The Shariah Conspiracy

You've all probably experienced some of the Shariah craziness going around recently. People are actually thinking that "Creeping shariah" is a valid fear! Since there is so much misinformation and confusion flying about, I thought I'd clear some things up. This thread (or at least my original post) is going to be about the "Creeping Shariah" idea in the US, not Europe. While I agree that "Creeping Shariah" in Europe is important and should also be addressed, I have not addressed it in this post. I created this thread with the intention of focusing on the idea of Shariah in the US and the US Government.
Now this is probably going to be a pretty long post, and if you're worried about getting bored, you can just read the parts that I have bolded. Then if you say "Hey, that's not true!", you can see the parts inbetween, where I have provided references and more detailed explanations. Some of my references may be considered by some as biased, but I urge you to ignore the opinion in them, and focus on the facts or direct quotations that I have quoted.


The ignorance of those who are just going along for the ride:
First off, you might say "There is no confusion and misinformation! It's all true!", well then, let me show you some of this:

Currently at least 15(?) states are considering or tried passing anti-shariah laws, and 2 states have passed the laws in some form. However, most don't even know what it's about!

In North Carolina:

Legislating because they can
"I'm not understanding the need for this law," Weiss said. "I'm not sure what problem we're fixing."

Cleveland said he's running the bill because of "a couple of federal cases a few years back."

Rep. Verla Insko asked Cleveland twice for an example of a case that would show a need for the bill. "I do not have any specific examples off the top of my head," Cleveland finally replied.

In South Carolina:

Senate panel debates bill that would limit sharia law
None of the senators nor Kevin A. Hall, a Columbia attorney who testified in support of the bill, were aware of any examples in South Carolina where courts upheld sharia law over the U.S. Constitution.

Earlier this month in Missouri:

Mo state rep: the justification for my legislation is readily available via Google
To which a reporter followed-up: Can you cite a specific case or law they used or some specific example?

Curtman: “I don’t have the specifics with me right now but if you go to — the web address kind of escapes my mind right now. Any Google search on international law used in the state courts in the U.S. is going to turn up some cases for you.”

Earlier this WEEK in Missouri:

Missouri’s Anti-Sharia Bill Clears Its First Hurdle
“This bill will go to court and you are wasting your ink on this paper. Because this will not be upheld in court,” Nasheed said Tuesday. ”You’re wasting your time gentleman. You’re wasting your time in this body.”

Nasheed called on Curtman to provide a list of cases in which international law had been used in American courts but Curtman was unable to provide an example of such a case.

Missouri State Rep. Paul Curtman is the sponsorer of the bill.

In Alabama:

Legislation would ban Islamic law in Alabama courts
The bill’s sponsor said the measure was designed to protect future generations from erosion of the Constitution. One Birmingham area Muslim leader said the move was an effort to “demonize Islam and Muslims.”

But no one — not even Sen. Gerald Allen, who sponsored the bill — can point to examples of Muslims trying to have Islamic law recognized in Alabama courts.

and from the later in the same article:

the bill defines Shariah as “a form of religious law derived from two primary sources of Islamic law: The divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an and the example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad.”

That definition is the same, almost word for word, as wording in the Wikipedia entry on Shariah law as it appeared Thursday. Allen said the wording was drafted by Legislative staff. A source on the staff at the Legislature confirmed that the definition was in fact pulled from Wikipedia.

Allen could not readily define Shariah in an interview Thursday. “I don’t have my file in front of me,” he said. “I wish I could answer you better.”

In Georgia:

Lawyers Speak Against Ga. Bill That Bans Use of Foreign Laws in State Courts
Jacobs, a lawyer and vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told the Fulton County Daily Report the bill would "ban the use of Sharia law in state courts." He acknowledged that he was not aware of any instances in Georgia where a plaintiff or defendant asked the court to apply Sharia law but believes it has happened elsewhere.

Rep. Mike Jacobs is the one who introduced the bill.

In Alaska:

State seeks to bar foreign law from courts
In a hearing before the House State Affairs Committee, Gatto’s chief of staff Karen Sawyer said Sharia is an example of the type of transnational law that has appeared in family law, divorce and child custody cases nationally, though she knows of instances of it appearing in Alaska courts.

In South Dakota:

SD Rep. Who Authored Abortion Bill Nixes Sharia Ban
in testimony this week, proponents of a Sharia ban could not produce a single South Dakota case in which Islamic law had been a problem

In Oklahoma:

Judge Blocks Oklahoma’s Ban on Using Shariah Law in Court
At a hearing last week, Scott Boughton, an assistant attorney general for the state, said the measure was not intended to infringe on anyone’s religion; it was intended to keep Oklahoma judges from looking at the legal principles of other nations and cultures in applying state and federal law. When the judge asked whether that had ever happened in Oklahoma, however, Mr. Boughton acknowledged that he did not know of an instance in which Shariah law had been invoked by the courts.

The sparks that supposedly started the flames
Now when proponents of this whole "creeping shariah!" thing talk, they usually provide two examples:

• One is the case in Tampa where a judge ruled that the case would proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law. It is a lawsuit involving several aggrieved parties of the Islamic Education Center of Tampa. The case was even brought up here in ATS somewhere.
  The problem is, that this is a case involving contract law, which can be arbitrated in whichever way those involved wish it to be- it is not an example of Shariah taking over the courts or the US constitution.
  Using a specific kind of law to arbitrate disputes or contracts is not something new or evil. Jews arbitrate stuff from divorce to inheritance to business deals in their own rabbinical courts. If you attempted to ban this, it would be like attempting to ban muslim weddings, because it is technically a religious contract between husband and wife. And as far as cases where they might use the contract to do stuff which may be contrary to greater US laws...it's simply not allowed. For a more detailed explanation on this particular case, you can check out:
  Shariah Panic Hits Florida
  Hypocritical Freakout over Shari'ah, but Not Biblical Law
  Debunking the latest Shariah scare
  
  
• The other case generally provided is the one involving a muslim man who accused of raping his wife and claiming it was acceptable under his religious beliefs. The thing is, this case was overturned when it reached the appellate court!
  

What they want you to think vs What it is
The second major problem, which I alluded to in my quote from Senator Gerald Allen (who sponsored the bill in Alabama), is that most people don't even know what Shariah is!
One person describes it as (and I won't link it as a video in here, because that would bloat up the thread even more than it is already):

a politico-legal-military threat whose express purpose is to have it imposed world-wide, subject to a theocratic ruler called a Caliph.

Another description is:

Mapping Shariah Project
Islamic law is the source of the command for faithful Muslims to war against the infidel.

Now this is obviously the most absurd and nonsensical definition ever, certainly not one you'd find any muslim scholar agreeing to. Unfortunately, most people just accept this definition, or admit they don't really know what it means.
Now I'm sure the definition of Shariah has been quoted enough times off wikipedia, so I'll just say it, in basic terms, refers to a way of life, or a code of conduct for muslims to follow.
It would be akin to a Christian saying "I follow christian morals", and is subject to the same sort of vagueness.
If you asked different christians about specific morals, you would get different answers. For example, one might be completely pacifist to the point of accepting violence on him/herself (i.e. literally turning and offering the other cheek when someone slaps one cheek). Another might say "it is okay to fight back in self-defense if I or my family is attacked. A third might say that a pre-emptive attack is justifiable in some cases.
All three of these people would vehemently affirm that they are following "Christian Morals", and depending on their interpretation of Christianity, all three would be right.
So when someone asks a muslim "Do you support shariah?" or "Do you adhere to shariah?" or "Do you accept shariah?", and they answer "Yes", it isn't some insidious exposé of "silent jihad". It's exactly akin to asking a christian "Do you follow christian morals?"

However, unfortunately, these "followers of Shariah" have been extremely castigated:

Presidential Candidate Herman Cain's Remarks
Cain's comments came in response to a question from a reporter for liberal-leaning Think Progress about potentially appointing a Muslim in a Cain administration.

"No, I will not," Cain responded. "And here's why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.

And one fellow deigns to tell muslims what they should believe in order to be "pure" muslims!

Are Americans safe from U.S. mosques?
...authorities should ask foreigners seeking entry into the U.S. if they agree with Shariah.

"If they agree, according to the Muslims who have told us this, then they should probably not even be given entry here," he said.

Are Americans safe from U.S. mosques?
"It's so easy. You can't agree with Shariah law and say that you are peaceful," Gaubatz continued. "You can't do it. Now there are Muslims in the United States who do. They say, we don't agree with Shariah law, we don't want Shariah law. But then, to the pure Muslim, they are not Muslim."
Some Muslims want to reform Islam, he said, and retain only peaceful elements.

"That's fine, but then you are not pure Muslim," Gaubatz said.

Now only one small portion of "Shariah" involves legalistic rulings, and one small portion of those rulings involve the extreme corporal punishment (depending on what your interpretation of shariah is). The thing that most anti-shariah proponents don't want you to know is that Shariah isn't this monolithic, borg-like system of rules that all muslims must follow exactly the same way everywhere. It isn't fixed in the least. Especially in the legalistic aspects of it, every second Islamic scholar could come up with a different understanding and a different implementation of a law, and they do. There are several dozen "fiqhs" (schools of thought on islamic jurisprudence) with different understandings, leaning all the way from extremist in one direction to extremist in another direction, and everything in the middle. This is why although many countries purport to follow Shariah, NONE of them have the same laws.

Now as a short aside from all this talk of shariah, I just wanted to point out to you all another, fairly major reason all these anti-shariah bills are a useless wastes of time and money:

Article 6 of the US Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The supposed danger this "Creeping Shariah" is supposed to pose to the US is ALREADY CATERED FOR in the US Constitution.



So this leaves us with one final, vital, and disappointly damning conclusion:
Of those who are not just ignorantly following through with the anti-shariah bill nonsense, those people who are actually actively pursuing it with full knowledge, there is only one reason: xenophobic, bigoted, islamophobic (yes, I used that word, deal with it ) hatred of Islam.

I will write about these characters in detail in my next post (heh...or at least try). For now, I'll leave you with these following names: David Yerushalmi and his "Society of Americans for National Existence" (SANE), Frank Gaffney Jr. and his "Center for Security Policy", and Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and their "Stop Islamization of America" (SIOA), and through them (or perhaps through to them through) David Horowitz and his "David Horowitz Freedom Center". Check up on them and see how they're trying to invade the American public and Government with their vitriolic racism and bigotry.

That huge thread leaves me with a short answer.We will NEVER see shariah law in USA,whether understood or not.

Sharia law dehumanizes women, oppresses people of other faiths, demands death, dismemberment and beatings of those convicted under it. Sharia law is not a valid system of law. It is brutal, and totalitarian in form and practice. No matter how many ways one tries to paint a happy face on Islam or sharia, it still comes out the same. These people intend to rule the entire world one day, or will destroy it in the attempt to rule it. When will people wise up and look it in the face for what it is.

reply to post by Fromabove


You obviously didn't even bother to read the OP did you? Then again I imagine that nothing will convince you that your bigotry is not common sense....but I'll give it a shot. You are mistaking Islamist extremism with regular Muslim belief..It would be the exact same thing if you thought all Christians were like some Pentecostal sect that forces women to wear denim skirts and not cut their hair? The proof often sighted that Sharia Law as being violent is just the same as the Old Testament being violent....or did you never get around to the many verses such as: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.--Dt.22:23-24 In other words all of your beliefs about Muslims are based on nothing more than fear, bigotry and ignorance, even if you can't see it yourself. For instance your belief about them and women. If Muslims as a whole are so anti-womens rights then..why it it that Indonesia, the most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Megawati Sukarnoputri (a woman) as president?
Or why did Pakistan, the second most populous Muslim-majority country, twice (non-consecutively) elected Benazir Bhutto (yep, thats a chick too) as prime minister? Or why did
Bangladesh, the third most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina (No penis on them either) as prime ministers.

Originally posted by Fromabove
Sharia law dehumanizes women, oppresses people of other faiths, demands death, dismemberment and beatings of those convicted under it. Sharia law is not a valid system of law. It is brutal, and totalitarian in form and practice. No matter how many ways one tries to paint a happy face on Islam or sharia, it still comes out the same. These people intend to rule the entire world one day, or will destroy it in the attempt to rule it. When will people wise up and look it in the face for what it is.

The same could be said about other religions too, look at the past history for christianity and judaism for example. Look at the state of the planet now they are in charge.

reply to post by babloyi


If I'm reading this correctly, then you've just given the perfect example for creeping Shariah. Your thread exudes support for this. You've tried to point out that our politicians that are against it do not fully understand it. You also try to incinuate that our Constitution is "catering" to your Shariah Law cause.

Your final assumption:

Of those who are not just ignorantly following through with the anti-shariah bill nonsense, those people who are actually actively pursuing it with full knowledge, there is only one reason: xenophobic, bigoted, islamophobic (yes, I used that word, deal with it ) hatred of Islam.

You are incorrect. They are fighting Shariah Law simply because IT IS UNAMERICAN!!! We don't want or need your Shariah nonsense here. Practice your Muslim faith all you want, but if you come to America...you follow American Constitutional Law.

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


Maybe some muslim nations are moderate, but there are most definitely some extreme nations, with leaders who rule for decades then start murdering people who cant take any more of their abuse.

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


Bhutto was overthrown, just to start there. Saying that you think the Old Testament is like Sharia is like saying Capitalism and Communism are the same. There are no peace loving Muslims, they all will obey to do what the Imams tell them to. They have to defeat the enemies of allah their god. When they take over a nation they kill, mame, and beat the infidels into submission. They destroy all religions except their own. They treat women like cattle without human rights or dignity. They follow the dictates of the Qur'an to the letter and to do otherwise is to defy their god allah which they will not do. You can take the most peaceful looking muslim who eats with you, plays basketball with you, and goes to the movies with you, and if his master the mullah says, "KILL THE INFIDELS ! " he will do it to please his god allah. Today he is your friend, tomorrow he is your enemy. This is the reality the world faces. They will sweet talk their way into your house, then they will bind you, beat you, and lay waste to your life and home.

So as far as I am concerned, Sharia is violent and brutal and not a good exercise in law. And this is not bigotry, which is the catch phrase for those who don't like the truth when it's told to them, it mere observation of the nations where it is employed.

Originally posted by Firefly_

Originally posted by Fromabove
Sharia law dehumanizes women, oppresses people of other faiths, demands death, dismemberment and beatings of those convicted under it. Sharia law is not a valid system of law. It is brutal, and totalitarian in form and practice. No matter how many ways one tries to paint a happy face on Islam or sharia, it still comes out the same. These people intend to rule the entire world one day, or will destroy it in the attempt to rule it. When will people wise up and look it in the face for what it is.

The same could be said about other religions too, look at the past history for christianity and judaism for example. Look at the state of the planet now they are in charge.

Not the same. In Islam it is the way, In other religions it's a departure from the way.

second line.

I understand that many in the UK hold a fear about Sharia and the fear that it could take over the UK. The thing is, most people in the UK are pretty secular and millions would consider themselves atheist or agnostic. No one is suddenly going to change by becoming a muslim or any other religion for that matter. There have been Beth Din, Jewish courts in the UK for decades yet no one ever mentions this just the sharia courts.

reply to post by freakjive

Originally posted by freakjive
Your final assumption:
...
You are incorrect. They are fighting Shariah Law simply because IT IS UNAMERICAN!!! We don't want or need your Shariah nonsense here. Practice your Muslim faith all you want, but if you come to America...you follow American Constitutional Law.

Are they fighting Jewish Law? Are they fighting Hindu law? Are they fighting African tribal law? Because all of these are just as likely to "invade" America as any other.

And considering that there is ALREADY a preventative measure in the US constitution that would make it illegal for a foreign law to supercede American law, this badgering and witch-hunting targeted specifically at muslims can only be the result of bigotry and xenophobia.

In some states the sponsors HAVE amended their bills to make them more vague so that they can't be accused of muslim hate-mongering, but the core-reasoning is still there.

You think 2% of the American Population will ever be able to convince the other 98% to give up their constitutional law?!

reply to post by EarthwormJim


Please split your posts down

I wont read it tll readable.

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by bhornbuckle75

 

@fromabove


YOU need many a star brother!

Many a star.

WELLL SAID.

reply to post by freakjive


dude, did you even bother to read the post?!
OP is clearly not in support of "sharia law" in any way shape or form.

unless you think the Sharia Conspiracy has hired the OP to spread disinfo and lies on ATS.com. in that case, there's no helping you. he's saying that the whole "creeping sharia" idea is wrong headed and fueled by ignorance, and you've gone out of your way to prove him right.

Islam is thousands of years old, why are they just now starting to impose their will on the governments of the world?

who is actively pushing for sharia in america? what are their names? who has been on t.v. or press releases calling for the usurping of the U.S. constitution? seriously, give me ONE example of any american muslim with any influence, in a public forum (not preaching at mosque), calling for actual muslim law on the books in america and i'll buy you an ice cream cone, you idiot.

reply to post by Firefly_


what is the point of calling attention only to the violence and corruption in the Islamic world? what about the western nations that impose their will on the world through violence, oppression and occupation? is it different when white people do it? when christians do it? why are we so concerned when those "big, bad, scawwy" muslims commit acts of violence and tyranny, but we couldn't care less when our own government and military do the same things?

we can't wrap ourselves in the flag and hide behind the outright LIE of "spreading democracy" around the world forever, America. and the "Western" power states, for that matter.

This whole debate is just something to keep us fighting each other. it really has nothing to do with al-qaeda or islamic dictatorships or anything. why weren't you dim bulbs up in arms about sharia in the year 2000?

Religions are all a bunch of nonsense, but THIS SPECIFIC flavor of nonsense makes the other faiths look wonderful...

This flavor of faith needs to be ELIMINATED and FAST!!

May i ask, and this is what we are being told of sharia law, would this also happen if sharia law was allowed?

Brisbane Rape Victim Jailed

Woman's jail after rape at Le Meridien Al Aqah Beach Resort 'unfortunate' says Starwood Hotels

And if this was acceptable, do you find this outcome humane?

I'm really trying to keep an open mind, but i keep getting told things like this.

Before I get to the conspirators and perpetrators of this hate-fueled campaign, I'd also like to address a side-effect of this anti-shariah bill nonsense.

I've already shown that it is useless and wasteful, as there are already measures present in the US constitution that would prevent Shariah law from superceding US law, but now I wish to show how it is actually HARMFUL to be implementing this anti-shariah law nonsense.

If a family immigrates from another country to the US, and then the wife wishes to divorce the husband for some reason- perhaps he did not follow up on some point in their marriage contract.
If these bills are passed, she wouldn't be able to! Because the marriage contract was written up in accordance to shariah law, and would thus not be accepted. If someone tried assisting her within this contract, they could get up to 15 years in jail (if a certain bill is passed).

If she separates from him (but unfortunately not in the legals sense), and takes her son and daughter, but then the husband comes and takes the son and daughter away, and escapes back to their original country, the US would not be able to do anything to stop him or get the kids back- because it wouldn't accept or recognise the laws of that country. If someone tried assisting her, they could get up to 15 years in jail (if a certain bill is passed).

If she has a business deal with a company back in original country, that was drafted within the rules of Shariah law, she wouldn't be able to get her money, and her business partner could cheat her and go away with all the money, because shariah law is not accepted. If someone tried assisting her within this contract, they could get up to 15 years in jail (if a certain bill is passed).

If she died and left a will that was drawn up using shariah law, that will would not be accepted, and anyone who tried implementing it, or helped draw it up would be liable to 15 years in prison (if a certain bill is passed),

reply to post by babloyi


I think your 100% right about the anti sharia bill nonsense, you don't need an anti sharia law bill, I'm assuming like Australia US constitution squashes any contract. An anti Sharia Law would be an anti religion law and that should never fly in ANY country.

BUT i think your also deliberately skipping over the "negatives" of sharia law to to prove your point.

reply to post by Scaledown

Of course there are extreme interpretations of the legal aspect of Shariah law. It's the same with all religions. Heck, you could interpret Judaism to be advocating killing your son if he talks back, or tries marrying outside of Judaism, and it'd be a lot more explicit than the Islamic scripture.

But that is irrelevant. There is no "extremist shariah lawyer" trying to implement shariah law in the US. As I said, it can't be done.


PS: As an example, the punishment for rape stuff you quoted in your previous post: most interpretations of shariah do not agree on that- it is certainly not scriptural.