• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Campaign launched against anti-Sharia law bill

What we need to pray for is that Oklahoma gets the wording right and in doing so set the bar for all States to follow.

As a Nation we cannot be having laws on the books that say it's okay to stone your daughter to death because she kissed her boy friend at a high school dance. Or murder your wife because you feel she dishonored you some how.

Sharia law is the definition of evil and must be stopped before it gets started.

Well I'm pretty sure that's cruel and unusual punishment which is forbidden. I don't know, I see this sort of thing from time to time and have a hard time believing any rational individual would truly believe that Sharia law of this type would be possible in the US. It's not.
 
Let's talk about religious tolerance. Was it France that recently banned the burkha? I thought that was a really interesting debate. Without having a dog in that fight, I could see both sides. On one hand, religious expression is being stifled (and for that reason such a ban wouldn't fly in the US), on the other, the burka is seen as a sign of oppression of women. So, what interest is more important? Should oppression be tolerated in the name of religious freedom?

Using a more extreme example, there are those that strongly believe that female circumcision (or genital mutilation depending on your POV) is important to keep a girl from having pre-marital sex. From their perspective (arguing it as best as I can understand it), sure it's painful, but what's a few hours of pain in this lifetime when compared to potentially protecting her eternal soul? On the other hand, our laws would likely see it as child abuse, especially if practiced the way it is in certain countries. So, what prevails here? Religious freedom or protecting a child?

That one is easy. When it comes to female circumcision, that's a violation of the child's constitutional rights. The Constitution prevails here.
 
That one is easy. When it comes to female circumcision, that's a violation of the child's constitutional rights. The Constitution prevails here.
Well, maybe not as easy as you think. The Constitution protects citizens against the power of the government. If there's no government actor, then the Constitution is not implicated.
 
I tried to not acknowledge when OK did this... They did it when the GOP was attacking the NYC Mosque, and there was a rise in Mosque fires and violence. I thought it was just a way for them to shore up votes from the fearful, ignorant, and racists in their districts..
This is as pathetic, hateful & absurdly false of a comment as I've read here in recent days.

Please show us where the huge rise in Mosque fires was? Liar

How about the huge rise in violence against against Muslims? You cant or you'll have to look awefully hard for scraps. If anything with Fort Hood & other incidents it was the other way around.

The truth here is plain for us to see that you cant tolerate people with a different opinion than yourself so you throw out crap like this and expose your bigotry and intolerance.

Whats even more amazing is your defense of supporters of Sharia law which is about as hateful & intolerant of a law that could possibly be.

So what is it ignorance? prejudice? or maybe you agree with Sharia?
 
Last edited:
IF there is a way to block Sharia law from even being practiced in America I am 100% for it. It is more evil than witchcraft.
 
You do understand the complete disconnect from reality the idea of stoning someone made legal because one minority religious group wasn't persecuted requires, right?

Is there really anything vaguely resembling a slight possibility of a majority of law-makers being extreme muslims in this country?

I'd be more concerned about a group of extremist christians making stoning gays legal than this. But neither is anywhere close to plausible. This sort of law is purely symbolic "nationalism" at its worst.

You're kidding right? Christians stoning gays? You bash Christians as being homophobic and stick up for Islamism. Unbelievable {shakes head} I'll pray for you and everyone who "liked" your post.
 
What Sharia Law means depends on the person.... Some people don't understand that. They hear "Sharia Law" and they freak out... I call that ignorance.
Another false statement, Sharia Law is strict adherance to the teachings of the Koran. Anyone who is pushing this is not trying to do otherwise and if they tell you this they are lying.

Here... try reading from the Koran which is where Sharia comes from.. not just whatever in ten different versions as you'd have us think. I pulled up some of the links on treatment of women to hopefully educate you if thats possible.

Link-Veils

Some insist that the veil is not mandated by the religion, although they do not have anything within the sacred texts to counter the passages in which Muhammad instructed its use. In fact, verse 24:60 says that the veil is only optional for unmarried women who are too old to have children, and even then the freedom to uncover the head is discouraged.

Link-A womens worth relative to a mans

Link- proving Rape

Link-Men in charge of women

Link-Wife beating

This is just a small portion I could post plenty more but I think you get the picture...

Luckily most muslims do not practice Sharia law or want to as they appear to like the freedoms we have here in this country. The Islamists follow the book fairly close so it is puzzling why you would say it was ok for them to practice it in this country. Do you realize the can of worms we'd be opening if we started to allow it in this country? Take a look at Britain where whole neiborhoods are now practicing Sharia in England separate from English law. Do you want that here?
 
Last edited:
This is as pathetic, hateful & absurdly false of a comment as I've read here in recent days.

Please show us where the huge rise in Mosque fires was? Liar

How about the huge rise in violence against against Muslims? You cant or you'll have to look awefully hard for scraps. If anything with Fort Hood & other incidents it was the other way around.

The truth here is plain for us to see that you cant tolerate people with a different opinion than yourself so you throw out crap like this and expose your bigotry and intolerance.

Whats even more amazing is your defense of supporters of Sharia law which is about as hateful & intolerant of a law that could possibly be.

So what is it ignorance? prejudice? or maybe you agree with Sharia?

Like how she said the GOP attacked the mosque?

Since over 70% of the population was against it, I guess the GOP has grown.
Besides, there were plenty on the right who didn't have a problem with it. It was the first time in a long time there was bi-partisanship on something.
 
This is as pathetic, hateful & absurdly false of a comment as I've read here in recent days.

Please show us where the huge rise in Mosque fires was? Liar

How about the huge rise in violence against against Muslims? You cant or you'll have to look awefully hard for scraps. If anything with Fort Hood & other incidents it was the other way around.

The truth here is plain for us to see that you cant tolerate people with a different opinion than yourself so you throw out crap like this and expose your bigotry and intolerance.

Whats even more amazing is your defense of supporters of Sharia law which is about as hateful & intolerant of a law that could possibly be.

So what is it ignorance? prejudice? or maybe you agree with Sharia?

How exactly am I being bigoted? I didn't accuse anybody of setting fires at Mosques... and there was a lot of news reports about fires, shootings, and violence. I can look up news articles if I must, but I have a feeling that wouldn't change your opinion...

I am not supporting Sharia Law... First of all, Sharia Law means many different things, and there are different schools of it. However, the most fundamental aspects of it are things like dietary laws, hygiene, marriage, and table manners. Really, I don't have a problem with that.
 
Like how she said the GOP attacked the mosque?

Since over 70% of the population was against it, I guess the GOP has grown.
Besides, there were plenty on the right who didn't have a problem with it. It was the first time in a long time there was bi-partisanship on something.

They were the most vocal on opposing the NYC mosque... I wasn't saying the gop attacked Mosques and set them on fire
 
Like how she said the GOP attacked the mosque?

Since over 70% of the population was against it....

70% of those polled cetainly doersn't easily extrapolate to 70% of a large population, especially if the sample size is, in comparison to the population this is being applied to, is minuscule.
 
Let's talk about religious tolerance. Was it France that recently banned the burkha? I thought that was a really interesting debate. Without having a dog in that fight, I could see both sides. On one hand, religious expression is being stifled (and for that reason such a ban wouldn't fly in the US), on the other, the burka is seen as a sign of oppression of women. So, what interest is more important? Should oppression be tolerated in the name of religious freedom?

The key words are: "seen as a sign"

Appearance of oppression if not the same as oppression. What France did was trying to get at a problem by attack what might be construed as a symptom and it's easy to attack the minority in this case since there's popular support.


Using a more extreme example, there are those that strongly believe that female circumcision (or genital mutilation depending on your POV) is important to keep a girl from having pre-marital sex. From their perspective (arguing it as best as I can understand it), sure it's painful, but what's a few hours of pain in this lifetime when compared to potentially protecting her eternal soul? On the other hand, our laws would likely see it as child abuse, especially if practiced the way it is in certain countries. So, what prevails here? Religious freedom or protecting a child?

The law has clear limits on our freedom. Harming a child is illegal, no arguement about religious freedom or whatever superceeds that. Religious abitration takes place within the limits of the Law, anything that violates the Law, i.e. illegal, is punishable by Law.
 
Could some one show me some examples of these contracts? I am not saying they don't exist(I trust Dan, so if he says they do, they probably do), but have never heard of this before and I find myself at a loss to envision such a contract.

Islamic banking is an example. It is done according to Islamic Law which is against usury.
 
Could some one show me some examples of these contracts? I am not saying they don't exist(I trust Dan, so if he says they do, they probably do), but have never heard of this before and I find myself at a loss to envision such a contract.

Sure. For instance, a delicatessen has a contract with a provisioning company to provide various meats for it's sandwiches. In the contract is going to be a provision that the meat must be kosher.
 
Islamic banking is an example. It is done according to Islamic Law which is against usury.

I have read that Sharia Law banking is growing in the UK, and a lot of British people like it... They don't charge interest or try to profit on trading your debt.

Banking london
 
I have read that Sharia Law banking is growing in the UK, and a lot of British people like it... They don't charge interest or try to profit on trading your debt.

Banking london

No, they just chop off your hand if you don't pay them back. :mrgreen:
 
No, they just chop off your hand if you don't pay them back. :mrgreen:

The really, really sad part is that there are people who think this will somehow become legal/accepted/common if Sharia Law "is implemented" in this country.
 
You're kidding right? Christians stoning gays? You bash Christians as being homophobic and stick up for Islamism. Unbelievable {shakes head} I'll pray for you and everyone who "liked" your post.
Well, you know, it's not like anyone who practices Islam is homophobic. ;)

Like how she said the GOP attacked the mosque?

Since over 70% of the population was against it, I guess the GOP has grown.
Besides, there were plenty on the right who didn't have a problem with it. It was the first time in a long time there was bi-partisanship on something.

Shoot, there are Muslims that opposed the Ground Zero Mosque. Some lost family on 9/11, others just appreciate the sensitivity of putting a mosque on a site where nearly 3000 people were murdered in the name of Islam. Notice, I'm saying it was done in the name of Islam, not that Islam demanded it.

http://www.newsmax.com/Emerson/muslimgroundzeromosque/2010/08/26/id/368449
 
Last edited:
I have read that Sharia Law banking is growing in the UK, and a lot of British people like it... They don't charge interest or try to profit on trading your debt.

Banking london


It's growing everywhere. There's a lot of money in the Gulf - the City is trying very hard to attract it. Malaysia has a leg up on that since they have been at it for longer.
 
-- Take a look at Britain where whole neiborhoods are now practicing Sharia in England separate from English law. Do you want that here?

There are several non-European posters who continue to post this type of post and get away with it. Several like to throw around the accusation of "apologia" if you bother to try to explain that they are under false impressions of reality on the ground.

Do you have any links to examples of how Sharia is being run separate from UK law please? All that is happening (as in the US) is that Sharia, like Beth Din or Talmudic law is allowed as long as it fits in with the general law of the land.

Sharia does not impinge on custody, criminal or many other areas.
 
There are several non-European posters who continue to post this type of post and get away with it. Several like to throw around the accusation of "apologia" if you bother to try to explain that they are under false impressions of reality on the ground.

Do you have any links to examples of how Sharia is being run separate from UK law please? All that is happening (as in the US) is that Sharia, like Beth Din or Talmudic law is allowed as long as it fits in with the general law of the land.

Sharia does not impinge on custody, criminal or many other areas.

Well said. It is ironic considering Jewish law has been used openly in the US for a century.
 
There are several non-European posters who continue to post this type of post and get away with it. Several like to throw around the accusation of "apologia" if you bother to try to explain that they are under false impressions of reality on the ground.

Do you have any links to examples of how Sharia is being run separate from UK law please? All that is happening (as in the US) is that Sharia, like Beth Din or Talmudic law is allowed as long as it fits in with the general law of the land.

Sharia does not impinge on custody, criminal or many other areas.

I know Infinite. I asked one of those who keeps spreading these fallacies to stop doing so after I noticed that people were coming to the European forum believing that Muslims in our country had a different system of law. :lol:

So lets make it clear again here
Beth Dins: Jewish law in Britain

*Ever since the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that Islamic sharia courts were an "unavoidable" phenomenon in Britain, there has been a heated debate about the role of separate religious legal systems and whether they should compliment British civil law. Jewish Beth Din courts have in fact been operating in the UK for more than a century and are frequently used – particularly by the Orthodox community -– to solve civil disputes. Under British civil law a third party can be used to resolve a dispute as long as both sides agree to the arbitration. They cannot, however, replace civil law. Critics say that because sharia and halakha (Jewish law) uses religious texts to define their practice they are often biased against women.

Scandal of women trapped in marriages by Jewish courts - Home News, UK - The Independent

Any agreements which follow Sharia only come about because it is the mutual agreement that people want to work that way. British Law is the law of the land and everyone, yes even Muslims, must abide it or face the consequences under British Law. :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom