Sharia -vs- U.S. Constitution

[Warrior-Mentor]

DING - DING - DING...

IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE "AMERICAN EXPERIMENT" - A SOURCE OF PROTECTION FOR OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.

AND IN THIS CORNER, AN OTHER OPTION, WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO CONVERT TO ISLAM AND BEAT YOUR CHILDREN IF THEY DON'T PRAY.

YOU MAKE THE CALL:

http://www.annaqed.com/en/content/show.aspx?aid=16242

Sharia Law and the US Constitution
By Louis Palme
Oct 14, 2009

Americans are among the most tolerant and patriotic people in the world. As a nation of immigrants, there is a certain appeal to the idea of multiculturalism where people of different backgrounds are accepted in our communities. Our nation was founded on the principles of equality and freedom, and we have invested our resources and blood over and over again to defend those principles.

Our constitution guarantees not only the freedom of speech, but also the freedom to practice our religion of choice. So it is not surprising that many Americans see Sharia Law as a Muslim religious prerogative which we should support or at least tolerate. Banks have rushed to provide Sharia-compliant banking, and public institutions like universities and airports have spent taxpayer dollars to help Muslims comply with their religious requirements, providing special foot-baths and prayer rooms for them.

If anyone speaks out against Sharia Law, there is often a strong reaction within the Muslim community. This month, Dalia Mogahed, President Obama’s advisor on Muslim affairs, complained on British television that the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and misunderstood.

While acknowledging that even Muslims associate Sharia with draconian criminal punishments and laws that seem unequal for women, she stated, “Part of the reason there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.”

The London-based Islam Channel panel she was on made repeated attacks against secular “man-made Law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism.” Ms. Mogahed described her government role as “to convey . . to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.”
(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nderstood.html)

A similar reaction took place in a recent US Congressional hearing on the dangers posed by political Islam. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, one of the most prominent Muslim reformers in the United States, testified, “I think if Muslims want credibility and we want to be respected equally, we need to stand for reform within our faith of [Sharia] laws that are still in the 15th and 16th Century.”

He explained that the jihadists will not be defeated until Muslims start to recognize that their ideology is on a slippery slope toward radicalism. In response to this testimony, Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D, Mn) delivered a verbal tirade that accused Dr. Jasser of encouraging anti-Muslim bigotry and attempting to censor Islamists.

Ellison said to Dr. Jasser, “I think you give people license for bigotry. I think people who engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that. You say, ‘yeah, go get after them.’ . . Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter’s hijab off, call her a horrible name, and spit on her because of something you said, Dr. Jasser? I worry about that.”
(Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/...-reforms-value )

So, to better understand whether Sharia Law is desirable (or even legal) in the United States, it might be instructive to compare it with the US Constitution.

This isn’t too difficult for the layman because the:

U.S. Constitution is only 17 pages long, including its 27 amendments.

Sharia Law is well-documented in the 1,200 page Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, “The Reliance of the Traveler” by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, and published in the United States by Amana Publications.

While the original document dates to the late 14th Century, it has been updated in the 1990’s and bears the approval of the Fiqh Council of North America as well as the authoritative Al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy in Egypt. The introduction to this manual states, “The four Sunni schools of Islamic Law . . are identical in approximately 75 percent of the legal conclusions. . . [T]he authors of the present volume and their positions do represent the orthodox Muslim intellectual and spiritual heritage that has been the strength of the Community for over a thousand years . . to the present day.”

While this volume of Sharia Law is primarily about the religious practice of Islam, the 800 pages of the manual devoted to rules and regulations also include sections on Trade, Inheritance, Marriage (suitable partners, legal rights, custody), Divorce, and Justice which would fall under civil law in the United States. Those sections comprise 35% of the manual, and are among the most controversial because they impose draconian punishments, authorize jihad, and sanction discrimination on the basis of religion and gender.

The summary below highlights the serious disconnects between the provisions of the US Constitution and those of Sharia Law.


LEGISLATIVE POWERS:

U.S. Constitution

Article I - All legislative Powers shall be vested in the Congress.


Sharia Law

The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. (a1.1) It is not a sin to comply with man-made laws that require buying auto insurance or having a photo ID because “the authorities are responsible for the sin, not the individual forced to comply.” (w42.3 and w50.4)


POWER TO DECLARE WAR:

U.S. Constitution

Section 8 – Powers of Congress include to levy taxes, to make laws, and to declare war.


Sharia Law

It is obligatory to obey the commands and interdictions of the caliph or his representative in everything that is lawful, even if he is unjust . . because the purpose of his authority is Islamic unity, which could not be realized if obeying him were not obligatory. (o25.5) The caliph or his representative have the duty of undertaking jihad if their territory borders on enemy lands, of dividing the spoils of battle, and of remitting a fifth for “deserving recipients.” (o25.9(8))

Jihad is obligatory for everyone when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims. (o9.3) It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy’s trees and destroy their dwellings. (o9.1)


PRESIDENT (CALIPH):

U.S. Constitution

Article II, Section I -- Qualifications of a President – He must be a natural born citizen, thirty-five years old, and a resident for fourteen years. The President is elected by ballot by the people (via the Electors) and shall serve for no more than 2 four-year terms.

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Sharia Law

A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave, a male, of the Quraysh tribe, etc. (o25.0)

The Caliph appoints a group to select his successor among themselves. There is no a term of office. However, the caliphate of someone who seizes power is considered valid, even though his act of usurpation is disobedience, in view of the danger from anarchy and strife that would otherwise ensue. (o25.4(3))

(Note: The Islamic Caliphate was disbanded the Turkish Parliament in 1924.)


REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS:

U.S. Constitution

Section 4 – The President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from office if found guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Sharia Law

(No provision for removal from office.)


LEGAL AUTHORITY:

U.S. Constitution

Article VI – This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made under it shall be the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound by them.

Senators and Representatives, legislative officers, all executive and judicial officers both of the United States and the several states shall be bound by a Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution.


Sharia Law

The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. (a1.1)

[Warrior-Mentor]

CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS:


U.S. Constitution

Amendment 1 – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

Sharia Law

Non-Muslims are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. Non-Muslims are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures, or make a public display of feast days or funerals. Non-Muslims are forbidden to build new churches. A non-Muslim may not enter a mosque without permission. The protection for non-Muslims is withdrawn if a non-Muslim commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her, leads a Muslim away from Islam, kills a Muslim, or says anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam. (o11.5 through o11.10)
______________________

U.S. Constitution

Amendment 2 – The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Sharia Law

It is a condition that someone buying weapons be of a people who are not at war with Muslims. (k1.2(f))

Enormities (sins) include selling weapons to non-Muslims who will use them against us. (w52.1(192))
______________________

U.S. Constitution

Amendment 3 – No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.


Sharia Law

(Not covered.) However, the Pact of Omar (636 AD) imposed on Christians in Syria, “We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.”
______________________

U.S. Constitution

Amendments 4 – 8 – These amendments prohibit unreasonable searches, require due process according to the law, provide for confrontation of witnesses, impose jury trial on all matters involving over $20, and prohibit excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments. Amendment 14 provides for equal protection of the laws for all citizens.


Sharia Law

No testimony may be made by people who have lowly jobs, such as a street sweeper or a bath house attendant, or non-Muslim. (o24.2-3)

Testimony regarding fornication or sodomy requires four male eye-witnesses to the act. (o24.9)

A woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man. (o24.10)

(There is no provision for a jury trial under Sharia Law.)

Cruel and unusual Islamic punishments include 1) stoning for adultery (o12.2); 2) scourging 40 lashes with hands, shoes, ends of clothes, or a whip for drunkenness (o16.3); 3) severing the right hand for theft of over $36 and the left foot for a repeat offense (o14.1); and 4) death for apostasy from Islam. (o8.2)

Indemnity for accidentally killing a male Muslim is 100 camels or 4,235 grams of gold. (Current value: $144,000.) Indemnity for killing a woman is half that of a man, for killing a Jew or a Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a killing Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that of a Muslim. The indemnity for causing a miscarriage is one slave. (o4.9)

There is no indemnity for a killing a non-Muslim at war with Muslims, an apostate, or someone sentenced to death by stoning. (o14.17)

Jews and Christians are subject to a “poll tax” not less than 1 dinar (Current value: $144) per adult male per year. No maximum is stipulated. (o11.4) This is a penalty for remaining in their ancestral religion instead of embracing the “religion of truth.” (o9.8)

A husband may beat a “rebellious” wife for 1) not allowing immediate sexual intercourse when he asks for it, at home, and if she can physically endure it; 2) answering him coldly; or 3) being averse when she was previously kind. (m5.1 and m10.12) The only limitation is that he may not break her bones, wound her, or cause bleeding.
______________________

U.S. Constitution

Amendment 13 Slavery and involuntary servitude are abolished.


Sharia Law

The section on Slavery (k32.0) is not translated into English. The provisions remain in Arabic. The editor of “The Reliance of the Traveler” claims that these provisions are no longer applicable, yet they remain in there in the text of Sharia Law. Elsewhere, the manual states, “Originally the status of slave was simply the outcome of having been taken as a prisoner of war. A captive who could not buy his own freedom by means of ransom remained in the possession of the captor until he had earned his freedom by work or until he was granted liberty by his master.” (w13.1)
______________________

U.S. Constitution

Amendment 21 repealed “prohibition,” thereby allowing manufacture, sale, and transport of alcoholic beverages.


Sharia Law

It is unlawful to sell grapes to someone who will make wine from them. (k4.9) “Allah cursed whoever drinks wine, gives it to others to drink, sells it, buys it, presses it for another, transports it, receives it, or eats its price.”

Enormities (sins) include drinking wine in any form or other intoxicant, even if only a drop as in medicine; pressing out the juice to make wine or other intoxicant; carrying it for purposes of drinking, or having it carried; serving it to others or having it served; selling it; buying it; having it bought or sold; consuming proceeds from selling it; or keeping wine or other intoxicant. (o16.6 and w52.1(350-361))
______________________

So, the next time someone suggests that we should be more understanding of Sharia Law,

it would be fair to ask him/her:

"What parts of our US Constitution would they be willing to abandon

in order to accommodate Sharia Law?"

[Warrior-Mentor]

You may recall, it took a legal battle just for this Dutch Politician to be able to enter the United Kingdom as a result of his verbal opposition to Islam.

Here's Geert Wilders on free speech in the UK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH8f2uuOOHQ

[Detonics]

Thank you very much for that.

[steel71]

A far-right Dutch politician who was turned away from Britain after criticising the Koran as a 'fascist book' was today forced to hastily change the location of a scheduled press conference in London in the interests of his own security.

Geert Wilders, who is head of the Freedom Party, flew into Heathrow airport this morning after winning a court battle to enter the country.

Mr Wilders had been due to host a press conference on College Green, opposite the Palace of Westminster, at noon.

However, about thirty male activists from a group called Islam for UK began chanting: "Wilders burn in hell" and "Sharia for UK".
Related Links


Brandishing banners saying, “Sharia is the solution, freedom go to hell” and “Geert Wilders deserves Islamic punishment”, the protesters were held back by about fifty policemen.

Mr Wilders was advised not to confront or walk past the protesters and instead to hold his press conference in the nearby Abbey Gardens building used by members of the House of Lords.

Mr Wilders told journalists that he lived under constant security because of his views. Explaining his controversial views on Islam, he said: “I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies the less freedom that we get.”

He was asked if he still believed that Islam was a retarded culture. He answered that under some Islamic cultures, "homosexuals are beaten up and killed. Journalists are jailed. That action is retarded."

He said that he stood by his views that the terrorist attacks on New York on September 11, 2001 were directed linked to the Koran.

The 46-year-old first sparked controversy after making a film entitled Fitna which defined the Koran as a fascist book. He is not expected to show the film while he is in Britain.

In February, Mr Wilders was denied access to Britain amid Home Office fears that his presence could trigger inter-faith violence.

That decision was overturned on appeal this week. Mr Wilders arrived in London during the late morning and it is thought that he intends to leave the country later today.

Abu Muaz, from Islam For UK, said: “If I were to say some of the things he has said I would be arrested under the Terrorism Act. But because there is a war on Muslims he gets an easy ride."

He added: "When Muslims defend their faith, they are seen as extremists. This man [Wilders] has said more than enough. The future is bright, it is not orange, it is Islam."

Mohammed Shafiq, from the Ramadhan Foundation, said it was right that Mr Wilders had been allowed into the UK, but he should be closely monitored while in the country.

He said: “The right decision was made to let him in because we believe in freedom of speech in this country, no matter how abhorrent someone’s views are. But he has got to be monitored so that he doesn’t say anything to incite religious violence.

“If you start attacking somebody’s faith in the way that he has, they could react violently. Islam is not above criticism, and criticism based on a mutual respect and tolerance is fine. But his hatred is no different to the intolerance that the BNP and the far-Right are preaching.”

The Muslim Council of Britain branded Mr Wilders “a relentless preacher of hate” and objected to “the rapturous welcome he is receiving in the name of free speech”.

Muhammad Abdul Bari, it's secretary-general, said: “At a time of heightened tension, with the unprecedented rise of the far-Right, we must all pull together and focus on points of unity and cohesion. Our unhealthy obsession with divisive figures only bolsters their objective to sow discord on the streets of Britain.”

Addressing journalists alongside the UKIP peer Lord Pearson, Mr Wilders said that his visit was “a victory”. He pledged to return to Britain and to show his film.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6877865.ece

[steel71]

Liberalism has infected western civilization sense the 19th century, but I think it may be coming to an end, finally... This whole Muslim immigration into Europe nightmare has been fully endorsed and supported by the liberals, it’s their idea. When this thing comes to a head and it will, liberalism will get the blame, as it should. Little do these liberals know, their ideology will thrown into the dustbin of history along with the Muslims, and a new ideology will take its place. I’m not sure what that will be, but it will be better than the horse manure we have today. Those leftist professors better start looking for another job..

[Warrior-Mentor]

Also missing from this discussion:

Sharia Law

Outlaws Sorcery, philosophy, magic, astrology, the sciences of materialists, and anything that is a means to create doubts (about islam).
See Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book A "Sacred Knowledge" Paragraph a7.2 "Unlawful Knowledge."


U.S. Constitution

No such provision.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Couple highlights on Checks and Balances:

U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution, a product of both intellectual genius and divine inspiration, provided in its "mechanics of governance" that there be built in checks and balances. I count at least thirteen:

1. States and Territories against the Central Government (the separation of powers vertically)

2. The Senate against the House (Takes both houses to pass bills)

3. The President against the Congress (Veto power)

4. The Judiciary against the Congress (Power to declare laws unconstitutional in particular cases)

5. The Senate against the President (Appointments and treaties have to be ratified by the Senate)

6. The people against their representatives (The House is elected every 2 years)

7. The State Legislatures against the Senate (The election of Federal Senators by State legislators

8. The Electoral College against the People (Republic v. Democracy or the Aristocracy v. democracy)

9. The People against the Central Government (Through the trial by Jury and the right of the Jury to decide upon matters of law as well as fact (Jury nullification)

10. Both the House and the Senate against the President (Impeachment powers)

11. An Executive Check upon the Judicial Branch (Through the power of the President to pardon offenses except impeachment).

12. Congressional Check on Judicial Power (Through the power of Congress to limit the Federal Court's Appellate Jurisdiction).

13. State Check on Federal Power (By application of 2/3 of the State legislatures, Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments. With an amendment strictly limiting what a new Convention could do, the Convention route could be a good check on a Congress unresponsive to the popular will. Without such limits however, a new Convention could be dangerous).

Because we live in world of corruption, there is no doubt that, without the Constitution of the United States, America and the rest of the world would be under tyranny, barbarism and darkness.

From: http://www.geocities.com/graymada/CB/mechanics.html


Sharia Law

a1.4 The basic premise of this school of thought is that the good of the acts of those morally responsible is what the lawgiver (allah or his messenger) has indicated is good by permitting it or asking it to be done. And the bad is what the lawgiver has indicated is bad by asking it not be done.

The GOOD is NOT what REASON considers GOOD, nor the BAD what REASON considers BAD.

The measure of GOOD and BAD is the sacred law, NOT REASON.

See Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Book A "Sacred Knowledge," Paragraph a1.4

[T-Rock]

Bump For freedom!