Friday, 14 March 2014

Sharia in the USA

First posted: 2 October 2011

 
Many people won’t know that some state courts already allow sharia law in reaching certain judgements (involving Muslims). However, an amendment to the law is going ahead which would effectively disallow sharia-law judgements in any state court.

There is a problem here. Muslim ‘civil rights’ groups have argued that the amendment which forbids state courts from using sharia law are discriminatory towards Muslims. A federal appeals court is now hearing a case that challenges the legality of that amendment.


So here again we see Muslims demanding civil rights while all the time knowing there are virtually no such rights in any Muslim or Islamic country. Not only that. The very same Muslims who are fighting against the amendment are not supporters of civil rights in the abstract in any case. What you get, and get almost every day nowadays, are Muslims, mainly Islamists, fighting SPECIFICALLY FOR THE RIGHTS OF MUSLIMS TO BE MUSLIMS. Not for the rights of those people who just happen to be Muslims. If you understand. It is very one-dimensional. A fight for Muslims to have various and many civil rights - but only those rights which are laid down by Islam and which restrict Muslims’ behaviour as Muslims. Civil rights for gays, blacks, unionists, etc. mean nothing to them. They care only about the civil right to be a Muslim; or, in this case, the civil right to live by sharia law. Other rights can go to hell. This is all about the right of Muslims to be Muslims. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You have the same ‘civil rights’ issues with the burqa/niqab; with halal meat in public institutions; with compulsory ‘prayer rooms’; etc. And now, the more general civil right which is the right of Muslims to live by sharia law. Now, that’s a ‘right’ which I’m not in favour of; just as I’m against the right to abuse children or the right to scream ‘fire’ in a public place (when there is no fire).

You cannot claim rights in the abstract. Every claim to a civil right has to be measured by its overall impact on the host communities. A Muslim right to sharia law would effectively obliterate all other non-Islamic rights. By accepting Islamic rights you are effectively renouncing all the rights people have fought for over the years (in the US and beyond).

So it’s no surprise that Islamists have claimed that the amendment institutes an ‘anti-Muslim bias into the Oklahoma Constitution’. Maybe it does. Just as I hope there would be an amendment outlawing mass sacrifice (in the Aztec style) or roller ball which used balls with blades.

The writer of this article offers a sort-of middle way to this problem. He writes:

“In my opinion, individuals in their private dealings may make those activities subject to Sharia law. Thus, two people could contract to have their sales agreement governed by Sharia.”

But even then we would still need to be careful. The slippery slope argument was almost invented for the implementation of sharia law in a non-Muslim country. As a Muslim, you cannot pick and choose which sharia laws you are to follow. As a Muslim you must accept all of them. Whether or not they can or cannot be implemented in a non-Muslim state is not the issue. Of course Muslims will often talk only about the innocuous examples of sharia law for the simple reason that they can quite easily be accepted.Thus they never talk about Hudud because they clearly know that, at this moment in time, they wouldn’t stance a chance of instituting such barbaric laws in the US. But that doesn’t mean that Muslim are against stoning or amputation. It just means that they must go one step at a time.

The slow-but-sure growth of Sharia law within kuffar states like the US. Do you like the sound of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:



http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_columnist.htm?StoryID=126707

No comments:

Post a Comment