NY Times pushes Sharia law for the US

Spread the love

Loading

MORE than a dozen American states are considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”

Supporters of these bills contend that such measures are needed to protect the country against homegrown terrorism and safeguard its Judeo-Christian values. The Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that “Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.”

This is exactly wrong. The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.

Ugh

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“This is exactly wrong. The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.”

We should send all these “promoters of Sharia Law” over to the land where they are duly practiced and let them REALLY LIVE IN IT for a while, then come back and tell us we need (or even want) Shariah Law…

Christians have certain followings (Laws) if you will, they are for those who follow the faith OUT SIDE OF United States Law…. SHARIAH IS THE LAW PERIOD!

Do these people at the NYT’s take STUPID IGNORANT pills three times daily? And a daily ‘Traitor’ Pill? They must to even suggest something like this… Perhaps there is something in the water over in NYC, lead maybe.

you know, you have to do it the right way, don’t mention the religious side just stick
to the politic side of that religion, and you can pass a law prohibiting any of their laws because it’s against the AMERICAN WAY OF FREEDOM, IN OTHER WORDS UNAMERICAN
when you are in ROME you think ROMAN
AND WATCH IT IF THEY DON’T TRY TO RUSH IT BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION, BECAUSE
THEY ARE AFRAID OF LOOSING, IT LOOK MORE AND MORE LIKE IT, AND YOU WILL SEE THINGS LIKE THAT BEING PUSH AGAINST AMERICA, AND THEIR LAST EFFORT WILL BE THE MOST DAMAGING
AS TIME GET CLOSER.

Would be nice if you used the original NYTs headline for a “most wanted” fast news post, instead of making up your own, drj. But I see that the NYTs has you pegged nicely with their own title… that you do, indeed, “fear” Islamic Law.

Frankly, what I fear more is the attitudes by all too many, more than willing to impose limitations on Islam but not others…. so much for the Constitution and religious freedom.

Why must there be a constant reminder that Constitutional rights are more important for the things we disagree with, that those with which we agree? i.e. speech, religion, etc Is this not readily apparent to most? It’s a Martin Neimoller thing.

And no… the NYTs isn’t “pushing” it, as this hyperbolic imaginary headline suggests. All you have to do is read the article and figure that out. Au contraire.. in the article is a history lesson about religious intolerance, and as a byproduct, our own Constitutional rights… and apparently a history lesson that many wish not to hear.

Nice article, Dr. J. Is there a problem with it?

The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)

Fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty was not limited to political elites; leading European philosophers also entertained the idea. Kant argued that the particularistic nature of “Jewish legislation” made Jews “hostile to all other peoples.” And Hegel contended that Jewish dietary rules and other Mosaic laws barred Jews from identifying with their fellow Prussians and called into question their ability to be civil servants.

The German philosopher Bruno Bauer offered Jews a bargain: renounce Jewish law and be granted full legal rights. He insisted that, otherwise, laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath made it impossible for Jews to be true citizens. (Bauer conveniently ignored the fact that many fully observant Jews violated the Sabbath to fight in the Prussian wars against Napoleon.)

During that era, Christianity was seen as either a universally valid basis of the state or a faith that harmoniously coexisted with the secular law of the land. Conversely, Judaism was seen as a competing legal system — making Jews at best an unassimilable minority, at worst a fifth column. It was not until the late 19th century that all Jews were granted full citizenship in Western Europe (and even then it was short lived).

Most Americans today would be appalled if Muslims suffered from legally sanctioned discrimination as Jews once did in Europe. Still, there are signs that many Americans view Muslims in this country as disloyal. A recent Gallup poll found that only 56 percent of Protestants think that Muslims are loyal Americans.

This suspicion and mistrust is no doubt fueled by the notion that American Muslims are akin to certain extreme Muslim groups in the Middle East and in Europe. But American Muslims are a different story. They are natural candidates for assimilation. They are demographically the youngest religious group in America, and most of their parents don’t even come from the Middle East (the majority have roots in Southeast Asia). A recent Pew Research Center poll found that Muslim Americans exhibit the highest level of integration among major American religious groups, expressing greater degrees of tolerance toward people of other faiths than do Protestants, Catholics or Jews.

Given time, American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values.

Wordsmith,
I don’t think is that rosy out there, they want to install SHARIA, and there is the problem for AMERICANS,
because they are betting on the HIGH LEVEL OF TOLERANCE FROM AMERICANS ,
and given time at this sympatic level of GOVERNMENT THE TOLERANCE IS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF
BY THE LEADERSHIP. AND GIVEN TIME EARLYER THAN YOU THInk,
that law would be slide in under sugar cover, using another wording maybe or the like,
maybe even by executive order like it has been for other right under the nose of TOLERANT AMERICANS,
you just have to look at the TOLERANT AMERICANS BEING SEARCH IN A CROWDED PUBLIC ENCLAVE LIKE ANIMALS BEING BRANDED, AND OBEDIANT , BECAUSE OF THE SECURITY, THAT WE CAN QUESTION WITH MANY POST. IF IT IS. THOSE COME OUT OF IT AND FEEL THE HUMILIATION ,THAT IS VERY DANGEROUS DEPRESSING FEEL BUT THEY GET OVER IT? NO THEY DON’T AND will wonder how come they are down at time, it is kept in the deep of you’r emotions and torment like a secret weapon a NATION OF PROUDS AND BRAVES AND FREE LOVING PEOPLE,
SO GIVEN TIME THEY BECOME DECENSITYZE TO ANY OTHER INSIDIOUS ASSAULTS ON THEIR FREEDOM LIKE THE SHARIA FROM THE GROUP OF MUSLIMS WHICH FOLLOW THEIR IMANS ADVICES BUT NOT THE AMERICANS.

What is Sharia?
It varies from place to place and group of Muslims to group of other Muslims.

In Germany a woman wanted to divorce her husband because he beat her.
The German judge told her that was too bad, that Sharia allowed a husband to beat his wife.
He denied her petition and said she should go to the Sharia court for her marital problem.

In Colorado a couple kept a woman who had been their slave before leaving Saudi Arabia.
She was handcuffed to the garage plumbing at night and worked all day in their home.
Neighbors saw what was going on and insisted she get justice.
When a court found her owners guilty of forced servitude and sentenced to years in prison, the Saudi gov’t wanted them let go and her given back to them and them to all come back to ”the Kingdom.”

In Australia the police tried to keep two sets of standards for spousal abuse; one for Muslims (it is allowed) the other for non-Muslims.
The Aussies who had multiple arrests for spousal abuse began to convert so as to be free to continue their abusive ways.

In the UK a young teen was threatened to convert to Islam or die.
Later his attackers caught up with him on a bus.
They killed him.
They were arrested.
Then they came out on bail.
While out on bail the victim’s family (some of them were Muslims) took money from the killers’ families.
The traditional court had to suspend due process because, according to Sharia, the matter was over.

So, I guess it matters which Sharia we are talking about.
And to whom it applies.

As the population of supposedly secular Philippines became more Muslim in places, schools began forbidding children to bring offending foods to lunch.
Halal diets were forced on all the students. ALL of them.

In supposedly secular Indonesia the non-Muslim population is being forced to comply with closing shops during prayer times, with closing restaurants during Ramadan and so on.

Sharia slid from being for Muslims only to being forced on everyone very quickly in these places.

I felt so sorry for the Queen of the Netherlands and Zubin Meta and the scared-out-of-their-wits musicians this week.
They just didn’t know how to handle having the orchestra threatened that way and then being told that music was going to be a thing of the past in the country.
Sharia shouldn’t have anything to do with non-believers enjoying music in their own secular country.
But, there are Sharia courts in Netherlands and they are feeling stronger each year.
So, what’s to stop them?

@DrJohn: DrJohn, in response to Wordsmith you wrote, “….I do not believe there would be assimilation. …. The Somali Muslims in Minnesota constantly demand that everyone around them adapt to them. …”

But those Somali Muslim cabbies around the Twin Cities airport HAD been assimilated for quite some time before all the to-do occurred.
They ”regressed.”
And WHY did they regress away from assimilation?
Because of the way Mosques are organized.
It allows regressive charismatics to win over an assimilated progressive congregation and take over.
That’s what happened in Minnesota.
Less progressive leaders imposed their will on the entire congregation on pain of expulsion (apostasy).
All of a sudden Somali Muslim cabbies were stopping their cabs in traffic at the airport and insisting on going to the men’s rooms, ”bathing” there (and their weight pulled almost every sink off the walls) then laying out their prayer rugs in either auto or foot traffic and praying.
The airport relented to all of this with footbaths in all men’s rooms and with a closet space to pray in…..but it was rejected.

At the same time these Muslim Somali cabbies who used to take any fare anywhere now suddenly were refusing to take blind people and their seeing-eye dogs.
They were also rooting through people’s baggage to see if there were any bottles of alcoholic beverages and refusing to let them have rides.

These acts got them national attention.
Some of them admitted they PERSONALLY wanted to be assimilated cabbies like they had been before, but were being threatened from their own Mosque’s new leadership.
Others were ”happy” to be living more in line with ”true Sharia Law.”

Eventually America’s anti-discrimination laws set them back a step.
They could lose their permit to pick anyone up at the airport if they twice a day refused to pick up people based on Sharia.
People in the media even pointed out to Muslims in Minnesota that their own Koran did NOT prohibit them transporting alcohol, it just prohibits them coming to prayers drunk….which certainly implies drinking alcohol is OK in moderation or at other times, huh?

They retreated, for now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We saw the same thing when Christians exercised their rights of free assembly and free press in a Michigan town with so many Muslims that the police chief is also Muslim.
He had the Christians arrested based on false testimony by Muslims.
Too bad there were video cameras.
The Christians were not doing anything wrong.
The Muslims lied to ”further Islam.”
Lying to further Islam is enshrined in Sharia Law.
It is called Kitman when you dissemble (withhold part of the truth), and it is called Taqiyya when you out-&-out lie.

But my point is, these men were assimilated.
They went backwards.
And they were forced into doing that.
So, what makes anyone think the same won’t continue happeneing.
One of the big problems in Islam is the means by which, under Sharia, new men can come in and take over control of Mosques.
And ”property disputes” are one of the top things these men want Sharia to be the bottom line on.

“The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy….”

The USA is a republic, not a democracy. Every time someone calls it a democracy they are telling the propaganda media that their brainwashing is working.  If they called it the republic that it is, it would remind us of republicans, and they don’t want that.

Smorgasbord,
hi,
they should be corrected every time they say it in public places,
that would be keeping the REPUBLIC ALIVE.
BYE

And conservatives harrumph with indignity when they get stigmatized with the Islamophobe label? Or are baffled when we are looked upon as religious and ethnic bigots and far-right-wing kooks and conspiracy nuts?!

@DrJohn:

This is where we disagree, Word. I do not believe there would be assimilation. France is well on its way to becoming an Islamic state. When they are unhappy, “youths” burn down much of the city. England is not far behind. The Somali Muslims in Minnesota constantly demand that everyone around them adapt to them.

We are not Europe. Majority Muslims in this country are assimilated. But you want to look at the minority and make them out to be representative of the majority.

@Nan G:

But those Somali Muslim cabbies around the Twin Cities airport HAD been assimilated for quite some time before all the to-do occurred.
They ”regressed.”
And WHY did they regress away from assimilation?
Because of the way Mosques are organized.

I think part of the problem isn’t so much Islam itself (although in itself, there are issues to be dealt with, for sure) as people’s natural inclination toward social identification- religion and ethnic ties having strong pulls.

It’s why some blacks who should know better, might still vote for the first black American president in U.S. history. It’s why some Mexican-Americans might wave the Mexican flag. Divided loyalties aren’t unique to Somali Muslim cabbies and due strictly to Islam as the root cause. Other religions don’t have Islam’s violence problem; however, other groups might also fall victim to feelings of societal alienation and religious persecution, should it be their religion/people under attack. I used to think it was overhyped by the CAIR-types.

More and more, I’m seeing evidence that I was wrong. Actually, after 9/11 I do think anti-Muslim sentiments were overhyped by “race” profiteers. A decade later, I believe some of it has become reality.

Dang… pretty much forgot about this thread.

Here’s my own bottom line. I’m no fan of Shariah or Islam. That’s my choice.

But if any of my so called fellow conservatives find it appealing to target any religion to appease their fears of national security, thereby negating our Constitutional freedom of religious choice, you’ll be standing without me. Shariah Courts, like the existing Jewish Courts, would not be legitimizing beheadings, dismemberment, honor killings etal under American law. If it did, then I would stand opposed. In the UK, where they do have Shariah courts, such crimes are still prosecuted and punished in their legal system.

This isn’t a battle about restraining Islam. It’s a battle for our first Amendment rights…. most especially those rights that most of you abhor for American Muslims.

Let the “thumbs down” ticker begin… Frankly I don’t care. But you will never convince me that restraining the religious freedom for Muslims is Constitutional, nor healthy for this nation. Martin Neimoller had it exactly right….

@Wordsmith:
Word,
Did you happen to read the autobiography of Malcom X?
I did.
Years ago.
In it he wrote about going on his Hajj to Mecca.
In Mecca he met Muslims who were whiter than Swedes and Muslims who were blacker than Ethiopians.
All were treated with respect and concern while on their Hajj.
Islam is NOT a race.
Muslims are not all of any one race.

Just as it is NOT racist to criticize Obama’s policies, so, too, it is NOT racist to criticize Islam’s weaknesses.

One of the things that really bugs me about CAIR is their throwing around the ”race card” whenever individual Muslims are criticized for their activities.

Remember the ”flying while Muslim,” case?
I don’t recall seeing the imams.
Were they black, Asian, Middle Eastern, white?
It was not at issue.

BUT their BEHAVIOR was troublesome to many of their fellow fliers on that plane.
Loud exclamations of ”Allahu Akbar!,” asking for seat belt extensions when not overweight, ignoring the instructions of the flight attendants, switching seats all were observed by multiple witnesses.

One of these men was the imam of the Islamic Community Center of Tempe, Arizona.
The imam of the Islamic Community Center of Tempe, Arizona, had been criticized by local Muslims for the political (and lack of religious) nature of his Friday sermons.
He had even begun displaying questionable photoshopped posters during Friday prayers.
These showed American soldiers apparently disrespecting Iraqis.

Now, quite honestly, there are white churches just as divisive on the fringes.
AND there are black churches doing the same, also…..like the black liberation theology movement.

But neither the white fringe churches or the black ones have CAIR (or anything like CAIR) working full time in their behalf.

One Homeland Security official said, “It is not uncommon for that particular organization [CAIR] to issue a press release attempting to overstate their interaction with the DHS department.”
CAIR often conflates an incident where BEHAVIOR is at issue into a case of racism.
CAIR tried to sue the John Doe witnesses of the BEHAVIOR of the flying imams.
Later CAIR dropped this strategy.
New York Police Department detective Edward Sloan rightly pointed out in the press at the time that engaging in deliberately suspicious behavior in order to distract federal air marshals or other security and law-enforcement authorities – a tactic that has been discussed on Islamist message boards – is against the law.
In 2009 CAIR and the airline reached an out-of-court settlement the details never disclosed to the public.
But race was never at issue.
Racism was not at issue.
BEHAVIOR was at issue.
And the flying imams case had a chilling effect on coming forward when questionable behavior occurs.

Nan G, in defense of Wordsmith, and your ensuing post on the proper terminology that confuses nationality and religious membership with “race”, I’d like to point that that Wordsmith put his only reference to that in quotations… i.e. “…anti-Muslim sentiments were overhyped by “race” profiteers.” Wordsmith is no dummy, and he is aware that Muslim/Islam is not a race. However when you search the heated debates over the Cordoba House last summer, you will find that “racist” was a common word in the discussion. Erroneously, IMHO… of course. But I suspect that is exactly why Wordsmith used that word that furiously flew in that time, and put it in quotations.

Of course “behavior” is the issue. No one on either side of the debate has a question about illegal, or inciting violence, behavior being off limits. The more important question is, just how far in preventative measures, that are anti-Constitutional, are you willing to go to control “behavior”? And do you confine that only to matters concerning Islam?

Nan G… assuming you might answer my questions in the last paragraph, you might want to consider first why the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the American Jewish Committee, both that represent prime targets for extermination by radical Islam, stand in unison with Islam on this issue.

It’s because it’s about the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, and not about fear or paranoia.

Some more reading about how this affects other religious laws, currently recognized by the US Courts. Ever wonder about why some states will not sell liquor on Sunday, or some counties are dry counties? Gee… Christian law influence on some local communities…. But never to the extent that grotesque laws, such as you often use as examples in your anti-Islam comments, would ever usurp US law.

@Nan G:

Word,
Did you happen to read the autobiography of Malcom X?
I did.
Years ago.
In it he wrote about going on his Hajj to Mecca.
In Mecca he met Muslims who were whiter than Swedes and Muslims who were blacker than Ethiopians.
All were treated with respect and concern while on their Hajj.
Islam is NOT a race.
Muslims are not all of any one race.

I’m grateful that Mata understands how I use terms and am sorry if I’m being unclear in my line of thinking.

Perhaps I should stick to “religious bigotry” as a choice phrase? Certainly color of skin and ethnicity is not what I’m referring to (exception here if you happen to be Arab/Middle Eastern-looking). Mata caught my quotation around “race” when I referred to ” ‘race’ profiteers”, and what I mean is equating those like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton- race profiteers- to CAIR, who might more properly be regarded as bigotry/discrimination profiteers, specifically on behalf of Muslims.

As for Malcolm X, please keep in mind that the Nation of Islam doesn’t really have a heck of a lot in common with “true” Islamic theology. Its religious “legitimacy” is about as real as scientology or about as real as Kwanzaa is to being a holiday.

Just as it is NOT racist to criticize Obama’s policies, so, too, it is NOT racist to criticize Islam’s weaknesses.

Where did I give the impression that I believe otherwise?

The thing is, you go far above and beyond merely criticizing “Islam’s weaknesses”. In just about every thread where the opportunity presents itself, you launch into some Geller-Spencerian lesson on the evils of Islam, making blanket statements without distinction between radicals, fundamentalists, terrorists, moderates, apologists, mainstream, modern, regional, sects, branches, etc.

One of the things that really bugs me about CAIR is their throwing around the ”race card” whenever individual Muslims are criticized for their activities.

Agreed. They are the Rainbow Push Coalition for Muslims with an agenda to conflate any discrimination and prejudicial acts against Muslims. But when I read your comments on Islam and the comments of many others on FA and hard-line conservative blogs when it comes to Islam, you are giving CAIR lots of ammo and some legitimacy in their claims of bigotry toward those who practice Islam.

Wordsmith, the bugging part in all this , is how come so many,
AMERICANS AND CANADIANS ARE THINKING LIKE NAN,
THEY ARE NOT RACISTS, THEY ARE NOT BIGOTS, THEY ARE JUST THE REGULAR PEOPLE OF ANY CLASS IN SOCIETY THAT HAVE THE PERCEPTION OF DANGER WITH WHAT THEY SEE AROUND,
FROM THE MUSLIMS PUSHING THEIR MOSQUE AGAINST THE MAIN STREAM AMERICANS, THAT IS ONE OF THE DEDUCTION AMONG OTHER
WHICH DISAGREE, THAT IS THE PROOF THEY ARE PUSHING AGAINST APPROVAL OF THE PEOPLE,
AND BY DOING SO THEY ENCOUNTER THE REBUTTAL OF THE AMERICANS,
A VERY NORMAL EXPRESSION AGAINST BULLYING ON AMERICA,

Word, sorry for the confusion surrounding all the pronoun references.

Malcom X was leaving the NOI to become a plain old Muslim just as he was murdered.

You and I would agree about assimilated Muslims in the USA being good people.
I know a few.
I have the impression you do as well.

But we should also both realize that these Muslims we can relate to would be labeled as apostates under a more Sharia compliant community, even here.

I saw this with the Somali cabbies.
They regressed into activist Muslim front men for the sake of how their community might look upon them if they did not.
One of those guys left Minn/St Paul and moved out here.
The peer pressure he spoke about to me was far more scary than the peer pressure we experienced as teens in school.
There were threats implicit in the Friday sermons after the new group took over his Mosque.

Another Muslim I knew was from France.
She showed me a translation of a poll done after 9-11-01 about French Muslim females and their desire to Westernize.
76% of them desired to not cover.
But only 12% of them did not cover.
All the others lived a double life.
Buckling to family and community pressure and acting the role of the devout Muslim female.
She had been one of these before her family saw through her ruse.
Then she had to flee.
She was in the USA as a student.
But she wanted a husband so she could stay.
I don’t know what happened.

When I took two semesters of Arabic after 9-11-01 I learned a lot.
One concept that isn’t talked about too much is that there are two types of obligations on Muslims according to the teacher of the class.
Fard Kifayah and Fard Ayn.
One type is just like our ”Golden Rule” type.
Every Muslim is obligated to do this type.
But the other type is more like the community must do this via one person out of the community.
(We have an excellent short story that describes this type of obligation in “The Lottery.”)
When we hear people tout the fact that ”only” one out of 100 Muslims might be radical, we miss the point unless we understand the whole community’s part played in allowing this to occur.
Read “The Lottery,” and think of being one of those not from the family chosen.

Lastly we understand (or should) that Muslim ”charity” is limited to fellow Muslims.
(At least as long as even one Muslim is in need.)
Even when a non-Muslim bank agrees to make home sales Sharia-compliant it has to include their part of money to Islamic charity.
1/8th of all Islamic charity can and should (according to them) go to jihadists who fight for the group.
So, when we talk about Sharia law in the USA we are talking about making involuntary contributions to those fighting against us.

The Brits have had more time to see how Sharia compliant banking impacts them.
This was from 2009.