• 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!

In The USA, Anti-Sharia Laws Are Unconstitutional [W:327]

Moderator's Warning:
Personal attacks and off-topic flaming ends now if you want to avoid an infraction and/or a thread ban.
 
Disputatious71 said:
I believe posting my preference is allowed, even if I know it will not be fully implemented as I would PREFER.
Click to expand...

Of course and I see no place for sharia law in any society that values human rights, democracy or equality for women. However, since my musings or my sentiment will not be a motivating force, alone, and can muddy the waters of discussion, I use the law and court decisions as my weapons when dealing with these issues, such as:

"When discussing Sharia law in 2004 the European Court of Human Rights "found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy… It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts."


http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres...legal_year.pdf
 
Disputatious71 said:
I have been paying attention to your posts, and besides avoiding my question you have provided nothing but hot air, you claim Islam is not a religion but a political party (did you have a better word for what you claim besides party, if so I will use your word instead of mine to fill in the gaps of your hypothesis) ! If you have called my hand where is this proof of yours that Islam is a political party ? You claim it is in Islamic teachings yet have not linked any, or maybe you just think I cannot read it because to understand it I must know Arabic...
By the way just because you post your opinion does not make what you say proof of a fact.
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying much attention. You keep saying I refer to Islam as a 'political party' , when I don't. You ask me what word I did use. Well, why wouldn't you know if you were 'paying attention'. I have given proof. Reread.

Quantrill
 
Disputatious71 said:
See now if you had posted this before in answer to my question you would have provided proof of your opinion. It is a book I will have to add to my library concerning Islam. I do however still disagree that their is world wide belief that Islam is not a religion, until that changes Islam is a religion which teaches a totalitarian political agenda.
Click to expand...

See now. That is not the first time I have given these quotes. Which is why I encourage you to reread.

No one is trying to prove there is worldwide belief. Only that Islam is both political and religious. And that there is no distinction bettween the two, according to Islam. And that Shariah Law is political and religious. Meaning that if you allow Shariah Law to have authority in your country, you have allowed a foreign political nation to function in your country under its laws. And that it is the goal of Islam to establish Shariah Law completely over the country where muslims live.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
See now. That is not the first time I have given these quotes. Which is why I encourage you to reread.

No one is trying to prove there is worldwide belief. Only that Islam is both political and religious. And that there is no distinction bettween the two, according to Islam. And that Shariah Law is political and religious. Meaning that if you allow Shariah Law to have authority in your country, you have allowed a foreign political nation to function in your country under its laws. And that it is the goal of Islam to establish Shariah Law completely over the country where muslims live.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Christianity is both political and religios; see Vatican City.
 
Quantrill said:
No one is trying to prove there is worldwide belief. Only that Islam is both political and religious. And that there is no distinction bettween the two, according to Islam. And that Shariah Law is political and religious. Meaning that if you allow Shariah Law to have authority in your country, you have allowed a foreign political nation to function in your country under its laws. And that it is the goal of Islam to establish Shariah Law completely over the country where muslims live.
Click to expand...

Ah. Before you claimed Islam is not a religion. At least now you acknowledge it's a religion. We're making progress. It makes little difference if Islam doesn't separate religious from political. It's still a religion legally, from the standpoint of the US legal system. And if Islam wants to influence US politics, so what? Just one more lobbying group among hundreds. Even without anti-Sharia laws, how far do you think an Islamic lobby would get in the southern bible belt, hmmm? They would make as much difference as gnat's fart in a hurricane!
 
Manc Skipper said:
The "Muslim Educational Trust" is hardly a solid source of mainstream Muslim thought. Muslims call it extreme! It's a virtual one-man publisher (Ghulam Sawar is the "Director") of extremist politico/religious tracts. It is much mentioned in "The Islamist"...

"The Islamist: Why I joined radical Islam in Britain, what I saw inside and why I left.

The Islamist: Why I joined radical Islam in Britain, what I saw inside and why I left: Amazon.co.uk: Ed Husain: Books
Click to expand...

Can you back up this claim ?
Which mainstream Muslim thought groups call it extreme ? Exactly how is it mentioned in The Islamist and why does that make it a good or bad source ? Are the extremist politico/religious tracts the Muslim Educational Trust cite not accepted Islamic teachings of Mohammad ? If not how do these extremist tracts differ from the ones used in mainstream Sharia law ?
 
EagleAye said:
Ah. Before you claimed Islam is not a religion. At least now you acknowledge it's a religion. We're making progress. It makes little difference if Islam doesn't separate religious from political. It's still a religion legally, from the standpoint of the US legal system. And if Islam wants to influence US politics, so what? Just one more lobbying group among hundreds. Even without anti-Sharia laws, how far do you think an Islamic lobby would get in the southern bible belt, hmmm? They would make as much difference as gnat's fart in a hurricane!
Click to expand...

Ah. I have always stated that Islam is a religious political body. As opposed to a religion. I have said nothing now that I haven't said before.

It makes all the difference in the world that Islam reconizes no difference between secualr and religious. It means their Shariah law is a political law over a political nation whose boundaries it sees as the countries it exists in. Thus to allow Shariah law in your country is to allow another politcal body operating under their own law. A foreign law.

A muslim is quite free to influence American politics. That is not the point. The point is giving Shariah Law equal authority as US law. Allowing Shariah courts to function in the US. Having American judges consider Shariah law when making a determination in some case.

It doesn't get far in the Bible Belt because we fight it now. Unlike people like you who are willing to open the doors to it. Unlike the Fed. Govt. which struck down the State of Oklahomas law making Shariah law illegal. Even though it was voted on by the people of Oklahoma and passed by a landslide majority.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Quantrill said:
Ah. I have always stated that Islam is a religious political body. As opposed to a religion. I have said nothing now that I haven't said before.

It makes all the difference in the world that Islam reconizes no difference between secualr and religious. It means their Shariah law is a political law over a political nation whose boundaries it sees as the countries it exists in. Thus to allow Shariah law in your country is to allow another politcal body operating under their own law. A foreign law.

A muslim is quite free to influence American politics. That is not the point. The point is giving Shariah Law equal authority as US law. Allowing Shariah courts to function in the US. Having American judges consider Shariah law when making a determination in some case.

It doesn't get far in the Bible Belt because we fight it now. Unlike people like you who are willing to open the doors to it. Unlike the Fed. Govt. which struck down the State of Oklahomas law making Shariah law illegal. Even though it was voted on by the people of Oklahoma and passed by a landslide majority.
Click to expand...

People like me would NOT allow Sharia to be included in secular judges determinations nor allow Sharia courts to operate. How is that opening the door to Sharia?
 
EagleAye said:
People like me would NOT allow Sharia to be included in secular judges determinations nor allow Sharia courts to operate. How is that opening the door to Sharia?
Click to expand...

You fail to acknowlege that Islam is not just a relgion but a national political body. You want to only see it as a religion. Therefore, you, and people like you, will not be able to withstand the arguments of Islam when they start pursuing Shariah based on 'religious freedom'. You will allow it, because you see no difference. They will take it, grow in numbers, then force you to accept more Shariah law in this country or any other country where they exist. A Shariah law that govens their secualr lives equally as their religious lives.

You fail to support the state laws that specifically outlaw Shariah. Because to you it makes no difference. But it does make a difference. Thus you, and others like you, will encourage the Fed. govt. to strike down any anti-Shariah law by the states because it is either unconstitutional or , as you say, redundant. Thus the Fed govt. will open the door and then the states have no law to stop it and getting one passed at that time will be too late.


Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
You fail to acknowlege that Islam is not just a relgion but a national political body. You want to only see it as a religion. Therefore, you, and people like you, will not be able to withstand the arguments of Islam when they start pursuing Shariah based on 'religious freedom'. You will allow it, because you see no difference. They will take it, grow in numbers, then force you to accept more Shariah law in this country or any other country where they exist. A Shariah law that govens their secualr lives equally as their religious lives.

You fail to support the state laws that specifically outlaw Shariah. Because to you it makes no difference. But it does make a difference. Thus you, and others like you, will encourage the Fed. govt. to strike down any anti-Shariah law by the states because it is either unconstitutional or , as you say, redundant. Thus the Fed govt. will open the door and then the states have no law to stop it and getting one passed at that time will be too late.
Click to expand...

Freedom of religion is NOT absolute. Mormons want to practice polygamy, this is denied. Satan worshipers want to practice Human sacrifice, they are denied. Christians want prayer in school, they are denied. And these wants are denied by the same people who insist upon freedom of religion. Those who insist on letting Islam practice (as much as possible) are not nearly as weak as you suppose. They are permissive when appropriate, resistant when appropriate, not all one or the other. You don't need to destroy ALL their sharia laws, just the inappropriate ones. You don't need a sledgehammer to kill a fly, just a flyswatter. Someone who doesn't use a bazooka to handle a troubling neighbor isn't a liberal weakling. The one who uses the police (existing legal system) is simply a law-abiding citizen.
 
Again, the examples you are giving are present already with muslims in this country. They can worship however they want. But when it collides with our laws then they are lawbreakers. That already exists in this country for the muslim.

There is no need to allow Shariah Law any authority in this country.

Just like with the Mormons. Just like with Satan worshippers.


You, on the other hand, and others like you, are willing to give Shariah law authority in this country. If you are not, then why are you arguing with me.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Quantrill said:
Again, the examples you are giving are present already with muslims in this country. They can worship however they want. But when it collides with our laws then they are lawbreakers. That already exists in this country for the muslim.

There is no need to allow Shariah Law any authority in this country.

Just like with the Mormons. Just like with Satan worshippers.

You, on the other hand, and others like you, are willing to give Shariah law authority in this country. If you are not, then why are you arguing with me.
Click to expand...

When I say I am against Sharia law having any influence in secular law, how do you understand that as granting Sharia law authority over the nation? You seem to have tunnel vision.
 
EagleAye said:
When I say I am against Sharia law having any influence in secular law, how do you understand that as granting Sharia law authority over the nation? You seem to have tunnel vision.
Click to expand...

You seem to ignore what I just said. All that you say you would allow Islam to do, they can do already. Your the one that made the comparisons. So, no need for Shariah law.

No one is stopping them from worshipping their god anyway they want, as long as it agrees with our laws.

Simple , see? You agree, so why are you arguing with me?

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Quantrill said:
You seem to ignore what I just said. All that you say you would allow Islam to do, they can do already. Your the one that made the comparisons. So, no need for Shariah law.

No one is stopping them from worshipping their god anyway they want, as long as it agrees with our laws.

Simple , see? You agree, so why are you arguing with me?
Click to expand...

Because it sounds like you advocate eliminating the whole thing entirely. Whereas I advocate eliminating only the aspects of Sharia that conflict with secular law. Plus in civil disputes (disagreements over who damaged a lawnmower, for instance), I say it can be resolved by an Imam as an arbitrator (a method currently permitted by secular law) using Sharia precepts, if both sides can agree to it. If the disagreement is between a Sharia practitioner and a Baptist and the Baptist doesn't agree to an arbitrator, than secular courts must be used which cannot acknowledge Sharia principles.
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
Because it sounds like you advocate eliminating the whole thing entirely. Whereas I advocate eliminating only the aspects of Sharia that conflict with secular law. Plus in civil disputes (disagreements over who damaged a lawnmower, for instance), I say it can be resolved by an Imam as an arbitrator (a method currently permitted by secular law) using Sharia precepts, if both sides can agree to it. If the disagreement is between a Sharia practitioner and a Baptist and the Baptist doesn't agree to an arbitrator, than secular courts must be used which cannot acknowledge Sharia principles.
Click to expand...

What a piece of contridiction.

You said in #339 that your against Shariah Law having any influence in secular law. You now say it can be used in 'civil disputes'.

This is why the States create thsese anti-Shariah laws.

The muslim already can worship his God freely. Any secular decision needs to come under our laws. Not Sharaih law.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
What a piece of contridiction.

You said in #339 that your against Shariah Law having any influence in secular law. You now say it can be used in 'civil disputes'.

This is why the States create thsese anti-Shariah laws.

The muslim already can worship his God freely. Any secular decision needs to come under our laws. Not Sharaih law.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
In Islam is anything secular ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom