• 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!

Do think Sharia Law is a REAL possiblity in the US?

Do think Sharia Law is a REAL possiblity in the US?


  • Total voters
    120
By banning political Islam in America and by preventing the election of a Muslim POTUS. In answer to your questions from #223.
Now we are getting to see the REAL Mardsen.The petty would be tyrant.What's next? Banning an Atheist from becoming POTUS?

Why do you persist in asking me these questions?
Because that's what I do.I like exposing wannabe tyrants.
Might as well get as much of that done before someone like you gets into power and makes asking questions illegal.
You already shown what you really think of the Constitution.
Constitution_toilet_paper.jpg


I'm not your Messiah.

Thank CROM for that.

I'm your messenger.

Sort of like Muhammed?
Or one of those dirty hippies on bikes?
So you are my messenger, huh?
Well, here is a message I want you to take back to whoever sent you:
"Stop sending wingnuts as messengers".

And speaking of Messiah, were you as insistent in trying to find out the truths in Obama's secretive past before you voted?

See, what I'm getting at here is that I believe you might be a poster who voted for Obama and were persuaded to do so on the basis of his skin color.

Damn,you are dumber than I thought.
I was in Paris at the time of the 2008 election studying French Cuisine at Le Cordon Bleu.
I didn't vote that year.
But my wife voted for John McCain.
If it's any consolation,I did vote for a dark skin guy in 2007 and 2011.
I voted for Bobby Jindal twice for Louisiana Governor.
Last time I checked,he was a Republican.
 
It has always cracked me up how big constitutionalists they are until it applies to "others'"
 
Never have I suggested suspension of the Constitution. How can I expect an intelligent discussion with a poster who is unable to accurately process indormation?

The same faulty thought processes lead you to believe Islamism and stealth Jihad are "phantom menaces"

You will be no help in defending this country or the constitution you hope to convince us you love if you can't read and correctly interpret what you read.

Google stealth jihad and then realize that Turkey has taken steps to regulate Islam. And then look at what
steps Egypt took to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood and find out why they did what they did.

And if you are really a student of Democracy, read about what happened in Algeria when the voters elected Islamists into the presidency thinking they could appease fundamentalist factions and also enjoy democracy.

excuse me, you were the one that suggested limitation of the rights of Muslims in america. That is trashing the constitution, regardless of your paranoid rationale.


Honor killings are not part of sharia law. Honor killings are extra judicial. Under sharia, after a trial a spouse may be condemned for adultery. Sentencing for "honor killings" under sharia law are all over the map, but generally it is slap on the wrist stuff. Crimes of passion used to be recognized in many european countries, and while classified as murder now, sentencing is generally less that other types of murder.

You are aware that not all muslim nations are under sharia law aren't you? Islamic law is a combination of sharia and english common law.

Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Spectrum of Muslim legal systemsThe legal systems in 21st century Muslim-majority states can be classified as follows:

Sharia in the secular Muslim states: Muslim countries such as Mali, Kazakhstan, and Turkey have declared themselves to be secular, meaning religious interference in state affairs, law, and politics is prohibited. In short, sharia is limited to personal and family matters.[44]
The Nigerian legal system is based on the English common law and the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and separation of church and state, though 11 northern states have adopted sharia for those who practice Islam.[45]
Malaysia's legal system is also based on the English common law, and so sharia law is only applicable to Muslims and is restricted to family law and religious observances. Although the Malaysian Constitution declares Islam the "official religion" with ceremonial rulers as head of Islam in their respective states, other religions may be freely practiced (albeit with restrictions on proselytizing to Muslims).
Muslim states with blended sources of law: Muslim countries including Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan, and Morocco have legal systems strongly influenced by sharia, but also cede ultimate authority to their constitutions and the rule of law. These countries conduct democratic elections, although some are also under the influence of authoritarian leaders. In these countries, politicians and jurists make law, rather than religious scholars. Most of these countries have modernized their laws and now have legal systems with significant differences when compared to classical sharia.[46]
Muslim states using classical sharia: Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states do not have constitutions or legislatures. Their rulers have limited authority to change laws, since they are based on sharia as it is interpreted by their religious scholars. Iran shares some of these characteristics, but also has a parliament that legislates in a manner consistent with sharia.[47
"

Of course Islamists are not stealthy, nor is their warped perspective of jihad. Are they a threat to teh american way of life. Hardly. are they a threat to occasionally murder americans absolutely - I do believe bush declared war on terrorism - which was stupid to declare war on a tactic of non state actors, but thats another story, and Obama has modified that to prosecute a war on specific terrorist groups, which I might add he's been pretty effective at.

What Islamist have or haven't done in muslim countries, is not applicable to american muslims.

FYI =the brotherhood was outlawed for many years, until they renounced violence and took up "political" arms. They certainly haven't been a terrorist group in Egypt for quite some time.

Hamas is designated a terrorist group solely for their violent acts of resistance against the Israeli occupation. they have never launched an attack on non Israeli interests or Israeli interests for that matter outside the territories and Israel proper. Look it up some time.

the fiasco in Algeria was devastating, but in the end, democracy won out that and of course an amnestry program.
 
According to this source EVERY SINGLE PERSON McCarthy outed was guilty.


In May 1957, after the death of Sen. Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover told former State Department official Harris Houston, widely known among intelligence agents as the leading expert on Communist infiltration of the federal government, that it would be another 50 years before the American people appreciated what Joe McCarthy had done for them.

Well those 50 years have passed, and if Stan Evans, an old fellow Cold War warrior and friend, has anything to say about it, the real story of Joseph Raymond McCarthy and what he did for his nation will finally be known.

In his new book "Blacklisted by History, The Untold Story of Senator Joseph McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies," M. Stanton Evans provides a meticulously documented examination of Joe's attempts to alert the American people to the extent of Communist infiltration of the federal government and other American institutions.

Case by case, Evans reveals the unimpeachable evidence that all of the so-called victims of McCarthy's crusade against Communist subversion — every single one of them — really were Communists and agents of a hostile foreign power: the Soviet Union. Evan's long decades of dogged research should at last put at rest the vicious slanders that plagued Joe McCarthy in his Senate career and followed him into the grave.

McCarthy Vindicated at Last

Newsmax? Seriously? Please keep your political porn to yourself.
 
man, you couldnt have edited so it doesnt look like I posted that nonsense?
:wassat1::shrug::wink2:

Sorry, I did not catch that. My apologies.
 
Last edited:
Im asking this question because of some of the people I have encountered that want extra laws made banning it and they say they would never vote for ANY Muslim politician because of it.

SO I ask, do you fear Sharia Law and think its a possibility here in the US.

I do not.

You get the Muslims voted in to office you have a definite posssibily...We won't see it in our lifetime...Don't forget the Muslim religion is the fastest growing one in the world.
 
You have a full plate already with Kim Song Unh's craziness within a missile trajectory away. So why don't you concern yourself with that and leave the veiled homophobic insults to those who love mixing their gay sex and their politics together, like the Liberal politicians in Washington, D.C.

Who's Kim Song Uhn? Since the US economy is faltering and is about to be overtaken by China's in a decade or so, why don't you concern yourself with that?
Most of all, why am I a homophobe? :lol:
 
I choose mashed potatoes.

 
Im asking this question because of some of the people I have encountered that want extra laws made banning it and they say they would never vote for ANY Muslim politician because of it.

SO I ask, do you fear Sharia Law and think its a possibility here in the US.

I do not.

We already have Sharia Law in America. :mrgreen:

Seriously, they do big time in the UK and in theory to some extent in the US. Follow the logic: In America there are some Christians who on religious grounds oppose litigating with a fellow Christian in civil court.

1 Corinthians 6

New International Version (NIV)
Lawsuits Among Believers

6 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.


Because of this Biblical passage, a legal alternative is commonplace in some Christian circles called Binding Christian Arbitration. I know an attorney who specialize in it. Basically it allows Christians to avoid civil court be agreeing to submit their disputes to tribunals made up of fellow Christians. It's voluntary and DOES NOT apply to criminal proceedings. I was talking to some friends in the UK and they have something similar there that some Muslims participate in. Relinquish all civil liability through the government courts and in exchange allow a faith-based tribunal reach a verdict. Compare to Judge Judy. There's nothing stopping Muslims in America from doing so as well, all parties must be agreeable however.
 
There's already one Muslim representative. :shock:

Don't remind me. He's my Congressman, and he's useless.

(That has nothing to do with his religion, but in general he's useless).
 
of course he is.

You can say McCarthy cried wolf, but that is 20/20 hindsight. YOu obviously aren't aware of the horrendous damage that he did to america. To the blatant abuses of the constitution he and Cohn perpetrated on innocent americans. It all started with a general fear of commies and he picked it up and ran with it a delusional attempt to "cleanse" america of its enemies. He got as far as he did, because only a few people had the balls to stand up to him, the most prominent being Murrow.


IN today's environment with the 24/7 news cycle, it would be impossible

He is actually advocating for suspension of the constitution, if he ever gets over his paranoia to consider it actually means.

This is nonsense plain and simple.

The notion that Islamist could gain any kind of foothold in the US is ludicrous.

Obviously I am not? Riiiighht... :roll:

Look, I have ALREADY POSTED NEWS ARTICLES that show that they ALREADY HAVE A FOOTHOLD.

Remain ignorant if you like.

I am not saying they will win, just that to blow it off as impossible is literally the mindset of a ignorant person. Sharia is not compatable with our Constitution and most Americans will not want Sharia in our Courts... but it is already happening because butt headed Judges are making personal rulings. This needs to be addressed and fixed.
 
Im asking this question because of some of the people I have encountered that want extra laws made banning it and they say they would never vote for ANY Muslim politician because of it.

SO I ask, do you fear Sharia Law and think its a possibility here in the US.

I do not.


You know - it is rather interesting watching how some individuals use their brains.

The bias with which people bring to life, I think speaks to something much deeper than their political beliefs. I think it speaks volumes about their education and their parental rearing. On the one hand, you've got people who you say claim that they won't vote for a Muslim. Yet, these vary same people seem to have no problem whatsoever, voting for someone who is actively seeking to become a god.

The implication in saying one won't vote for a Muslim, is that there is something wrong with Islamic beliefs. Yet, these very same people seem to drop any attempt at making the same implication when it comes to supporting one who honestly beliefs that his life on this planet, is one of the stages to becoming a god.

I find this willful stratification of one's own personal beliefs about what's supportable and what's not supportable, to be an amazing contradiction. But, of course, that's what we love to do as human beings is it not - contradict ourselves into oblivion.

In other words, its "OK" to support someone seeking to become a god, but not "OK" to support someone who follows Mohammad. Now, I personally belief that both views are wrong and have no real historical basis for being true. When you study both Mormonism and Islam, you find glaring contradictions in both their doctrines and not just logical contradictions but, but historical and archaeological contradictions as well.

Still, the idea that someone would not take the time to understand the beliefs of the candidate they support, yet be in full opposition to another based upon -guess what- their beliefs, is strikingly hypocritical to me.

No, of course not. The U.S. Constitution is not in danger as a result of any threat of instantiation of Sharia Law.
 
Last edited:
Obviously I am not? Riiiighht... :roll:

Look, I have ALREADY POSTED NEWS ARTICLES that show that they ALREADY HAVE A FOOTHOLD.

Remain ignorant if you like.

I am not saying they will win, just that to blow it off as impossible is literally the mindset of a ignorant person. Sharia is not compatable with our Constitution and most Americans will not want Sharia in our Courts... but it is already happening because butt headed Judges are making personal rulings. This needs to be addressed and fixed.

as soon as the constitution is renounced by the american government I'll get worried. Until then, its all fear mongering.
 
as soon as the constitution is renounced by the american government I'll get worried. Until then, its all fear mongering.

Except that it is already actually happening... so no, it is not just fear mongering. *shrugs*
 
No, of course not. The U.S. Constitution is not in danger as a result of any threat of instantiation of Sharia Law.

Prove it because I have already proven that there is some danger...
 
Except that it is already actually happening... so no, it is not just fear mongering. *shrugs*

Not even remotely happening. its fear mongering and displays an unbelievable ignorance of the very foundations of the nation. The constitution is a tad stronger than any religious law could ever be. '
 
Prove it because I have already proven that there is some danger...

I may have come into the thread late and missed this. Would you point out where you showed the danger?

We should watch England and see how they are getting along with their Sharia courts. It hasn't mollified the Muslim contingent there at all. Apparently, the exception doesn't work.
 
Not even remotely happening. its fear mongering and displays an unbelievable ignorance of the very foundations of the nation. The constitution is a tad stronger than any religious law could ever be. '

Remain as ignorant as you like... no sweat off my back.

"A panel of federal judges has ruled that states cannot protect their courts from jurists who base their decisions on international or Koranic law. America needs better judges."

Read more: EDITORIAL: Shariah in America's courts - Washington Times EDITORIAL: Shariah in America's courts - Washington Times

In a decision that Muslim legal advocates celebrated as a major win, a federal appeals court on Tuesday agreed with a lower court that blocked an Oklahoma law that would have barred state courts from considering or using Shariah law — the Islamic code of conduct.

Federal court deals blow to anti-Shariah efforts - U.S. News
 
Remain as ignorant as you like... no sweat off my back.

"A panel of federal judges has ruled that states cannot protect their courts from jurists who base their decisions on international or Koranic law. America needs better judges."

Read more: EDITORIAL: Shariah in America's courts - Washington Times EDITORIAL: Shariah in America's courts - Washington Times

In a decision that Muslim legal advocates celebrated as a major win, a federal appeals court on Tuesday agreed with a lower court that blocked an Oklahoma law that would have barred state courts from considering or using Shariah law — the Islamic code of conduct.

Federal court deals blow to anti-Shariah efforts - U.S. News

Ah, I remember this. There was another thread about it a while ago. I think there is little doubt that Islamists will attempt to inject Sharia law into US secular law, but I also have little doubt that the effort will fail. We need to monitor the efforts to push Sharia law and pay attention to these efforts, but worry about it? Nah. We don't need anti-Sharia laws because the structure of our government at many levels does not permit it. The blocked Oklahoma law isn't a success in the slightest for Sharia, as it's pundits like to claim. I note the following from the second link:

"The Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of every state -- that is 51 constitutions -- already make it illegal to implement Islamic law,” said Feldman. “Just as Jewish law can’t be the law of the United States, and canon law can’t be the law of the United States, shariah law can’t be the law of the United States."

"It’s like a law that says we absolutely ban alligators on the South Pole," he said.

On one hand, the court can consider the Islamic passage referred to by plaintiff Awad in his last will and testament, as a means of ascertaining his wishes.

On the other hand, if his wishes somehow run afoul of U.S. laws — regardless of his personal wishes — then the court will rule them a violation of law.
 
Ah, I remember this. There was another thread about it a while ago. I think there is little doubt that Islamists will attempt to inject Sharia law into US secular law, but I also have little doubt that the effort will fail. We need to monitor the efforts to push Sharia law and pay attention to these efforts, but worry about it? Nah. We don't need anti-Sharia laws because the structure of our government at many levels does not permit it. The blocked Oklahoma law isn't a success in the slightest for Sharia, as it's pundits like to claim. I note the following from the second link:
I read that too... but that is just an opinion. SCOTUS has their's too.Hey, I don't think that the issue warrants a danger level or anything. Radical Muslims are attempting a jihad movement here though legal and economic means though. This is just a fact and those that dismiss it are fools. I am not advocating disliking Muslims... just the asshole ones that want to overthrow the USA, however remote their chances.They estimate that there are 85 Sharia Law Courts in the UK. What about here in the USA? There shouldn't be any, no matter how relaxed it seems. These things operate like stepping stones. You have surely heard of the frog in the pan in cool water that ended up dead as the heat was ever so slowly increased, right? These things seem small now and that is the point. We can't dismiss it as cool because they have a long term plan to ever so slowly turn up the heat in order to win.
 
No. Not enough Muslims, doesn't mesh with our culture, and just generally not a possibility. I accidentally voted yes because someone made the yes/no part of the poll backwards. And I am German, Russian, and Irish by heritage. I LOVE any form of potatoe that exists.
 
Back
Top Bottom