HOME
| This is an educational site about Sharia, as such you find both criticism and appreciation of parts of the Sharia. Please read the Genesis of Sharia first

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Sharia Laws have no chance in America


No Sharia in America, there simply is no chance logically or mathematically. 

  1. If equal pay for equal work for women bill cannot pass the house and senate, what makes one think Sharia bill will pass?
  2.  No American Muslim Organization has asked for it, nor a majority of Muslims are seeking Sharia Laws be applied. They have subscribed to laws enshrined in our constitution and they believe it serves the justice fairly and equitably.
  3. The Sharia Phobia, and Anti-Sharia laws being introduced in state legislatures is all about making money.  The smart men are making assess out of legislators in passing the anti-Sharia bills in different states and in the process making a fortune by doing useless things.
  4. The only option Muslims are seeking is counseling alternatives. If a Jewish, Christian or a Hindu couple files for divorce, of the many options the judge gives the couple is consulting with their lawyers, family members, friends, Rabbis, Pastors or clergy, and in case of Muslim couple, an Imam who can counsel them religiously.  The Imam offers them choices from Sharia, and if they mutually agree to the terms of divorce, the Judge puts his signature to the deal.

    All that matters to the Judge is that the couple has mutually agreed to settle their conflict, be it Sharia guidance, 
    psychological counseling, money allurements or whatever.
  5. Sharia Laws are applicable only in a Muslim majority nations.
  6. Muslim population in America is about 1%.  Half of that population is women, and they will strongly stand against it if goes against their rights.
  7. Another half of those half - Muslim men will stand opposed to it.
  8. There may be less than 1% of Muslims who may want some form of Sharia - check out the YouTube videos by Rabbi Brad Hirschfield and Marc Shiner listed in Key Videos on the left column of this site. www.ShariaLaws.com
  9. It would take 150 years for Muslims to be 51% of America, that is,  if all Christians, Hindus, Buddhist, Jews, Atheist and others  do not produce more than a child, otherwise it will never happen
  10. In 50 years, the new immigrant Muslims will be less than 5% of Muslims as Muslims would be 5th or 6th generation Americans.
  11. Those who are born and raised here along with all other Americans, subscribe to the American Values of equality, fairness and justice enshrined in our constitution.
  12. The more we integrate, the more we become one.
  13. There is no need to fear about Sharia or spend any legislative time on it.
  14. There are two types of Sharia - Personal and Public, personal is about the relationship between God and the individual and Public is between two individuals or more.  Personal Sharia is how you pray, fast, give alms etc, where as Public Sharia is about enforcing contract like marriage, divorce, partnerships, business, government, civil and other contracts and governance of a people. 

Please take the time to read the articles “Genesis of Sharia” “Fixing Sharia Laws” and "Examples of Sharia Law" along with 10 other articles listed among “Most Read Articles” at www.ShariaLaws.com or ShariaLaws.blogspot.com

The Center for Pluralism will continue to focus on education and hope build a cohesive America, where no American has to live in apprehension or fear of the other.

Dr. Mike Ghouse is a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine, motivation, and foreign policy. A community consultant, pluralist, social scientist, thinker, writer, activist, news maker and an Interfaith Wedding officiant . He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Most of the words are linked to his work, and please visit him at www.TheGhousediary.com and www.MikeGhouse.net 

Sharia - Five myths about sharia

Sharia is not divine, but its intent was to serve justice.  Anything that is divine cannot be flawed and unjust. Sharia has many components in it that are downright wrong.
Sharia is indeed a body of regulations that punishes the violators (per the interpretation of the writers), beheading, stoning, unjust divorce, apostasy, blasphemy all originate from those books.  

God willing, I will write a rebuttal to a few points that are an error on the part of the author of this article.

More at “Fixing Sharia Laws” and “Genesis of Sharia” and "Examples of Sharia Laws" at Sharia Laws dot com.

Mike Ghouse
www.MuslimSpeaker.com 

# # #


Courtesy - Washington Post


 

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

For Justice’s Sake in India - Triple Talaq needs to go

Triple Talaq needs to go | www.ShariaLaws.com

Once again, this is a golden opportunity for Muslims to come together and reflect on the evil practice of triple talaq (divorce) and get rid of this misogynistic custom and go back to the Quranic principles of separation and a waiting period of three months (measurement of time) to ensure that justice, mercy and fairness principles of Islam are not compromised.

Triple Talaq happens when a pissed off husband can shout out the word Talaq (divorce) three times to end the marriage in a flash. Dubai even allows text message divorce, what a shame!  The wife is put on the street, there is no value to the relationship? Once anger is so much more important than the relationship.  This is certainly not Islamic, not Quranic and not the practice of Prophet Muhammad, who was a mercy to mankind.  Ending the relationship abruptly over irreconcilable differences is cruel.  Islam protects the rights of women, and the right to livelihood is one of them.

There is huge movement among Muslims women in India to rid of this practice. No religious scholar has the courage to take a stand, every one is afraid of what the other scholars will say to them. What can they say, it is not in the Quran.

If we don't do the right thing voluntarily, with enough Muslim women taking the stand, and Muslim men supporting it, Triple Talaq will be replaced by UCC which sounds bad, but is good, as it protects the rights of dependents far better than the falsified Sharia in practice. Parts of the Sharia that is practiced is not God's Sharia or Prophet's Sunnah - Can God be unjust and Prophet be unmerciful? 


Please visit www.ShariaLaws.com and check out the articles on the topic, particularly "Genesis of Sharia" and "Fixing Sharia Laws."

Islam is about justness, kindness and fairness, and if these elements are missing, we have to restore them, it is the responsibility of all humanity. 

This is a good piece and I am with it 100%. 

Mike Ghouse
www.ShariaLaws.com
www.MuslimSpeaker.com 
# # # 

For Justice’s Sake

The apex court has the opportunity to enforce the true Islamic law on divorce.
Courtesy - Indian Express


Written by Tahir Mahmood | Published:March 22, 2016 12:01 am
supreme court, Islamic law on divorce, Muslim divorce law, muslim group, Islamic organisation, human rights, identity rights, personal law, judicial legislation, india news, nation newsThe Supreme Court of India.
Bai Tahira, Fuzlunbi, Zohra Khatoon, Shah Bano, Shamim Ara, Iqbal Bano, Khatoon Nisa, Shabana Bano, Shamima Farooqui. This is not a list of female Muslim names taken from Wikipedia but hapless victims of the Muslim law on “triple divorce” who have, since 1976, fought legal cases right up to the Supreme Court to secure measly amounts of money for their sustenance. The stories of their miseries are etched in the pages of the law reports of India.
The latest among the countless Muslim women in the country suffering the pang of “talaq, talaq, talaq” is Saira Bano, who is now before the apex court. Instead of traditionally invoking judicial mercy of ordering the divorcing husband to pay her maintenance, she has boldly challenged the constitutional validity of his action of kicking her out by using the so-called triple divorce formula. Entertaining her plea on February 29, the court has sought the government’s response.
The practice of talaq was most certainly not introduced by Islam; it was rampant in the Arab society of the time and Islam tried to gradually reform in a very humane way. There is nothing in the law of Islam that suggests that the husband is free to pronounce talaq in an irrational or unreasonable manner. It allows talaq, subject to several conditions that are of a dissuasive nature, their purpose being to discourage
the husband from exercising his right without careful consideration.
The Quran enjoins men not to act in haste and to coolly think before deciding on talaq, since “you may dislike something about your wife but, maybe, God has put in her some good for you.” There is nothing in the holy book that shows this provision is discretionary.
Just like nikah, talaq too is not just a word the mere utterance of which will terminate the marriage, but a procedure which must be meticulously followed. Only if all the prescribed steps of this procedure have been duly undertaken will a marriage be dissolved. Unfortunately, traditional interpreters of Muslim law give effect to a talaq pronounced by a man even in sheer violation of the true Islamic law and procedure for divorce, calling it talaq-ul-bidat (innovative divorce). According to them, a talaq-ul-bidat is “sinful but effective” — a strange proposition rendered into English as “bad in theology but good in law.”
If, after pronouncing a talaq-ul-bidat, a husband wants to reunite with his divorced wife, a wholly unlawful practice, based on a very distorted view of the concept of halala, is to be followed. Halala is, in fact, a concept very different from what it is erroneously believed to be. The rule takes care of the rare eventuality of a thrice-divorced woman remarrying but ending up with a failed marriage once again. It is certainly not meant to force a divorced woman to suffer the indignity of sleeping for a while with someone else before returning to the man who has inflicted on her the cruelty of unilateral talaq not recognised by the Quran. Halala, as practised in India, is clearly repugnant
to the fundamental duty of citizens to “renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women” under Article 51A of the Constitution of India.
The laws in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, the Philippines, Sudan, Syria, the UAE and Yemen have totally recognised the concepts of triple talaq and halala. It is high time India followed suit and saved countless Muslim families from devastation. The judiciary must act in the matter as no legislative reform seems possible.
If Saira Bano’s plea, now before the Supreme Court, is accepted, there will be nothing “un-Islamic” about it. On the contrary, the court would be enforcing the true Islamic law on divorce and answering the Quran’s call for absolute justice and fairness in society.
The writer, a distinguished jurist, is professor of eminence and honorary chairman, Amity Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

POLITICS Heidi Cruz: My Husband Is Here To Bring Christian Sharia Law To America

Oops, I thought Collin Taylor beat me to writing a similar article. I am glad he did not, and I will finish my article on Christian Sharia.

Mike Ghouse


Courtesy - Occupy Democrats

Religious extremism, once been relegated to the fringe of American politics, has broken through and now is a policy platform for Republican presidential candidates. Championed by Ted Cruz, his campaign is an affront to the Constitution that he claims to love so dearly and the religious pluralism that our nation was founded on. It’s a slap in the face to the millions of Americans who don’t happen to follow Cruz’s perverse interpretation of fundamentalist Southern Baptist Christianity.
Cruz’s wife, Heidi Cruz, made some extremely alarming remarks to South Carolina radio host Vince Coakley, in which she asserted that her husband was uniquely able to deliver a “combination of the law and religion,” which sounds alarmingly like a Christian version of the sharia law that Cruz was so terrified about Muslims imposing on Texas:

Explaining why she is supporting and campaigning for her husband, Heidi Cruz said “we are at a cultural crossroads in our country” and that she feels she and her husband “can be in this race to show this country the face of the God that we serve — this Christian God that we serve is the foundation of our country, our country was built on Judeo-Christian values, we are a nation of freedom of religion, but the God of Christianity is the God of freedom, of individual liberty, of choice and of consequence.

She went on to say that, “I think that’s something that this country really needs to be reminded of, is that Christians are loving people, are nonjudgmental people, but there is right and wrong, we have a country of law and order, there are consequences to actions and we must all live peaceably in our own faiths under the Constitution. And Ted is uniquely able to deliver on that combination of the law and religion.”

It is astonishing to see a presidential candidate openly espousing the end of separation of church and state, and it’s why Ted Cruz’s candidacy is so dangerous. If he somehow gets elected, we could see our nation of tolerance and diversity turn into a Republic of Gilead-style theocracy, and he’s not even being shy about it. This is a man who insists that he swears to defend the Constitution but then proclaims that our rights come from God; who took to the podium following his primary win in Iowa and yelled what was essentially the English equivalent of Allahu Ackbarwho manufactures the false narrative of “Christianity under attack” and swearing to defend “religious liberty” while working to deny those freedoms to members of other religions.


He’s the kind of false Christian who would shut his doors to Syrian children fleeing Russian bombs and chlorine gas; the kind who would openly endorses torturous waterboarding, the kind who goes to Flint, Michigan, to hand out clean water only to anti-abortion religious centers. He’s the kind of man who defends his endorsement from a preacher who said Hitler was a “hunter sent by God,” or that other endorsement by a man with links to white supremacy groups. This despicable man must not be allowed anywhere near the White House if we are to preserve the integrity of our union and our Constitution.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

India: Sharia Law Questioned AG Noorani

In an article “Hindutva’s stick” AG Noorani wrote a lot of fascinating things about Indian Personal Laws,  and I am focusing on the Sharia aspect of it, as I had written similar sentences in another article, both are presented here.
“The real issue is not the civil code. It is reform of Muslim Personal Law, which flagrantly violates the Sharia, the law ordained by the Quran. The perverted law now in force is oppressive to women, specifically the arbitrary triple divorce and polygamy. It is not Sharia that is followed in this but the “Anglo-Muhammadan” law of British times. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is in the grip of dinosaurs. A besieged community is a conservative community. It clings to what is left of its identity. Since Independence, the Muslim community has been exploited either by the “sarkari musalman” who acts as adalal (agent) between the state and the country’s Muslims, the quintessential Uncle Tom, or the reactionaries who control the board or the bogus secularism of some “secular” parties.”

Jawaharlal Nehru had to wage a battle within his own party, the Congress, against Hindu communalists. Muslims witnessed his helplessness, suffered in the never-ending riots, saw the erosion of constitutional safeguards and the attacks on Urdu, and faced the wrath of the rising forces of Hindutva. They withdrew into their own suffocating shell. The nation is poorer for that.

The issue, then, is the reform of Muslim Personal Law. Pressures for its abrogation by the uniform civil code retard the progress for reform. Professor J.N.D. Anderson noted: “It is the family law that has always represented the very heart of the shariah, for it is the part of the law that is regarded by Muslims as entering into the very warp and woof of their religion.” It has been “basic to Islamic society down the centuries”. This was why in 1931 the Congress Working Committee declared that “personal laws shall be protected by specific provisions to be embodied in the Constitution”. Nehru assured Mohammad Ali Jinnah, in a letter dated April 6, 1938, that the Congress had “declared that it does not wish to interfere in any way with the personal law of any community”. Law Minister G.S. Pathak said in the Lok Sabha on May 17, 1966, that “personal laws are mixed up with religion” and that “we cannot coerce people to accept our views about their religion and customs”. Earlier, a similar assurance was given in the Lok Sabha by Law Minister A.K. Sen on August 29, 1963.”

The full article is at: http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2015/11/hindutvas-stick-against-muslims.html

My note as preface to the article Muslim women facing arbitrary divorce at http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2015/10/muslim-women-facing-arbitrary-divorce.html

There is God's (Quranic) Sharia which is just and equitable, and there is man's sharia which is selfish and cruel.

In case of a divorce, the Quranic Sharia calls for separation for at least three months, while making efforts to reconcile the differences, if reconciliation is not possible then comes the divorce, where the man takes full responsibility for child support and alimony if the woman has no other source of income.God's law is common sense. (Genesis of Sharia Law)

However, what Muslims have been practicing is Man's (Male's) Sharia, believing that it is the divine law, and it is not. It is misogynistic and does not care about woman. The guy can say the word divorce three times, and the life that was built over a life time can be done away in a minute. Women constantly live in the fear of this ugly pronouncement and it is not acceptable. No human should live in apprehension, particularly the married women in a society where the are dependent.

This has got to go, unless we are just to fellow beings, our spiritual growth is incomplete. Being just amounts to being Godly or being spiritual or achieving Taqwa.

Thanks God for giving courage to Muslim women in India to take the bold step of calling to get rid of this ungodly law.
Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer and a speaker on PluralismInterfaithIslampolitics, human rights, foreign policy and building cohesive societies. Mike offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. More about him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net and his writings are at TheGhousediary.com  

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Muslim women facing arbitrary divorce under Sharia Law

There is God's (Quranic) Sharia which is just and equitable, and there is man's sharia which is selfish and cruel.
 
In case of a divorce, the Quranic Sharia calls for separation for at least three months, while making efforts to reconcile the differences, if reconciliation is not possible then comes the divorce, where the man takes full responsibility for child support and alimony if the woman has no other source of income.God's law is common sense. (Genesis of Sharia Law)
 
However, what Muslims have been practicing is Man's (Male's) Sharia, believing that it is the divine law, and it is not. It is misogynistic and does not care about woman. The guy can say the word divorce three times, and the life that was built over a life time can be done away in a minute. Women constantly live in the fear of this ugly pronouncement and it is not acceptable. No human should live in apprehension, particularly the married women in a society where the are dependent.
 
This has got to go, unless we are just to fellow beings, our spiritual growth is incomplete. Being just amounts to being Godly or being spiritual or achieving Taqwa.
 
Thanks God for giving courage to Muslim women in India to take the bold step of calling to get rid of this ungodly law.
 
Mike Ghouse
www.ShariaLaws.com
# # #

SC concerned over Muslim women facing arbitrary divorce

http://muslimmirror.com/eng/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/INDIA_F_0304_-_VeiledMuslimWomen452.jpg
Photo: asianews.it
New Delhi, Oct 29 : The Supreme Court has expressed concern over Muslim women facing arbitrary divorces and second marriages of their husbands even as their first marriages were subsisting.
Expressing concern on the issue of “gender discrimination… which concerns the rights of Muslim women”, the apex court bench of Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel said the issue of rights of Muslim women against arbitrary divorce surfaced number of times but was not addressed.
The court said in its judgment pronounced on October 16 that there was no safeguard “against arbitrary divorce and second marriage by her husband during currency of the first marriage, resulting in denial of dignity and security to her”.
The apex court said this while noting the submissions made by lawyers on the question whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 would have retrospective effect.
Directing for a separate public interest litigation to address the issue, the bench issued notice to the Attorney General and National Legal Services Authority, returnable on November 23.
Issuing the notice and directing for the registration of the PIL, the court said, “Although the issue was raised before this court in the case of ‘Ahmedabad Women Action Group vs Union of India’, this court did not go into the merits of the discrimination with the observation that the issue involved state policy to be dealt with by the legislature.”
The court judgment noted that it was observed that the challenge to Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was pending before the Constitution Bench and there was no reason to multiply proceedings on such an issue.
The court noted that the matter needed consideration by the apex court as the issue related not merely to a policy matter but to the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 and international conventions and covenants. —IANS

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Lesbian Rabbi Stands Up FOR Sharia Law


Rabbi Nafshi, thanks for standing up for the rights of others,  that is the right thing to do, and this Muslim and many more Muslims will stand up for your rights, the human rights of GLBT community in the pursuit of their happiness.  God's Sharia is not against you, but the man-made Sharia is, we see it practiced  in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan, but not in 50 other Muslim states.

There is a great need for Americans to learn about it, the folks like Tea party folks don't use their own mind, and are driven by a few hate mongers who has everything to gain.  Here are two articles Genesis of Sharia Law and Fixing Sharia Laws at www.ShariaLaws.com that will give you a better understanding of the Sharia Law in our context, as it can be applied here in the United States.

Mike Ghouse
www.ShariaLaws.com 
www.WorldMuslimCongress.com
www.MikeGhouse.net
# # # 



Lesbian Rabbi Stands Up FOR Sharia Law
 
Posted on Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 12:15 AM.

Robin_Nafshi
By Ben Barrack
If there is one group of people that would be put at the top of the list of Sharia law advocates for punishment, it would almost certainly be lesbian Jewish Rabbis like Robin Nafshi. Yet, in what can only be described as a case of Stockholm Syndrome on steroids, Nafshi is standing up for Sharia law. In so doing, she’s fighting for her own extermination.
In an op-ed that appeared in the Concord Monitor, Nafshi writes:
As the leader of a religious community with a wide range of political views, I am always cautious when speaking out on partisan issues. But sometimes, I must. Now is that time.
On Sept. 20, the delegates of the New Hampshire Republican Party adopted a Platform of Republican Principles. It contains 83 bulleted goals. Number 83 reads as follows:
“Take any and all actions possible to protect against the implementation of any part of Sharia law in New Hampshire, including legislation outlawing Sharia law.”
Sharia means “the way” in Arabic, and Sharia law guides all aspects of Muslim life, including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna – the sayings, practices and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.
Sharia law for Muslims is quite similar to Halakhah for Jews. Halakhah means “the way” in Hebrew and it guides all aspect of Jewish life, including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud – the sayings, practices, and teachings of the early Jewish Rabbis.
Why has the Republican Party singled out Sharia law? Why doesn’t it seek to protect against the implementation in New Hampshire of any part of Halakhah, or for that matter, Roman Catholic Canon Law?
Because the New Hampshire Republican Party and other states that have sought similar bans are playing off of what they believe to be a growing fear in this country. We live in a difficult time, historically. Extremist Muslims – a very small percentage of the overall Muslim population – have hijacked a peaceful religion and perverted it into something narrowly construed and intolerant of the West, Jews, Israel, democracy, women’s education and more.
The politicians who endorse anti-Sharia laws are exploiting Americans’ legitimate fears of ISIS, al Qaida, Hamas and other extremist groups in order to ostracize and discriminate against the American Muslim community.
As the stealth jihadists no doubt laugh their heads off (pun intended) at the level of sheer ignorance displayed by Nafshi, she fails to understand that not only is she advocating for her own destruction but in so doing, she’s facilitating it. In fact, those whom she chides for being opposed to Sharia law are further down on the list of candidates to be subjected to that law.
To use a fattened calf metaphor, in such a case the farmer has to provide the feed, the facilities, the care and ultimately slaughter said calf, which is an unwilling participant.
In the case of Nafshi, as the figurative calf, she’s doing all that for the farmer while also fighting off predators that would kill her, not to protect herself but to save herself for the farmer.