Step aside, Straussians. Intellectual conspiracy theorists have found a new fear-inducing, foreign-sounding idea that supposedly threatens to shred the Constitution and subvert American civilization -- sharia law. Earlier this week, the first day of hearings in a lawsuit filed by opponents of plans to build a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee focused mainly on a condemnation of Islamic religious law, known as sharia. "Sharia says the U.S. Constitution is suitable for toilet paper," said the lawyer for the mosque opponents. Indeed, sharia-phobia is rampant on the right. Even Newt Gingrich recently got in on the action by proposing a new law banning courts from considering sharia as a replacement for American law. While the likelihood of sharia taking over our courtrooms remains remote, all this sharia mania raises some interesting questions, such as: Have any democracies ever applied sharia? And, if so, how long did it take before they perished from the earth?
To answer those questions, it makes sense to look at two other democracies where, perhaps surprisingly, sharia has long been part of the law of the land: Israel and India, two of America's greatest allies.
In both countries, the sharia law system is a holdover from the colonial past and governs issues of personal law -- like marriage and divorce -- for Muslim citizens. Yet neither Israel nor India has much of a reputation for public beheadings. Why? Because sharia is an abstract concept that can include a wide spectrum of different opinions, interpretations, and practices, as Arab and Islamic affairs expert Lee Smith explained in a recent column.
Israel has maintained government-sponsored sharia courts since that nation's founding, despite the fact that Israel considers itself the Jewish state and it has continuously been locked in a state of war with many of its Arab neighbors. Israel's Islamic courts are descended from the Ottoman Empire's millet system, in which each religious community lived by its own rules. So, today, when a Muslim couple gets married in Israel, the marriage must be performed according to binding Muslim religious law, and, similarly, when a Jewish couple is married, Jewish religious law applies.
Courts in India, the world's largest democracy, also apply sharia to personal status issues involving Muslims, even though the population of India is roughly eighty percent Hindu and the country has a history of conflict with Muslim Pakistan. For example, when a Muslim woman gets divorced in India, the amount of alimony to which she is entitled will be determined under sharia.
Ultimately, court decisions of Islamic law in both Israel and India can be appealed to those countries' high courts, which are empowered to overturn sharia rulings based on conflicts with basic rights or other laws.
The sharia systems of Israel and India may be far from the liberal ideal, but they are certainly not the harsh, all-encompassing sharia of the Taliban or Saudi Arabia. Such severe interpretations would not survive for long in a diverse, modern society where Muslims are a minority. The fact that Israel and India have openly applied versions of sharia law for over sixty years should at least give us pause to consider whether this scary, foreign-sounding concept is really quite as terrifying as Newt Gingrich hopes it will be.
If sharia were ever seriously adopted in this country (which it won't be), it would most likely resemble not the sharia of the Taliban, but the sharia of Israel -- a country where Islamic law is binding only on personal law issues; where the practice of polygamy, permitted under traditional sharia, has largely been eliminated; and where decisions of the sharia courts are ultimately subject to review by the Supreme Court of Israel.
Does that mean that America should bow down and submit its legal system to the rule of sharia? Of course not. We should never accept any religious legal system in this country because that would contradict a bedrock principle of our Constitution -- the First Amendment's separation of religion and state.
India and Israel remain stuck with their religious personal law systems for historical reasons, and, to be sure, these systems are not without their problems. Aspects of sharia, even as applied in those countries, conflict with human and women's rights laws and have at times served to provoke religious conflict, particularly in India. But the wholesale demonization of sharia by defining it by the worst abuses committed in its name ignores the more complex reality -- that Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is subject to differing interpretations.
If a serious movement arises to legally enact any form of sharia in America, we must defend our First Amendment principles and reject the attempt to have the state impose religious law. But the First Amendment guarantees not only the separation of religion and state, but also the free exercise of religion. The integrity of the principle that all Americans are entitled to their faith is now being tested by a despicable wave of anti-Muslim sentiment, which some politicians hope to exploit for electoral gain. Between now and November, we will see how America fares on that test.
"Khemal" is the way many sites refr to him.
Google for Armenian genocide before Kamal Attaturk came to power.
Source is of questionable integrity and knowledge. Rejected,as ground realitgy is opposite.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101003/ap_on_re_us/europe_terror_threat_alert
Those who say Sharia law has no effect on their lives may want to consider that this alert is the direct result of Muslims following Sharia law:
Umdat al-salik, o9.0:
"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad,
“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”[....]
r28.0 FRIGHTENING OR COERCING A BELIEVER
r28.1(Nahlawi:) To make a believer fear other than disobedience or coerce hi to do something he is averse to, such as giving a gift, marrying, or selling something—all this is hurting him, and hurting a believer is unlawful. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,
“Whoever frightens a believer, it is incumbent that Allah not protect him from the terrors of judgement Day as a fitting recompense.”
Najm al-Ghazzi says in Husn al-tanabbuh, “Among the works of the Devil is frightening, annoying, or alarming a believer, all of which is unlawful” (ibid., 157-58).
Rubbish. Provide evidence. Hinduism does not state: women are the property of the man; marriage is only civil contract, with the payment of an advance rent paid for the use of the body of the woman; women captured in the war can be raped; women should remain under house arrest; men can beat their wives and others.
"A woman is prevented from even wearing a head scarf in the Turkish parliament. It is as secular as France is -- and far more than we are."
Apparently you do not know much about Turkey or France. Turkey became secular due to Khemal, who bansihed Islam and the Book from the public space. Now army and judiciary are the two wings that protect the secular constitution. Erdogan has already subverted the army by sideling the generals or court marshalling those who are stopping Islamisation. He is moving an amedment to subvert the judiciary also and he is aligniing more with Iran than with the West. Turkey is the country where they killed 1.5 mn Armenian Christians and it is called Armenian genocide.
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/594-582.aspx
Hindus worship female gods (Saraswati, Kali, Durga, Parvati, etc), there have been many great Hindu warriors/rulers/queens in ancient and medieval India, and modern India elected the world's second female premier of a nation (Indira Gandhi, who royally kicked and handed your Pakistani masters' asses back to them in the 1971 war), and today's India has many women in places of power today (Sonia Gandhi, Loksabha opposition leader Sushma Swaraj, UP's CM Mayawati, just to name 3):
Top 10 powerful women politicians of India
http://www.merinews.com/article/top-10-powerful-women-politicians-of-india/15767848.shtml
as well as in its growing IT and other hightech sectors.
For Hindus, women are a divine form. For Jihadists whom you are shilling for here, they are enslaved baby-factories for producing future jihadists, as the Pakistan-created Taliban demonstrated in the 7th century Afghanistan it created:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mvcarmac/taliban.html
http://www.iloveindia.com/spirituality/goddesses/index.html
Top 10 powerful women politicians of India
http://www.merinews.com/article/top-10-powerful-women-politicians-of-india/15767848.shtml
The American IT sector is being outpaced by India in the race to attract more women into high-powered technology jobs
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Women-break-glass-ceiling-in-infotech-sector/articleshow/1279539.cms
And, by the way, the genocide -- not only of Armenians but of Assyrians and Pontic Greeks -- happened under Ataturk (the secular state) and not the Ottoman Empire. You must stop to actually read as you frantically Google.
Issues such as interest (charges on mortgage and money transactions) and Insurance, Apostasy, punishments for other offences, organ transplantation, international relations, methods of political administration, women’s rights, distribution of charity are subject to interpretations and changes based on independent reasoning by scholars.
The Prophet Muhammad has said that a period of time will come when the so called scholars would emerge who will justify the wrong as right and right as wrong. They’d confound themselves and confuse others but a small group will be ready until the Day of Judgment to fight and die to preserve the moral laws of God.
THUS they then think there is some movement afoot (probably by the secret Muslim we have as a president) to introduce Sharia law and start shouting to each other that THEY must preserve and protect America from this latest threat brought upon America by them thar libruls and demokrauts who hate 'mericuh and want to turn their (THEIR) country over to the commies.
Just amazing how unedumacated baggies are.
If they are not "baggies", what is their problem?
Domestic violence act, dowry prevention act and the prevention of untouchability act have been passed long ago. Hindu women now go the police and file a FIR if dowry is demanded or if they are ill treated.
"Would that it be the same respect offered to Islam and Muslims on your part."
They should earn it from the society by their education, conduct and contribution to the society. They can not demand it; why such a negative attitude by the West is not in display against other religionists.?
This is the attitude that makes any effort to reform Islam impossible; refusal even to acknowledge the problem. Hindu wome have outshone the men and they are in the corporatre USA in equal numbers. There is no theological basis in Hinduism for gender discrimination, as it is in Islam.
But whether or not there is a religious basis for gender discrimination in Hinduism, the practise can be downright harrowing for women. And you know what I mean:violence against brides in their husband's homes, the abandonment of widows, the extortionary practises preceding marriage, crimes against the scheduled castes which are never ajudicated and so on.
But this does not cause me to disrespect Hindus or Hinduism. India is a vast and diverse country which has informed every facet of Western culture, historically. I have studied the Bhagavad Gita and Vedic scriptures.
Would that it be the same respect offered to Islam and Muslims on your part.
http://www.iloveindia.com/spirituality/goddesses/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5og-hyD3A7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAN6IFNPkbI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXm8-Fq1H40&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoFdkZhvM08&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag8RyjQb3VA&feature=related
Per the first video, Harris has a bit of a tendency to globalize ("Millions of Muslims") - but was largely the very rational person he showed himself to be, in the debate I saw with Deepak Chopra.
Likewise, Reza Aslan made some very good points and counter-points to what Harris had to say.
We need more of this type of dialog across the board I'd say.
Thanks again for those links.
Peace to all.
The place where I see a potential conflict is where you start illustrating that the United States is a secular democracy, and sharia is something found in theocracies. The money here says 'in God we trust', the Pledge says 'one Nation, under God', but there's a lot of heathens, these days, especially after the decade-long spectacle that's been middle eastern/world history, where people are really starting to ask heavy-duty uestions about the institution of religion, and how it's used to try and influence and thus also govern the public. There's some crafty people out there, passing out the old religious literature. Not just muslims, either. There's Christians that'd like to turn the US into a theocracy and start giving orders and edicts and stuff, too. I say throw it all in the trash, and learn to think for yourself.
Interesting that he devotes so much time to sharia' as though Israel were this tolerant democracy which allows sharia' to apply to the Muslims of this land -- and yet only in matters which do not directly affect it, nor does it in any way touch upon the disenfranchisement of the entire Muslim population.
Certainly Halakha is further reaching in Israel, and yet this is left ignored. As though only Muslims integrate religion and the law.
Umdat al-salik:
b7.0 SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS (IJMA)
[….]
b7.2 When the four necessary integrals of consensus exist, the ruling agreed upon is an authoritative part of Sacred Law that is obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey. Nor can mujtahids of a succeeding era make the thing an object of new ijtihad, because the ruling on it, verified by scholarly consensus, is an absolute legal ruling which does not admit of being contravened or annulled.
[….]
“O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those of authority among you”
(Koran 4:59), [….]
o25.2
(H: The caliphate is a communal obligation (def: c3.2) just as the judgeship is (S: because the Islamic community needs a ruler to uphold the religion, defend the sunna, succor the oppressed from oppressors, fulfill rights, and restore them to whom they belong).)
These two doctrines, when joined to a political group like the Muslim Brotherhood or al Qaeda, are a direct challenge to representative democracy as practiced in the West.
This is the ideology of our enemies. This is why Sharia law must be reformed to create an American Islam that is not a challenge to liberal democracy.
Sharia is applied vastly differently in different countries.
This may be the ideology of your enemies but of enemies I have none. And certainly none based on race, religion, gender or other arbitrary facets.
Sharia law in the United States has no need of reformation, as there is no Sharia law in the United States. Christian politicians are far more influential, and have a greater wish to alter our laws according to their tenets than Muslims do.
You might want to turn your attentions there.
The author does not know anything about shariaa or about India. The shariaa in India discriminates heavily against women. Intermediate and temporary marriages, which are legal, are plain barbarism. Of course in India they do not stone them to death or administer lashes on errant women.