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.