Shariah - The Threat to America

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Airtime, Mar 7, 2014.

  1. Airtime

    Airtime Monkey+++

    This material regarding the threat that Shariah and extreme Islamic beliefs present for America was distributed through a state military department and law enforcement community a couple years ago. Given stuff happening in the past year, seems apropos for today and something I though you all might value reading.


    Edit - forgot the war college report

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Mar 7, 2014
  2. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    I admit that when I ran into the name of LtGen Boykin as a team leader of this report, I rolled my eyes, both literally and figuratively. I did, however, carry on reading (at least the entire executive summary) and tried to view it with an open mind. Unfortunately, the writers of this document did not employ open minds when compiling this piece of religious bigotry, thinly (very thinly) disguised as an intelligence report.

    I am not a fan of Sharia. A legal system based solely on the teachings of a revealed religion, in my opinion, retards the development of the society which embraces it. I think history bears that out. But Sharia is no more threatening to our nation than are the religious dictates of the Vatican. Sharia is a legal system based on the writings of the Qur'an, and only affects those individuals who have the misfortune, in my opinion, of living in societies controlled by leaders unduly influenced by fundamentalist Islamic teachings. Its not some insidious plague that can be spread by contact with Muslims.

    The Terrorist Bibliography from the War College does, it seems, contain some interesting links that may provide some elucidation on the subject of terrorism.
    Yard Dart, Minuteman, Airtime and 2 others like this.
  3. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    Tulianr if you think sharia is not a threat then you should study what's going on in England and some of the other EU nations.
  4. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    What European parliaments decide to do vis a vis sharia, or any other issue, doesn't necessarily represent a threat to us, or to the larger international community, I don't believe. I agree that the adoption of sharia in this country would be threatening, as well as stupid; but my point is that sharia, in and of itself, is not a threat. A gun is not, in and of itself, a threat. What you do with the gun, may indeed be threatening.

    I don't think there is any chance what so ever of the United States ever adopting the sharia and, therefore, in my view, it is not threatening. The decision of one or two daft family court judges to ill advisedly allow the sharia to influence their decisions, when dealing with Muslim families, doesn't represent a trend by the US judicial system to adopt the sharia. I think that family court judges are in a rather unique position within our judicial system, and they might be more likely than criminal court judges to take into account particular family values and belief systems.

    I don't find Islam threatening. I don't find Muslims threatening. I don't find sharia threatening. I think that I am in much greater danger of suffering from a fundamentalist Christian agenda than I am of suffering from a fundamentalist Muslim agenda. If I were in Pakistan, I would have a different opinion, I am sure.
    Yard Dart, BTPost and ditch witch like this.
  5. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    It just never ceases to amaze me how anything (gasp) Islamic inflames people's passions and raises such fear and apprehension.

    Sharia law. Do you really think that a sliver of a minority in the US is going to someday reshape our entire legal system and institute a religious one that is binding on Americans? Do you see a day when all our women from New York to LA will be forced to wear the Abaya? Seriously?
    But wait, it is happening in Europe. Really? And just exactly which legal law or precedent has been changed, abolished or amended to be Sharia compliant?
    Answer, not a one.

    The truth is that there are many predominantly Muslim countries that don't practice Sharia law. Or that only incorporate some parts of it into their civil law.
    The truth is that there is not one single western nation that has implemented anything remotely Sharia into their legal codification to appease Muslim minorities.

    England and other EU countries have allowed Sharia based councils to arbitrate some civil matters within their communities. Something that the much larger Jewish community and Christian communities have been doing for years.

    These councils rule on civil matters relating to marriage, inheritance and property issues. But even their rulings are superseded by national law and are not enforceable if they differ from common civil law.

    Should we be afraid or feel threatened by Halakha? Don't know what that is? It is the Jewish equivalent of Sharia. It is a legal code of laws . It is allowed in Jewish communities in a civil arbitration function just the same as Sharia arbitration councils are now being allowed in Muslim communities. I never heard an uproar or fear mongering over those.

    From a news article ;

    "It is easy to see why the word sharia has emotional overtones, especially today. The appalled reaction to the case of Sakineh Ashtiani, an Iranian woman who has been sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, has stoked a global campaign for her acquittal. The sentence was suspended last month, but her fate looks dicey. She could still face execution on a murder charge.

    Such cases reflect only one part of sharia: the system of corporal and capital punishments such as stoning for adultery, death for murder or apostasy (abandoning Islam), whipping for consuming intoxicants or the cutting off of a hand for theft. Muslims themselves disagree over how, if at all, these penalties should be practiced in the modern world.

    Horrifying as these punishments might be to modern sensibilities, there is no prospect of their exercise in any Western country. Muslims living in the West may (as has sometimes happened) take the “law” into their own hands by killing an apostate. But that counts as murder pure and simple.

    Where sharia poses genuine dilemmas for secular countries with big Muslim minorities is not in the realm of retribution but in its application to family matters such as divorce, inheritance and custody. English-speaking countries boast a strong tradition of settling disputes (commercial or personal) by legally binding arbitration. This already includes non-secular institutions such as longstanding rabbinical tribunals in Britain and many other countries, or Christian mediation services in North America. Now Islam-based outfits are entering the market.

    Perhaps inevitably, the procedures and general ethos of Muslim mediation are very different from those of a secular court. Many of Britain's 2m or so Muslims come from socially conservative parts of South Asia, such as rural Kashmir. The practice of sharia-based family law both reflects and to an extent mitigates that conservatism. A network of sharia councils—whose two main founders come from purist schools of Islam, the Deobandis and the Salafis—has offered rulings to thousands of troubled families since the 1980s. Much of their work involves women who have received civil divorces but need an Islamic one to remarry within their faith. The councils can overrule a husband's objections. Few would decry this."

    Sharia law is not even widespread among countries with predominantly Muslim populations.

    Of all the Muslim countries in the world only 9 implement full Islamic law which covers both personal and criminal law. Another 9 implement Islamic law only in personal matters ;ie divorce, inheritance, child custody etc. And more than double that number, some 25 countries, considered Muslim countries, with Muslim majorities, where Sharia law plays no role whatsoever in their judicial systems.

    So where exactly is this threat?

    Pavlov would be proud.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2014
    Yard Dart, ditch witch and tulianr like this.
  6. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    Am baffled by stats saying that sharia law is not the rule of the land in muslim countries or that many areas in European countries are not controlled by muzzie laws already. Do not know where that comes from.
    ..."I think that I am in much greater danger of suffering from a fundamentalist Christian agenda than I am of suffering from a fundamentalist Muslim agenda"....keep that thought as you travel--especially abroad. Was it a Christian that dropped the trade centers or stood on a table at Ft. Hood and killed our soldiers or that killed our men in Libya---hell no it was not.
  7. co9mil

    co9mil Monkey

    I'm guessing you haven't read the Quran.
  8. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    As a matter fact I have. Have you?
  9. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    "Since the early Islamic states of the eighth and ninth centuries, sharia always existed alongside other normative systems.[1] Most Muslim countries adopt only a few aspects of sharia, while few countries apply the entire code.[2] Many predominantly Muslim countries have not adopted hudud penalties in their criminal justice systems.[2] Ali Mazrui stated that "most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments".[3] The harshest penalties are enforced with varying levels of consistency.[4] The use of flogging is more common compared to punishments like amputations.[3]"

    "Mixed systems postulate the hegemony of the national constitution and the rule of law, while allowing the rules of Islam to play a dominant role in certain areas of national law.[5]"

    "This is the most common system in Muslim states.[6] Sharia still plays a large part, but is not the sole or even dominating aspect of the justice system.[6] These states often have written constitutions and a codified set of laws.[6]"

    Application of sharia law by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Dual Legal System. 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 sharia courts. The exact jurisdiction of these courts varies from country to country, but usually includes marriage, divorce, inheritance, and guardianship. Examples can be seen in Nigeria and Kenya, which have shariacourts that rule on family law for Muslims. A variation exists in Tanzania, where civil courts apply sharia or secular law according to the religious backgrounds of the defendants. Several countries, including Lebanon and Indonesia, have mixed jurisdiction courts based on residual colonial legal systems and supplemented with sharia.

    Western countries are also exploring the idea of allowing Muslims to apply Islamic law in familial and financial disputes.In late 2008, Britain officially allowed sharia tribunals (NYT) governing marriage, divorce, and inheritance to make legally binding decisions if both parties agreed. The new system is in line with separate mediation allowed for Anglican and Jewish communities in England.Criminal law remains under the gavel of the existing legal system. Supporters of this initiative, such as the former archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, argued that it would help maintain social cohesion (BBC) in European societies increasingly divided by religion."

    "Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge's discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (i.e., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses--flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution--get a significant amount of media attention when they occur. These sentences are not often prescribed, however. "In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments," says Ali Mazrui of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies in a Voice of America interview. These punishments remain on the books in some countries, but lesser penalties are often considered sufficient."

    What is Sharia law?
    Sharia is an Arabic word commonly translated as the "way" or "path to water."

    Briefly stated, Sharia law is the wide body of Islamic religious law. It is sometimes referred to as "Islamic law" or "Muslim law." However, because Sharia law deals with all aspects of daily life, such as family (e.g., marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance); finance, banking, and contracts (e.g., investing, forbidding the paying or charging of interest); social issues (e.g., dress, hygiene); religion; and acts which are typically known as crimes everywhere (e.g., theft, murder, rape), it is not simply legal system or form of criminal justice, but a code of living. It is one of the three most common systems of law, after common law and civil law."

    "While there are principles in Sharia law that Western nations would find entirely familiar, such as the idea of force majeure in contracts, the presumption of innocence, the principle of precedent in making legal decisions, the prohibition of illegal drugs, the right to privacy, the right of women to own property in their own right, there are also principles that Western nations consider contrary to human rights, and some that only some Western nations find contrary to human rights. For example, consider the Hadd (or Hudood) offences, which are a small set of crimes, punished by specific penalties, including capital punishment, flogging, or amputation of a hand or foot. One example of a Hadd offence is drinking alcohol, which is punishable by flogging; another is adultery, which is punishable by stoning; another is theft, which is punishable by having a hand or foot cut off. (Penalties for the Hadd offences are not universally applied in Islamic nations.) Western nations find stoning for adultery contrary to human rights; yet, only some Western nations find the death penalty in general contrary to human rights."

    Shariah Law

    Sharia just means law, or code, in Arabic. It’s for Muslims only. One of the laws of Sharia, is that it should not be used by force. I mean, how do you force someone to fast? The Sharia is just what Muslims do to be Muslims. It’s like the ten commandments that Christians, or some Christians, go by. Nothing more, nothing less. Praying, fasting and going on a pilgrimage to Mecca are not going to be the Constitution’s next amendments, so that argument of “They’re trying to force it on us!” fails.

    - See more at: The Newsstreak : Sharia law too often misrepresented"

    tulianr likes this.
  10. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    It was not a Christian who was responsible for either of those terrorist attacks, but neither was it sharia. A person who is a Muslim may commit a crime or terrorist act, but Islam is not to blame in general, and sharia is not to blame specifically. A Christian may commit a crime or a terrorist act, but Christianity is not to blame in general, and the Ten Commandments are not to blame specifically. We need to place the blame where it belongs, on the head of the individual who committed the crime or terrorist act. Blame the person, not the religion. Religion doesn't kill people; people kill people.
    bfayer, BTPost, kellory and 1 other person like this.
  11. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Why is it we blame the Religion, when it is the Individual, and the corrupt Spiritual Leaders, who should be condemned. If one preaches intolerance, and hatred, then they are corrupt, and should be condemned by society. If they preach that it is OK to Kill, then it should be condemned. These are the ways of the Adversary, Satan, Mr. Stix.... And those who follow his lead..... My opinion, YMMV....
    tulianr and Minuteman like this.
  12. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    No one disputes the fact that extremist Islamists are a threat to Americans, and many others around the world. But the idea that somehow they are going to take over the country and enforce Sharia law on us is just patently ridiculous.
    And as for a Muslim standing on a table at Ft hood and killing people, well, what of the guy who stood up in a movie theater in Colorado and killed people or the guy who burst into a school in Connecticut and murdered more than a dozen children? There are so many real threats out there that to waste time worrying about "threats" that are no more than wild eyed fear mongering is senseless.
    tulianr and BTPost like this.
  13. bfayer

    bfayer Keeper Of The Faith

    I do not fear Shariah, I fear the growing base of "progressive" liberals that for some reason feel the overwhelming need to capitulate to the outrageous demands of various groups in order to ease their self inflicted liberal guilt. This is the problem, not Shariah.

    Individual groups will always push to have society follow their preferred set of rules. It is giving up our individual liberty to placate these groups we need to fear. It doesn't matter if it's Shariah or saturated fat, liberals will give away every last remnant of liberty we have just to make themselves feel better.

    I personally believe we need to treat everyone with the respect they deserve as a member of the human race, but I don't feel the need to give up my freedom and liberty to make others happy.

    Muslims are not the enemy any more than Baptists or Vegans are.
    Minuteman, BTPost and tulianr like this.
  14. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    This is an example of why I discount LtGen Boykin, the team leader of the report which started this conversation, as a credible source of information. Sadly, his uniform and rank will always lend him credibility in the eyes of some, but I sadly knew more than a few crazy and/or incompetent individuals wearing the uniform while I was serving, and many of them reached high ranks. Here is this particular crazy individual's latest gaffe:
    Ex-U.S. Gen.: Jews Ruin Everything
    Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, the executive vice president of the social conservative group Family Research Council, was caught on mic Thursday at the National Security Action Summit joking that “the Jews are the cause of all the problems in the world” in response to an interview request by Israel National News.

    He also said President Obama was using “subliminal messages” to send signals of support for al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. “If you understand anything about Islam, there are subliminal messages,” Boykin said. “His message, really, I believe was, ‘I understand you, and I support you.’” Therefore, he said, al Qaeda and the Brotherhood know “that they have a president that identifies with them, that has been supportive of them inside the United States, and is unwilling to go against them.”

    The summit is held by Frank Gaffney for speakers who are not allowed to participate in CPAC. Gaffney has accused CPAC’s organizers of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The panel featuring Boykin had its video feed shut down, but the audio continued being broadcast, catching Boykin’s remarks.

    Ex-U.S. Gen.: Jews Ruin Everything - The Daily Beast
    Airtime likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary