veiled4allah: establishing a religion in America? veiled4allah: establishing a religion in America?The cases indicate that government does not exceed the restraints of the Establishment Clause unless it is acting on topics that are inherently religious... "Inherently religious," then, means those exclusively religious activities of worship and the propagation or inculcation of the sort of tenets that comprise confessional statements or creeds common to many religions. The term includes, as well, the supernatural claims of churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other houses of worship, using those words not to identify buildings, but to describe the confessional community around which a religion identifies and defines itself, conducts its collective worship, divines and teaches doctrine, and propagates the faith to children and adult converts.
prayer, devotional Bible reading, veneration of the Ten Commandments, classes in confessional religion, and the biblical story of creation taught as science... resolv[ing] doctrinal questions or related matters bearing on ecclesiastical polity, clerical office, or church discipline and membership
the Establishment Clause is not violated when a governmental restriction (or social welfare program) merely reflects a moral judgment, shared by some religions, about conduct thought harmful (or beneficial) to society. Accordingly, overlap between a law's purpose and the mores of well-known religions does not, without more, render the law one "respecting an establishment of religion." Legislation concerning Sunday closing laws and teenage sexual abstinence counseling, laws that limit the availability of abortion, and rules on interracial dating and civil marriage are subject matters that the Court has deemed not inherently religious... ...moral and ethical questions are still proper objects of legislation. Whose morality will dominate the republic at any point in time and hence be reflected in the positive law of the nation is not predetermined by the Establishment Clause. That determination is left for the making based on who has the more persuasive argument in the marketplace of ideas, as well as the organizational acumen to promote it.
All comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 02, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: law issues. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: live under, cruel unusual, islamic law, establishment clause, great deal, muslims, Muslims, islam, think, law, Islam, shari, religion, Shari, punishment, laws, under, shariah, islamic, should, say, because, Islamic, world, people
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
If you're interested in law, check out The Niqabi Paralegal, my blog about legal issues facing Muslims in the United States.
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with law, issues
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: law, issues
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: law, issues
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: law, issues
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: law, issues
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: law issues
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title establishing a religion in america? (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) law issues (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
You describe yourself as "religiously radical but politically moderate". Well, so much for your "moderation". Because you see, Muslims as such are not the enemy. But Muslims who work towards the establishment any precepts of their "law" as norms of public life in this country most definitely ARE.
Ultimately, it matters relatively little, whether your chosen means of turning America into the Islamic "paradise" are crushing jets into skyscrapers or searching for the loopholes in the Establishment Clause. Because the goal is the same - and it is despicable.
So, you may believe that Shari'a is a shining glorious perfection, and I may view it as a vile sadistic barbarity - and it's OK, as long as your beleiefs remain just that. But any Muslim working towards "an extensive implementation of the Shari'a" automatically joins the ranks of the enemy. And if by doing this he/she is just being true to the Islamic faith dictating his/her actions - well, then so much worse for Islam in America.
I know, I know, you are going to say that I am un-American for criticizing your thoughts but ideas have consequences and yours are horrific and barbarous.
Let's see you institute your own little Shari'a and see how well you like it. Based on my reading, including many islamic websites, you should not be attending a mixed sex school, niqab or no niqab; you should be married by now instead of pursuing a pointless education (pointless since your main goal in life should be rearing children); you should not be anticipating working with attorneys, men for obvious reasons since they are ghayr mahram, and women since by your nasty-minded notions, they are pratically whores, and also because you work will necessitate your leaving your home without a mahram male to protect you. I could go on but you will just weasel out of it saying that this isn't the "real" Islam.
Please move to Saudi Arabia and take your barbaric religion with you.
You have at least one little problem, my dear. It's called the rest of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments. Perhaps they mentioned it in paralegal school if you'd forgotten it from American history class. Flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment such as amputation, along with the kinds of sex discrimination rampant in the Shari'a that Carol has mentioned (just to name a very few examples), are all prohibited in this country under that august document and no amount of "persuasion" is likely to change that.
I apologize for the sarcastic tone, but this post has absolutely floored me. As infidel69 noted above, some gaps in your "moderation" are indeed starting to show.
You guys read many islamic webpages and came up with this idea about Islam ?????
Enacting secular laws based on religious morality is nothing new here. Right now, many American laws are based on Judeo-Christian morality (actually more Christian than Judeo, but that's the standard formula). For instance, Judeo-Christian morality is the reason why an American can't marry more than one other person at a time. Usury laws? Judeo-Christian. Regulation of alcohol? Judeo-Christian. Sunday-closing laws? Judeo-Christian. All these laws enforce religious morality to an extent consistent with the constitution.
Assuming that Islamic morality becomes part of the mainstream in the United States - which it may or may not - then we might see legislation informed by shariah. For instance, there could be laws forbidding banks from charging interest, permitting multiple marriages or prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages. All of these would be consistent with shariah, and they'd be perfectly constitutional, just as usury laws are now. I don't necessarily support these things, but they could happen if enough people wanted them, and I think that's what al-Muhajabah was talking about.
And thanks to A Simple Muslim for your support.
Would I want to live in a society run according to strict Islamic law? No, but I wouldn't want to live in a fundamentalist Christian or Jewish society either. Do I think that Islam has something to teach us? Damn right. For instance, I think we could learn a great deal from Islamic finance and the way it promotes risk-sharing to mitigate the effects of unequal relationships. If you lump all of shariah into a single category and say "this is evil," then you're cutting yourself off from a great deal that is valuable.
Regarding cruel and unusual punishment, that is determined by the standards of the society. Many Europeans feel that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, but it is not considered cruel and unusual in America.
For that matter, execution of minors and mentally handicapped people is not yet considered cruel and unusual punishment in America. A correct application of Islamic law would not permit the punishment much less execution of a person who is not legally competent. Who is barbaric now?
I have posted elsewhere on the standards of proof in Islamic law and on what the Shari'a says about rape. I refer people to my previous posts. It is unfortunate that many of you condemn the Shari'a without being fully informed about it.
Your knowledge of Shari'a appears to be as defective as your understanding of the U.S. Constitution. And no one accused Al-Muhajabah of trying to "replace" the Constitution. On the contrary, I accused her of ignoring it.
It's interesting that she believes "cruel and unusual" is in the eye of the beholder. As I've made clear on my own weblog, I'm opposed to capital punishment but I certainly don't consider it either cruel or unusual. Assuming that the beholders in this country maintain even a scintilla of equity and equilibrium, there will never be floggings or amputations imposed as punishment here. Thank God.
I am really surprised at the tone of some of the comments that have been made here. Many of you seem to have missed some of the key phrases in what I wrote such as IF SOCIETY COMES TO THINK and IF MUSLIMS CAN SUCCEED IN PROMOTING ISLAM.
That is how things work in a democracy. When the majority of the people come to think that a certain thing is right, then they can enact that thing. I never suggested that any law should be imposed on people who don't want it. I never suggested that Muslims should use any means other than "promoting Islam in the marketplace of ideas" and then the ballot box to advance their ideas. In fact, that was my whole point. Muslims should use peaceful means such as promoting Islam in the marketplace of ideas and voting and legislation, not violence. I would think that most of you would want to support me in that. Instead you call me "the enemy".
Please take the time to actually read what I have written, here and elsewhere instead of responding to what you think I said.
P.S. Until last week, fornication was a crime in the state of Georgia.
anyhow, my comment only lies with this.. and actually the first two commenters should look at this...
*now* i understand why our laws can be as based in the christian bible as they are and they aren't ruled unconstitutional based on separation between church and state or based on freedom of religion. *now* i understand why our money can have "under god we trust".. now i understand why we can practically live in a christian sociey, but not "really" live in a christian society...
the first two posters and those that think islam is going to take over need to look at their ownselves and question if it is okay that christianity has taken over this country. as someone who is repressed by laws based on the christian bible i don't believe it is.
Under sharia it's civilized to cut off a hand as punishment for theft. In the west we've been there, done that, and such a punishment for any crime has long been considered barbaric. I think you're seriously mistaken if you believe sharia is a step forward for the west.
Quote from Carol "You are a barbarian and an enemy and it saddens me to have to say that. " -
If it saddenned you to say it, then why did you ?
What gives you the right to call someone a barbarian ?? Just because Sr Al Muhajabah thinks differently from you, doesn't give you the right to call her a barbarian.
Sad to say, you're a perfect example of the coccooned American who thinks that the World and it's people should live life according to American Standards (or rather lack of standards). Anyone that doesn't wish to do so or thinks differently is labelled as being 'a barbarian and an enemy'. Reminds me of Hillary Clinton, with her "You're either with us or against us:" talk post- 11 September.
Who are you to determine whether a person is civilised or not ?
As for #5 "The establishment of a system of cultural rules that thwarts equality before the law and promotes rape (by placing all blame on the woman) "
Islam promotes rape ?? Really ?? Geez, I was under the impression that Islamic countries had the lowest rape stats due to strict Shariah law and modest dress code of women which, you can deny this as much as you want, is a MAJOR deterrent from rape.
I won't even touch on the pornography, and different kinds of abuse that occurs in your 'free' country.
#15 - "Perhaps there's just too much counter-evidence that Muslim countries in general and sharia countries in particular are screwed up, backward, violent, and barbaric for anyone with half a brain to be attracted to that world view."
Perhaps your half-brain has been brainwashed by the mainstream Jewish-controlled media ?? Have you been to a country that implements Sharia ??
In an earlier comment I referred people to my previous blog entries about standards of proof and about rape. Here are links to them:
Standards of proof
Rape
Lynn: I forget the name of the logical fallacy you're using, but you're pointing to a few objectionable aspects of shariah and using that to "prove" something about shariah in general. That's easy to do. It's also not very informative. A foreigner could point to chain gangs or "super-max" prisons and say the same thing about American law. (And if it's whipping you want, that was part of the Delaware penal code until the 1970s, and every year or two some Southern congressman proposes bringing it back. It's not as if Muslims invented the lash.)
If you want to judge shariah, then you have to look at shariah as a whole - not just amputations (which, for the record, I don't support), but also the parts about business ethics, workers' rights, property, inheritance, government and jurisprudence. Shariah is like halacha - it's an all-encompassing law code. There are parts of it you may not want to live under, but there are other parts you already do.
As for cruel and unusual punishment, it certainly isn't in the eye of the beholder, but the Supreme Court measures the reach of the Eighth Amendment by society's "standard of decency." In other words, the standard is a subjective one - the Supreme Court will invalidate a particular punishment only if there is a consensus that it is beyond the pale. One of the punishments you've condemned - flogging - has been upheld against Eighth Amendment challenges by American courts. So al-Muhajabah isn't ignoring the rest of the Constitution - she's taking a realistic view of it.
(My personal opinion on flogging? I'm uncomfortable with corporal punishment, but sometimes it may be less cruel than prison. If I had the choice between going to jail for five years or taking 50 lashes and getting it over with, I think I'd go for the whipping. Corporal punishment also doesn't deprive a family of a wage-earner for an extended period of time. Prison is cruel too, in the form of violence and rape as well as confinement - the difference is that the cruelty takes place behind closed doors.)
There are parts of shariah I agree with and parts I don't - I'm not a Muslim, so I obviously don't agree with all of it. On the other hand, it's ignorant to take a "four legs good, two legs bad" approach to shariah and condemn it all as evil. There's a great deal we can learn from Islam just as we've learned from everything else.
And Jonathan: you're much too relaxed about the threat that Islam represents. You don't have to go far: just look at that vile Jew-hater Yumna, whom you let go with the slap on the wrist (and the hostess conveniently ignored the Judenhass - I wonder why).
You see, even if Shari'a were not a medieval barbarous sadistic abomination, its import still would have had to be opposed with every breath. Because Islam, in its contemporary incarnation, just happens to be the ideology that fuels tens of thousands of glittering-eye maniacs craving our blood (and Jewish blood before all the others), millions who cheer them on, and tens of millions who silently supports them.
Jonathan, you say: "There's a great deal we can learn from Islam just as we've learned from everything else." Well, I have already learned all I needed to know about today's Islam. I have seen its message all too clearly: a giant hole in the ground and 3000 dead, and - I'm sorry I have to disturb his memory - Daniel Pearl.
I posted something similar on my site about a week or so ago, and I thought I would repost it here. Thanks for the forum.
I have thought, at one time, that Islamic law, or Shariah, is a barbaric system that has no place in the modern world. Its punishments for breaking the law call for whipping, stoning, cutting off limbs, and so forth. Rather brutal, yes? I agree. One day when I was thinking about this an idea dawned on me: What is the purpose of a penal code? To deter crime. Period, the end, end of story. What is the point of a penal code that does not deter crime? The idea of being stoned for committing adultery gives me one further reason to lower my gaze from men who are not in my family (the first being that I dearly love my husband). Knowing that if I get caught stealing that I will have to deal with the life long punishment of having my hand cut off makes me thinks more than twice about the consequences of my actions.
At this time, there is no country in the world that is implementing Shariah, fully, and without bias. Countries such as Nigeria play at implementing Shariah when they can get a reaction out of it. They have not fully implemented it and are only picking and choosing when they want to use it, as well as not giving the appropriate punishment for the crime.
The United States, as a country, and as 50 separate entities that make their own enforceable laws, is guilty of not implementing a penal code that deters crime. Crime is not a one time thing here for most criminals, but a way of life. Six months or a year or two in the lock up is "easy time." Not fun, but not exactly a deterrent to crime. Until punishment is truly punishment in this country, crime will continue. Criminals will continue to be repeat offenders until it is more lucrative to live a straight life.
I'm not sure if you're for real (for one thing, do you know what "daisy chain" stands for?), but I'm going to give you a seriuos reply all the same. Just one thing: oppression and degradation "freely" chosen are still oppression and degradation.
Infidel69 - or maybe I should say Q? - no, you don't understand me at all. Some of your comments about me and what I write are laughably off-base. In any case, given that you recently said that Israel's assassination policy was a justifiable way for "Jews to defend themselves", I'm going to take your claims of moral superiority with a pound or two of salt.
I have made it clear in everything I write that I condemn the killing of civilians and the excesses and brutality committed in countries like Nigeria and Pakistan, and that I respect the laws and Constitution of the United States. My aim is and always has been to show that Islam is better than Muslims are showing it to be.
People such as you and some of the others who have commented here seem to assume that everything any Muslim does anywhere is commanded by Islam. You don't seem to allow for the possibility that Muslims are perfectly capable of failing to live up to their religion and of violating its tenets. In discussions such as the ones I linked to above about rape, I have presented evidence of an Islam that condemns brutality and injustice. Why do you ignore that? Why do you continue to talk as though the Islam of the extremists is the only one there is? You are right to condemn that brutality. What you don't seem to see is that so do I, and I use Islam to do it.
Also, what did I say that was oppression and degradation? Is penal code that deters crime oppression and degradation? Its oppression to fear walking on a dark street because of rapists and criminals. Its degrading to know that in America most women are forced to market their sexuality to attract mates and work with men.
I didn't know you were such an attentive fan of mine. Careful, I might be the man your imam warned you about. Or do you keep tabs on all LGFers - in anticipation of the glorious day when you would proudly hand the files over to the Ministry of Virtue of the Islamic States of America (modestly lowering your gaze, of course)?
You say that you respect the laws and Constitution of this country. But here's a question: do you want to see them eventually replaced with the radiant perfection of your Shari'a? Do you want to see women mandatorily shrouded, sexes segregated, liquor and representative art banned and destroyed, asses flogged, limbs cut off, "adulterers" stoned? If the answer to the any of the above is affirmative, see my post #1.
So your version of Islam is less vile than that of the "extremists". Here's a thing, though: they believe that theirs is the right one. So do (tens of) millions of their cheerleaders and supporters. True, there is plenty of savagery in most if not all "holy" texts. After all, they are of human origin and necessarily reflect all the follies and limitations of human nature and of their times. But you see, I care little or not at all, what the "true" interpretation of your texts is. Today's face of Islam is shaped by the words and consistent actions of those who profess, virtually without opposition, to act in its name - and it is hideous.
As for the "democratic" piecemeal establishment of Shari'a pipe dream: even if a majority of population supports some vile idiocy doesn't make it less vile or less idiotic. The example I have to bring up is considered to be in bad taste, due to its over-use, but tjis doesn't make it less appropriate: a certain well-known 20th century figure also became chancellor through lawful democratic procedure. Those who would use our freedoms only to destroy them are still the enemy.
And re: Israel: I can't take anything you have to say on the subject seriously, because of your gargantuan bias. I saw that vile offensive page where you have the gall to compare Israelis to Nazis - and there is nothing left to discuss after this. Just one thing: if Sharon really was half the monster you and the Arabs and their sycophants portray him to be (and which is, among other things a projection on the part of Arabs - after all, they cannot consieve NOT acting like monsters in his, or any, position), Israel's troubles would be long gone. Just think about it.
As Jonathan pointed out, laws are informed by religious principles. I would think this is especially true in a common-law system that relies so much on precedents -- many of which were made at a time when Christianity had a more public role in life. US laws certainly have a religious underpinning, and that religion is Christianity.
Note that in certain areas of the country, slightly different religious underpinnings exist. Polygamy is de facto tolerated in some western states (and Interior BC?). The legacys of pre-1880s Mormonism is probably the reason. There are still "dry" counties across much of the south, part of a Protestant (sometimes anti-Catholic) sensibility.
Should Islam win out in "the marketplace of ideas", laws could easily be enacted that are informed by an Islamic sensibility. Zakat is a good example. Procedures in slaughterhouses is another possibility.
Myself, I think it's unlikely, but not just because of the vituperative hate represented by some comments here. Religion and the religious underpinnings of laws are on the retreat across the US. The liberal secular trend may allow for more room for Islamic familay law (inheritance, divorce procedures, etc) between consenting parties, but I can't see much more than that happening.
THIS is in the face of EXTREME demonisation by many different factions, individuals, groups. Like the few on this board.
Shariah has a few major points to make, the first being that it is PREVENTATIVE some of the punishments are harsh because the crimes is harsh, and to prevent that crime the unishment is one that would deter humans from commitng that crime whether it be rape, murder, child molestation etc etc.
The Western concpets are CORRUPT because Human beings are INHERITANTLY corrupt and self serving.
Thus regardless of the ideology, because the individual and society isnt guided by a higer will then the innate corruption and self serving nature of man will corrupt and taint ANY and EVERY man made ideology regardless of its greatness.
This is why Democracy being a very commendable man made ideology has not halted evil acropss the world,, and why democratic nations such as America have commited as many crimes and atrcoties across the world as for example North Korea.
Not tat democracy is in-valid, just that humanity is corrupt.
TODAY as half the world sufferes from malnutrition and deacay, we look for answers to why they suffer.
The answer is tat Humanity is self serving, the west takes resources at next to NOTHING prices and fuels its economies whilst the third world still suffers,
If you ask an average person do tey wis the thrid world could become propsperous, MOST would say YES.
But ask them if that meant that the thrid world becoming richer, and more prosperous would mean paying higher prices for EVERYTHING from fuel to products and the answer would be different.
People think about THEMSELVES and NATIONS are a reflection of this human corruption.
Islam is a WAY of life wich guides the individual and sciety, thus society is guided by a higher will, the laws must reflect that just society.
Once again shariah is perfect law, its first goal being prevenative.
Its second being t make punishments for crimes harsh enough to befit that crime, rape is OUTRAGEOUSLY EVIL, and shariah punishment reflects that, western law dosent.
To force islamic law on people is WRONG, that is not the will of GOD, but the will of God is beter t guide humanity then any other force, the injustices which taint the world and humanity will only cease when we embrace islam.
Q, you're very clever, and you've clearly spent a lot of time poring over my entire website. Yet you can't actually be reading what you find if you don't know already what I think Islam should be like. It certainly isn't what you described. I'm also constantly amazed that you can't see any difference between me and Muslims such as Hussain. I don't talk like that and never have.
Finally, re Nazi pictures. You'll be glad to know Jonathan would strongly agree with you. No, I don't think that Sharon is the same as Hitler. However, Israel should never be treating people in a way that bears even the slightest resemblence to the way the Nazis treated people. Not after the Holocaust. My point in putting up that page was to say "stop, before this comparison is for real"
More later, inshallah. I've got to go to class.
In sociology and psychology, it is a known fact that the victim has the predisposition to become the victimizer, hence abused children becoming abusing parents. I think Israel finally found adulthood.
Just when I thought you couldn't possibly say anything more clueless and offensive than you already have, you keep posting.
I have a serious question for you. Do you feel that any of Israel's actions are worthy of criticism? I've posted quite frequently to condemn Muslims when they go wrong. I'm wondering if you do the same for your own group. Or do you feel that all of Israel's actions are morally justifiable, including the killing of civilians, torture, assassinations, large-scale demolitions (there was a major one in the news just the other day), keeping entire towns under lock-down curfew, etc.
As I said to Lynn B and as I said to Ken, I criticize both sides, including my own. Do you?
But if one gets into the path of religion, you will realise that Shari'ah is important as a means to an end. The end of religion needs the means of shari'ah.
Totally different emphasis is laid in Shari'ah than in the individualistic Western way (I am Western btw but I think I can appreciate Shariah). For example, Prophet Muhammad (sal) said s/he is not a Muslim whose neighbour is hungry but s/he is full. But look at us, our neighbours are starving - in Afrique, Asia and elsewhere and we throw food. Shar'iah is important. It is a slow process in understanding it from little things and then bigger things grow.
Jesus the Christ (as) said, "Don't lend at interest and if you can give all your money away that's the best for you." Because interest is just that one step too much towards the worldly and to eschew the world is the better course if you are able to do that. But look! We are ripping off afrique and asia with interest payments, crippling them and they cannot feed their children or elderly and we call this "aid." So Shari'ah is important or the world goes like that you see. People will maybe only realise it too late when they have returned to the Source (inna lillahi wa inna illayhi rajioon).
Let me end with something Prophet Lao Tze (as) said. "There are those that practice the Tao, those who behave according to the Tao are in communication with the Tao. Those who behave according to the Teh are in communication with the Teh. Those who have lost the Tao & Teh are in communication with failure. Those in communication with Tao are joyously received by Tao. Those in communication with Teh are joyously received by Teh. Those in communication with failure are also welcomed by failure. Some are not true enough to the Tao, and so there are those who are not true to it at all."
Wasalaam,
Before that abominable state of the Jews completely takes over the discussion (funny how it so often does, wouldn't you say), here's an on-topic question. What would Muslims be able to do in the glorious Niqabi States of America, that they do not have the freedom to do under present order?
Incidentally, a similar question can be posed about Jerusalem: what would Muslims be able to do, were they to regain exclusive control over the city, that they are not able to do in Israel in the peacetime?
What's this about Niqabi States of America? I've written elsewhere that I oppose the enforcement of veiling. I also don't believe that face-veiling is obligatory, I do it because I want to. I don't know where you're getting this stuff but certainly not from anything I ever wrote.
OK, gotta go off to my next set of classes and I won't have another chance to come online until late tonight. Have fun.
Infidel69, you don't need to tell me about Daniel Pearl or the WTC. At the time of the WTC attack, I was an army reservist in New York, and my unit was called up. I saw Ground Zero that night and will never forget those days.
But if you think that the WTC attack told you "all you needed to know about Islam," then you don't know much about Islam. Talking about Muslims in general is like talking about Christians in general - there are some basic things in common but there are many, many different flavors. You're putting Senegal together with Saudi Arabia, and the Wahhabi fanatics of al Qaeda together with the Alawites of Turkey. Muslims are one fifth of the people on earth, they've given a great deal to humanity over the centuries, and the huge majority of them have never done you or me any harm.
What you and others are doing is taking the worst of Islam and accusing all Muslims of being like that. As I said to Lynn B., it's possible to condemn any group of people that way, and it also isn't very informative. You may want to reflect on the fact that if you substituted "Jews" or "Christians" or "Westerners" for every mention of "Muslims" in your posts, they would read very much like comment 26.
My question remains unanswered too. If Muslims are truly not interested in forcing their norms on the others, why would they seek to replace the current freedom and equality before the law - however imperfectly implemented - with the shining Shari'a city on the hill?
Ultimately, you are correct that a full implementation of the Shari'a would not be possible under the U.S. constitution. But it may not be for the reason that you think.
The Shari'a is not supposed to be implemented on non-Muslims. Why not? Because they don't believe that it comes from God. If non-Muslims decide that Shari'a laws are fair and just, they can choose to live under them, but they cannot be required to. Historically, non-Muslims resident in Islamic states have lived in autonomous communities under their own laws, for instance Jews under Jewish law and Christians under whatever Christian law that they choose.
The Constitution would not allow for citizens to be divided by religion like that. The only example I can think of for autonomous regions is the Native Americans, who have dual citizenship in their tribal nations and in the U.S., and can enact tribal law on the reservations and any other land set aside for the tribes. There would have to be some kind of amendment to the Constitution to allow for any other autonomous regions.
Doesn't this contradict what I said in my original blog post? I don't think that it does, because I made the implementation of laws from the Shari'a conditional on IF SOCIETY COMES TO THINK and IF MUSLIMS CAN SUCCEED IN PROMOTING ISLAM. That assumes either that most Americans have become Muslims or that most non-Muslim Americans have decided that they are willing to live under the Shari'a because they think its laws are just and fair. Without those conditions it can't go anywhere and I don't want it to go anywhere. Not only do I have no desire to force the Shari'a on non-Muslims, I firmly believe that it would be very wrong to do so. There is no compulsion in religion (Quran Surah al-Baqarat ayah 256).
As to why Muslims would desire to live under Shari'a themselves, there are two things that I think are blocking your understanding of this. First, you continue to assume that when I say Shari'a I mean Afghanistan or something like it even though I have repeatedly said that I find many of Afghanistan's laws, and ones similar to them, to be a perversion of the Shari'a. Unfortunately, there is no country that I can point to as a good example; that is one of the many ways that Muslims today are failing to live up to Islam. I can only point you to texts and articles that set out how I think things should be. Second, I've gathered from your comments elsewhere that you would not want to live under Jewish religious law either. Ultimately, Muslims want to live under the Shari'a because we believe God has commanded it, and religious Jews who want to live under Jewish law would give the same reason.
I can't comment on Shari'a at all; but I do know the media well enough that Sharia only makes the news when it can grab the reader's attention. One should not rely on the news media for a full understanding of another legal code. Would you condemn the entire body of English common law based on abuses in America, such as the execution of the mentally-impaired or life sentences for stealing a few videos?
Regarding an earlier comment on punishment deterring crime: There isn't one simple answer for crime. Punishment is part of it, yes, but incarceration is certainly punishment and America has been using it more and more to no avail. Also, in prescribing punishments, one must consider the possibility of wrongful conviction. Can the wrongfully-convicted be returned to society, reasonably able to function? In the case of capital punishment, clearly not. Amputation? Less so than incarceration, in my opinion.
Also, what do Jews have to do with this topic? Can we leave them out of this? Just for once? Please?
The Shari'a is not supposed to be implemented on non-Muslims. Why not? Because they don't believe that it comes from God. If non-Muslims decide that Shari'a laws are fair and just, they can choose to live under them, but they cannot be required to. Historically, non-Muslims resident in Islamic states have lived in autonomous communities under their own laws, for instance Jews under Jewish law and Christians under whatever Christian law that they choose.
Al-Munaqabah, there is something that has always disturbed me about Islam that is directly related to your comment. It seems to me, that Islam seems to preach tolerance and freedom of religion in situations where Islam is the minority, but in environments where Muslims are the majority they preach differently. This what I mean: In many predominantly Muslim countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and some others, there are actual laws that forbid any Muslim from converting to any other religion. If a child is born a Muslim in one of these countries and they grow up to feel it’s not for them, they have no choice in the matter. For a Muslim to decide to become a Christian would result in imprisonment or worse.
Jews, Christians, Hindus and other religious denominations in these states are, by law, NOT allowed to spread their faith to Muslims. But in Christian nations Muslims ARE, by law, allowed to spread there faith to members of other religions. I find this disturbing.
Here is where there is no balance. If a Muslim is not allowed to change their religion. because of the laws that exist in Islamic governments. then there is no possible way that membership in the religion of Islam will in anyway shrink in these countries. It will grow as the population grows. And if Muslims are allowed by Western (or Christian countries, as some call them) to spread their faith, then off course they’re going to grow there. I forgot who was it here that stated that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, with this type of strategy it’s no wonder. It seem to me that for many, being a Muslim may be more a matter of birth than a matter of choice.
So my question is…what exactly does Islam teach when it comes to someone’s right to change their religion from Islam to something else? Does to Koran condone violence or imprisonment for someone who no longer wants to be a Muslim?
Here is what scholar Mohammed Hashim Kamali says about apostasy:
A number of prominent ulema across the centuries have taken the view that apostasy is not a hadd offence. Ibrahim al-Nakhai (d. 95 H) and Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 162 H) have held that the apostate should be invited to Islam and should never be condemned to death. The Maliki jurist Ibn al-Walid al-Baji (d. 494) and the Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment and that a sin of this kind may be punished only under the discretionary punishment of ta'zir. The late Shaykh of al-Azhar, Mahmud Shaltut, analysed the relevant evidence in the sources and drew the conclusion that apostasy carried no temporal punishment because in reference to apostasy the Qur'an only speaks of punishment in the hereafter. Shaltut also concurred with the analysis that the key factor in the Hadith which prescribed the death penalty for apostasy was "aggression and hostility against the believers and the prevention of a possible fitnah (sedition, civil strife) against the religion and state". Mahmassani has also made a similar observation saying that "the death punishment was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith but to punish acts such as treason, joining forces with the enemy, and sedition".
I discussed this question in a comment thread here quite some time ago. I'm trying to find it again. Basically, my understanding is this: a person who quietly changes their religion and goes to live and worship among a community of the new religion should not face any punishment by the state. They have harmed no one but themselves by their action and therefore the judgment should be left to God. Where the state might get involved is if the person begins stirring up sedition and challenging the basis on which the state is founded. In that case, the most appropriate punishment might be exile. The death penalty that is talked about so much should be limited to those who engage in armed rebellion against the state.
I'll try to find that earlier discussion for you and I'd be glad to answer your further questions.
Thanks for the reply Al-Munaqabah.
I just read Clint’s comment. Even though it was pretty harsh, and completely untactful, I can understand his sentiment. I know in the Bible there is a passage where Jesus says by this all will know you are my disciples, that you have love among yourselves. But look at some of these Christian nations, I mean throughout history Catholics have killed Catholics and Protestants have killed protestant, and Muslims have killed Muslims. How can any of these faiths be right? Look at Ireland, two Christian communities who hate each other. Look at Algeria, Muslims slaughtering Muslims. Show me a religion who’s members have unity and actual love for each other across national & ethnic boundaries. You know what I’m saying? That’s why if there was no ‘separation of church and state’, religious hatred and conflict would soon engulf the world.
Religious denominations seem to tolerate, or in many cases justify, violence that goes forth from their own members. Look at how long it took for the Vatican to condemn Hitler. Catholic priests blessed German troops for God’s sake! Also the situation in Algeria is very disturbing. I’ve read some of the horrific slaughters of Muslims by other Muslims. There have been literally thousands of killings there, many of which where carried out by mobs wielding machetes, hacking people to death and throwing babies against walls. I haven’t seen any mass demonstrations from the Muslim communities against this. Yet if one Muslim Palestinian dies at the hands of a Jewish soldier there is an outcry and rage from the ‘Arab Street’. What is the difference? Killing is killing, why does it matter if the one killing another person belongs to the same religion or not?
Not that I agree with everything Clint said, cause I don’t, I can just understand where he might be coming from.
Enough said.