Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
no it isn't, Sharia law is not anymore legally binding than the Peoples court or judge Judy.
Technically true but practically false. Especially in UK, muslim towns are very insular and that is where the decisions are made. The decisions often are never entered in a real UK court. There is MASSIVE social pressure to conform. Unless the [typically female] is willing to leave the area. They are pressured to live under sharia.
So what you and NxtGen are saying, essentially, is that there is no "legitimate" form of Islam that is compatible with the rest of civilization.
I am saying that you can not establish good from evil without being incompetent or a liar.
The core basis of Islam is absolutely clear, one must go to extreme lengths to dismiss and twist to change its message.
At the end of the day, I think what he was pointing out is that the Sufi aren't viewed in the same manner as the kufir and while they are fought with, they are not viewed in the same manner as the kafir, for flawed as they might be viewed, the are still considered Muslim and a Muslim is far above that of the kafir.
The problem with it is not that people can not establish a "peaceful" version they create of Islam, it is rather Islam is not peaceful and must be converted to achieve such. So, as long as the teachings exist, so does the true Islam exist and those who will be true to its word.
As I said, this is not an issue of Christianity for its message at its base is true to its intent and purpose. So, any rogue factions calling themselves Christians (Westbro or the like) can be defeated by the very word they twist to claim their position. For the Sufi, they are the ones perverting the word to achieve their view, so it is impossible to stand legitimate in support of a belief that you must alter to achieve peaceful meaning. Those who follow its true core meaning are always validated, even if the message is not sweet to peoples ears.
Technically true but practically false. Especially in UK, muslim towns are very insular and that is where the decisions are made. The decisions often are never entered in a real UK court. There is MASSIVE social pressure to conform. Unless the [typically female] is willing to leave the area. They are pressured to live under sharia.
That's why it is important to have the Anti Sharia protest take place. It should never gain a foothold in this country like it has in the UK.
It also will highlight the violence of the opposition to them.
This is another of your ignorance or plain lies about Islam!
Sharia law is not exactly the path that Prophet followed but the path ordained by God (and is described in the Qur'an). There are many things that the Prophet did but are not required by Muslims to follow. If Muslims follow what Prophet Muhammad followed, they will all be living either in Mecca or Madina and never in Islamabad, New York or London.
That's why it is important to have the Anti Sharia protest take place. It should never gain a foothold in this country like it has in the UK.
It also will highlight the violence of the opposition to them.
Perfectly said.
Sharia is NOT WANTED here, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Keep this nonsense in the middle eastern deserts.
It has been argued in Canadian and US courts when it has run afoul of national laws. That intent is to make it binding.
Argued as a a freedom of religion right, not to be binding if you don't want it to be which is a huge difference.
It's religious arbitration they are not the only religion that does it. In general I feel that we need to be more careful in allowing religious freedoms over human rights especially of minors, things like Female genital mutilation should be a non starter religion be damned.
It has been argued in Canadian and US courts when it has run afoul of national laws. That intent is to make it binding.
I dunno how Canada's court system works.
But I cannot imagine that SCOTUS would ever uphold a decision that favored sharia law over secular law. There would have to be a LOT of changes first, possibly starting with a constitutional amendment.
Anyone can argue anything in court that they wish. For instance, there are people who defend themselves by claiming they are sovereign citizens and thus not subject to a whole bunch of laws.
Argued as a a freedom of religion right, not to be binding if you don't want it to be which is a huge difference.
It's religious arbitration they are not the only religion that does it. In general I feel that we need to be more careful in allowing religious freedoms over human rights especially of minors, things like Female genital mutilation should be a non starter religion be damned.
No kidding.
I do not understand people who keep pushing for religious exemptions from laws. I wonder how they can be so clueless.
A womans rights ralley, to shun the regressive and oppressive Sharia Law, that has grabbed a foothold within Muslim Communities, hidden from our own legal system. Sharia Courts are present in Muslim communities in the USA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
