I shouldn’t have to write this essay. But a judge in Oklahoma forced me into it.

Last month, 70% of the voters in Oklahoma approved State Question 755, which bans Sharia law (and international law) from being used in the state’s legal system. Almost immediately afterward, CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) sued to have the vote overturned, based on the bizarre claim that the measure is “unconstitutional.” U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange then sided with CAIR and issued an injunction preventing the measure from taking effect until all lawsuits against it are resolved. Since the suits will likely take years to play out, the new measure (and the will of the voters) will be stymied for the foreseeable future.

Those who oppose Sharia in the United States often argue their point by highlighting how misogynistic, backward, cruel and discriminatory Islamic law can be under most interpretations. And while all that may be true, it is the wrong argument to make. I get so frustrated watching pundits, politicians and bloggers making the weakest argument in what should be a slam-dunk debate that I’ve decided to write this brief outline of what I think should be the prioritized hierarchy of arguments against the use of Sharia in the United States.

In order, these are the arguments that Sharia’s opponents should be using, not just in Oklahoma but anywhere else in the country where the same issue crops up:

1. U.S. law is the “supreme law of the land,” no exceptions.

The specifics of what’s in Sharia law are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether Sharia is the most wonderful, mild and reasonable set of humanitarian recommendations ever devised, or if it’s an oppressive medieval framework for a nightmarish theocracy — or something in between. All of that is off-topic. Why? Because in the United States of America, only U.S. law governs. Period. You can’t violate a U.S. law and then offer up as a legal excuse, “Well, in Mongolia what I did is perfectly legal!” You’d be convicted, while the jury laughed.

To get specific, Article VI of the Constitution, better known as the Supremacy Clause, states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

“Supreme law of the land” nails it down pretty well. I don’t see anything in there about exceptions made for religious law — do you?

Even the lead plaintiff in the case concedes this point; quoted in the top link above, Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR, said “the measure is unnecessary ‘because even first-year law students know’ that another type of law cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution.”

And…? What’s his point here? It may be true that State Question 755 merely reaffirms already-established legal principles, but just because a measure is “unnecessary” doesn’t mean that it’s unconstitutional. In fact, as many legal experts know, there is plenty of duplication and overlap in the Constitution itself, and much more in state law. Hate-crime laws are a clear recent example of “unnecessary” duplicative legislation: It’s already illegal to assault someone, but the courts have allowed additional laws against assault motivated by malice, even though they’re theoretically “unnecessary.” The same allowance for “unnecessary” reaffirmation of Constitutional ideals applies to the new Oklahoma law as well.

2. Sharia, as “divine revelation,” is inherently undemocratic.

One of the fundamental principles of United States law is that it is subject to the will of the governed, and can be updated and revised over time. This can be done at the federal level by Constitutional amendments in which the people of each state (through their elected representatives) vote on whether or not to alter the nationwide legal framework; or by electing (or booting out) representatives who enact laws according to the will of the voters; or by electing presidents and governors who appoint judges of this or that political slant; or by similar mechanisms at state or local levels. This process is so self-evident that it hardly needs to be described.

But Sharia operates in a completely different way. The Qur’an (from which Sharia is ultimately derived) is deemed by Islam to be “revealed,” in that it was supposedly handed down from on high by Allah himself, and as such is perfect, unchangeable, uninterpretable, and thus beyond the reach of man’s attempt to alter it. In other words, Sharia is undemocratic. In practice, various Islamic experts and jurists — imams, ayatollahs, mullahs, and so forth — do indeed “interpret” the medieval Arabic of the Qur’an and apply it to modern settings, since only scholars can even read the Qur’an in the original. (Even direct translations of the Qur’an are regarded by true believers as corruptions; only the original is the true “word of God.”) But these jurists themselves are not elected. So neither the text nor the implementation of the text are subject to the will of the populace.

Needless to say, any such legal system fundamentally contradicts the basis of the American legal system. You can’t have an immutable, eternal set of fixed religious laws (i.e. Sharia) incorporated as a subset of a malleable legal system (such as U.S. law).

(Now, if three-fourths of U.S. states voted to amend the federal Constitution to jettison all existing law and replace it with Sharia, then yes, we could have Sharia in America. But that doesn’t seem likely. And until such an amendment is passed, then Sharia is in fundamental disagreement with the existing Constitution.)

Sharia’s advocates think that by citing Sharia’s “perfection,” divinity and immutability, they are making a good argument for why it should be adopted; but it is for that very reason that it is completely unacceptable in the United States, a land whose government is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Note that last word: people. Not God, not Allah. Us.

3. Many aspects of Sharia are flagrantly unconstitutional.

Any number of specific Sharia laws directly contradict or violate basic principles of the U.S. Constitution:

- Under Sharia’s rules of evidence, “Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men.” This violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, guaranteeing for all persons complete equality under the law.

- The punishment for theft under Sharia is “amputation of hands or feet, depending on the number of times it is committed.” This is a gross violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bans “cruel and unusual punishments” under U.S. law.

- In Sharia courts, “testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim).” Furthermore, “Muslim women may only enter into marriage with Muslim men.” Such Sharia laws, as well as many others which elevate Muslims over non-Muslims, are in direct violation of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and possibly Article VI of the Constitution.

- Sharia’s penalty for apostasy (rejecting Islam) is death, according to the vast majority of Islamic scholars and judges. Since apostasy could not, under the First Amendment, even be considered a crime under U.S. law, much less a capital crime, enforcing the death penalty for a “crime of conscience” violates the very spirit of the Constitution, not to mention the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments.

The list could go on and on. Sharia has very specific rules and extremely harsh punishments against extra-marital sex, for ignoring various religious rituals, drinking alcohol, engaging in freedom of speech, and so on; all of these rules and punishments violate various aspects of the United States Constitution. Several other components of Sharia also clearly discriminate against non-Muslims in favor of Muslims, which also is unconstitutional.

Because it is not allowed under Islamic law to pick and choose certain parts of Sharia while ignoring or dismissing other parts which you may find inconvenient, and since some aspects of Sharia are self-evidently unconstitutional, then Sharia must be thrown out in toto as a viable legal system in the United States — exactly as the citizens of Oklahoma voted. What’s the problem here?

4. Sharia is fundamentally religious law, and should be inapplicable to U.S. criminal or civil law.

At its core, Sharia is religious law — the guidelines under which Muslims must live in order to follow Islam. As such, it is not comparable to nor could it be a replacement for the completely secular criminal and civil code of the United States.

I have no beef with religions having internal laws governing the recommended behavior of adherents, or stipulating the rules for excommunication, and so forth. But Sharia goes way beyond that. First of all, the punishments meted out for religious misdeeds under Sharia often overlap with American criminal law. For example, as noted above, the punishment for apostasy is usually the death penalty — a little more serious than just excommunication. And on the flip side, under Sharia there is no punishment for certain actions (such as wife-beating) which under US law are serious crimes. But religious law cannot trump criminal law in the United States — you don’t get carte blanche to do illegal actions (such as killing someone or beating your wife) simply because your religion tells you it’s OK. Once we open that Pandora’s Box, there’s no turning back.

We learned recently in a very vivid example that we cannot trust religious law to replace or undermine U.S. law. When the Catholic Church discovered in decades past that some of its priests had committed statutory rape and child molestation against underage children in the Church, in many cases the internal “punishment” meted out was simply a slap on the wrist, often nothing more than a transfer to a different parish. Under U.S. law, these priests had committed a serious crime; but the Catholic Church decided in most instances to not notify the secular authorities and instead to adjudicate the cases internally, and doled out “sentences” which were in direct violation of U.S. and state criminal codes. Most Americans found this outrageous and unacceptable when they found out about it; but if we were to allow Sharia to obtain in the U.S., then the exact same clash between religious law and secular law is certain to happen all over again. And the clash will almost certainly be much more severe, since the Catholic Church hid the crimes surreptitiously, and did so in violation of its own stated principles; but under Sharia the differences between Islamic and secular moral codes are clearly and openly spelled out, so the clashes between U.S. law and Sharia law will be innumerable and unapologetic.

Of course, as many have pointed out, Sharia is not merely religious law. Under Islam, there is no distinction between religious government and civil government. They are one and the same — or are at least supposed to be one and the same, which is why modern Islamic fundamentalists find the secular governments of Middle Eastern countries so intolerable. So how do we regard Sharia — as a replacement for U.S. civil and criminal law, or simply as internal religious guidelines for Muslims?

Either way, Sharia is unacceptable to be considered part of official U.S. law. If we regard Sharia as a secular legal system, then see point 3 above — it’s unconstitutional. Alternately, if we regard Sharia as purely internal religious law, then once again it is unconstitutional if followed to the exclusion of U.S. law, as shown here in point 4. So once again, it seems that the voters of Oklahoma got it right.

To address one final question which may arise: What if two people voluntarily enter into a contract based on non-US law, or voluntarily agree to have their civil dispute adjudicated by a Sharia court? That would be fine — if we can be assured that the agreement is voluntary. But the discriminatory and oppressive nature of Sharia means that one or more of the parties in any dispute may have been compelled by threats or social pressure to consent to Sharia jurisdiction under duress.

Say, in one example, that several U.S. Muslim businessmen agree to pool funds for an investment portfolio, on the mutual agreement that the investment be Sharia-compliant — i.e. not used to profit from any industry (like alcohol or gambling) which violated Islamic law. And then the manager in charge of the fund invests in various casino and liquor companies. Ooops. Would the other investors then have the right to withdraw from the fund with no penalties? Yes. In this type of case, “Sharia” could indeed play a role in a U.S. lawsuit, if it were to end up in court, because the Sharia-aspect of the agreement was purely internal, did not violate any U.S. laws, and was entered into voluntarily.

But consider our second example. In the CNN article linked above, the CAIR spokesman responsible for getting the Oklahoma law quashed gave this quote:

“What this amendment is going to do is officially disfavor and condemn the Muslim community as being a threat to Oklahoma,” Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter and the lead plaintiff in the suit, said earlier this month. In addition, he said, the amendment would invalidate private documents, such as wills, that are written in compliance with Muslim law.

This is an absurd, obviously untrue claim. In your will, you can leave your assets to anyone, for any reason. You can cite Muslim law, or your personal conscience, or a dream you once had, or baseless paranoia, or no reason whatsoever to leave all your assets to your children, or your cat, or the Flat Earth Society, or even leave instructions to have it all buried with you in your casket. If the will is determined to be a valid will, no ban on Sharia will be able to challenge it.

If, however, you die intestate (without a will), then the ban on Sharia could indeed come into play — as well it should. Sharia openly discriminates against females in inheritance law: “The rules of inheritance under Sharia law are intricate, and a female’s portion is generally half the amount a male would receive under the same circumstances.” So envision an example in which a wealthy Muslim man dies intestate, and the family ends up in an Oklahoma court in a dispute over his inheritance. Now imagine that the new Oklahoma law is not in effect, and lawyers petition the state court to have the case instead heard in a Sharia court. The judge may likely consent, provided all the disputants agree to the venue change. Now imagine that there are three overbearing sons who want Dad’s money, and one cowering daughter who has been threatened by them. When asked by the judge if she consents to Sharia justice in this case, will she have the bravado to stand up in court and say “No!”? Not likely. She’ll meekly assent, as have countless Muslim women for centuries. And she’ll wind up in Sharia court, where the Muslim jurist will naturally and correctly rule against her, not out of personal animosity, but because bias against women is built into Islamic law.

So, to use the CAIR plaintiff’s argument against him: Inheritance cases are exactly the kind of injustices that Oklahoma is trying to prevent by banning Sharia.

5. Subjectively, Sharia is a discriminatory and cruel legal system.

Finally, we get to the argument that most pundits and bloggers make: Sharia should be rejected because it’s just plain awful. While this may resonate with people personally and emotionally, it’s rather weak as a legal argument.

Sharia’s defenders complain that their opponents endlessly focus on the negative aspect of Sharia, and ignore the other parts which are reasonable, mild and non-controversial. I call this “The Trains Run on Time” fallacy. According to the old joke, when Italians during Mussolini’s rule were asked what it’s like to live in a fascist police state, they’d respond, “It’s not so bad: at least the trains run on time!” In other words, one could always find some good aspect to an unpleasant situation. So naturally Sharia’s defenders in the West will focus on the positive and try to sweep the negative under the rug. But such PR tactics in no way alter the fundamental fact that Sharia contains a significant number of laws and rules and punishments that are unacceptable and repellant to the average American.

CAIR and its allies are constantly talking out both sides of their mouths. On one hand, they say that Sharia’s never been used in Oklahoma and there’s no risk of it ever being used, so there’s nothing to worry about and we should toss out this new law as unnecessary; and simultaneously, if you flick the remote control over to the next channel, you’ll see a different CAIR spokesperson arguing for how reasonable and humanitarian Sharia is, and really we shouldn’t fear its introduction, because we’ll all benefit. Hmmmm. Double-talk is a dead giveaway for ill-intent.

CAIR’s main argument against State Question 755 is that it “singles out” Muslims for discrimination. Though this argument is so absurd it barely merits rebuttal, I should briefly address it since it seems to be CAIR’s primary legal claim. First of all, SQ 755 doesn’t ban Sharia in Oklahoma; it merely bans judges from considering Sharia when making decisions. And since we’ve seen above that this recommendation is already in accord with Constitutional principles, then there’s no basis on which to challenge the law. CAIR is sure to reply: Yes, but why us? Why single out Sharia and Muslims? To which I reply: Do you really want to go there? The answer is obvious: No other religion currently seeks to supplant the United States Constitution with is own religious commandments. Why not pass a law banning Buddhist laws from the Oklahoma courts? Because there aren’t a billion Buddhists worldwide calling for the involuntary global implementation of Buddhist law. Sharia is perceived as a threat precisely because it is more than just religious law — it is an overarching form of theocratic government antithetical to the United States of America — and because it is has an extremely large number of adherents and advocates.

This article goes into greater depth about possible legal objections to the new measure, quoting left-leaning Harvard law professor Noah Feldman as saying, “It’s a violation of the free exercise of Muslims in Oklahoma and it’s a violation of the separation between church and state.” But this is a false claim: nothing about SQ 755 prevents Muslims from following Sharia themselves in their own personal or religious lives (provided by so doing they don’t break U.S. law); it merely prevents the courts from incorporating Sharia law into its decision-making. Here’s the text of State Question 755, which “makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.” Tell me: In what way does this interfere with Muslims freely exercising their religion in Oklahoma? It doesn’t — unless the free exercise of your religion involves violating or undermining the U.S. Constitution. In which case, yeah, the courts should discriminate against your religious practice.

America only frowns on baseless discrimination; but official discrimination against any individuals, groups or religious ideology seeking to undermine or destroy the United States itself is not just acceptable, it is mandatory.

While this fifth and final argument is not as legally or logically weighty, it can be much more emotionally compelling because it allows one to present anecdotes about Sharia in contemporary real-world contexts. What does U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange have to say about the following martyrs to Sharia?

Palestinian atheist jailed for insulting Islam, forced to apologize

A Palestinian atheist jailed for more than a month for sharing his anti-Islam views on the Internet has apologized for offending Muslims, and a Palestinian military spokesman said he expected “positive” developments in the case.

Rights groups have criticized his arrest as a demonstration of the limits on free speech under the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, which has trawled Internet sites like Facebook as part of a crackdown on dissent and unpopular views.

The 26-year-old blogger, Walid Husayin — who had called the Muslim God a “primitive Bedouin” and Islam a religion of “irrationality and ignorance” — apologized in a letter to his family and to all Palestinians and sought forgiveness for what he called his “stupidity.”

“I apologize for the offense I have caused against the monotheistic faiths, particularly Islam,” the letter read.
Palestinian military police arrested Husayin on Oct. 31 after he posted comments deemed offensive to Islam on his Facebook page and blog. Defaming Islam is a crime in the West Bank.

A friend said Husayin posted the apology on his blog on Nov. 29, most likely with the hope that it would lead to his release. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

He posted the apology from a Palestinian military lockup in the northern West Bank town of Qalqilya, his hometown.

Husayin’s writing appeared aimed at provoking Muslims. He made Facebook profiles claiming he was God, called the Prophet Muhammad a philanderer and penned spoof verses of the Muslim holy book, the Quran.

Days after his arrest, shocked residents called for him to be killed as a warning to others.

Amazingly, Husayin’s English-language atheist blog is still online, and for the curious has several rather amusing atheist proclamations. Especially worth reading is his essay on Why I Left Islam. It should be noted that there are literally millions of similarly aggressive atheist blogs in the U.S., and those American atheist bloggers suffer no legal ramifications whatsoever for their writings, as guaranteed by the Constitution. But under Sharia, American atheists (not to mention Jews, pagans, Christians, etc.) could be treated the same way as Walid Husayin. Judge Miles-LaGrange, are you listening?

Pakistan doctor arrested on suspicion of blasphemy

Pakistani authorities have arrested a doctor on suspicion of violating the country’s contentious blasphemy law by throwing away a business card of a man who shared the name of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, police said Sunday.

The blasphemy law has been widely criticized by human rights groups following the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death last month for insulting Islam. Critics say the law should be amended or repealed because it is often used to settle grudges, persecute minorities and fan religious extremism.

Naushad Valiyani, a Muslim doctor in the southern city of Hyderabad, was arrested Friday after a complaint was lodged with police alleging his actions had insulted the Prophet Muhammad, said regional police chief Mushtaq Shah.

The case began Friday when Muhammad Faizan, a pharmaceutical company representative, visited Valiyani’s clinic and handed out his business card. He said when the doctor threw the card away, Faizan went to police and filed a complaint that noted his name was the same as the prophet’s.

Shah said police were investigating whether Valiyani should be charged with blasphemy.

Kafka-esque enough for you?

Woman Stoned to Death for Going on a Date

Turbaned men in Pakistan gather around a woman with a black hood over her head, pick up large rocks and repeatedly throw them at her until she lies motionless, stretched along the ground, a video purports.

A Dubai-based television station which released the footage said the stoning was carried out in northwest Pakistan, apparently by Taliban militants, incensed because she was seen out with a man.

The footage is a stark reminder that despite a series of military offensives the army said had weakened insurgents, militants still control areas of the northwest and impose their harsh version of Islam at will.

Dubai’s Al Aan television, which focuses on women’s issues in the Arab world, said it got the tape from its sources and that it took place in Orakzai agency in northwest Pakistan. It said it had other footage of a man who was executed by shooting, possibly the one the woman was seen with.

It was not possible to verify its authenticity or when it was filmed.

Such videos aren’t unique. Last year Pakistanis were outraged after footage widely aired on television showed militants in the northwest Swat Valley publicly flogging a teenage girl accused of having an affair.

Is this the kind of legal system we want influencing our courts in the United States of America?

43 Responses to “The Five Best Arguments Against Sharia in the United States”

  1. 1Scott on Dec 29, 2010 at 6:56 am:

    You are absolutely right, Zombie, but I think Oklahoma is reacting to what is happening now in Great Britain. The British have already capitulated to the incessant demands of authoritarian Muslim interests, and allowed Sharia in…all they needed is a toe hold, and now they’ve got it.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

    This is a similar argument to Immigration law in Arizona. Really, the people in Arizona didn’t need to pass a law enforcing the border and existing immigration law, but because of selective enforcement and the squishy liberal argument that it is somehow “racist” puts the law on the defensive. Idiot politicians then become involved (Harry Reid, for example) and start passing trash like the DREAM Act. This completely ignores the supreme law of the land and skirts around it…and now we get back to the gradual, incremental subversion of what America was originally designed to be. The rule of law becomes null and void, we all become little subsets of our countries of origin (this group is Muslim, that group is Mexican, the other group is African, Chinese, Filipino, fill in your group here, and they all have their home country/religious rights) and suddenly, America the united is no more.

    It is right to argue against Sharia, and it is simple to defend against the inevitable charges of racism that will follow, but I completely understand why Oklahoma did what they did. It isn’t enough that our federal laws protect us against this barbaric behavior…the states now are forced to ensure that the clowns in Washington DC don’t impose their brainless value system on local citizens.

  2. 2zmdavid on Dec 29, 2010 at 7:15 am:

    The judge was a woman. Shouldn’t we wait for a male judge to rule? We are talking Sharia, after all.

  3. 3curious_fritz on Dec 30, 2010 at 4:24 am:

    Great article!

    However, I have to disagree on one point. It is really not that big a deal, but when You write:

    Those who oppose Sharia in the United States often argue their point by highlighting how misogynistic, backward, cruel and discriminatory Islamic law can be under most interpretations. And while all that may be true, it is the wrong argument to make. I get so frustrated watching pundits, politicians and bloggers making the weakest argument in what should be a slam-dunk debate

    I think You might be misinterpreting something. The argument, which You listed as argument number 5 is really nothing else than the emotional side of argument number three. Now, I agree, in a case before a court, this kind of emotional argument might not be as strong as the juridical argument number 3. But as this argument is used by politicians and bloggers, it might also be that they use the rather emotional side of the argument to, well, “get people on board”. So, I do not see, why this is a weak argument.

    greetings,

    fritz

  4. 4Bakunin on Dec 30, 2010 at 7:59 pm:

    Except that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Sharia law is. Interestingly enough, it is the same misunderstanding of the role that Sharia law that Muslim extremists promote (it’s always interesting how Al-qaeda and right-wing commentators agree on Muslim articles of faith).

    Sharia is Muslims what Halakha is to Judism. In the west, it is a set of laws that govern the personal interactions of and between Muslims. Of course, if those in Okalhoma where to pass a law to ban Halakha, they would be rightly called anti-semities, but due to the growth of islamo-hatred, the fear mongering of the anti-Islamic bloggers and Fox News, it’s acceptable to “ban” a religious persons set of beliefs.

    Not only is the fact that Sharia Law is never ever going to be imposed in the U.S.A. Nor is sighting human rights abuses in Islamic third world nations any help to the debate on the nature of the application of Sharia in the west. I mean, Halakha is used in Israel to justify plenty of human rights abuses, including the use of Palestinian Arabs as human sheilds, discriminatory practices in housing as well as promoting violence against Jewish women who date Arab men.

    It’s almost as if Zombie is promoting the idea that secular government is best in promoting the general good, which would put him way outside the modern right-wing which is thoroughly theocratic.

    Here’s a very good debate between a British convert to Islam debating an EDL neo-nazi bonehead, which touches on the role that Sharia Law plays in western Muslims life and the role that moderate Muslisms need to play in combating the negative image of the extremists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlZeB_1nbyg

  5. 5danr. on Dec 30, 2010 at 8:22 pm:

    If you read the linked Sunday Times article about Sharia in the U.K., it helps broaden the issue past 0MG SHARIA LAW IS IMMINENT AND WILL DOMINATE COURTS IN THE FREE WORLD 2012222222.

    It makes mention of Beth Din Jewish law being recognized in British law for the last century. In America, minority communities have long held informal courts that are only binding within the community. The question is, is this business of letting shariah govern anyone in England, a foothold to governing all of England, is it the injection of an insidious virus into the host body of English jurisprudence. I think, the corpus of British law is far healthier in intellectual terms than Sharia: law-by-revelation can only really be effective over believers in said revelation, otherwise civil strife is likely to ensue; in the case of England, which has a very well-developed liberal and legal tradition, society would be much more likely to change Sharia than Sharia would change society. England, after all, has had its own say about religious law throughout history.

    Say the nightmare scenario does happen, and the land of Elizabeth becomes part of the caliphate. Wouldn’t it be much more like relatively cosmopolitan, relaxed Turkey, than the harsh desert law of the Arabian states? I think, most likely, the body of English law will absorb small, community-recognized shariah and that such might possibly benefit the state, just as (say) the Hmong community feels more comfortable adapting to American civilization with the introduction of another legal body they recognize serving as handmaid. It could lessen some of the tension the tiny island faces with its oft-troublesome Muslim minority. By allowing it, this disallows the Muslim community to say they are not represented fairly by the law. Let them have their Qu’ranic kangaroo court. Who gives a fu’q? That’s the impression I get from sharia in the U.K., and I’m inclined towards that opinion as regards the U.S.

    Like, do you really think U.S. law is not a more subtle, complex, and adaptable entity than sharia?

  6. 6curious_fritz on Dec 31, 2010 at 5:32 am:

    oh man, some of the stuff said here reminds me of the postmodern left-leaning academics I like to call “the cultural relativism racists”. we have plenty of those in germany, people who always talk like the most important thing in the world for them was the well being of the “communities” they care so much about, but who would not shed one tear about a muslim women being raped or shot by her family due to a ruling imposed by some backyard shariah court. It is astonishing that after a really good article by zombie two comments would come up which by (intentionally) getting everything she/he wrote wrong proof her/his point.

    where to start?

    @bakunin:

    In the west, it is a set of laws that govern the personal interactions of and between Muslims.

    First, I like to point out someone that calls himself after an anarchist and still defends a religious law is kind of odd. But, never mind. The fact, that shariah might only applie to muslims does not change a thing if you look at the issue of shariah law from a constitutional view. Where the rules of shariah deprive people of rights granted by the constitution, they are null and void and the state has to stop them from being enforced. It is completely irrelevant wether those deprived of their rights are muslims, christians, jews, baha’i, atheists, agnostics, buddhist, etc. . Because, in a democracy, Your religious beliefs can not lead to You having less rights than people with other religious beliefs. It is called equality before the law or so I think. Where Your rights, or the rights of a third party remain untouched by behaving according to shariah, no one really cares. And no one would or could forbid You from this behaviour.

    Of course, if those in Okalhoma where to pass a law to ban Halakha, they would be rightly called anti-semities,

    Wherever Okalhoma lies, if those living there would ban Halakha based on thousands of examples where secret Halakha courts had ordered the killing or rape of women, they would not be called anti-semites. However, I do not know one case where murder or rape, or abuse of someone had been based on “Halakha”. Thus, it does not seem to interfere with the constitution. You could, by the way, find lots of cases, where shariah law was enforced using murder or rape. For the most prominent case in Germany search for “Hatun Sürücü” with the searching machine of your choice.

    Nor is sighting human rights abuses in Islamic third world nations any help to the debate on the nature of the application of Sharia in the west.

    Again, search for “Hatun Sürücü” or other cases of so called “honour killings”.

    Oh, and by the way:

    use of Palestinian Arabs as human sheilds,

    is what hamas does, in the struggle to impose *drumroll* shariah law in the whole of “palestine”.

    It’s almost as if Zombie is promoting the idea that secular government is best in promoting the general good, which would put him way outside the modern right-wing which is thoroughly theocratic.

    So? Zombie is smarter than the average conservative. That is why people read his blog. And, where is that relevant to the point You are trying to make?

    @dan r. :

    he question is, is this business of letting shariah govern anyone in England, a foothold to governing all of England, is it the injection of an insidious virus into the host body of English jurisprudence.

    No, that is not the question. The question is: is this business of letting shariah govern anyone in England depriving anyone in England of their basic human rights. And the answer is yes. For Example: Women who are beaten are, owing to social peer pressure, forced to turn to a shariah court rather than a regular court. Many cases like this have been known since the existence of shariah courts in England. The consequence: abusive husbands are not thrown into jail but get penalties like “marriage counseling” from the imam or one hour of praying. With penalties like that, why should the men be deterred from hitting their wives again? The long term consequences: The existence of shariah courts intimidates women not to report abuse at all and deprives them of their right to enforce their physical integrity by law.

    Say the nightmare scenario does happen, and the land of Elizabeth becomes part of the caliphate. Wouldn’t it be much more like relatively cosmopolitan, relaxed Turkey, than the harsh desert law of the Arabian states?

    All available gods may prevent stated scenario from happening. You know why pre-Erdogan Turkey was such a relaxed, cosmopolitan place? Because the Turks took the upholding of a secular state very serious and banned Shariah law. However, outside the bigger cities, in rural areas, shariah courts would still operate illegally, deciding over the lives of women who be doing so little as flirting, might have hurt their families “namus”, the honour of the family. In addition, most Turks in Germany I talk to fear the current policy of prime minister Erdogan, who is gaining power and seems to slowly get rid of the secular tradition of Turkey. They see their country heading down a dark road and they are worried. So it might not a good example to talk about Turkey.

    It could lessen some of the tension the tiny island faces with its oft-troublesome Muslim minority. By allowing it, this disallows the Muslim community to say they are not represented fairly by the law.

    Oh really? Well, It would lessen the tension between British society and its neo-nazi minority if they allowed them to beat up and kill foreigners. Should they, in order to appease them? I, for one, do not believe so. Allowing shariah to be imposed would actually lead to the claim of muslim individuals not to be represented fairly by the law to become true. For when shariah law is allowed to be imposed on them, they might lose basic rights guaranteed under the british legal system. Rights, for which many of them fled their shariah-governed home countries. If I was part of the English government I would rather accept the highest possible tension than letting people be deprived of basic rights
    within England.

    Let them have their Qu’ranic kangaroo court. Who gives a fu’q? That’s the impression I get from sharia in the U.K., and I’m inclined towards that opinion as regards the U.S.

    Who gives a f***? Again, women who have to bear the consequences of Your tolerant legal openmindedness. Women who, thanks to tolerant people like You have to deal with constant abuse and can do nothing about it for turning to a regular court might have them killed and turning to a shariah court does nothing for them. In my opinion, this “tolerant” point of view, that people like You are expressing is the true islamophobic one. For it leads to muslims having to suffer from the sadism of shariah judges.

    In addition: How is it, that people like You always talk about “communities” but never about individuals? Is it maybe that You simply don’t care about the single muslim person as long as You don’t have to deal with them?

    ’nuff said.

    fritz

  7. 7Scott on Dec 31, 2010 at 10:16 am:

    Wow, that was quite a response, Fritz, but impressive. I agree, and expand that thought to just about every pet liberal theory going. Global Warming…seems benign enough…who WOULDN’T want cleaner air? Except that passing legislation limiting out put of CO2 might hurt everyone in the country more than the imagined benefit of reducing CO2. Amnesty for illegals…these are (theoretically) good, hard working people in our country simply looking to better themselves and provide for their families, right? Never mind the crime, illegal drug activity, land pollution, drain on government resources, human trafficking, etc. How about home ownership for all? Seemed like a good idea back in the 1990s and 2000s when it was being pushed…until the bubble burst, and now millions of people are in foreclosure and the taxpayer is on the hook for Billions. And on and on it goes…well-meaning liberalism creeps in to our local, state, and federal legislatures (and courts) and ruins what is intended to be a free society with unintended consequences.

    We MUST put a stop to creeping liberalism. The Federal Government has no incentive to stop it, for the power it seeks is limitless..and as it seeks to crush anything in its path toward totalitarianism, the states seek ways to limit what will come next. SB 1070 in AZ. Oklahoma’s attempt to stop sharia. Prop 8 in California. And so on.

    Liberals like Bakunin will continue to paint Conservatives as racist, homophombic, nihilistic, xenophobic, etc…but this is a smoke screen for their fear that we are calling them out for their reckless stupidity. We’ve had 60 years or more of constant usurpation of Constitutional law “interpreted” to suit liberals brainwashed in Ivy League schools. It has to end soon, or we will all pay the consequences of our foolishness by allowing primitive behavior including but not limited to Sharia into our world. I say STOP.

    As you say, Fritz, individuals are the ones who suffer as a result of these idiotic policies. Liberal groupification allows a temporary escape from the truth, but there are too many people of all colors, religions, sexual orientations, etc. who want it to stop. We saw that on the Washington Mall August 28, 2010. We’ll see more in the future.

  8. 8Bakunin on Dec 31, 2010 at 10:42 am:

    Good news everyone! Women are only beaten by Muslism! Women are never beaten by secular men! Women are never intimidated to not go to the law by secular men! and those secular men are never protected from prosecution by secular law!

    <blockquote>It is completely irrelevant wether those deprived of their rights are muslims, christians, jews, baha’i, atheists, agnostics, buddhist, etc. . Because, in a democracy, Your religious beliefs can not lead to You having less rights than people with other religious beliefs.

    If it is completely irrelevant weather those deprived of their rights are any faith background, then why single out a single faith background when rights are being deprived across the board?

  9. 9curious_fritz on Jan 1, 2011 at 4:05 am:

    First, I want to point out, that I am only replying to this post because what Bakunin writes is a textbook example for manipulative arguments, and I think it is important to reply, thus showing the manipulative nature of the arguments he uses.

    Good news everyone! Women are only beaten by Muslism! Women are never beaten by secular men! Women are never intimidated to not go to the law by secular men! and those secular men are never protected from prosecution by secular law!

    See what Bakunin does here? He suggests, that I claim, that only muslims would show violent behaviour towards women. Just like any other reasonable human being, I would never claim something as stupid as that. Nevertheless, he first points out an stupid claim I never made, ridicules this claim and thus tries to ridicule my arguments. He is not criticising my arguments on grounds of what I wrote, but on grounds of arguments he made up and suggested I wrote, or meant. This is a classic rhetorical trick that is very often used by populists.
    To those, who might have fallen for this trick I am going to point out the following: Unfortunately, domestic violence, and violence against women in general is a widespread problem. You can find violent men in all religious or non-religious communities, of all ethnical backgrounds, of all political beliefs, of all sexual orientations, in every income bracket. Wherever no special community law hinders women from enforcing their right on physical integrity, they can turn to the state in order to have police and court system to protect them. Now, as we all know, no law system is perfect and micarriages of justice repeatedly occur in favour of abusive husbands. Nonetheless, the chance of going to jail provides a better deterrent against domestic violence or abuse then the chance of having to attend a prayer hour. Where the secular justice system sometimes makes mistakes in favour of abusive husbands, the shariah court system has proven over and over (e.g. in cases, where rape victims are stoned while the rapists are not even charged), that sexism and the oppression of women are pillars of it’s whole juridical structure.
    Thus, shariah has to be banned in order to enable women to enforce their rights. The protection by law and the state might not be perfect, but it guarantees a certain level of protection. Now, what I said about shariah of course has to be said about every “community” or religious law that deprives individuals of their basic rights. The problem is: I just can not think of other religious court systems than shariah courts. If, say a Christian sect started their own court and legal system, to rule over inner-sect disputes, this would have to be stopped, too. I just am not aware of any example of that happening.

    Which leads us to the second part:

    If it is completely irrelevant weather those deprived of their rights are any faith background, then why single out a single faith background when rights are being deprived across the board?

    It is no faith background that is singled out, but a religious law system that is incompatible with U.S. law (for reasons, read the article above). Any other religious law system would also be incompatible with U.S. law, hence also have to be banned. But at the moment, there just is no other religious law system challenging the constitution. So it is not “singling out” one background to ban shariah. It is a measure guaranteing, that people deprived of their rights can turn to a regular court. It is the mere opposite of singling out: it is guaranteing general equality in access to juridical protection.

  10. 10tehag on Jan 1, 2011 at 8:20 am:

    The constitution of Oklahoma provides for its modification. The law was followed. How can a judge set aside the result as unconstitutional? Who gave judges the power to decide how the people can modify their own constitutions?

  11. 11Scott on Jan 1, 2011 at 8:47 am:

    Hey, Bakunin: Fritz and I have your number. You know, we could have a civil discourse, if only you delt with facts instead of your own warped world view. Trying to manipulate us, or put your words in our posts just doesn’t cut it. Here is some relevant information for you to think about as we contemplate sharia law:

    “ALBANY (From the NY Post) — Hate crimes across New York state jumped 14 percent in 2009, led by an increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions, state records released yesterday show.

    There were 683 hate crimes reported to police authorities across the state in 2009 compared with 599 in 2008, according to a report released by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.

    In New York City, reported hate crimes rose 6 percent, from 259 to 275. The city accounted for 40 percent of all hate crimes in the state last year.

    Brooklyn was the borough with the highest number of hate crimes, 92, followed by Manhattan, 70, Queens, 61, The Bronx, 33, and Staten Island, 19. ”

    Here is the most interesting:

    Anti-Semitic incidents, which made up 37 percent of the reported hate crimes, were up 15 percent in one year, from 219 in 2008 to 251 in 2009.

    Zombie has posted so much data on Anti-Semetic activity and the extreme left. Now see that more than a third of so-called “hate crimes” committed in 2009 in the NY metro area is anti-Jewish. Now, where does this leave Muslims? Surely all of this hatred of the ground zero mosque must have stirred up all the knuckle-dragging Rethuglicans out there, right? They MUST be victims of our oppressive society, right? Ummm…”Crimes motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment rose from eight to 11.” That’s less than 2% of all “hate” crime. Wow. Quite a contrast. CAIR won’t like that.

    Now, to the point about crime against women…Fritz is absolutely correct, but check THIS interesting stat:

    Also, 31 percent of all known offenders were 24 or younger, and 12.2 percent of all known offenders were women. So women can be perpetrators of crime too.

    Now we see that other forms of “hate” crime have diminished: “The report found anti-black crimes, 21 percent of the total, were down slightly from 147 in 2008 to 144 in 2009.”

    Others have increased: “Anti-white hate crimes increased from 21 to 29.” That is a 38% increase. Could Eric Holder’s refusal to prosecute the New Black Panthers have anything to do with this? “You are going to be RULED by the black man” was the quote from the racists outside the Philadelphia polling place in November 2008.

    Now consider this:

    “Anti-gay hate crimes were up sharply, with those targeting male homosexuals jumping 32 percent, from 62 to 82, and those aimed at lesbians up by more than 200 percent, from eight to 25. ”

    So a liberal president (and Congress) didn’t do anything to help the gay community with crime. And what is the point of all this, you might ask?

    All of these perpetrators were ignoring, or breaking, the law. It doesn’t matter who the vicitims were (except to those who want to manipulate the law to their favor) all of it was crime. Under one justice system. Muslims must be treated the same as Jews, and Christians, people of all colors, sexual orientations, etc. EQUAL protection under the law. Sharia is not equal protection. Consider if those anti-gay crimes were committed by Muslims protected with Sharia. Do you think those Muslim perpetrators would be punished? Should they be? This isn’t that hard.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ny_sees_surge_in_hate_IM7xmcNGdI0pEowrCRZZII#ixzz19niw4ooJ

  12. 12Bakunin on Jan 1, 2011 at 9:25 am:

    But there ARE other sets of religious laws operating in North America. Jewish Halakha is the a set of religious laws. The Beth din (“House of judgment”) is a rabbinical court invested with legal powers in a number of religious matters (din Torah, “matter of litigation,” plural dinei Torah) both in Israel and in Jewish communities in the Diaspora (that is to say in North America).

    Judaism, like every religion, has some pretty regressive views on the role women play in society. In Kiryas Joel, the Hasidic Jewish enclave in Orange County, they have put up a sign telling outsiders to cover their legs and arms, use appropriate language and maintain gender separation in public. If this was done in, say, dearborn michigan, conservatives loons would be screaming about “creeping Sharia”! Nor will Halakha be getting singled out anytime soon, as that would be anti-semetic, and anti-semetism has fallen out of vogue but anti-Islam hated has exploded in 2010.

    Let’s look at the facts on how silly this is. There are three ways to change the law; Though electing officials, though the courts deeming a law unconstitutional and over-Turing it, and revolution. According to the Association of Religion Data Archives, there are about 6,000 Muslims in Oklahoma. That is about 1% of the population. So muslims cannot make up a voting bloc to elect Islamists to change the law. On the other hand, Chritians make up 83% of Oklahomas population, so it is more likely that Christian theocracracy is more likely to be brought to Olahoma then Sharia.

    Second, the courts. The role of the courts in our liberal democratic republic is to provide limits to democracy. The founding fathers where very afraid of mob rule in the form of democracy. Potentially we can vote away our bill of rights, but the Seperme Court would likely rule that is unconstitutional. So tehag asks “why can a judge set aside the result as unconstitutional?” The answer is that while the procedure maybe fine with the Oklahoma state constitution, it breaks the First Amendment of the constitution, particularly “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Moreover, changing the law though the courts is retroactive; an unjust law needs to be enacted first to have it changed. So, the overturn of this ban doesn’t mean that Sharia would be law. Rather, secular law would continue to be in charge while Muslims can continue there lives.

    Third: Revolution. With Muslims being 1% of the population, and 2.5 million as of 2009 (0.8% of the total population), they would never be able to muster a force large, and any attempt at insurrection would instantly be put down. And that’s making the assumption that revolution to enact Sharia law is what all Muslim want. Only Osama Bin-Laden and American Conservatives think.

    So, seeing how Sharia in America is an impossibility, why would Oklahoma ban it? It’s pretty obvious: the right-wing needs a scapegoat to scare there base into voting.

  13. 13Scott on Jan 1, 2011 at 1:20 pm:

    [But there ARE other sets of religious laws operating in North America.] Not that usurp Federal law.
    [So, seeing how Sharia in America is an impossibility, why would Oklahoma ban it? ] Not an impossibility. See: Great Britain. It doesn’t matter that Muslims are a slim minority in the US. They will try to force us into the same position as the British courts. Oklahoma says “no!” I agree. By the way, did you know that this slim minority has profoundly changed us for about 10 years now? See: The War on Terror, TSA agents, WTC 2001-2011, Times Square Bomber, Underwear Bomber, etc…all in the name of Allah. What has all of that cost us, both monetarily and in freedom? A slim minority…very slim.

    And, as Zombie says, the Oklahoma law SHOULDN’T be necessary. It really ISN’T. Just like SB 1070…except there are too many people like you, Bakunin, who want to trump the US Constitution to rule in favor of a minority, based on a vague concept of “fairness” when, in fact, fairness is embodied in the Constitution.

  14. 14Harrison on Jan 1, 2011 at 2:46 pm:

    Bottom line is, for those who believe in Sharia Law, it doesn’t matter what argument you make… because Sharia Law comes from God, not man. Your 5 points are well reasoned and argued, but for those who advocate Sharia Law, it won’t matter and they won’t stop.

  15. 15Bakunin on Jan 3, 2011 at 10:52 am:

    Hey Scott: I have your number. Simply put, you do in #11 exactly what you accuse me of in a pevious post.

    No where did I say that antisemitism doesn’t exist, or doesn’t happen at great levels. What I did say is that antisemitism is no longer acceptable in the mainstream, while anti-Islam/Islamophobia has gone mainstream in 2010. That is to say, if you where to organize a public march against the building of a synagogue, you’d be rightly denounced as an antisemite, but if you have a public demonstration against a mosque, your hailed as a leading conservative voice and given a platform on Fox News, even if you are importing British EDL neo-nazis into America.

    There is Sharia where ever Muslims are, in the same why there is Halakha everywhere where Jews are. Last I checked, the UK is still under a constitutional monarchy and parliament and not under a caliphate. Post 13 is just allot of crazy person fear-mongering one can expect from someone like yourself.

  16. 16Scott on Jan 3, 2011 at 4:12 pm:

    Bakunin: you are wrong again. This: [No where did I say that antisemitism doesn’t exist, or doesn’t happen at great levels. What I did say is that antisemitism is no longer acceptable in the mainstream, while anti-Islam/Islamophobia has gone mainstream in 2010.] is nonsense. I never accused you of saying that antisemitism doesn’t exist, or is minimal compared with Islamophobia. What I did say in that post is that, in the NY metro in particular, anti-semitism is a far great problem than Islamophobia. And I gave you stats and a source to back it up.

    By the way, opposition to the “ground zero mosque” is not hate crime. It certainly is speech that is protected in the first amendment. It is not fair to characterize it as Islamophobia, either. There are dozens of mosques throughout the NY metro, including in Manhattan, where Muslims are free to worship in peace (and they do). The ground zero mosque conservatives are simply voicing their opposition to an unnecessary effort by supporters of Muslim domination of America. For some odd reason, Americans are supposed to be sensitive to the emotional needs of Muslims, but if we oppose those who want to add insult to injury to lower Manhattan, we are Islamophobes. Ridiculous. And you are (as usual) trying to shout down opposition (it is a tactic used with homosexuls, every race, creed, color, or country of origin, etc…). This is what liberals do.

    Further, building a synagogue near a site where a tremendous genocide occurred in recent history at the hands of extremist Jews would most certainly be opposed (and the opposition would not correctly be characterized as anti-semitism). But, mmmm, I can’t really think of any event in American history where Jews conspired to kill thousands of people (specifically Americans) and destroyed billions in property then tried to build a 16 story “house of worship” on the 10th anniversary near the scene of the crime to commemorate their success. This argument is silly at best.

    Great Britain may be a constitutional monarchy, but Sharia law has been permitted. WE should NOT allow this to happen in this country, for the very reasons Zombie outlined above. And, all I have said is that Oklahoma does not want the federal government to fail them, hence why they tried to ban Sharia. Just as Arizona tried to pass and enforce SB 1070. Just as California passed prop 8. These states don’t want federal mandates (or a lack of federal legal enforcement) to force their citizens to do things against their will.

    Buck up, Buttercup. We conservatives aren’t all raving lunatics when you pay attention to our posts. :-)

  17. 17Bakunin on Jan 3, 2011 at 8:35 pm:

    “hat I did say in that post is that, in the NY metro in particular, anti-semitism is a far great problem than Islamophobia. And I gave you stats and a source to back it up.”

    Nor did I say it wasn’t a problem. Again, what I said was that it’s mainstream to be anti-Islam, but not antisemetic. Your stats and sources to “back it up” was simply a non-sequitur and a bunch of pointless facts that “manipulative the arguments”.

    Opposition to the building of a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero is not a hate crime, I never said it was. But the opposition to the building of the mosque is based on anti-Muslim hysteria rallied up by politicians looking to cash points on hate-mongering. The fact is the Muslims where already praying in that space before the building has been built. Or that the organizers of the 9/11 rally has clear ties to European neo-nazis and tried to bring over the violent racist thugs of the EDL to her march.

    Your post makes the assumption that Islam is to blame for 9/11 and that all American Muslisms desire to dominate America. Thing is; Islam didn’t attack America on 9/11. There is no collective responsibility on behalf of all 1.41-1.57 billion Muslims, 1.3 million American Muslims for the atrocities of 9/11. 19 hijackers are to blame for 9/11. Al-Qaeda is to blame for 9/11. Nor do American Muslism want to rule America, they just want to worship and build a community like all immigrants.

    You know what’s in the constitution? Freedom of Religion. That freedom of religion applies to each and every square of this US of glorious A. Weather it is a block away from Ground Zero. Or Brooklyn. Or Staten Island. Or Murfreesboro. Or Temecula. Or Sheboygan.

    I realize not all conservatives are raving lunatics. Just you.

  18. 18Scott on Jan 4, 2011 at 4:39 pm:

    What? “But the opposition to the building of the mosque is based on anti-Muslim hysteria rallied up by politicians looking to cash points on hate-mongering.” But opposition is not a hate crime, is that what you are saying? I think we have entered the world of splitting hairs for the sake of arguing. By the way, most opposed to the ground zero mosque are other than politicians…you might want to dig a little deeper than Huffpo for the facts there.

    What? “The fact is the Muslims where already praying in that space before the building has been built. Or that the organizers of the 9/11 rally has clear ties to European neo-nazis and tried to bring over the violent racist thugs of the EDL to her march.” Sources, please? Huffpo, Keith Olbermann and Daily KOS don’t count.

    What? “Your post makes the assumption that Islam is to blame for 9/11″ Wrong again. My post really doesn’t say who caused 9/11. Since you broached that subject, I’ll add last I checked, all 19 martyrs were Muslim. You are twisting words again. “Islam” isn’t the perpetrator of any crime. Only man can cause this sort of atrocity, and this set of 19 did so in the name of Allah. That is, unless you are a truther, at which point we should just end this and blame Bush, neocons, Cheney, and the evil fascist industrial war machine.

    What? “all American Muslisms desire to dominate America.” I didn’t say that either. Again, twisting words.

    What? “You know what’s in the constitution? Freedom of Religion.” OK, the spirit of this is correct. But, with freedom comes responsibility. So what I’d like to know is why exactly these people who want to build this super mosque cannot do so elsewhere in Manhattan, or Jersey City, or Staten Island, or ??? Nobody likes to answer that question. I should think the Muslim community would in fact be BETTER served elsewhere. Supporters would rather beat their chests and proclaim freedom of religion while allowing construction of this a couple of blocks from ground zero. I also would like to understand why Bloomie is OK with losing out on a tax-revenue generation property. But only he can answer that question.

    What? “I realize not all conservatives are raving lunatics. Just you.” Now, now, Bakunin…here I am trying to enlighten you with the truth, and you want to call me crazy. By the way: “American Muslisms want…to worship and build a community like all immigrants.” is a statement I agree with…see: [There are dozens of mosques throughout the NY metro, including in Manhattan, where Muslims are free to worship in peace (and they do).] Oh, and while we are splitting hairs, American Muslims aren’t immigrants, are they? Unless they are naturalized citizens…oh my, we’re headed back to arguing SB 1070 again…Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Lighten up, Francis.

  19. 19earl on Jan 4, 2011 at 10:37 pm:

    If this were just a settlement/small claims kind of sharia court, like Judge Judy, then let em have at it. But I suspect it is not.

  20. 20Kevin on Jan 5, 2011 at 7:11 am:

    Sure, sharia law has its bad parts, but what about the good side of sharia? For example, US law says I can’t beat my wife, even when she’s being a huge jerk. Sharia says ‘go for it’. I’ve got 10″ and 80 lbs on her. I think I can take her down. Only with sharia law can we find out if I’ve got what it takes (she’s pretty sneaky. Don’t let that pot pouri fool you).

  21. 21Daniel Noe on Jan 5, 2011 at 9:09 am:

    I have to point this out: If Sharia law precedents can be used to rule on cases, then it could affect cases wherein neither litigant is muslim! So judges, using rulings made by unelected muslim judges, ruling on laws revealed – not enacted by duly elected legislatures – would determine the outcome of lawsuits! I have the same problem with judges who use precedents from cases in other countries – even when those countries are western democracies.
    When there is no hope for justice in the courts, the only option left is vigilantism.

  22. 22frank on Jan 8, 2011 at 7:50 pm:

    Sharia, by it’s own definition, is a whole, complete system. It is meant for everyone across the earth. It is meant to be imposed in it’s entirety. According to the Sharia, it can only be applied peacemeal if the goal is to eventually apply it completely. Every school of Islam save the Ahmadis agrees that Sharia must eventually be imposed by Muslims on non-Muslims the world over, using whatever means necessary. They are to try peacefully first, and if that fails, move on to violence. Every school of Sharia save the Ahmadis punishes apostasy from Islam with death. Every school of Sharia mandates mutiliation and flogging for crimes like theft, adultury and homosexuality (some of them mandate death for the latter).

    And yet Bakunin, the supposed anarchist, doesn’t think it should be outlawed. He defends it. Typical leftist, throwing his lot proudly in with totalitarians while projecting his own actions onto his enemies.

  23. 23R7 on Jan 10, 2011 at 4:26 pm:

    Bakunin said:

    violent racist thugs of the EDL

    So Bakunin, do you consider MEChA and the Black Panthers to be “violent racist thugs”?

  24. 24CattusMagnus on Jan 14, 2011 at 12:10 pm:

    Kevin: Sure, sharia law has its bad parts, but what about the good side of sharia?For example, US law says I can’t beat my wife, even when she’s being a huge jerk.Sharia says ‘go for it’.I’ve got 10″ and 80 lbs on her.I think I can take her down.Only with sharia law can we find out if I’ve got what it takes (she’s pretty sneaky.Don’t let that pot pouri fool you).

    What a seriously excellent comment.

  25. 25Earl on Jan 14, 2011 at 4:25 pm:

    The Prophet’s Court, with Judge Judinah. Tonight at 8pm, on OWN.

  26. 26Timothy (TRiG) on May 7, 2011 at 3:43 pm:

    I can’t really understand a conservative argument against Sharia “courts” (they’d count as “binding mediation” in real life, I think). I can articulate a liberal argument against them (and against Beth Din “courts”, too).

    TRiG.

  27. 27zombieinfo on Sep 26, 2011 at 6:35 pm:

    yall just sound like very uninformed people, if you are going to argue against a rule of law then you should at least know what you’re talking about. every religion has two parts- the part that’s true and the part that society wants you to believe is true and yall see to be falling right into societies trap, did yall know that many of our past presidents used the Qur’an as a guide for them, that sharia promotes justice for all, and that 9/11 was staged by the u.s, if you’re going to argue against something please just do the research for yourself instead of using someone else’s like it is revelation from God himself, go read the Qur’an, go read reliable hadiths, and books on sharia and if you don’t know what’s realiable then read MANY different books so you can see many different opinions, then come back and try to argue sharia, if you can’t do this for yourself then your argument is weak,

  28. 28Deangelo Streitz on Oct 6, 2011 at 9:13 am:

    Wonderful website you have here but I was curious if you knew of any discussion boards that cover the same topics talked about in this article? I’d really love to be a part of community where I can get comments from other experienced individuals that share the same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know. Thanks!

  29. 29Johnnie Huval on Dec 12, 2011 at 4:45 pm:

    We are a gaggle of volunteers and starting a brand new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with useful info to work on. You’ve done an impressive activity and our whole neighborhood will probably be grateful to you.

  30. 30swimdress on Apr 30, 2012 at 8:05 pm:

    Thanks for your tips on this blog. A single thing I would wish to say is the fact that purchasing gadgets items over the Internet is nothing new. In reality, in the past several years alone, the marketplace for online electronic products has grown noticeably. Today, you can find practically almost any electronic tool and product on the Internet, from cameras and also camcorders to computer pieces and gambling consoles.

  31. 31Caleb Dodrill on May 14, 2012 at 5:12 am:

    Thanks for the recommendations you have provided here. Another thing I would like to talk about is that laptop or computer memory needs generally increase along with other advancements in the know-how. For instance, when new generations of processor chips are made in the market, there’s usually a similar increase in the type preferences of both computer system memory as well as hard drive space. This is because the software program operated by these processor chips will inevitably increase in power to take advantage of the new know-how.

  32. 32Lamont Novosel on Sep 4, 2012 at 4:41 am:

    Hello my friend! I want to say that this post is awesome, great written and include approximately all significant infos. I’d like to see extra posts like this.

  33. 33database analyst job description on Dec 1, 2012 at 12:47 pm:

    The Five Best Arguments Against Sharia in the United States · zomblog Studying by way of the nice content, will help me to complete so

  34. 34Dennis on Jan 26, 2013 at 1:46 am:

    Hey! I simply would like to give a huge thumbs up for the great data you might have here on this post. I will likely be coming back to your weblog for extra soon.

  35. 35Jose Proietto on Feb 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm:

    It’s good that I found a website like this. This is everything what I was looking in the Internet! That website made available notes, what are very interesting for me. I will recommend this site to my friends!

  36. 36Evon Pirrotta on Nov 23, 2013 at 8:59 am:

    You ought to obtain carve up in a contest on behalf of among the finest blogs on the web. I’ll advocate this web site!

  37. 37Mao Hanel on Nov 24, 2013 at 3:28 pm:

    I’m impressed, I should say.

  38. 38Juliana Juba on Nov 25, 2013 at 12:31 am:

    I reflect new site owners should engage this web position as an exemplary fantastically scour and excellent smartness and design, in adding up to the satisfy. You’re an expert in this topic!

  39. 39Morris Lindburg on Nov 27, 2013 at 2:25 pm:

    Thanks representing helping out, superb info.

  40. 40Basil Castleton on Nov 29, 2013 at 3:15 pm:

    What are your standards of success designed for a blog? Readership? Quality? Is there a relationship flanked by readership and quality?. . What did people with triumphant blogs perform to create them successful? Was it a kind of “if you erect it, they will approach” thing? Do they actively marketplace themselves? Do they associate themselves with additional well-known bloggers or websites? How does it happen?. . Do you have a blog? What accomplish you do with your blog? Do you believe yourself successful? Why?.

  41. 41Carolyn Wilken on Nov 29, 2013 at 3:18 pm:

    Columbia University has a new creative script main and on the application directions, it says that anyone pursuing whatever thing in the creative otherwise visual arts may submit a supplement to their application. Creative writing is purposely planned, on the other hand, I am not certain what to propose. . . Would they believe a few script samples in the mail following I electronically propel my application before should I take in the writing in an attatchment with my personal account online?.

  42. 42Elma on May 18, 2014 at 9:45 pm:

    Quality articles or reviews is the crucial to be a focus for the viewers to pay a visit the web page, that’s what this site is providing.

  43. 43Work Agencies In Orange County on May 19, 2014 at 9:20 am:

    I read thi post completely rebarding the comparison oof latest and preceding technologies, it’s remawrkable article.