Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by new_here
If the town, local authorities, and state does not enforce the rules for fear of starting an open conflict…… then…. As I stated before.
By default, like France, they become autonomous states inside our own borders.
Islam doesn't recognize any other laws but the laws of Islam, that means Americas laws and Constitution means crap to Islam.
First in Europe and now in the United States, Muslim groups have petitioned to establish enclaves in which they can uphold and enforce greater compliance to Islamic law. While the U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to religious freedom and the prohibition against a state religion, when it comes to the rights of religious enclaves to impose communal rules, the dividing line is more nebulous. Can U.S. enclaves, homeowner associations, and other groups enforce Islamic law?
The internal Muslim enclave proposed by the Islamic Center for Human Excellence in Arkansas represents a new direction for Islam in the United States. The group seeks to transform a loosely organized Muslim population into a tangible community presence. The group has foreign financial support: it falls under the umbrella of a much larger Islamic group, "Islam 4 the World," an organization sponsored by Sharjah, one of the constituent emirates of the United Arab Emirates. While the Islamic Center for Human Excellence has yet to articulate detailed plans for its Little Rock enclave, the group's reliance on foreign funding is troublesome. Past investments by the United Arab Emirates' rulers and institutions have promoted radical interpretations of Islam.
Baltimore is not alone. In August 2004, a local planning commission in Little Rock, Arkansas, granted The Islamic Center for Human Excellence authorization to build an internal Islamic enclave to include a mosque, a school, and twenty-two homes. While the imam, Aquil Hamidullah, says his goal is to create "a clean community, free of alcohol, drugs, and free of gangs," the implications for U.S. jurisprudence of this and other internal enclaves are greater: while the Little Rock enclave might prevent the sale of alcohol, can it punish possession and in what manner? Can it force all women, be they residents or visitors, to don Islamic hijab (headscarf)? Such enclaves raise the fundamental questions of when, how, and to what extent religious practice may supersede the U.S. Constitution.
No previous enclave in U.S. history has ever been so vigorously protected by agents of group identity politics or so adamantly defended by legal watchdogs; nor has any previous religious enclave possessed the potency of more than one billion believers around the world. Islamic-only communities may also benefit from the largess provided by billions of petrol dollars to finance growth. The track record of Saudi and other wealthy Persian Gulf donations and charitable efforts are worrisome. There is a direct correlation between Saudi money received and the spread of intolerant practices. In 2004, for example, the U.S. Treasury Department froze the assets of Al-Haramein Foundation, one of Saudi Arabia's largest nongovernmental organizations, because of its financial links to Al-Qaeda. Additionally, American graduates of Saudi academies advance Wahhabist interpretations of Islam inside the U.S. prison system, and Saudi-subsidized publications promote intolerance inside U.S. mosques.
On May 7, the Kansas House voted unanimously in favor of a bill barring judges and government agencies from basing decisions on sharia or other “foreign” legal systems. Four days later, the Senate voted 33 to 3 in favor of the measure, which was then carried through the capitol building, past John Steuart Curry’s famous painting of John Brown, to the office of Governor Sam Brownback, who signed it into law. This bill is only the latest manifestation of the growing anti-sharia movement in this country, which endangers our national security by alienating loyal Muslim citizens and assaults religious liberty by putting contracts with a religious motivation on an unequal footing with contracts that have no religious motivation.
The rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in America has brought with it a wave of largely-unsubstantiated suggestions from conservative media commentators and politicians that America is at risk of falling under the sway of Sharia law.
First, a definition: Sharia law is strict Islamic law. It is designed to guide devout Muslims in their personal and professional dealings, and has been used by the Taliban and others to justify limits on women's rights and harsh punishments, including amputation and stoning. (It is open to interpretation, however; here's a helpful backgrounder from the Council on Foreign Relations.)
Last week, Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle invoked Sharia law when asked about "Muslims wanting to take over the United States."
"They are building mosques all over the place," the questioner told Angle. "They want to build one near [ground zero]. And they seem to be getting their way. On a TV program just last night I saw that they are taking over a city in Michigan."
After stating that the "militant terrorist situation" in question "isn't a widespread thing," Angle said this: "First of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States."
"It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States," she added.
Meanwhile another American Judge Mark Martin, a Muslim, just ruled to enforce Sharia law instead of the U.S. Constitution in a shocking case in Pennsylvania. Get this:
An atheist joker Ernest Perce dressed for a Holloween parade as the Muslim false prophet Muhammed. While walking in the parade the atheist joker was jumped and beaten by an easily offended Muslim man, Talaag Elbayomy. A video camera and eyewitness policeman captured the assault and testified for the atheist victim, who was physically beaten by the Muslim attacker, right here in the USA.
The Muslim attacker was an immigrant who claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. He also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.
But the U.S. judge was Muslim, so he threw out the video evidence, dismissed the eyewitness cop, lectured the victim for mocking Muhammed, and freed the violent Muslim attacker.
The U.S. Judge said to the atheist: “I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries…In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”
Worldnet Daily has just posted the results of a recent poll among American Muslims as to their attitudes towards sharia, blasphemy and other issues. It shows significantly high numbers would like to see sharia implemented in the US-at least within the Muslim communities. It also shows a high percentage favoring prosecution for those guilty of "defaming" Islam.
Survey of US Muslims, Oct 2012, shows large numbers of American Muslims who hate freedom and agree with sharia:
58 percent of US Muslims say criticism of Islam should be illegal in the USA.
46 percent say those who criticise Islam should face criminal charges.
43 percent disagree that Christian and other non-Muslim proselytisation should be legal.
32 percent say that sharia should be the supreme law of the land in the USA.
12 percent say those who criticise Islam should be executed.
To me these numbers are troubling even if they refer to a minority. If accurate, it is a significant minority. I place a lot of blame here on the teaching and influence of Wahhabist clerics who are allowed to come here to occupy imam positions in the mosques. Many of them have radical and hateful ideas that have no place in a free and open society. There is way too much Saudi influence in the US when it comes to imams and mosques-as well as helping establish Middle East Studies departments in our universities which are staffed with radical professors. They are working against full assimilation of Muslims into American society. In addition, I also blame the so-called leading Islamic organizations in the US like CAIR, ICNA, ISNA, and MPAC. They pose as moderates, but have an Islamist agenda. And why shouldn't they? There are all linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The track record of Saudi and other wealthy Persian Gulf donations and charitable efforts are worrisome. There is a direct correlation between Saudi money received and the spread of intolerant practices. In 2004, for example, the U.S. Treasury Department froze the assets of Al-Haramein Foundation, one of Saudi Arabia's largest nongovernmental organizations, because of its financial links to Al-Qaeda. Additionally, American graduates of Saudi academies advance Wahhabist interpretations of Islam inside the U.S. prison system, and Saudi-subsidized publications promote intolerance inside U.S. mosques.