Shariah Law in the West

Moody-

"He who breaks one "law of God"(Sharia in Arabic) does not enter the kingdom of heaven."

How old are you? If you are over 10 yrs, you should know there is no man who follows God's law to perfection (though many have died trying).

Are you telling us you are perfect in submitting to and obeying God's laws? And you have never sinned?

Thomas Baum,

Its not me, its you yourself with whom you are playing with words.

AND IT IS NOT A PLAY, IT IS A LIE THAT WILL COST YOU A VERY HEAVY PRICE AFTER YOU DIE.

Submit to obey and repent HONESTLY and He will show you the way befor you die.

Or choose the LIE as you are granted the power to choose ONLY UNTIL YOU LIVE i.e., YOUR PRECIOUS FREE WILL!

Obedience or Disobedience to God????????????????

Dave- In the spirit of Sharia, the imams of hate who inspire, equip, and send the young naive jihadists to suicide and the death of many innocents should also have their tongues cut out.

My question is why can't mullahs who preach violence against humanity and sponsor/encourage/preach terrorism be flooged or their hands cut off? That would be one positive contribution of Sharia. After all the hate-inspiring mullahs have been flooged out of existence or their hands cuts off, we can talk about how beautiful Sharia is.

TO MASOOD:

You wrote, "- He who breaks one "law of God"(Sharia in Arabic) does not enter the kingdom of heaven.".

Interesting statement here, does this mean that the kingdom of heaven is completely empty?

If not completely empty then it probably only has people in it that died really young!

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO MOODY:

You wrote, "In return you try to put in every bodies throat that" WHO DENIES AND DISOBEYS EVERY THING JESUS SAID LOVES HIM MORE AND HE LOOK IN TO THE HEARTS AND NOT ALL THE EVIL DEEDS"."

This is not what I wrote, they are your words, are they not?

If you wish to comment about something that I wrote, that is fine, but to twist what I write and then to say that I wrote it, what would you call that?

I am not trying to tell anyone what to say or do, I am just saying that we have free will and we can either take personal responsibility for what we do or we don't, that is everyone's choice.

If it is forced on anyone than the free will that God gave to everyone is being denied to that person and that is not God's Way.

God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

Thomas Baum:

WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT IT?????

- Disobedience to God is main and major form (reason) of Evil leading to all evil deeds.

– Disobedience to Lord-God-Allah (in Arabic) means becoming partner to Satan-Devil-Evil. (So who is making partners the one who follow all the commandments or the one who break them all????)

MAKE A CHOICE NOW THOMAS WHO YOU WANT TO BE BEFORE YOU DIES?? BECAUSE AFTER THAT YOU WON'T BE GRANTED THE CHOICE OR ANY TIME FOR REPENTANCE!!

- He who breaks one "law of God"(Sharia in Arabic) does not enter the kingdom of heaven.
DOES ANY PRESENT DAY CHRISTIAN TRY TO UNDERSTAND OR REMEMBER IT??

The Shariah laws, as many bloggers have pointed out, is the ultimate expression of mental derangement/disease. Muslims (aka "Mohammedans","Quranists") have always upheld the sanctity of the Shariah. Why ? Because Shariah is derived from the Quran. Allah glorifies the Shariah. In fact in the Quran [005:048] one finds:

YUSUFALI: "To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. TO EACH AMONG YOU HAVE WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND AN OPEN WAY. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;" [Quran(005:048)]

The lines in CAPS above, form the moral basis of the Shariah. Shariah, which was not a revelation, was thus founded. It began as the Charter of Madinah. Then later, based on sunnah, Quran and authentic hadiths (Bukhari, Muslim), the Shariah was embodied.

However, what if tne Quran itself may not have been divine ? What if its divine origins were in suspect ? What would then be the status of Shariah ? How can one reconcile the status of the Shariah in this case ?

These are hard questions. To explore the Divine origins of the Quran, I came across the following article published in The Atlantic Monthly (January 1999). This article was written by Toby E. Lester. His article contends that the Quran, as we know today (i.e. from where Abdullah Yusuf Ali translated it into English, and has been quoted above), could have been very well a fabrication. He states that the present Quran has been rewritten on the original Quran, which was in Hijazi Arabic script. X-ray diffraction studies have revealed of some old manuscripts about 1000 years old, discovered in Yemen in 1972. One needs to read the fascinating history of the Quran, which challenges the divine origins of the Arabic revelation. In fact, it is argued that Quran was rewritten several times.

The Lester article appearing in The Atlantic Monthly can be read at the link

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199901/

It is in 3 parts, and requires careful reading. One cazn make up one's mind after that regading the divinity of the Quran, and hence the sanctity of the Shariah, derived from it.

There is a rebuttal by one Dr. Azizah Y. al-Hibri and that is linked here too. However the rebuttal, in my view, fails to make an argument against the original Lester article. The Azizah article is simply contemptuous, without much logical substance. The link is as below:

http://www.alhewar.com/AzizahAtlantic.htm

Both the articles appeared before 9/11. My question is if we are not sure about the Divine origins of the Quran, why should we (non-Muslkms in the West) pay so much homage to the Shariah ?

REPOST:

Well said. I have not met any moderate cyber-Muslims here. Staunch defenders of everything Islam, including the Sharia, most of them qualify as fanatics really.

If Muslims here in the West are fanatics in their outlook, what hope is there for their brethen back in Islamic countries? Yet, my own experience show that there is a sizable group of moderate Muslims who question some of the Islamic laws, rituals, and customs (particularly if they belong to sects that are themselves persecuted by mainstream Islam). Nothing works like a taste of narrow-mindedness in bringing home the message to at least those Muslims at the receiving end that it is hurting Islamic societies.

Most of the Western Muslim establishment is comprised of Islamist groups claiming to be moderates. True moderate Muslims reject Islamic supremacy and Sharia; embrace religious equality and democracy.

What is a moderate Muslim? According to a dictionary, a moderate is a person who is opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion. Yet, majority of the public seem to be struggling with the definition of a moderate Muslim. Perhaps we can make this task easier by defining a radical Muslim and then defining the moderate as an opposite of the radical.

Muslims Against Sharia compiled a list of issues that differentiate moderate Muslims from Islamic radicals. Hopefully you can help us grow this list.

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-is-moderate-muslim.html

Poll: Who is a moderate Muslim?

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/poll-who-is-moderate-muslim.html

TO MOODY:

You wrote, "If Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Christ (pbuh) and not one who worships Christ (pbuh). (We Muslims are more Christian than the Christians themselves).", when you write "We Muslims" are you speaking for everyone in the world that calls themselves Muslim?

Not all people that call themselves "Christian" believe that Jesus is Who He Is and that is God-Incarnate.

Not all people that call themselves "Christian" are "Christian" only God can look into someone's heart, I can't, I am not God, I am just a messenger.

I, by the way am not speaking for "Christians", I am speaking for God, the Trinity, Our Father, Our Brother and Our Knitting Buddy, the One that, as the bible says, knit us together in our mother's womb.

Christ, by the way, is not His Name, His Name is Jesus, Christ is a title.

You quoted various places in the bible when Jesus referred to the Father, but do you believe that God is our Father?

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life no one comes to the Father except thru Me", He did not say no one comes to God except thru Me, did He?

You also quoted various places in the bible where it says, "God is One", Jesus also said, "I and the Father are One", does He not?

Jesus basically boiled the ten commandments down to one word and that word is LOVE, which God happens to be, a Being of Pure Love.

Jesus said to, "Love your enemies", did He not?

Is this what the being that spoke to Mohammed also taught or it it something else that he changed?

You seem to be very good at not thinking for yourself and quoting various books such as the bible and the koran rather than at least attempting to answer a question but another one: How come if the koran supposedly speaks highly of the "People of the Book" that the "Book" is outlawed in countries with strict sharia law???

If the bible is True and it is, then the distortions and outright contradictions in the koran concerning the bible can't be true.

I don't know what everything in the bible exactly means but I don't have to, that is not what God has chosen me for.

A lot of people are hiding behind the koran and a lot of people are hiding behind the bible or various other "holy books" but there is nowhere to hide, God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of labels, religious affiliations or lack of a religious affiliation.

God is not an egomaniac but is Love, Pure Love and He cares for ALL of His creation and that is why He has a Plan and has had a Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition.

Jesus also said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", but as should be obvious "sharia law" is to set up a worldly kingdom.

You didn't answer any of the other questions so I don't expect any here to be answered but I asked them anyway.

Take care, be ready, see you and the REST OF HUMANITY IN THE KINGDOM.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web sites:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm (on this site you will get all answers about Islam, CHRISTIANITY, JESUS, JUDAISM , ETHEISIM, HINDUISM and all other religions).

2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp
6-www.justaskislam.com/index.php

7-www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/Q_LP/ (The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam)

Most of the Western Muslim establishment is comprised of Islamist groups claiming to be moderates. True moderate Muslims reject Islamic supremacy and Sharia; embrace religious equality and democracy.

What is a moderate Muslim? According to a dictionary, a moderate is a person who is opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion. Yet, majority of the public seem to be struggling with the definition of a moderate Muslim. Perhaps we can make this task easier by defining a radical Muslim and then defining the moderate as an opposite of the radical.

Muslims Against Sharia compiled a list of issues that differentiate moderate Muslims from Islamic radicals. Hopefully you can help us grow this list.

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/ 2008/01/what-is-moderate-muslim.html

Poll: Who is a moderate Muslim?

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/ 2008/01/poll-who-is-moderate-muslim.html

Mischka when you say:

"when you found out I wasnt too far from the truth?"

You reveal to every reader here that you are an untrustworthy poster who knows nothing of the truth.

Truth is not relative. When you miss telling the truth- you are speaking falsely and you are a liar.

In the same way you are fooled by Islam. Mohammed plagiarized from the already-extant religions of Judaism and Christianity. If you have any ability to think independently- consider your faith may be not "too far from the truth".

Or just continue to ESABATM..

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

You are arguing with a mouthpiece, whose job is to recycle what it was fed with/told to do. I cannot see the rationale for the argument with Moody who - for all his honesty can only recite what he knows, without any understanding of what he says. Moody and rationality are poles apart.

I have a theory: I believe that Quran maybe a way by which God/Devil/Fatbird wants the world to end. The Quran contains strictures for bloodbath against those who will disbelieve. What more can that diety want in order to recycle creation again and again ?

TO MOODY:

You wrote, " He sealed (finalized) the Messengers with Prophet Muhammed and abrogated all previous books with the Qur'an.", seems to me that this god of islam has some problems, considering that he says things for awhile and then changes them or is he just a liar?

You also wrote, "The Belief in Preordainment (Qadar) means to believe that everything — good or bad — happens or takes place according to what Allah has ordained for it. He has created everything in due proportion.", by this statement we have absolutely no FREE WILL, is that correct?

I would like to make a comment about something called PREDESTINATION in the bible, this means that God knows what we will do but it does not mean that we are preprogramed to do it as per PREORDAINMENT in the koran.

Since God knew some would never repent this side of breath, He came up with His Plan which is for the salvation of ALL OF THE PEOPLE that He created, which happens to be ALL OF HUMANITY.

God happens to be a Being of Pure Love and He is a Trinity and God-Incarnate, Jesus of Nazareth, was a Jew, a member of the Chosen People and they are the Chosen People for the simple reason that God chose and formed them.

I have met God, the Trinity, and I have met satan and if you think that God is such an egomaniac that it is more important that you know His Name than how we treat each other then a god such as that is not worthy of any kind of respect much less obedience.

God, the True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God, has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition.

By the way God is not a He, a She or an It but, and I repeat myself, a Being of PURE LOVE.

We will all be judged since we have FREE WILL, but guess what God's Plan contains a total and unconditional pardon and that will be compliments of God Himself since He won the keys to hell and death by enduring both and winning the keys to both.

If PREORDAINMENT was true, how could anyone be rewarded or punished for something that they had no control over?

Like I have said before, I do not hold it against Mohammad that he was deceived and I have also said that God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Also, that it is important what you do and WHY you do it and what you know.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The Arch-bishop of Canterbury was very naive in making his suggestion. If laws and constitutions are to meet religious tests, we are turning over a legal system which is designed to respect the rights of all, in favor of the particular religious maxims of various religions. Would those that posited this question suggest that Catholic principles govern our laws, thus forbidding abortion? How about Jewish law? That would close down the pig farms, and end ham and bacon for many of us. Mormon law? Close down Starbucks and liquor stores. Would Moslem law permitting polygamy be included? Why pick some laws and exclude others? This is a totally crazy suggestion, encouraging the "Taliban" ideologues of every denomination to push, lobby, buycott, maybe even get violent, in promoting their all or nothing positions. Politics is gray, not black and white. Religions generally are all or nothing, and do not respect middle grounds.

Hey Anonymous -

Were you mad when you found out I wasnt too far from the truth? :-)

I love it when I am right...

"The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce."

Did I hurt your feelings when I said that? Were you upset? Did you cry? How sorry do you think I am at this point?

Idiot.

AN INFLUENTIAL GROUP OF MUSLIM THEOLOGIANS IN INDIA HAVE DENOUNCED TERRORISM, SAYING IT IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM.

Monday February 25, 2008

Their statements were made at a meeting held at the Darul-Uloom Deoband, a powerful Islamic school more than 150 years old.

Scholars from 6,000 religious schools attended the meeting.

The Deoband school promotes a brand of Islam which some say was an inspiration to Afghanistan's Taleban.

The school has always denied this.

Opening the conclave the head of the Deoband school, Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, described terrorism as a thoughtless act which is against the teachings of Islam.

He said that the killing of innocent people of any religion was prohibited by the Koran, the Muslim Holy Book.

Many participants said they want to change popular perceptions in which, they say, terrorism is being equated with Islam.

Others said that while Muslims should not be harassed because of anti-terrorism operations, the community also needed to be more introspective.

Many Islamic seminaries across India have come under the scanner of the federal authorities in the wake of recent terror attacks.

Set up in 1866 in north India the Darul-Uloom Deoband is the most influential Muslim religious school in south and south-east Asia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7262283.stm

Mischka says-

"Every marriage is a risk. ***65% of all marriages in America end up in divorce*** What is your point Scumbag?"

Everyone reading here-

Please make a mental note that

MISCHKA IS A LIAR. SHE"S JUST MAKING THINGS UP TO DEFEND ISLAM INSTEAD OF SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH. DON"T TRUST ANYTHING SHE CLAIMS POSTS. TRUTH MATTERS. CHECK IT OUT:

Here's the truth-

"What is the current divorce rate in America?
It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to actual. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that "Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue.", which is actually a projection.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce."

http://www.divorcerate.org/

Jihadis will assuredly target the one hundred fifty years plus Dar-ul-Uloom Seminary in Deoband, India, for their attempts to delink Islam from violence. The Times of India (ToI) link is:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Muslim_clerics_declare_terror_un-slamic/articleshow/2813375.cms

Does anybody fathom to probe, why, if there are isolated groups of Muslims who want to promote peace, communal harmony, their efforts fail or are doomed to failure like that of the reformer Sir Syed Ahmed Khan ? Someone wrote that Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik are trying the same. But, why are their efforts failing or has produced no impact with the Jihadists ?

I believe that Islam being violent and intolerant to its core, presents unsurmountable obstacles for those sane and rational Muslims who want to delink Islam and present a progressive plan for its superior evolution. It is the problem with the dogma: Quranic strictures such as Quran[009:029],[004:095],[009:005],[047:004],[005:033] etc., and their likes that pose the severest of all headaches.

Deb and Suzanne -

Here in America - IF you even live in America - you would know that you have dog lovers and people who just dont like dogs. Not everyone is a dog lover you buffoon. My advice to you is seriously consider who you are TRYING to ally yourself with - a murderer. A gender-troubled moron who wants to kill Muslims simply because we are Muslim. He deserves to be called every low and vile word in every language.

Deb - grow up would you? Are you a man? Do you have anything close to courage? Or are these sniveling little asinine come backs all you have got?

"Well, Suzanne has the best description for you and your ilk: PIG (P-erverted I-slamic G-rowth)."

I dont want to post my description for you here. It might reduce you to tears to know what you really are worth.

"However, you don't sound credulous. You must have problems in your marriage. This gorilla bragging shows such. If your marriage was happy you wouldn't be fishing around for jollies on this and other forums."

ON the contrary - YOU were the one who brought up my marriage for some odd reason. It seems a little odd that you would attack my marriage out of the blue like that. But then again - it doesnt - you are after all a vile and putrid thing and that is to be expected from you. A single, lonely, jealous and depressed little man who has never had a steady relationship and never will. Did you just get dumped for the millionth time? Are you SO pathetic now that you need to go out of your way to find a problem with other people? Lowly, miserable coward. Anyway, you see me on these boards if Im at work or working at home. Thats it. Its you who is posting here every five minutes and shows the world you have NO life - forget a social circle. People hate you and you know it. Scumbag.

"Your marriage could get "talaqued" - its that unstable. That's a very common Muslim phenomenon. All would it take is to up the ante."

Is that supposed to scare me? It doesnt. Talaq means divorce. Every marriage is a risk. ***65% of all marriages in America end up in divorce*** What is your point Scumbag? Are you not allowed to get a divorce if you want in your cult? Why would you want to force someone to be with you who doesnt? If there is a day when he doesnt want to be married - let him go. If there is a day when I dont want to be married to him - I will go. I would ask for a Khula. Simple. Why would you drag it out and make life worse for both people??? Who cares for that kind of a life?

I am assuming you are with someone who doesnt want to be with you (surprise surprise)...let them go. You will be much happier Deb.

OH and my sympathies for your break-up...its pretty obvious that you have just been dumped...

KUDOS to the man/woman who is better off!

Stupidity of US foreign policy is always the main reason for disaster. US has gleefully alloweed diplomatic recognition of Kosovo. Well, if US Muslims where they have ghettoed, and are in numerical majority claim a Muslim majority state will US Govt. keep quiet ? By recognizing Kosovo as an independent country, implicitly, US has recognized the supremacy if the Shariah laws. This can work against all other secular countries and including USA. Already Kashniri separatists are emboldened and empowered by the Kosovo liberation. The full news is at the Pakistan's Daily Dawn Newspaper:

http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/24/top9.htm

The recent elections in Pakistan, a hotbed of radical Islam, elects Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari parties. However, according to ToI these parties have support from the militant groups and does not exercise tight control.

The Indian sleuths (dhotiwallahs) fear that now the intelligence is that these groups work in tandem and often cooperate. This could destabilize the subcontinent, and its ripples may spread globally. USA can get affected, due to its significant FDI and BPO in the IT sector in India.

The bad news is available at the ToI link:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Joint_ops_by_Pak_terror_groups_worry_India/articleshow/2810526.cms

This Koranic fascination of micro-managing the lives of Muslims in order to make them so pious and holy is not working because it is based on a stupid concept. There is no way, anyone can legislate morality. Forget the Koran, even God cannot (rather does not) interfere in the exercise of our free will. The only caveat is--exercise your free will but be prepared to reap the consequences of your actions. This whole cycle --free will, action, consequences or karma is on autopilot. And this climb out of the moral rut, like our inner struggle to rectify our human flaws, is a slow painstaking process. The sharia is not only barbaric, it is a based on a stupid concept. We as human beings must do everything in our power to eradicate sharia from every civilized nation on earth.

Suzanne,

Thank you for your support and kind words. Well, all I need to state is that I am not offended or troubled by such scurrilous epithets. I know what I am supposed to do, and hence I do not suffer from the problem of fragile identity. Many however do. They get sensitive and offended. But, with such barbaric attitudes, one needs to be resolute. That's what I am trying to hold onto.

Anyway, I would suggest that if you really want to know about Islam [Quran, Sunnah, Shariah, Jihad, Hadiths] a very authentic source on the Internet is the University of Southern California Muslim Student Association website.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

This site contains a very good compilation, but of the Jammat-i-Islam variety. It does not whitewash Islamic interpretatioins in order to make Islam look nice. What Muslims here and on similar blogs try to do is to paint a very nice picture of Islam, which just contradicts with what we read and hear in the major news outlets.

In addition I would recommend the following website of Dr. Ali Sina

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

The above two links have been cited by Sam Harris in his bestseller book: END OF REASON ...

Chapter 4 of Sam Harris's book makes it clear why Islam can be reckoned as a barbaric religion.

Thanks again to you and others for support.

"You really think MY married life could be screwed up? If you knew me and my husband - you would know how wrong you are. We are an awesome couple and will stay that way. Call me egotistical - but I got one of the few good ones and I am happy. OH and now you have him laughing at you too!"

:-). Well, Suzanne has the best description for you and your ilk: PIG (P-erverted I-slamic G-rowth). However, you don't sound credulous. You must have problems in your marriage. This gorilla bragging shows such. If your marriage was happy you wouldn't be fishing around for jollies on this and other forums. Your marriage could get "talaqued" - its that unstable. That's a very common Muslim phenomenon. All would it take is to up the ante.

"Anyway, you can take your jealousy and put it where the sun doesnt shine...lol"

Yes, Quran was first revealed in a place where the sun didn't shine. You have shown affinity for such dark places and you may have and seen them in plenty. What's more ?

Don't mess around; you might get caught and repent.

Well, guess what ? This is my last rebuttal to your infantile chest-beating.

Get a life !

Deb-

Thank you for your posts here. They are very informative to me and the other people who read here who have very little knowledge of Islam or Muslims.

I am sorry you have to take so much verbal abuse from the Muslim posters. Just consider it an affirmation that you have scored points by revealing the truth and they have no way to counter but call names.

I know I speak for dog lovers when I say Mischka calling you a dog is over the top. In America- we love our dogs. I own two and they are the most loving and loyal companions. So she has mistakenly given you a high compliment- that all American dog owners will recognise.

Thank you again.

Mischka-

I had read on this board how Muhammed had a hatred for dogs. Dog owners can be arrested in Saudi for walking their dogs (sharia law again).

Your post affirms that "dog hatred". As a person born in America- you should know that will never sell here. We are animal lovers in general and dog lovers in particular.

How ugly and hateful of you to use such degrading language against a human and dogs. You only degrade yourself to the reader's here.

I would close by saying-

YOU ARE A PIG

But pigs are actually loving and intelligent- and you obviously aren't..

About Deb -

A bitter, racist and bigoted non-Muslim whose knowledge is limited to his/her own imagination - is not a good source of information for anyone. His loyalties are to NO ONE. He lives in the slums and still dreams of India.

You people want to know about Sharia - look at the Qur'an. The Qur'an is the holy book of the Muslims. My question is that if I have a book that I was given as my 411 for all my questions...what good is it if I am still asking other people for answers?

You are the one in need of help Deblubber - you like that dont you? Sicko.

Anyway - the idiot wrote below -

"Mischka, your ignorance has been exposed. I would speculate that your married life, you stated you are married, is indeed screwed up. Get some medical help."

Hmmm...this is coming from a gender confused terrorist who is trying to kill American Muslims. LOL! This nasty little pervert is a joke! WHATS WORSE IS THAT HE IS NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN!!!!!!!

You really think MY married life could be screwed up? If you knew me and my husband - you would know how wrong you are. We are an awesome couple and will stay that way. Call me egotistical - but I got one of the few good ones and I am happy. OH and now you have him laughing at you too! Anyway, you can take your jealousy and put it where the sun doesnt shine...lol

My ignorant, ugly, mangy little mutt - you are the one in need of medical help and you KNOW it all too well. You are jealous. Thats all it is. You are probably as lonely as the rest of your kin at the dog pound. I suggest you join them and even though you sound VERY desperate for attention - try not to reproduce. It would be a curse on humanity to see what comes out of you. Nothing but more ugly mangy rats to deal with and find homes for...we are having a hard enough time finding a place for you. We certainly dont want to be responsible for your dirty litter.

God rid us of this filthy dog.

Dave provides an opportunity to refute misconceptions.

since you find islam ridiculous dave- it is unlikely that you would go to an islamic arbiter for any reconciliation.

so, it would not affect your life if others chose to utilize some service of their own volition.

since they deal primarily with social issues- bodily emissions, while distasteful -would not fall under any category one could think of.

your statement-
"This entire legislative approach to morality is dumb. I had a running debate with Victoria sometime back. She does not see it either. And neither do any Muslims for that matter--the simple fact that you cannot attain morality or character through legislation."

possibly you have forgotten what our debate was about- but leglislating morality (or my assumed {incorrectly} support of such a concept) was not one of our discussions-

however- since it's pertinent to this topic-
if muslims decide to use mediators from a sharia standpoint, one would assume that they do have some degree of self determination in deciding their own fates- (as do all americans)

so, again- it would not be affecting you, nor really your decision to control what others choose to do, or in what fashion they choose to do it.

but it is all moot anyway- as the discussion is about england- and to my knowledge- no one has petitioned the american legal system for such inclusion at this point.

but it's an emotionally evocative word for some, especially when paired with the USA- so i assume quinn and meacham wanted to create some conflict as that seems to be their modus operandi as journalsits.

you are most welcome wiccan-
peace all

Harold:

You comment on farting and the Sharia is an excellent one. The Sharia may actually condemn someone to be stoned because of farting. I would not be surprised.

I find the entire Muslim/Koranic philosophy to be so ridiculous as be worthy of the butt of jokes world-wide. But the skins of mullahs are so think they don't get it.

This entire legislative approach to morality is dumb. I had a running debate with Victoria sometime back. She does not see it either. And neither do any Muslims for that matter--the simple fact that you cannot attain morality or character through legislation. Do this, don't do this (otherwise you will be flogged or stoned or your hand will be cut off). Dumb philosophy leading to a dumb outlook on life. This "God" through a supposedly religious book is attempting to control peoples' lives and make them more holy. But this philosophy is exactly having the opposite effect--making Muslims more bloody-minded against the whole world, more and more narrow-minded and insular, and more and more "holier-then-thou" in their attitude. These fellows think they are so holy that the rest of world in their view is corrupt and degenerate.

But you will never find a more intolerant people like Muslims, a people who have an extremely poor track record of granting non-Muslims freedom of their right to practice religion. Muslims tend to be defenders of everything Muslim and Islamic, and vehemently opposed to anyone trying to capture "heroes" like Osama and the Taliban. What a contradition.

And none of them question anything. The entire Koran is God's word it seems. It is a hopeless situation even if sharia turns out to be somewhat tolerant of farting.

Victoria,

Thank you for your reply and your kind words. I thought there might be a middle way through the extremes posted here. Blessed Be.

Moody,

Your use of "homo" defames yourself, not the people you hurl it at. There are better ways to argue your point.

"Sharia is NOT *Islamic Law*. If it were a law - it would come straight from the Qur'an. Since it doesnt, it isnt."

Well, that's a misleading baloney. The USC-MSA has the following information:

" The Arabic word shari`ah refers to the laws and way of life prescribed by Allah (SWT) for his servants. The shari`ah deals with the ideology and faith; behavior and manners; and practical daily matters. "To each among you, we have prescribed a law and a clear way. (Qur 'an 5:48) Shari`ah includes the Qur'an and the sunnah of the Prophet (saas)."

This quote from USC-MSA, who I think is more credible than your blabber, directly contradicts what you haved written about Shariah not being from Quran. Shariah is not a revelation, but it is a legal system and is "derived" from the Quran. Hence it is Allah's law, and by that extension it is divine.

The link is:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/shariahintroduction.html

Mischka, your ignorance has been exposed. I would speculate that your married life, you stated you are married, is indeed screwed up. Get some medical help.

Do they have a penalty for farting too. I think stoning would probably be appropriate depending on how long the sound lasts.

SAUDI MEN ARRESTED FOR "FLIRTING"

ANY RELATIONS BETWEEN THE SEXES OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS AGAINST THE LAW:

Prosecutors in Saudi Arabia have begun investigating 57 young men who were arrested on Thursday for flirting with girls at shopping centres in Mecca.

The men are accused of wearing indecent clothes, playing loud music and dancing in order to attract the attention of girls, the Saudi Gazette reported.

They were arrested following a request of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

The mutaween enforce Saudi Arabia's conservative brand of Islam, Wahhabism.

Earlier in the month, the authorities enforced a ban on the sale of red roses and other symbols used in many countries to mark Valentine's Day.

The ban is partly because of the connection with a "pagan Christian holiday", and also because the festival itself is seen as encouraging relations between the sexes outside marriage, punishable by law in the kingdom.

The Prosecution and Investigation Commission said it had received reports of such "bad" behaviour by 57 young men at a number of shopping centres in the holy city of Mecca, the Saudi Gazette said.

The guardians of some of the men defended their actions, however, saying they would regularly get together on the weekend to have fun without ever violating laws governing the segregation of the sexes, it added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7260314.stm

FROM THE VANCOUVER SUN:

Re: It's possible that Shariah courts have a place here-

Douglas Todd writes that the belief that a multicultural society is socially divisive verges on being "shocking." Shocking perhaps to him, but not to me, and I would suggest, to many other Canadians, very few of whom are "hysterical," "Islamophobic" or "dumbed down."

I would suggest that we are concerned that multiculturalism is being used as a cloak to cover the nurturing of decidedly un-Canadian values as embodied in Shariah law.

The Archbishop of Canterbury ignited a firestorm by saying Shariah law would likely be adopted in Britain.

It is true that other religions have had their own courts for many years, but what Todd ignores is that those religions are content for their judicial decisions to be wholly within and subservient to Canadian law. The people advocating Shariah have no interest in democracy or civilization. Their beliefs are rooted in the primitive misogyny of the seventh century. Any official recognition of Shariah law would be viewed by its advocates as a step towards their ultimate goal of legal ascendency over us all.

That nightmare scenario is only "inevitable" if the views of people like Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Todd are given any credence. Hopefully, in this instance, they will receive the disdain and rejection they deserve.

John Plummer

New Westminster

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web sites:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp
6-www.justaskislam.com/index.php (on this site you will get answer of every question you have and ask with in a day or by next day - IT’S A CHALLENGE)

No need to find, waste time or energy!

JUST ASK ISLAM at below web site.

And you will get answer of EVERY question you have.
DON'T FALL PRAY TO THE MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE TWISTED EVIL MEANINGS:

1-www.justaskislam.com/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=26

Every question you will get answer same day or maximum by next day!

hi wiccan-
ive stayed away for the very reason you state-

good question-
1) because you are a reasonable poster here- never descending to ugliness and always with a very understanding nature-
so ill assume your intentions are very good, as theyve been so in the past-

(also, im hanafi (an islamic school of thought) and am personally compelled to always look for the good intentions in peoples hearts first-

2) it brings to light an understanding (for me) of why people are so opposed to sharia, without knowing what it is.

first-
the question was based on a response to the archbishop in england- about a model of sharia law there-

quinn and meachem threw in the US aspect- i guess to generate conflict which is a tactic they seem to fall back on mostly in their questions-

personally- i find it kind of intellectually lazy- but it keeps people coming to their blog so i guess it works for their careers-
(ive suggested many questions geared more to conflict resolution myself- but it is not as sensational- also it requirres a great deal more thought and intelligence and effort)

the assumption is that muslims find sharia superior to or preferable to civil law.

current laws are not superceded by te model in britain-

no one that i know has suggested an overthrow of- or replacement of our justice system except a few nuts in the extreme and a few nutty accusers in the other extreme-

lets forget about them for now-
theyre positions are boringly predictable.

it is the implementation of sharia as a tool for mediation and arbitration

one example (please, im no scholar- this is simply an idea i had) i can give is that in islamic business dealings- 2 witnesses are required who can be recalled to verify all contracts and transactions.

this is how i operate al the time, and its a bother- and even most muslims dont want to go to the trouble-
but even being awareof the witnesses seems to keep deals straighter- as they encourage accountibility.

imagine if this were adopted in all business deals in america- all of the nuisance litigation that would disappear-

for family law and social matters- its hard to imagine an american judge demanding that a husband and wife go to reconciliation arbitration before deciding on the finality of their divorce, or ordering a husband to pay up his entire maher (a gift to the wife by the husband, agreed upon contractually at the entrance to the marriage, and without which the marriage is not considered valid)

but alot of guy dont pay in a timely fashion-

also the husband has to support the wife for 3 months after the divorce is finalized to help her get on her feet-

yes- it does seem kind of unfair from the man's perspective, doesnt it?

criminal law isnt an issue, as it is not generally decided by islamic courts-

the setup in england is that if the law of england decides a decision made is unreasonable- it is not to be followed.

but the big difference is that these cases are voluntarily entered upon by the parties involved.

and are a finer tool for arbitrating decision where some of the subtleties may not be recognized or even known by civil courts.

the jewish people have utuilized the BETH DIN system in britain for some time.

these decisions do not overule, supercede or have any primacy or take precedence over existing laws.

i think its pretty important that is understood.

actually- since the archbishop has made his comment-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law," he said. "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

Reasonable and considered sentiments, until Williams added that some aspect of sharia in Britain "seems unavoidable." For the tabloids and the Anglican church, those were fighting words. Calls have been made for the Archbishop to resign from within and outside the Church (he has refused) and the story has remained front page news ever since. Considering the latent (and occasionally explicit) hostility, it is ironic that British Muslims didn't bring this subject up in the first place.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

muslim blogs, which i frequent- are all abuzz with it- and ive learned alot about it when i had no real knowledge or interest before-

so- when people hear the word 'sharia'- they automatically conjure up images of judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.

what has been played out in england has been marriage, divorce, and business decisions-
the criminal cases deferred to the criminal courts-

well- i hope my poor attmept has brouhgt a bit of sense-

most muslims in britain (for example, and canada too) are actually more vociferous in their condemnation of and disassociation with sharia law than many in the general non-muslim population-

just being a muslim, on these boards-
is reason enough to be suspect here-
but, i amsk what i amsk and that's all that i amsk.

peace of the god to you and blessed be your path

Reader -

Again with the stupidity - I am losing patience and dont have the kind of time you people do. I DO have a life and repeating myself is a waste of my time.

Sharia is NOT *Islamic Law*. If it were a law - it would come straight from the Qur'an. Since it doesnt, it isnt. To put it bluntly - governments following their interpretations of Sharia are NOT necessarily Islamic. Its a system, not a law. Just like you have systems in America and all over the world. If you are going to argue with me - get it right.

"Insolent= Presumptuous and insulting in manner or speech; arrogant. Audaciously rude or disrespectful; impertinent."

I am arrogant, insulting, audaciously rude, disrespectful to murderers and terrorists like Deborah Chatterjee and religious bigots who are out to hurt Muslims. My family and friends consist of Muslims and non-Muslims. You want me to smile while you plot of ways to hurt me??? Deb is planning his own version of the Holocaust in America and you want to join him. Is that supposed to make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside???

"Impudent= Characterized by offensive boldness; insolent or impertinent. Shameless.Obsolete. Immodest."

I am completely shameless in insulting a murderer and terrorist like Deb. I am also perfectly willing to be as offensive as posssible to him.

According to Deb - hate speech is okay - thats why I love giving him a dose of his medicine. You should ask that nutcase and see all of his posts under Islam and Violence...how hateful he is. I started out being very nice to him but soon found it to be useless because he is a mentally ill individual. I THINK he also admitted it on one of the posts - you should check that out too.

He is beneath decent people and after he called for the killing of American Muslims - he became nothing more then a perverted and grotesque looking mutt.

Hate Crimes are against the law in America.

Hatred is the law under Sharia- and if you have practices or beliefs that Muslims are taught to hate- you will pay with your life.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article3432260.ece

Wiccan wrote:

"I have read all these posts, and it's all people screaming past each other, not talking, not communicating. I was hoping to find out why some people would prefer Sharia to our civil and secular laws. That's all, and not one post has addressed this. But if I'm patient, maybe someone will."

Try reading the extreme (literalist/fundamengtalist) interpretation of Shariah/Islam in the two following books:

1. Maulana Syed Abul Ala Maududi, JIHAD IN ISLAM.

2. Sayyid Qutb, MILESTONES.

These should not be hard to locate in the local public library nearest you. These two concern the non-Muslims most.

Reader, I am well aware of the abuses Saudi Arabia commits in the name of Islam, and I do not condone them, because these abuses violate the law "Harm None". But I was asking what elements of Sharia law would be an improvement on Western civil law. I have read all these posts, and it's all people screaming past each other, not talking, not communicating. I was hoping to find out why some people would prefer Sharia to our civil and secular laws. That's all, and not one post has addressed this. But if I'm patient, maybe someone will.

Smarty mouth means

INSOLENT and IMPUDENT

ie: "if you dont like what I have to say - leave."

Insolent= Presumptuous and insulting in manner or speech; arrogant. Audaciously rude or disrespectful; impertinent.

Impudent= Characterized by offensive boldness; insolent or impertinent. Shameless.Obsolete. Immodest.

Mischka is an example of the confusion and contempt that the dictates of Islam breeds.

Wiccan -

I have never advocated Sharia law on these blogs ever. Why? Because a VERY small part of Sharia is actually based on the Quran.

Sharia can be considered a system but I dont think its really Islamic law because more then half of it does not come from the Quran and that is what a law would be based on.

Also Reader -

If you think you have found a kindred spirit in Deb - dont be a fool. He could just as easily turn on you as easily he turned on his own in India.

Deborah - lol

Do what you have to do Debby - you wont get anywhere. How do I know this? Because your arguments are warmongering and will never see light. :-) Americans are sick of war, anyone who advocates war and absolutely DONE with religious terrorism. Ask the people who are ACTUALLY fighting these wars and then go off with your nasty mouth about persecuting Muslims.

Reader - you are right - if Wiccan was in Saudi - he would probably have to deal with a lot of hatred. Im not so sure about the death sentence just because he is not a Muslim. But I know life would be hard for him. Muslim countries are FAR from perfect and I have never defended their harsh or extreme actions.

You seem to think that I am defending Saudi Arabia and terrorism here. That would be a mistake. I have tried to clarify misconceptions about Muslims and Islam...things that people "think" are true but are not. I have not advocated Sharia law here - ever.

That is why Deb seems to be such a nuisance and a waste of life. He seems to be desperately looking for friends - never to find any.

Actually, Reader, I agree with your position that it is pointless to argue on this thread. Muslims, who post here seem to have this dysfunctional 'rectal-cranial inversion'. In your words "...got a smarty mouth and her butt on her shoulders.", which is similar to how I have characterized.

In reality we (Shariah haters) should cohesively work on the excellent forums such as WP, to advance the compelling argument, with facts, that ISLAM IS A BARBARIC RELIGION.

I hope Wiccan knows- if she/he were in Saudi and was caught practicing the Wiccan beliefs- she/he would be tried by the religious police and sentenced to death..

Reader -

"If Mischka wants to advocate for Shariah- she should go live for several years in a country under Shariah law. Then she will be qualified to speak to us about the glories of Islamic law.

She seems to be a young person (at least in thought) and raised in the USA by Muslim parents. She's got a smarty mouth and her butt on her shoulders. But the other Muslim posters seem to be the same, so maybe that's the fallback for having no argument."

Where do you see in my posts that I am advocating Sharia law?

If you are going to post - at least prove to us that you have more then a 3rd grader's wits.

There arent many posters here - so why dont you point out who else is a "smarty mouth" (what the heck is that?) since you seem to have all the answers.

Also, if you dont like what I have to say - leave.

Deb Chatterjee -

Stop acting like the idiot mule you are and get on with your life. Nothing you say makes a difference to anyone. I think we have done our duty by you by letting you into the USA. Now, why cant you behave like a human being and not like a mutt foaming at the mouth all the time??? The least you can do is be respectful towards the citizens that let you in.

This monster wants to have his cake and eat it too. Lets look at Deb's demands from the USA:

He/she wants the USA to grant him entrance into this country.

He/she wants to go to his country to visit and be able to come back here too.

He/she wants to eat the food here, wear the clothes, shop, etc.

He/she wants to be treated just like the citizens of the USA.

He/she is NOT a Christian.

He/she is NOT a Jew.

He/she is NOT a Muslim.

He/she wants to be treated better then any of the above and also wants to slaughter ALL American Muslims in the process.

He/she does not want to respect ANY other law in the Constitution EXCEPT the first amendment because it allows him to vomit as he wishes.

He/she does not wish to respect any of our rights to pursue our lives the way we wish - he wants to put an end to being able to choose to be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

How? Simple. According to this sick, perverted and black hearted monster - we deport anyone who is Muslim or kill them in cold blood.

These and MUCH more are the demands that immigrants like Deb are making of our government. Now, we have to filter out people according to religion. Isnt this the very foundation of America? Religious freedom?

Yet...here he is...urging us to fight another religion based war when the world has seen enough of it and HE certainly WONT be the one fighting it. It WONT be his son or daughter - it will be OURS.

People like Deb are poisonous and should not only be deported but spend their lives in prison for trying to kill our future. Instead of a solution, this murderer wants more bloodshed.

If Mischka wants to advocate for Shariah- she should go live for several years in a country under Shariah law. Then she will be qualified to speak to us about the glories of Islamic law.

She seems to be a young person (at least in thought) and raised in the USA by Muslim parents. She's got a smarty mouth and her butt on her shoulders. But the other Muslim posters seem to be the same, so maybe that's the fallback for having no argument.

In other words- she speaks like she has no experience of the dangers of true Islam- like the poor American-raised "Muslim" girl who ran afoul of the Saudi religious police by having the audacity to go out for coffee at Starbucks with a male co-worker. She's on anti-anxiety drugs now and being treated for PTSD. She's lucky she was not beaten. All she really had to do was sign a forced confession. She was naive and it must have made her realise how little she knows of Islam.

Mischka should be thankful she's an American and hope she never has to live under Shariah Law.

Thank you for your viewpoint, Mr. Chatterjee. But I would really like to read Mischka's response.

Wiccan wrote:

"What aspects of Sharia law are superior to Western civil law? To you, what is lacking in Western civil law that could be improved by Sharia?"

Nothing is lacking in Western civil law. If you are truly a "Wiccan" (pagan) you would be slaughtered in Islamic laws, as the whole objective of Islam is to eliminate paganism, and if necessary by most bestial/brutal methods. So, you (if you are of true Wiccan beliefs and practices) would be a casualty if Sharia flourishes in USA/West. From Sharia's point of view Western civil laws are too lax allowing paganism (idol worship etc. and Wiccan faiths) to get equal respect as that of other faiths. Islam boils with hatred for such permissiveness in Western civil/secular laws.

Declare that ISLAM IS A BARBARIC RELIGION.

Mischka, perhaps you are the one who can answer this. What aspects of Sharia law are superior to Western civil law? To you, what is lacking in Western civil law that could be improved by Sharia?

I have no axe to grind, and am asking with respect. Thank you for your time.

Deb -

Coming from you - thats almost funny. You are the supreme EXAMPLE of "pedestrian stupidity". Nut case.

Like I said - majority of us have encountered each other before.

Deb has actually called for the killing of Muslims multiple times on the blogs. Agreeing with this wierdo is like agreeing with OBL. Deb is desperately groping for a friend right now and you seem to be it! Congratulations!

You want me to be civil to someone who wants to shoot my family and friends? I cannot do that. You want me to be nice to someone who is an immigrant but wants to kill other immigrants? I cannot do that.

Ive met this buffoon before by the name of Deb Chatterjee. He is nothing more then an outcast looking for some place he can call home. He has no home and for some odd reason he is territorial over the USA when he is not even an American!

He has called my comments shameful - you should see the disgusting posts this idiot has written.

So YES, when I come across bloodthirsty hounds like Deb - I WILL lash out at him. When I come across a warmongering terrorist like Deb - I WILL retaliate. Because he doesnt deserve to be on American soil. Why doesnt he deserve to be here? Because he does NOT have the best interest of America at heart.

His family kicked him in the gut because they knew him so well - why shouldnt I? He is obviously suffering from some sort of mental illness and depressed. However, that doesnt make me sympathetic towards him.

Its like asking me to be nice to my attacker. Why would I do that?

Should US law accomadate Shariah law. The answer is no. Should UK law because the Bishop said it "must". If Americans intended to keep being dictated to by the Anglican Church or the Catholic Curch they wouldn't have come to America.

Reader,

I agree with you wholeheartedly with the contents of your post on February 21, 2008 12:37 PM . I have seldom (almost never) responded to this character's posts and rebuttals. The posts and rebuttals from this username reflect what is euphemistically known as intellectual 'self-gratification'. But this character does not realize the shamefully ludicrous and asinine contents in the said posts. The posts and rebuttals are an ultimate expression of pedestrian stupidity.

Ignore, and move on. Dogs always bark and are a necessary nuisance, but barking is their 1st Amendment Right (Freedom of [Canine] Expression) as long these creatures are predictably born in the USA.

Hey Reader -

If you dont like it - stop reading.

First - Your post wasnt exactly dripping with honey so I dont feel the need to take into consideration.

Second - Im sure you just joined or started reading these blogs while some of us have been here for a little longer and therefore have encountered each other before.

You may not understand this - and I dont care.

Would someone tell the poster "Mischka" that her posts do a wonderful job of convincing readers that all Muslim women are spiteful, cranky kooks.

Her posts are littered with put-downs and shallow thinking- not the stuff of an argument that provokes thought and changes minds.

The posters she opposes are asking simple questions of her. She might try a simple answer and stop responding with obfuscation and a btchy attitude.

Some Truth -

"THERE IS NO BRUTAL STATE INTERVENSION in family marriage constitution in any Islamic society"

***That is possibly half true. Fathers, brothers and male relatives usually take care of the honor killings. The State merely turns a blind eye."

You deviated from the question - the question was about Islam and Sharia - you are speaking of Middle Eastern culture. Middle Eastern culture might actually practice that but it has no religious value or significance. These are tribal laws - not Islamic laws. In fact, according to Hadith, the Prophet (pbuh) despised anyone who practiced honor killings and victimized women.

"Almost 100% in Muslim society Male and female relations are with marriage."

Is that bad? I dont think marriage is a bad thing - you might be anti-marriage - Islam is not. So what if Muslims are choosing to have relations as a married couple? Every religion recognizes marriage as an official bond between man and woman. Dating is not recognized by any religion...its a modern concept.

"Unless, it is a marriage for convenience which lasts one night."

Mutah-Nikah is the proper name for what you refer to and it has been deemed Haraam (forbidden) by the Prophet (pbuh). Those who choose to practice it are committing a crime.

"Women have the right to earn under any circumstance in SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT"

The Muslim woman has been given the right to earn money, the right to own property, to enter into legal contracts and to manage all of her assets in any way she pleases. She can hold a job or run her own business and no one has any claim on her earnings including her husband.

"Unless a man from her family, or religious police forbid her. Who determines a suitable environment?"

Stupid allegations are just that - stupid.

"end up in EVER LASTING MARRIAGE"

Something wrong with that?

"Unless he says I divorce you and throws her out. The she has very few rights or protections."

Prove it -

"Divorced women should receive maintenance given with correctness and courtesy: a duty for all who are righteous." (Surat al-Baqara: 241)

"[4:35] If a couple fears separation, you shall appoint an arbitrator from his family and an arbitrator from her family; if they decide to reconcile, GOD will help them get together."

"[33:49] O you who believe, if you married believing women, then divorced them before having intercourse with them, they do not owe you any waiting interim (before marrying another man). You shall compensate them equitably, and let them go amicably."

Throws her out? A woman can divorce just as easily as man - she could throw him out too.

Then there is the fact that her testimony in court does not equal that of a man"

Men and women are equal in Islam - how does the above make sense if that is true?

"the fact that she is the property of her husband or father"

Prove ownership of women - there is no such thing in Islam or the Quran. The men are not treated like owners - women are not treated like cattle. The men have a responsibility to protect and provide for the women - its not a right - its a responsibility to make sure every single comfort is addressed and taken care of. The women have a responsibility to appreciate her husband's efforts and maintain a good home. This is not news to you! You see it all around you in America - why is it so hard to swallow if Islam reinforces it? Ever hear of a stay-at-home mom? Thats what this is! Your problem is the fact that its written in Arabic and not English - thats it.

"the fact that Muslim men are so terrified of female sexuality that she has to wear a burka."

Nope - not so much. They are not terrified - they are being practical. Women are beautiful and attractive - there is nothing wrong with modesty so that one does not exploit women. You see it all over the world - hijab and burqa is for the woman - not for the man. Its to help her realize her worth and that she is not an object only to be gawked at.

"Then if she were to get raped by Muslim men, she might be senenced to lashes."

This a gross misunderstanding of our law. Like any civil law in the civilized world, Quran urges a proof beyond doubt for such a horrendous crime. Quran accepts a proof of a crime if the proof is beyond doubt.

"Please, with all respect, this is America. We are not impressed."

I live in America too...born and bred here...got a blue passport and everything...I am not impressed with your lack of knowledge, education and common sense. Your post was full of holes and covered no solid ground. Something is wrong with our school system if you are an example of what we are producing...

Deb decides to blubber yet again -

"The Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is reported in a hadith that those Muslims who are befallen with yellow fever shall ultimately be ostracized from the Muslim society because only when believers (Muslims) are possessed by evil spirits, then their body turns yellowish and they are also possessed by the fixation on the yellow color."

Oh my God - is this buffoon really alive? There is NO hadith like that because if there were - Debbo would have posted it here. What an evil and demonic mind this person must have to just make up stories like that. I bet this loser is being treated for depression and has been on medication for it as well.

This is why you are alone Deb - you have no family, no friends, no support, no love, no one wants you, no one likes you, no one cares for your hateful and disgusting ideas, you are considered a bigot in every circle you might be allowed in, you disgust me. There is a reason you will always be alone - your heart is black and and sick - nothing can help you. And guess what? No one wants to.

Your ideas are just like your existence: worthless.

The Prophet (pbuh) never said any such thing - he did however, prescribe medication for such illnesses. There is NO record of him ever saying anything negative about jaundice aside from prescribing medication.

Sharia law in the West? Just keep voting Republican here in the States, and we will have the same thing -- 13th Century laws and a thorough mixing of church and state. We have American Taliban here in the US, and their name is G O P!!!!

If this is the end product of allowing Islamic law to be practiced in Britain- NO NO NO!

APOSTASY TRIAL-MALAYSIA

The Syariah High Court here set March 3 to decide the fate of Kamariah Ali, an ex-religious teacher and follower of defunct religious sect Sky Kingdom, who was charged with declaring herself an apostate.

Judge Muhammad Abdullah asked the accused to submit a declaration to the court that she has repented and not participated in any form of Sky Kingdom's or any other deviant teachings.

Kamariah, a graduate of Al-Azhar University was charged under Section 7 of the Syariah Criminal Offence Enactment (Takzir) Terengganu 2001 after she declared herself an apostate on July 21, 2005.

She could be fined RM5, 000 or jailed three years or both if convicted.

Her counsel Sa’diah Din in her mitigation asked the court to her consider client’s plea as she had not committed any other civil offences and she was a widow with four children.

Prosecuting officer Mustafar Hamzah asked the court to mete out a severe sentence as her case was of public interest and could affect the faith of other Muslims in Malaysia.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/2/17/nation/20080217180039&sec=nation

LMAO wrote:

"But why would it be yellow? Do you have a bad diet?"

Moody is probably suffering from "yellow fever" aka jaundice. The Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is reported in a hadith that those Muslims who are befallen with yellow fever shall ultimately be ostracized from the Muslim society because only when believers (Muslims) are possessed by evil spirits, then their body turns yellowish and they are also possessed by the fixation on the yellow color.

I pray that Allah have mercy on Moody !

"You are right that a lot of western countries right now are more diverse. How come they are migrating to western countries? Is it because they are trying to escape that kind of law."

Eric:

They immigrate to the free nation with a purpose.

A british reporter spent several months going into his local mosques with a hidden camera and filming what he saw and heard. So take a look, hear it from the imams mouth and decide for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bsgnjfgvi8

Talk about being Bred, Born and Brainwashed by Islam!!! Moody et al need some real help and help is here with the Five Step Method to Deprogram/"Deflaw" 1400 years of Islamic mumbo jumbo.

Are you ready?

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

Moody

You seem to know a lot about that stuff...

But why would it be yellow? Do you have a bad diet?

I am really curious now...

LMAO,

In below post

YELLOW stands for "Yellowish creamy middle but stuck homo brains"

&

YELLOW INQUIRY stands for

"Yellowish creamy middle but stuck homo brains INQUIRY".

Clear now!!

And I'm not trying to insult, I'm trying to REVEAL!

If you don't belong to THE HOMO'S then better try not to act like one and try to communicate like normal humans, IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU?

Moody

What do you mean by yellow? Sorry, I don't understand your insult. Could you please explain?

LMAO,
CCNL,
ESPECIALLY A. KAFIR,
SOME TRUTH,
And ALL like wise others,

Denying LIES is not necessary, it give them unnecessary weightage.

Yellowish creamy middle but stuck homo brains want response to there every YELLOW INQUIRY?

You won't find or able to understand any thing in the yellow slimy hole, until you try to get out and honestly try to get ride of the (Medically Proven) bad habit by CHOICE.

LMAO,
CCNL,
ESPECIALLY A. KAFIR,
SOME TRUTH,
And ALL like wise others,

Denying LIES is not necessary, it give them unnecessary weightage.

Yellowish creamy middle but stuck homo brains want response to there every YELLOW INQUIRY?

You won't find or able to understand any thing in the yellow slimy whole, until you try to get out and honestly try to get ride of the (Medically Proven)bad habit of BY CHOICE.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

I checked your referenced sites and could find no counter points to the basic flaws in Islam i.e.

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Aww shucks, my friend MOODY is back....

Moody moody, moody,

Still trying...

You did not recognize that Michelle's questions were rhetorical.

An American Woman was just telling you where to shove your Sharia! Women get to say things like that here! You are so confused by it, you didn't even see it.

It seems Mr. Some truth just kicked your lying bottom. How about you deny what he said is true?

Seriously, get a life!

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web site:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp

Moody,

You must be kidding.... Your reply to Michelle is so full of lies it makes me want to vomit.

"THERE IS NO BRUTAL STATE INTERVENSION in family marriage constitution in any Islamic society"

***That is possibly half true. Fathers, brothers and male relatives usually take care of the honor killings. The State merely turns a blind eye.

"Almost 100% in Muslim society Male and female relations are with marriage."

*** Unless, it is a marriage for convenience which lasts one night.

"Women have the right to earn under any circumstance in SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT"

*** Unless a man from her family, or religious police forbid her. Who determines a suitable environment?

"end up in EVER LASTING MARRIAGE"

*** Unless he says I divorce you and throws her out. The she has very few rights or protections.

Then there is the fact that her testimony in court does not equal that of a man, the fact that she is the property of her husband or father, and the fact that Muslim men are so terrified of female sexuality that she has to wear a burka. Then if she were to get raped by Muslim men, she might be senenced to lashes. Oh yes, she might also be tried as a witch.

Moody,

Please, with all respect, this is America. We are not impressed.

Dear Michelle,

You are blessed that people of knowledge like Sheikh Yusuf Estes are also in USA. You better ask him, if you have ANY question or questions!

But since you asked me, therefore I try to reply to my understanding.

Under Islam & Islamic Sharia Law (If it is fully functional).

1- Women have the right to earn under any circumstance in SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT but it is not COMPULSARY FOR HER to earn if,
2- She has a Father or Husband or Adult son or capable relatives to provide after that if not then Islamic State with fully functional Sharia Law is responsible for Women and Kids.

Now come to marriage:

1- Almost 100% in Muslim society Male and female relations are with marriage. Which mostly girls get married max before 25 and guys before 30 now. And in small percentage it starts from girls puberty and boys early young age when ever he is capable of supporting his own family and it could be 15 or 16. With or without sharia law muslims are in this practice.

You will also find very little non marital affairs but they are not recognised in the muslim society, therefore either end up in EVER LASTING MARRIAGE or are very short living and stands out as very few until both get married which is not far away.

THERE IS NO BRUTAL STATE INTERVENSION in family marriage constitution in any Islamic society.

MUSLIM SOCIETY DON'T HAVE OUTSIDE MARRIAGE KIDS.
That is a very rare phenominon.

I'm talking about 1.6 Billion Stronge society. IT IS NOT SOMETHING IMPOSSIBLE, it is still happening in the same world you live.

Sheikh Yusuf Estes,
Asalam-u-alakum,

I'm really pleased to see your reply surprisingly on this blog. I'm a great fan of yours. Your way of communication and delivery is very heart touching and reaching. And I also like your very ideal granddad appearence for childern's in Prophets stories at Peace TV.

May Allah be pleased with you and all the blessing of Allah always be with you.

If some day I came to USA or if you by chance visited my country, I will definitely meet you.

If any thing said by me is false. Allah knows it is not intentional and Allah is Most Forgiving!

My Deepest Regards,
Asalam-u-Alakum!

Yet the very definition of Islam is submission the submission of a slave.

To those who tried to compare an Islamic Sharia Court to a Beit Din, (Jewish Court)

It offends me that you would even mention a Beit Din.

Do not dishonor my faith by comparing a Beit Din to an Islamic court. Do not dishonor Jewish Law by comparing it to the barbarity of Sharia.

Let me point out some differences.

ONE: The law rulings of a Beit Din are voluntarily submitted to by both parties. There is no special anything in American law that enforces the rulings of a Beit Din other than people can agree to binding arbitration. If that is all you want, you already have it. There is no need for any "incorporation of the best parts of Sharia" into American Law.

TWO: Beit Dins do not permit honor killings. In fact, if G-d forbid such a case arose, it would be turned over to the criminal authorities.

THREE: Beit Dins do not cut off heads or other body parts for the delectation of drooling crowds.

FOUR: Jewish Law respects the rights of women. And please don't hand us your crap about Sharia respecting women. In a Beit Din a woman's testimony has equal weight to a man's. Women are not property. Women have the right to say "no" to their husbands. Heck, Jewish women can read - not something to be assumed in the Muslim world even today.

FIVE: Beit Dins do not issue fatwahs calling for the destruction of America, the West or Democracy.

SIX: A Beit Din knows that suicide bombing is evil.

SEVEN: A Beit Din does not try people for witchcraft, or call questioning Judaism apostacy (with an implied capitol punishment). A Beit Din does not try people for being gay.

So again, just don't even dare mention a Beit Din. There is no comparison.

With respect and curiousity, can someone tell me which aspects of Sharia law are superior to Western civil law?

Dear Moody,
In your post on February 17th at 11:34 you wrote about the uplifting of women, preventing women from "forcing them to do labor and earn themselves, raise children and maintain housing ALL ALONE, no body is sharing permanent responsibility. Just Freedom Free For Sex." About what are you speaking? To exactly what is Islam and Sharia law supposed to "uplift" me? What if, as a woman, I have no male relatives to "protect me"? I am an adult. I do not need anyone to protect me or take care of me. I am perfectly capable of protecting myself, taking care of myself, having a respectable job (which I enjoy), and maintaining a household, all without becoming anyone's mistress, prostitute or public property. How is Islam or Sharia law going to do anything for me that I can't already do for myself? Will Islam or Sharia law "take care of" and "protect" me if I am not married, have no male relatives, and no children? What if I do not want to be married and have children? Will Islam or Sharia law house and feed me? Will it take care of me at the same level of affluence I have achieved on my own? Please note that I have not mentioned anything about how Islam might uplift me spiritually; let's just stay in the material world in which we all have to live. How exactly does Islam and Sharia law provide for a single, childless woman with no male relatives? Thank you for your time in considering my questions.

Yusuf Estes writes: "A smart reader will consider three things:
1. Who is saying it?
2. What might be their motives?
3. Does it factually match testable evidences?"

You should try applying this to your so-called holy book. Or aren't you a 'smart reader'?

Christopher Hitchens gives George Galloway a verbal slapdown.

And rightfully so- Galloway is a traitor to my country, he doesn't speak for Britain.

Hitchens is a great man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUhIZWtoGPs

Moody is a self-hating, guilt-ridden, sexually repressed Muslim man, who minds everybody's business, but his own.

If he is trying to promote Islam as somthing good, then I don't think his person is a very good example for anyone to follow.

Islam doesn't seem to be doing him any good.

Folks,

I looked on Oprah's web-site and with a little searching, I did indeed find all that is said below to be true. This is one of the most dangerous things for our country and even the world because of her vast following and influence. If you are a believer of the God of the Bible, you really need to read the following:

You really need to read this -

"Oprah and Friends" to teach course on New Age Christ

Many of you, like me, have probably been Oprah fans for a long time. This is very discouraging news to hear about one who has such tremendous influence on the general public. Please ask God to show Oprah the real Jesus Christ.

Just to make sure this was true, I went on Oprah's website and there it is. The below article is very interesting, so I thought I would share.

Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:50 PM

Subject: Oprah joins false prophets Bible warned about

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/smith-oprah.htm or

"Oprah and Friends" to teach course on New Age Christ

Jesus Christ being reinvented, redefined, and blasphemed and, this false New- Age Christ teaching is about to make huge inroads into the world, with the help of the queen of television talk shows, Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah Winfrey, beginning January 1, 2008, on her daily radio program will offer a year-long course on the New Age Christ , in a lesson a day and completely cover the 365 lessons from the Course in Miracles "Workbook."

Listeners will be encouraged to buy A Course in Miracles for the year-long course, and an audio version, recited by Richard (John Boy
Walton) Thomas will be available on compact disc.

Those who finish the Course will have a wholly redefined spiritual mindset-a New Age worldview that include the beliefs that there is no sin, no evil, no devil. A Course in Miracles teaches its students to rethink everything they believe about God and life, and, bluntly
states: "This is a course in mind training" and is dedicated to "thought reversal."

The Course in Miracles -in reality-is the truth of the Bible turned upside down.

Oprah told her television audience that Williamson's book, A Course in Miracles was one of her favorite books, and that she had already bought a thousand copies and would be handing them out to everyone in her studio audience. Oprah's endorsement skyrocketed Williamson's book to the top of the New York Times bestseller list .

A Course in Miracles is allegedly a "new revelation" from "Jesus" to help humanity work through these troubled times. This "Jesus"-who bears no doctrinal resemblance to the Bible's Jesus Christ-began delivering channeled teachings in 1965 to a Columbia University Professor of Medical Psychology, Helen Schucman.

One day Schucman heard an "inner voice" stating, "This is a course in miracles. Please take notes." For seven years she diligently took spiritual dictation from this voice that described himself as "Jesus."

Here are some quotes from the "Jesus" voice of A Course in Miracles :

· "There is no sin . . . "

· A "slain Christ has no meaning."

· "The journey to the cross should be the last ' useless journey."

· "Do not make the pathetic error of 'clinging to the old rugged cross.'"

· "The Name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol... It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to which you pray."

· "The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself."

· "The Atonement is the final lesson he [man] need learn, for it teaches him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation."

Popular author Wayne Dyer told his PBS television audience that the "brilliant writing" of A Course in Miracles would produce more peace in the world .

The Course in Miracles-based book, Forgiveness, continues to be sold in Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral bookstore as Schuller prepares to host a January 17-19, 2008, "Rethink Conference" at his Crystal Cathedral.
-----------------------

2 Timothy 3 (King James Version)

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." II Timothy 3:16

"That the Lord thy God may shew us the way wherein we may walk, and the thing that we may do." Jeremiah 42:3

"...We will obey the voice of the Lord our God." Jeremiah 42:6

As the Day of the Lord approaches, we need to take warning of the Words of Jesus in Matthew 24:24-27: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; GO NOT FORTH; he is in the secret chambers; BELIEVE IT NOT. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."


The Bible speaks plainly of the coming wrath. Jesus warns us through Luke: "Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them." *** Luke 21:8
"Be not deceived." Many shall come in His name saying they have the anointing. He further said, "As the time draws near..."; many would come to draw you away. We are warned "Go ye not therefore after them."

CHRISTIANS/BELIEVERS.....Take heed - WE ARE IN THE LAST DAYS - READY YOURSELVES BY KNOWING WHAT GOD OUR CREATOR SAYS IN HIS WORD - YOUR LIFE WILL DEPEND ON BELIEVING ONLY HIM FOR HE DOES NOT LIE!!

"Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" Rev. 14:12

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" Matthew 24:35

And PLEASE pass on this one...

Funny Sheik-

Quit spamming your websites here. We know you work as an Islamic Propagandist. You are an old-fashioned southern boy shyster/liar-

"you made millions of dollars in the music business and had to give it up when you became a muslim"

Holy crap, Skip. You forgot people knew you as a scamster before your latest scam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9gdEAhYTo

I'm sure you make a better living now telling muslims what they CANNOT do.

Skip's wiki bio

Yusuf Estes, PhD. (born 1944), is an American convert to Islam and Chairman of "the Muslim Foundation International", which is an Islamic Promotional and Missionary Organization dedicated to spreading the message of Islam according to the Quran, Sunnah.[1] He was brought up in a Protestant Christian family; members of the Disciples of Christ. Yusuf Estes was known then as "Skip Estes".

From 1962 until 1990, he had a career as a music minister, preacher, and the owner of Estes Piano and Organ Company. He lived in Texas and Florida.

In 1991, Estes had business dealings with an Egyptian Muslim called Muhammad. He learned about the religion firsthand and converted to Islam after seeing a Catholic priest friend enter Islam. He was then followed by his wife, father, children and step mother. He has since pursued Arabic language and Quranic studies in Egypt, Morocco and Turkey.

As of 2006, Yusuf Estes has been regularly appearing on Peace TV and on Huda TV as well as IslamChannel in the UK, which are 24/7 Islamic channels broadcasting in many countries around the globe, via satellite.

Latest TV series is geared toward Muslim children and is entitled, "Qasas Ul Anbiya" Stories of the Prophets.

His Islamic activities include:

Volunteer Imam in a Texas military installation.
National U.S Chaplain for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, starting 1994.
Delegate to the United Nations Peace Summit for Religious Leaders in August of 2000.
University guest speaker.
Television preacher, syndicated television programs on satellite and cable networks.
Maintaining Islamic websites
He is also well known for his website motto which he regularly uses at the end of speeches and interviews, "Visit Islamalways.com, where we're always open 24 hours a day and always plenty of free parking."

Dear Yusuf Estes,

What does *real islam* mean ?

If there is *real islam*,in that case there is also *non-real islam*,so there are two kinds of islam
1-Real islam 2-Non-Real islam

Foe example,is it *real islam* in Afghanistan,Iran,Saudia,Malaysia and Hamasistan ??
Who decides whicw one is *real* and another *non-real*

And how do you that the posters,who write on this blog,are ignorent and misinformed ?

And you say *truth*,which *truth*...For example,truth of Trinity it it is *Father,Son and Mary* or *Father,Son and Holy Spirit*

Yusuf,

Hmmm, "me wonders" what koran you are reading.

And why have you not addressed the basic and fundamental flaws of Islam. They have been repeated on these threads many, many times.

Once again:

Your problems go beyond Islamic laws, the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues.

Address these flaws, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics

Bismillah - Peace to all who seek truth:

Unfortunately today, we find truth and lies woven together in the same fabric and presented as facts by both Muslims and non-Muslims. This blog is no exception.

We understand the non-Muslim's ignorance of real Islam and their negative attitude toward Muslims considering the steady diet of misinformation to which they are constantly exposed.

However, there is no excuse for Muslims lying and misrepresenting Islam - or anything else for that matter. Shame on those who knowingly deal in falsehood.

A smart reader will consider three things:
1. Who is saying it?
2. What might be their motives?
3. Does it factually match testable evidences?

Next time you find a Muslim prevaricating (speaking falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstating or creating an incorrect impression; lie) LYING - show them what Islam really says about this:
www.IslamTomorrow.com/lies

Ask them to aquire real facts about their own religion before attempting an intellectual discourse in a public forum such as this.

And while you have their attention, you might remind them to keep an open mind (and a closed mouth) while listening patiently to other opinons, as this happens to be something real Islam teaches.

Real Islam teaches: "There should never be oppression; either to self or others." When you see oppression, you should:
A. Stop it
B. Speak out against it
C. At least recognize it for what it is - and hate it with all your heart (and this is the weakest of faith)
Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, taught his followers, "Let the one who believes in Allah and the Last Day - either speak good or remain silent."

While giving presentations on Islam around the world, I have observed less patience from the Muslims than from non-Muslims.

Ask them (Muslims & non-Muslims attacking Islam) to check out today's solutions to age old problems of faith:

www.BridgeToFaith.com

Peace -
Yusuf Estes, National Muslim Chaplain,
United Nations Delegate to World Peace Summit for Religious Leaders (retired)
Washington, D.C. USA

PS - want the "real story"? Go to: www.IslamNewsroom.com

GaryD:

Moody is an example of "slave mentality".

His posts are typical brainwashing. Garbage in --garbage out.

Whatever his imam is saying-- gets repeated here.

He desires to be a good Muslim and forfeits his independence.

He is afraid to even suggest that there might be a few things wrong with Islam. Things that need to be disavowed or changed. This would mean Islam is not perfect and his "house of cards" would fall.

We like you, Moody. We can see you struggle. We want to see you break free of this bondage.

The chief difference between Christianity and Islam lies in this:

As a Christian one is an heir to the kingdom of heaven while in Islam your primary goal is to become the most perfect slave possible.

The chief difference between Christianity and Islam lies in this:

As a Christian one is an heir to the kingdom of heaven while in Islam your primary goal is to become the most perfect slave possible.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Please address the synopsis of flaws in Islam i.e.

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/ hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels"/"pretty wingie thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have factual counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Moody,

Don't blow up!

All of your talk about being jealous of the rewards coming to a suicide bomber are a little scary...

LMAO,

I've seen your filthy minded STYLE and have a pretty good idea about it.

Better worry about your self instead of my inner feelings, now after all your hyperventilation.

Word Muslim says more than enough about me!

Mr. Khan

We understand all to well the cruelty, barbarity and violence of Sharia. You Muslims will never let us forget. Every time we look at a Middle Eastern country (with the exception of Israel) we see yet another atrocity committed by the perverted "justice" of Sharia.

Just recently, Saudi Arabia tortured an illiterate woman to confess that she was a WITCH for crying out loud! Of course, they will execute her. Then what about Hodood laws? What about the Saudis sentencing a gang rape *victim* to 200 *lashes*. Lets not forget public stonings, decapitations and dismemberments. Fun for the whole family - just look at the drooling mobs! What about religious police? What about all of the sick, twisted things your "law" brings us?

Sharia is a perversion of all that is good. We all know it. Even the PC Post is running out of patience with your antics. From an American who values the age of rationalism and the values of the civilized West, I say frankly, go back to the darkness you came from.

Moody, are you felling a little moody? Not feeling fresh?

I remember you claiming to be a giant! You really are over-compensating for something! Now you are really, upset because you pointed out that the heavenly sexual slaves of the shahids also come in male form, and we picked up on the homo-erotic nature of that.

Such a strong response from you! A truly straight man is generally secure enough in his sexuality to not flip out like that... Do you maybe harbor some sinful thoughts about men? You keep asking if we are jealous. No, Moody, I am not. I am straight (but not narrow) and that just isn't my style.

But, if it is yours, go with it!

Come out of the closet! In America, no one will stone you to death for expressing your feelings towards another man (like they do under Sharia). Sure, you will have to tone down all the "murder the infidels language" but, I am sure there is a loving, strong, man out there who can bring out the "inner you." You will feel so liberated and then maybe you will loose all of this rage once he gives you the thing you are craving!

And still the "reality challenged", Obfuscating Jihadist fails to address the real and simple issues i.e. the basic flaws of Islam. We have been waiting for her response for months and still silence from the Islamic front.

Conclusion: The Jihadist and all other Muslims out there admit to the basic flaws of Islam thereby vitiating any commentaries they might have on any subject.

Mr. Mark : "What's so difficult about understanding this simple premise?"

Chris Everett: "That's the question that haunts all atheists. It's clear as a bell to me, but there's just something intellectually crippling about the religious mode of thinking that no amount of reason can penetrate."

Moi : Already giving up in saying believers have an intellectually crippling mind:)

Perhaps atheists should consider the possibility that man is, after all, a political animal - who gets what, when and how - be it through religion, through politics, through economics. As in various ideas of politics (ideologies if you like) and economics (fiscal, macro etc), so do faiths with various denominations, sects and schools of thought.

Politics may affect religion and economics. Religion may affect politics and economics. It is the push and pull of the religious and the secular with the secular sometimes having the upper hand over religion, or religion sometime prevaling over the secular.

No reason to haunt atheists anymore for this is a fact of life as reflected in the surge of the religious right in the US, what the Shariah means, which elements, and what place it should have in secular states etc as the push and pull of secularism and the religious.

Unless atheists would not be objective, be empirical, be factual on this fact of life that we all, believers and non-believers, have to deal with.

If some believers are seen as non-accomodative, non-compromising of non-believers or seperation of church and state, perhaps we should see that there are non-believers who are equally non-accomodative and non-compromising of any beliefs in any forms of expression in the public square (religous symbols displayed) and even at the personal level (wearing of cruxifixes and hijabs).

Come on Chris Everett and Mr. Mark. You are both too smart not to see the reality of what people want personally, in their own notions of utopia or ideal state, and how messy it is to get people to come to a consensus, an agreement, on what that means for them by their political, economic, religious or non-religious personal and politicised beliefs.

And what is so difficult about understanding this simple fact?

After 268 commentaries, a summary comment:

With the "ptfft" i.e Moroni and Joe Smith as the "spiritual" guides/founders, what does one conclude about Mormonism???

A cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.

With the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the "warmongering, womanizing, "stenchifying" hallucinator" aka Mohammed what does one conclude about Islam?

A cult based on the oil profits, terror, fear of the sword, stoning, hand chopping, assassinations, murder and suicide bombers.

With the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the illiterate peasant, possible mamzer, hallucinating and embellished Jesus what does one conclude about Catholicism/Christianity?

A cult based on the fear of hell, guilt trips, the sin of myths, limbo, and the false promises of sin atonement, "miracles", water purification, and indulgences and the only key to the spirit state of Heaven.

With "avenging pwtfft"s, and the mostly mythical OT and its "fortune tellers" what does one conclude about Judaism?

A cult based on the support of its rich members, the fear of Hell, the promise of a messiah and the return to the mythical promised land conquered previously by mythical OT characters.

Mr. Mark,

You say (Feb 17 @ 2:53 pm), "What's so difficult about understanding this simple premise?" That's the question that haunts all atheists. It's clear as a bell to me, but there's just something intellectually crippling about the religious mode of thinking that no amount of reason can penetrate.

The Archbishop is a visionary and can see what almost no one is willing to admit.
Briton has slouched from a once mighty world power to the level equal to little more than that of a third rate banana republic.
He is acutely aware of what side his bread is about to be buttered on.
Give Him credit.

In the U.S., this is where the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment kicks in; you know, the part Thomas Jefferson explained with the metaphor "wall of separation between church and state."

The 1st Amendment prohibits the federal government from passing laws that favor one religion over another or which would impose sectarian religious practices on citizens. This prohibition is extended to the states through the 14th Amendment. However, the amendment also provides that governments may not interfere with the free exercise of religion by citizens.

From the founding of our republic, conservative Christian groups have tried to use government to impose their views; prayers to Jesus in public school classrooms are an example. But if Christians are allowed to write "Christian" laws where they are the majority, then Muslims will be allowed to write Islamic laws where they are the majority.

That's why the "wall of separation" is necessary to preserve freedom of religion in America. But try explaining that to the Religious Right. You might as well teach physics to a goldfish.

In the U.S., this is where the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment kicks in; you know, the part Thomas Jefferson explained with the metaphor "wall of separation of church and state."

The 1st Amendment prohibits the federal government from passing laws that favor one religion over another or which would impose sectarian religious practices on citizens. This prohibition is extended to the states through the 14th Amendment. However, the amendment also provides that governments may not interfere with the free exercise of religion by citizens.

From the founding of our republic, conservative Christian groups have tried to use government to impose their views; prayers to Jesus in public school classrooms are an example. But if Christians are allowed to write "Christian" laws where they are the majority, then Muslims will be allowed to write Islamic laws where they are the majority.

That's why the "wall of separation" is necessary to preserve freedom of religion in America. But try explaining that to the Religious Right. You might as well teach physics to a goldfish.

Mooooody and Victoria and the rest of the Muslims out there,

Once again, your commentaries have no meaning until you come to grips with the flaws in Islam.

And once again, here are the major ones:

1. Believe in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teach their children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believe that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis believe they are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Sadly- secularists (along with homosexuals, jews, and christians) have been considered and rejected in this group of videos taken at a large British mosque. If you've always wondered what muslems are really saying among themselves- this is a real eyeopener:

MUST SEE-

Undercover Mosque 1/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlV-6-FihFg

What about us secularists? Why should we support ANY step which increases exposure to any religion??

Who speaks for us?

Munir Ahmad :

Either you are possing being a Muslim and you are not,

or eating grass all your life.

IT IS CONSIDERED LYING BY INTENTION, IF YOU ARE UNWARE OF ANY STATE, RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS SECT matters and trying to draw there picture as per your hiden intentions.

May be not others but any Muslim can read the lies between your lines.

======Being a Muslim i think this will open a new pandora box in UK that will have no end because Muslims themselves have not agreed yet unanimously about the Islamic Laws.The Shiat have their own islamic rules which differ from the islamic rules of other sects of Muslims-----
======Once Pakistani government tried to introduce ZAKAT ( Islamic tax system ) in Pakistan. The Shiat islamic people did not agree with those & said that those were against their Islamic rules.They made a whole day protest against those newly introduced rules in front of National Parliment. Finally the Pakistani government made amendment & now two parallel Islamic rules are working in Pakistan with reference to Islamic tax system.Shia people Islamic tax is not deducted from their bank deposits while other Muslim people islamic tax amount is deducted from the bank deposits------
======Similarly probably in year 1951 the Pakistan court asked the Pakistani religious scholar to give defination of Muslim & surprislingly the Muslim scholars could not reach to one defination about the word Muslim
======The shiats & other Muslims have not reached one decission to matters regarding DIVORCE of women----Shiat believe that divorce is not valid till three months & even couple can compromise during this time period ( even if husabnd has said more than three times words like "divoce to you") while other Islamic sect people take it as a valid divorce & they say that there is no scope of reconcilation after three divorces in one sitting
======Under these circumstance how can we impose Islamic laws

Thank

Islamic Sharia Law:

BAD NEWS FOR CRIMINALS!!!!

Killers, Molesters, Thieves, Rapists, Abusers, Drug Abusers, Violence lovers.

Good news for,

1- Women’s, up lifting there status, protecting there due rights as Mothers, Sisters, Wife’s & Daughters, Nieces or relatives. Rejecting any possibility of there becoming mistresses, prostitutes or public property for casual use and for nude display like all over in ONLY West in the name of freedom and culture and forcing them to do labor and earn themselves, raise children and maintain housing ALL ALONE, no body is sharing permanent responsibility. Just Freedom Free For Sex. (And backward Muslims are denouncing that all to there women’s, HUH! stupid they are. RIGHT?)

2- Children’s rights about there proper up bringing and nurturing. Saving them from "Homo Unnatural Incest Struck Parents".

3- For parents to give them there due respect and position, keeping them close when they are old and needy like they nurture and brought up us for our first 18-25 years.
4- Neighbors,
5- And ALL Communities.

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out.

In a secular society, religious law must operate within the bounds of civil law. For instance, in the US the Catholic church enforces a stricter approach to divorce than is allowed by civil law. It is not the business of the civil authorities to enforce Catholic law on members of that faith community, but neither does the state require the church to recognize a secular divorce.
Where sharia law can fit within the same legal framework that the rest of us follow, there is no reason for the state to prevent it.
But if we're talking about allowing practices that are illegal under civil law -- because as a society we have agreed they are harmful -- that's a different story. And civil authorities can't be expected to enforce different laws for different groups of people.
We can talk about exemptions, like the Amish have for ending their schooling at the eighth grade, or like the Quakers have for not being required to fight in wars (they can still be drafted but they do alternate service). But those setups usually only work if the exempt group is a small one.

When a learned man like Dr Rowan William, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests something for the welfare of human society, it must be taken seriously. Such a person’s thoughts cannot be simply tossed out of the window. We cannot underestimate his outstanding knowledge and expertises on inter-faith harmony and his sermons in the church on the ground that he favours some aspects of Islamic Law. We are not conservatives any longer, by the way. We are living in the age of freedom of expression. Let us experiment his enlightened views which are the outcome of his long standing research. When the institution of marriage is completely shattered by the advocates of free sex; when the immorality of the homosexuals has taken shelter in the church, let us welcome Dr William’s views to save the British society.

When a learned man like Dr Rowan William, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests something for the welfare of human society, it must be taken seriously. Such a person’s thoughts cannot be simply tossed out of the window. We cannot underestimate his outstanding knowledge and expertises on inter-faith harmony and his sermons in the church on the ground that he favours some aspects of Islamic Law. We are not conservatives any longer, by the way. We are living in the age of freedom of expression. Let us experiment his enlightened views which are the outcome of his long standing research. When the institution of marriage is completely shattered by the advocates of free sex; when the immorality of the homosexuals has taken shelter in the church, let us welcome Dr William’s views to save the British society.

When a learned man like Dr Rowan William, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests something for the welfare of human society, it must be taken seriously. Such a person’s thoughts cannot be simply tossed out of the window. We cannot underestimate his outstanding knowledge and expertises on inter-faith harmony and his sermons in the church on the ground that he favours some aspects of Islamic Law. We are not conservatives any longer, by the way. We are living in the age of freedom of expression. Let us experiment his enlightened views which are the outcome of his long standing research. When the institution of marriage is completely shattered by the advocates of free sex; when the immorality of the homosexuals has taken shelter in the church, let us welcome Dr William’s views to save the British society.

When a learned man like Dr Rowan William, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests something for the welfare of human society, it must be taken seriously. Such a person’s thoughts cannot be simply tossed out of the window. We cannot underestimate his outstanding knowledge and expertises on inter-faith harmony and his sermons in the church on the ground that he favours some aspects of Islamic Law. We are not conservatives any longer, by the way. We are living in the age of freedom of expression. Let us experiment his enlightened views which are the outcome of his long standing research. When the institution of marriage is completely shattered by the advocates of free sex; when the immorality of the homosexuals has taken shelter in the church, let us welcome Dr William’s views to save the British society.

When a learned man like Dr Rowan William, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests something for the welfare of human society, it must be taken seriously. Such a person’s thoughts cannot be simply tossed out of the window. We cannot underestimate his outstanding knowledge and expertises on inter-faith harmony and his sermons in the church on the ground that he favours some aspects of Islamic Law. We are not conservatives any longer, by the way. We are living in the age of freedom of expression. Let us experiment his enlightened views which are the outcome of his long standing research. When the institution of marriage is completely shattered by the advocates of free sex; when the immorality of the homosexuals has taken shelter in the church, let us welcome Dr William’s views to save the British society.

When a learned man like Dr Rowan William, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests something for the welfare of human society, it must be taken seriously. Such a person’s thoughts cannot be simply tossed out of the window. We cannot underestimate his outstanding knowledge and expertises on inter-faith harmony and his sermons in the church on the ground that he favours some aspects of Islamic Law. We are not conservatives any longer, by the way. We are living in the age of freedom of expression. Let us experiment his enlightened views which are the outcome of his long standing research. When the institution of marriage is completely shattered by the advocates of free sex; when the immorality of the homosexuals has taken shelter in the church, let us welcome Dr William’s views to save the British society.

When a learned man like Dr Rowan William, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests something for the welfare of human society, it must be taken seriously. Such a person’s thoughts cannot be simply tossed out of the window. We cannot underestimate his outstanding knowledge and expertises on inter-faith harmony and his sermons in the church on the ground that he favours some aspects of Islamic Law. We are not conservatives any longer, by the way. We are living in the age of freedom of expression. Let us experiment his enlightened views which are the outcome of his long standing research. When the institution of marriage is completely shattered by the advocates of free sex; when the immorality of the homosexuals has taken shelter in the church, let us welcome Dr William’s views to save the British society.

MUST SEE-

Undercover Mosque 1/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlV-6-FihFg

Mooooody and Victoria and the rest of the Muslims out there,

Once again, your commentaries have no meaning until you come to grips with the flaws in Islam.

And once again, here are the major ones:

1. Believe in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teach their children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believe that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis believe they are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Mooooody and Victoria and the rest of the Muslims out there,

Once again, your commentaries have no meaning until you come to grips with the flaws in Islam.

And once again, here are the major ones:

1. Believe in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teach their children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believe that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis believe they are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

BBC
The end of one law for all?
By Innes Bowen
Producer, Law in Action

Unless our decisions are unreasonable, they are recognised by the High Court

Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi
Ethnic and religious courts are gaining ground in the UK. Will this lead to different justice for different people?

Aydarus Yusuf has lived in the UK for the past 15 years, but he feels more bound by the traditional law of his country of birth - Somalia - than he does by the law of England and Wales.

"Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law. It's not Islamic, it's not religious - it's just a cultural thing."

The 29-year-old youth worker wants to ensure that other members of his community remain subject to the law of their ancestors too - he helps convene an unofficial Somali court, or "gar", in south-east London.

Aydarus is not alone in this desire. A number of parallel legal universes have been quietly evolving among minority communities. As well as Somali customary law, Islamic and Jewish laws are being applied and enforced in parts of the UK.

What they mustn't do - and this must never happen - is to stray into the field of criminal matters

Gerald Butler QC
Islamic and Jewish law remains confined to civil matters. But the BBC's Law in Action programme has learned that the Somali court hears criminal cases too.

One of the most serious cases it has dealt with was the "trial" of a group of young men accused of stabbing a fellow Somali.

"When the suspects were released on bail by the police, we got the witnesses and families together for a hearing," says Aydarus. "The accused men admitted their guilt and apologised. Their fathers and uncles agreed compensation."

'Legal pluralism'

So how did this court come about? Some academic lawyers see these alternative legal systems as an inevitable - and welcome - consequence of multiculturalism.

Orthodox Jews living within London's eruv boundary are among those who may use the Beth Din
Dr Prakash Shah, of London's Queen Mary University, advocates this "legal pluralism".

"Tribunals like the Somali court could be more effective than the formal legal system in maintaining social harmony."

Former judge Gerald Butler QC says that while courts such as the Jewish Beth Din can work properly, it's essential that all of the involved parties "freely and voluntarily agree to the jurisdiction... and that they conduct their proceedings fairly and properly". He adds: "What they mustn't do - and this must never happen - is to stray into the field of criminal matters. That simply would never be acceptable."

While religious leaders in the UK's Jewish and Muslim communities have not sought to enforce their own versions of criminal law, they have steadily built up their capacity to deal with civil matters within their own religious codes. What's more, they are doing it with the help of English law.

The Beth Din is the most formally entrenched of these minority courts. The UK's main Beth Din is based in Finchley, north London.

It oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

Orthodox Jews go to the Beth Din to settle their disputes - they believe it is a religious obligation to go there

Solicitor Jonathan Greenwood
The court cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute in the Beth Din, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision.

This is because under English law people may devise their own way to settle a dispute before an agreed third party.

Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process. And it's in this space that religious courts, applying the laws of another culture, are growing in the UK.

"Orthodox Jews go to the Beth Din to settle their disputes," says Jonathan Greenwood, a solicitor who represents many Jewish businessmen at the court.

"They believe it is a religious obligation to go there [and seek redress under Jewish law] rather than the secular courts. But it is also usually quicker and cheaper."

Sharia law

Amongst the UK's Muslims there are sharply contrasting views about Sharia or Islamic law in the UK. Sharia is the historic legal foundations of the Islamic world - like English law, it has developed over centuries but is based on simple principles.

Traditional forms of mediation can disadvantage vulnerable groups, such as women, within a community

Cassandra Balchin, Women Living Under Muslim Laws
In an ICM survey of 500 British Muslims carried out in February 2006, 40% of respondents said they would support the introduction of Sharia in predominantly Muslim areas of Britain.

The UK's most prominent Muslim organisation, the Muslim Council of Britain, opposes the idea, saying it will not support a dual legal system.

But some of Britain's Islamic scholars have called for a different approach - Sharia legal code in areas such as family and inheritance, applied through the secular courts.

Mohammed Shahid Raza, a leading Islamic scholar, claims this is a workable model with a British precedent: "When Britain was ruling India, there was a separate legal code for Muslims, organised and regulated by British experts of law."

There is already a network of Sharia councils in the UK. They are not recognised as courts but are seen as essential by those Muslims seeking advice and religious sanction in matters such as divorce.

Ayesha Begum sought an Islamic divorce from the Muslim Law Shariah Council in west London.

"I had obtained a divorce in the secular courts - but my husband refused to divorce me Islamically. In English law I was seen as a single woman but by Islamic law I was still married to him.

"I'm a practising Muslim and I wanted to do the right things in the eyes of God. It was very important I obtained an Islamic divorce."

But Cassandra Balchin, a convert to Islam and spokeswoman for the group Women Living Under Muslim Laws, is concerned about the growth of these minority legal systems.

"Very often traditional forms of mediation can disadvantage vulnerable groups, such as women, within a community.

"I'm concerned about how much choice the weaker party would have in submitting to the governance of these alternative forums."

Despite Ms Balchin's fears, Sharia councils have already begun to follow the Jewish model of turning themselves into recognised courts of arbitration.

Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial law barrister and head of the Hijaz College Islamic University in Warwickshire, says he has already adjudicated in a number of contractual disputes.

"Because we follow the same process as any case of arbitration, our decisions are binding in English law. Unless our decisions are unreasonable, they are recognised by the High Court."

Law in Action's investigation into religious courts in Britain is being repeated at 2100GMT on Sunday 10 Feb 2008 on Radio 4. It was first broadcast in Nov 2006.

Law in Action's regular broadcast is at 1600 GMT on Tuesdays. Or subscribe to the Law in Action podcast for a regular insight into topical legal issues.

The leading Brits seem intent on turning England into a muslim vassal state. They are either stupid beyond belief or else they are being paid millions for their sell-out. In any case we should dedicate a FBM submarine to blow their butts off of the face of the Earth if it appears that the muslims will take over their nukes.

Islamic Sharia Law:

BAD NEWS FOR CRIMINALS!!!!

Killers, Molesters, Thieves, Rapists, Abusers, Drug Abusers, Violence lovers.

Good news for,

1- Women’s, up lifting there status, protecting there due rights as Mothers, Sisters, Wife’s & Daughters, Nieces or relatives. Rejecting any possibility of there becoming mistresses, prostitutes or public property for casual use and for nude display like all over in ONLY West in the name of freedom and culture and forcing them to do labor and earn themselves, raise children and maintain housing ALL ALONE, no body is sharing permanent responsibility. Just Freedom Free For Sex. (And backward Muslims are denouncing that all to there women’s, HUH! stupid they are. RIGHT?)

2- Children’s rights about there proper up bringing and nurturing. Saving them from "Homo Unnatural Incest Struck Parents".

3- For parents to give them there due respect and position, keeping them close when they are old and needy like they nurture and brought up us for our first 18-25 years.
4- Neighbors,
5- And ALL Communities.

The reality of it all is that the "pew sitters" and "bowers" are coming to grips with the flaws in their religions and in ten years the religions of today will be unrecognizable or extinct as the "pretty and ugly wingie flying thingies" are finally buried in the piles of utter stupidity.

Deb Chatterjee,
The fate of the church of England will be decided by that 10% and growing active mosque attending muslim population you mention, not the 10% and decreasing native population who attend the church exclusively on christmas and easter,or the 80% remainder of their countrymen who consider themselves disinterested members of the church of political correctness.
As the presure to survive increases you can expect to hear more statements of this nature from the archbishop.
Basically sending the signals to the muslims that the church is ready to work with them.
I would look for things to accelerate rapidly at the point that the archbishop makes offical what is basically an open secret within the church right now,that the majority of the church believes that Jesus was a great prophet who had "great teachings,etc,etc..." but nothing more.
Making the church's alignment with the muslim view offical.

Britain plans to issue Shariah-compliant bonds amid debate over Islamic law

LONDON - Britain's Treasury is likely to back plans to issue Shariah law-compliant bonds, officials said Sunday - amid continuing debate about the application of Islamic laws in the country.

Treasury Secretary Alistair Darling, who will present his annual budget March 12, plans to issue the Islamic bonds, known as sukuk, to tap into a fast-growing market in the products.

"We want the City of London to be one of the gateways globally for Islamic financial products," a Treasury spokesman said, on customary condition of anonymity in line with policy.

"Just because of your faith, there shouldn't be any issue about your access to financial services in the U.K.," he said.

Shariah law prohibits charging or paying interest, which has led to the growth of a market in financial services created to be compliant with Islam.

Sukuk are structured as profit-sharing plans so that the bondholder's income resembles a rent payment. The process is usually blessed by a board of religious scholars affiliated with a bank.

Islamic banking assets totalled $750 billion in 2006, according to a report issued in October by consultants McKinsey & Co.

Sukuk issuance has grown almost 85 per cent per year since 2001, the McKinsey report said.

Darling's move follows worries over comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who has called for a limited application of the Shariah law in Britain.

Williams, the country's highest ranking Christian leader, suggested British Muslims should be able to resolve marital and financial disputes under Islamic law rather than in British courts.

His comments were rejected by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and led to sharp criticism from other clerics and legislators.

Opposition Conservative legislator Edward Leigh said he feared issuing Shariah-compliant financial products could also cause problems.

"I am concerned about the signal this would send - it could be the thin end of the wedge. British common law must be supreme and should apply to everyone," Leigh was quoted as telling the Mail on Sunday newspaper.

Hammerhead:

NO IT'S NOT TOO LATE. Muslims in UK are a numerical minority. How much are they percentage wise ? Less than 10% perhaps.

Well, if really non-Muslim Brits would have any passion to retain their Anglo-Saxon culture, and the western values, they can see this immigration issue as a rallying point.

If this fails by 2/3 majority, it would then reflect that Brits themselves are unsure what their cultural heritage is, and how they would like to see the future of UK. If majority of Brits despise the Sharia, then regardless of which part of the political/cultural spectrum they are, atheist, religious, leftist, conservative, liberal etc., all should vote en masse to have Muslim immigration restricted/stopped for next 50 years.

But given the political correctness that has now engulfed the West, it would be difficult to makde such pragmatic laws come into effect.

Mr Mark : Man has matured and so have his laws.

Moi : You really think so? That man has matured? As far as I know, man is still argumentative, still acquisitive, still lustful for physical and material comfort. Still fighting for resources and still going to wars.

Mr. Mark : Laws based on the Rights of Man occupy a higher plane of righteousness than do all the religious laws man wrote in the past.

Moi : Which ones? As in the Bill of Rights? The Universal Declaration on Human Rights? As always pointed out by many atheists, being righteous is a characteristic of the believers, as in being righteous is asserting moralistic and ethical values. One can be amoral and immoral and be righteous in claiming one's right, as an adult, a consenting adult with free will, to do anything one one that may be immoral or unethical.

Mr. Mark : Man's laws written to subjugate his fellow beings in the past have been bettered and superseded by those laws written to hold his fellow beings as equals.

Moi : Secular state laws, formulated by man with his selfish gene, still formulate laws that can deprive groups of their ethnic and religious rights. Or to benefit certain business sectors to the detriment of the public good.

One can also can find loopholes in man-made laws to slip through, to go around those laws to get what one wants, to interpret the laws in one's own interest, to make judgements that may not be just for the aggrieved party.

What is so difficult in swallowing this self-stated "simple" premise is the fact that man is never simple.

It is not just about fundamental rights of man but also fundamental rights of states invoke in formulating laws that benefits their people, their national interests.

National laws are not necessarily universal. It can be for the benefit of one and not the other.

State interests, the so-called "for larger interests" can trampel on fundamental individual rights of man. And women too.

If we are to be vigilant and critical of religious laws formulated and implemented by man, we must be equally vigilant and critical of secular laws formulated and implemented by man to ensure that they are fair and just for all.

Like all other laws on the books, Sharia law - like Biblical law and even local street ordinances - was thought up and written down by men, not by god (there is no god).

Sharia law - like Biblical law - is an ancient, barbaric, misogynist, racist law that should have been consigned to the scrap heap of history centuries ago. Unfortunately, the cushion of time that separates us from our more-barbaric and less-intelligent selves still provides an imprimatur of righteousness to religious law (at least to many if not all occupants of this planet). Yet, the passage of time adds not a whit to the validity of religious law, anymore than the passage of time could have made religion-condoned slavery more legitimate.

Man has written new laws for himself since he wrote the religious laws. Man has stepped up and taken credit (and the onus) for laws written since he wrote the old barbaric laws and - in his power-hungry cowardice - claimed they came from god.

Man has matured and so have his laws. Laws based on the Rights of Man occupy a higher plane of righteousness than do all the religious laws man wrote in the past. Man's laws written to subjugate his fellow beings in the past have been bettered and superseded by those laws written to hold his fellow beings as equals.

What's so difficult about understanding this simple premise?

DebChatterjee,
I think it is far to late for such an "answer" don't you?
Are you aware of the actual numbers of muslims, mosque's, mosque attendence,etc,etc... in England, in comparison to that of the archbishop's church in England over the course of the last ten years?
I think it is really just a matter of him chosing the path of least resistance at this point.
And with the overwhleming majority view of the remainder of the archbishops flock of just who Jesus was,so closely paralleling that of the muslim view the conversion should be quite seamless and peaceful.

Hammerhead wrote:

"In a country where his own pews become more anemic and less profitable with each passing day,while simultaneously being overwhelmed with the incoming Islamic hordes the archbishop can clearly see the handwriting on thw wall."

Your writing contains the answer to this menace, implicitly.

Just STOP Muslim immigration to the West for some decades. Strengthen and encourage government legislation like the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Services Act), and lastly, don't have friends in the Middle East who can provide the cheap oil but at the cost of eventual death of the Western (non-Muslim) culture.

If a government cannot implement these harsh yet practical solutions/policies, then don't blame those like the Archbishop. He just saw the "writing on the wall", as did the biblical hero Daniel.

xepiscopalian,
Nothing to be sorry for,I was not looking for any credit.
The archbishop really has little choice.
That this conversion is already taking place on lower levels,as you have pointed out, can only be of assistance to him when the time comes for the official church declaration.

"I give it less than four years before a Anglican/Muslin hybrid faith emerges."

Sorry Hammerhead- that's old and been done:

"Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.

On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.

She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html

I think the most interesting aspect of this is not the combining of goverment with religion,but the groundwork being laid by the archbishop for a muslim/Canterbury hybrid religion.
In a country where his own pews become more anemic and less profitable with each passing day,while simultaneously being overwhelmed with the incoming Islamic hordes the archbishop can clearly see the handwriting on thw wall.
He has already demonsrated that any aspect of His faith is subject to brand new interpretation.
All that is left to be done is to come to the conclussion that Jesus was a great prophet and no more.
Which in reality is as far as the majority of the archbishops subjects are willing to admit already.
I give it less than four years before a Anglican/Muslin hybrid faith emerges.

Problems and Questions for Moody, Mid centur histolrian and all other Muslims,

Your problems go beyond the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics and brainwashed "medical doctors" like Zakir Naik.

And where Moody are your counter points to these problems if you believe they do not exist??????

All Americans are free to choose to reside in any country that will have them. It may require some language training and some financial planning to get there, but the option exists, and nothing of value comes without work. There are many options, there are many factors to each option, and before a decision is made, the factors should be carefully weighed in regard to the exchanges and compromises involved in placing oneself in a particular situation. I would not choose to live in a country operating under Sharia law, or any other theocratically based law, regardless of what other benefits there might be for me in that country. It is not an acceptable balance of trade from where I come. Hence, I would not choose to move there. If, however, I were born and raised in a country whose laws were not abusively corrupt in violation of human dignity but which, upon my adulthood, did not meet my standards or needs, then I could seek one which does. The United States of America has a system of law designed to address the basic tenets of social fairness and safety, and it is not a rule of law that violates its citizens. Beyond the law, people are free exercise their choice of how to live their personal lives. The law also protects that right. Legislating from a theological platform hinders and restricts that right for all those who do not ascribe to the perspective of belief referenced for the creation of such law. A person who wants to incorporate his faith into his life may do so and is free, by choice to live in a country that permits the level of expression to such that he is happy with it. In the United States, people do incorporate their faith systems into their lives. In countries with theologically based law, the lives of people -regardless of whether, as thoughtful adults, they ascribe to the faith system - are incorporated into the faith system through faith based law as it is legally imposed upon them to live according to the text upon which the law is based -and the interpretation of that text by the law makers- or face punishment for violating it.

If you want to live by a set of laws that provides for a certain structure, by all means seek out the location of your utopia, move there, and revel in your good fortune that you come from a country that allows you the ability to make such a choice and the freedom of movement to follow through on it. That is what drew many people to this land in the first place -they found the closest thing to their utopia in this structure. I do understand that many come here because they find the place where they were from to be unacceptable for a number of reasons ranging from preference to poverty to persecution. It is the protections of the freedoms of personal liberty that created this environment where they could come as they are and seek some form of success. They had choices of places to go - they could have chosen a place with law similar to the one from where they came, but they chose this one where their freedom to exercise their individuality is protected under law. Once that choice is made, so should be the choice to assimilate to the social law and to find a way to maintain their personal identity. The path exists as the law is presently structured. Incorporation of theology into law does not allow that path to continue to exist for all people but only for those who ascribe to the faith. Anything that restricts this freedom that was valued enough for people to die to protect and to draw so many people to come here is a deviation of the historical precedent of our laws, brings alteration to the basic fabric of the country, and has no place in the influence of the progression of the law in this country.

Cline,

Your Jewish nastiness regarding Muslims is typical, abnd expected, but still obscene.
And unacceptable to others, except your ilk.

Have you not heard that Israel is the most hated nation in the world,...and because of American support of Israel, America is deemed
the most dangerous nation. Next to the savage Isralis, of course.

And, by the way, the Muslims, even with immigration progles and the dastardly 9/11/ are not the most hated people in the world.
Jews are.
Read the BBC polls.

But you'll keep on won't you. Raising the anti-semitism levels still higher. Decent people sick of it, and the likes of you.

Cline,

Your Jewish nastiness regarding Muslims is typical, abnd expected, but still obscene.
And unacceptable to others, except your ilk.

Have you not heard that Israel is the most hated nation in the world,...and because of American support of Israel, America is deemed
the most dangerous nation. Next to the savage Isralis, of course.

And, by the way, the Muslims, even with immigration progles and the dastardly 9/11/ are not the most hated people in the world.
Jews are.
Read the BBC polls.

But you'll keep on won't you. Raising the anti-semitism levels still higher. Decent people sick of it, and the likes of you.

Qur'an 8:39 "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam."

Um, looks pretty clear to me. And since most Muslims are literalists when it comes to the Qur'an, I'd say there is a definite threat there.

We don't take the Bible seriously anymore. Even people calling themselves Christians can hardly accept Leviticus or God's bloodthirsy exhortations in the Old Testament.

Yet for a vast majority of the world's Muslims, the Koran's even more direct exhortations to convert, suppress, tax, and otherwise eliminate kaffirs (that's you and me) are both real and an absolute command.

No matter how they spin it as the "Religion of Peace," everything you need to know about Islam is in the Qur'an, and frankly, it's a scary tome. Try reading it sometime. I have, and as a result, I'll never accept Islam as having a place in my society, laws, or government.

As imperative as it is that church and state be separate, it is even more essential that mosque and state be absolutely firewalled.

Qur'an 8:39 "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam."

Um, looks pretty clear to me. And since most Muslims are literalists when it comes to the Qur'an, I'd say there is a definite threat there.

We don't take the Bible seriously anymore. Even people calling themselves Christians can hardly accept Leviticus or God's bloodthirsy exhortations in the Old Testament.

Yet for a vast majority of the world's Muslims, the Koran's even more direct exhortations to convert, suppress, tax, and otherwise eliminate kaffirs (that's you and me) are both real and an absolute command.

No matter how they spin it as the "Religion of Peace," everything you need to know about Islam is in the Qur'an, and frankly, it's a scary tome. Try reading it sometime. I have, and as a result, I'll never accept Islam as having a place in my society, laws, or government.

As imperative as it is that church and state be separate, it is even more essential that mosque and state be absolutely firewalled.

GHYSLAINE ROC:
Shabat Shalom!
N.B. As a matter of fact, I was wrong to say that the HIJAAB is banned in all Western institutions. When I saw the mistake, it was too late to correct it. The UK (I do not know of the others) allows the HIJAAB in certain schools, in certain work places, in some government employment, national and regional, and in other places, BUT on the condition that Muslims COLLABORATE with the government on issues like Homosexuality, Abortion, the “War on Terror”, and so on.

However, there is something quite funny about Western democracy. France bans the HIJAAB and religious education in all public schools, but grants Wednesday afternoon free in all public schools in order to allow the teaching of the Catholic religion!!!!!!! Some French doctors would even refuse to see patients wearing the HIJAAB! The ban is even sign posted in their surgeries! France even grants public holidays for all Christian Holy Days or Holy Weeks!!!!!!!
When Christians were wearing a crucifix, or a medallion of the “Virgin Mary”, and Jews a Kippa, a Star “of David” (of Rothschild), NOBODY found anything wrong. Only when Muslims wanted just to be Muslims, all hell broke loose!
Nicolas Sarkozy, the Christian who did not know he was Jewish (just like Madeleine Albright and John Kerry), is now telling “France's Jewish community that every 10-year-old schoolchild should be "entrusted with the memory of a French child victim of the Holocaust."”
I am talking here of the uncorrupted Commandments of the Lord. However, I do not think the Lord ever commanded the faithful to murder Palestinians, to head the prostitution racket, to fornicate, to pass laws in favour of abortion, to promote homosexuality and paedophilia, to indulge in usury, to starve and torture innocent people, to bulldoze their houses with the occupiers in them, to uproot olive trees, to bomb people and places and blame it on innocent people, to institutionalise racism, to steal other people’s lands, resources, monopolise all essential commodities, and so on.
The Tallit is a very good thing if it does make the faithful “look at it and recall all the commandments of the Lord and observe them”.
Ghyslaine ROC
SaGHYSLAINE ROC:
Dear Ruth
Shalom ‘Aleikhem!
I am aware of many of the Commandments of the Lord. If the Jewish person could observe even the Decalogue (there are numerous other Commandments), this would make him or her the best of human beings.
The Muslim woman in contrast does not wear her “prayer shawl” in the same manner. Her “prayer shawl” or HIJAAB serves both as a sign of respect before the Lord as well as to make her more decent in appearance. She wears it in public, when travelling and on all occasions. Unfortunately, the nuclear West says it is threatened (scared, terrorised…!) by this “religious ostentation” and had it banned in all public institutions, a sign of Western Liberty (Freedom). The HIJAAB has become a matter for the State to interfere in the free practice of Islam, in particular in France, the country of so-called Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!
Jews, Christians and Muslims have worn the HIJAAB for centuries, but today only Muslims are demonised for this practice. When I walk into a French Catholic Church, so-called white Catholics (natives) are bare headed whilst Portuguese, Spanish, Mauritian, and Polish women always attend church with their head covered!
“When a woman my age puts on a tallit, it is a statement, tinged with ostentation: “I am Woman, Watch me Pray.” Ruth Marcus
When I put on my HIJAAB in public, I am telling the whole world I am a woman with a mind, not a merchandise, and it is a clear statement of my religious identity. I am a woman, talk to my intellect and do not pay attention to my physical “beauty”!
May The God Who made us all (and not only the Chosen People!) bless you and your family, Ruth!
Ghyslaine ROC
Friday 15th February 6008
turday 16 February 6008

Absolutely not!

The Islamic Shariah laws have no place in the West. Any set of laws that demote women to a class below men, subjugate non-muslims, and allow for no criticism of these laws is against everything that the Enlightenment stood for. The muslim minorities should have no "special" laws that apply only to them, and recieve no status that is different to other residents. If they do not like and are not willing to abide by the laws of Britian, the U.S., or any other country they have moved to, they should have stayed in their homeland. It is unreasonable to move to another country (where you are a guest) and expect THEM (the people in the country moved to) to adapt to YOUR culture, if anything, it should be the other way arround. If muslims find western law and culture incompatable to the beliefs of Islam, you're FREE (keyword) to go back home. What the politicians suggesting implementing this travesty have forgotten is that this is OUR country and culture, and it is worth defending.

(P.S. anyone thinking that I'm a xenophobe or racist, I'm not. I support sustainable immigration, and there are many benefits to it (I won't bother listing them).)

If anyones interested in discussing this stuff, please e-mail me at norco_freerider125@hotmail.com

Problems and Questions for Moody and all Muslims,

Your problems go beyond the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics and brainwashed medical doctors like Zakir Naik.

And where Moody are your counter points to these problems if you believe they do not exist??????

ALL KIND OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS ASKED BY NON MUSLIMS ARE ANSWERED AT BELOW WEB SITE:

http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

If a husband and wife have a mutual divorce,

a. Is there an ‘Iddah period to be observed by the divorced wife?
b. Should the divorced husband give the maintenance money for her?
c. Can the divorced husband have sex with the divorced wife?
d. Can the two talk on the phone to each other after the divorce?
Syeda Tabassum moredent3@yahoo.co.in

Ans.
(a) If the husband and wife have mutual divorce, then the divorced woman needs to observe an ‘Iddah (period) of three menstrual cycles if she gets menses on regular basis, OR an ‘Iddah (period) of three months in case she gets menses on irregular basis or has passed her Menopause. Allah says in the Qur'an:

“Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah hath created in their wombs if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day…”
(Al-Qur'an, 2:228)

In the verse quoted above Allah also says that if the woman is pregnant, she should not hide but rather disclose her pregnancy. Moreover, if she is pregnant, the ‘Iddah extends till the child is born, as stated by Allah in the following verse.

“…For those who carry (life within their wombs) their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.” (Al-Qur'an 65:4)

However, in case the divorce is revocable, the husband and wife may undergo reconciliation during the period of ‘Iddah thus making the divorce null and void with mutual consensus.

(b) With regards to the maintenance money, in case of revocable divorce, where the husband and wife are likely to get reconciled during the ‘Iddah period, the husband will have to provide lodging and maintenance to the wife during that period. If the woman is pregnant, the husband will have to provide maintenance till the child is born as the ‘Iddah extends till its birth. Moreover, the obligation of providing the maintenance will continue till the wife breast-feeds the child for two years, the period of suckling, as appointed by Allah. Nevertheless the couple has the right to determine the period of suckling by mutual consent and consideration (Al-Qur'an 2:233). Says Allah in the Qur'an:

“Let the women live (in 'Iddah) in the same style as you live according to your means: annoy them not so as to restrict them. And if they carry (life in their wombs) then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden: and if they suckle your (offspring) give them their recompense: and take mutual counsel together according to what is just and reasonable. And if ye find yourselves in difficulties let another woman suckle (the child) on the (father's) behalf.” (Al-Qur'an 65:6)

However, in case of irrevocable divorce, there is difference of opinion amongst the scholars with regards to the provision of lodging and maintenance. However the view that is held by majority of the scholars is that there shall be no lodging or maintenance for the woman during her ‘Iddah unless she is breast-feeding a child or is discovered to be pregnant.

Fatima bint Qais (Allah be pleased with her) reported from Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) that there is no lodging and maintenance allowance for a woman who has been given irrevocable divorce.
(Sahih Muslim vol. 2, hadith no. 3522)

(c) If the divorce is revocable and the husband and wife, with mutual consensus agree to have sex before the ‘Iddah is complete, then that would become means through which the divorce becomes null and void. Then they again continue to live as husband and wife and thus they can also have sex as before.

If the divorce is revocable (1st or 2nd) and the ‘Iddah period has been completed, then after this period of ‘Iddah they cannot have sex unless they have a new nikaah with new ‘Meher’. After ‘Iddah has been completed, or after irrevocable divorce, the ex-husband & wife become Na-Mahrams and if they have sex without a fresh nikaah then their act of having sex will be considered adultery.

(d) Talking on the phone with the opposite sex, who is a Na-Mahram is not encouraged in Islam. In certain cases when unavoidable and if both maintain their modesty, it may be permissible. Thus till such time as the husband and wife reconcile during ‘Iddah, and at any time after divorce, they should avoid talking. In unavoidable circumstances if they do, they should maintain their modesty without which it will be prohibited. And Allah knows the best.

ALL KIND OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS ASKED BY NON MUSLIMS ARE ANSWERED AT BELOW WEB SITE:

http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

INHERITANCE

Question:

Under Islamic law, why is a woman’s share of the inherited wealth only half that of a man?

Answer:

The Glorious Qur’an contains specific and detailed guidance regarding the division of the inherited wealth, among the rightful beneficiaries.

The Qur’anic verses that contain guidance regarding inheritance are:

* Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 180

* Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 240

* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 7-9

* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 19

* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 33 and

* Surah Maidah, chapter 5 verse 106-108

There are three verses in the Qur’an that broadly describe the share of close relatives i.e. Surah Nisah chapter 4 verses 11, 12 and 176. The translation of these verses are as follows:

"Allah (swt) (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females, if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; If only one, her share is a half.

For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; If no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases is) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

In what your wives leave, your share is half. If they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eight; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to anyone). Thus it is ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing Most Forbearing"
[Al-Qur’an 4:11-12]

"They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: Allah directs (them) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance. If (such a deceased was) a woman who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance. If there are two sisters, they shall have two thirds of the inheritance (between them). If there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah (swt) makes clear to you (His knowledge of all things).
[Al-Qur’an 4:176]

In most of the cases, a woman inherits half of what her male counterpart inherits. However, this is not always the case. In case the deceased has left no ascendant or descendent but has left the uterine brother and sister, each of the two inherit one sixth. If the deceased has left children, both the parents that is mother and father get an equal share and inherit one sixth each. In certain cases, a woman can also inherit a share that is double that of the male. If the deceased is a woman who has left no children, brothers or sisters and is survived only by her husband, mother and father, the husband inherits half the property while the mother inherits one third and the father the remaining one sixth. In this particular case, the mother inherits a share that is double that of the father. It is true that as a general rule, in most cases, the female inherits a share that is half that of the male. For instance in the following cases:

1. daughter inherits half of what the son inherits,

2. wife inherits 1/8th and husband 1/4th if the deceased has no children.

3. Wife inherits 1/4th and husband 1/2 if the deceased has children

4. If the deceased has no ascendant or descendent, the sister inherits a share that is half that of the brother.

In Islam a woman has no financial obligation and the economical responsibility lies on the shoulders of the man. Before a woman is married it is the duty of the father or brother to look after the lodging, boarding, clothing and other financial requirements of the woman. After she is married it is the duty of the husband or the son. Islam holds the man financially responsible for fulfilling the needs of his family. In order to do be able to fulfill the responsibility the men get double the share of the inheritance. For example, if a man dies leaving about Rs. One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, for the children (i.e one son and one daughter) the son inherits One Hundred Thousand rupees and the daughter only Fifty Thousand rupees. Out of the one hundred thousand which the son inherits, as his duty towards his family, he may have to spend on them almost the entire amount or say about eighty thousand and thus he has a small percentage of inheritance, say about twenty thousand, left for himself. On the other hand, the daughter, who inherits fifty thousand is not bound to spend a single penny on anybody. She can keep the entire amount for herself. Would you prefer inheriting one hundred thousand rupees and spending eighty thousand from it, or inheriting fifty thousand rupees and having the entire amount to yourself?

ALL KIND OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS ASKED BY NON MUSLIMS ARE ANSWERED AT BELOW WEB SITE:

http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

A. Kafir,

Though it is useless answering repeatedly your stupid questions, but for one more time:

1- Cutting of hands only applies for the serial serious criminals FOR DISCOURAGEMENT in general public. If some body steel due to serious need or hunger and where State is not providing to every needy person IT DOES NOT APPLY. You will hardly find very few thieves in Saudi Arab with one hand short and AS A RESULT you will find the lowest theft rate in the WORLD. Some times people even leave there shops open when go to prayer. CAN YOU IMAGINE IT POSSIBLE SOME WHERE IN THE WEST??

2-Capital punishment for murder is not compulsory in Sharia Law of Islam, but with conditions.
-i- If the close relatives of the murdered are willing to forgive?
-ii- If the close relatives of the murdered are willing to forgive against the Sharia court decided payment?

3- If some body rape your mother, daughter, wife or sister and after doing that come in front of you. What will be the first thing you would like to do with him??
When you ask the same question to any one, they will mostly reply the same; WE WILL KILL HIM or some even say WE’LL KILL HIM SLOWLY THEN CUT HIM INTO PIECE AND FEED HIM TO THE ANIMALS!
But when SOMEBODY ELSES mother wife or daughter is being raped, YOU SAME PEOPLE say it is unjust to give capital punishment. IN ISLAM THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION of race, color or breed. The Law is equal for every body even if it is your SON and the punishment UNANIMOUSLY is CAPITAL.

And again you will find the lowest rape rate in Muslim world. Infect women’s are HIGHLY RESPECTED & REWARDED, for example, earning is not compulsory for them. There father, husband, brother or sons or relatives and then state (Under Sharia Law) are responsible for providing them.

To Al: The problem is that Shari'a is not necissarily in harmony with modern laws. Examine the divorce, custody,and inheritance laws if you doubt that. As someone who has lived in the Middle East, has Middle Eastern roots and has seen what Shari'a family law does to women through what I've witnessed with friends, I assure you it is not something that anyone who values American principles would ever want put into action here.

What's wrong with considering certain aspects of Sharia law that are in harmony with our constitution; our perception of justice and fairness; and our general cultural values and existing legislative codes?

It may in fact be difficult to find such aspects, and maybe upon an examination of Sharia we won't find anything we can codify, but why refuse to believe from the outset there may be nothing of value to consider.

I would suggest Islam should be open to adopting the best ideas, practices and principles of the West; and we in the West should be open to the same regarding the best of what Islam or Sharia offers.

I'm not talking about codifying religion, I'm talking about codifying wisdom or enlightened foreign cultural values if we collectively agree on their merits and relevance to our way of life.

It should be apparent we don't have to adopt anything we as a nation do not think makes sense for us. And we shouldn't.

But is it wise to refuse to be open to looking for the best any culture has to offer, knowing we can reject any elements that are not enlightened or appropriate, and yet still incorporate a secular version of those principles or practices worthy of such in our own laws.

I'm only interested in what is wise and worthy from Sharia, not what is barbaric, oppressive or unacceptable to our values.

I think we should take a collective deep breath and consider talking calmly and rationally with each other and see if both world views can learn something of value from the other.

We've got to figure out a way to co-exist peacefully and respectfully somehow.

Laila M. :
"Why go backwards?"
_____

A 3-word argument against magical thought, as eloquent as it is succinct. Thank you.

While I understand the Archbishop of Canterbury was trying to show tolerance by reaching across religious communities, I think there are better ways to do so then suggesting the implementation of Shari'a. All I could think of was that he surely did not understand Shari'a or the implications of his statements. Islam was extremely progressive when it came to women in its own time, but like almost every religion, it falls short of modern day equality. Furthermore, Shari'a is not merely based on the Qu'ran and Hadith, but also precedents, analogies to those precedents and the consensus among an Islamic school of thought. Due to this, there is no unified Shari'a and that is why the severity of Shari'a differs from school of thought from school of thought. Which school would be chosen? If one school is chosen over another would it not create more division and provoke hostility? Also, since it seems that the comments were regarding family and inheritance law, who decides whether to use British law or Shari'a? No matter what school of though Shari'a is not equitable for women in family law, but if she were to divorce is it her decision or her husband's to go by Shari'a? Will she be stripped of her rights so easily in a free, democratic, modern society much in the same way she would be in a developing patriarchal country? It would be unacceptable. Britain should not allow Shari'a and neither should the US. Religious law, with the exception of perhaps a handful of religions, lacks equality, and inequality is fundamentally at odds with modernism. Why go backwards?

A magical thinker thinks that civil law should accommodate magical thought.

Big surprise here.

And the argument degenerates into an idiotic food-fight as to which brand of magical thought is best. Pfui.

Again, To All Muslims,

Your problems go beyond the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

And with the correction of said flaws, there would of course be a significant correction in Islamic laws. Said corrections would basically be what is already in the US Bill of Rights.

To all the Jews out there:

Your religion is already being corrected/"deflawed" i.e.

Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Such corrections/"deflawing" will result in the deletion of all kosher and marriage, etc. laws with the said corrections leaving only what is already in the US Bill of Rights.

And the religions of the world slowly converge to Reality!!!!!

Probably the clearest I can be about this question--whether English or American law should accommodate aspects of Shariah--is to simply admit as an average American that I really operate only by generalities and have no real idea of how to make sense of the overlaying thicket of American law--in fact I probably break driving laws without knowing it--and to imagine American law combined with Shariah or other types of law--and to have such continually impressed on people--would lead to something of national incoherence, an awkwardness of movement, social life, etc. which would defeat even something which naturally develops such as our ability for language.

Artists and psychologists are pretty clear that for an individual a task in life must be neither too easy nor too complex but just complex enough to stimulate to further action, and to increase law to the point of a thicket which paralyzes would arrest the development of a people. In fact people would react with radical attempts to simplify and a progressive approach to complexity would be defeated.

I am particularly concerned about mingling Shariah law with Western laws because even Islamic people admit there are many interpretations of Shariah--that not only do we have the Western fear of the well known and illiberal aspects of Shariah but Islamic people themselves seem to have no coherent and consistent interpretation of such law. Do we really want the incoherences of the Islamic world added to the complexities of Western civilization? In Western civilization it is difficult enough to know how to act and think.

More and more I am coming to believe that the self-consciousness I always thought was a particular peculiarity (confined to myself and relatively few other people) is in actuality a generality which will only grow as nations come into contact with one another. With these discussions of law, religion, etc. we are being forced more and more to reflect on actions and thought and what the world demands is a type of artistry beyond novels or music or film, etc.

The world is demanding a superior artistry of somehow creating further and developing social coherence and this is throwing each individual back on primarily himself--forcing each individual into makeshifts which hopefully are neither too simple and dogmatic nor too complex and confusing to other people.

I just try to approach the issue by constantly reading, writing--learning as much as possible and creating simplifications which hopefully are not too simple. We should beware of combining any set of laws, let alone English or American law with Shariah.

Modern society should be more accepting of people, not theologies. Human history has consistently moved away from the major theologies towards rationality. If religions feel the need to band together, however incompatible, so be it. History will put them all in the dust with other hallucinations.

Let us ask:

Are MS. QUINN AND MR MEACHAM ill informed, ignorant of the facts...or are they dishonest?

They did not mention, as many Jewish media did not, that in Britain this date there ALREADY IS accommodation in British law for
ORTHADOX JEWS in some of their social disputes. In some results things quite odious to British law.

The editors of this post "forgot" to mention that. But then, of course, Jews should have anything they want and Muslims shall be hectored and put down and sneered at, as in the posts below. As anti-semitism rises all over.

In any kind of fairness we should hear from Quinn and Meacham on this. Oh, but we won't, will we?

Let us ask:

Are MS. QUINN AND MR MEACHAM ill informed, ignorant of the facts...or are they dishonest?

They did not mention, as many Jewish media did not, that in Britain this date there ALREADY IS accommodation in British law for
ORTHADOX JEWS in some of their social disputes. In some results things quite odious to British law.

The editors of this post "forgot" to mention that. But then, of course, Jews should have anything they want and Muslims shall be hectored and put down and sneered at, as in the posts below. As anti-semitism rises all over.

In any kind of fairness we should hear from Quinn and Meacham on this. Oh, but we won't, will we?

YES YES, anonymous at 9:02. And the Israelis are hard at TEACHING LOVE OF MUSLIMS IN ISRAELI HOMES AND SCHOOLS?

Right, and like the little israelis don't see how much fun it is to use Gazans as target
Practice.

and bulldoze orchards and groves and houses and bombs and tanks. And occupy them and assisinate them. What a less then they're learning. Not that it isn't inbred. So much of their history.

YOU JUST KNOW how their parents praise and ask for justice and kidness to Muslims in Jewish homes. This complaining about madrases or anything else is getting very old given the
Jew's behavior in kind.

i pride myself on religious tolerance, but only to the point that i will not tolerate having someone elses religion forced upon me.

there are many fine points about islam and its adherents. however, there is an element of barbarism about it lingering from the bedouin manners of its inventor.

we owe it no more tolerance than we tolerated polygamy on the part of the mormoms, or ritual sacrifice by pagans. if muslims want acceptance in the civilized world, then i suggest they become civilized.

In case ANYONE has missed it:

TV bunny rouses Gaza kids against Israel, Danes
By Nidal al-Mughrabi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6d2hTjUtMc

"GAZA (Reuters) - A man-sized talking rabbit appeared on television in Gaza on Friday to denounce Danish newspapers over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad that offended Muslims.

The latest in a line of cartoon-inspired characters that take the message of the Hamas Islamist movement to Palestinian children, the actor in the Bugs Bunny-style outfit also railed against "Zionist filth" and Israel's control of Jerusalem.

The Friday show "Tomorrow's Pioneers" on Hamas's al-Aqsa channel has become a weekend fixture for pre-teens since shortly before the Islamists seized control of the Gaza Strip last year.

A Mickey Mouse-type creation provoked outcry in Israel and was condemned elsewhere as inciting hatred among the young. The mouse, eventually shown being beaten to death by an Israeli, was followed by a talking bee and, now, by Assud the rabbit.

"I want the West to hear this. I want the Danes who offended the great Prophet to hear it," the rabbit said, gesturing to viewers after the show's co-presenter, a girl of about 12 named Sarra, condemned Danish newspapers for reprinting the cartoons after police accused several men of plotting to kill the artist.

"Where are you Muslims? Where are you Arabs?" said Sarra, wearing a headscarf and speaking with precocious eloquence.

"We are all a sacrifice for the Prophet. The soldiers of Tomorrow's Pioneers will redeem the Prophet with all they have."

Earlier, several thousand Hamas supporters demonstrated in Gaza over the cartoons, which were first published in 2005.

Returning to the show's favored theme of explaining Hamas's goal of an Islamic state in all the area now divided between Israel and the Palestinians, the rabbit told viewers they would recover Jerusalem's holiest Muslim site and cities in Israel:

"We will liberate al-Aqsa mosque from the Zionists' filth," said Assud, whose name means Little Lion. "We will liberate Jaffa and Acre. Will liberate the whole homeland."

Though some parents are uneasy about the show's message it has proved popular with children, not only in Hamas-controlled Gaza but also in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. One girl called Rasha said she was phoning in from Bethlehem, near Jerusalem:

"Who has sabotaged the world if not the Zionist plans?" she sang down the line to the studio in Gaza. Dancing and singing along, Assud the rabbit chimed in: "They have bombarded us."

If you are blind and deaf since birth and in a flash of light, suddenly you can see and hear and can communicate and somebody shows you a tiny orange seed and says " I'll cover this with dirt and in 5 years time, it becomes like this .." , showing you a gallon of orange juice. I assume you'll be startled with unbelief and that is exactly where you are now. STARTLED IN UNBELIEF AND CLUELESS.

No explanation is possible and the only way for you to know is to wait it out and so my advice for you is to , what else? Wait it out.

By the way, did I tell you that China and the U.S will be banging heads? Wait it out.

Spiderman2 aka Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severly Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion,

Fools are those who have read only the bible. God cannot be proud of such lazy creations!!!!

To reiterate:

What flash of light gave you such brilliance in the field of fortune telling and interpretations of said stupidity???

CCNL,

If God said that unbelievers are fools, then who am I to protest? By believing, that put me a level higher than you are, at least , intellectually.

Had it not come to your senses why people who wants to know past civilizations or earth history had to dig deep to find clues? Does it mean that the earth radius is much thicker now than it was during Noah's time? Does it also mean that earth's gravity is weaker than it is now thus allowing water to accumulate in the atmosphere in much larger amounts, thus making the deluge possible?

Now these are just the "hidden facts" that isn't mentioned in the Bible but the kind of facts that is more plausible than the theories evolutionist scientists concoct like asteroids killing all the dinosaurs which I think is more fictional. Even if a thousand asteroids will rain down on earth, it would not kill even 1 percent of grasshopper population.

(sorry guys, I forgot to post my name)

CCNL,

If God said that unbelievers are fools, then who am I to protest? By believing, that put me a level higher than you are, at least , intellectually.

Had it not come to your senses why people who wants to know past civilizations or earth history had to dig deep to find clues? Does it mean that the earth radius is much thicker now than it was during Noah's time? Does it also mean that earth's gravity is weaker than it is now thus allowing water to accumulate in the atmosphere in much larger amounts, thus making the deluge possible?

Now these are just the "hidden facts" that isn't mentioned in the Bible but the kind of facts that is more plausible than the theories evolutionist scientists concoct like asteroids killing all the dinosaurs which I think is more fictional. Even if a thousand asteroids will rain down on earth, it would not kill even 1 percent of grasshopper population.

Spiderman2, bible thumper and now "prophetseer",

Well you are not possessed by a fictional demon of the demented but you sure talk like one. The Catholic Church still practices exorcisms in case you are interested.

And again, what flash of light gave you such brilliance in the field of fortune telling and interpretations of said stupidity???

Sick of it writes:

MY GOD, DO ONLY IDIOTS POST HERE?
Has it occurred to any of you that JEWS are constantly going to court to try to change
American laws to suit their religion.

I don't think that "only idiots" post here, although I would include you among those who do.
Whether you are among those who worship a "corpse on a stick" as the eloquent Elaygee put the matter on another blog, or those who worship "the hair of the prohet" (what happened to his other hairs), matters little.

Has it never occurred to you that the born-again (twice damned) Bush and Cheney (Haliburtan), in league with the OPEC corportations, BP, Exxon,etc., control and legislate everything on earth? Not only did they get us into this war to increase their oil worth, but these Muslim and Christian-Muslim corportations literally run the world, as everything we do and have depends on oil. These are the wealthiest corporations on earth. While the OPEC corporations are Middle Eastern, the Christian-Muslim are transnational. (They run the world.)

The human rights violations of these Muslim, Chritian-Muslim corporations are legion. They are easily accessible on the web. Descriptions of their irreversible damage to the environment are also easily accessed. If they want to violate the human rights of their co-religionists, fine. Just leave the rest of us out of it. As for the earth, no go.

DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT THE CHRISTIANS, CATHOLICS, WHATEVER, ARE SEEKING TO EXTEND THEIR COLONIZATION OF WOMEN'S BODIES BY ENDING A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE IN THIS COUNTRY?

The American Catholics have already ended women's rights in Ireland, and not only for Christians. INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIANITY REACHES ACROSS THE GLOBE. WAKE UP.

They not only go to court to control women, they have their boys (possibly raped as children) on the Supreme Court and Senate.

The Christians have put their boys on the Supreme court. The "confessing" christians overwhelmingly control the House of Representatives, the Catholics (very mysteriously) overrun the Senate.

Look at their oil holdings.

Judaism dictates that if the mother's life is in danger, the pregnancy must be termanated. If Christians want to die in childbirth, no problem for me. If they want to keep on breeding, no problem. Just leave me out of it. Separation of "church" (note the term) and state.

DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS MUSLIM SCREECHING THAT GOT THE CHRISTMAS TREES REMOVED FROM GRAND CENTRAL STATION?

As they should have been. If Christians wish to celebrate their pagan holidays, they should do so privately, in there own homes.

DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT IT IS THE CHRISTIANS THAT HAVE BEEN HOLDING BACK STEM CELL RESEARCH? THAT THE CHRISTIAN BUSH ASKED THE POPE FOR HIS OPINTION?!!

If the Christians want to die of diseases, at present incurable, fine. Just don't legislate. Keep me out of it. Do not spend tax money asking the pope his opinion. Why would the rest of us care?

DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES ARE CLOSED ON CHRISTMAS, NOT JUST ON THAT DAY BUT AT LEAST FOR A WEEK? THE SAME WITH EASTER?

If the Christians want to pig out for a week and drink, no problem. Again, keep the rest of us out of it. Don't drive the cars run with your oil blood money, so that the rest of us can remain living. A reasonable request, I think.

I could go on and on and on. But my guess is that Sick of it not only has a low literacy level, but a short attention span.

More, much more to follow.

CCNL,

Angels have no wings. They can appear as ordinary people or just be invisible as they wish.

For other of your questions, I'll explain it this way. In science or in any field, there are things that has no answers like the mystery behind DNAs. DNAs are like a blank wall that will have no answer even for the rest of the remaining human existence. And so are parts of the bible which could be stated as literal or as a figure of speech. Some could be literal but not fully understood coz other related facts are hidden.

The reason why I know more than most people about the Bible is because most of its prophecies are not literal and it takes an intelligent brain to decipher them. And if secularists don't seem to crack them, it is because for the simple reason that they are NOT intelligent. SIMPLE AS THAT.

Why would God call unbelievers as fools if they are intellectually normal? It is because God means it and it's literal. They are fools and it's not a figure of speech nor there are any other hidden facts. It is just that.

Bronthers writes (or vomits):

"Well, not as long as the Jews (APIAC, Wall STreet, the rest of the neocons) control American courts and media and Wall STreet"

Actually, I'd say, not as long as the Christian-Muslim oil cartel controls the world. Exxon, BP, etc., with their Ibribims and Georges and Dicks.

Look at the war the mus's and christos have gotten us into now. So long as the mus's and christo's control the planet and all its wealth, so long as the mus's and christo's prefer their precious money to human life and decency, we will be where we are.

BP and human rights. Exxon and human rights. These are muslim, christian transnational corporations, two of the three wealthiest in the world (the third is also muslim-christian, the fourth, the christian Walmart) easily researched on the web. If the mus's and christo's wish to kill each other, fine. Leave the rest of us out of it, please.

MY GOD, DO ONLY IDIOTS POST HERE?

Has it occurred to any of you that JEWS are constantly going to court to try to change
American laws to suit their religion.

Suing municipalities about manger scenes.
Getting things taken off the books
Screaming and threatening at airports about having Christmas trees!. Any many things less
public.

Do none of you think?

Well, not as long as the Jews (APIAC, Wall STreet, the rest of the neocons) control American courts and media and Wall STreet.

But then, that's about over. One way or another.

Starting with the "ensnared Bush White House
going bye bye.
Why do you think most Americans hated the White House so much.

But can we support the idea that the state has the right to interfere in how citizens might decide, by mutual consent, to peacefully settle their private disputes and disagreements?

Indeed, the issue of ‘shariah courts’ is really just an issue of freedom of contract: the idea that people entering freely into a contract — whether that be a marriage contract or a commercial contract — have the right to agree as to how they settle any disagreements (subject naturally to the law). In the case of a marriage contract, this might be agreeing that a local committee of religious leaders would rule on the division of property following a divorce; or, in the case of a business transaction, it might be deciding that a private arbitration organisation or industry association rules on any disagreements.

The point is that the arbitration body — regardless of whether it is a Rabbinical court, a Shariah court or a secular body — derives its authority not from statute but from the consent of the parties requesting arbitration. The fact that the parties are choosing to settle their commercial or social disagreements by reference to the Qu’ran is therefore of no more consequence to society than if they decided to settle the same dispute by tossing a coin, asking a neighbour to decide, or any of the other myriad of ways in which human beings settle disagreements peacefully.

Oops. My last post should have read:

"The ecumenical types seek to RELIEVE the pain through...",

but you all figured that out already. :)

Religion is like a nail that is being driven into the side of civilization's head. It causes a lot of pain and is probably life threatening.

The ecumenical types seek to relive the pain through balance. Pounding a sharia nail in the other side of the head, for example, may give us a better sense of shared pain. Or, perhaps it will make us long for the days when we had to concern ourselves with a single nail and the one side of our casaba that was under assault.

Other religionists propose a solid kick to civilization's groin in hopes that this new and excruciating pain may make civilization overlook - at least temporarily - the pain in its head.

Funny how the most-obvious solution, ie: removing the religious nail(s) from civilization's head, is never considered by the religionists as the best and only course of action.

;)

Mischka, Mischka, Mischka and all the other Muslims out there,

Once again:

Your problems go beyond the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies"

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

The day ANY religious law but especially something as backward as sharia is even considered a topic of remote possibility in my country is the day I take the flintlock musket down from the rack over the fireplace and head to the village green to oppose the tyranny my government has become. I am pretty sure I will have plenty of company.

The day ANY religious law but especially something as backward as sharia is even considered a topic of remote possibility in my country is the day I take the flintlock musket down from the rack over the fireplace and head to the village green to oppose the tyranny my government has become. I am pretty sure I will have plenty of company.

Spiderman2,

Please, pretty, pretty please, never ever smoke that stuff again!!!!

REmember that commercial??...this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs.....

There is no other topic that could generate even an iota of conversation - right? LOL!

Anyway, DONTTYPELIES - you really should live up to your name and - dont type lies...

CCNL - Still alive?

Impact of Williams' Comments on the Lives of Christians Living in Muslim Dominated Areas

by Benjamin Kwashi
2/14/2008

The office of the Archbishop of Canterbury is generally perceived as being that of the leader of Anglicans all over the world. What he says or does will have an effect on the Anglican Church in every continent.

It should be noted that the African view of a religious leader is that of a highly respected and spiritual figure. That is why, for example, the Nigerian Inter-Religious Council (NIREC) is headed by prelates of the Christian denominations, along with the Sultan of Sokoto and key leaders of the Supreme Islamic Council.

There are also other bodies headed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders who are helping to keep the peace and give direction on all matters affecting religion, and this has greatly assisted Nigeria in her development and growth as a nation. It is necessary to mention this because the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury cuts across 38 Provinces in many continents. His statements and views on issues may be taken as authoritative in some countries even when they may not be seen as such in England.

Conditions vary in different countries. For example, for the last 27 years, since the introduction of Shari'a in Sudan, non-Muslims, and particularly Christians, have NOT had an easy life. Since 1980 in Nigeria, non-Muslims and the Christian Church have suffered different kinds of hardships in various parts of the North.

In a State such as Plateau State, Muslims may not be in the majority, but during the last few years religious crises have threatened to engulf the entire State and to draw it backwards. This brief reminder is necessary for the public to understand that it is no small thing for an Archbishop to be said to be in support of the recognition of the Islamic legal system in Britain.

The bulk of the Archbishop of Canterbury's lecture and presentation may not be read by the majority of people, but that the summary of his paper is in any sense in favour of Islamic law is a matter of serious concern. Until now, no Christian religious leader has spoken in favour of Islamic law, but Christians in many different countries and continents have known persecution and suffering.

If Islamic law is now seen as having the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury in any way at all, the impact that this may have in Muslim dominated parts of the world can only be imagined.

Archbishop Benjamin Kwashi
Diocese of Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria

From one American (of Indian origin) to all Americans:

Regarding Sharia laws in the United States:

DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!!!

THIS IS NOT A TOPIC EVEN WORTH DISCUSSING. HAS THE POST GONE NUTS? PLEASE, AMERICA STOP BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO SHOW YOUR LIBERAL CREDENTIALS. LIBERAL DOES NOT MEAN STUPID. PLEASE!

Separation of church (all of them) and state. You cannot get much clearer than that. Sharia law is a religion based entity, and as such, holds no place in the laws of the U.S. Our constitution protects us from any religion who may attempt to make its laws and tenants the new law of the land. Sharia law certainly fits into a religious based law, and there is no room for compromise, or for changing our current laws to 'make room for' someone's religous law. Thank goodness we are protected from something like that happening.

We can debate the fine points Islam and Sharia law to the ends of the earth, but the answer to the posted question: "Should U.S. law make room for Sharia?" is no.

Spiderman, Spiderman, Spiderman,

So you believe in "pretty, wingie, flying thingies" aka angels, fairies or tinkerbells?

So you believe that Adam and Eve lived 6000 years ago? i.e. the bible time line even though DNA evidence shows at minimum of 60,000 years of hominid existence?

So you believe in the Noah's great global flood and you have Noah's blood in you?

So you believe in the Abraham's almost filicide of his son Isaac where Isaac was saved by a pretty wingie thingie?

So you believe in the parting of the Red Sea even though there is no textural or archeological attestations in Egyptian or other lore?

So you believe in talking bushes, great plagues, pretty wingie thingies slaying little children and walking sticks turned into snakes?

So you believe a people that have the intelligence to concoct such stories get lost in a small desert for forty years?

And on and on in one of the great fictional and embellished books ever written!!!!!!

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7)

This Old Testament Bible verse was written by a servant of God named Job in about 1520 BC. During that time when most people think that the earth is flat, it is remarkable that someone will categorically say that the earth is not supported by anything. If there were scientists in his time, it would not be unusual if they call him crazy or stupid. Even today, if we have no concrete photos or pictures of the earth floating in space, chances are we won't believe that it really "hangs upon nothing".

The Bible was written thousands of years ago but yet it's never obsolete and is still full of facts that are reserved for future generations to witness or if they are wise, unravel. Despite its accuracy in both scientific and historical matters there are many-a-number of people who dismiss it as fictional.

Too bad coz the people who dismiss it as fictional could someday become just a figment of our imagination coz they won't exist anymore -- they will be gone with the wind. I don't like saying it but it will happen. Believe it.

Spiderman2 aka "Bible Thumper #1121",

You give fortune tellers/"profits" a bad name!!!

And Job was another mythical OT figure. Quoting moral fiction is OK but at least note it as such.

The prophecy foretells that America will have many enemies. It's not a coincidence that their enemies are mostly godless like communists or evolutionists and believers of false religions like "works worshipper"- Islamists. All these people are doomed and how else to seal their upcoming doom except to pick an enemy that God had chosen to rule the earth. It's not a coincidence also that God gave the U.S. the capacity to burn and pulverize its enemies and likewise it's enemies to burn part of America.

It's all in the prophecy and one has only to either wait for it to happen or repent to avoid the wrath to come. Jesus is coming ? Not yet, but His wrath, a BIG YES. And don't try to take cover coz even the covers will melt.

A phoenix is a mythical bird with beautiful gold and red plumage. At the end of its life-cycle the phoenix builds itself a nest of cinamon twigs that it then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix arises. The bird was also said to regenerate when hurt or wounded by a foe, thus being almost immortal and invincible — a symbol of fire and divinity. "Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand", Job 29:18. Seldom that a prophecy and mythology intertwine but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. Let the unbelievers test the pudding. Let them taste the truthfulness of the prophecy.

"Death to America" is a staple in Arab mouths. The mythology states that "the bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes". The prophecy will happen and parts of America will burn. God will allow it because of America's growing secularism and liberalism. But those responsible are equally hypocrites. They too will all burn and Im not sure if they will be able to recover unlike the phoenix which is described as almost "immortal and invincible". People should be careful in picking America as their enemy coz as the prophecy foretells, that may spell the end of their civilization or their history. Believe it.

To All Muslims,

Your problems go beyond the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies"

2. Belief that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

I am a practicing Muslim. My beliefs, and those of most of my fellow progressive Muslims, will probably shock many of you because you are inundated with stories of intolerant and ignorant culturalists that purport their ideas under the guise of Islam. Islam is in a terrible time now, as even the followers of Islam are forgetting the true meaning of the religion. I urge you not to confuse the ramblings of backwards-thinking "Muslims" with the true teachings of Islam. That being said, I don't believe Shariah law has any place in English law. There is no true Muslim state in existance today, and it's ridiculous that any "Muslim" country thinks they actually represent the religion!

I am a practicing Muslim. My beliefs, and those of most of my fellow progressive Muslims, will probably shock many of you because you are inundated with stories of intolerant and ignorant culturalists that purport their ideas under the guise of Islam. Islam is in a terrible time now, as even the followers of Islam are forgetting the true meaning of the religion. I urge you not to confuse the ramblings of backwards-thinking "Muslims" with the true teachings of Islam. That being said, I don't believe Shariah law has any place in English law. There is no true Muslim state in existance today, and it's ridiculous that any "Muslim" country thinks they actually represent the religion!

To Deb Chatterjee from Daniel. I hope I did not give the impression that I will no longer eat Indian food--on the contrary, there are plenty of other brands of fast Indian food which I continue to eat, and of course I home cook Indian food. In general I wish I was not so harsh in my post. My intellect has difficulty enough keeping up with laws currently in existence in Western societies and to somehow create law out of the entanglements of so many countries in the world is really something for which I have no imagination. I just try to bypass the issue or resolve it somehow by political, economic, philosophical discussions, etc. In general though I think an increasing thicket of law is a very serious problem--a sign of apprenticeship rather than mastery, as everyone knows that an apprentice must be subjected to much that must impinge on consciousness before it becomes internalized and instinctive. The entanglements of countries in the world today is the reduction of the human race to something of a childhood state once again and we all must relearn and simultaneously improve how we act toward one another. But what if the thicket of laws increases to the point where we despair of ever being able to learn how to act? We need to compare and contrast laws but also simply so we have a chance of mastery and something of instinctive and flowing civilization. Thanks for conversation.

Unfortunately most of the comments are from fantics from different religions. This is what
oppressed lower casts Hindus have to say about
upper casts [ruling class] in INDIA

We will not allow Brahminical people to dismantle parliamentary democracy
The very megalomaniac mental makeup of India’s upper castes is fascist, anti-human. Both caste-wise and class-wise, they are autocratic and intolerant to the core. Their own terrorist party, RSS, provides the best example for the abnormal thinking of the Brahminical rulers of India
http://www.dalitvoice.org/Templates/dec2007/editorial.htm

Daniel wrote:

"...but I have been unable to eat it and will never purchase anything by Patels again because the apologist for Islam Eboo Patel on this site makes me sick."

I share and sympathize with your views. Eboo Patel is a Gujarati Muslim from India. He is obviously of a "converted" Muslim ancestry. That is, his ancestors or himself had converted to Islam from Hinduism for whatever reasons. Many Muslims like him keep their past Hindu identity by retaining their Hindu family name. So, he is not a "Patel" anymore, but he is free to maintain his Hindu family name.

Similarly, I used to read some posts on a Islamic website by one Dr. Zakir Naik. Again, Naik is NOT a Muslim family name. This fellow, a crown jewel in the Indian Muslim community, is a converted Muslim but still maintains his "Hindu" family name which is "Naik". See his accolades at the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) link:

http://www.irf.net/irf/drzakirnaik/index.htm

You shall find similar situations amongst Bangladeshi Hindus who converted to Islam. For example a Bangladeshi Muslim may say his (if male) name is "Palash". The word "Palash" means flower in Bengali dialect. However upon quizzing a little further one can find that this person is actually a Muslim whose full name could be something like "Akram Ibadatullah Palash". They use these names to deceive Hindu girls just for the purposes of having sex and abandoning them or perhaps to get married. There has been numerous cases reported in the Indian newspapers where a (Hindu) girl stated that she thought she was running away (eloping) with a Hindu but in reality she was being duped by a Muslim.

This is, in my personal opinion, deception. If Shariah is somehow made legal in USA/UK/Canada, then grave danger awaits such secular cultures. The only way to stoip this menace is to place a strict moratorium on Muslim immigration to USA and Canada. UK is a basket case. Its fortunes have sunk, so we can write it off.

Mary C.-

KNOW YOUR NEIGHBORS-

"Reports alleging that British Muslims are fighting with the Taliban against UK forces in Afghanistan have been met with incredulity and dismay.

It has been reported that British spy planes monitoring radio traffic in the Helmand Province have detected Taliban fighters speaking in clear' Bradford and West Bromwich dialects.

Linguists on board the Nimrod planes detected the British voices while listening in on Taliban radio traffic, it has been claimed.

A national newspaper reported an un-named RAF source saying: "The missions specialists could easily jam the Taliban transmissions but the RAF believes listening in to their plans is much more productive.

"It was quite startling to hear English being spoken with clear Bradford and West Brom accents.

"They reverted to English when they couldn't remember the Afghan Persian or Pashto - the two local languages - for certain words."

shafiullah afghan wrote:
" . . . Islam is the religion of Peace and brotherhood it respects rights of all the different categories of people."
--------------------------------------------
Really?! What about the treatment of women? Better yet, here is this from Wikepedia:

"Public worship of non-Islamic religions is forbidden in Saudi Arabia and Christians of all denominations have been subjected to persecution, for public preaching [1]. Possession of Bibles, in theory, is not a crime although possession of large quantities can carry severe penalties as it will be viewed that it is your intention to convert others."

Is this what you call peace, tolerance, and acceptance of others? You are not fooling anyone with that religion of peace and tolerance crap.

My short and unequivocal answer to this question is that English law must not accomodate Shariah. And of course U.S. law must not make room for such. Furthermore I would like to add that I bought some Patel's Indian food--I love Indian food--but I have been unable to eat it and will never purchase anything by Patels again because the apologist for Islam Eboo Patel on this site makes me sick. There is no question at all in my mind that Islam is a threat to the West and that it must be modified to a high degree to be compatible with Western civilization. I would say the problem of Islam in relationship to the West is the single greatest objection to the multicultural ideal now in existence. I know these words are harsh but I find it impossible to be equivocal, polite, tempered about it now. We have an overpopulated Islamic world spreading out with its Sharia in a world with dangerous weaponry spreading more and more every day and really we have to reflect as much as any time in history on what exactly civilization is, what do we mean by the best of such, etc. In short, no I do not believe Shariah has a place in the Western world. Furthermore I believe Shariah will compromise Islam with respect to other civilizations as well (Russian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.). The Archbishop of Canterbury must be far from the Canterbury Tales (I suspect such although I have not read the Canterbury tales yet). No Shariah in the West. If Islamic people want to emigrate to the West they must adopt Western ways or not come to the West at all. How strange it is that immigrants from failing or outright failed economies strive right when they get to a successful economy to turn the economy right into something of precisely the economy they fled! Common sense dictates that if one wants a successful economy that one should imitate the most successful economies. Tell me, what does Shariah law have to do with a successful economy? I think the English should reflect deeply on this threat to their nation. Harsh words, and I apologize, but I see no other way to reply.

"Look well on England and Western Europe and see what self-loathing liberalism has wrought: Cultural suicide, misery, and pestilent social strife."

Really? When was the last time that you were in England or Western Europe? I mean, I could see where one would get that impression if you flew into Heathrow, or took the Tube, or traveled in some less savory parts of London or Paris. But for the most part, Western Europe seems to be doing pretty darn well.

"Look well on England and Western Europe and see what self-loathing liberalism has wrought: Cultural suicide, misery, and pestilent social strife."

Really? When was the last time that you were in England or Western Europe? I mean, I could see where one would get that impression if you flew into Heathrow, or traveled in some parts of London or Paris. But for the most part, Western Europe seems to be doing pretty darn good.

shafiullah afghan

Get out of the 7th century please. You do not make sense and you have no logic.

Cave people existed thousands and thousands of years ago.

Stop pretending Islam is not satanic.

Spiderman2 wrote: " . . . The history of this world is pretty much laid out already. Parts of America is liberal and secular and that will be destroyed by its enemies. But the bigger story is, America's enemies will be wiped off the surface of the earth."

Spiderman2,

Where exactly do you get this stuff from? Has God slated the liberal blue states for destruction while he will spare his preferred conservative red staters?? You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Here is a fact for you . . . none of us know for 100% certainty how it all plays out in the end, that includes you. People have been talking about Christ's imminent return for 2000 years and counting. Do you know something that the rest of us do not? The Bible warns about the false prophets who shall come claiming to know the absolute truth. Are you one of those false prophets? The way you speak in such absolute terms makes me think so.

We have talked about this issue in detail, and htis can be found at:
http://muslimmatters.org/2008/02/12/foxs-struggle-war-against-terrorism-shariah-in-uk/

Spiderman2: You are an idiot!

The problems of the world can be directly linked to religion (which are nothing more than organized cults). Religion, whichever one it may be, is intolerant of a basic human right to believe whatever a person prefers to believe. Religion attempts (and often succeeds) to force beliefs on non-believers.

The West does not have a problem with being secular and liberal. Quite the opposite, the problem is that the West is too religious. The West needs to be more open-minded about the rights of the people to enjoy sexuality, drugs, etc.

What the world needs most of all is love. And from love comes tolerance of others...and happiness!

Hedonism!!! No more and no less a religion than Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc., but a whole lot more tolerant, fun and happy!!

State sponsored Gujarat riots: Human Rights Watch

Tanmaya Kumar Nanda in New York | January 14, 2003 02:20 IST

Attacks against minority groups such as Muslims, Christians and dalits in India by right-wing Hindu groups dominate the 2003 global report released by Human Rights Watch on Monday, January 13.

The report specifically mentions the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat that followed the torching of a train at Godhra, in which 58 people were killed, and says they were planned and point to the involvement of the state machinery.

"Much of the violence was planned well in advance of the Godhra attack and was carried out with state approval and orchestration... State officials and the police were directly involved in the violence: In many cases, the police led the charge, using gunfire to kill Muslims who got in the mobs' way," the report notes.

The state was, and is, under the rule of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which also heads the coalition government at the Centre.

HRW has also named the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council), Bajrang Dal, the militant youth wing of the VHP, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps) as being directly responsible for the violence.

The state apparatus has also come in for criticism for doing little or nothing to identify the accused. Efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice have been virtually non-existent, says the report. In addition, the state government is said to have failed to provide adequate and timely humanitarian assistance to the internally displaced people with problems like serious delays in government assistance reaching relief camps, inadequate state protection, and lack of medical and food supplies and sanitation facilities.

The report states that 'member organizations of the sangh parivar also continued to distribute hate literature, direct violent attacks and mount conversion efforts against other minority communities, most notably Christians and tribals'.

Besides Gujarat, the report mentions continued violence against dalits and Christians and mentions that even the United Nations is increasingly recognising 'caste-based discrimination (as a) violation of international law'.

It also claims that the Indian government continued to exploit rhetoric surrounding the global 'war against terrorism' to target religious minorities and political opponents, and said the implementation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act foreshadowed a return to the widespread and systematic curtailment of civil rights, citing at least four arrests of political opponents under the law.

The victimization of women continued with little recourse to justice, the report found, despite the passage of the Protection

Human Rights Watch report on Gujarat: May 2002
"We Have No Orders to Save You"
http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Religion-communalism/2002/hrw.htm

Not only should Sharia law not be allowed, but Islam should be exposed for what it is -- a cult started by a deranged person (Mohammad - no peace be upon him!) who was inspired by Satan through a false angel (not Gabriel). The Quran is the word of the devil Satan!!!

I know some of you may disagree with this statement. Read the Quran--I have. For every sura that speaks of love and peace you will find a sura that espouses hate and war. The sad thing is, Muslims won't acknowledge any of the "bad" suras. Perhaps this is just brainwashing by the imams.

you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong;” in fact, it is to be found in his commentary on Q 3:21-22. [21]

. . . God has made commanding good and forbidding evil a criterion/difference (farqan) between believers and hypocrites. And He has indicated that the most particular (akhass) of the characteristics of the believer is to command good and forbid evil, the beginning of which (ra’suha) is to summon others to Islam and to fight for it. But commanding good is not appropriate for everyone; rather, it is the ruler (sultan) who undertakes it, since carrying out [the various punishments] is his responsibility . . . and he sets up in every community a virtuous, strong, knowledgeable, believing man and charges him with [the duty].
Islam gives this tremendous social force
a purpose. It must be used for promoting good, truth and justice and
checking evil and injustice. That is the essence of
amr-bil-maroof-wa-nahi-anil-munkar. And Qur'an declares it as the
defining mission for this ummah: "You are the best community that has
been raised for mankind. You enjoin good and forbid evil and you
believe in Allah." [Aal-e- Imran, 3:110].
6) Surah III, 110 "You are the best of nations raised up for the benefit of men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong …"
7) Surah VIII, 55 "Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."

you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong;” in fact, it is to be found in his commentary on Q 3:21-22. [21]

. . . God has made commanding good and forbidding evil a criterion/difference (farqan) between believers and hypocrites. And He has indicated that the most particular (akhass) of the characteristics of the believer is to command good and forbid evil, the beginning of which (ra’suha) is to summon others to Islam and to fight for it. But commanding good is not appropriate for everyone; rather, it is the ruler (sultan) who undertakes it, since carrying out [the various punishments] is his responsibility . . . and he sets up in every community a virtuous, strong, knowledgeable, believing man and charges him with [the duty].
Islam gives this tremendous social force
a purpose. It must be used for promoting good, truth and justice and
checking evil and injustice. That is the essence of
amr-bil-maroof-wa-nahi-anil-munkar. And Qur'an declares it as the
defining mission for this ummah: "You are the best community that has
been raised for mankind. You enjoin good and forbid evil and you
believe in Allah." [Aal-e- Imran, 3:110].
6) Surah III, 110 "You are the best of nations raised up for the benefit of men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong …"
7) Surah VIII, 55 "Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."

Spiderman2 aka "Bible Thumper #1121",

You give fortune tellers/"profits" a bad name!!!

And using John 3:16 as historic Jesus is not wise i.e. single attestation and apparent late entry to embellish the life of a simple preacher man.

See also http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/350_Jesus_to_Nicodemus

Note: John 3: 11-21 also makes god the padre guilty of filicide.

I wrote this in response to one hyperventilating US neo on the Archbishop affair in today's London Times. He accused the UK of 'appeasement' (yet again!) over this matter.

"Dear Brian,

I do wish you and other American neos would choose a different historical analogy. Why are you all so fixated on the Nazis? The historical situation is simply not the same.

Why do Americans, probably living in some safe rural area, presume to offer advice to Londoners? Have your harsh actions in the ME brought you a lot of kudos? If so, I haven't noticed.

Gledhill et al's 'coverage' was classic yellow journalism, fear mongering at its worst. I would wager none of said journos actually even bothered to read the speech, let alone discuss it rationally. The goal of assimilating Muslims (in 2001 3.2% of the British population, less so now due to the large numbers of European migrants) into British society, while at the same time fighting the Islamists who are waging the terror, plotting to blow up the rest of us, calls for steady nerves and cool headed thinking.

Demonising *all* Muslims is extremely counterproductive, since we depend upon the Muslim community itself for leads against the terrorists. How does 'appeasing' Hitler have any connection with combating internal plotters? If there is any historical situation with some parallels it is the fight against *Irish* terrorists operating on the mainland during the 1974-1998 period.

I consider myself on the front line. I take the tube. I shop in crowded places. I use London airports, even Heathrow (a hell on earth even without the terror threats). After the Pope's Regenburg's speech I was one of those Catholics that faced an angry mob of Islamists after Sunday Mass in Westminster Cathedral. So I know who I am up against. Angry young men.

Thus I resent fear mongering because it leads to the wrong response. I am more at risk than you, hence I also very much resist inappropriate analogies and unasked for advice.
Regards,

Mary Cunningham
London

PS If I had to emigrate I could go to anyplace in Europe, I'd probably choose Spain or Ireland. But I hope not to have to go."

Must say the response in America has been much more rational than what we witnessed in the UK. But, then again, we are closer to the centre of the controversy.

Best to all, especially glad to see Veijita's calling the whole thing unnecessarily inflammatory awa many other posters.

While readers have expressed polarised viewpoints, it makes sense to analyse why the Archbishop has made this suggestion.I am a Hindu and my community has been the biggest victim of Islamic terror.My community's sufferring predates Sep 11 by a decade starting with the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1992.Muslims are steadfastly following the Koranic teaching of spreading their religion.All possible tools legal and illegal are being adopted for the purpose.The legal tool includes proselytizing other faiths and encouraging Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women.In UK and France almost hundred thousand Christians have converted to Islam.This includes educated white women.You may never see a Muslim girl marrying a non-Muslim man unless the man converts to Islam.However, you may see the reverse picture in plenty.
The reason why people are converting to Islam is not far to seek.Christians, specially the white north americans and europeans have adopted a blind form of secularism which promotes free sex,alcoholism,singlehood pregnancy.In short they have abandoned Christianity altogether.Victims of this rotten culture are converting to Islam in search of social stability.Also, since non-Muslim girls have no attachment to their religion, they readily convert to Islam to marry their Muslim boyfriends.
The next and perhaps the biggest tool Muslims are using is the illegal means of infiltrating the west.The west has adopted ultra liberal refugee laws which ensures no one who is in the country can be thrown out.72% of Muslims in Netherlands are illegal immigrants from north africa.Ditto is the case with other western european countries. These countries have failed to remove bogus refugee claimants, even though many have lost their cases in courts.Europe has failed to recognize that Islam is using illegal immigration as a Trojan horse to penetrate the west.
Now, readers will agree that Muslims are prolific breeders.While an average non-muslim struggles to raise a single child, Muslims produce 8 to 9 kids under the same set of circumstances.Now, get the equation. Muslims are pouring in to the Christian world and propagating their numbers rapidly.And these countries are democracies where majority rules.So, as the Archbishop has said, introduction of Islamic law is inevitable given the steep rise of Islam in the west and the steady erosion of Christianity.
One can only bemoan the dating,mating,crime and credit culture of the west which is pushing Christianity on a rapid downward spiral.

The U.S. did not start WW2 but that was the beginning of the fulfillment of that prophecy and WW3 would establish it fully even though the U.S. won't start it.

That is the prophecy and those who would challenge it (there would be many) may temporarily win but in the final showdown, the prophecy would still prevail.

A lot of people will be "vaporized".

America has been protected by God from two World Wars but not this time because of the increasing liberalism and secularism among its people.

Salvation is personal and being a member of a religion would not save a person. But Eph. 2:8-10 and Jn 3:16 sums it all and those who live these verses in their hearts are the holders of true religion.

The history of this world is pretty much laid out already. Parts of America is liberal and secular and that will be destroyed by its enemies. But the bigger story is, America's enemies will be wiped off the surface of the earth.

America is not invincible and it could be defeated. But the irony of it is that it's a lot more stronger the second time around. Remember the famous phrase "I shall return"? In WW2, it did returned and pulverized it's enemy like powder.

The same will happen in WW3. The point is, it's not a good thing that America gets defeated coz the next episode will be the annihilation of its enemies. Believe it.

Fascinating... All of this posturing by those of FAITH... All of you religious folk need to go back and read the definition of the word faith. It does not connote nor is it synonymous with the word TRUTH. That which you cannot prove cannot be truth and you cannot prove the myths of your various religions, try Adam and Eve or Cain and Abel or Muhammad's accension into heaven, or Jesus's for that matter.. One of the writers above, perhaps the first one, called other religions, even those which are Christian, false... Why are theirs anymore false than that person's? Its ludicrous and it is the major problem with religion today and down throughout history that what you believe as an article of faith, not fact, is the truth. Belief/faith as truth has led to more blood shed and human suffering down throughout the ages than any other cause. Time for this to stop. We are a secular society and we should be if we are to accommodate all the various faiths in our "melting pot" whether those faiths are "false" or not. As for Shariah being part of American law, some of it probably already is, such as the death penalty. No we don't behead or cut off hands but we do execute and put human beings in places where we know they will be abused, raped, beaten by guards and other inmates and we call that justice. Not everybody who goes to jail is a sex offender or a serial killer. Most are there for offenses that hurt no one but themselves. Fascinating.

Sharia Divorce laws

A husband may divorce his wife whenever he wants. If the marriage has been consummated, the divorced woman must remain at her ex-husband's house for three months before she is allowed to leave. The man has the ability to retract the divorce by having sex with the woman within those three months.
A woman who wishes to be divorced needs the consent of her husband. If he consents she has to pay back the dowry. Under certain circumstances (abuse, for instance), the wife may ask a judge to separate the couple.
If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man and then divorces him. These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.[7]

For more of Sharia Law check this out : http://www.trosch.org/moh/sharia-law.html

The reason why the U.S is the greatest country is because it is the country that fit to the description of Apostle Paul which says that the children of faith and NOT the children of works (this includes the four major religions [ Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Judaism ] and some major false christian religions like catholicism) will inherit and rule the earth. A big portion of the people in the U.S and even the first settlers in Plymouth, Massachusetts believe that scripture. They inherit the prophecy by believing it. This country will ultimately rule the earth coz that is the prophecy.

People like the Archbishop should study more about the Bible so he won't be acting like an fool -- a religious person of very high rank and yet ignorant of the Word of God. Britain was the No.1 world power before but has rapidly drove down to obscurity precisely because what used to be a Bible-literate nation has become a nation who believes that they all came from monkeys -- no proof but mere speculation and they all swallowed it , hook , line and sinker.

If they study how very slowly DNAs change, they would arrive to a conclusion that evolution is more of a fairy tale than the superhero, Spiderman.

The rate in which DNAs should change from one form to another should be very fast ( in nanoseconds or much greater ) so it would fit to the age of the universe which is just 13-20 billion years old. And since DNAs don't behave that way, any transformation from one creature to another form is impossible.

I suggest that the Archbishop try movie-making and quit his post as top man of the church of England. He can begin his new career in Saudi Arabia where a person could end up in prison for owning a Bible. Hmm, perhaps it would be better if all evolutionists follow suit.

And Chris would do well if he spend some time in Saudi Arabia so he would see first hand what Sharia Law means. Im sure he'd choose to crawl back to America if that is the only way home.

Thanks to the first settlers who established this land thru faith in Christ. God Bless America and soon the world coz America would rule it -- with liberty and justice for all.

Well said Pecos Bill! I agree with you 100%. I am a religious person, to me religion is a very personal and private matter. My beliefs are certainly going to be different than others, which is exactly why this is such an incredibly bad idea on ALL fronts. Why would anyone who has not totally lost their mind even contemplate embracing religious law by any government? Just take a look at the quality of life in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and even Texas to see what a bad idea this is. Being religious does not give one the right to force their personal beliefs down the throats of others, nor does it exempt you from rationale thought. Why anyone would venture close to the edge of this very dangerous and slippery slope defies common sense and logic. Keep God and your religion where it belongs . . . in your heart, your home, and your church. Just kindly leave it out of government.

Well said Pecos Bill! I agree with you 100%. I am a religious person, to me religion is a very personal and private matter. My beliefs are certainly going to be different than others, which is exactly why this is such an incredibly bad idea on ALL fronts. Why would anyone who has not totally lost their mind even contemplate embracing religious law by any government? Just take a look at the quality of life in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and even Texas to see what a bad idea this is. Being religious does not give one the right to force their personal beliefs down the throats of others, nor does it exempt you from rationale thought. Why anyone would venture close to the edge of this very dangerous and slippery slope defies common sense and logic. Keep God and your religion where it belongs . . . in your heart, your home, and your church. Just kindly leave it out of government.

See Dafur in Sudan. What is being done in the name of Islam
you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong;” in fact, it is to be found in his commentary on Q 3:21-22. [21]

. . . God has made commanding good and forbidding evil a criterion/difference (farqan) between believers and hypocrites. And He has indicated that the most particular (akhass) of the characteristics of the believer is to command good and forbid evil, the beginning of which (ra’suha) is to summon others to Islam and to fight for it. But commanding good is not appropriate for everyone; rather, it is the ruler (sultan) who undertakes it, since carrying out [the various punishments] is his responsibility . . . and he sets up in every community a virtuous, strong, knowledgeable, believing man and charges him with [the duty].
Islam gives this tremendous social force
a purpose. It must be used for promoting good, truth and justice and
checking evil and injustice. That is the essence of
amr-bil-maroof-wa-nahi-anil-munkar. And Qur'an declares it as the
defining mission for this ummah: "You are the best community that has
been raised for mankind. You enjoin good and forbid evil and you
believe in Allah." [Aal-e- Imran, 3:110].
6) Surah III, 110 "You are the best of nations raised up for the benefit of men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong …"
7) Surah VIII, 55 "Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."

See Dafur in Sudan. What is being done in the name of Islam
you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong;” in fact, it is to be found in his commentary on Q 3:21-22. [21]

. . . God has made commanding good and forbidding evil a criterion/difference (farqan) between believers and hypocrites. And He has indicated that the most particular (akhass) of the characteristics of the believer is to command good and forbid evil, the beginning of which (ra’suha) is to summon others to Islam and to fight for it. But commanding good is not appropriate for everyone; rather, it is the ruler (sultan) who undertakes it, since carrying out [the various punishments] is his responsibility . . . and he sets up in every community a virtuous, strong, knowledgeable, believing man and charges him with [the duty].
Islam gives this tremendous social force
a purpose. It must be used for promoting good, truth and justice and
checking evil and injustice. That is the essence of
amr-bil-maroof-wa-nahi-anil-munkar. And Qur'an declares it as the
defining mission for this ummah: "You are the best community that has
been raised for mankind. You enjoin good and forbid evil and you
believe in Allah." [Aal-e- Imran, 3:110].
6) Surah III, 110 "You are the best of nations raised up for the benefit of men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong …"
7) Surah VIII, 55 "Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."

What is going on in Dafur right now has to do with the Koran. Please do not allow Muslim law into your law. They will never allow that in any Muslim country. As a matter of fact Christians cannot worship openly in Saudi Arabia
you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong;” in fact, it is to be found in his commentary on Q 3:21-22. [21]

. . . God has made commanding good and forbidding evil a criterion/difference (farqan) between believers and hypocrites. And He has indicated that the most particular (akhass) of the characteristics of the believer is to command good and forbid evil, the beginning of which (ra’suha) is to summon others to Islam and to fight for it. But commanding good is not appropriate for everyone; rather, it is the ruler (sultan) who undertakes it, since carrying out [the various punishments] is his responsibility . . . and he sets up in every community a virtuous, strong, knowledgeable, believing man and charges him with [the duty].
Islam gives this tremendous social force
a purpose. It must be used for promoting good, truth and justice and
checking evil and injustice. That is the essence of
amr-bil-maroof-wa-nahi-anil-munkar. And Qur'an declares it as the
defining mission for this ummah: "You are the best community that has
been raised for mankind. You enjoin good and forbid evil and you
believe in Allah." [Aal-e- Imran, 3:110].
6) Surah III, 110 "You are the best of nations raised up for the benefit of men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong …"
7) Surah VIII, 55 "Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."

The Archbishop never said that aspects of Sharia Law should be incorporated into British law. Any suggestion otherwise is quite simply untrue.

It was an academic lecture on Islamic law in which he entertained the possibility of Islamic law being incorporated into British law.

Best,

A UK reader

First of all, "Islamic law" is an oxymoron. There is nothing remotely resembling an Islamic Supreme Court with any sort of authoritative guidance on what the Islamic "law" entails - efforts to translate a bunch of verbal proverbs from the 7th century into a coherent 21st century set of rules has led to brilliant Shariah rulings like the one by Egypt's highest Muslim authority that women are allowed to uncover their hair around strange men at their workplaces only if they breastfeed those men first. Simply put, any doofus with no education beyond a rote memorization of the Koran can plop a turban on his head and start issuing fatwas with the force of Islamic law. It's ridiculous.

And, of course, anyone who actually bothers to read up on Islamic "law" instead of just wimping out and agreeing to it out of "tolerance" because "it's their culture" will readily discover what a swamp of brutal, violent, repressive stupidity it really is. Women? You're finished. You'll be wearing a bedsheet and living indoors your entire life, aside from the occasional times you're allowed to go outside while chained to a male member of your family. Do anything to displease anyone in the course of your entire life and you can be murdered out of hand as an "honor" killing. Britain has over 17,000 of these murders a year. 17,000! Fantastic.

Now homosexuals get it lucky, because under Islam they don't exist. But if they did, they'd be stoned to death or thrown off cliffs like in Iran. Which doesn't have homosexuals.

Now, if you're "lucky" enough to be a Christian or Jew, you can enjoy second class citizenship as a Dhimmi. You're given "protection" by your Islamic overlords, so long as you pay extra taxes, don't exhibit any outward sign of your faith, and otherwise try not to exist. Ask the Copts how this has worked out. Anyone else (Hindu, Buddhist, etc) are non-persons who can be exterminated at will.

Discussion of the institution of Sharia law is beyond absurd. It's a grotesque system of pre-Medieval punishments that immediately destroy everything we love about Western culture: free speech, equal rights for women and minorities, respect for other religions, a desire for scientific advances and technology, and everything else that distinguishes the 21st century from the 7th. Anyone advocating sharia law, Muslim or otherwise, needs to shut the hell up and move to Iran or Somalia for 20 years and see how they like it. And spare me your blathering about respect and tolerance for Islam; this is a religion that considers itself superior to all others (indeed, the "logic" goes that you do have religious choice in Islam: choice to either pick the one true faith, or be killed) and brooks equal footing with any other. You cannot have Sharia co-exist with any other system of laws or government, its entire purpose is to supplant everything else. This, from a religion helmed by a man who believed the Earth was flat and that the sky is a big blue ceiling.

Hey, come on down to Texas, land of George Dumbya Bush! Before he moved up to the White House to help his American Taliban party destroy reason in the United States at large, he cut his teeth turning our state government into the backwards, crackpot, religion-kissing place it is today. We are now ruled by Gov. Perry, Bush's successor, who is nicknamed "Governer Goodhair", attributed to him for his most obvious(and only) political talent! He is extremely popular here, garnering nearly 40% of the vote in the most recent election. Down here on the plantation we have enacted what you all are calling "Sharia Law" but we call it by another name, "Conservatism", which means denying ALL science, except that which some corporation can make a profit off of, installing an express lane for capital punishment, for those lacking the funds to pay off a good lawyer, and massive building of toll roads, to be built by "Goodhairs" good buddies from the corporate world! Reason doesn't matter here anymore, not that it ever did that much, but when you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, it really takes your mind off the other unimportant things, like our polluted air, our World Class Public School education (now 48th, right ahead of Arkansas!), the fact that we pay the highest electricity rates in the country, or that our government has been hijacked by corrupt, foolish gangsters! I'm sure those "Sharias" would be welcomed with open arms by the powers that be here if they just call themselves by our name, "Conservatives"...Ya'll come on down, we be waiting for ya, you hear?

The most glaring distinction of Sharia law is that women count for less than men in court testimony or in financial and child custody terms arising from estate settlements, divorce, and most civil matters. It empowers men to keep women in a weak, inferior status. It also confers inferior status to non-Muslims and death to apostates. The rest of it is a heap of archaic hoo-doo.

Burke wrote that civilizations are not defeated or overthrown. They commit suicide. If one needs evidence or proofs of Burke’s acuity, look no further than the Archbishop Rowan Williams’ posits for Islamic 'law' in England.

Clearly, the man has lost his faith and has become a self-loathing apologist for his own countenance. Now he calls on Britain to join in his own insane expiation. Bishop, salve your own craven conscience with groveling obeisance if you will, but have the decency to leave the church first.

Islam is not a religion. It is a political force, a fascist political ideology posing as a faith. Alone among the major "faith traditions", Islam calls for conversion, compels adherence, or suffer death by human execution.

Western Civilization is the salvation of this planet. Many mistakes, born of human frailty, have been made, and still, despite the stumbles, more people, of more cultural backgrounds, in more places, have greater freedom, safety, security, health and prosperity than at any point in human history as a direct result of Western Civilization, period.

Christianity, imperfectly practiced by people, has provided the context and the guidance to build and sustain the entirety of global charitable causes, built the modern western university system, promoted the nascent underpinnings of free market capitalism, and lead directly to universal suffrage. No effort made by man is made without mistakes. Mistakes are not our legacy. The strength of our faith in the limitless love of Christ is our greatest legacy and the source of so much that is good, noble, and enduring in Western Civilization.

Islam will lead, has lead, will always lead to slavery and chains, ignorance and darkness of the soul. Look well on England and Western Europe and see what self-loathing liberalism has wrought: Cultural suicide, misery, and pestilent social strife.

Multiculturalism does nothing to unify, to bring people of diverse background together. Multiculturalism thrives on fragmenting society by casting an infernal glare on our petty differences. Instead of providing a context to show how differing people share common goals and desire for freedom, faith, and liberty, multiculturalism insists on creating disparity and discord.

A people with no common language are no longer a people. A Civilization with no common law is chaos and rather than becoming more open and more tolerant, becomes so discordant and fractured that despotism takes on airs of attraction if only to bring about stability, for an awful price. Such is the path of multiculturalism. The eager fascist despotism of Islam finds bloody sustenance in such climes.

Rowan Williams’ message makes the same tired and soulless mistakes posited by the multiculturalists. And in his message, he betrays his faith, his culture, and the very liberty and freedom that cathedrals like his in Canterbury stood for as beacons of light standing against the darkness. Islam is now and has always been an invasive dark force aligned and armed to overthrow the west. Period.

Let Bishop Williams drink from that cup alone and let his withering spiritual death be a lesson for all

Religion originated as (and still is) a coping system for humanity when it stares into the universe and cowers in fear of mortality. Over the millenniums of mankind's existence religion has been manipulated and become a more complex survival rule book encompassing all social, dietary, and reproductive behavior. Unfortunately religions are radical in nature and haven't changed with the development of the human knowledge set and the human intellect.

The most popular religions are those that cater well to human fears and desires. To study a religion is tantamount to examining the fears and desires of the founder/s and early followers.

English law (and USA) is based on many of the same fears and desires as Islamic laws and already embody many similar social control mechanisms.

Islamic law was obviously conceived and perpetrated by minds that considered women as tools to be controlled by men, but I'm sure it is very soothing to think one will live forever and be awarded XX virgins in paradise (a male fantasy). Women in both English and US law have become entitled to the same rights as men. The western world is still struggling to embrace women as complete and competent humans.

Adopting any of the primitive aspects of Islamic law is like stepping back 700 years in our social development. The success of Islamic religion and the constant assumption of secular rule by Islamic law is the appeal to the fearful, insecure male who needs to be propped up and granted control of females. I think the most fearful component of western life (and most hated) to these people is the requirement in free societies to establish your own worth.

Elect Huckabee, because he is going to change the US Constitution to be in line with religious Christian law. Then, to make things fair for everyone, we can incorporate all the other world's religions into our law as well. I myself am going to write a testament about how an arch angel came down and told me that gays are OK, and that research on stem cells is a great idea.

Ahh erudite Chris, so clever and classless and free, plays the race card. (Do you have any others?)

Islam is made up of many races and ethnicities, so this discussion is hardly about race. It is about human rights, liberty and freedom from theocratic oppression.

Wow, the responses to this very ill-asked question are shocking. First, the Archbishop's musings were taken out of context by Washington Post. Read the interview on BBC 4 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7239283.stm); you can also listen to it.

Secondly, so many of the responses here show profound ignorance (e.g., Spiderman) or, more often, latent outrage against Muslims which can only be described as racist. It makes me ashamed to be an American when I see how filled with hate and ill-informed my fellow citizens are.

Absolutely, 100% NO, NO, NO. As other's have pointed out...our Constitution does not allow religious law...thank God, and for good reason! It only, and rightly so, protects the RIGHT to practice a religion freely. England would be wrong to accomodate islamic law. Why do they want to loose themselves to that? Religious law is questionable at best anyhow!!! It so often does not protect people, (especially women) from civil and personal abuse.

Why does a western government want to even court that idea???? As an immigrant, you have the right to practice your religion, but you do not have the right to make your new country in the image of your old. Ridiculous...so ridiculous. It makes my blood boil to think about it as well!!! GRRRRR....Just stop this idea right now somebody!!! They already have the right to practice their religion free from persecution. But we do not DO religious law in the WEST. Get over it!!!

The reason why the U.S is the greatest country is because it is the country that fit to the description of Apostle Paul which says that the children of faith and NOT the children of works (this includes the four major religions [ Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Judaism ] and some major false christian religions like catholicism) will inherit and rule the earth. A big portion of the people in the U.S and even the first settlers in Plymouth, Massachusetts believe that scripture. They inherit the prophecy by believing it. This country will ultimately rule the earth coz that is the prophecy.

People like the Archbishop should study more about the Bible so he won't be acting like an fool -- a religious person of very high rank and yet ignorant of the Word of God. Britain was the No.1 world power before but has rapidly drove down to obscurity precisely because what used to be a Bible-literate nation has become a nation who believes that they all came from monkeys -- no proof but mere speculation and they all swallowed it , hook , line and sinker.

If they study how very slowly DNAs change, they would arrive to a conclusion that evolution is more of a fairy tale than the superhero, Spiderman.

The rate in which DNAs should change from one form to another should be very fast ( in nanoseconds or much greater ) so it would fit to the age of the universe which is just 13-20 billion years old. And since DNAs don't behave that way, any transformation from one creature to another form is impossible.

I suggest that the Archbishop try movie-making and quit his post as top man of the church of England. He can begin his new career in Saudi Arabia where a person could end up in prison for owning a Bible. Hmm, perhaps it would be better if all evolutionists follow suit.

The proposal by the Archbishop was nonsense. Muslims who live in the west have a choice: they can live according to western laws or they can go live in one of the many countries that confuse religious doctrine with law.

This desire by some to change fundamental principles about western culture to appease Muslims is very dangerous. We have built societies in the west based on personal liberty, free speech, due process and civil rights for ALL. Hundreds of thousands of men and women have died to protect those important values.

But along come some Muslims who refuse to live in 21st century (indeed, some would prefer to live in the 15th century) and we are supposed to accommodate their preposterous religious laws by changing our superior civil system? Give me a break!

If Muslims do not feel "welcome" in the west, they can start living more like westerners ... or find a Muslim country where they can continue to practice their anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-freedom religion. And they might also think about stepping up more regularly and criticizing the suicide-bombers and others among them who use 21st century technology to further 15th century ideals.

The proposal by the Archbishop was nonsense. Muslims who live in the west have a choice: they can live according to western laws or they can go live in one of the many countries that confuse religious doctrine with law.

This desire by some to change fundamental principles about western culture to appease Muslims is very dangerous. We have built societies in the west based on personal liberty, free speech, due process and civil rights for ALL. Hundreds of thousands of men and women have died to protect those important values.

But along come some Muslims who refuse to live in 21st century (indeed, some would prefer to live in the 15th century) and we are supposed to accommodate their preposterous religious laws by changing our superior civil system? Give me a break!

If Muslims do not feel "welcome" in the west, they can start living more like westerners ... or find a Muslim country where they can continue to practice their anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-freedom religion. And they might also think about stepping up more regularly and criticizing the suicide-bombers and others among them who use 21st century technology to further 15th century ideals.

Why not adopt Shari'ah law? We could put the public stoning / beheading stations between Target and Starbucks. After veiwing a woman stoned to death for showing her ankles, go grab a latte.

The proposal by the Archbishop was nonsense. Muslims who live in the west have a choice: they can live according to western laws or they can go live in one of the many countries that confuse religious doctrine with law.

This desire by some to change fundamental principles about western culture to appease Muslims is very dangerous. We have built societies in the west based on personal liberty, free speech, due process and civil rights for ALL. Hundreds of thousands of men and women have died to protect those important values.

But along come some Muslims who refuse to live in 21st century (indeed, some would prefer to live in the 15th century) and we are supposed to accommodate their preposterous religious laws by changing our superior civil system? Give me a break!

If Muslims do not feel "welcome" in the west, they can start living more like westerners ... or find a Muslim country where they can continue to practice their anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-freedom religion. And they might also think about stepping up more regularly and criticizing the suicide-bombers and others among them who use 21st century technology to further 15th century ideals.

The proposal by the Archbishop was nonsense. Muslims who live in the west have a choice: they can live according to western laws or they can go live in one of the many countries that confuse religious doctrine with law.

This desire by some to change fundamental principles about western culture to appease Muslims is very dangerous. We have built societies in the west based on personal liberty, free speech, due process and civil rights for ALL. Hundreds of thousands of men and women have died to protect those important values.

But along come some Muslims who refuse to live in 21st century (indeed, some would prefer to live in the 15th century) and we are supposed to accommodate their preposterous religious laws by changing our superior civil system? Give me a break!

If Muslims do not feel "welcome" in the west, they can start living more like westerners ... or find a Muslim country where they can continue to practice their anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-freedom religion. And they might also think about stepping up more regularly and criticizing the suicide-bombers and others among them who use 21st century technology to further 15th century ideals.

What in the world? Instead, Americans should be lobbying those societies who still use this benighted "legal" system to recognize it as the monstrous injustice it is against women and non-Muslims and anyone with individualist leanings and who knows who else and get rid of it. Sharia, like many writings that date to hundreds of years ago, deserves to be dumped into the shredder, not brought forward to modern times.

Islam claims to be the faith that perfected the flawed religions of "misguided" Jews and Christians. They claim that Shari'ah law is supreme.

One need only look at the long history of Islamic societies to see that in Islam "perfection" may not be all it's cracked up to be.

For those unfamiliar with Islamic teachings-

Eddie posted:

"Deaf, Dumb and blind; and they return not.

Al Quran - Al Baqra 2:18"

And in context it is-

2) THE DISBELIEVERS (that's you)

[2:6] As for those who disbelieve, it is the same for them; whether you warn them, or not warn them, they cannot believe.

[2:7] GOD seals their minds and their hearing, and their eyes are veiled. They have incurred severe retribution.

(3) THE HYPOCRITES (apostates)

[2:8] Then there are those who say, "We believe in GOD and the Last Day," while they are not believers.

[2:9] In trying to deceive GOD and those who believe, they only deceive themselves without perceiving.

[2:10] In their minds there is a disease. Consequently, GOD augments their disease. They have incurred a painful retribution for their lying.

[2:11] When they are told, "Do not commit evil," they say, "But we are righteous."

[2:12] In fact, they are evildoers, but they do not perceive.

[2:13] When they are told, "Believe like the people who believed," they say, "Shall we believe like the fools who believed?" In fact, it is they who are fools, but they do not know.

[2:14] When they meet the believers, they say, "We believe," but when alone with their devils, they say, "We are with you; we were only mocking."

[2:15] GOD mocks them, and leads them on in their transgressions, blundering.

[2:16] It is they who bought the straying, at the expense of guidance. Such trade never prospers, nor do they receive any guidance.

*2:6-7 Those who make a decision to reject God are helped in that direction; they are prevented by God from seeing any proof or guidance for as long as they maintain such a decision. The consequences of such a disastrous decision are spelled out in Verse 7.

[2:17] Their example is like those who start a fire, then, as it begins to shed light around them, GOD takes away their light, leaving them in darkness, unable to see.

[2:18] Deaf, dumb, and blind; they fail to return.

[2:19] Another example: a rainstorm from the sky in which there is darkness, thunder, and lightning. They put their fingers in their ears, to evade death. GOD is fully aware of the disbelievers.

Let's make a deal. Sharia law in the West can be acceptable if Western democracy and law, in all that it entails in free speech and protection is guaranteed and accepted by every Muslim Country and every Muslim in the World. Better still why not adopt Scientology as the creed to follow.

in my opinion this was the best proposal ever made for the improvement in the legal system of Great Britannia and making the Muslims of the world closer with the followers of other religion it can tighten the relations of the religions and will make it hard for the fundamentalist to use the name of Islam in wrong direction i thing their is a need for the really translation of Islam in the west because alot of people in the west have wrong information about Islam or they thing all terroristic activities are the Base of Islam which is totally wrong Islam is the religion of Peace and brotherhood it respects rights of all the different categories of people .
Shafiullah Afghan

Can anyone say, "stone aged baloney"??

The Archbishop has the freedom to emigrate to a country where Shari'ah is the the law of the land. Muslims yearning for Shari'ah have this freedom as well.

Islamic law is inconsistent with fundamental Judeo-Christian principles. It appears that Archbishop Williams is as muddle-headed about his own religion as he is about "Shari'ah Law."

Watching the Christians have a fit about this is highly amusing. Great question.

Yonkers, New York
14 February 2008

I am aghast and completely dumbfounded that the Archbishop of Canterbury should suggest that the West make room for some aspects of Islamic law, Sharia.

Is the good Archbishop in effect saying that there are certain deficiencies in Western Laws which could be filled by aspects of Sharia?

And is one to infer from his suggestion that in certain respects, Sharia is superior to Western Laws? Could Sharia ever parallel, let alone be superior to, England's Magna Carta and the United States's Bill of Rights?

I have very serious doubts that Sharia does.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Consenting adults should br free to engage in whatever religion they wish, but it should be against the law to inculcate religion in unsuspecting children. Let them grow up and make their own choices. The blathering illogic you see hear by the brainwashed relgious is a fine example of the harm done when children's minds get twisted by a religious upbringing. Protect the right of the child to his/her own mind!

The reason why the U.S is the greatest country is because it is the country that fit to the description of Apostle Paul which says that the children of faith and NOT the children of works (this includes the four major religions [ Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Judaism ] and some major false christian religions like catholicism) will inherit and rule the earth. A big portion of the people in the U.S and even the first settlers in Plymouth, Massachusetts believe that scripture. They inherit the prophecy by believing it. This country will ultimately rule the earth coz that is the prophecy.

People like the Archbishop should study more about the Bible so he won't be acting like an fool -- a religious person of very high rank and yet ignorant of the Word of God. Britain was the No.1 world power before but has rapidly drove down to obscurity precisely because what used to be a Bible-literate nation has become a nation who believes that they all came from monkeys -- no proof but mere speculation and they all swallowed it , hook , line and sinker.

If they study how very slowly DNAs change, they would arrive to a conclusion that evolution is more of a fairy tale than the superhero, Spiderman.

The rate in which DNAs should change from one form to another should be very fast ( in nanoseconds or much greater ) so it would fit to the age of the universe which is just 13-20 billion years old. And since DNAs don't behave that way, any transformation from one creature to another form is impossible.

I suggest that the Archbishop try movie-making and quit his post as top man of the church of England. He can begin his new career in Saudi Arabia where a person could end up in prison for owning a Bible. Hmm, perhaps it would be better if all evolutionists follow suit.

Deaf, Dumb and blind; and they return not.

Al Quran - Al Baqra 2:18

Deaf, Dumb and blind; and they return not.

Al Quran - Al Baqra 2:18

The wording of this question is irresponsible and unnecessarily inflammatory. Whoever wrote it seems to have relied on third or fourth hand accounts of what Canterbury actually said and in what context.

I am encouraged to see that so many readers have already recognized the similarity between trying to incorporate Sharia law into secular jurisprudence and legislation here in the US that claims to reflect the values of a "Christian nation."

Personally I'd rather be talking about Tom Lantos.

It is time that the presidential candidates and the newspapers and tv commentators remember that we are not to mix religion and government according to the Constitution. That goes for Evangelical Christians, Moral Majority people, the fanatics of any religion and so on.

It is time that the presidential candidates and the newspapers and tv commentators remember that we are not to mix religion and government according to the Constitution. That goes for Evangelical Christians, Moral Majority people, the fanatics of any religion and so on.

It is time that the presidential candidates and the newspapers and tv commentators remember that we are not to mix religion and government according to the Constitution. That goes for Evangelical Christians, Moral Majority people, the fanatics of any religion and so on.

This is a wonderful discussion to have right now. While Christian fundamentalism and religous influence on US law often goes uncriticized or even unnoticed (stem cells, anti-abortion groups, church sanctioned violence against gay men, women and children), I think people will be struck by the fundamentalism of Islam in a way that may generate some cognitive dissonance. Perhaps this will be an opportunity for people who have not reflected on Christian influence on US law to do so. Dialogue about the influence of fundamentalism (both Christian and Islamic) can only lead to more informed laws and a more nuanced understanding of religon.

I find it STRANGE that anyone could be so self delusional as to suggest that America is presently having or has ever had an "attack of conscience"? Have you looked those words up? You seem to be unaware that they are not synonymous with attacking religious sentiment in all forms, ridiculing the poor, cutting taxes for the wealthy, liberating America from the burdens of political correctness, diplomacy, Iraqi and Afhan children, and even plain civility?
Most Americans would have a heart attack before they had an attack of conscience.
-your cold-water realist

I have to add:

Ontario set out to accept Sharia in Muslim communities to a degree. They later legislated (2005) against it following protests worldwide.

Quebec legislated (in 2005) against it as it violates the principles of the Charter of Rights of Canada; the Charter of Rights of Quebec and the Quebec Civil Code.

The law to block Sharia was introduced by a woman member of parliament and was unanimously adopted.

Her name: Fatima.

Clear 'nuff?

Readers should examine for themselves the Archbishop's words, which may be found on his website (www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575). He did not suggest "that English law must accommodate some aspects of Islamic law." His lecture is highly speculative and its conclusions conditional. He says, for example, "If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognized, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights." Also, "It might be possible to think in terms of . . . 'transformative accommodation': a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters."

Readers should examine for themselves the Archbishop's words, which may be found on his website (www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575). He did not suggest "that English law must accommodate some aspects of Islamic law." His lecture is highly speculative and its conclusions conditional. He says, for example, "If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognized, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights." Also, "It might be possible to think in terms of . . . 'transformative accommodation': a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters."

Congratulations to those with shorter comments, but I'll just express myself (as a non American): It's taken us centuries to realize that religion foments such misunderstanding, distrust and fear (and that's within Judaism, Christianity, Islam, never mind between them) that we must not allow religious based laws to interfere with our hard won constitutions, charters of rights and secular law (no matter how much they were religiously inspired).
Western Europe and to a greater degree North America have bled hard to get away from religion in law making. The separation of church and state is the greatest 'safety' net the world has ever known against oppression. This is not to say that moral values from religion cannot be incorporated into law or used to inspire law (as that is what has happened) it just means that the rule and interpretation of law should never be in the hands of religious leaders. They have an appalling record of doing such. Regrettably, this is not a great recipe where Islam is concerned as Islam and the "law" are one and the same. However, "here" the people have made secular laws to protect them from, among other things, the vagaries of religious leadership.
To the point of Muslims coming to Western Europe or North America, and I'll write as if I was speaking to immigrant Muslims: it must be made clear that YOU are coming HERE to leave whatever did not satisfy you THERE. So don't expect too much sympathy when you want to change OUR laws and OUR RIGHTS. We can easily respect what you practice for yourself, but the rights and laws that apply to you are the same that apply to us. This means that the same rights and laws that I enjoy, you enjoy and your family enjoys. For that matter, you cannot apply your laws to anyone in your family or community here. They simply do not apply. Period. The laws of the land here are set and you and your family and community are protected as well as subject to them. And by the way, we have free speech. So if I say something distasteful or make a cartoon about your religion, too bad. It's our right. As long as I don't wrongly defame you personally, I can say anything I like. Clear? Good.

Now you can get elected, and you can go to Parliament or Congress and attempt to change these laws. That is your right. Just don't expect to get anywhere soon, and don't whine and complain when you don't. If you don't like our system of secular law, then you can go somewhere else including back to wherever you were leaving. If it is so great, why did you leave it? Otherwise, welcome to free speech, welcome to protection under the law, welcome, welcome, welcome to freedom from religious nuts. (Well, in the US it's hard to tell these days...).

The Archbishop surprises me with this nonsense. Gays in the clergy? Sure, if that's what you want. Sharia Law? Are ye daft laddie?

HELL NO. That would require some aspect of accepting some form of Islam. As a non-believer of any religion, I'm not about to accept Islam in our laws just to accommodate a bunch of hotheads. No more than I am willing to accept some form of Christianity or Hinduism or whatever because someone, however important they think they are, says we must (this includes people running for President).

The Archbishop's statement is just plain dumb. He might as well say that the West must accept some form of the Church of England in our laws. Didn't our Constitution prohibit just such a thing in 1789? This isn't intolerance -- it's giving in to intolerance.

Fuggedabout it, Archbishop! Go tend to your flocks, what's left of them.

this archbishop is a weak, vascillating leader who should resign. because he is arrogant and self absorbed and the trained seals of the church bodies who act as his unquestioning followers give him the affirmation he craves, he will stay. it's up to QE2, as the Supreme Head of the Church of England, to remove him. sharia law meens oppresssion of women and homosexuals and the affimation of male supremecy. i means repression, which has no place in any civil society, whether by race, gender or sexual orientiation.

I hope some of you will comment on the following clip from Zeitgeist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoj8kwvfJZc

HELL NO. That would require some aspect of accepting some form of Islam. As a non-believer of any religion, I'm not about to accept Islam in our laws just to accommodate a bunch of hotheads. No more than I am willing to accept some form of Christianity or Hinduism or whatever because someone, however important they think they are, says we must (this includes people running for President).

The Archbishop's statement is just plain dumb. He might as well say that the West must accept some form of the Church of England in our laws. Didn't our Constitution prohibit just such a thing in 1789? This isn't intolerance -- it's giving in to intolerance.

Fuggedabout it, Archbishop! Go tend to your flocks, what's left of them.

All religion arises from a defect in human consciousness, which is a need to see linear cause and effect explanations for everything. And if no ready cause can be found, one must be invented, and that cause may be an actor that acts upon the world as a human would, only with more power.

Laughable, really.

So why would we incorporate religious law from some desert tribe into the body of civil law of a modern industrial state?

The BNP believes in Christian values therefore we don't believe in gay adoption or gay marriage. But we don't want to persecute gays either. What people do behind closed doors is their business.

Under an Islamic government homosexuals will have a great deal more to worry about than not being able to adopt kids or marry. Under Islamic law Homosexuality is forbidden and it states gays should be executed. Many people in Islamic states have been executed for homosexuality and this is what gays can look forward to in Britain as long as the Liberals take sides with Muslims:

Gays - look forward to Islamic law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TztGX8U5Unw

A hundred years ago, thats 1908, an agreement between Beth Din, a Jewish Orthodox group and the British legal body was signed that permitted Rabbis to undertake legal disputes and resolve them according to Judaic Laws.

What the Archbishop implied in his speech that such an arrangement can also be undertaken with Islamic laws. Why is it acceptable to incorporate Judaic laws within the Britsih system of laws and not the Islamic laws? Both Jewish laws and Muslim laws are identical in their interpretation of the "Godliness" of their laws.

The overreactions to the Archbishop's remarks represent hysterical as well as comical condemnations. Those who have been at the forefront of feeding fear of so called IslamoFascism and Muslims in general are beating the drums of propaganda except that this one is not gonna fly very far.

If British law can incorporate judaic law intrepreations it certainly can do the same with Sharia laws. People have to get over this mass "high anxiety" whenever the issue of Muslims begin to be treated as equal to Jews or other religions that that means the end of the world.

Get over it. This is the 21st. Century.

There seems to be a tendency among many fundamentalist religions to try and legally force their beliefs on others. Although not as extreme as Sharia, is there really a qualitative difference between this and Huckabee's idea to modify the Constitution to make it more in line with the Bible?

Also-Interesting external links on this wiki page:

Taha Jabir Alalwani, Ph.D., is President of Cordoba University. He also holds the Imam Al-Shafi'i Chair in Islamic Legal Theory at The Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences at Corboda University and is an internationally known scholar in his field. Dr. Alalwani is considered an expert in the fields of Islamic legal theory, jurisprudence (fiqh), and usul al-fiqh.

Dr. Alalwani was previously the chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America.

Biography
Born in 1935 in Iraq, Alalwani attended and graduated from the College of Shari’ah and Law at al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt in 1959. He continued at the college and earned a Master’s Degree in 1968 and a doctorate in Usul al-fiqh in 1973. Dr. Alalwani then taught for 10 years at the Imam Muhammad ibn Sa’ood University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Alalwani emigrated to the United States in 1983.

Thought and Ideology
Dr. Alwani wrote about the Islamization of Knowledge, the need for Ijtihad, and is the founder together with Dr. Qaradawi of fiqh al-aqalliyyat (Muslim minority jurisprudence) which stands for making fiqh easy in order to enable Islam to spread in the West.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taha_Jabir_Alalwani

this is a law? women like animals? Sharia is a law ?.. sharia is a human shame

It seems, most of our laws in the U.S. are already based on the teachings of Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him and his family) and all other prophets of God. Thus, most English Laws accommodate Islamic Laws already.

I'd like to share several links with you-

Fiqh Council of North America

http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

MUSLIM AMERICANS AND SHARI'AH

http://www.islamicity.com/politics/SHARIAH.HTM

Ahmed, Ahmed, Ahmed,

My compliments on your commentary !!!!! Welcome to the world of Reality!!!

Just one more step and you can shout "FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST"!!!!

i.e. Muslims by koranic laws, tenets and interpretations thereof by "redneck" imams and clerics:

1. Believe in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teach their children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believe that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis believe they are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

What sayest thou about these obvious flaws in Islam??

Ridiculous to even consider it - the Archbishop is a wuss.

It's kind of ironic, but we in the west need to protect our women from Islamic law. Islamic law opens an avenue to legal cruelty toward women. I don't want my grandmother, my mother, my wife, my daughter subjected to that cruelty. I want them happy and free in a liberal Western society. That's why I live here and not in an Islamic state.

No! No! No! Absolutely not. If Sharia law is so important to one, he/she is more than welcome to emigrate to any number of countries that practice it. Civilization has progressed too far to regress to such archaic ideas.

Absolutely not, as others mentioned, this notion would ignore our Constitutional rights.

I do not believe a nation can have two separate sets of laws. Do we really want to consider having some women killed if they engage in an affair and no one pay a price for that?

As another mentioned, over my dead body.

We've worked hard and given many lives to create a just society based on the foundational rules of civilization. Our Constitution trumps the Torah, the Code of Hammurabi, and Shariah. Many of the civil rules of those contracts are incorporated into our civil contract. If Shariah offers civil rules that will improve our secular society then the amendments should be proposed and voted upon.

Personally, what I've seen of Shariah make it sound barbaric. What does it offer that our Constitution does not?

Just my 2 cents: Shariah shall not happen in USA if we Americans start reprinting the Dutch cartoon in the major newspapers, e-media etc. and etc., on a weekly basis. That is, suppose you are watching TV. Then suddenly in the middle of a break the Dutch cartoon pops up. And this happens very frequently. That shall scare Islam off and Shariah shall take the next plane home to Makkah.

The message: 1st Amendment is alive in USA which gives the right to offend others through speech and expression. (The action is not to maliciously insult Prophet Muhammad [PBUH]; but to exercise the right of 1st Amendment which allows offensive speech and expression.)

What we need is not sharia but less christianity. What we need is leaders who don't pander to any religious group, who don't take orders from a 'higher father', who don't see countries practising other religions as axes of evil.
And we need an electorate which doesn't think that every candidate who flaunts his/her religious beliefs must be a moral person

Absolutely not! The question here is the byproduct of the idea of immigrants versus colonists. If people coming from Islamic countries want to emigrate to the west, they need to adopt western values and laws. Think "honor killings" here. The Hindus have had similar issues with relationships that cross caste lines. If immigrants wanted to live under Islamic laws, they should go back to a place which has them in place already. An immigrant adopts the ways of his new country. A colonist plants the seed of his culture and homeland in a new place.

Perhaps western countries need to once again adopt stringent immigration standards (think Australia until say 1950 here) and actually enforce them (certainly an alien concept here in the US) to control the rate at which they acquire immigrants. The purpose for controling the rate is to ensure they assimilate, not form colonies.

Colonists can and should be returned (willingly or not) to their source countries. When they cannot or will not adopt the values and culture of their "new homeland", they have broken their end of the immigration agreement. This applies to anyone, not just Muslims coming to western countries. For England, that means an immigrant has agreed to learn English, obey English laws, and tolerate English behaviors that would not be allowed in their source country. If they do not or cannot adapt, they should go back.

Allowing colonists, and that includes anyone who would adopt Islamic law in the west, simply allows western countries to become the same as whatever pest-hole the colonist's original source country. Those in the west who agree with the colonists should spend time in those source countries, living under those laws, and understanding why in so many cases it was the culture of the source country in the first place that made it into a pest hole. Good luck, but "Absolutely Not" about adopting Islamic law in the west.

Laws envisioned by religious cults and their advocates are not welcome in America. It's bad enough now with the dern Christians running amuck. A pox upon all their kind.

Laws made with common sense and non-religious views are plenty good enough for us. We especially don't need any from Islamics.

The good bishop was fairly vague as to what aspects of Sharia he thought would be adhered to, and what way those elements would be incorporated into law. I would never happen in the USA, it violates the Constituion, and I doubt it will happen in the UK either. It sounded like the bishop was trying to make nice with Muslims in his neighborhood, w/o actually saying anything of substance.

When reading the constitution, what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." don't you get?

Of course not, how absurd.

all legal systems are flawed as they are conceived and implemented by human beings. having said that, to inject into the u.s. (as one example) a method by which legal conclusions are reached according to one religion's law (islam, in this case) would be, for me, intolerable. it is true that while certain of our civil laws might seem to have their origins in the bible, these civil laws (e.g. not stealing, not lying under oath) are also logical conclusions from a society shaped by property rights and intellectual reflection about what is a "good life" and/or makes life worth living. legal conclusions based upon a religion's conclusions about, for example, the role of women, the role of modesty, what constitutes blasphemy, et cetera are bound to cause even greater inequities than currently exist. if one lives in a society that operates under such religious law, the law "works" but only because it's (i presume) the only game in town. no offense to my devout brothers and sisters, but i don't want your religion treading on me. these questions of faith cannot be resolved rationally, which is why a "free" society would do well to keep each thing in its own place.

It already has made more than sufficient accommodation to wit thous halt now Kill, thou shalt not steal. If Islamist find that insufficient too Bad.

Over my dead body. I will never allow Shaira in the USA. There will be a second civil war if people even try to do it.

Fortunately, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not speak for the USA. He clearly does not understand that our Constitution was designed to prevent this exact thing. Also fortunately, if the sampling of posts above is an indication, we don't have to worry.

Unless, of course, you vote for representatives who would actually consider such lunacy and act on it. If any candidate suggests we accommodate ANY religion--Islam, Christianity, or any other--into U.S. law, just say and vote NO.

I am part of those Americans who think that there are some areas in which we can not accept accomodations for every cultural practice brought to our shores specially if we are going to survive as a national unit. I am against the use of the sharia in America or any other cultural practice that discriminate among Americans. That sense we are one despite diversity is what make a
great country of this land.

A couple of clarifications:
1. Unlike the US, which ostensibly has no state religion, in the UK the queen is the head of the state church (recall the English anthem starting "God Bless the Queen"). Moreover, various religious officials (archbishops and chief rabbi) sit in the (unelected)House of Lords, which is the upper chamber of parliament (equivalent to the Senate in the US). So, to suggest that the UK system of government is secular seems to me a little inaccurate. However, it is true to say that the UK is a secular (i.e., nonreligious) society, probably more so that the US considering that about 2% of Brits regularly go to church (the figure for the US is 52%).
2. Britain, alas, has no written constitution, nor, I believe, a Bill of Rights. So, to suggest that something is unconstitutional is meaningless.

There was a bit of mixup a few years ago here in the US. It started when a bunch of US Muslim Leaders wrote to the Supreme Court requesting that an image of the Prophet Mohamed be removed from the Supreme Court Building. It turns out that there is a frieze in the Supreme building depicting historically important law-givers; Mohamed's frieze sits between Charlemagne and Byzantine Emperor Justinian. Since Islam discourages personal imagery, the Muslim group wanted the image of Mohamed covered (the Justices declined). That his image has been part of the most important court of the land, suggests to me that not all people think Sharia is all about cutting hands and stonings.
It seems to me that the response to the comments of Archbishop of Canterbury has been has been a tad hysterical. There seems to me a bit of reverse Orwellianism going on, where certain Arabic (Islamic) words such as Jihad, which means struggle, Madrasa, which means school, and Sharia, which means path have become so loaded with connotations that it has become impossible to use them in their original context. This makes reasoned discussion of the issues raised by the Archbishop pretty difficult; this is a pity.

To Ahmed from Bahrain:

I wish most Muslims shared your viewpoints. Unfortunately, it is not so and particularly for Muslims of Pakistani origin in UK.

Thank you Ahmed.

God save the Queen !

A couple of clarifications:
1. Unlike the US, which ostensibly has no state religion, in the UK the queen is the head of the state church (recall the English anthem starting "God Bless the Queen"). Moreover, various religious officials (archbishops and chief rabbi) sit in the (unelected)House of Lords, which is the upper chamber of parliament (equivalent to the Senate in the US). So, to suggest that the UK system of government is secular seems to me a little inaccurate. However, it is true to say that the UK is a secular (i.e., nonreligious) society, probably more so that the US considering that about 2% of Brits regularly go to church (the figure for the US is 52%).
2. Britain, alas, has no written constitution, nor, I believe, a Bill of Rights. So, to suggest that something is unconstitutional is meaningless.

There was a bit of mixup a few years ago here in the US. It started when a bunch of US Muslim Leaders wrote to the Supreme Court requesting that an image of the Prophet Mohamed be removed from the Supreme Court Building. It turns out that there is a frieze in the Supreme building depicting historically important law-givers; Mohamed's frieze sits between Charlemagne and Byzantine Emperor Justinian. Since Islam discourages personal imagery, the Muslim group wanted the image of Mohamed covered (the Justices declined). That his image has been part of the most important court of the land, suggests to me that not all people think Sharia is all about cutting hands and stonings.
It seems to me that the response to the comments of Archbishop of Canterbury has been has been a tad hysterical. There seems to me a bit of reverse Orwellianism going on, where certain Arabic (Islamic) words such as Jihad, which means struggle, Madrasa, which means school, and Sharia, which means path have become so loaded with connotations that it has become impossible to use them in their original context. This makes reasoned discussion of the issues raised by the Archbishop pretty difficult; this is a pity.

A couple of clarifications:
1. Unlike the US, which ostensibly has no state religion, in the UK the queen is the head of the state church (recall the English anthem starting "God Bless the Queen"). Moreover, various religious officials (archbishops and chief rabbi) sit in the (unelected)House of Lords, which is the upper chamber of parliament (equivalent to the Senate in the US). So, to suggest that the UK system of government is secular seems to me a little inaccurate. However, it is true to say that the UK is a secular (i.e., nonreligious) society, probably more so that the US considering that about 2% of Brits regularly go to church (the figure for the US is 52%).
2. Britain, alas, has no written constitution, nor, I believe, a Bill of Rights. So, to suggest that something is unconstitutional is meaningless.

There was a bit of mixup a few years ago here in the US. It started when a bunch of US Muslim Leaders wrote to the Supreme Court requesting that an image of the Prophet Mohamed be removed from the Supreme Court Building. It turns out that there is a frieze in the Supreme building depicting historically important law-givers; Mohamed's frieze sits between Charlemagne and Byzantine Emperor Justinian. Since Islam discourages personal imagery, the Muslim group wanted the image of Mohamed covered (the Justices declined). That his image has been part of the most important court of the land, suggests to me that not all people think Sharia is all about cutting hands and stonings.
It seems to me that the response to the comments of Archbishop of Canterbury has been has been a tad hysterical. There seems to me a bit of reverse Orwellianism going on, where certain Arabic (Islamic) words such as Jihad, which means struggle, Madrasa, which means school, and Sharia, which means path have become so loaded with connotations that it has become impossible to use them in their original context. This makes reasoned discussion of the issues raised by the Archbishop pretty difficult; this is a pity.

If enough US citizens feel strongly enough in parts of Shariah to make them law, and if those parts do not violate Constitutional rights, then, sure. The US is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I don't see that happening in some cases, certainly. Even during periods of strong Christian influence on US politics, no one has rationally suggested (or attempted) to implement the other 3 of the Bible's 10 commandments that deal with a person's relationship with God, and we have dealt pretty effectively with the 4th already (the Sabbath day). Is it theoretically possible? I guess so, if we amend the Constitution enough to completely change its focus - but dealing with improbabilities on that level is best left to physicists, not politicians :).

This is what happens when stupid people like the bishop in England who made that proposal are let loose. Anybody who's ignorant of the Bible like that bishop make the usual stupid ideas.

Isn't Sharia Law implemented in Afghanistan and most Arab countries and citizens of these countries usually shout "Death to America" slogan?

Maybe sooner, that bishop would be singing the same tune.

Islamic Shari'ah laws would be classified as the Dark Age "visions" of a bunch of "Sun poisoned" males from various sides of the sand dunes.

As I read it, the question does not comtemplate bringing/using Sharia law in America. It merely asks whether US law ought to make room for Sharia law.

This is an extraordinarily ill-conceived and poorly worded question. "Make room"? What does that mean? If it means, for example, that our secular US law can order a Muslim who receives a civil divorce to give their ex a Muslim divorce, I'm all for it. Nothing new here.

If it means changing US law, or substituting Sharia for US law-- which is beyond imagination--then it's just a ridiculous question.

let's hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury is wiser that the question posited here would lead us to believe.

As I read it, the question does not comtemplate bringing/using Sharia law in America. It merely asks whether US law ought to make room for Sharia law.

This is an extraordinarily ill-conceived and poorly worded question. "Make room"? What does that mean? If it means, for example, that our secular US law can order a Muslim who receives a civil divorce to give their ex a Muslim divorce, I'm all for it. Nothing new here.

If it means changing US law, or substitutiing Sharia for US law-- which is beyond imagination--then it's just a ridiculous question.

let's hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury is wiser that the question posited here would lead us to believe.

This is what happens when stupid people like the bishop in England who made that proposal are let loose. Anybody who's ignorant of the Bible like that bishop make the usual stupid ideas.

Isn't Sharia Law implemented in Afghanistan and most Arab countries and citizens of these countries usually shout "Death to America" slogan?

Maybe sooner, that bishop would be singing the same tune.

As I read it, the question does not comtemplate bringing/using Sharia law in America. It merely asks whether US law ought to make room for Sharia law.

This is an extraordinarily ill-conceived and poorly worded question. "Make room"? What does that mean? If it means, for example, that our secular US law can order a Muslim who receives a civil divorce to give their ex a Muslim divorce, I'm all for it. Nothing new here.

If it means changing US law, or substitutiing Sharia for US law-- which is beyond imagination--then it's a question conceived by simpletons.

If you are looking for the biggest and cruelest problem in your country which can be exploited so easily by everybody,do it.From that moment on,also be ready to hear the cries an to have lots of tears which we,as the Turks are having in our country in the last five years...

what is shariah? shariah is about eqauality, it speaks about equal rights to all.islam says that'' every black or white rich or poor man or woman are equal in the eyes of god" 1400 years back.But modern and so called libral americans still have separate churches for blacks.blacks were sold in markets just few dacades back.How could you say that america is libral.AMERICANS believe that they are only HUMANS,(only the people with white skins) and rest of the people who are not americans or unfortunately MUSLIMS as worst than animals. should i have to tell you about what is happening in iraq and afghanistan every day? number of innocent people are being killed by america in every single. This is not a crime to kill any non american , BUT the biggest crime is to ask about justice and equality with america.

what is shariah? shariah is about eqauality, it speaks about equal rights to all.islam says that'' every black or white rich or poor man or woman are equal in the eyes of god" 1400 years back.But modern and so called libral americans still have separate churches for blacks.blacks were sold in markets just few dacades back.How could you say that america is libral.AMERICANS believe that they are only HUMANS,(only the people with white skins) and rest of the people who are not americans or unfortunately MUSLIMS as worst than animals. should i have to tell you about what is happening in iraq and afghanistan every day? number of innocent people are being killed by america in every single. This is not a crime to kill any non american , BUT the biggest crime is to ask about justice and equality with america.

In a democracy, there can not be any circumstances whatsoever where any religious law, be it Christian/Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, etc., shall take precedence over secular law.

Religious law is based upon a specific belief that is not necessarily the belief of all to whom the law may apply.

Our forefathers have fought and died for the rights to believe or not believe in what we wish without the concern of the beliefs of others forced upon us.

No matter the instance, occurence, event, public or private, the only law that matters and should be effective is the law of the land enacted by those individuals whom we, as a free people, have elected to represent us.

It is lunacy to suggest that any part of any religious law should be applied to a secular government. Sharia is not only an antiquated set of of rules, but one that has been used to sever hands, deprive many of human dignity, and execute.

Before anyone goes on to say that its the way that Sharia is interpreted that causes these transgressions, I say only this; to implement a system where human rights can be easily trampled on is a sure path to tyranny.

Lastly, to suggest Sharia is anything like ADR is a nonsensical suggestion. Nobody, forces you to go to ADR. However, many women and other persons would be forced to go to Sharia court. This could be edict of their families, or simply under threat of a "honor killing".

Before anybody suggests that Sharia should be implemented they need only see how its worked out for the countries that have put it in as part of their judicial system. Its worked great! Worked great to spread injustice under the the supposed authority of a god.

I do not want sharia law in my country or anywhere else if it is interpreted by some mulla with the power of life or death over anyone.

There in one principle that is fundamental to any law. That is Human Dignity. Any law that strips any person from their human dignity has no place in any society. Any law that does not promote the welfare benefit of its collective adherents should never be introduced.

God's majesty is not increased nor decreased by our religious duties. All such laws are for our own benefit as humans. Freedom of choice, respect for all life, equality, justice, right to life, etc, are all divine rights purely because God wants us to discover our spirituality when we have sufficient knowledge, comfort and freedom. A persecuted and hungry person wants food and shelter. They do not want preaching.

Under such peaceful environment, God wants us to turn to HIM giving thanks for what we have. Anyone who stands in the way of any person achieving their peace and freedom has made a grievous error against humanity.

Having said that, then blessed are those who discover God whilst in hunger, pain and prison. Those who hold on to their faith under severe conditions are truly blessed.

When we seek equality of all life and within all races, when we understand mankind's unity and the immense blessings it can bring to all of us; only then we can understand God's Unity. Only then we would know what the word Islam means. We would then understand that this is the beginning of our journey towards Allah.

None of us would know that until we live by the rule: love for others what we love for ourselves.

It is individual's choice to believe in whatever they want as long as they do not stand in the way of another person from reaching their potential in this life whether physically or spiritually.

Yes . I believe this can be tried in several phases in a Society. At the starting as Family Law
for Muslims in the communities the Law is agreed up on in a referendum . In the U. S. some large organizations have adapted Aternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) system, not to beat the Laws but to supplement and expedite the Legal System.

Yes . I believe this can be tried in several phases in a Society. At the starting as Family Law
for Muslims in the communities the Law is agreed up on in a referendum . In the U. S. some large organizations have adapted Aternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) system, not to beat the Laws but to supplement and expedite the Legal System.

We thank ALLAH for giving us MOSES and TORAH[THE OLD TESTAMENT]

We thank ALLAH for giving us JESUS and BIBLE [NEW TESTAMENT]

we THANK ALLAH for giving us MOHAMMED and QURAN [THE LAST TESTAMENT]

If there are Muslim persons living in Western countries that are forwarding this idea as a rational part of public discourse, then let them be aware that under Shariah law they would not be able to forward any ideas counter to the established laws. There would be no discussion. It is a testament to the humane evolution of the West that we even allow persons to bring ideas to the public table to be discussed openly, without fear. Do we want to change this openess for Shariah law? Do we need to honor that which which does not honor us?

The very idea is ridiculous if for two reasons:

1). It is unconstitutional. We would not institute the civil law that exists in Judaism would we? No of course not. Nor would we with Sharia law. It is religious law, and that would clearly violate the rule of separation of church and state which we, as Americans cherish highly, as much as we do among the other 9 essential rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. The very idea of instituting Muslim law over non-Muslims is so profoundly wrong, its nauseating.

2). As someone else said, many of those who seek to institute sharia law, who seek to quash public discourse and the freedom of speech rights we in the west enjoy--ahem what ABOUT that Danish Cartoon and the unbelievable reaction by the Muslim world?!----are those who use our own laws and freedoms and rights against us while at the same time paradoxically desiring to see those very rights abolished.

If there are those who wish to follow sharia law, that IS a constitutional right; as long as it doesn't also violate our laws.....for example, killing a woman because she was with another man.

I could be wrong, but according to the information I read on the Archbishop's statement, he did not suggest that at all. Please re-read his speech.

However, addressing your question. We, as a country, should NOT accept two (or more) standards for different people. Accepting more than one standard sounds like seperate but equal to me. One fountain for Christians, one for Muslims and One for Jews, how preposterous!

Tina

I could be wrong, but according to the information I read on the Archbishop's statement, he did not suggest that at all. Please re-read his speech.

However, addressing your question. We, as a country, should NOT accept two (or more) standards for different people. Accepting more than one standard sounds like seperate but equal to me. One fountain for Christians, one for Muslims and One for Jews, how preposterous!

Tina

I could be wrong, but according to the information I read on the Archbishop's statement, he did not suggest that at all. Please re-read his speech.

However, addressing your question. We, as a country, should NOT accept two (or more) standards for different people. Accepting more than one standard sounds like seperate but equal to me. One fountain for Christians, one for Muslims and One for Jews, how preposterous!

Tina

What DEB CHATTERJEE doing is what exactly HINDU terrorists do in INDIA.Create fear psychosis among illiterate lower casts HINDUS and MUSLIMS and make them fight each other and destroy both these communities. There is peaceful coexisting of muslims and Hindus in Uttarpradesh which is ruled by a DALIT [LOW CASTS HINDUS]chief minister..Now he thinks all AMERICANS are fools and he can instil fear in their minds as they do it in India

Shariah in the western world? You gotta be kidding! That's preposterous! Don't we have enough with the evangelists and other hard-line christians from the bible belt.

One of the greatest things about the western world is that, despite the numerous fundamentalist christian groups, we learned to be secular. And we owe that to Thomas Jefferson.

No. What a stupid question.

If "shariah" happens to coincide with American or English law, then congratulations. But no changes should be made to accommodate religious laws of any kind. Some American laws resemble the ten commandments but are not based on the ten commandments, they simply overlap because they make sense. But adding or removing laws because of religious beliefs is insane and any country looking to move in that direction should be bombed severely.

Sharia was a compassionate and tolerant religious and legal system--by 9th or 10thh century standards. By modern standards it is harsh, sexist, and intolerant of other religions.

What is worse is that it cannot evolve as many of its most harsh provisions are from the Quran--the divine word of god to muslims. You simply cannnot explain away the harsh quranic provisions that apostates should be subject to death or that the testimony of a woman is worth less than that of a man.

Daniel in de den:

Agree completely. See my response to Fr Reese.

Regards
Mary C.

Readers please

CHECK OUT:

Rowan Williams in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Wm_hSpCVI

And hear what Muslims in Britain are saying about "secularism- a western point of view" (a screed against separation of church and state):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLHdmaAoHjI

CHECK OUT:

Secularism is "sheer absurdity" 4:37

What is the enemy of the Muslim world? It not necessarily the person with white skin.. the enemy are people who are driven by this idea (secularism) 5:05

The law is the law, whether in England or the United States. Anyone may do as they please as long as they don't violate the law.

You can't have two different sets of laws - chaos would result. The suggestion that we should accommodate another legal system is subversive, and a threat to 1000 years of enlightened evolution that created our legal system - a system that is generally just and fair and applies equally to all people. This a huge accomplishment, and the bedrock of our way of life. Anything that undermines that is to be vigorously opposed.

If enough US citizens feel strongly enough in parts of Shariah to make them law, and if those parts do not violate Constitutional rights, then, sure. The US is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I don't see that happening in some cases, certainly. Even during periods of strong Christian influence on US politics, no one has rationally suggested (or attempted) to implement the other 3 of the Bible's 10 commandments that deal with a person's relationship with God, and we have dealt pretty effectively with the 4th already (the Sabbath day). Is it theoretically possible? I guess so, if we amend the Constitution enough to completely change its focus - but dealing with improbabilities on that level is best left to physicists, not politicians :).

If USA accomodates Shariah laws, which is more likely with religious Republicans or ultra-left Democrats ascending to power, then USA shall be very busy domestically with situations like these:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/12/denmark.cartoon/index.html

Because Shariah strictly prohibits anything that is "offensive" to Islam.

Have a nice day !

Islamic fundamentalism is not a religion. It is not spiritual. It is a gang...a mob...a band of thieves.

The people of the middle east have been manipulated and misused by their "leaders" into thinking that the malformed doctrine that has been imposed on the poorest of the poor is to help them.

It is not.

Under Sharia Islamic Law it is not permissible to keep dogs as pets.

Muhammad did not like dogs.

He made strange and harsh statements about dogs and these statements have affected dogs in a tragic way. His teachings have led to the cruel treatment of dogs.

None of the statements regarding dogs are found in the Koran but they are in the various hadith. These hadith are a foundation of Islamic beliefs and are the basis of many Islamic laws. They render dogs as "impure" and worse. Per Muhammad’s orders most dogs were to be killed and all dogs of a specific color (black) HAD to be killed.

With the threat of Sharia Law becoming worldwide- Muhammad’s teachings must be understood and rejected..

If you are a dog-lover and understand the strong bond between man and dog-

Please see this great utube-

Abused Dog in Iraq Tracks a Soldier who had befriended him 70 Miles..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5q3TIgPwco

No no no! The rules in Sharia go against the basic norms of civilization itself, especially concerning human rights and equality before the law.

The world needs more civilization, not less. I am deeply disappointed in the Archbishop of Canterbury and his apparent appeasement of Islamic fundamentalism.

I am a liberal -- very liberal. Liberalism means the same laws and rules ought to apply to all; they are reached through an open, constitutional process, which also recognizes the limits of government and the paramount importance of human rights. We don't elect dictators or theocrats; we are governed by public servants.

Let's take a look at another recent development from the Islamic world.

I speak and read German, and I also have seen that the Turkish prime minister proclaimed, in a very recent speech in Cologne, that assimilation is a crime against humanity. Then he calls for German universities and high schools, which are all public, to offer instruction in Turkish -- not the Turkish language or literature, but all subjects. This is not seen as a transition to German speaking.

The Turkish prime minister is talking about reorienting a nation with a two thousand year old language tradition. The arrogance is stunning.

German universities do not accomodate the languages of other EU nations, but the Turkish prime minister wants more rights for Turks in Germany than are given to other Europeans -- citizens of democratic nations, joined with Germany in the European Union. And this is from the leader of an ostensibly democratic nation.

It is clear that the majority of the Islamic world currently follows ideas and philosophies which are incompatible with democracy and human rights. Even the so-called "liberal" states in the Islamic world follow practices which would be considered abhorrent in Western democracy, or for that matter in Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan.

We are in another Cold War. We need to get honest with ourselves and take measures to protect ourselves and to contain the threat, as we did in the last Cold War. Appeasement is not the answer; it never has been, and it never will be.

If we get honest with ourselves about the true nature of the situation, and adopt policies that recognize and address reality, eventually democracy will spread to the Islamic world, just as it has to most of the former Soviet Block.

This has to be the worst case of capitulation I have seen in a long time. The Archbishop has obviously never studied world history, if he had he would know what islams goals are, he would realize he is playing into their hand. The truth is if you immigrate to a foreign country you should be ready to accept that countries laws and traditions, you don't HAVE to agree,just accept, especially if the country does not impose itself on your beliefs and allows you more freedom then your beloved islamic land which you had to "escape". Muslims seem to believe wherever they go they need special accomodations. Sharia is cruel, prejudice, sexist etc. Why should any nation that believes in the rule of law based on Judeo Christian traditions even allow the cancer that is islam in, let alone allow this minority to dictate. If the British allow this line of thought into fruition they should have just surrendered to Hitler, he would have treated them better.

If enough US citizens feel strongly enough in parts of Shariah to make them law, and if those parts do not violate Constitutional rights, then, sure. The US is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I don't see that happening in some cases, certainly. Even during periods of strong Christian influence on US politics, no one has rationally suggested (or attempted) to implement the other 3 of the Bible's 10 commandments that deal with a person's relationship with God, and we have dealt pretty effectively with the 4th already (the Sabbath day). Is it theoretically possible? I guess so, if we amend the Constitution enough to completely change its focus - but dealing with improbabilities on that level is best left to physicists, not politicians :).

No. It's a misguided -- actually an intellectually bankrupt idea -- attempt at normalizing certain chauvinist, sexist behaviors by some folks with dark ages sensibilities. It is also a way of avoiding confrontation with Muslims who have no interest in assimilating or respecting democratic laws and institutions. The dear old archbishop is looking more and more like Neville Chamberlain, waving the "peace of our times" agreement, appeasing Hiltler. A lot of good it did.

No. It's a misguided -- actually an intellectually bankrupt idea -- attempt at normalizing certain chauvinist, sexist behaviors by some folks with dark ages sensibilities. It is also a way of avoiding confrontation with Muslims who have no interest in assimilating or respecting democratic laws and institutions. The dear old archbishop is looking more and more like Neville Chamberlain, waving the "peace of our times" agreement, appeasing Hiltler. A lot of good it did.

one can't be "of muslim ancestry".

No. It's a misguided -- actually an intellectually bankrupt idea -- attempt at normalizing certain chauvinist, sexist behaviors by some folks with dark ages sensibilities. It is also a way of avoiding confrontation with Muslims who have no interest in assimilating or respecting democratic laws and institutions. The dear old archbishop is looking more and more like Neville Chamberlain, waving the "peace of our times" agreement, appeasing Hiltler. A lot of good it did.

No Islamic Laws anywhere. It should be banned from Islamic Countries as well.

The anti-thesis of all this hoopla about Shariah in USA, would be to start a campaign to stop all Muslim immigration to USA, and encourage the Senate snooping bill to be strengthened so as to keep listening indefinitely what the Muslims are saying in their mosques.

On this score, if Barack "Hussain" Obama gets elected - and looks like he would - then the Democrats, out of love for bending over backwards to accomodate each and every aspect of global culture, would probably start to campaign to adopt parts of the Shariah in the US Constitution. (Obama is of Muslim ancestry, but he is a Christian - People of the Book.) That's why if Democrats win this election, the very character of US would start to change amongst all other bad things.

The situation would have some economic benefits: Saudis would be happy that finally USA (superpower) has given legal status to Shariah, and would send more cheaper oil to keep prices in check. People would be happy because the shock of the economic crisis (recession etc.) would not be hard felt. However, the flip side is that USA would slowly become another Third World country. Like UK, where in Birmingham and Bradford most Muslims from Pakistani heritage cannot speak a single line of English, but were born in UK !!! The parallel Shariah courts would run to defeat each and every aspect of secular US culture/policy. Then, eventually, Muslims would demand Hajj money for religious pilgrimage, and open up madrassas for Islamic education. They would demand job quotas. All these happen in (secular) India, for example. The decline of the American Empire would be working well.

I don't understand this at all - think of what this implies...

do we need a law that says if you are a catholic you can't eat meat on fridays during lent? or that they can't get divorced?

do orthodox jews need a law that says you can't do certain things on the sabbath?

religion is the root of evil - re-enforcing it with civil laws is just a really bad idea.

Well, when a leading Presidential candidate says that he wants to institute Biblical Law in the U.S., can instituting Sharia be far behind? After all, are they really so much different?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Enough Said...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Enough Said...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Enough Said...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Enough Said...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Enough Said...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Enough Said...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Enough Said...

DEB CHATTERJEE

Go and stop killing of your own coutrymen by Hindu fundamentalists. You have already killed
millions of Muslims and low cast Hindus.
First put your house in order.
If you leave U S it will definitely become a better place

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Enough Said

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Enough Said

Religious law, whether Jewish, Christian or Islamic has always been a source of oppression. Rabbis kept Jews in many lands from modern education, knowledge, and association with Gentiles. Christian priests for centuries dominated the minds and bodies of Christian people. Islamic law still does this. Religious law should always be fought against.

Mostly a non-issue as contracting parties can make almost any agreed principle or provision between them binding. Through pre-nups, other contracts, etc., Muslims or others can arrange their affairs according to their preferences. I don't get it.

Before we ever consider allowing Muslims in America to practice sharia law: we must establish why they are working hard to use our existing laws against us. Legal jihad? Why do they try to censure ANYONE who may criticize Islam. And why were the Muslim groups so upset about 3 men speaking to Air Force cadets?

3 Ex-Terrorists Speaking at AFA; Muslim Group Objects:

"The Air Force Academy has invited three men who say they are former Islamic terrorists to speak at the 50th annual Academy Assembly, which opened Tuesday.

The invitation to the four-day event, "Dismantling Terrorism: Developing Actionable Solutions for Today's Plague of Violence," has angered a national Muslim group, which calls the men "anti-Muslim bigots."

"It's as if they had (ex-Klansman) David Duke come to speak about race relations," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "Their entire presentation is based on the false belief that the root cause of all terrorism in the world is Islam and that it's evil and of the devil."

The assembly, founded in 1959, is a student conference on topics of contemporary significance, according to the academy Web site. This year's event is not meant to discuss any religion but to train future leaders, said Maj. Brett Ashworth, Air Force communications director.

Today's opening presentation, Inside Terrorism, features Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zak Anani. They are described by their publicists as "three former terrorists" who "practiced hatred against Christians, Jews and Americans" and were "part of sleeper cells in the USA."

CAIR's offer to send a speaker with an alternative view of Islam was rejected because the conference isn't supposed to be about religion, Ashworth said.

The Air Force made a counteroffer to consider a CAIR speaker on terrorism. But Hooper said he rejected that as unfair because Islamic terrorism was an intrinsic part of the conference message and "we need someone to go and defend Islam with a balancing perspective."

Ashworth said the Air Force expects the three speakers to confine their message to terrorism.

Walid Shoebat, one of the three speakers, said in an interview Tuesday that he was born to an Arab father and American mother in Bethlehem in 1960. He said he renounced terrorism in 1978 when he came to America and became a Christian.

Shoebat shrugged off CAIR's objections, saying they are nothing new."

SO- Why did Hooper TURN DOWN an offer to speak at the event as believing moderate Muslims AGAINST terrorism? And why is no Muslim group denouncing what happened at the event?

Muslim Student Threatens Former Terrorist's Life at Air Force Academy Event

"Former terrorists Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zak Anani addressed cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, during their annual political forum. They shared their experiences as terrorists and helped cadets understand the Islamic fundamentalist mind set.

During the event a Jordanian college student, identified as Omar Khalifa of Metro International, approached Kamal Saleem and spoke to him in Arabic, "you are an enemy of Islam and you must die." The incident was reported to Military Police, who are investigating Khalifa's threat.

"The men receive threats of this nature all of time and we take each one very seriously," said Keith Davies, Executive Director of the Shoebat Foundation. "That is why each of the men live in seclusion."

"We have all been told that Islam has been hijacked by extremists,” said Walid Shoebat. "Yet CAIR, who profess to be ‘Moderate Muslims’ are the Three Ex Terrorists biggest critics, and pull out all stops to try and keep our voices from being heard. I beg to ask the question; if CAIR is indeed moderate as they claim, then WHY are they not supporting our campaign against 'extremists? If they are sincerely against the Fundamentalist Muslim agenda why do they oppose us?"

The avowed goal of Shariah law is to return the world to its “Golden Islamic” past by any means necessary. A return to a world were women and non-Muslims have no rights. A return to a world steeped in ignorance, intolerance and hatred. In short, a return to the Mecca of 570 AD.

After Hastings and Runnymede, Lexington and Concord, Sumter and Appomattox, Pearl Harbor and D-Day, I do not plan to go quietly into that dark night.

The avowed goal of Shariah law is to return the world to its “Golden Islamic” past by any means necessary. A return to a world were women and non-Muslims have no rights. A return to a world steeped in ignorance, intolerance and hatred. In short, a return to the Mecca of 570 AD.

After Hastings and Runnymede, Lexington and Concord, Sumter and Appomattox, Pearl Harbor and D-Day, I do not plan to go quietly into that dark night.

The avowed goal of Shariah law is to return the world to its “Golden Islamic” past by any means necessary. A return to a world were women and non-Muslims have no rights. A return to a world steeped in ignorance, intolerance and hatred. In short, a return to the Mecca of 570 AD.

After Hastings and Runnymede, Lexington and Concord, Sumter and Appomattox, Pearl Harbor and D-Day, I do not plan to go quietly into that dark night.

The avowed goal of Shariah law is to return the world to its “Golden Islamic” past by any means necessary. A return to a world were women and non-Muslims have no rights. A return to a world steeped in ignorance, intolerance and hatred. In short, a return to the Mecca of 570 AD.

After Hastings and Runnymede, Lexington and Concord, Sumter and Appomattox, Pearl Harbor and D-Day, I do not plan to go quietly into that dark night.

I agree with David Hoffman. It makes my blood boil and enraged at these callous suggestions. We immigrants to USA, who have waited long to become citizens, are precisely here because of the Freedom of Speech and Expression, that, amongst many other things would allow me (and others) the right to offend others with my views and opinions.

If USA decides to incorporate Shariah laws, I think I would reconsider my US citizenship.

Finally, this shows the dark side of "democracy". If majority of Americans support including Shariah laws, would that numerical strength make it a right thing to do ?

They can have there own laws, code of conduct, etc so long as they don't violate US/State law.

Of course. It's worked so well in Afganistan, why not here?

Any Islamic law in America? Hell NO! I don't even want any Christian law in America, or any religious lunacy! Religions belong in places of worship or the home, not in the public arena. America is a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC! Let us work to keep America that way.

What an inane question!

...engineered to stir up maximum fussing and fuming; another religious food fight.

Sigh...

Any Islamic law in America? Hell NO! I don't even want any Christian law in America, or any religious lunacy! Religions belong in places of worship or the home, not in the public arena. America is a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC! Let us work to keep America that way.

We already recognize the decisions of religious courts and other religious authorities to some extent. In NY and NJ, consumer protection agencies have gone after stores and restaurants that falsely advertise their food as being inspected and found to be kosher by Orthodox Jewish groups. Additionally, legislatures have also considered laws requiring the husband of a civilly divorced couple to give his wife a religious divorce.

I have no problem with this kind of recognition of religious courts as long the litigants in the religious courts are there voluntarily and have access to binding rulings by civil courts as well.

If enough US citizens feel strongly enough in parts of Shariah to make them law, and if those parts do not violate Constitutional rights, then, sure. The US is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I don't see that happening in some cases, certainly. Even during periods of strong Christian influence on US politics, no one has rationally suggested (or attempted) to implement the other 3 of the Bible's 10 commandments that deal with a person's relationship with God, and we have dealt pretty effectively with the 4th already (the Sabbath day). Is it theoretically possible? I guess so, if we amend the Constitution enough to completely change its focus - but dealing with improbabilities on that level is best left to physicists, not politicians :).

This seems like empathy conflicts that us americans are so good at. We have to make everyone feel OK almost to a fault. There is a point where you have to say no to trying to make everyone happy, and stand up for the greater good of everyone involved. to put restrictions on americans just to make some of us feel good is wrong, We should just be able to learn tolerance and compassion for everyone,and not bend to the point of having to change ourselves to the point it hurts.

No.

Absolutely not.

America does not accomodate its laws for any religion or creed except to grant its citizens the right to follow that religion or creed.

It is an insult to our history, 300 years of legal precedent, the founding fathers and our good sense to even flirt with such an idea.

How could the Washington Post posit such a repugnant, un-American, and un-Constitutional question?

Aside from being clearly unconstitutional, the very suggestion makes my blood boil. Over my dead body. Ironic thing is, many have paid such a price to protect their personal liberties from those that would impose Islamic law upon them. Islamists are all too willing to collect.

Aside from being clearly unconstitutional, the very suggestion makes my blood boil. Over my dead body. Ironic thing is, many had paid such a price to protect their personal liberties from those that would impose Islamic law upon them. Islamists are all too willing to collect.

No more than the Rotary club bylaws should 'accommodate' aspects of Boy Scout bylaws.. they are two seperate entities.. Is that concept so difficult?

Of course not.

No.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.