Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:11PM, christzen wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 9:08PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Well, being all for freedom myself, I guess I can't raise an argument, if the people and Legislature of Kansas want to make xenophobic jackholes of themselves.

But, I can point and laugh.

 

If you want to laugh at a state simply saying to Muslims, "you won't get special legal rights here", then fine, laugh. I seriously doubt if any Kansas folks give a hoot that you are laughing at them for telling Muslims they will get treated the same as everyone else.

 

And I think  it is a stretch of epic proportions to consider people to be xenophobic jackholes for saying that Muslims get treated equal with everyone else. But whatever.

"You Muslims come here to Kansas and see how it goes for ya. We're gonna see you get treated just like everyone else. SO THERE! How do ya like that,huh?"

 

Geez.

>>>>>>>>> There is no doubt in my mind that most people in Kansas are some of the nicest in the world. No doubt.

At the same time the level of ignorance and the role played by local churches cannot be ignored.

Brownback was one issue candidate (Abortion) and played with it throughout his career. He is the kind of leader who often need a "Side show" to help him to get elected. Albeit Sharia does not have any connection to lives of most Kansas, it may help him get re-elected for "Defending" Kansas from nothing!!

Brownback is a polarizing figure and very different than Sen. Bob Dole (I liked him) or other law makers.

There are lawyears and there are ambulance chasers. Brownback is the sensational hungry ambulance chaser who use religion the wrong way to get to power. I used to call him "Kansas Taleban"......

Today kansas needs to get more people moving into the state (To widen tax payers) and it is the wrong signal to those who wanted to move into simple country charm.

Since Kansas is very much part of the "Bible belt", some churches are playing "Sharia card" to get more members which will ultimately work against those places.

Jun 12, 2012 -- 8:15PM, fodaoson wrote:

These kind of law  are just silly and a waste of legislative time and effort.  The new law, taking effect July 1,  says courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.  Article VI of the US constitution says ”  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.”

If the proponents of the Kansas law and similar ones are not careful it will come back to bite them on the behind.  The groups pushing  the laws also  were  pushing posting the
Ten Commandments  which is of another Middle eastern culture origin, Judaism 

>>>>> Yup. When folks in Alabama put up Ten commandments in public, most Kansans supported it.

I hope this is be another opportunity for Muslims to educate your average non-Muslim kansans.

Look how it was presented...

"They stone women to death in countries that have Sharia law," Sen. Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, said during the debate. "If you vote to not adopt (the bill), it's a vote against women."

....................................................

Sam Brownback and Kansas Republicans are hypocrites, through and through.

In 2008, then-U.S. Sen. Brownback introduced a resolution in the Senate that designated the first weekend of May as "Ten Commandments Weekend." A few years before that, Brownback was out front urging that the Pledge of Allegiance retain its mention of "one nation under God," saying: "There is nothing more American than the Pledge of Allegiance and an acknowledgement of God is at the heart of our founding principles and is our nation's motto."

The examples don't end there. Along with former Sen. Rick Santorum, Brownback has been one of America's most aggressive and unapologetic politicians in advocating for religion's role in America's public and governmental life.

Islam is the exception to this rule. Brownback and Kansas Republicans are vigorous defenders of the separation of church and state only when non-Christians are involved..........................................................................

The bill's supporters never showed that Islamic law actually was distorting or affecting Kansas jurisprudence.

[ Source: www.newschief.com/article/20120605/NEWS/... ]

My question is when did ANY Muslim proposed to stone anyone? Hypocricy and drama with no substance.

[/quote]

Divorce is one case where sharia law mght come into play. But since sharia law typically gives custody of children to the man, while in normal situations courts usuallly give custody to the woman, this discriminates against non Muslim men.

Another example would be Muslim women wanting to have their DL picture taken with a burqa on, or refusing to remove the burqa for ID purposes when stopped by a police officer.

Once again, the Kansas law says that Muslims and others get treated exactly the same as the rest of America. It is laughable to consider this discrimination.

[/quote]

Well Christzen in regards to cases of child custody there is no "discrimination" since both parties agree to adhere to sharia - just becasue they are muslim does not mean they have to.  Just becasue one spouse wants to get a sharia ruling does not mean the other has to agree.  So I think discrimination is the wrong word here.  Because families often divide child custody based on a variety of issues.  There is a typical child custody arrangement but often there are deviations. 

And having your face covered in a DL is against our laws and therefore never going to fly.  I understand there are cases of women petitioning the courts for the right to have their face covered in a DL but those cases don't go anywhere because we dont do that here and I don't see us doing that here because it goes against the whole purpose of photo identification and the ability to identify someone. 

Again, what we are talking about with civil issues have always been somewhat flexible and customized for the individuals involved.  So I am not sure what is gained by sharia when the two parties can just agree to sharia recomendations just like the two parties might agree to whatever a pastor suggests or a child therapist.

Jun 13, 2012 -- 11:02AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:17AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

Just because you do not know of any Muslims who are advocating the imposition of the Sharia in the U.S. does not mean there aren't any. 

Revolution: Liberation by Revelation Hizb Ut Tahrir America

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs...

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbut_Tahrir

So if a have a "phobia" it is against these Muslims and all other Americans however many they may be.  

And what is really wrong or immoral about establishing the Sharia in the U.S.   It is after all the Divine Law of Allah given to all mankind.  Unlike the U.S. Constitution which doesn't even mention Allah the most compassionate, tolerant, and all knowing.  It must be clear even to the ignorant infidels that Law of Allah must be superior to that of mere men.  

It is my understanding that the overhelming majority of Sharia Law is compatible with the U.S. Constitution.   Those who fear the Sharia are Shariaphobic because they are as ignorant of the Sharia as they are of Islam. 

 

 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 12:13PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>>>> I am aware of Hizb ul tahrir movement. As far as I know no Muslim majority country accepted their "Proposal" or they don't have any political footprint to speak of. If they cannot even get Muslims to rally around them, I think it is impractical to think Americans will support them anytime soon.

The only way to make proposal in American is via democratic system and last time I checked Americans are NOT opposed to "Democratic system".

Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:11PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>>>> Before you get to chose if you want it or "Avoid it", you should know NO Muslim organizations ( I know some leaders in the largest ones) even proposed it!!

So there IS a Muslim organization in the United States that wants Sharia Law in the United States and there are "some" American Muslim leaders in the largest ones, like CAIR that have proposed it.

 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:11PM, BDboy wrote:

They are as popular as Kansas militia in America. I do not know of ANY Muslim majority country where they gained any political power or even came close to it. If it was note worthy I would have mentioned it. :-)

I don't know of any Muslim majority country in which the Hizb ul tahrir movement has gained political power either.  However I do know that there are other political-religious organizations in Muslim majority countries that are very "popular"  and have established Sharia Law as the state religion. In the example of Egypt the millions of Christians in Egypt are not "concerned" about be "forced-compelled to become-believe in Islam.  What they are "concerned" about is that the Sharia-Allah's Laws is going to the State Religion of Egypt.  Because while "Islam" and the Sharia-Allah's law are perfectl and fair the Muslims applying them are not are not.  

 

 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:17AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

And what is really wrong or immoral about establishing the Sharia in the U.S.   It is after all the Divine Law of Allah given to all mankind.  Unlike the U.S. Constitution which doesn't even mention Allah the most compassionate, tolerant, and all knowing.  It must be clear even to the ignorant infidels that Law of Allah must be superior to that of mere men.  

It is my understanding that the overhelming majority of Sharia Law is compatible with the U.S. Constitution.   Those who fear the Sharia are Shariaphobic because they are as ignorant of the Sharia as they are of Islam. 

 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:

>>>>>>>> It is wrong becasue these words were taken out of context. Since Islam does NOT support forcing religion to non-Muslims [ Source: Al Qur'an 2:256]. Yes, this may be "News" to most of you but history will support it.

What history supports is that in ANY theocracy, wether democratic or not those who are not adherents of the "Offical-State" religion are almost always not treated EQUALLY.  There may be a degree of fairness but not EQUAL fairness. 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:

In Europe Muslims ruled most of it for 800 years without any massive conversion movement.

Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.  Unlike Indonesia Spain was conqured by force by Muslims. Throughout the rule by the Muslim Caliphate in Spain there were no voluntary mass revervison to Islam.  The majority of people in Spain remained Christians who were ruled by a minority of Muslims. 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:

 In India Muslims ruled that sub-continent for 1000 years and 87% of Indians are non-Muslims. Lastly the largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia (Over 200 million Muslims) never saw a "Muslim army" on it. It was people to people contact which made it popular.

In India the 13% of Muslims ruled 87% of Non-Muslims for 1,000 years. 

While it is true that in "Indonesia" never saw an "Arab-Muslim" army there was more than one "other" countries that did see an Muslim armies of various nationalies-ethnicties-races. 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:

Even today Islam is the fastest growing religion in western Europe and North America. I do not think anyone would say we are forcing people to accept Islam.

And before you know it Europeans and North Americans will be the most popular and majority.  They can then democractically establish an Islamic Theorcracy!

Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:

Not only Sharia laws are similar to US constitution. They are also related to "Biblical laws". Since Islam, Christianity and Judaism are known as "Abrahamic faiths" to scholars of religion.

So then there is no reason to be phobic about "Biblical-Quranic-Christian-Abrhamic Law" !

While there are "similarities" between Jewish and Islamic Laws to the U.S. Constitution there are also "differnces. 

There are also "differences" between Biblical-Quranic Laws and Secular Laws. 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:

 

Most countries with Muslim majority population practice Sharia in civil matters. They do not practice Sharia for criminal matters. Even though as long you follow 'Due process" [ Which is to make sure we are blaimg the right person and giving that person a chance to defend himself/herself] it works perfectly. Saudi Arabia practice Sharia and have one of the lowest crime rates in the world!!

Help me to understand why Sharia Criminal Laws are not practiced in most Muslim majority countries?

Sharia Criminal Laws are the Laws of Islam and Allah.  So long as they are applied "fairly and with due process". 

In Saudia Arabia they practice Sharia Criminal Law and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world then I do not understand why other Muslim majority countries do not practice Allah's Criminal Laws.  

 

 

WOAH,  I am being quoted for things I never said.  There is being alot attributed to me that I never said. 

Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:42AM, browbeaten wrote:

 like the two parties might agree to whatever a pastor suggests or a child therapist.

As a side note, abused women often deny the beating and excuse the abuser.   Stating that both parties agree to religious law is often not the real truth.  Which is why we have secular courts and rulings based secular law.

Browbeaten by the time a divorce is being drawn up women are often quite loud about any abuse real or imagined they might have endured.  Men too.  But it is irrelevant in any case. 

People when getting divorced come up with all kinds of different arrangements, it  is very individualized.  Often a judges feelings or biases come into play also.  It is just like how people often want to get married under the rules of a religion, right?  Often a couple having a religious wedding will also agree together on aspects of their marriage that is more in line with their religion.  In this case the couple is agreeing to get divorced based on the guidelines of their religion.    I wonder about the necessity of sharia because at the end of the day if a divorcing couple comes before the judge and says "  here we have the details all worked out, according to the guidlines of our clergyman and the needs of our children and what we see as fair property division"  The judge is going to say OK- you both agree give me my rubber stamp. 

I am thinking a sharia court is a place where they will hash out these details.  Probably without sharia court there has been something akin to Sharia mediation for a very long time in the US.