| The author of this article uses an interesting sentence, Sharia is not imposed but chosen by the people. Sean Hannity interprets as "killing the infidels, stoning the women to death and Jihad against the west" which is not true. It's the misapplication of justice emebedded in Sharia law that is the problem, indeed, statistically, we need to do reasearch if the number of deaths through misaaplication of the Sharia law equal the number of deaths in the west through misapplication of the laws. - Mike Ghouse | |||||
By: Ryan Bennett 29/12/2011 Sharia law, a religiously based approach to legislation, is a scary term for many of us in the US. We often associate it with a conservative, oppressive, and perhaps brutal form of governance that subjugates the rights of the people. We have also typically been apprehensive about Islamist organisations, instead deciding to support totalitarian, secular leaders, in part because of our Islamophobia. But in reality, can't we ask ourselves: "What do we really know about Islam and Sharia?" Sharia translates literally as the "way" or "path". The structure of Sharia law is very similar to Western ideologies of governance originating in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Consider how our fundamental basis for ethics and morals with respect to equal justice is rooted in the Ten Commandments. For the Islamist politicians who advocate it, and for the citizens who call for it, implementing Sharia law means establishing a legal system in which God's law sets the ground rules. We should be able to easily understand this dynamic. Mohammed al-Alagi, Libya's National Transitional Council Minister of Justice and Human Rights, told the UN Human Rights Council: "We have called on the revolutionaries to treat prisoners according to Islamic Sharia and international law." [1] Many here in the US would think this contradictory-an archaic, barbaric process pitted with a modern, consensus-driven one. But it is not so. The reason that al-Alagi uses the word Sharia is because to him, a Muslim, it means that all human rights will be respected. Sharia represents the idea that all human beings and governments are subject to equal justice under the same law. Accordingly, when the Libyan National Transitional Council’s chairman Mustafa Abdul-Jalil proclaims that "…we will not accept any extremist ideology…" and that "We seek a state of law, prosperity and one where Sharia is the main source of legislation…" [2] he is being genuinely consistent. Most proponents of Sharia law aren't literally seeking the adoption of a comprehensive legal code based on religion. In fact, throughout the history of Islam, no such system has ever existed. One of the key reasons that Sharia-platformed Islamist political parties have enjoyed such popularity in the Middle East is because Muslim populations know that Sharia law creates equilibrium among elected officials; within a democratic atmosphere, this guarantees the people's legal rights. Both of these ideals have been almost non-existent for the past several decades in many Middle Eastern countries. Moreover, we must also take into account that Islam's roots lie unfathomably deep within the culture and society of the Arab world. Furthermore, across every nation in the region, Islamic law has always served as the core for governance. So, how can a nation or government be truly democratic if it ignores the voices of the people who desire the transparency, framework, and legitimacy that Sharia law creates? Sharia law will not be imposed upon these Arab Spring countries or their people, it will be chosen by them. And despite popular assumption, Islam has always been a faith highly compatible with democracy. Traditionally, it calls for the restriction of the power of an executive authority by an elected assembly of legal advisers. These advisers decide on legislature through the consensus of the community, thus checking the power of the ruler and representing the voice of the people. Both Islamic and secular parties share the goal of building free nations with the equal human rights implicit in Sharia law. So if we are to support this Arab Spring, along with the humanitarian and democratic causes that these Middle Eastern populations are fighting for, we must realise that this movement is the result of governmental leadership that neglects Sharia. Look at the countries where the Arab Spring has taken hold-all, nations whose rulers have governed as though they were above the law, with no checks or balances. In a few years we may look at a map and see these Middle Eastern countries as not only Islamic, but also as welcoming and democratic nations. We have to understand that Sharia law is essentially an ethical groundwork for governance, not a direct set of codes and prohibitions. And we can be optimistic that a progressive rather than a conservative approach will be realised because it is the women and youths who are leading these revolutions. That change is something to be excited about. The writer is a Research Assistant for Democracy Transition in Libya. He is a graduate student at Missouri State University, USA. He can be reached at: RyanJSBennett@Hotmail.com Source: The Tripoli Post Courtesy: New age Islam |
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Why Sharia Law is a scary term for many of us in the US?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
In Islamic Law, Gingrich Sees a Mortal Threat to U.S.
By SCOTT SHANE
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/us/politics/in-shariah-gingrich-sees-mortal-threat-to-us.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24
Published: December 21, 2011
WASHINGTON — Long before he announced his presidential run this year, Newt Gingrich had become the most prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that Shariah, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave as or graver than terrorism.
“I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it,” Mr. Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010 devoted to what he suggested were the hidden dangers of Islamic radicalism. “I think it’s that straightforward and that real.”
Mr. Gingrich was articulating a much-disputed thesis in vogue with some conservative thinkers but roundly rejected by many American Muslims, scholars of Islam and counterterrorism officials. The anti-Shariah theorists say that just as communism posed an ideological and moral threat to America separate from the menace of Soviet missiles, so today radical Islamists are working to impose Shariah in a “stealth jihad” that is no less dangerous than the violent jihad of Al Qaeda.
“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Mr. Gingrich said in the speech. “But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah.”
Echoing some Republicans in Congress, Mr. Gingrich blasted the Obama administration’s policy of declining to label terrorism carried out in the name of militant Islam as “Islamic” or “jihadist.” Administration officials say such labels can imply religious justification for a distortion of doctrine that most Muslims abhor, thus smearing an entire faith.
But to Mr. Gingrich, whose campaign did not respond to a request for comment, the administration’s language smacks of the willful blindness of an earlier era. “The left’s refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70-year pattern of left-wing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union,” Mr. Gingrich said.
Shariah (literally, “the path to the watering place”) is a central concept in Islam. It is God’s law, as derived from the Koran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, and has far wider application than secular law. It is popularly associated with its most extreme application in societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban, including chopping off a hand as punishment for thievery.
But it has always been subject to interpretation by religious authorities, so its application has varied over time and geography, said Bernard G. Weiss, professor emeritus at the University of Utah and an authority on Islamic law.
“In the hands of terrorists, Shariah can be developed into a highly threatening, militant notion,” Professor Weiss said. “In the hands of a contemporary Muslim thinker writing in the journal Religion and Law, Shariah becomes an essentially pacifist notion.”
The Arab Spring has set off a lively political and scholarly debate over the growing power of Islamists in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. But those are all overwhelmingly Muslim countries. The idea that Shariah poses a danger in the United States, where the census pegs Muslims as less than 1 percent of the population, strikes many scholars as quixotic.
Even within that 1 percent, most American Muslims have no enthusiasm for replacing federal and state law with Shariah, as some conservatives fear, let alone adopting such ancient prescriptions as stoning for adulterers, said Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University in Washington, who spent a year traveling the United States and interviewing Muslims for his 2010 book “Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam.”
The notion of a threat from Shariah to the United States “takes your breath away, it’s so absurd,” Dr. Ahmed said. He sees political demagoguery in the anti-Shariah campaign, which fueled rallies against mosques in the last two years from Manhattan to Tennessee.
All of the Republican presidential candidates have been asked about the supposed threat from Shariah. Representative Michele Bachmann told the conservative Family Research Council in a November speech that Shariah “must be resisted across the United States,” endorsing moves by several states to prohibit judges from considering Shariah.
Mitt Romney said in a June debate: “We’re not going to have Shariah law applied in U.S. courts. That’s never going to happen.” He immediately added, “People of all faiths are welcome in this country.”
For Mr. Gingrich, concern about Shariah has been a far more prominent theme. He and his wife, Callista, produced and narrated a 2010 film on the threat from radical Islam, “America at Risk,” that discusses the danger of both terrorism and Shariah against a lurid background of terrorist bombings, bloody victims, wailing sirens and chanting Muslim crowds. (Mrs. Gingrich does say, at one point, “This is not a battle with the majority of Muslims, who are peaceful.”)
One Muslim activist who is shown in the film calling for “separation of mosque and state,” Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, said he appreciated Mr. Gingrich’s support in an ideological contest with large Muslim advocacy groups in the United States that he believes have an Islamist slant.
But Dr. Jasser, a Phoenix physician and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said non-Muslims like Mr. Gingrich were not the most effective advocates for what he believes is really a debate within Islam.
“Unfortunately, as long as a non-Muslim opens the discussion, whether it’s Gingrich or someone else, it’s going to hit a brick wall in the Muslim community,” Dr. Jasser said.
Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim and an adviser to law enforcement agencies in Texas and to the Department of Homeland Security, is a conservative Republican who said he once idolized Mr. Gingrich. He said he no longer did.
He said the anti-Shariah campaign in the United States was “propaganda for jihadists,” offering fuel for the idea of a titanic clash of faiths. Those who truly want to protect American values should talk to Muslims, he said, not demonize them.
“There are plenty of American Muslim patriots who will defend American freedoms,” Mr. Elibiary said. “But you can’t be anti-Islam and find those allies.”
“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Mr. Gingrich said in the speech. “But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah.”
Echoing some Republicans in Congress, Mr. Gingrich blasted the Obama administration’s policy of declining to label terrorism carried out in the name of militant Islam as “Islamic” or “jihadist.” Administration officials say such labels can imply religious justification for a distortion of doctrine that most Muslims abhor, thus smearing an entire faith.
But to Mr. Gingrich, whose campaign did not respond to a request for comment, the administration’s language smacks of the willful blindness of an earlier era. “The left’s refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70-year pattern of left-wing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union,” Mr. Gingrich said.
Shariah (literally, “the path to the watering place”) is a central concept in Islam. It is God’s law, as derived from the Koran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, and has far wider application than secular law. It is popularly associated with its most extreme application in societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban, including chopping off a hand as punishment for thievery.
But it has always been subject to interpretation by religious authorities, so its application has varied over time and geography, said Bernard G. Weiss, professor emeritus at the University of Utah and an authority on Islamic law.
“In the hands of terrorists, Shariah can be developed into a highly threatening, militant notion,” Professor Weiss said. “In the hands of a contemporary Muslim thinker writing in the journal Religion and Law, Shariah becomes an essentially pacifist notion.”
The Arab Spring has set off a lively political and scholarly debate over the growing power of Islamists in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. But those are all overwhelmingly Muslim countries. The idea that Shariah poses a danger in the United States, where the census pegs Muslims as less than 1 percent of the population, strikes many scholars as quixotic.
Even within that 1 percent, most American Muslims have no enthusiasm for replacing federal and state law with Shariah, as some conservatives fear, let alone adopting such ancient prescriptions as stoning for adulterers, said Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University in Washington, who spent a year traveling the United States and interviewing Muslims for his 2010 book “Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam.”
The notion of a threat from Shariah to the United States “takes your breath away, it’s so absurd,” Dr. Ahmed said. He sees political demagoguery in the anti-Shariah campaign, which fueled rallies against mosques in the last two years from Manhattan to Tennessee.
All of the Republican presidential candidates have been asked about the supposed threat from Shariah. Representative Michele Bachmann told the conservative Family Research Council in a November speech that Shariah “must be resisted across the United States,” endorsing moves by several states to prohibit judges from considering Shariah.
Mitt Romney said in a June debate: “We’re not going to have Shariah law applied in U.S. courts. That’s never going to happen.” He immediately added, “People of all faiths are welcome in this country.”
For Mr. Gingrich, concern about Shariah has been a far more prominent theme. He and his wife, Callista, produced and narrated a 2010 film on the threat from radical Islam, “America at Risk,” that discusses the danger of both terrorism and Shariah against a lurid background of terrorist bombings, bloody victims, wailing sirens and chanting Muslim crowds. (Mrs. Gingrich does say, at one point, “This is not a battle with the majority of Muslims, who are peaceful.”)
One Muslim activist who is shown in the film calling for “separation of mosque and state,” Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, said he appreciated Mr. Gingrich’s support in an ideological contest with large Muslim advocacy groups in the United States that he believes have an Islamist slant.
But Dr. Jasser, a Phoenix physician and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said non-Muslims like Mr. Gingrich were not the most effective advocates for what he believes is really a debate within Islam.
“Unfortunately, as long as a non-Muslim opens the discussion, whether it’s Gingrich or someone else, it’s going to hit a brick wall in the Muslim community,” Dr. Jasser said.
Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim and an adviser to law enforcement agencies in Texas and to the Department of Homeland Security, is a conservative Republican who said he once idolized Mr. Gingrich. He said he no longer did.
He said the anti-Shariah campaign in the United States was “propaganda for jihadists,” offering fuel for the idea of a titanic clash of faiths. Those who truly want to protect American values should talk to Muslims, he said, not demonize them.
“There are plenty of American Muslim patriots who will defend American freedoms,” Mr. Elibiary said. “But you can’t be anti-Islam and find those allies.”
Newt Gingrich…History of Anti-Islam Slurs
Thursday, 22 December 2011 11:56
“I believe Shari`ah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States," Gingrich said
CAIRO – Seen as the front-runner to challenge incumbent president Barack Obama in next year's presidential elections, US Republican president hopeful Newt Gingrich has a history of anti-Islam slurs, who sees Shari`ah a mortal threat to the United States.
“I believe Shari`ah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it,” Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010and cited by The New York Times.
“I think it’s that straightforward and that real.”
The former speaker of the House of Representatives in the mid-1990s believes in the theory that advocates of Shari`ah are radical Islamists.
"Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Gingrich said in the speech.
"But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shari`ah."
In 2010, Gingrich and his wife produced and narrated a film, "America at Risk", about what they say the threat of "radical Islam".
In the film, they discuss what they say the danger of terrorism and Shari`ah against a lurid background of terrorist bombings, bloody victims, wailing sirens and chanting Muslim crowds.
Gingrich had once called for a ban on all mosques near Ground Zero "so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."
Shari`ah has come under scrutiny recently in the US, with right-wing campaigners and politicians questioning its role and operating system.
Lawmakers in at least 15 states have introduced proposals forbidding local judges from considering Shari`ah when rendering verdicts on issues of divorces and marital disputes.
In Islam, Shari`ah govern issues in Muslims’ lives from daily prayers to fasting and from to inheritance and marital cases to financial disputes.
The Islamic rulings, however, do not apply on non-Muslims, even if in a dispute with non-Muslims.
Gingrich has also been critical of president Obama's refusal to label terrorism as "Islamic" or "jihadist".
“The left’s refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70-year pattern of left-wing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union,” Gingrich said.
Administration officials say that labels smear the entire Islamic faith with terrorism.
Gingrich was the front-runner in the Republican race recently, just ahead of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
However, Gingrich's lead has evaporated in national polls amid a barrage of Romney television ads that have cited, among other things, the ethics charges Gingrich faced as House speaker.
Gingrich, who had a reputation in Washington for counter-punching when criticized, has fired back at Romney on occasion, but vowed to continue running a positive campaign.
Gingrich's anti-Islam slurs are not the first by Republican presidential aspirants.
Former candidate Herman Cain had said that he would not appoint a Muslim in his administration.
Cain, who withdrew from the race for the White House, later modified his position by calling for an unconstitutional "loyalty" oath for Muslim appointees.
Republican aspirant Rick Santorum had also describes Islamic Shari`ah as "an existential threat" to America.
US Muslims have been sensing a growing hostility following a hearing presented by Republican representative Peter King on what he described as “radicalization” of US Muslims.
Recently, a Republican Missouri lawmaker described Islam as a disease like polio while another Alaska Rep. branded Muslims as ‘occupiers’ of American neighborhoods.
A US survey has revealed that the majority of Americans know very little about Muslims and their faith.
Courtesy - http://www.onislam.net/english/news/americas/455097-newt-gingrichhistory-of-anti-islam-slurs.html
Educating Americans About Shari`ah
CAIRO – Trying to counter a growing hostile sentiments in the United States, a leading Islamic group has launched a campaign to clear long-held misconceptions about Shari`ah.
The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) campaign "will educate the American public on the definition and place of Shari’ah in Islam," president Zahid Bukhari said in a statement on its website.
Themed "Understanding Shari`ah", the campaign, launched during the 36th ICNA annual convention in Connecticut, also aims to clear stereotypes about Islam and Muslims.
"Our campaign will also counter Islamophobia that is fostered and spread by groups who hide behind the false guise of an anti-Shari`ah movement," Bukhari said.
Under the initiative, an online portal will be developed to support efforts aiming to shed light on religious freedoms under Shari`ah.
US Muslims will also be mobilized as part of the initiative to better explain Shari`ah.
ICNA is also planning to partner with various faith and civic organizations to reach this goal.
The initiative comes against the backdrop of several attempts to ban Shari`ah in several US states.
Lawmakers in at least 13 states have introduced proposals forbidding local judges from considering Shari`ah when rendering verdicts on issues of divorces and marital disputes.
Last November, a federal court blocked constitutional amendments that would have prohibited the use of Shari`ah in Oklahoma.
In Islam, Shari`ah governs all issues in Muslims’ lives from daily prayers to fasting and from, marriage and inheritance to financial disputes.
The Islamic rulings, however, do not apply on non-Muslims, even if in a dispute with non-Muslims.
Back to School
ICNA convention also saw the launch of a two-month initiative to help poor families.
The Back to School Giveaway is necessary because "it's part of our duty to help our society,” Mahmood Aijazi, national director of the Back to School Giveaway campaign, said.
“We need to go out, reach out to others and give back to our communities."
The initiative will feature of a series of free school supply giveaways in low-income areas in the upcoming holy fasting month of Ramadan.
Previously hosted in New York, New Jersey and Washington, the initiative is now expanding to the states of Houston, Chicago and Southern California.
Aijazi said he hopes more cities will follow ICNA's lead and host giveaways in their respective areas.
The three-day ICNA convention, held last week, was attended by a record 18,900 people.
Convention-goers benefited from nearly 80 sessions by over 100 prominent scholars, leaders and activists from across the country and around the world.
Courtesy:
Courtesy:
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Christians, Muslims share ideas on loyalties
We applaud Pastor Steve Odam of Murfreesboro’s central Christian Church for speaking up. Indeed the evil purists in a society when no one speaks up against unjust men and women.
However, let me add that Muslims do not take their pledge to Sharia Law, Sharia in its simplicity is guidance manual to create just societies, and it is human to err, except three Muslim majority nation, no other nation is bent on stoning the adulterer to death or hanging the apostate… because it is not in the Quraan. What those three out of 56 Muslims majority nations practice is a cultural and not religious. Just as most of the western states do not have capital punishment, we in the United States do, still carry that primitive practices, it is our culture and not a western value. You can learn more about Sharia at www.Sharialaws.com or directly at http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2011/07/sharia-in-one-gulp.html
However, let me add that Muslims do not take their pledge to Sharia Law, Sharia in its simplicity is guidance manual to create just societies, and it is human to err, except three Muslim majority nation, no other nation is bent on stoning the adulterer to death or hanging the apostate… because it is not in the Quraan. What those three out of 56 Muslims majority nations practice is a cultural and not religious. Just as most of the western states do not have capital punishment, we in the United States do, still carry that primitive practices, it is our culture and not a western value. You can learn more about Sharia at www.Sharialaws.com or directly at http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2011/07/sharia-in-one-gulp.html
The Quraan says one must be loyal to God, the prophet’s wisdom and the elected leaders with a caveat that the rulers must be just, if not you must speak out against injustice. Islam is pure common sense.
Mike Ghouse for a cohesive America
GUEST COLUMN: Christians, Muslims share ideas on loyalties
GUEST COLUMN: Christians, Muslims share ideas on loyalties
Lately I've read many times and in many places that a Muslim's first loyalty is to Shariah law, as for example in Marshall Boates' letter to the editor (The DNJ, Dec. 7): "The Muslims' first pledge is to Shariah law. All other authority is subordinate to Shariah law. Therefore Muslims cannot be allowed to defend our country because it is not their highest authority."
I would guess that many if not most of those who make statements like this are church-going Christians. Which puzzles me because they seem not to have thought of equally absolute statements like the apostle Peter's "We must obey God rather than men," when sanctioned by the "council" (local government in Jerusalem) for evangelizing. Christians have ever since referenced this and other similar statements and the history of subsequent encounters with imperial government in the Roman Empire. Repeatedly, in various sporadic persecutions by Roman government, Christians were given the opportunity to acknowledge the government's role as "highest authority." Repeatedly, Christians gave up their lives rather than do so. Religious allegiance has always been a part of the history of the West and Christians have sometimes been pressed to violate their ethics or beliefs by an inordinately dominant government.
These two religions' claim to have a higher authority than government should be seen as a salutary thing, not a problem. They are, while not identical, at least analogous to one another. Christians who understand their faith know implicitly that we hold allegiance to our country and its government only at arm's length, so to speak. It is a secondary allegiance at best. God is our first allegiance, and we may not sacrifice that loyalty on the altar of convenience. Fortunately, in a well run representative republic, there are seldom occasions when a Christian is absolutely pressed to the wall of sacrificing allegiance to God in favor of government or facing the consequences.
Different Christians see the religious/governmental conflicts differently, and it is out of the pacifist heritage against all forms of violence and war that the traditions of affording citizens the opportunity to register as Conscientious Objectors originates.
Certainly Muslims have a higher allegiance than government. The problem lately has come from the misreading by certain Muslims of what that requires them to do when different allegiances clash. There is this aspect to the Islamic tradition, but it is by no means monolithic.
There are thousands of American Muslims who serve in the Armed Forces well and honorably. Rather than the rather simpleminded tactic of excluding service based on one's religion, it may well behoove the Department of Defense to be more attentive to statements like those made by Maj. Nidal Hasan prior to his murderous attacks on service members at Ft. Hood. This is simply common sense, such as the current administration has occasionally demonstrated when attacking terrorists and their leaders in recent events in Pakistan and Yemen for example.
The Christian and Islamic tradition re: Church/State relations are not identical, of course. But, we hold in common, with Jews also, the notion that God is Almighty, and to him alone belongs ultimate authority over the affairs of all. How this is sometimes put into practice reflects our different theologies and traditions. But it is not, in this country anyway, a basis for blanket exclusion from military service based on religion.
Steven Odom is the pastor of Central Christian Church in Murfreesboro and a former community member of The DNJ's Editorial Board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)