't see anything wrong with a law that says laws and contracts can't be based on religion - any religion. I truly support separation of church and state. Yet this is somehow being perceived as "anti-Muslim." But if we have a law spelling out that Sharia law will not be recognized in our countries, what's wrong with that? Obviously the man who was upset over the Zombie Muhammad didn't realize it wasn't against the law to mock Muhammad in the U.S. - is that our fault, because we are so hyper-sensitive to approaching/talking about/bringing up anything to do with Islam that could be even remotely considered 'offensive' to some? Should we be doing a better job of getting the message out there, as to what is and isn't allowed in our countries? Our nations have such different cultures - if they aren't made aware of it, is it their fault if they don't know - and if they try to apply their customs in our "tolerant" societies?

[Guest Peeves]

That's actually one of the few times I supported and applauded Bush. Islam is a religion of peace - it's not the religion that's responsible for extremism, it's the followers who believe what they do - and act violently upon their beliefs. This is why I don't understand why we have to be so PC where Islam in concerned - why we have to tiptoe around it when Muslim extremists are being extreme. Perhaps if we called them on it, they would feel less empowered.

I don't see anything wrong with a law that says laws and contracts can't be based on religion - any religion. I truly support separation of church and state. Yet this is somehow being perceived as "anti-Muslim." But if we have a law spelling out that Sharia law will not be recognized in our countries, what's wrong with that? Obviously the man who was upset over the Zombie Muhammad didn't realize it wasn't against the law to mock Muhammad in the U.S. - is that our fault, because we are so hyper-sensitive to approaching/talking about/bringing up anything to do with Islam that could be even remotely considered 'offensive' to some? Should we be doing a better job of getting the message out there, as to what is and isn't allowed in our countries? Our nations have such different cultures - if they aren't made aware of it, is it their fault if they don't know - and if they try to apply their customs in our "tolerant" societies?

I agree with almost everything you said, but. Islam never was, never has been, and never will be a religion of peace. First and foremost it's simply not just another religion.

It's a quasi fascist political/'religion' with the objective of converting or subjugation non believers.

That's not my opinion or impression, it is for the most part the impression and ideal of Muslims. Just look at;

A) The Koran's many surat on Islam's stated philosophy regarding non believers.

b] The history AND current behavior of contemporary Muslims. After all they above all kill one another.

C)Hundreds of years of hundreds of cases of violence.

"Over one million Armenian Christians were savagely slaughtered by the Turkish Muslims at the beginning of the twentieth century. According to a report by Khartoum University professors Ushari Mahmud and Suleyman Ali Blado, more than one thousand Dinka citizens were massacred in the Western Sudan town of Diem in 1987. The Baptist Record newspaper of November 5, 1987, added that dozens of pastors have been killed and many churches destroyed since Islamic law was imposed in 1983, when Sudan was officially declared an Islamic republic.

The Baptist World Alliance newsletter of September, 1987, tells of 130 church buildings and pastor's homes, all of Christian denominations in Kadona State in Nigeria, being destroyed by Muslim rioters. Where does this rampant slaughter in the name of religion come from. It is taught in the Quran as revealed by the prophet Muhammad."

Now I'll be the first to concede that not all Muslims of the probable 1.3 billion are violent. But one simply cannot ignore the reality of the violent Islamic world we know today.

It's a common ploy of the apologist to cite the old testament equating the draconian sentences and warlike posturing to that of CONTEMPORARY Islam. BUT, that was at least back in the 11th-13th centuries since anything of scale was based on Christian religion, and Jews have not followed the old testament punishments or war since long before that. (Otherwise kept busy)

Islam today is in the millions, still a follower of Mohammad's 7th century teachings.

Simply look at how some fundamental Muslim may behave at a slight, insult of the religion, or to his honor.

Islam is not just another religion.

No more need be said.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with almost everything you said, but. Islam never was, never has been, and never will be a religion of peace. First and foremost it's simply not just another religion.

It's a quasi fascist political/'religion' with the objective of converting or subjugation non believers.

That objective is shared by Christianity...

That's not my opinion or impression, it is for the most part the impression and ideal of Muslims. Just look at;

A) The Koran's many surat on Islam's stated philosophy regarding non believers.

b] The history AND current behavior of contemporary Muslims. After all they above all kill one another.

C)Hundreds of years of hundreds of cases of violence.

a ) Holy Books contain a lot of scary instructions.

b ) You need to establish a clear effect of causation to blame someone's bad behavior on their religion, beyond what the holy book says. You need to separate it from culture as well. Good luck with that.

c) If you're going back hundreds of years, then you can look at other religions as well and how poorly behaved they were.

There's nothing I have seen that can attribute poor behavior to any religion or another beyond the cultural effects that interplay with an individual's religion.

"Over one million Armenian Christians were savagely slaughtered by the Turkish Muslims at the beginning of the twentieth century. According to a report by Khartoum University professors Ushari Mahmud and Suleyman Ali Blado, more than one thousand Dinka citizens were massacred in the Western Sudan town of Diem in 1987.

Why aren't you blaming this on Turks then ? You're blaming all Muslims, which means Persians are blamed for the actions of Turks 100 years ago ?

The Baptist Record newspaper of November 5, 1987, added that dozens of pastors have been killed and many churches destroyed since Islamic law was imposed in 1983, when Sudan was officially declared an Islamic republic.

Out of context, this statistic doesn't mean anything. What were the effects that led there ? Are there other cultural effects that come into play here ?

The Baptist World Alliance newsletter of September, 1987, tells of 130 church buildings and pastor's homes, all of Christian denominations in Kadona State in Nigeria, being destroyed by Muslim rioters. Where does this rampant slaughter in the name of religion come from. It is taught in the Quran as revealed by the prophet Muhammad."

See above.

Now I'll be the first to concede that not all Muslims of the probable 1.3 billion are violent. But one simply cannot ignore the reality of the violent Islamic world we know today.

Not all of them ? Really.

It's a common ploy of the apologist to cite the old testament equating the draconian sentences and warlike posturing to that of CONTEMPORARY Islam.

Not only apologists but realists do this.

BUT, that was at least back in the 11th-13th centuries since anything of scale was based on Christian religion, and Jews have not followed the old testament punishments or war since long before that. (Otherwise kept busy)

Didn't you just cite "hundreds of years" above ?

Otherwise, that paragraph is hard to read.

Islam today is in the millions, still a follower of Mohammad's 7th century teachings.

How do you measure such things ?

Simply look at how some fundamental Muslim may behave at a slight, insult of the religion, or to his honor.

Islam is not just another religion.

No more need be said.

If you want to convince anybody of this, you have to provide evidence better than you have done here. Many others on here have tried, but I haven't seen an argument yet that even puts together an objective case for it.

[dre]

I don't see anything wrong with a law that says laws and contracts can't be based on religion - any religion. I truly support separation of church and state. Yet this is somehow being perceived as "anti-Muslim."

I dont think youre being anti muslim at all, but theres definately an issue with personal freedom here. I personally really hate the idea of any type of religious authority, but the government should not be in the business of tearing up contracts between voluntary individuals, provided all of the tennets and effects of that contract are legal, and only civil in nature.

If myself and another party wish to voluntarily submit our dispute to binding arbitration the government quite simply has no role to play in a free society. If we want to agree that Barney the dinosaur will settle our civil dispute by flipping a coin, thats our own business no matter how stupid the idea is.

The government should have absolutely no role here, besides potentially ruling on the legality of the contract... If the contract has illegal consequences it can throw it out. If one of the parties was unduly pressured to sign it can be thrown out. Thats it though.

[Shady]

That objective is shared by Christianity...

If you're being intellectually honest, you'd recognize that Islam has very big differences in their approach, than any other major religion.

[Michael Hardner]

If you're being intellectually honest, you'd recognize that Islam has very big differences in their approach, than any other major religion.

I'm only commenting on what Peeves posted.

[olpfan1]

I agree with almost everything you said, but. Islam never was, never has been, and never will be a religion of peace.

There are no religions of peace, the idea that there are is quite laughable

[Shady]

There are no religions of peace, the idea that there are is quite laughable

That's just another equally intellectually dishonest statement. You're over-simplifying something that's much more complex. Possibly because it's easier for you to understand that way.