Should Muslims be aloud to impose Sharia law anywhere in the United States?

[bryant.coleman]

The Shakira law is spreading like cancer. In some of the Muslim majority European cities such as Brussels, Oldham and Burnley, the local laws are no longer in force. On the other hand, the Shakira law is having the ultimate authority. That said, I don't think that it will be easy to impose it in the United States. The Muslim population is quite low there, unlike that in Europe.

[BADecker]

Absolutely not. Here's the thing: In the United States we enjoy many freedoms, as we all know, so there is no reason to go into detail. But if you truly do not know, just Google U.S. Constitution. Sharia "law" is contrary to those freedoms we enjoy. So, why is this even a question?

Judge Judy has a court of the basic kind that we have in the States. It is a man/woman against man/woman court direct. I don't know if Judge Judy is real, but the process is real, in real courts.

Take your friendly, neighborhood Muslim to court for every little thing he harms you with. And sue him for every false claim/complaint against you in every area that he tries to sue you when you haven't harmed him with real harm or damage. It's the law. You can do it.

But, if you harm him, he just might figure out how to use our laws against you. So, be careful.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

No, why? its not a muslim country, i respect muslims, but their laws should stay on their home country

No no no no no no no no, a thousand times no.  I agree, their laws should stay in their homeland.  My personal view is that any religious law is silly and superstition-based and has no part in a modern society.  So I would vigorously oppose Sharia law in the US. 

[BADecker]

What is sharia law?

Very simply said, sharia law is civil law based on the religion of Islam. Civil law is essentially governmental dictatorship over people.

In America, Canada, the U.K., Australia, and to a lesser extent, India, we have common law of the people. Common law of the people is law where the people can overrule government except when people harm other people.

The wealthy of the world would like to do away with the common law of the people so that they can rule by making slaves of the people. They are succeeding through keeping the people ignorant. Few people nowadays know how to use the common law of the people to put government down.

[croato]

Of course not. USA is multi ethnic society so if every ethnic/religion group would impose their law there would be anarchy. If anyone dont like USA law, he can always go back where he belong.

[TECSHARE]

No, why? its not a muslim country, i respect muslims, but their laws should stay on their home country

No no no no no no no no, a thousand times no.  I agree, their laws should stay in their homeland.  My personal view is that any religious law is silly and superstition-based and has no part in a modern society.  So I would vigorously oppose Sharia law in the US.  

Technically all law is based on religion. If you research the history of law it all goes back to religious texts, some of which are still in use word for word today in modern law. There is some debatable value to some of these laws as most people agree murder, theft, rape, and other forms of crime are in opposition to the foundation of a civil society even though the laws have a religious origin. Most people misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state. Many people assume that it means all concepts of faith and God should be removed from law and government. In reality it means that the government is not allowed to infringe on any individual's right to practice their religion as long as it does not bring direct harm to others. This was a direct reference to Britain's hybridization with the church, and meant to prohibit such an arrangement between any church and the US government.

The most important thing to remember about the relationship between God and law is not about cloudmen looking down and judging you, but the concept that there is something higher than government, higher than money, and higher than man itself that we should all pay respect too religious or not. To ignore this is to literally give the government all of the powers reserved for the commonwealth/God, and if you didn't believe before, you will pray God does exist after seeing the very real hell that results when men try to abuse all of the authority and rights formerly reserved by "God"/the commonwealth. Without this distinction we are literally nothing more than property. I don't think most people want this regardless of their beliefs.

[Snail2]

Technically all law is based on religion...

Indeed, but some law and religions have developed a lot, some other religions and law systems are still there were they were fifteen hundred years ago. Perpetuality and sticking to old traditions are nice things in many areas but not that great in law.

[TECSHARE]

Technically all law is based on religion...

Indeed, but some law and religions have developed a lot, some other religions and law systems are still there were they were fifteen hundred years ago. Perpetuality and sticking to old traditions are nice things in many areas but not that great in law.

Way to ignore everything I just posted and fall to your previously held belief of "religion bad!"

[Snail2]

Technically all law is based on religion...

Indeed, but some law and religions have developed a lot, some other religions and law systems are still there were they were fifteen hundred years ago. Perpetuality and sticking to old traditions are nice things in many areas but not that great in law.

Way to ignore everything I just posted and fall to your previously held belief of "religion bad!"

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I never said that "religion is bad" I said some religions are bad. I think Christianity, Buddhism Hinduism, and a lot of other religions never been "designed" to be oppressive and (originally) were not aimed for world domination. Of course nearly off of these religions were used as tools for oppression and domination by some ambitious people, but on their own these religions were targeting improvement of individuals and communities. On the other hand there are some other religions like Islam and mesoamerican religions what were especially "designed" for conquest, domination and enslaving others. These are what I consider bad for a multi-ethnic, multi-religion society. 

[TECSHARE]

Technically all law is based on religion...

Indeed, but some law and religions have developed a lot, some other religions and law systems are still there were they were fifteen hundred years ago. Perpetuality and sticking to old traditions are nice things in many areas but not that great in law.

Way to ignore everything I just posted and fall to your previously held belief of "religion bad!"

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I never said that "religion is bad" I said some religions are bad. I think Christianity, Buddhism Hinduism, and a lot of other religions never been "designed" to be oppressive and (originally) were not aimed for world domination. Of course nearly off of these religions were used as tools for oppression and domination by some ambitious people, but on their own these religions were targeting improvement of individuals and communities. On the other hand there are some other religions like Islam and mesoamerican religions what were especially "designed" for conquest, domination and enslaving others. These are what I consider bad for a multi-ethnic, multi-religion society. 

None of this has anything to do with what I just explained about religion and government. This isn't a reply to my comment but a statement after it with no consideration for the premise whatsoever. Like I said, just bias bleeding out in the guise of a response.

[BADecker]

The real question is, should Muslims be aloud to be soloud?   

[Lethn]

Of course not. USA is multi ethnic society so if every ethnic/religion group would impose their law there would be anarchy. If anyone dont like USA law, he can always go back where he belong.

As an Anarchist I resent that statement.

[Ernstew]

USA is a free country for free people and freedom is respected. If they want sharia law better to stay in Saudi Arabia, Afganistan...and they can enjoy their law..The main problem is they make their getos in USA cities, and secretly they practice that law..but not in public, other people avoid their quarts...

[criptix]

The Shakira law is spreading like cancer. In some of the Muslim majority European cities such as Brussels, Oldham and Burnley, the local laws are no longer in force. On the other hand, the Shakira law is having the ultimate authority. That said, I don't think that it will be easy to impose it in the United States. The Muslim population is quite low there, unlike that in Europe.

#hips dont lie




I really wish there would be more shakira law in germany

[protokol]

On topic, no of course Sharia Law (or what most people believe SHaria law is) shouldn't be imposed anywhere in the USA (or anywhere else for that matter). Any law based solely on religious texts is dangerous to civilization.

But, there's no reason to inherently deny certain parts of Islamic law if they are acceptable under the current laws of a state. One example of this would be Islamic financial laws, whereby interest is not allowed. For example, if someone wants to write up a loan with zero interest, based on Sharia law, then there's no reason why they shouldn't, as long as they are acceptable under state law.

There's also a lot of confusion over what exactly Sharia law is. From https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law:

There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws that can be called Sharia. It is more like a system of several laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.

Islamic shariah is not implemented in any country of the world, most Muslim countries have their own laws & chosen only few of laws from Islamic shariah.

The Shakira law is spreading like cancer. In some of the Muslim majority European cities such as Brussels, Oldham and Burnley, the local laws are no longer in force. On the other hand, the Shakira law is having the ultimate authority. That said, I don't think that it will be easy to impose it in the United States. The Muslim population is quite low there, unlike that in Europe.

You're fucking talking bollocks again Bryant. Local laws are certainly in force in these cities. Are you implying that theives are getting their hands cut off in Brussels, or people are being beheaded in Oldham for adultery? You got any sources for this dangerous nonsense you keep spouting?

There may be specific laws that are allowed (such as the zero interest law I mentioned earlier), but they're not being imposed on everyone in the city because that would be against state law.

[criptix]

No, why? its not a muslim country, i respect muslims, but their laws should stay on their home country

No no no no no no no no, a thousand times no.  I agree, their laws should stay in their homeland.  My personal view is that any religious law is silly and superstition-based and has no part in a modern society.  So I would vigorously oppose Sharia law in the US.  

Technically all law is based on religion. If you research the history of law it all goes back to religious texts, some of which are still in use word for word today in modern law. There is some debatable value to some of these laws as most people agree murder, theft, rape, and other forms of crime are in opposition to the foundation of a civil society even though the laws have a religious origin. Most people misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state. Many people assume that it means all concepts of faith and God should be removed from law and government. In reality it means that the government is not allowed to infringe on any individual's right to practice their religion as long as it does not bring direct harm to others. This was a direct reference to Britain's hybridization with the church, and meant to prohibit such an arrangement between any church and the US government.

i rather remember this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

 Secular states do not have a state religion (established religion) or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not necessarily mean that a state is fully secular; however, a true secular state should steadfastly maintain national governance without influence from religious factions; i.e. Separation of church and state.[2]

[TECSHARE]

No, why? its not a muslim country, i respect muslims, but their laws should stay on their home country

No no no no no no no no, a thousand times no.  I agree, their laws should stay in their homeland.  My personal view is that any religious law is silly and superstition-based and has no part in a modern society.  So I would vigorously oppose Sharia law in the US.  

Technically all law is based on religion. If you research the history of law it all goes back to religious texts, some of which are still in use word for word today in modern law. There is some debatable value to some of these laws as most people agree murder, theft, rape, and other forms of crime are in opposition to the foundation of a civil society even though the laws have a religious origin. Most people misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state. Many people assume that it means all concepts of faith and God should be removed from law and government. In reality it means that the government is not allowed to infringe on any individual's right to practice their religion as long as it does not bring direct harm to others. This was a direct reference to Britain's hybridization with the church, and meant to prohibit such an arrangement between any church and the US government.

i rather remember this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

 Secular states do not have a state religion (established religion) or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not necessarily mean that a state is fully secular; however, a true secular state should steadfastly maintain national governance without influence from religious factions; i.e. Separation of church and state.[2]

Way to read.

Here is more stuff for you not to read.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/print/

[swogerino]

Sharia law is not the United States law. In no way should it ever be imposed. You do have rights, but they should be within a reasonable limit; the allowance of such strict procedures would not be acceptable at all.

[spazzdla]

No, why? its not a muslim country, i respect muslims, but their laws should stay on their home country

Same reasons Mormons can't have 25 wives.  You should not be able to rape a women in America because she is walking the streets alone.. Islam is a plague to this planet.

[Ernstew]

Yes and must be destroyed...They have crazy laws in their country but now want to contamine whole world..no USA is free place for free people and who can not respect it or want to try to put their own laws go out