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
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
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
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:
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
“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.
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
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
Lawyers Speak Against Ga. Bill That Bans Use of Foreign Laws in
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.
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
In South Dakota:
SD Rep. Who Authored Abortion Bill Nixes Sharia
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
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
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
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
"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.
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)
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.
. 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:
The supposed danger this "Creeping Shariah" is supposed to pose to the US is ALREADY CATERED FOR in the US Constitution.
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.
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
edit on 25-4-2011 by babloyi because: Spelling