Reply With Quote
He's not talking about that judge, although it's understandable you confused the name Joseph Charles with Sohail Mohammed.
You're just that stupid.
lol creeping sharia
Allen West is a racist. Go yourself.
He's not talking about that judge, although it's understandable you confused the name Joseph Charles with Sohail Mohammed.
You're just that stupid.
lol creeping sharia
I can imagine how such things would be hard to find on the Internet. There is a real dearth of blogs devoted to the subject of Muslims taking over in America.
Yes, the quotes are everywhere but, not in a place that would be accepted by those, in here, questioning the veracity. And, since my proving the quotes are accurate would entail getting an archive from a California Newspaper that doesn't provide an online archive or contacting a radio show that doesn't provide an online archive of their shows, either.
So, until I can find a linkable source, I'll remain silent on the matter.
There's no point in posting the quotes as they appear on sites that would only be made the topic instead of the quote.
Can you really blame us after you said Sohail Mohammed is Joseph Charles?
I didn't watch the video but, it reminded me of the story of the New Jersey judge that ruled in favor of a rapist based on the application of Shariah Law.
There are other examples of judges doing similar.
Also, six states are trying to pass legislation that will make it illegal to rely on international or religious law in domestic cases, for this very reason. CAIR is fighting these laws because they say it infringes on their religious freedom.
Where are the call for separation of church and state now?
Because you hoped it was the guy we were talking about but actually had nothing at all to do with what we were talking about.
If you are going to comment on the content of the video, watch the ing video, idiot.
No surprises there.
Let's see the legislation. Don't forget that the Cons ution (not Sharia Law) also protects freedom of religion.
But we'll do that after you back up this statement:
"CAIR committed to ins uting Sharia law in place of the Cons ution"
Typical the lib s here would fail to see the genius in Yoni's new approach to posting. He wins.
Didn't Reagan provide weapons to known terrorists? Does that mean all who supported Reagan are implicitly supporting terrorists as well?
"freedom fighters"
Its in the article
Uh? What article?
No Sharia Law in the OP, as far as I can read.
Figures your response to just about any call for you to back up something with a " for tat", as opposed to dealing with something honestly.
Did a bit of background research into that bit. It would seem the judge was indeed being deferential to the man's religious views. He determined that the man was convinced he was not acting in a criminal manner, no mens rhea.
On appeal by the state, it was, in my opinion, rightfully overturned. Such a defense is invalid.
Is it the subs ution of Sharia law for US law? No. That didn't keep this example is not cited thousands of times as an example of how, as your blog puts it, "Sharia is creeping into the US.", as if some isolated, overturned court case somehow justifies the xenophobic paranoia of you and others.
Somehow I highly doubt you would be as upset about it, had the deference been to a Jewish tenet, or to some nutball Christian sect, whose stated goal was to take over the US government.
The protections in the first amendment were meant to be fairly strong to protect religious minorities from the "tyranny of the majority".
This tyranny is something you would seem to be comfortable with, as long as it isn't your group.
I will simpy counter:
http://njjewishnews.com/article/edit.../sharia-phobiaThis month the Fox News website ran an article under the headline, “Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge’s Ruling.” It concerned a decision by a New Jersey family court judge earlier this year denying a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her then husband, a Moroccan Muslim. Judge Joseph Charles ruled that her ex-husband did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” her. Rather, he was exercising his prerogatives as the man understood them under Islamic law, or Sharia.
The article quotes only one “advocate” of anti-Sharia measures — representing a website called JihadWatch.com — but they are legion. Search “Sharia New Jersey” and you’ll find hundreds of blogs about the “Islamization” of the American judicial system, with headlines like “New Jersey: the new hotspot of Sharia” and “Sharia judge in NJ gets lifetime appointment.”
The idea that America is this close to having the Cons ution replaced by the Koran used to be a fringe notion, but has inched closer to the mainstream thanks to “Islamist watchdog” bloggers like Daniel Pipes and Pamela Geller and was given a huge boost by Newt Gingrich. “The fight against shariah and the maddrassas and mosques which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth,” Gingrich told the American Enterprise Ins ute, where he is a senior fellow. “One of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law which says no court anywhere in the United States under any cir stance is allowed to consider shariah as a replacement for American law.”
Conservative think-tanker Frank Gaffney declares that “Americans across this country are struggling to understand the true nature of the threat we face from shariah. They are en led to straight talk about the extent to which it is being insinuated, promoted, and legitimated not only in mosques but by banks, academic ins utions, and government agencies.”
Charles’ ruling seems like the very kind of thing Gingrich and Gaffney are worried about. But there are two things worth considering here, especially if you are a member of a religious group whose special interests often collide with American jurisprudence — a group like, I don’t know, the Jews.
As David Kopel, a contributor to the conservative National Review, has pointed out, “American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration).”
Among those alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinic law court. Every day Jews go before batei din to arbitrate real estate deals, nasty divorces, and business disputes. In fact, according to the Beth Din of America, Jewish law does not allow a Jew to be a plaintiff in a secular court without first obtaining permission from a Jewish court.
Permitting people to settle their disputes in their own religious courts is not a “replacement” of American law, but a time-honored expression of religious freedom and accommodation.
But didn’t Judge Charles accept an unacceptable action in the name of “religious freedom”? Here’s another thing worth considering: Although you wouldn’t know it from the headline, the Fox article eventually points out that Charles’ ruling was overturned in July by New Jersey’s Appellate Court. The court ruled that the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that Judge Charles “was mistaken.”
In other words, the system worked. What’s striking about Gingrich and the other Sharia-phobes is their lack of faith in the Cons ution, the American legal system, and the American people themselves.
Never mind that the Muslim world itself has hardly reached consensus on the nature of Sharia, which is less a legal code than a religious way of living. As Rabbi Alan Brill, a professor at Seton Hall University and an expert in interfaith relations, told me, it is the distinction between “Halacha,” the rabbinic law code, and “Torah,” a way of life rooted in Jewish wisdom. According to Lauren Vriens of the Council on Foreign Relations, “Many majority Muslim countries have a dual system in which the government is secular but Muslims can choose to bring familial and financial disputes to shariah courts.” Meanwhile, most Muslim countries do not enforce the traditional and often gruesome punishments prescribed in the Koran.
But let’s say there is some cohesive network or organization of Muslims intent on transforming our legal system and reducing the rest of us to second-class status. How are they going to pull it off? As Lee Smith put it in an important article in Tablet last week, “When Gingrich argues that ‘radical Islamists want to impose Shariah on all of us,’ I can’t imagine how he sees that happening, short of the largest land invasion in human history of foreign Muslim soldiers, administrators, and religious scholars with the connivance of millions of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and pagan American collaborators.”
Gaffney’s version, of a “soft” takeover of our banks, universities, and government agencies, is similarly preposterous. It singles out Islam as the one religion that cannot be accommodated in any of these ins utions. It is based on the scare-mongering notion that once a court allows an insurance company to offer Sharia-compliant financing, it’s not long before an imam will be allowed to sentence an adulteress to death by stoning.
And it assumes, based on statements from the most radical imams (and willful ignorance of an American Muslim mainstream that rejects their extremism) that Muslim citizens are a fifth column, undermining America from within.
When did the war on global Islamist terror become a war on American Muslims? When did our faith in the American way morph into fantasies of American weakness and Muslim invincibility? And why would any Jew, whose people were once reviled in this country and pushed to the margins of its banks, academic ins utions, and government agencies, buy into this bigotry?
An American patriot once said, “America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.”
That patriot was George W. Bush. He said it on Sept. 17, 2001. Now, nearly 10 years later, Newt Gingrich probably considers him a radical.
Andrew Silow-Carroll is Editor-in-Chief of the New Jersey Jewish News.
Do you have any such concerns about Jewish rabbitical law overturning US law?
Mormon elders' rulings?
Fair is fair, here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
