For those following the idiotic allegations that Sharia is creeping into American society and wonder who speaks for Islam, I think the answer is obvious. Western extremists are now the new hijackers of Islam. They have adopted the language of Islamic terrorists, interpreted the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) into something unrecognizable to Muslims and cherry-pick aspects of Sharia to offer interpretations in a vacuum.
Muslims may think that Osama bin Laden perverted the true meaning of Islam, but Newt Gingrich, Geert Wilders and their slavish sycophants Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller make Al-Qaeda look like amateurs in the art of deception.
Recently, a peculiar document titled the "Shariah: The Threat to America" was published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. The Center for Security Policy purports to be a non-partisan group, but only ultra-conservatives authored the 352-page report. The report's objectives are to explain how Muslims are conspiring to supplant American jurisprudence and the U.S. Constitution with Sharia. Yet not a single Muslim or non-Muslim Islamic scholar was consulted. Only one of its 19 authors claims to have a degree in theology. His biography, though, makes no mention of what kind of degree. We are supposed to take their word that they are the experts.
These self-proclaimed experts ignore the principles of Sharia that make Islamic values compatible with democratic societies. Indeed, the principles of Sharia are also found in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and predate these documents by more than a millennium. These Sharia principles ensure the freedom of religion, the preservation of human life and family, the guarantee of an education and the pursuit of economic security and justice through commerce.
Rather than focus on what Sharia has in common with American values, the report gives considerable space to a 19-year-old Muslim Brotherhood document that reportedly seeks to implement Sharia in the United States. Although the authors give much credence to this document, most American Muslims view the Muslim Brotherhood in the abstract with little relevance in their lives. The report fails to address the question of how the Muslim Brotherhood, which struggles for credibility in Muslim countries, can have a foothold in Podunk, Idaho.
The report cleverly addresses the more sensational aspects of Sharia: stoning, amputations, lashings and taqiyya. Taqiyya, according to Western extremists, means that Muslims can lie with impunity to hide their true agenda of global domination. I must admit that this is a clever tactic because anyone believing in this nonsense can conveniently disregard as a lie any Muslim argument that is contrary the western extremist position. Interestingly, the Robert Spencers of the world insist we denounce terrorism and renounce Sharia. Yet their position is that all Muslims are liars, so what's the point of making these futile arguments?
Taqiyya refers to a single incident in the Qur'an in which a man concealed his religious faith when forced to renounce Islam while being tortured. If anything, recent history has taught us that anyone will lie under the threat of torture. But we are led to believe that this single incident in this context is the foundation of an Islamic strategy to impose Sharia.
The Center for Security Policy wants Americans to think that stoning and amputations are around the corner, but the report can't quite explain why stonings are so rare and the streets of Saudi Arabia and Iran are not filled with one-armed thieves.
The Qur'an never mentions stoning as a punishment and there are conflicting interpretations of the Prophet's involvement in implementing it. The most common interpretation is of a woman consumed with guilt over an adulterous affair that resulted in a child. She pestered the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) literally for years for him to wash away her sins with a death sentence. He refused, but when he could no longer find an excuse to send her away, he reluctantly agreed to punish her. What non-Muslim Sharia "experts" fail to mention is that stoning a person who commits adultery requires four eyewitnesses to the actual act of sexual intercourse. This fantastical burden of proof is almost impossible to fulfill. And rightly so. It's designed as prevention, not an actual punishment. Allegations of adultery are easy to make but virtually impossible to prove. Sharia makes stoning extremely unlikely to carry out.
The threat by the Iranian government to stone to death Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani on a conviction of adultery is not based on the evidence of four eyewitnesses, but on a judicial authority determined to inflict fear and intimidation on the Iranian population. It's not Sharia.
The anti-Muslim contingent points to wobbly examples that Sharia has infiltrated western judicial system. In 2009, a New Jersey judge denied a Muslim woman's request for a restraining order against her estranged husband because the abusive husband was following his Muslim beliefs. A similar case occurred in Germany in which a judge cited Qur'anic Verse 4:34 that permits husbands to strike their wives. The higher courts overturned the rulings in a clear message that the rule of law supersedes religious principles.
Another example of creeping Sharia, according to the anti-Muslim crowd, is the use of Sharia as private arbitration in domestic and civil cases. In these cases, Muslims agree in advance to the decision made by a panel of community leaders. This method of justice, almost identical to Beth Din employed in Jewish communities for more than a century, is permitted in England under the Arbitration Act of 1996. Outlawing Sharia as private arbitration would also require governments to ban Beth Din and administrative arbitration hearings enjoyed by private businesses and public agencies in the United States and the United Kingdom. The judicial system will collapse under the tens of thousands of additional domestic and civil cases added to the calendar and deprive individuals of their day in court.
What's more disturbing than judges making erroneous rulings is westerners lacking confidence in their own laws and constitutions. Implementing Sharia is impossible yet somehow is a hairsbreadth away from becoming a new constitutional amendment.
As a Muslim, I adhere to Sharia in my personal life. However, I see no need to impose it on anybody else, especially if they live in a non-Muslim country. As an individual, I don't dedicate my life to the advancement of Sharia while living or traveling in the west. But I also do not represent Muslims in the west. I do, however, live my life according to its principles to practice my religion freely, revere human life, pursue an education, remain loyal to my family and work hard to earn a decent living. When I hear people say that Muslims don't share American and British values, I have a feeling they would be embarrassed to recognize they are rejecting basic human rights that Sharia shares with democratic countries.
Of course, non-Muslims may have reason not to believe a word I write. This may be my idea of taqiyya.
Follow Sabria Jawhar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/saudiwriter
Joshua Stanton: Islamophobia: Increasingly Ordinary and Therefore Most Terrible
Joshua Stanton: Is Pamela Geller Starting Judaism's Westboro Baptist Church? (VIDEO)
Asma Uddin: Caliphate on the Range? The Shariah Precedent in American Courts
Nancy Graham Holm: Three Questions to Ask Geert Wilders about Anti-Islam Hate Speech
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations
Fears of Sharia Law in America Grow Among Conservatives ...
BBC - Religions - Islam: Sharia
Islam and the Midterm Elections
Sharia in the West: Whose law counts most?
Sharron Angle on Sharia law in America: "That's what I had read"
AUDIO of Sharron Angle suggesting Sharia Law a threat in America
=========================================================
"May think"? The cowardly murder of more than 3,000 innocent people isn't proof enough?
==
why is it this comment is away repeated and the only thing gets you happy is that i believe in your dogma.
never content I call it
Your in charge of programming your head input = output
Native Amarican religion for a change
Ojibwa Affirmation
Oh Great Spirit, whose voice I hear in the winds
And whose breath gives life to everyone,
Hear me.
I come as one of many children;
I am weak I am small I need wisdom and strength.
Let me walk in beauty, and make my eyes ever
behold the red and purple sunsets.
Make my hands respect the things that have bin made,
and make my ears sharp so I may hear all voices.
Make me wise, so that I may understand what my path is.
The lessons that have been hidden in each leaf and each rock.
I ask for wisdom and strength,
Not to be superior to my brothers and sisters, but to be able
to fight my greatest enemy, myself.
Make me ever ready to come before all with
clean hands and a straight eye,
So as life fades away as a fading sunset,
My spirit may come to all without shame.
So what do you stick in your head for output… for cultural exchange
You just dont know Islam.....
Its called an ingram you programed in your head.... and the same message comes out over and over... why people cant see the way you do... then you get mad...
its called no content for your suroundings nor do you even understanding what is content... your on another trip somwhere...
and these rules go back for eons.....
One then about relion they fail in then consept of freedom of religion... it like free speech… you can tell me what is and what is not… you belive its your right to impose your religion in set way… but that’s not freedom of religion is it…
One then about relion they fail in then consept of freedom of religion... it like free speech… you can tell me what is and what is not… you belive its your right to impose your religion in set way… but that’s not freedom of religion is it…
Read it an notice that their are no Dhimi's their are no people forced to do or not to do anything.
Don't confuse actual Sharia for the acts of despots who abuse the name of God and the Prophet.
Of course, there are many varieties of Sharia Law, depending on Islamic sect, Madhab, time period and location. Some are more harsh and irrational and capricious and unfair, and some less so. I have even listened to a Muslim Law Professor who is in favor of Sharia Law claiming that Sharia Law is wonderful and the optimal legal system, but that it is does not exist currently anywhere on planet Earth and has never ever been implemented anywhere.
Great. That argument makes this effort to gain acceptance for Sharia Law sound like those made by the people who were always in favor of Communism, but claimed that all the ugly examples of attempts at Communist rule were not really "true" Communism. And just like Communism, if Sharia Law cannot be successfully implemented and its superiority demonstrated in the real world, when compared with competing systems, it is not really worth much.
I will say what has been said before. If you want to live under Sharia Law, move to a country that has it. Then, you can enjoy it, and if it looks better, other societies might consider it. But for now, it does not look good. Sorry.
I believe in the US and it's constitution more than you. I think we can absorb any religion, sect or people and make them every bit as American as I am. As American as the bald Eagle who's feathers some of my ancestors held sacred. Just as we assimilated the English and others and made them a part of us and us a part of them, Americans... So too will the Arabs be assimilated.
Mark my words the same things you are saying now were said about Catholics, Germans, Poles, Frenchmen (see the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams) etc. All of them became American. They became welded into the block of disparate alloys that is this nation. The Muslims will not be any different.
Please do not presume that you can so arrogantly assume that you "believe in the US and its constitution" more than me or anyone else. That would be a little foolish, since you have no idea who I am, right?
If Muslims can live under the US system of government and law, and live in peace with their neighbors, of course they are welcome. But we both know that is not necessarily true, and there are many many troubling signs.
Just observe what has been going on in Europe with Muslim immigrants. It has been an abject failure. Take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=winu_C_X5mw for example.
In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?_r=2&ref=world
Sharia law is not for ever changing society/civilized society. Science & technology has helped a lot of innocent people who were locked behind bars for the crimes they did not commit. A court of law should be solely based on science, logic, and not on religious texts!!
For those that want to live under such laws, i really don't care. But to attempt to bring them here to our country? To set up court systems here? We have refined 'freedom' for over 200 years.. and these people want us to revert to the 7th century barbarism ..I say this is not welcome here, and i find no support for it whatsoever in the Quran..
Here is an example.. Rashid Kalifa a Egyptian born cleric who felt as I do about the idolatry of Mohammad came here and started a Quran Alone Movement, and his name was mentioned in the same sentence, as Salmon Rushdie author of the Satanic Verses, in a Fatwa issued from a State that is ruled by the Sharia Law. Someone slit this guys throat in his kitchen in Tucson Arizona for having a opinion different than that of those in power in Iran
The thing that everyone is forgetting is that there is a difference between the actual principles seen in the Quran and the way Muslims behave in real life. Sharia is a very just court system in principle...it takes four (male or a female victim + 3 male) eye witness's testimony or a confession repeated four separate times to convict someone of anything criminal.
What we see in practice in say Iran is for the most part simply brutal authoritarianism at it's worst. As a government ignore's it's own constitution as well as the Quran. In Pakistan they government has utterly failed to govern. Various armed groups control vast parts of that country outside of Islamabad-Rawalpindi and parts of Karachi. Saudi Arabia is simply a government made to suppress dissent with the King and Nobility (princes's and princess's).
Given those examples I do not blame anyone for thinking that Sharia means what we see in those countries.
In my opinion, Muslims who choose to live as Sharia a compliant life as possible here in a country where there is no earthly compulsion to do so are the best of us. It is easy in a country where the athan rings out 6 times a day and the Eid's are national holidays. It is something else when you are the only one fasting, while those around you eat.
In the US we have refined our legal laws to make them as objective as possible. Yes, there have been mistakes made and innocents have lost their lives but we continue to refine those laws so that only the criminals are punished.
Sharia Law is something a lot of people seem to misunderstand, including the person I am replying to. Sharia Law applies to both Muslim and NON-Muslims. To establish Sharia Law in the US would mean we would eventually be subject to those very same laws. These laws are neither just nor are they compassionate, and as such I do not welcome them here in any way shape or form.
Second by the best of us I meant the best of us muslims, that was clear to everyone but you.
Third Sharia does not apply to non-muslims. People of other religions in Muslim countries are only subject to the penalties for criminal acts (i.e. Theft, rape, Murder etc) not family or civil Sharia law.
Clearly your sentiments are alarmist.
Sharia is the laws that guide Muslims EVERYWHERE in their daily lives..... it is NOT only a criminal code.... it is a CIVIL code as well.....
and it does not apply to NON Muslims.....
STOP reading creeping sharia and Jihad watch..... and RESEARCH the religion Yourself instead of letting others tell you what a religion is like... if I wanted to understand the Jewish faith.... I would not go to a Nazi web site to do do....
The American conflict with Sharia law reflects a larger conflict within Islam over secular power versus clerical power. For hundreds of years, Sharia law and the power it gives the Islamic clergy had been losing authority to secular leaders promoting secular law. Islamists are determined to reverse this state of affairs.
Secular power can grow only at the expense of clerical power. It is the ultimate zero sum game.
Where does it teach that, because everything I have studied says Islam doesn't cover countries, whatsoever, especially given the fact that countries didn't exist until the modern era (circa 800 years after Islam)?
So what?
Of course, the US is not a democracy either, but a republic.
Let's call the whole thing off"
P.S. did you reverse the strings on your bass or you just play everything upside down :-)
This is rather clear to all rational people of the world.
However, the Islamaphobes who base their arguments on generalizations and a line of reasoning only seen in Dr. Seuss Books, are wasting their time on this board to offend a religion.