In short, the word sharia means "a path" and, by extension, a way to pursue happiness by protecting life, faith, family, intellect and property. As a Muslim and an American citizen, I already enjoy these God-given liberties. Principles of sharia are embedded in our Constitution. Islamic law, nevertheless, requires a believer to follow the law of the land.
The two main sources of sharia are the Quran and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslim scholars and intellectuals engage in deliberations arriving at consensus solutions suitable for time and place, based upon the two fundamental sources. There are five schools of Islamic jurisprudence to choose from that guide modern-day Muslims to practice their faith. In a nutshell, sharia promotes:
The sanctity of human life. The Quran stresses, “If anyone kills a person — unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land, it is like killing all humankind; while anyone saves a life, it is as like saving the lives of all humankind.”
Freedom of faith. Quran commands, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”
Family life as a nucleus of society. Sharia regulates marriage, divorce, inheritance, parenting, child rearing, rights of orphans, kin and family relations. Israel and India, two democracies, honor Muslim personal law in their constitutions. American laws recognize Islamic marriage, burial rites, dietary laws and interest-free banking. It’s a code of living that includes daily prayers, fasting and charity.
Prohibition of intoxicants and drug use. Sharia aims at keeping the mind sound and healthy.
Protection of property rights. Sharia disapproves of economic exploitation and usury.
Sharia is unfairly portrayed as a medieval system of law that is barbaric, having no regard for democratic values, freedoms, human rights and women’s rights.
It is true that sharia is being wrongly used to justify tribal and cultural practices elsewhere around the world in totally unacceptable ways. Practices like genital mutilation are not sanctioned by Islam. Terror groups like ISIS and the Taliban contribute to fear through their violent acts, incitement to harm innocent people and by implementing harsh rules in the name of Islam. But they’re only a minuscule faction among the 1.6 billion Muslims who live peacefully under participatory Western-style democracies from Indonesia to Tunisia.
The leaders behind the weekend's rallies, attempting to be politically correct, claim they’re anti-sharia, not anti-Muslim. But that makes no sense. Their argument is like saying being anti-Canon Law but not anti-Catholic, or being anti-Halakha but not against the Jewish faith. They’re also silly to argue that 1 percent of the U.S. Muslim-American population will have the power to replace the U.S. Constitution. The obvious goal here is to promote irrational Islamophobia.
According to news reports, a few dozen protesters in cities from New York to Seattle, some clad in camouflaged fatigues, others belonging to anti-government movements, gathered to protest sharia. In contrast, hundreds belonging to all faiths and walks of life rallied across the street to voice their opposition to such fear-mongering. It only takes the action of a small hate group to divide Americans.
If the hysteria is promoted by hatemongers, poisoning our political and social discourse, it is apt to result in unintended consequences. We’ve witnessed that in the murder of two good Samaritans as they attempted to stop a vengeful and angry racist on a Portland, Oregon, train.
As Americans, we must be careful to distinguish between the true threats to our freedoms, and identifying their sources, and those who market phantom threats that don’t really exist.
Victor Ghalib Begg is a Muslim community activist and interfaith leader who lives in Fort Pierce.
We owe it to fellow Americans to clarify the myths about Sharia, and propose fixing this problem through a conference with the Islamic scholars and those who are opposed to Sharia to make the event credible.
Let's "clear the air" of misunderstandings for all Americans. We need to put this fear behind and move on with our lives and bring peace and prosperity to fellow Americans.
Event: Do American Muslims Want Sharia?
Date: Sunday, May14, 2017
Time: 2:00 - 4:30 PM
Venue: TBD
Who: Americans in Public service, Media and the Movers and Shakers
Presenters: Sharia Opposers and Muslim Scholars
Observers: Academics
Organized by: The Center for Pluralism & World Muslim Congress
Sponsoring Organizations: To be added.
Purpose: Is to demystify Sharia. There is a fear of Sharia among fellow Americans who are not Muslims, and there are Muslims who do not see any harm in personal Sharia while no Muslim Organization has sought to bring Public Sharia to America. The program hopes to bring clarity to Americans including American Muslims that;
There is a public Sharia and Personal Sharia - Link
Muslims are committed to the American laws
No American Muslim organization has asked to bring Public Sharia to America
A Muslims may wish it but the majority of Muslims will oppose public sharia.
Sharia is a human effort to serve justice and needs major amendments - Link
At the Center for Pluralism our goal is to build a cohesive America where no American has to live in apprehension, tension or fear the other. www.CenterforPluralism.com
The World Muslim Congress is a think tank. It is about Muslims and their civic responsibilities in creating a dignified religious, social and civic space for themselves in the community of faiths. We do not distinguish between a Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya, WD Muhammad, Ismaili, Bohra or the subsets of each group, all believe in God, the Prophet and the accountability of their actions and whoever calls himself or herself a Muslim is a Muslim. This is our world and our God collectively.
The Center for Pluralism is an initiative of American Muslims, but it is not a Muslim organization. However, it is committed to pave the way for Muslims to become a part of the American story just as it is committed to do the same for others religious groups. What does it take for Muslims to be a part of the society?
We invite volunteers and sponsors for this program.
Mike GhouseMike@Centerforpluralism.com (214) 325-1916
No Sharia in America, there simply is no chance logically or mathematically.
If equal pay for equal work for women bill cannot pass the house and senate, what makes one think Sharia bill will pass?
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.
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.
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.
Sharia
Laws are applicable only in a Muslim majority nations.
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.
Another
half of those half - Muslim men will stand opposed to it.
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
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
In 50
years, the new immigrant Muslims will be less than 5% of Muslims as Muslims
would be 5th or 6th generation Americans.
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.
The
more we integrate, the more we become one.
There
is no need to fear about Sharia or spend any legislative time on it.
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.
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.
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.
Ibtihaj Muhammad leads an interactive fencing demonstration in New York. She chose her sport in part because it allowed her to compete while wearing the hijab. (Charles Sykes/AP)
By Asifa Quraishi-LandesJune 24
Asifa Quraishi-Landes is an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Law.
Clearly, Americans fear sharia, Islam’s legal framework.At least nine states have passed “foreign law” statutes banning sharia in American courts — even though no U.S. court has ever ruled based on sharia. Although the Constitution expressly forbids a religious test for would-be leaders of the nation, then-presidential candidate Ben Carson said last year that he’d oppose any Muslim White House aspirant who was “not willing to reject sharia.” In this election year, Donald Trump calls for a ban on all Muslim immigration, and pundits argue that sharia prompted the killing of innocent dancers at a gay nightclub in Orlando. Falsehoods about Islam abound, and many of them center on what sharia is and what it is not. Here are five myths.
MYTH NO. 1
Sharia is “Islamic law.”
After the March terrorist attack in Brussels, Trump said that European Muslims “want to go by sharia law.” In May, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) claimed that Muslims in Michigan “have tried to implement their version of sharia law in the United States.” Talk-show host Mark Levin says, “We already have creeping sharia law in this country.” Listening to these voices, you might think the West is on the verge of switching to a whole new legal system.
But sharia isn’t even “law” in the sense that we in the West understand it. And most devout Muslims who embrace sharia conceptually don’t think of it as a substitute for civil law. Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it’s not a set of regulations adjudicated in court. Rather, it is a body of Koran-based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life. It doesn’t come from the state, and it doesn’t even come in one book or a single collection of rules. Sharia is divine and philosophical. The human interpretation of sharia is called “fiqh,” or Islamic rules of right action, created by individual scholars based on the Koran and hadith (stories of the prophet Muhammad’s life). Fiqh literally means “understanding” — and its many different schools of thought illustrate that scholars knew they didn’t speak for God.
Fiqh distinguishes between the spiritual value of an action (how God sees it) and the worldly value of that action (how it affects others). Fiqh rules might obligate a devout Muslim to pray, but it’s not the job of a Muslim ruler to enforce that obligation. Fiqh is not designed to help governments police morality in the way, say, Saudi Arabia does today. According to classical fiqh scholarship, a Muslim ruler’s task was to put forth another type of law,called siyasa, based on what best serves the public good. The most vivid example of this was the recognition of incestuous (mother-son, brother-sister) marriages practiced by some non-Muslim minorities living under Muslim rule, dating back at least to the 14th century, despite the abhorrence, generally, of such marriages to Islam. In other words, sharia doesn’t hold that everything objectionable to Islam should be outlawed.
MYTH NO. 2
In Muslim countries, sharia is the law of the land.
Last year, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Londondemanded that British officials respect his country’s legal system “based on sharia law.” An analysis of deepening religiosity in Indonesia by the Gatestone Institute, a foreign affairs think tank, said the country was “leaning more and more towards . . . Sharia laws.”
While it’s true that sharia influences the legal codes in most Muslim-majority countries, those codes have been shaped by a lot of things, including, most powerfully, European colonialism. France, England and others imposed nation-state models on nearly every Muslim-majority land, inadvertently joining the crown and the faith. In pre-modern Muslim lands, fiqh authority was separate from the governing authority, or siyasa. Colonialism centralized law with the state, a system that carried over when these countries regained independence.
When Muslim political movements, such as Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have looked to codify sharia in their countries, they have done so without any attention to the classical separation of fiqh and siyasa, instead continuing the legal centralization of the European nation-state. That’s why these movements look to legislate sharia — they want centralized laws for everything. But by using state power to force particular religious doctrines upon the public, they would essentially create Muslim theocracies, contrary to what existed for most of Muslim history.
MYTH NO. 3
Sharia is anti-woman.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali American, former member of the Dutch parliament and one of the most visible critics of Islam, says that Islamic law “is inherently hostile to women” because of its marriage laws, among other reasons. Many Westerners see Muslim women’s headcover as a kind of oppression. This year, for instance, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls endorsed his country’s effort to ban the hijab on university campuses, calling it a symbol of the “enslavement of women.” There is a verse in the Koran that holds that men are the “protectors” of women, but many contemporary scholarsdispute the notion that this suggests women must obey men or that women are inferior.
While it’s true that many majority-Muslim societies have laws that treat women unfairly, many of these laws, like Saudi Arabia’s ban on female drivers, have no basis in fiqh. In instances where there is a fiqh origin for modern legislation, that legislation often cherry-picks certain rules, including more woman-affirming interpretations. And on a range of issues, Islam can fairly be described as feminist. Fiqh scholars, for instance, have concluded that women have the right to orgasm during sex and to fight in combat. (Women fought alongside the prophet Muhammad himself.) Fiqh can also be interpreted as pro-choice, with certain scholars positing that although abortion is forbidden, first-trimester abortions are not punishable.
Fiqh doctrine says a woman’s property, held exclusively in her name, cannot be appropriated by her husband, brother or father. (For centuries, this stood in stark contrast with the property rights of women in Europe.) Muslim women in America are sometimes shocked to find that, even though they were careful to list their assets as separate, those can be considered joint assets after marriage.
To be sure, there are patriarchal rules in fiqh, and many of these are legislated in modern Muslim-majority countries. For example, women in Iran can’t run for president or attend men’s soccer matches. But these rules are human interpretations, not sharia.
MYTH NO. 4
Islam demands brutal punishments.
The faith’s reputation for savagely punishing lawbreakers — with stoning, flogging, etc. — is so prevalent that even Disney’s 1992 film “Aladdin” made light of cutting off thieves’ hands. It doesn’t help that the Islamic State routinely kills innocents for all sorts of perceived transgressions, despite the Koran’s prohibition of wanton violence: It forbids attacks on civilians, property, houses of worship and even animals.
In the same way that the Ku Klux Klan’s tactics are a poor representation of Christian practice (despite its claims to be a Christian organization), the Islamic State is the worst place to look to understand what sharia says about punishment and the treatment of innocents and prisoners. It’s true that sharia permits harsh corporal punishment, including amputation of limbs, but fiqh restricts its application. Theft, for example, doesn’t include anything stolen out of hunger or items of low value. (That piece of fruit Jasmine “stole” in “Aladdin” certainly wouldn’t qualify.) Adultery? Yes, corporal punishment for extramarital sex is Koranic in origin, but it comes with an extremely high evidentiary burden of proof: four eye-witnesses. It’s a sin but not one that is the business of the state to punish.
MYTH NO. 5
Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sharia is about conquest.
In 2010, as he was preparing for his presidential campaign, former House speaker Newt Gingrich gave a speech stating: “Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. . . . They’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of sharia.” His remarks reflect a widely held view that Muslims are bound to wage war against non-Muslims.
But no such duty exists. The Koran repeatedly commands Muslims to keep promises and uphold covenants. That includes treaties among nations and extends to individuals living under non-Muslim rule. Muslims have lived as minorities in non-Muslim societies since the beginning of Islam — from Christian Abyssinia to imperial China. And fiqh scholars have always insisted that Muslims in non-Muslim lands must obey the laws of those lands and do no harm within host countries. If local law conflicts with Muslims’ sharia obligations? Some scholars say they should emigrate; others allow them to stay. But none advocate violence or a takeover of those governments.
Twitter: @AQuraishiLandes
Five myths is a weekly feature challenging everything you think you know. You can check out previous myths, read more from Outlook or follow our updates on Facebookand Twitter.
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
The 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.
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.”
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 Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, 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
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.
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.
