A Muslim's perspective

[JohnOfSheffield]

Im not scared of it. Just dont think it belongs in the U.S. is all. We already have an established governement and laws. No need to change them for a specific religion to be happy. As i said before Sharia Law is not for the U.S. wether its good or bad.

1. Sharia law doesn't concern non-Muslims.
2. Sharia law is already practiced in the US in Muslim communities.
3. Islam isn't the only religion to have community courts, JW, Catholic communities and various other sects do that too and it's fully legal. Perhaps you have heard about the Catholic Church denying Catholics marriage or divorce? It's the same thing.

Sharia law is a religious law that is restricted to those who WANT to follow it, or at least that's how it was intended AND how it's described in the Quaran.

 

[routan]

Fern: In a letter released Thursday by Trump's publicist, the real estate investor told Elzanaty that he would buy his stake in the lower Manhattan building for 25 percent more than whatever he paid.

Fern, apologies, but I do not understand this proposal. Trump has a stake in Park51? I am at a loss. If you could elaborate, and explain why and how this solution would be good for both those who would not like the mosque, and the Muslim community of Lower Manhattan, I will appreciate it.

 

[OutHouse]

Wiki is a blog now? lol
Go and change it and put up your proof if its all BS

Here's my main point, you guys summed it up almost perfect..
I don't know what it is, but I'm scared of it
I don't what to learn what it is, but I'm scared of it.
I'm scared and that's all that matters..

so because i didnt play your stupid test you know for a fact i do not know what sharia law is? Bwhahahah i knew you would do this, i just had to wait and let you dig your own hole.

I was referring to the worldlingo site you linked. i really hope you do not believe everything you read on that site. what that guy wrote is flat out wrong.

 

[soulcougher73]

soulcougher73, you may think of this as an excuse. I have responded to dozens of other posters. If your aim is to personally attack, and rant hate-filled words, you are not really looking for a response... you are trying to just present your own point of view and simply just attack me personally, Islam, and Muslims.

I would like to think I am a better person than reply to gibberish posts. If you think that is unreasonable, I see no reason for you to pay attention to my posts.

Well you started a thread discussion on this forum, so people are trying to discuss issues with you. But whenever something challenging comes up you just refuse to answer and call it gibberish. Other then the original post you havent added much if anything to the debate when it comes down to a serious question asked to you. You are just picking and choosing your posts to respond to that fit your agenda. Taking the easy way out basically.

 

[Fern]

Fern, apologies, but I do not understand this proposal. Trump has a stake in Park51? I am at a loss. If you could elaborate, and explain why and how this solution would be good for both those who would not like the mosque, and the Muslim community of Lower Manhattan, I will appreciate it.

Trump does not have a stake in Park51.

He made an offer to the (real estate) developer who does. Trump will buy the property. He will pay for all the developer's (Mr. Sharif El-Gamal) costs, all fees, plus provide the developer with an additional 25% (pure) profit. This is so the developer can find a new site.

I think it obvious why those who oppose the Mosque's site would like this (it'll be moved).

It's not possible for me to provide any great detail on how this 25% profit etc might directly benefit the Mosque, AFAIK no details of the agreement between the developer and the Imam have been made public.

However, we do know that to proceed they (developer and/or Imam) need to raise about $100 million. Will it be easier to raise that money with a less controversial site? It has been said it may be difficult to get the construction unions etc to cooperate and build at that site because it is controversial, Trump's financial offer making it easy to move to another site would solve that potential problem.

If you have acquired a site and invested in it, and then decide to move you have obvious problems - what are you now going to do with that site (most likely sell it, not a quick or easy thing these days) and how are you going to get your money back out of it so you can go acquire your new site? Trump offered to solve those problems with an imediate cash payment.

I'm not sure which problem is the biggest for the proposed Mosque - the $100 million needed (that neither the Mosque or the developer have ATM) or the location. But it may be that the location is an impediment to raising the $100million. It may be that the developer/Mosque will be rewarded with a $100 million loan/investment for their agreement to move.

I have heard two rumors: (1) Another individual (not Trump) has offerd a large loan to the developer so he will find another location, and (2) The Obama admin is quietly pressuring the Imam to find another location soon to get this whole mess out of the news. IDK if they are true or not.

Fern

 

[routan]

Well you started a thread discussion on this forum, so people are trying to discuss issues with you. But whenever something challenging comes up you just refuse to answer and call it gibberish. Other then the original post you havent added much if anything to the debate when it comes down to a serious question asked to you. You are just picking and choosing your posts to respond to that fit your agenda. Taking the easy way out basically.

soulcougher73, this thread is 500 posts long. I have replied to countless of posts. It is impossible to reply to me to every single civil/decent post. Where it is apparent that someone is just dishing out nonsense to ellicit a response from me, I neednt bother replying at all. You can choose to interpret that as me adhering to my agenda, or you can choose to interpret that as me maintaining my decorum on a forum not scarce of bigots and zealots, that is up to you. As you can see, you choose words without personal or religious insults. I choose to respond to your concerns.

 

[routan]

Trump does not have a stake in Park51.

He made an offer to the (real estate) developer who does. Trump will buy the property. He will pay for all the developer's (Mr. Sharif El-Gamal) costs, all fees, plus provide the developer with an additional 25% (pure) profit. This is so the developer can find a new site.

I think it obvious why those who oppose the Mosque's site would like this (it'll be moved).

It's not possible for me to provide any great detail on how this 25% profit etc might directly benefit the Mosque, AFAIK no details of the agreement between the developer and the Imam have been made public.

However, we do know that to proceed they (developer and/or Imam) need to raise about $100 million. Will it be easier to raise that money with a less controversial site? It has been said it may be difficult to get the construction unions etc to cooperate and build at that site because it is controversial, Trump's financial offer making it easy to move to another site would solve that potential problem.

If you have acquired a site and invested in it, and then decide to move you have obvious problems - what are you now going to do with that site (most likely sell it, not a quick or easy thing these days) and how are you going to get your money back out of it so you can go acquire your new site? Trump offered to solve those problems with an imediate cash payment.

I'm not sure which problem is the biggest for the proposed Mosque - the $100 million needed (that neither the Mosque or the developer have ATM) or the location. But it may be that the location is an impediment to raising the $100million. It may be that the developer/Mosque will be rewarded with a $100 million loan/investment for their agreement to move.

I have heard two rumors: (1) Another individual (not Trump) has offerd a large loan to the developer so he will find another location, and (2) The Obama admin is quietly pressuring the Imam to find another location soon to get this whole mess out of the news. IDK if they are true or not.

Fern

Fern, I know that Trump's offer was refused. I do not know the reason why. I will try to find out this Friday and get back to this point. Perhaps your rumors hold some value. I had not heard anything different during my last conversation with one of the developers this past friday.

However, please realize a few things. The "profit factor" is not a motivation to move. No one started this project as a "for-profit" venture. The stakes in the mosque belong to more than just the developers - as I have mentioned, thousands of people have contributed to the mosque. There are other issues, but it becomes irrelevant in this discussion.

And lastly, while Trump's offer may appease those who dont want the mosque to be built, how would it serve the Muslim community? We certainly are in desperate need of a large space. Over 2000 people congregate at this location every Friday. And nothing in the Financial District is really out of the "shadow" of WTC. See the map below. The buildings were what defined ALL of Manhattan, let alone the Financial District.

 

[Orignal Earl]

That is the lamest crap I've seen in a while.

The similarities noted are extremely superficial, and such claims could be made for many many past civilizations and other modern day countries.

The earliest lawsuit dates back to Sharia law? Bwuhahaha. The Roman empire, which existed long before Muhammid was even born, had lawsuits:



And there are far far more differences between US law and Sharia law than there are similarities.

Earl, have you ever been to a Muslim country that had Sharia law? I have, and you're playing a silly game.

Edit: Notice the disclaimer on the Wiki article you cite?



Fern

I was just trying to show that a lot of Sharia law was already being done in the US in some form.
I'm just learning as I'm gong along, I'm not playing a silly game.
Tell me more about the Muslim country you've been too and it's form of Sharia law

 

[bfdd]

I was just trying to show that a lot of Sharia law was already being done in the US in some form.
I'm just learning as I'm gong along, I'm not playing a silly game.
Tell me more about the Muslim country you've been too and it's form of Sharia law

By your explanation though a lot of everything is in our law. I mean the Greeks pre-date Islam and they had laws and a judicial system. So I guess there's a lot of Greek Law inside Sharia Law because they had laws too. Are you going to tell me no Greek influence made it into the Middle East?

 

[routan]

By your explanation though a lot of everything is in our law. I mean the Greeks pre-date Islam and they had laws and a judicial system. So I guess there's a lot of Greek Law inside Sharia Law because they had laws too. Are you going to tell me no Greek influence made it into the Middle East?

This argument is going around in circles.

I had orginally brought up that the legal framework in the United States is more in conformity with the Quran than most Muslim countries, which is why Muslims migrate and are successful here.

Now people are arguing
A) We dont want laws from Muslim countries in America. Well, yes, thats what Muslims want too, thats why they come here.
B) We just dont want Islamic law, even if the same law exists in the American legal framework. Well, I guess you'll have to take that up with your representative.
C) So what if the laws are similar? We still dont want Islamic law. Ok, fine. We arent calling it Islamic law now. Lets just not do it in the future either. Everyone is happy.

Any other arguments?

 

[EagleKeeper]

I was just trying to show that a lot of Sharia law was already being done in the US in some form.
I'm just learning as I'm gong along, I'm not playing a silly game.
Tell me more about the Muslim country you've been too and it's form of Sharia law

Many laws inherit from previous cultures. Cherry picking what seems best and applies.


The US cherry picked from Europe and also wrote in what they did not like.
European laws were picked up from the Romans/Greeks and others.

The Romans/Greeks were picked up from other cultures and adapted to theirs.

 

[Orignal Earl]

By your explanation though a lot of everything is in our law. I mean the Greeks pre-date Islam and they had laws and a judicial system. So I guess there's a lot of Greek Law inside Sharia Law because they had laws too. Are you going to tell me no Greek influence made it into the Middle East?

No, I'm not going to tell you that.
So what I guess we are agreeing on then is that the US Constitution and Bill of rights is a combination of other laws that man has followed for quite some time.
Including parts of Sharia.
So the people screaming they want no part of Sharia and that they don't need it in the US are wrong.
BTW this all goes back to where routan posted about how the Muslims like coming to the US because it's laws are more what they want to follow then what the Muslim countries have.
And then everyone started freaking out how he wanted Sharia law in the US and how they wouldn't stand for that

edit- ya I got sidetracked mid post, routan and CC have summed up this post already

 

[bfdd]

No, I'm not going to tell you that.
So what I guess we are agreeing on then is that the US Constitution and Bill of rights is a combination of other laws that man has followed for quite some time.
Including parts of Sharia.
So the people screaming they want no part of Sharia and that they don't need it in the US are wrong.
BTW this all goes back to where routan posted about how the Muslims like coming to the US because it's laws are more what they want to follow then what the Muslim countries have.
And then everyone started freaking out how he wanted Sharia law in the US and how they wouldn't stand for that

edit- ya I got sidetracked mid post, routan and CC have summed up this post already

The parts that you are saying are from Sharia are they only found in Sharia law? Or are they things that are pretty much found everywhere? Just because something is similar doesn't make it the same and just because we may have parts of Sharia doesn't mean we should have all of it so "We don't want Sharia law in the USA" is a perfectly fine statement to make. We don't want the whole thing.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Tell me more about the Muslim country you've been too and it's form of Sharia law

One example:

I was hanging out/traveling throughout Morocco. Somebody smashed out a window in my camper and stole a bag with some of my possessions. After some wrangling etc with the local police I settled on a compromise - I absolutely needed a police report to show the embassy (my passport was in the bag stolen) but refused to file any real claim etc because the penalty, if they caught the person, was having their hand chopped off. I was repulsed, nothing I lost was worth having someone's hand chopped off. The trouble was getting the police statement w/o having them take action against the perp. This was back in the 80's, I don't know if they still chop off hands anymore, I hope not.

BTW: The police chief I was dealing with had 6 wives. (In case you're curious, we communicated in French, I don't speak any Arabic language.)

There are many deep conflicts between Sharia law and US (or most western countries) laws IMO, such as:

1. Cruel and unusual punishment

2. Seperation of church and state

3. Free speech

4. Equality under the law (Women certainly don't have it. Non-Muslims are legally a different category than Muslim. Further, Non-Muslims are placed into different categories as well depending upon their religious beliefs). Technically (from what I've read), slavery remians legal under Sharia law, althought I've never seen it. I understand it's so limited that it doesn't really exist any more, but the fact that it is technically possible is disturbing.

There's not any monolithic Sharia law either, different Muslims (Sunni v Shia etc) practice it differently.

Fern

 

[Orignal Earl]

The parts that you are saying are from Sharia are they only found in Sharia law? Or are they things that are pretty much found everywhere? Just because something is similar doesn't make it the same and just because we may have parts of Sharia doesn't mean we should have all of it so "We don't want Sharia law in the USA" is a perfectly fine statement to make. We don't want the whole thing.

I don't think there is one *whole thing*, like say how the 10 commandments are laid out.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Thanks Fern

BTW: The police chief I was dealing with had 6 wives. (In case you're curious, we communicated in French, I don't speak any Arabic language.)

On a side note, I live in the only place in North America where polygamy is legal.

 

[Orignal Earl]

So to sum up.
The US becoming a nation that would follow Sharia law exclusively is pretty much fantasy.
Muslims will follow their personal Sharia, just as Catholics and other religions are already doing in the US.
No need for panic.

 

[werepossum]

1. Sharia law doesn't concern non-Muslims.
2. Sharia law is already practiced in the US in Muslim communities.
3. Islam isn't the only religion to have community courts, JW, Catholic communities and various other sects do that too and it's fully legal. Perhaps you have heard about the Catholic Church denying Catholics marriage or divorce? It's the same thing.

Sharia law is a religious law that is restricted to those who WANT to follow it, or at least that's how it was intended AND how it's described in the Quaran.

Bullshit on the bolded. Sharia law affects everyone wherever the Islamists have the strength to enforce it. If the lady facing death by stoning in Iran were to convert to Christianity she would merely be facing death for two reasons rather than one.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Bullshit on the bolded. Sharia law affects everyone wherever the Islamists have the strength to enforce it. If the lady facing death by stoning in Iran were to convert to Christianity she would merely be facing death for two reasons rather than one.

No, Sharia law concerns those of Muslim faith, Sharia courts do not pass legal judgement, only religious.

That lady in Iran wasn't judged under Sharia law either but under the laws adapted by the state from Sharia law, she wasn't sentenced in a Sharia court either. Fucking nutters? Absolutely and believe you me if i had a chance, i'd kill every one of those judges and all of the people supporting that sentence while freeing her but it's quite a bit to walk so...

Of course, you can't see the difference and will therefore demand that ALL conservatives, like the judges that sentenced her, are held responsible, right?

I mean, if we are going to generalise, let's generalise.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by Sharia Law. In some countries, the court system can adopt it if the parties volunteer to do so. However, I think that other people here are talking about the classical Sharia Law system, which is pretty barbaric (just like any other ideology from 1000 years ago when mankind was basically wallowing around in mud and filth) and applies to even people of non-Muslim faith.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by Sharia Law. In some countries, the court system can adopt it if the parties volunteer to do so. However, I think that other people here are talking about the classical Sharia Law system, which is pretty barbaric (just like any other ideology from 1000 years ago when mankind was basically wallowing around in mud and filth) and applies to even people of non-Muslim faith.

Well, if people want to distort the real Sharia law and make it into something it isn't in the Quaran then ok, that happens all the time but not in Iranian Courts nor in any other Muslim nation i'm aware of, not even in Pakistan which is about as fucked up as it gets.

In some cases, a lawful court of the land has adopted SOME of the laws from Sharia and somewhat follow them but only when they like the outcome, they are not actually following the Sharia law as prescribed by the Quaran though and that is what i assume Original Earl was talking about.

Distortion of these laws is another thing, no one would say that witches should be burned or children of them should be bloodletted but the LRA still does it in the name of Jesus with the permission of their courts.

These are practices that exist outside of civilised society and we have to treat them as such, we can't compare that to our congregations practices whether they are Muslims or Christians, our laws are enough to protect all citisens from those too and they cannot circumvent those laws.

 

[werepossum]

No, Sharia law concerns those of Muslim faith, Sharia courts do not pass legal judgement, only religious.

That lady in Iran wasn't judged under Sharia law either but under the laws adapted by the state from Sharia law, she wasn't sentenced in a Sharia court either. Fucking nutters? Absolutely and believe you me if i had a chance, i'd kill every one of those judges and all of the people supporting that sentence while freeing her but it's quite a bit to walk so...

Of course, you can't see the difference and will therefore demand that ALL conservatives, like the judges that sentenced her, are held responsible, right?

I mean, if we are going to generalise, let's generalise.

Islam is not merely a religion, but a total way of life. Iran, like Afghanistan, has adopted Sharia as its legal system. This is always Islam's goal, and where it succeeds Sharia holds sway on every person within its dominion.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Islam is not merely a religion, but a total way of life. Iran, like Afghanistan, has adopted Sharia as its legal system. This is always Islam's goal, and where it succeeds Sharia holds sway on every person within its dominion.

Ok, Iran hasn't and Afghanistan sure as FUCK hasn't, other than that, you're correct.

Islams goal is the same as Christianities goal, they are both messianic religions and have both been spread at the edge of a sword as well as in a peaceful manner.

Now, to me it's more important to deal with the violent ones here, which are the Taliban, at home, in the UK, it's mostly Indians and Kurds and none of those are Muslims, they are just out to fuck things up anyway, mainland Europe it's the Muslims, in the US mostly Christians...

Seriously, fuck religion, get rid of that first and then we can have a sane discussion without someone wanting to kill someone else for a reward in the afterlife.

 

[Infohawk]

Now, to me it's more important to deal with the violent ones here, which are the Taliban, at home, in the UK, it's mostly Indians and Kurds and none of those are Muslims, they are just out to fuck things up anyway, mainland Europe it's the Muslims, in the US mostly Christians...

COW said you were racist against Pakistanis. Do you think they're great or do you mostly have problems with his people? What epithet do you use for Indians?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

COW said you were racist against Pakistanis. Do you think they're great or do you mostly have problems with his people? What epithet do you use for Indians?

You can't generalise like that, no matter what group you select from (apart from evangelicals, LTTE style Hindus or Taliban style Muslims) you will find both good and bad, this isn't confined to any individual group.

If you want a Nazi tirade to confirm your fascist beliefs, you'll have to look elsewhere.

Now i'm off for a few days again so you won't get a reply to your reply to this post and i probably won't even read yours because it will be buried, if you think it's important enough for me to read it, PM me.