It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by redneck13
 


Umm excuse me but isnt"sharia law" modified Islam? The qu ran was not to be changed i read one time and to do so was a affront to Allah. AM I misunderstanding what i read? Islam as it should be is just supposed to be just that. But the Shia have corrupted it from what i understand.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Im just curious as to why those who aren't Muslim care about this or anything related to Sharia law for that matter.

Are some fo you under the impression that Sharia law are a set of laws that apply to everyone? That would at least explain some of the responses in this thread that me scratch my head.


Please look at my post detailing the ruling in Pa. Then tell me why people should not have the response they do. Thanks.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by yuppa
 

Sharia or Shias

Sharia for Shias: ‘Legalised rape’
www.rawa.org... ised-rape.html
edit on 28-5-2012 by redneck13 because: v


The Difference Between Sunnis and Shiites
middleeast.about.com...
edit on 28-5-2012 by redneck13 because: b



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by redneck13
 


Ah so the Sunnis are the so called Moderate Muslims then? Interesting article there redneck. It would explain a few things as well. Now if we could just get them all to get along mayby the rest of the Middle east would become peaceful

LOL yeah i know longshot at best.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by yuppa
 


I don’t think you will be sure who is moderate until the imam calls for sharia law and or jihad, I hope it soon so we can get things straightened out.



edit on 28-5-2012 by redneck13 because: n
extra DIV



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by spinalremain
Im just curious as to why those who aren't Muslim care about this or anything related to Sharia law for that matter.

Are some fo you under the impression that Sharia law are a set of laws that apply to everyone? That would at least explain some of the responses in this thread that me scratch my head.


Please look at my post detailing the ruling in Pa. Then tell me why people should not have the response they do. Thanks.


That is not Sharia law. That is a terrible excuse for a judge. Can you cite the part of Sharia law in its full context that would actually make anything about that ruling right? I bet the judge couldn't.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Pointless political posturing.

The First Amendment protects us from any religious law, never mind that there is NOBODY in American politics today trying to implement Sharia Law, anyway.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
You haven’t heard of creeping sharia. People in Europe have. this is just the start for the US
3 Things About ISLAM that you Don't Know




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
As much as I view republicans as bigger devils than the democrats, there are good things that come out of the 'Right' once in awhile such as this. America and American citizens do not need that Islamic law TRASH over here.

Religion as a whole is fictional nonsense, but the Islamic faith is a DISGRACE a million times over. Keep that Sharia garbage out of America.

Well done here Mr Republican.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HangTheTraitors
 


We have this Jewish and Christian nonsense over here already. We also already have Muslims. Why cant they have their nonsense too?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Autumnal
 


Their religion is inseparable to their political system. If we the majority were Muslim now, there would be no constitution, only the Quanah and sharia law. Anyone care to revisit the Middle Ages via Islam ? Sharia law CAN NOT be changed in any way shape or form

I guess that would be better if you are a man, you would have more rights than anyone, and of coarse the real carrot, up to four wives who must obey your every command (of any age), innumerous slaves and sex slaves. As a man, it sounds as if Islam is tempting me.
edit on 29-5-2012 by redneck13 because: x



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Autumnal
 


These Muslim Sharia Laws are archaic. They do not follow the proper teachings of the Quran.

www.cfr.org...

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West.

"There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily," says Steven A. Cook, CFR senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies. Sharia's influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though.

Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity.



Despite official reluctance to use hadd punishments, vigilante justice still takes place. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one's family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor (National Geographic).

Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules, elicit as much controversy. There is significant debate over what the Quran sanctions and what practices were pulled from local customs and predate Islam. Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form.

"With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people's problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events," says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by spinalremain
Im just curious as to why those who aren't Muslim care about this or anything related to Sharia law for that matter.

Are some fo you under the impression that Sharia law are a set of laws that apply to everyone? That would at least explain some of the responses in this thread that me scratch my head.


Please look at my post detailing the ruling in Pa. Then tell me why people should not have the response they do. Thanks.


You do realize that the case you bring up was dismissed, not because of Sharia law, but because the plaintiff had zero evidence pointing toward the guilt of the defendant. The judge then went on to say that antagonizing a Muslim man is a bad idea due to the fact that their belief WOULD require them to defend their beliefs. This however does not mean that any Muslim person is not still under the eyes of US law. If the case had sufficient evidence pointing toward his guilt, he would have been found guilty. That case was not Sharia law overriding US law as you're trying to make it out to be.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


No evidence? Are you insane?

The man admitted he attacked him and it was recorded on video.

The Muslim attacker choked a man for wearing a Halloween costume.

Get your facts straight. Your display of ignorance is unbelievable.

Link

The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form.



The case was dismissed because the judge was a Muslim himself and he made a biased and unjust ruling based on his own personal religious beliefs. Instead of following and applying the laws of the US.


This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.


edit on 5/29/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by IpsissimusMagus
 


I aplogize to you and to the thread. I was relaying false information without having looked into it further. Thank you for correcting me.

I am really shocked that there was video of the guy beating on the costume man and the judge threw it out. Now I understand why everyone is alarmed. This is a clear case of US law not being upheld in view of a religious practice. I would have to agree with you all that this cannot become common practice.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Separation of church and state,
of course its ok to wear a burka that is not part of religious worship.
They wear them so men won’t try to rape the women.
If you show some skin that says, you want it.
Since a woman’s testimony is not as powerful as a man’s is (god loves him more) it takes the eye witness testimony of four men to prove one man raped her.
If a man rapes a woman, it’s because she was a whore and she should be put to death.
It is ok to wear a symbol of oppression, just not a Mohammed mask in a Halloween parade.
That guy was scarier than Freddy Kruger or Jason.

edit on 29-5-2012 by redneck13 because: m



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by spinalremain
Im just curious as to why those who aren't Muslim care about this or anything related to Sharia law for that matter.

Are some fo you under the impression that Sharia law are a set of laws that apply to everyone? That would at least explain some of the responses in this thread that me scratch my head.


Please look at my post detailing the ruling in Pa. Then tell me why people should not have the response they do. Thanks.


That is not Sharia law. That is a terrible excuse for a judge. Can you cite the part of Sharia law in its full context that would actually make anything about that ruling right? I bet the judge couldn't.


Tell me where this bill singles out Sharia Law. This bill is designed to prevent any law from overriding US law, whether right or wrong that judge used Sharia Law to overrule US law, even if he was wrong on what Sharia Law says.

Now prove to me Sharia Law allows for the mocking of Muhammad.

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." (Bukhari 59:369)


33:59 Prophet, tell your wives your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garment hang low over them, so as to be recognized and not insulted [aa-dh-aa]: God is most forgiving, most merciful. 60 If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. 61 They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed.


What happened to those who mocked Muhammad? Uqbah bin Abu Muayt, Al-Nadr bin al-Harith? I think the judge was spot on in his assessment of Sharia Law, which stated the man would be KILLED not just assaulted under Sharia Law.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
Pointless political posturing.

The First Amendment protects us from any religious law, never mind that there is NOBODY in American politics today trying to implement Sharia Law, anyway.


Good thing you read the entire thread before formulating an opinion. Oh wait, no you didn't, explain what happened in Pa. then.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Autumnal
reply to post by HangTheTraitors
 


We have this Jewish and Christian nonsense over here already. We also already have Muslims. Why cant they have their nonsense too?


You keep saying this, show me an instance of Christian or Jewish law SUPERCEDING US law, or just shut up already about it.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
You do realize that the case you bring up was dismissed, not because of Sharia law, but because the plaintiff had zero evidence pointing toward the guilt of the defendant. The judge then went on to say that antagonizing a Muslim man is a bad idea due to the fact that their belief WOULD require them to defend their beliefs. This however does not mean that any Muslim person is not still under the eyes of US law. If the case had sufficient evidence pointing toward his guilt, he would have been found guilty. That case was not Sharia law overriding US law as you're trying to make it out to be.


Bold statement, now prove it.

Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence, refusing to allow a grainy video of the incident to be entered in. But then he suggested to Perce that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a "doofus."


So there is video evidence which the judge would not allow. It was thrown out because the judge is a recent convert to Islam.

Edit: someone beat me to it!
edit on 30-5-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join