Originally posted by black beetleYou still have it back to front Black Beetle.
Methinks it is not a fair accusation. "Shariah" the way it is "performed" as a "law" by specific Islamists in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, cannot be tolerated, and in my opinion the ones who are practicing it are to me merely fondamentalist criminals. Therefore, due to the fact that the Muslims themselves are still unable to convince the global ...[text shortened]... core Muslim teaching; instead, we could firstly try to inform and educate him, and then debate😵
Let me explain. A core teaching is one that is clearly stated in the Holy Books as a principle that must be followed, and then subsequently clarified and reinforced by the elders in the Hadiths. Now in the these times Sharia law appear to be barbaric because in the last 100 years mankind has progressed while Sharia law has remained fixed. So the ones who are practicing it are the ones in fact who are true Muslims. The ones who have tried to move away are the ones who have allowed moderation and tolerance to 'corrupt' their doctrine.
The starting point for this 'debate' as you call it is to demonstrate by referencing the Koran and other writings, as to what the core teachings really are, and who are the ones who have strayed away from them. So far nobody has attempted to do that.
The bottom line is that the 'fondamentalist criminals' are the ones who hold on to the core teachings of Islam.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by Rajk999It seems to me a sign of maturity when they go away from such barbarism.
You still have it back to front Black Beetle.
Let me explain. A core teaching is one that is clearly stated in the Holy Books as a principle that must be followed, and then subsequently clarified and reinforced by the elders in the Hadiths. Now in the these times Sharia law appear to be barbaric because in the last 100 years mankind has progressed while ...[text shortened]... is that the 'fondamentalist criminals' are the ones who hold on to the core teachings of Islam.
They are becoming a minority which may be why they are sending warriors to force conversions.
06 Jan 14
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetleThese last couple of posts of yours much better capture where I'm coming from than your initial attempt. From what I can tell, you've come to get a better understanding of Sharia since then. Good to know someone is actually taking the time to educate themselves a bit. If only that were true for those who most need it.
Edit: “Note: These laws are "cast from the Quran, the actions and words of Muhammad", which has become the faith belief system and salvation of the souls of many loyal followers around the globe; provided here simply as a point of reference.”
Shariah Law is interpreted differently by different communities of Muslims –some of them are extreme and most ...[text shortened]... same way some Christians are extreme and most are not. The same could be done with the Bible
😵
BTW, your impression of why I called GB a bigot failed to take into account all the factors. All things considered, perhaps you'd be better off not trying to surmise what other posters think. You don't seem very good at it.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by divegeesterOnce again divegeester has taken to misrepresenting something in a desperate attempt to try to make a point. Seems it might be a habit for him. For the record, I did not "[call] GB a bigot for his opening post" as he claims. One only need to read through the opening series of posts to confirm this fact.
Do you feel that calling GB a bigot for his opening post was a fair accusation, given the content of it?
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis post of yours seems to imply GB as being bigoted:
Once again divegeester has taken to misrepresenting something in a desperate attempt to try to make a point. Seems it might be a habit for him. For the record, I did not "[call] GB a bigot for his opening post" as he claims. One only need to read through the opening series of posts to confirm this fact.
"Following are excerpts from an article that tries to actually shed some light on Sharia Law instead of spewing the usual bigoted tripe of the type posted by GB".
Those are your words. Are you saying the words are bigoted but not GB?
Not sure what you mean here.
06 Jan 14
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI was pointing out that the web article that GB quoted is bigoted tripe. Take a look at the source website. It's clearly the product of bigoted Christians preying on the ignorance of others by using dishonest tactics to further their fear mongering agenda.
This post of yours seems to imply GB as being bigoted:
"Following are excerpts from an article that tries to actually shed some light on Sharia Law instead of spewing the usual bigoted tripe of the type posted by GB".
Those are your words. Are you saying the words are bigoted but not GB?
Not sure what you mean here.
This post of yours seems to imply GB as being bigoted
Actually, it doesn't.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
Sharia Law
"Sharia Law is the law of Islam. Sharia [also spelled 'Shariah'] is cast from the Quran, the actions and words of Muhammad, and the collective reasoning and deductions of Muslim imams. As a legal system, Islam's Sharia law covers a wide range of subjects. The stipulations of the Sharia law, however, are unlike any other legal system in the world. According to the Sharia law:
• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad's words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
• The list goes on. Sharia is the national law of Saudi Arabia but has been seeping into Europe, UK, Canada and America as Islam expands, led by the Muslim Brotherhood movement." http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html
Note: These laws are "cast from the Quran, the actions and words of Muhammad", which has become the faith belief system and salvation of the souls of many loyal followers around the globe; provided here simply as a point of reference.
... to promote conversation. Period. If you want to keep your opinions, you can keep them. Period. If you want to share them objectively, Great! Thanks to those who have done so. I've learned a lot and am still learning.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyInteresting that GB insists on posting tripe from a website that is clearly the product of bigoted Christians preying on the ignorance of others by using dishonest tactics to further their fear mongering agenda whilst trying to claim that he has "no agenda" and is only doing so to "promote conversation".One would think that if that were the case, GB would instead post a fair and balanced explanation of Sharia. Instead he has reposted this deceitful tripe at least two more times by my count including here.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
[b]Sharia Law
"Sharia Law is the law of Islam. Sharia [also spelled 'Shariah'] is cast from the Quran, the actions and words of Muhammad, and the collective reasoning and deductions of Muslim imams. As a legal system, Islam's Sharia law covers a wide range of subjects. The stipulations of the Sharia ...[text shortened]... ectively, Great! Thanks to those who have done so. I've learned a lot and am still learning.[/b][/b]
Note the following dubious claim:
"Sharia is the national law of Saudi Arabia but has been seeping into Europe, UK, Canada and America as Islam expands, led by the Muslim Brotherhood movement."
Seems that wolfgang also found the claim to be dubious and asked GB to post examples. GB posted an article entitled "City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law which was proven to be false. Repeated attempts by wolfgang to get GB to either provide examples or "retract these lies" have not only been ignored by GB, but GB seems to have no reservations about repeatedly posting them.
It's quite clear that GB very much has an agenda despite his claims otherwise. It's quite clear that GB has the same agenda as the website that he has repeatedly quoted.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAs you seem to enjoy throwing out insults and then prevaricating when asked to explain yourself, you can hardly object when people make assumptions.
Once again divegeester has taken to misrepresenting something in a desperate attempt to try to make a point. Seems it might be a habit for him. For the record, I did not "[call] GB a bigot for his opening post" as he claims. One only need to read through the opening series of posts to confirm this fact.
Originally posted by divegeesterInstead of owning his mistake, divegeester has once again chosen to misrepresent things in a desperate attempt to try to make a point.
As you seem to enjoy throwing out insults and then prevaricating when asked to explain yourself, you can hardly object when people make assumptions.
Evidently divegeester has no scruples whatsoever.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby
Interesting that GB insists on posting tripe from a website that is clearly the product of bigoted Christians preying on the ignorance of others by using dishonest tactics to further their fear mongering agenda whilst trying to claim that he has "no agenda" and is only doing so to "promote conversation".One would think that if that were the case, GB would ...[text shortened]... wise. It's quite clear that GB has the same agenda as the website that he has repeatedly quoted.
The Real Impact of Sharia Law in America Cully Stimson, September 2, 2010 at 11:00 am
"Justice for John Yoo and Jay Bybee: Does Sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife, even in America? A New Jersey trial judge thought so. In a recently overturned case, a “trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault” but did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim. Fortunately, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial judge. But make no mistake about it: this is no isolated incident. We will see more cases here in the United States where others attempt to impose Sharia law, under the guise of First Amendment protections, as a defense against crimes and other civil violations.
In S.D. v. M.J.R., the plaintiff, a Moroccan Muslim woman, lived with her Moroccan Muslim husband in New Jersey. She was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband over the course of several weeks. While the plaintiff was being treated for her injuries at a hospital, a police detective interviewed her and took photographs of her injuries. Those photographs depicted injuries to plaintiff’s breasts, thighs and arm, bruised lips, eyes and right check. Further investigation established there were blood stains on the pillow and sheets of plaintiff’s bed.
The wife sought a permanent restraining order, and a New Jersey trial judge held a hearing in order to decide whether to issue the order. Evidence at trial established, among other things, that the husband told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” The police detective testified about her findings, and some of the photographs were entered into evidence. The defendant’s Imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands and he refused to answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his sexual advances on his wife if she says “no.”
The trial judge found that most of the criminal acts were indeed proved, but nonetheless denied the permanent retraining order. This judge held that the defendant could not be held responsible for the violent sexual assaults of his wife because he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were “consistent with his [religious] practices.” In other words, the judge refused to issue the permanent restraining order because under Sharia law, this Muslim husband had a “right” to rape his wife.
Besides the fact that the ruling is wrong as a legal matter, and offensive beyond words, it goes to the heart of the controversy about the insidious spread of Sharia law—the goal of radical Islamic extremists. Fortunately, the New Jersey appellate court refused to tolerate the trial judge’s “mistaken” and unsustainable decision. The appellate court chastised the trial judge’s ruling, holding among other things that he held an “unnecessarily dismissive view of defendant’s acts of domestic violence,” and that his views of the facts in the case “may have been colored by his perception that…they were culturally acceptable and thus not actionable – -a view we soundly reject.” Although appellate courts typically defer to findings of fact by trial judges, under the circumstances, this appellate court correctly refused to do so, and reversed the trial court and ordered the permanent restraining order to issue.
The truth is that imposition of Sharia law in the United States, especially when mixed with a perverted sense of political correctness, poses a danger to civil society. Just last year, a Muslim man in Buffalo, New York beheaded his wife in what appeared to be an honor killing, again using his faith to justify his actions. It is doubtful that the domestic violence and rape in this recently overturned case will be the last Americans see of Sharia being impermissibly used to justify brutal acts on our soil. As former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney wrote recently: Sharia is no less toxic when it comes to the sorts of democratic government and civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. According to this legal code of Saudi Arabia and Iran, only Allah can make laws, and only a theocrat can properly administer them, ultimately on a global basis.
The trial opinion in this case shows that, indeed, the global reach of Sharia law is expanding. The trial court allowed the testimony of an Imam to be entered so that his account of Sharia’s standards could supercede the standards set by the New Jersey legislature. This is not just about cultural defenses, which by themselves are not proper under United States law, but about giving up control of the law to a religious code citizens of this country have no control over, a theocratic code world famous for its antidemocratic, sexist nature and its human rights abuses.
So-called “cultural defenses” have existed in other contexts for a long while and, for the most part, such defenses have been rejected. As a domestic violence prosecutor in San Diego, I ran across a case where the accused was charged with assault for punching his girlfriend, and the defense wanted to introduce an expert in Latin cultures. The expert was to testify that in Latin culture, it is acceptable for a man to strike “his woman” as punishment as long as it doesn’t cause serious lasting injury. This was rejected outright by the court, as it should have been. These attempts are not uncommon, but the cultural relativism they espouse is different than the more dangerous trend here.
In S.D. v. M.J.R., the husband’s defense for sexually assaulting his wife was not just another attempt to erode the protection of our own social mores. The specific threat that comes from attempting to establish Sharia law in the United States is that justification for doing so has been couched in the protections of the First Amendment. As noted by the appeals court in its decision overturning what amounted to the replacement of New Jersey’s rape law with Sharia, “the judge determined to except [the] defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs.” Doing so was contrary to several Supreme Court decisions, which hold that an individual’s responsibility to obey generally applicable law—particularly those that regulate socially harmful conduct—cannot be made contingent up on his or her religious beliefs.
The U.S. Constitution cannot and should not be used to subvert legislatures and allow brutes such as the husband in this case to harm others simply because their actions are legal under Sharia law. It was impermissible for the trial court to act as it did in this case, and the appellate judges very correctly overturned the ruling below. This is not the last we will hear of such attempts, however, as Sharia-loving extremists are determined to establish an Islamic Caliphate around the world, especially in America. As Andy McCarthy has written, “Our enemies are those who want Sharia to supplant American law and Western culture.” We cannot allow that to happen."
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/02/the-real-impact-of-sharia-law-in-america/
ThinkOfOne, thanks for your comments. Do you approve of the accuracy of this report? (Page 1)
07 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, for sure. Christianity started off as a barbaric religion but has now become far more moderate and tolerant. Although they still have lots of lose ends to iron out. In the case of Islam Im not sure that they could ever reach that position.
It seems to me a sign of maturity when they go away from such barbarism.
They are becoming a minority which may be why they are sending warriors to force conversions.
The difference is how the Koran is worded. You would not find disciples of Christianity being commanded [in the Bible] to kill those who dont accept Christ. You would however find that Muslims are ordered in the Koran to kill Jews, Christians and infidels. There are several statements along those lines.
This is why I suggested that people read the books for themselves instead of making statements based on lack of information. You would find that its the fundamentalists who are following the clear teachings of the holy books, while the moderates are departing from it.
Originally posted by Rajk999I take issue with that claim. Christianity started from peace loving individuals who were rounded up and thrown to the lions.
Well, for sure. Christianity started off as a barbaric religion but has now become far more moderate and tolerant.
It was only after Constantine declared Christianity the state religion did it start to become barbaric. That is what happens when you mingle the vile politics of man with the church and this is what Islam refuses to recognize.
07 Jan 14
Originally posted by whodeyActually, that is what happens when anything starts out with a few dedicated individuals in any field. When the size turns into thousands, bad things happen.
I take issue with that claim. Christianity started from peace loving individuals who were rounded up and thrown to the lions.
It was only after Constantine declared Christianity the state religion did it start to become barbaric. That is what happens when you mingle the vile politics of man with the church and this is what Islam refuses to recognize.