Oklahoma and Sharia

[JS80]

hi. I am not sure what you would like law abiding Muslim citizens in the US to do. Have all the law abiding Christians in the country held demonstrations at the priests who were abusing children? How about all the law abiding Americans that were sold the Iraq War on false pretenses? Have you held any demonstrations why after a trillion+ dollars and 4000 of our soldiers death, we have no tangible gain on the War on Terror?

Why am I and other fellow Muslims held to this false accountability? I didnt do anything wrong, and just because some retard did, I and other law abiding Muslim Americans will not be held responsible.

Hmmm...let's see, there was this dude named Martin Luther, who saw the Catholic Church for what it was and...guess what, he risked his life and gave the Church the finger and started the protestant movement.

There are plenty of Christians in this country and around the world that are against the Catholic church and the protection of pedophile priests. Even most CATHOLICS themselves abhor it. There are plenty of Christians that are overtly against the hate-monger (who are in the minority) mega-tv-church ministers that do not preach Jesus' teachings. Yet this is the only "Christian" thing you see in the media. You don't see the charitable work done around the world by Christian organizations, not to evangelize, but to ease suffering to those in need with free food and medicine, often at the risk of their own lives.

There are plenty of Americans that oppose the war and things that the US government does. That is what makes this country great. In the middle east you speak out against your Islamic government and you disappear.

False accountability? You are the problem. YOU are the motherfucking problem. You are in here defending your faith and your "people" instead of being a reformer. Either you support them in your silence or you are too pussy you might get beheaded. I don't see a Martin Luther of Islam looking to distance themselves from the tyranny of Islam as it is practiced today. You are all lock step and divert money to terror orgs through your mosques and CAIR.

 

[Scotteq]

And as to your last point, I never suggested that US Courts have to consider Sharia Law at all. If I did, please point out where I did suggest anything of that sort. Infact, I just suggested the exact opposite and dont believe any reason exists that Sharia Law should be considered by the US Courts.

Hence, before you jump to conclusions, please try to converse in a reasonable and rational manner. I am not here to argue with you or anyone else. I have and am continuing to try to inform other members from the perspective of who you think is an enemy of the USA. I, nor other Muslims are here to kill you or take over the States or be a mode of a clash. I am as American as you are (well, not really, coz I wasnt born here - but hopefully you get the point I am making).

Thank you for your lame and wordy attempt to change the Topic: THIS THREAD is about (a) efforts to subvert US Law with Sharia and (b) the (poorly written under US rules) Referendum to prevent this from happening in the State of Oklahoma.

My position is: (1) The intent is clear. Given there are and have been ongoing efforts to subvert US Law and apply Sharia in cases where it suits the defendant, then we need to (once again) lead people by the nose and tell them 'You Can't Do That Here'.

(2) This particular referendum, however, is poorly written because it singles out Sharia and therefore it stands no chance of passing a legal challenge.


Please spare me the stinking pile of bullshit that the United States is somehow rejecting it's treaties to honor International Law. Your country's lawyers go to your country's Embassy and work with them to formulate your request. Your country's Embassy then goes to the US Embassy with that request. The *US Embassy delivers that petition to the appropriate parties.. I even linked you the procedure for doing so. So please please PLEASE stop being stupid about it.

I further reject your assertions that I am against Muslims, or that I said anyone is an 'Enemy of the USA'.

 

[Scotteq]

hi. there is absolutely no where in the Quran or the Sunnah where you are permitted to "rape" your wife. please dont post videos of stupid "imams" from YouTube who say its okay. we all know the status of "imams" in the Muslim world. heck, the fact that I as a Muslim am ridiculing them should be enough said.

so first, the "Sharia" defense is a joke. the judge who accepted this defense is a bigger joke.

hoping this matter is cleared... are there other reasons why you think women need protection from Sharia Law?

..and yet these so called "Defenses" are being submitted to US Courts. Prompting Referendums saying "You Can't Do That", because some jackass Judge bought the bullshit. This is, and has been, the basis for this entire thread.


I am so very sorry you are so sensitive about Sharia that you can't even see this simple point. Thank you for wasting our time to show it.

 

[spacejamz]

hi. i wont answer them because they are not your questions. i wont answer them because they are asking about my opinion. i wont answer them because i did not ask for questions related to my opinion. and i specially wont answer them because they come from someone who i think is an idiot.

at least you agreed that you are one of the Islamophobes here, so there is definitely no point in attempting a reasonable discussion with you.

Where did I say I was an Islamaphobe? I have no problem with anyone that moves here and wants to integrate into our society in a peaceful manner, whether they be Muslim or not.

The reverse applies as well...I will take issue if someone, whether Muslim or not, moves here and tries to force their traditions and laws down my throat.

Your truly colors really starting to show in this thread...more so than in your other failed one.

 

[sactoking]

Point: Sharia Law is not United States Law, and therefore should have no consideration in US courts.

Point: International Law is not United States Law, and therefore should have no consideration in US courts.

Point: Halakh is not United States Law, and therefore should have no consideration in US courts.

Point: Holland's Laws are not United States Law, and therefore should have no consideration in US courts.


...I could continue to name however many systems from however many cultures and nations. But that would merely be belaboring the obvious.

Summary: Only United States Law should be considered in United States Courts.

Wow, that's a failure. You've never actually read a court opinion or Attorney General's opinion, have you? As point of fact many rulings in the US reference both other states' and other countries' interpretations of similar laws/statutes and wordings. It's a fundamental tool (crutch?) used by courts all over the country.

Much of US civil and criminal law is derived from that of England, France, Holland, etc. It is also derived from morals taught in a "Christian" manner. Claiming that US law should not be subject to interpretation through comparison to international or religious standards is pure hypocrisy; it is already founded on such interpretation.

The fact of the matter is that districts all over the US are extremely fond of enacting laws they hear about elsewhere, whether it be in other states or other countries. Unfortunately those same legislatures are absolutely terrible at crafting clearly-worded laws. When they ultimately get challenged in court it is up to the judge(s) to either interpret legislative intent (and be labeled as an "activist judge") or to rely on similar rulings outside their jurisdiction as guidance as to proper interpretation.

Based on your postings I would venture to guess that you're conservative. Conservatives typically don't like "activist" judges who "legislate from the bench". Well, you can either have a court that doesn't uses precedent outside its jurisdiction or you can have a court that isn't "activist" but you can't have both.

 

[routan]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30737865&postcount=102

hi. you keep repeating the same things over and over again. you replied to my post, without any meaningful addition to or argument against what I said.

you still have not stated anything that you dislike about Sharia Law.

with respect to the incident, the defense was a joke and the judge who allowed the defense was a joke. so we're on the same page on that bit.

you and i both agree that the referendum is poorly worded. so that is clear.

And while you think my points about International Law is bullshit, you have yet to inform me how Oklahoma can not use International Law in its courts while the US government can.

Last couple of things, what do you mean by "your country's lawyer" and "your country's embassy". Are you trying to convey that I am not an American because I am a Muslim? And thank you for not being against Muslims.

 

[routan]

Where did I say I was an Islamaphobe? I have no problem with anyone that moves here and wants to integrate into our society in a peaceful manner, whether they be Muslim or not.

The reverse applies as well...I will take issue if someone, whether Muslim or not, moves here and tries to force their traditions and laws down my throat.

Your truly colors really starting to show in this thread...more so than in your other failed one.

hi. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30737757&postcount=96

Actually, I am done dealing with you here...You pretend to be some innocent naive poster here who hopes to persuade those with Islamaphobia...

 

[Scotteq]

Sacto: Thank you for overlooking the fact that - when other country's laws are considered - it's in WRITING A NEW US LAW, rather than as a Defense against something Illegal here that isn't Illegal elsewhere. And thank you for pointing out that PRIOR TO A LAW BEING WRITTEN the standards in other Jurisdictions are considered.

I will point out that - once adopted - it is then US Law. But not until then.


In this case the crime was RAPE. But the Defendant got a pass because he said it was Legal under Sharia. During a Trial, After The Fact


And for the record - I'm an Independent.

 

[Scotteq]

you still have not stated anything that you dislike about Sharia Law.

I neither like nor dislike - that is an assertion that YOU made: I am stating it should not apply in the United States in a US Courtroom. This is a fact that YOU YOURSELF stated that Sharia expects: That Muslims should abide by the laws of the country they live in.

Secondly - I never said that Oklahoma would not honor International Law. Again - that is an assertion that YOU made.


I said 'Your Country's Lawyer to Your Country's Embassy" because (1) That is the procedure. and (2) If you are resident in the United States, then International Law does not apply. Again, you are making asinine assertions.

 

[routan]

I neither like nor dislike - that is an assertion that YOU made: I am stating it should not apply in the United States in a US Courtroom. This is a fact that YOU YOURSELF stated that Sharia expects: That Muslims should abide by the laws of the country they live in.

Secondly - I never said that Oklahoma would not honor International Law. Again - that is an assertion that YOU made.


I said 'Your Country's Lawyer to Your Country's Embassy" because (1) That is the procedure. and (2) If you are resident in the United States, then International Law does not apply. Again, you are making asinine assertions.

oh god. now you're just on for the sake of it.

again for the effing fifth time, i requested other members to tell me what they dislike about Sharia. If you didnt dislike anything, you neednt have responded to my post. i didnt make any assertions.

again, for the effing fifth time, you still havent explained how Oklahoma can not use International Law in its courts while the US government can. i asked for information. i didnt make any assertions.

and lastly, I only asked what you meant by the statements, not made an assertion.

you are quite a drama person.

 

[Scotteq]

Because International Law governs how Countries Interact with each other.


It does NOT cover the internal matters of signatory members. i.e.: International Law covers how the United States interacts with France. International law does NOT cover how the US State of Oklahoma proceeds against a rapist. Or how the US Government proceeds against a Counterfeiter.

So if you are a Citizen/Resident of the USA, and you get arrested for serially raping your wife, International Law does not apply.

 

[Throckmorton]

I don't see a Martin Luther of Islam looking to distance themselves from the tyranny of Islam as it is practiced today.

You mean like liberal Imam Rauf? So did you support the Park 51 mosque and community center?

 

[werepossum]

You mean like liberal Imam Rauf? So did you support the Park 51 mosque and community center?

Liberal Imam Rauf who said the United States is an accessory to the 9/11 attack? Yeah, that's a "reformer" we can all get behind.

"Do as we tell you and we won't have to kill you" is not my idea of an acceptable reform message for Islam.

 

[JS80]

You mean like liberal Imam Rauf? So did you support the Park 51 mosque and community center?

lol thanks for proving my point.

 

[Throckmorton]

lol thanks for proving my point.

What point is that?

 

[PJABBER]

oh god. now you're just on for the sake of it.

again for the effing fifth time, i requested other members to tell me what they dislike about Sharia. If you didnt dislike anything, you neednt have responded to my post. i didnt make any assertions.

Back again with the propaganda effort, routan? :awe:

As you do not address direct questions and certainly never refer specifically to applicable parts of the Koran, the recorded comments of imams, or any other reference works to back up anything you say, we are left with endless spin and off-hand comments that leave us scratching our heads and wondering why do you even bother?

Let me offer up just a few of the myriad of examples of why I don't care for sharia and the whole authoritarian "subjugate the unbeliever" political and behavior control ideology it represents.

"Theology" is only 10% of Islamic doctrine as found in the Koran. The remainder is a call to conquest, a how-to wage war and importantly here, a legal code for Muslims and a prescription for rule of whatever underclass of kafirs and mushriks may temporarily remain.

But, let's see how this is applied in the present day, in the authoritative words of leading clerics around the world...

Start off young - The indoctrination of youth

Teach kids about their enemies. And then teach them again.

CNN Interview with Imam Anjem Choudary 29 Oct 2010

BTW, Choudary is the chief judge of the Shariah Court of the UK. Tons of videos of this guy, do your own search.

Saudi Cleric Musa Al-Qarni: Education to Jihad and Conquering the World Not Sufficient

Marrying an 8 year old

Sharia marriage rules for marrying very young girls.

Wife Beating in Islam - The Rules and another take on it and yet another viewpoint.

Types of Marriage in the Arab World

Revolution Muslims - an interesting collection of Islamist viewpoints and statements

Call2Islam Movement - another set of Islamist video statements

Anti-masturbation proscriptions go beyond Delaware, but under sharia you don't have a choice.

Don't be gay.

By the way, don't expect to have a dialogue in asking for clarification from Islamists, at least in Dearborn, Michigan where you have the largest concentration of Muslims in the USA.

Acts17Apologetics - Quite a good collection of American Muslim videos clarifying a wide variety sharia law proscriptions.

It took me about 20 minutes to find these examples of sharia law and how it is is to be implemented. There are literally thousands of books, articles, videos and lectures that detail sharia.

A little research does go a long way! :awe:

 

[routan]

Back again with the propaganda effort, routan? :awe:

hi. l.o.l. funny how you say I am indulging in propaganda. you spend 20 minutes on youtube. i live my life in Islam. so your youtube baloney counts for what exactly in this situation?

please feel free to continue. as before stated, your intention has never been or is to participate in a discussion. your only aim is to present your point of view and construe questions in the manner that would serve that end.

 

[routan]

Liberal Imam Rauf who said the United States is an accessory to the 9/11 attack? Yeah, that's a "reformer" we can all get behind.

"Do as we tell you and we won't have to kill you" is not my idea of an acceptable reform message for Islam.

hi. so as a side discussion, do you believe the United States did not fund the Afghans and OBL and the Taliban against the Soviets? And that the United States does not support dictators across the Middle East?

if you do believe that, then I think you are need for serious mental reform.

if you dont believe that, then you and Faisal Rauf are on the same page.

 

[Pens1566]

Liberal Imam Rauf who said the United States is an accessory to the 9/11 attack? Yeah, that's a "reformer" we can all get behind.

"Do as we tell you and we won't have to kill you" is not my idea of an acceptable reform message for Islam.

W's admin certainly thought he was an OK guy considering they trotted him out as a PR stunt with Karen Hughes and used him with the FBI in helping investigations. Don't let that get in the way of your talking points though.

 

[PJABBER]

hi. l.o.l. funny how you say I am indulging in propaganda. you spend 20 minutes on youtube. i live my life in Islam. so your youtube baloney counts for what exactly in this situation?

please feel free to continue. as before stated, your intention has never been or is to participate in a discussion. your only aim is to present your point of view and construe questions in the manner that would serve that end.

again for the effing fifth time, i requested other members to tell me what they dislike about Sharia.

You asked the question, you got an answer.

Twenty minutes is quite valuable to me, but I consider it time well spent to compile a short but illustrative list of the hatred and intolerance which typically passes for Islamic thought by the spiritual leadership of your ideology in their own words.

In prior posts I used learned references, direct quotes and direct links to the writings of other Islamic leaders of the present day. I probably took another hour of my precious time but you did not respond to those either. Again, time well spent on my part in the pursuit of insight but no effort spent by you to provide substantive commentary or even the semblance of rebuttal.

As an adherent of a belief system that stands singularly for violence and conquest in the modern world, you certainly can't believe that you will not be challenged in your efforts to proselytize here.

Your participation in what passes for discussion here would be much more valued if you took twenty minutes of your time to address the substance of posts like mine rather than indulging in childish games of name calling and sophistry.

 

[routan]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30742507&postcount=120

hi. you may consider your time to be worth whatever you wish. i do not really care.

as i said in the post you quoted, and a number of times before: please feel free to continue. as before stated, your intention has never been or is to participate in a discussion. your only aim is to present your point of view and construe questions in the manner that would serve that end.

earlier I had indulged you and your questions. yet you kept on repeating the same things, over, and over, and over. so whatever "challenges" you put worth cant possibly be addressed in any rational manner.

 

[PJABBER]

hi. you may consider your time to be worth whatever you wish. i do not really care.

as i said in the post you quoted, and a number of times before: please feel free to continue. as before stated, your intention has never been or is to participate in a discussion. your only aim is to present your point of view and construe questions in the manner that would serve that end.

earlier I had indulged you and your questions. yet you kept on repeating the same things, over, and over, and over. so whatever "challenges" you put worth cant possibly be addressed in any rational manner.

LOL, repeating yourself saying nothing does not make your argument stronger! :awe:

You must be confusing me with someone else as I always use new references each time I post and you have never substantively addressed any of the posts I have written, nor the commentary of any of the learned scholars I quote for reference.

 

[routan]

LOL, repeating yourself saying nothing does not make your argument stronger! :awe:

You must be confusing me with someone else as I always use new references each time I post and you have never substantively addressed any of the posts I have written, nor the commentary of any of the learned scholars I quote for reference.

hi. you're mistakenly thinking I am arguing with you. I am not confusing you. even other members saw through you and suggested you were indulging in gish gallop http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop

 

[peonyu]

That law does single out Islam. But at the same time it is similar to the illegal immigration issue Arizona has. Who are the vast majority of illegals in Arizona ? Mexican. Is it racial profiling to think that most illegals are Mexican, when most illegals ARE Mexican. No. But you will be a called a racist for pointing it out. Its a catch 22 question.


As far as Islam goes....How many Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, or Christians have Theocratic nations today ? 0. How many does Islam have ran under Sharia law ? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan [etc etc etc]. To many to count.

So as far as religions go, the only religion that is a threat to our traditional rule of law [seperation of Church and State] in the longterm is Islam. Sure its wrong to make that bill single out Islam as the only threat, but at the same time the only religious threat is Islam. But you are anti-Muslim for saying so...And you are a racist if you say most illegals in Arizona are Mexican [despite both cases being easily proven].

Being naive is the rule of law today in truth, it trumps US and Islamic law.

And btw for those who are slow at comprehension - by "long term" that implies demograghics. Today Oklahoma has only 30,000 Muslims. But our nation's American born population is declining [the White-Christian population in particular is beginning to rapidly decline], our total population is only growing due to immigration which is mostly from Latin America and Asia/Muslim nations today. So in 50 or 100 years from now, its entirely possible for that state [or any state] to have a 25% or even a majority Muslim population if they cluster together. Long term implies change such as that and it is entirely possible.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Misread previous post; comment N/A.