Jun 16, 2012 -- 12:21PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Well Kansans are fine with loving other foreign laws (The OT and NT, came from the same region). :-)

Since the Judeo Christian cultural heritage came over with the Pilgrims BEFORE the formation of the US, it is by definition not foreign.

Jun 16, 2012 -- 12:21PM, BDboy wrote:

Kindly understand what Kansas does with the "Fictional foreign law" has no bearing on Islam. Only on Kansas.

I can understand the sentiment about, " that they do not want any change". BUT no one in Kansas EVER proposed to replace the existing laws.

I do " kindly understand" that. But no one has suggested that Islam is influenced any by Kansas law, so I'm not sure what your point is.

And while no one in Kansas may have proposed using Sharia or other foreign laws, prudent folks close the barn door BEFORE the horses get out, not after.  

Jun 16, 2012 -- 12:21PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>>>>> NOT upset but surprized. It is "Common sense" that if you want to have an opinion about a topic, you need to know what you are talking about.

For example, if a Chinese person says, I hate US constitution. I would expect that he/she have at least the basic understanding of the US constitution. Then that "Hate" would be credible.

If a Russian person hates the "Constitution (US)" without knowing anything about it, it would simply show he is not the brightest light on christmas tree. The US constitution will remain as one of the greatest constitution regardless. One "Not so bright" Russian will not be able to do anything by simply not liking it. It probably would say lot more about the Russian person than anything about the US consitution.

Hope you understand where I am coming from.

I do, but your point is still wrong. Nobody is saying they hate anything. They are saying they like things as they are and do not want to add foreign ifluences into Kansas law. Your argument that they must understand such foreign laws to decide they  do not want to create a different set of rules for a particular class of people makes no sense. They do not want 2 or more sets of laws. That's it. You do not need to research any other laws to decide that only YOUR laws will apply to all YOUR citizens alike,with no special laws for certain people.

I hope you understand this.

Jun 16, 2012 -- 12:21PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>> Fair enough. Do you know anyone in Kansas who requested for "Special rights" for being Muslim? Did any Muslim organization in Kansas wanted to "Replace" existing law?

Do you even know of any case in Kansas where people received verdict based on "Foreign law"?

Irrelevant. The time to pass laws preventing things from happening is BEFORE they occur, not after. Again,the prudent person closes the barn door BEFORE the horses get out. And to argue that Muslims have not asked for special treatment would be a lie.They have, and I am quite sure that Kansas folks can read the papers reporting this and decide accordingly.

Jun 16, 2012 -- 12:21PM, BDboy wrote:

I feel this type of non-issue will keep coming regarding Muslims and SOME special organizations are working to make it uncomfortable for Muslims in America. I am a little disappointed that, Kansas are being used to promote such "unsavory" agenda against Muslims in America.

If Muslims don't really want to enact Sharia in Kansas as so many claim, then how is passing a law that bans Sharia from being considerd in courts making them uncomfortable? You guys talk out of both sides of your mouths. You say on the one hand that they don't want this and  the Kansas law is unneeded and pointless, then turn around and argue that this makes Muslims uncomfortable. It will only make them so if it infringes upon their rights,or stalls their hidden agendas and intentions.

Some elements in the Kansas legislature have also tried to pass laws against teaching about the mainstream scientific information base which supports the explanation of 'evolution' for species diversity. 

AND they have repeatedly tried to criminalize certain medical procedures.

IMHO, the state's reputation is already pretty 'tarnished'.

Jun 17, 2012 -- 9:28AM, BDboy wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>> Because supporters of this new law are OPENLY saying to everyone that, it is against Sharia. The letters of the law does not say "Sharia" but someone has to be from Mars to think it has no link with Muslims.

You miss the point.I agree it is openly about Sharia although they were prudent enough not to mention Sharia, much to the chagrin of the Muslims I think. But even so, my point is that if NOBODY wants to enact Sharia in Kansas, then NOBODY is harmed by a law saying " no Sharia in Kansas". It is like saying "I have no intention of driving 185 MPH in Kansas, but I am offended that you passed a law saying I can't drive 185".

Jun 17, 2012 -- 9:28AM, BDboy wrote:

With "Ground Zero mosque" movement and now with "Sharia movement" we are watching this disturbing treand in the US. Kansas is only one of many states who are enacting such laws to please voters. Like I mentioned before it seems like states who passed these laws have VERY low Muslim population among them. States with lot of Muslims don't think this is a priority for them. Now think about that!!!  

Since I don't live in Kansas, I don't need to think about it. They are free to pass what laws they want that do not conflict with federal law. Cities that have never had a murder in their history still have laws against murder. You seem to be of the opinion that governments should pass laws against things they don't want only AFTER the problem manifests itself. What part of closing the barn door BEFORE the horses get out do you not understand?

Jun 17, 2012 -- 9:28AM, BDboy wrote:

Reputation of Kansas will be slightly tainted and life will go on. :-)

As someone else has said, the rep of Kansas is not great as it is, what with evolution,Phelps, and such.I doubt thoughts of their rep worldwide weigh much on their minds.

Jun 18, 2012 -- 3:44PM, Erey wrote:

Make no mistake,  Based on my understanding a year or so ago on Sharia I too would be pretty much against it.  I am never going to back or excuse some of the outrageous things excused by Sharia I have read about.  I don't care how many muslim feelings that hurts!  I am never going to back chopping hands or honor killing women or beating rape victims with lashes or hanging homosexuals or any of the other stuff.  I expect and  trust that american muslims won't take that personally. 

I will support american muslims the right to seek the kind of civil ruling they feel is appropriate iwth marriage, divorce and child support.  I now understand this boring stuff is part of sharia too.  But before I knew that it was hell no sharia!  

Nobody is talking about justifying honor killings. These are and certainly will continue to be against the law in Kansas or anyplace else in the US.  No Muslim leaders in the US have done anything but condemn the practice.

But I will repeat that these are a cultural and not a religious phenomenon.  I read a while back that in the UK (where these may be more prevalent than the US)  1/3 were committed by non-Muslims (Hindus and Sikhs- evidence of a South Asian cultural practice with not specifically identified with Islam). 

As for hanging homosexuals- there are well-publicized Christians who have condoned violence against homosexuals, so this is not an extremist Islamic exclusive either.  It's also  against the law in Kansas as well (though if that ever changes, I suspect it will have little to do with Islam).

But the point is not  courts in Saudi Arabia, but the law in Kansas.