Beware of this. There are efforts all over the world to have Muslims be allowed to live under Shariya law, to have it applied instead of the legal system of the local, regional and national law of the country where the Muslims live.
It cannot be allowed.
Advertisement
October 4, 2009 at 10:52 pm |
It sounds nice:
“Islam possesses a religious law called al-Shari’ah in Arabic which governs the life of Muslims and which Muslims consider to be the embodiment of the Will of God. The Shari’ah is contained in principle in the Quran as elaborated and complemented by the Sunnah. On the basis of these principles the schools of law which are followed by all Muslims to this day were developed early in Islamic history. This Law, while being rooted in the sources of the Islamic revelation, is a living body of law which caters to the needs of Islamic society .
“Islamic laws are essentially preventative and are not based on harsh punishment except as a last measure. The faith of the Muslim causes him to have respect for the rights of others and Islamic Law is such that it prevents transgression from taking place in most instances. That is why what people consider to be harsh punishments are so rarely in need of being applied. ”
Found at:
http://islamichouse.tripod.com/shariya.htm
See news about the application of stoning, hand- and foot-cutting and lashing in Muslim nations to see whether these are “rarely in need of being applied.”
In any event, the comment is irrelevant. If a thing is repugnant, and these certainly are to any reasonable citizen of the modern world, then it is repugnant whether it is done little or much.
These things are barbaric. There is no reason to be shy about saying so, except that criticism of Islam can be a deadly undertaking.
October 5, 2009 at 12:53 am |
So how will Islam dominate the world when the majority of people will never accept it?
Indeed, the majority of people on earth will always detest Islam and choose not to live by the Sharee’ah. Allah (swt) says:
“And most of mankind will not believe even if you desire it eagerly.” (EMQ Yoosuf, 12: 103)
Therefore there are three main ways in which a state or country can become Daar ul-Islam (the domain of Islam):
1. The majority of its citizens embrace Islam and implement the Sharee’ah on their own accord
2. A group of Muslims rise, overthrow the government and implement the Sharee’ah by force (coup)
3. The Islamic state carries out Jihaad as its foreign policy and removes the government
If the Muslims are unable to convince their people (e.g. through peaceful da’wah) to embrace Islam and implement the Sharee’ah, it then becomes an obligation upon them to make hijrah and unite (build their own community and execute the Sharee’ah over themselves) and then rise against the government by force at a later date, regardless of whether they are the majority or the minority. Allah (swt) says:
Found at:
http://duaat.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/how-islam-will-dominate-the-world/
By following a reference at:
http://infidelsarecool.com/2007/10/09/congressman-refuses-to-condemn-sharia-law-in-the-us/
October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am |
It’s happening in Britain:
Excerpt:
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts
Abul Taher
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
…courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
…had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
…classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”
…Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007.
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
Additional reporting: Helen Brooks
Found at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
By following a reference at:
http://schulzkelaw.com/is-sharia-law-now-enforceable-in-the-united-states/
October 5, 2009 at 1:11 am |
Please notice the reference “If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.” Bunglawala refers to the British courts as “the Jewish courts”. The inaccuracy of the statement will not occur to many outside his audience, and will be thought so (and would not not matter in any event) to his audience.
October 5, 2009 at 1:37 am |
Stratgey for defeating creeping Shariaism:
The approach for injecting Sharia law is to set up Sharia courts as a form of “binding arbitration”, under which two parties have mutually agreed to abide by the decision of an arbitrating body.
There is nothing to prevent anyone form providing such a service of arbitration, and the guidelines only have to be acceptable to the aggrieved parties. Oh, and consistent with the law of the land.
There will be attempts to gloss over that all-important point.
Arbitration is not an avenue for applying some law other than the local, state, or federal laws in effect. Those laws (for good or ill) arise from the legislature created by the Constitution of the United States of America and are enforced and interpreted by the court system established by the same document.
Nothing about opting for arbitration sets up a mechanism for violating current law.
Arbitration is a mechanism for arriving at a settlement more quickly, less expensively, and perhaps with pre-determined penalty limits. The outcomes must sill be consistent with local, state and federal law.
Do not accept any statement that suggests that binding arbitration under the guidelines of Shariya law allows for outcomes not allowable under current laws.
Furthermore, for a contract to be binding, both parties must have agreed without coercion If there is coercion, the very spirit of a contract is violated from the outset, voiding the contract in toto.
Looking at the male-dominant slant of Shariya law, it would be very bizarre for a woman of sound mind, uncoerced, and aware of her rights under U.S. law, to agree to abide by such arbitration.