Anti-Islam ads on NYC buses. Whose side are you on?

[Osomir]

Khan and many of the mongol territories practiced tengri.

Genghis Khan exploited the "IDEOLOGY" of islam

No he didnt. You made an historically inaccurate statement. Deal with it.

 

[protectionist]

I'm on the side of the anti-Islam ads. The liberal left just doesn't get it. Islam has been trying to conquer the Europe and the west since its creation. Its followers were invading Europe for 400 years "prior" to the Europeans "first crusade" and the first crusade was a plea by the Byzantine Emperor to the Pope for military help because of attacks by Muslim armies.
When Islamists cannot win militarily, they infiltrate in numbers to change from within. The liberal left just cannot see the threat as the Muslims aren't threatening with uniformed-armed soldiers, tanks, and other military arms; they're just coming into Europe and the U.S. in large numbers.
It took hundreds of years of blood, sweat and tears to create this nation of a populace where the people elect their leaders, political transitions are peaceful and individuals can follow their own dreams.
Allowing the continued influx of Islamists will, in the long term, undo all that was done to create this beacon of liberty and way of life.
You can make as many laws to try and protect these western liberties, but when their numbers are sufficient, they will only destroy them with their own barbaric beliefs and laws.
I say, end ALL immigration, accept no so-called Muslim refugees and deport all those calling for Sharia and the Hadith as law.

Who's calling for Sharia and Hadith as law? I assume you mean over US and Constitutional law?

Oh nobody much ? HA HA HA HA!! What kind of loon question is that ? Practically the entire Islamic world. That's who. Most notably > ISIS, Boko Haram, al Shabba, al Nusra, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, dozens of Mualim Brotherhood front groups in America (CAIR, MSA, ISNA, etc)

We were talking about Muslims in the United States. Please show me the portion of "the entire Islamic world" - in the US, calling for this. Hopefully, with reputable sources - like main stream news organizations rather than blogs.

You don't know the connections of all of these groups to the United States ?

Taliban - Us troops in Afghanistan mitigate the 100+ Pakistani NUCLEAR warheads - the most dangerous thing to America today.

ISIS - they are related to jihad going on in the US (ex the Garland, TX attack), and they are a NUCLEAR trjeat to the US also, if/whenever they acquire enough wealth to nuclearize.

Boko Haram - so far they are just in Africa (SO FAR)

Hezbollah - they have been reported to have crossed the Mexican border into the US, and currently have cells in western states.

Hamas - they are related to yjr Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR (right arm of Hamas in the US) They also were connected to the Holy Land Foundation and received funding from them until they were caught, tried, and sent to prison, were they now rot.

Please show me that Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law".

I am going to answer this post in REPEATED STAGES. This is only # 1 of the list. It boggles my mind that liberals are still unaware of this 21 years late, but I can understand, when we realize that liberal media absolutely will not and does not report it, and deliberately keeps their readers/listeners/viewers ignorant.

1. The Muslim Brotherhood's infamous EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM (May 22, 1991) >>

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind ofgrand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).

 

[turzovka]

Well now this is interesting. Pro-Israel groups riled by pro-Muslim ads, pro-Muslim sentiment in our universities, text books, govt decisions, etc. from recent years are fighting back. I imagine they are fighting back because of the ignorance of many in the West, or their indifference to how Israel is being treated and continuously attacked and threatened by so many Islamic circles, cells and violent hate groups. Or how our universities are so anti-Israel and sponsor boycotts and are conspicuously silent against Islamic terrorism. If you took a poll I doubt Israel would even come out ahead as to what Americans or Western Europeans consider to be the biggest threat to peace or the most agitating force in the Middle East.

This right wing Pro-Israeli organization says its intention is to counter this widespread ignorance or bias against Israel. I think they have a very legitimate point. Do I agree with their ads they are about to run?, no I do not. Too incendiary. I would have worded things much differently. But I give them credit for their courage. They are surely not going to be welcome by the general public or by the media in the West. Maybe Obama will find this another great opportunity to show how much he cannot tolerate anything Israel and also how unfair we in the West have been towards Islam. And don't you Christian dare complain or mount your high horses. Remember the Alamo... I mean Crusades. :0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.newsmax.com/US/afdi-jews-muslims-cair/2015/04/22/id/640071/?ns_mail_uid=3140586&ns_mail_job=1617856_04222015&s=al&dkt_nbr=tthrqibo

Judge Allows 'Killing Jews Is Worship' Ads on NYC Transport

Wednesday, 22 Apr 2015 12:24 PM By Melanie Batley

An ad that says, "Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah" should be permitted to appear on New York City buses and subways, a federal judge has ruled.

The advert was created by a pro-Israel organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). It features an image of a young man in a checkered headscarf and was designed to highlight what the AFDI argues are Muslim attitudes toward Jews,

The ad was originally rejected by New York's Metropolitan Transport Authority (MTA), which said that they were "savage" and demeaned Muslims and Palestinians while at the same time could incite violence against Jews.

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl has ruled that the MTA cannot stop the ads from running

In the judgment, he said that MTA officials "underestimate the tolerant quality of New Yorkers and overestimate the potential impact of these fleeting advertisements."

He added: "Moreover, there is no evidence that seeing one of these advertisements on the back of a bus would be sufficient to trigger a violent reaction. Therefore, these ads — offensive as they may be — are still entitled to First Amendment protection."

AFDI co-founder Pamela Geller tweeted her delight at the ruling, saying that it was "a triumph for liberty and free speech."

The ad is intended to be a parody of an ad put out by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a civil liberties group that promotes the rights of Muslims and better relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.

In 2012 and 2013, CAIR ran posters in several American cities promoting peaceful versions of Islam. " '#MyJihad is to build friendships across the aisle.' What's yours?" read one.

In his ruling in favor of AFDI, Koeltl said the ads could not reasonably be considered an incitement to violence, even if someone didn't understand them.

"The defendants admit that the actual intention of the advertisement is not to advocate the use of force, but to parody the CAIR 'My Jihad' campaign and to criticize Hamas and radical Islam.

"However, they argue that a reasonable New Yorker would not read the advertisement this way, but would instead read it as advocating the killing of Jewish people," Koeltl wrote, according to the Post. "The defendants' theory is thoroughly unpersuasive."

Are you sure those ads are historical referenced to Martin Luther and his writings?

No, I am not sure those ads "are historical referenced to Martin Luther and his writings" because I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

 

[Cameron Heath]

If the MTA is going to allow political-related messaging, they have to allow all political-related messaging, whether I or anybody else agrees with the message. That said, I feel like a packed subway car is not the place to encourage discussion of divisive political issues.

 

[protectionist]

Please show me that Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law".

Center for Security Policy Press launched a collection of monographs called the Civilization Jihad Reader Series with the publication of an update to an earlier and highly influential study concerning the insinuation of Islam’s supremacist shariah legal code into the U.S. judiciary. Entitled Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, this inaugural booklet documents 146 cases in 32 states in which a party to litigation attempted to have the matter resolved by applying shariah, rather than the statutes of the state in question.

The Center first raised an alarm about the penetration of American jurisprudence by one of the most anti-constitutional of such foreign legal codes with its 2011 report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed.

SHARIAH IN AMERICAN COURTS The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY PRESS

This study identifies a total of 146 cases involving Shariah from 32 different states and federal courts: 9 cases were found in New Jersey; 9 in Texas; 9 in New York; 8 cases were found in California; 8 in Ohio; 7 in Connecticut; 7 in Virginia; 6 in Florida; 5 in Michigan; 4 in Massachusetts; 4 in Washington; 4 in Iowa; 3 in Maryland; 3 in Nebraska; 3 in North Carolina; 2 in Georgia; 2 in Louisiana; 2 in Delaware; 2 in Illinois; 2 in Maine; 2 in New Hampshire; 2 in South Carolina; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. 33 cases were found from federal courts.

The 146 cases can be classified into fifteen categories (cases sometimes fell within more than one category): 7 cases deal with criminal law; 20 cases deal with civil law; 9 cases deal with commercial law; 14 cases deal with family law generally; 23 cases deal with child custody; 67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters; 25 cases dealt with comity; 15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens; 4 cases dealt with choice of law; 1 case involved forum selection; 3 cases involved arbitration and 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse. In addition, the cases were also assessed as to whether or not the ultimate decision of the court was in accordance with Shariah at both the trial court and appellate court levels: At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

Across the 146 cases there were 21 foreign countries from which Shariah— based legal conventions or decisions were brought to bear upon the case. Some cases made reference to more than one country while others involved Shariah without reference to a specific foreign country. Among the cases that referenced Shariah in a foreign country: 10 were from Pakistan; 8 were from Iran; 7 were from Egypt; 6 were from Jordan; 5 from Lebanon; 4 from Turkey; 3 from Saudi Arabia; 2 each were from India, Indonesia, Iraq and Nigeria; and 1 each was from Afghanistan, Algeria, Gaza [sic], Israel, Kenya; Morocco, the Philippines, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In summary, of the 146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy. This alarming success ratio of Shariah submitting American law in our state courts provides ample evidence of the increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization. This effort, and the intent of those organizations taking part in it, are described in greater detail in Appendix A and B, while Appendix C provides the reader hope for a mechanism to counter it. Finally, It should also be noted that the cases in this survey dealing with prisoner cases and asylum cases are illustrative only; there are literally too many such cases to include in this study. Indeed a whole separate volume could be produced dealing just with each of these issues.

Center for Security Policy Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Shariah_in_American_Courts1.pdf

Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System Civilization Jihad Reader Series Volume 1 Center for Security Policy 9780692345559 Amazon.com Books

 

[protectionist]

generally----persons who have passed thru ----something like some sort of liberal arts secondary schooling----do begin to understand that POLLS are not useful FACTS----they are subject to a myriad of factors that render them utterly
misleading, Yet there are people ---even among the
learned population of this message board-----that DEPEND
on whatever "poll" supports their idiotic POV as if the poll stats were handed down on Mount Sinai. To know the opinion of any population-------talk to a statistically significant number of them in candid manner-----under
condition of confidentiality----privately and best of all----at
night

Polls aren't "facts" - they're indicators of trends in public opinion and only as good as the methodology employed. However, if someone makes a claim, they should be able to substantiate it with something besides opinion and conspiracy theory. You know...kind of like we ask people to attempt to claim the Holocaust was a hoax to substantiate their claims with actual facts.

Holocaust deniers have lots of FACTS and polls which they pick and choose with the same facility and confidence that characterizes your choice of facts and polls

They don't have "facts" - they have conspiracy theory and cherry picked bits of data that becomes evident once they start displaying their sources. Kind of like those who claim Muslims in America are calling for sharia and hadith to be the law.

You are showing yourself to be a complete ignorant fool to keep saying that. You might as well be saying "those who claim that gay liberation groups are calling for legalization of same-sex marriage". Well, Gee, Who woulda ever thought ?

When you tell me how many examples you want, I'll give you some, even though the question is so ludicrous, it doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response.

Tell us all again about how the dinka are the largest ethnic group in Sudan and about how the janjaweed are waging jihad against non muslims in darfur.

I've already educated you enough in this thread. I'm not being paid to be your tutor. If you read the books I suggested for you, et al (instead of pretending to have read them), you wouldn't need to be asking me for information >>

The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America ---- by Andrew McCarthy

American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us ----- by Steven Emerson

Because They Hate ---- by Brigitte Gabriel

They Must Be Stopped ------ by Brigitte Gabriel

Hating America ------ by John Gibson

Stop the Islamization of America ----- by Pamela Geller

Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Secret Saudi-U.S. Connection ------ by Gerald Posner

Stealth Jihad ----- by Robert Spencer

The Brotherhood: America's Next Great Enemy ------ by Erik Stakelbeck

Outrage ----- by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Infiltration ------ by Paul Sperry

The 9/11 Commission Report

The Truth About Muhammad ------ by Robert Spencer

In Mortal Danger ------- by Tom Tancredo

State of Emergency ----- by Pat Buchanan

Muslim Mafia ----- by P.David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry

 

[Osomir]

Polls aren't "facts" - they're indicators of trends in public opinion and only as good as the methodology employed. However, if someone makes a claim, they should be able to substantiate it with something besides opinion and conspiracy theory. You know...kind of like we ask people to attempt to claim the Holocaust was a hoax to substantiate their claims with actual facts.

Holocaust deniers have lots of FACTS and polls which they pick and choose with the same facility and confidence that characterizes your choice of facts and polls

They don't have "facts" - they have conspiracy theory and cherry picked bits of data that becomes evident once they start displaying their sources. Kind of like those who claim Muslims in America are calling for sharia and hadith to be the law.

You are showing yourself to be a complete ignorant fool to keep saying that. You might as well be saying "those who claim that gay liberation groups are calling for legalization of same-sex marriage". Well, Gee, Who woulda ever thought ?

When you tell me how many examples you want, I'll give you some, even though the question is so ludicrous, it doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response.

Tell us all again about how the dinka are the largest ethnic group in Sudan and about how the janjaweed are waging jihad against non muslims in darfur.

I've already educated you enough in this thread. I'm not being paid to be your tutor. If you read the books I suggested for you, et al (instead of pretending to have read them), you wouldn't need to be asking me for information >>

The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America ---- by Andrew McCarthy

American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us ----- by Steven Emerson

Because They Hate ---- by Brigitte Gabriel

They Must Be Stopped ------ by Brigitte Gabriel

Hating America ------ by John Gibson

Stop the Islamization of America ----- by Pamela Geller

Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Secret Saudi-U.S. Connection ------ by Gerald Posner

Stealth Jihad ----- by Robert Spencer

The Brotherhood: America's Next Great Enemy ------ by Erik Stakelbeck

Outrage ----- by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Infiltration ------ by Paul Sperry

The 9/11 Commission Report

The Truth About Muhammad ------ by Robert Spencer

In Mortal Danger ------- by Tom Tancredo

State of Emergency ----- by Pat Buchanan

Muslim Mafia ----- by P.David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry

Your books arent accurate.

 

[protectionist]

Your books arent accurate.

Your opinion (Post 387) isn't sourced.

PS - INVALIDATION is hard-wired into Islamapologists. HO HUM.

PPS - you have to read the books to determine their accuracy.

 

[protectionist]

Please show me that Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law".

When the Muslim Brotherhood operative, Huma Abedin, was Hillary Clinton's Deputy chief of Staff in the State Dept., all sorts of things occured that facilitated the imposition of Sharia law, as well as other forms of Islamization. Examples are >>

1. The US reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood;

2- funded Hamas;

3- continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections;

4- dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas;

5- hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States;

6- issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington, because he is part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt;

7-purged FBI training manuals of words deemed offensive by Muslims (ex - jihad, terrorism, Islamist, etc)

 

[Osomir]

Your books arent accurate.

Your opinion (Post 387) isn't sourced.

PS - INVALIDATION is hard-wired into Islamapologists. HO HUM.

PPS - you have to read the books to determine their accuracy.

I don't need to read your books (though i have read some and am familiar with others) to know that the Dinka aren't the largest ethnic group in Sudan, nor do I need to read your books in order to know that you are wrong about the Janjaweed and their "Jihad".

This is because I have actually studied Sudan and South Sudan in their own rights and do not rely on my entire understanding of those two locations from a couple of paragraphs in a couple of books.

If you would like sources then I would point you to:

The Mahdist State in Sudan 1881 - 1898 by P.M. Holt

A History of Modern Sudan, by Robert O. Collins

Race and Identity in the Nile Valley: Ancient and Modern Perspectives by Kharyssa Rhodes and Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban

Darfur Genocide Before our Eyes by Joyce Aspek

Africans of Two Worlds: The Dinka in Afro-Arab Sudan by Francis Deng

Darfur: A Long Road to Disaster by Robert O. Collins

War and Slavery in the Sudan by Jok Madut Jok

I could point you to a dozen others if you'd like as well.


Notice how they are all books dealing with the actual subject matter. It might benefit you to actually read a book about the Sudan and south Sudan before you consider yourself an expert on subjects pertaining to them.

 

[Coyote]

What scholarly comeback Mr. I-25-Books-In-14_Years

Last I recall, the title fits YOU too > MS QUIZ ZERO.

Scholarly? Nah. I'm more of a hit or miss type.

 

[Coyote]

We were talking about Muslims in the United States. Please show me the portion of "the entire Islamic world" - in the US, calling for this. Hopefully, with reputable sources - like main stream news organizations rather than blogs.

You don't know the connections of all of these groups to the United States ?

Taliban - Us troops in Afghanistan mitigate the 100+ Pakistani NUCLEAR warheads - the most dangerous thing to America today.

ISIS - they are related to jihad going on in the US (ex the Garland, TX attack), and they are a NUCLEAR trjeat to the US also, if/whenever they acquire enough wealth to nuclearize.

Boko Haram - so far they are just in Africa (SO FAR)

Hezbollah - they have been reported to have crossed the Mexican border into the US, and currently have cells in western states.

Hamas - they are related to yjr Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR (right arm of Hamas in the US) They also were connected to the Holy Land Foundation and received funding from them until they were caught, tried, and sent to prison, were they now rot.

Please show me that Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law".

Are you serious ? That has been going on every day for 21 years. Stop talking stupid. Read Muslim Mafia and don't pester me with idiot questions. Good grief!

Why is it so difficult for you to provide actual and reputable sources showing that American Muslims call for this?

How many do you want ?

As many as you are willing to provide. Note: reputable matters. Mainstream, even though it can be biased, is at least subject to retractions and corrections if it indulges in outright fabrications.

 

[Coyote]

What are you going on about now Rosie? Generally, when one makes a claim, it's normal to request that they substantiate it with facts, not opinion

generally----persons who have passed thru ----something like some sort of liberal arts secondary schooling----do begin to understand that POLLS are not useful FACTS----they are subject to a myriad of factors that render them utterly
misleading, Yet there are people ---even among the
learned population of this message board-----that DEPEND
on whatever "poll" supports their idiotic POV as if the poll stats were handed down on Mount Sinai. To know the opinion of any population-------talk to a statistically significant number of them in candid manner-----under
condition of confidentiality----privately and best of all----at
night

Polls aren't "facts" - they're indicators of trends in public opinion and only as good as the methodology employed. However, if someone makes a claim, they should be able to substantiate it with something besides opinion and conspiracy theory. You know...kind of like we ask people to attempt to claim the Holocaust was a hoax to substantiate their claims with actual facts.

Holocaust deniers have lots of FACTS and polls which they pick and choose with the same facility and confidence that characterizes your choice of facts and polls

They don't have "facts" - they have conspiracy theory and cherry picked bits of data that becomes evident once they start displaying their sources. Kind of like those who claim Muslims in America are calling for sharia and hadith to be the law.

You are showing yourself to be a complete ignorant fool to keep saying that. You might as well be saying "those who claim that gay liberation groups are calling for legalization of same-sex marriage". Well, Gee, Who woulda ever thought ?

When you tell me how many examples you want, I'll give you some, even though the question is so ludicrous, it doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response.

So are you saying that Holocaust denier are on the right path? Many would disagree with you.

 

[Coyote]

Holocaust deniers have lots of FACTS and polls which they pick and choose with the same facility and confidence that characterizes your choice of facts and polls

They don't have "facts" - they have conspiracy theory and cherry picked bits of data that becomes evident once they start displaying their sources. Kind of like those who claim Muslims in America are calling for sharia and hadith to be the law.

You are showing yourself to be a complete ignorant fool to keep saying that. You might as well be saying "those who claim that gay liberation groups are calling for legalization of same-sex marriage". Well, Gee, Who woulda ever thought ?

When you tell me how many examples you want, I'll give you some, even though the question is so ludicrous, it doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response.

Tell us all again about how the dinka are the largest ethnic group in Sudan and about how the janjaweed are waging jihad against non muslims in darfur.

I've already educated you enough in this thread. I'm not being paid to be your tutor. If you read the books I suggested for you, et al (instead of pretending to have read them), you wouldn't need to be asking me for information >>

The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America ---- by Andrew McCarthy

American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us ----- by Steven Emerson

Because They Hate ---- by Brigitte Gabriel

They Must Be Stopped ------ by Brigitte Gabriel

Hating America ------ by John Gibson

Stop the Islamization of America ----- by Pamela Geller

Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Secret Saudi-U.S. Connection ------ by Gerald Posner

Stealth Jihad ----- by Robert Spencer

The Brotherhood: America's Next Great Enemy ------ by Erik Stakelbeck

Outrage ----- by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Infiltration ------ by Paul Sperry

The 9/11 Commission Report

The Truth About Muhammad ------ by Robert Spencer

In Mortal Danger ------- by Tom Tancredo

State of Emergency ----- by Pat Buchanan

Muslim Mafia ----- by P.David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry

Your books arent accurate.

This reminds me of someone throwing mud to see if anything sticks. I doubt any of those books have much to say on Sudanese ethnic groups

 

[Coyote]

Please show me that Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law".

When the Muslim Brotherhood operative, Huma Abedin, was Hillary Clinton's Deputy chief of Staff in the State Dept., all sorts of things occured that facilitated the imposition of Sharia law, as well as other forms of Islamization. Examples are >>

1. The US reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood;

2- funded Hamas;

3- continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections;

4- dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas;

5- hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States;

6- issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington, because he is part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt;

7-purged FBI training manuals of words deemed offensive by Muslims (ex - jihad, terrorism, Islamist, etc)

You did not answer the question. What evidence do you have that US Muslims are calling for sharia and hadith to be the law? It's not rocket science nor is it a confusing question nor does conspiracy theory qualify as evidence.

 

[Coyote]

Please show me that Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law".

Center for Security Policy Press launched a collection of monographs called the Civilization Jihad Reader Series with the publication of an update to an earlier and highly influential study concerning the insinuation of Islam’s supremacist shariah legal code into the U.S. judiciary. Entitled Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, this inaugural booklet documents 146 cases in 32 states in which a party to litigation attempted to have the matter resolved by applying shariah, rather than the statutes of the state in question.

The Center first raised an alarm about the penetration of American jurisprudence by one of the most anti-constitutional of such foreign legal codes with its 2011 report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed.

SHARIAH IN AMERICAN COURTS The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY PRESS

This study identifies a total of 146 cases involving Shariah from 32 different states and federal courts: 9 cases were found in New Jersey; 9 in Texas; 9 in New York; 8 cases were found in California; 8 in Ohio; 7 in Connecticut; 7 in Virginia; 6 in Florida; 5 in Michigan; 4 in Massachusetts; 4 in Washington; 4 in Iowa; 3 in Maryland; 3 in Nebraska; 3 in North Carolina; 2 in Georgia; 2 in Louisiana; 2 in Delaware; 2 in Illinois; 2 in Maine; 2 in New Hampshire; 2 in South Carolina; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. 33 cases were found from federal courts.

The 146 cases can be classified into fifteen categories (cases sometimes fell within more than one category): 7 cases deal with criminal law; 20 cases deal with civil law; 9 cases deal with commercial law; 14 cases deal with family law generally; 23 cases deal with child custody; 67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters; 25 cases dealt with comity; 15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens; 4 cases dealt with choice of law; 1 case involved forum selection; 3 cases involved arbitration and 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse. In addition, the cases were also assessed as to whether or not the ultimate decision of the court was in accordance with Shariah at both the trial court and appellate court levels: At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

Across the 146 cases there were 21 foreign countries from which Shariah— based legal conventions or decisions were brought to bear upon the case. Some cases made reference to more than one country while others involved Shariah without reference to a specific foreign country. Among the cases that referenced Shariah in a foreign country: 10 were from Pakistan; 8 were from Iran; 7 were from Egypt; 6 were from Jordan; 5 from Lebanon; 4 from Turkey; 3 from Saudi Arabia; 2 each were from India, Indonesia, Iraq and Nigeria; and 1 each was from Afghanistan, Algeria, Gaza [sic], Israel, Kenya; Morocco, the Philippines, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In summary, of the 146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy. This alarming success ratio of Shariah submitting American law in our state courts provides ample evidence of the increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization. This effort, and the intent of those organizations taking part in it, are described in greater detail in Appendix A and B, while Appendix C provides the reader hope for a mechanism to counter it. Finally, It should also be noted that the cases in this survey dealing with prisoner cases and asylum cases are illustrative only; there are literally too many such cases to include in this study. Indeed a whole separate volume could be produced dealing just with each of these issues.

Center for Security Policy Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Shariah_in_American_Courts1.pdf

Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System Civilization Jihad Reader Series Volume 1 Center for Security Policy 9780692345559 Amazon.com Books

Almost all of those cases were using sharia in civil disputes or cases involving dealings with other countries. None of this shows that American Muslims are calling for Sharia and Hadith to be the law of the land.

For example - here's a look at the actual cases:

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts The Nation

As an attorney, consultant or expert witness, I have handled more than 100 cases involving components of Sharia. In a case I tried in 2002, Odatalla v. Odatalla, a New Jersey couple had signed an Islamic marriage contract consistent with their cultural traditions. When the wife filed for divorce, she asked the court to enforce the mahr, or dowry provision, in her contract, which called for the husband’s payment of $10,000 upon the dissolution of their marriage. Superior Court Judge John Selser found the marriage contract valid under New Jersey law, concluding, “Clearly, this court can enforce a contract which is not in contravention of established law or public policy.”​

In a 2003 case involving Exxon Mobil and a Saudi oil company, the parties had agreed as part of a commercial transaction that Saudi law would govern any potential disputes. After the Saudi company sued its former business partner, Exxon Mobil, the Delaware Superior Court heard testimony on Saudi law, which applies traditional Sharia, and the judge instructed the jury to base its decision accordingly. The jury returned a $400 million–plus verdict in favor of Exxon Mobil and against the Saudi firm.


Finally, in a more recent case I was involved in, a state judge declined to recognize a Syrian court order that would have transferred the custody of a child to her father because of the mother’s remarriage. The judge reasoned that remarriage alone is not sufficient to transfer custody. Far from deferring to judgments from foreign countries, US courts regularly refuse to recognize such orders due to the constitutional and due-process implications.​

A few more sources:

Column The sharia myth sweeps America - USATODAY.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-foreign-law-that-incorporates-religious-law/

What you are looking at is the use of sharia in very limited ways, just like any international laws might be used because sharia is the law in certain countries. None of this shows evidence that American Muslims are pushing for this and that is what I am asking you for - evidence that American Muslims, as a group, are pushing for sharia and hadith to be the law of the land. You are flinging a lot of mud in an attempt to obscure the fact that you can not answer this.

 

[protectionist]

Please show me that Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law".

Center for Security Policy Press launched a collection of monographs called the Civilization Jihad Reader Series with the publication of an update to an earlier and highly influential study concerning the insinuation of Islam’s supremacist shariah legal code into the U.S. judiciary. Entitled Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, this inaugural booklet documents 146 cases in 32 states in which a party to litigation attempted to have the matter resolved by applying shariah, rather than the statutes of the state in question.

The Center first raised an alarm about the penetration of American jurisprudence by one of the most anti-constitutional of such foreign legal codes with its 2011 report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed.

SHARIAH IN AMERICAN COURTS The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY PRESS

This study identifies a total of 146 cases involving Shariah from 32 different states and federal courts: 9 cases were found in New Jersey; 9 in Texas; 9 in New York; 8 cases were found in California; 8 in Ohio; 7 in Connecticut; 7 in Virginia; 6 in Florida; 5 in Michigan; 4 in Massachusetts; 4 in Washington; 4 in Iowa; 3 in Maryland; 3 in Nebraska; 3 in North Carolina; 2 in Georgia; 2 in Louisiana; 2 in Delaware; 2 in Illinois; 2 in Maine; 2 in New Hampshire; 2 in South Carolina; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. 33 cases were found from federal courts.

The 146 cases can be classified into fifteen categories (cases sometimes fell within more than one category): 7 cases deal with criminal law; 20 cases deal with civil law; 9 cases deal with commercial law; 14 cases deal with family law generally; 23 cases deal with child custody; 67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters; 25 cases dealt with comity; 15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens; 4 cases dealt with choice of law; 1 case involved forum selection; 3 cases involved arbitration and 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse. In addition, the cases were also assessed as to whether or not the ultimate decision of the court was in accordance with Shariah at both the trial court and appellate court levels: At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

Across the 146 cases there were 21 foreign countries from which Shariah— based legal conventions or decisions were brought to bear upon the case. Some cases made reference to more than one country while others involved Shariah without reference to a specific foreign country. Among the cases that referenced Shariah in a foreign country: 10 were from Pakistan; 8 were from Iran; 7 were from Egypt; 6 were from Jordan; 5 from Lebanon; 4 from Turkey; 3 from Saudi Arabia; 2 each were from India, Indonesia, Iraq and Nigeria; and 1 each was from Afghanistan, Algeria, Gaza [sic], Israel, Kenya; Morocco, the Philippines, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In summary, of the 146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy. This alarming success ratio of Shariah submitting American law in our state courts provides ample evidence of the increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization. This effort, and the intent of those organizations taking part in it, are described in greater detail in Appendix A and B, while Appendix C provides the reader hope for a mechanism to counter it. Finally, It should also be noted that the cases in this survey dealing with prisoner cases and asylum cases are illustrative only; there are literally too many such cases to include in this study. Indeed a whole separate volume could be produced dealing just with each of these issues.

Center for Security Policy Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Shariah_in_American_Courts1.pdf

Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System Civilization Jihad Reader Series Volume 1 Center for Security Policy 9780692345559 Amazon.com Books

Almost all of those cases were using sharia in civil disputes or cases involving dealings with other countries. None of this shows that American Muslims are calling for Sharia and Hadith to be the law of the land.

For example - here's a look at the actual cases:

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts The Nation

As an attorney, consultant or expert witness, I have handled more than 100 cases involving components of Sharia. In a case I tried in 2002, Odatalla v. Odatalla, a New Jersey couple had signed an Islamic marriage contract consistent with their cultural traditions. When the wife filed for divorce, she asked the court to enforce the mahr, or dowry provision, in her contract, which called for the husband’s payment of $10,000 upon the dissolution of their marriage. Superior Court Judge John Selser found the marriage contract valid under New Jersey law, concluding, “Clearly, this court can enforce a contract which is not in contravention of established law or public policy.”​

In a 2003 case involving Exxon Mobil and a Saudi oil company, the parties had agreed as part of a commercial transaction that Saudi law would govern any potential disputes. After the Saudi company sued its former business partner, Exxon Mobil, the Delaware Superior Court heard testimony on Saudi law, which applies traditional Sharia, and the judge instructed the jury to base its decision accordingly. The jury returned a $400 million–plus verdict in favor of Exxon Mobil and against the Saudi firm.


Finally, in a more recent case I was involved in, a state judge declined to recognize a Syrian court order that would have transferred the custody of a child to her father because of the mother’s remarriage. The judge reasoned that remarriage alone is not sufficient to transfer custody. Far from deferring to judgments from foreign countries, US courts regularly refuse to recognize such orders due to the constitutional and due-process implications.​

A few more sources:

Column The sharia myth sweeps America - USATODAY.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-foreign-law-that-incorporates-religious-law/

What you are looking at is the use of sharia in very limited ways, just like any international laws might be used because sharia is the law in certain countries. None of this shows evidence that American Muslims are pushing for this and that is what I am asking you for - evidence that American Muslims, as a group, are pushing for sharia and hadith to be the law of the land. You are flinging a lot of mud in an attempt to obscure the fact that you can not answer this.

I thought so. I answer your question sincerely, and you come back with biased bullshit invalidation cards, that I've seen 1000 times. I see no point in talking to you. And the 146 cases involved (AS I SAID ALREADY) contained cases 8 of domestic violence, 7 criminal cases, like the infamous New Jersey rape/wife beating case. There are thousands more cases that didn't go to court and are just Muslims imposing Sharia law on American like the Muslim cab drivers who wouldn't pick up people with alcoholic beverages, the ones who wouldn't pick up blind people with a dog, the Muslim-owned company Rising Star, who fired an employee (Lina Morales) for bringing a BLT sandwich to work, the Muslims who got airports and universities to install foot-washing basins at great expense, etc. etc etc etc.

As for civil matters, so what ? There is criminal law, and there is civil law. Both of them are LAW. You asked for "Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law" Your question didn't not limit itself to exclude civil law (which is a very important part of US law and culture) So ALL the 146 items in the CSP report are a valid answer to your question.

The of course, if we want to discuss criminal law, we can talk about all the honor killings, and other crimes committed by Muslims in response to what they saw as violations of Sharia law and Muslim culture. Like this is supposed to be rare or unknown ? What is rare is having to answer questions this absolutely ludicrous.

FURTHERMORE (note: this is being written after the posting of post # 398)....., there are thousands of instances of Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law", in which Muslims demand that their Sharia way be observed and done that way. Employees have been fired, and media shows adjusted, and other things, just for violating Sharia standards of speech, which are, of course, FREE SPEECH under US law, which is the ONLY LAW THAT MATTERS IN AMERICA, and if Muslims don't like it , they can go fuck off >> (victims like Thomas Klocek, Michael Graham, Major Stephen Coughlin, Cal Thomas, TV show 24, movie Sum of All Fears, Cass Ballenger (R-NC), Andrew Whitehead, Paul Harvey, Virgil Goode (R-VA), Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, the Bush administration (changed the name "Operation Infinite Justice" of the campaign against the Taliban), Geert Wilders (Fitna), United Nations (bans on free speech), etc, etc.

For a more detailed report on > Muslims in the US that call for sharia and hadith as "law, see the book Muslim Mafia, in which thi is explained all through the entire book, with Part 1 about CAIR (right arm of Hamas in the US) who constantly calls for Sharia in just about everything and has filed numerous lawsuits (their prime methodology) to try to impose the Sharia laws. Part 2 of the book deal with the Muslim Brotherhood (terrorists in suits), in general. Calls for Sharia non-stop.

Actaully all the books I suggested are filled with instancxs of Muslims in the US that call for sharia and hadith as "law, but I cannot type thousands of pages of dozens of books, just to answer one question. The answers are in thos e books, and plenty more than the examples I've listed here.

But it won't matter what I write here because you're a dirty, raghead jihadist, and everybody here knows it. I don't know what the hell Chris is dong by having you be a mod here. If it were up to me, you wouldn't even be allowed to post. You'd be in jail or dead on the battlefield of war against all of you sickening savages.

 

[Coyote]

Please show me that Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law".

Center for Security Policy Press launched a collection of monographs called the Civilization Jihad Reader Series with the publication of an update to an earlier and highly influential study concerning the insinuation of Islam’s supremacist shariah legal code into the U.S. judiciary. Entitled Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, this inaugural booklet documents 146 cases in 32 states in which a party to litigation attempted to have the matter resolved by applying shariah, rather than the statutes of the state in question.

The Center first raised an alarm about the penetration of American jurisprudence by one of the most anti-constitutional of such foreign legal codes with its 2011 report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed.

SHARIAH IN AMERICAN COURTS The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY PRESS

This study identifies a total of 146 cases involving Shariah from 32 different states and federal courts: 9 cases were found in New Jersey; 9 in Texas; 9 in New York; 8 cases were found in California; 8 in Ohio; 7 in Connecticut; 7 in Virginia; 6 in Florida; 5 in Michigan; 4 in Massachusetts; 4 in Washington; 4 in Iowa; 3 in Maryland; 3 in Nebraska; 3 in North Carolina; 2 in Georgia; 2 in Louisiana; 2 in Delaware; 2 in Illinois; 2 in Maine; 2 in New Hampshire; 2 in South Carolina; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. 33 cases were found from federal courts.

The 146 cases can be classified into fifteen categories (cases sometimes fell within more than one category): 7 cases deal with criminal law; 20 cases deal with civil law; 9 cases deal with commercial law; 14 cases deal with family law generally; 23 cases deal with child custody; 67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters; 25 cases dealt with comity; 15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens; 4 cases dealt with choice of law; 1 case involved forum selection; 3 cases involved arbitration and 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse. In addition, the cases were also assessed as to whether or not the ultimate decision of the court was in accordance with Shariah at both the trial court and appellate court levels: At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

Across the 146 cases there were 21 foreign countries from which Shariah— based legal conventions or decisions were brought to bear upon the case. Some cases made reference to more than one country while others involved Shariah without reference to a specific foreign country. Among the cases that referenced Shariah in a foreign country: 10 were from Pakistan; 8 were from Iran; 7 were from Egypt; 6 were from Jordan; 5 from Lebanon; 4 from Turkey; 3 from Saudi Arabia; 2 each were from India, Indonesia, Iraq and Nigeria; and 1 each was from Afghanistan, Algeria, Gaza [sic], Israel, Kenya; Morocco, the Philippines, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In summary, of the 146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy. This alarming success ratio of Shariah submitting American law in our state courts provides ample evidence of the increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization. This effort, and the intent of those organizations taking part in it, are described in greater detail in Appendix A and B, while Appendix C provides the reader hope for a mechanism to counter it. Finally, It should also be noted that the cases in this survey dealing with prisoner cases and asylum cases are illustrative only; there are literally too many such cases to include in this study. Indeed a whole separate volume could be produced dealing just with each of these issues.

Center for Security Policy Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Shariah_in_American_Courts1.pdf

Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System Civilization Jihad Reader Series Volume 1 Center for Security Policy 9780692345559 Amazon.com Books

Almost all of those cases were using sharia in civil disputes or cases involving dealings with other countries. None of this shows that American Muslims are calling for Sharia and Hadith to be the law of the land.

For example - here's a look at the actual cases:

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts The Nation

As an attorney, consultant or expert witness, I have handled more than 100 cases involving components of Sharia. In a case I tried in 2002, Odatalla v. Odatalla, a New Jersey couple had signed an Islamic marriage contract consistent with their cultural traditions. When the wife filed for divorce, she asked the court to enforce the mahr, or dowry provision, in her contract, which called for the husband’s payment of $10,000 upon the dissolution of their marriage. Superior Court Judge John Selser found the marriage contract valid under New Jersey law, concluding, “Clearly, this court can enforce a contract which is not in contravention of established law or public policy.”​

In a 2003 case involving Exxon Mobil and a Saudi oil company, the parties had agreed as part of a commercial transaction that Saudi law would govern any potential disputes. After the Saudi company sued its former business partner, Exxon Mobil, the Delaware Superior Court heard testimony on Saudi law, which applies traditional Sharia, and the judge instructed the jury to base its decision accordingly. The jury returned a $400 million–plus verdict in favor of Exxon Mobil and against the Saudi firm.


Finally, in a more recent case I was involved in, a state judge declined to recognize a Syrian court order that would have transferred the custody of a child to her father because of the mother’s remarriage. The judge reasoned that remarriage alone is not sufficient to transfer custody. Far from deferring to judgments from foreign countries, US courts regularly refuse to recognize such orders due to the constitutional and due-process implications.​

A few more sources:

Column The sharia myth sweeps America - USATODAY.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-foreign-law-that-incorporates-religious-law/

What you are looking at is the use of sharia in very limited ways, just like any international laws might be used because sharia is the law in certain countries. None of this shows evidence that American Muslims are pushing for this and that is what I am asking you for - evidence that American Muslims, as a group, are pushing for sharia and hadith to be the law of the land. You are flinging a lot of mud in an attempt to obscure the fact that you can not answer this.

I thought so. I answer your question sincerely, and you come back with biased bullshit invalidation cards, that I've seen 1000 times. I see no point in talking to you. And the 146 cases involved (AS I SAID ALREADY) contained cases of domestic violence, criminal cases, like the infamous New Jersey rape/wife beating case. There are thousands more cases that didn't go to court and are just Muslims imposing Sharia law on American like the Muslim cab drivers who wouldn't pick up people with alcoholic beverages, the ones who wouldn't pick up blind people with a dog, the Muslim-owned company Rising Star, who fired an employee (Lina Morales) for bringing a BLT sandwich to work, the Muslims who got airports and universities to install foot-washing basins at great expense, etc. etc etc etc.

The majority of the cases did not involve domestic violence OR criminal cases. There was only one that involved domestic violence, where the judge ruled wrongly and was overturned as was appropriate.

Drivers refusing to pick up people with alcoholic bevereges or service dogs are not "imposing sharia law" they are acting on their own religious beliefs and no different than Christians refusing to provide services to gays or dispense birth control. Whether it flies or not depends on the law.

None of this shows that Muslims in America are trying to make Sharia and Hadith The Law - you just have personal cases of religious belief.

 

[protectionist]

Please show me that Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law".

Center for Security Policy Press launched a collection of monographs called the Civilization Jihad Reader Series with the publication of an update to an earlier and highly influential study concerning the insinuation of Islam’s supremacist shariah legal code into the U.S. judiciary. Entitled Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, this inaugural booklet documents 146 cases in 32 states in which a party to litigation attempted to have the matter resolved by applying shariah, rather than the statutes of the state in question.

The Center first raised an alarm about the penetration of American jurisprudence by one of the most anti-constitutional of such foreign legal codes with its 2011 report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed.

SHARIAH IN AMERICAN COURTS The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY PRESS

This study identifies a total of 146 cases involving Shariah from 32 different states and federal courts: 9 cases were found in New Jersey; 9 in Texas; 9 in New York; 8 cases were found in California; 8 in Ohio; 7 in Connecticut; 7 in Virginia; 6 in Florida; 5 in Michigan; 4 in Massachusetts; 4 in Washington; 4 in Iowa; 3 in Maryland; 3 in Nebraska; 3 in North Carolina; 2 in Georgia; 2 in Louisiana; 2 in Delaware; 2 in Illinois; 2 in Maine; 2 in New Hampshire; 2 in South Carolina; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. 33 cases were found from federal courts.

The 146 cases can be classified into fifteen categories (cases sometimes fell within more than one category): 7 cases deal with criminal law; 20 cases deal with civil law; 9 cases deal with commercial law; 14 cases deal with family law generally; 23 cases deal with child custody; 67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters; 25 cases dealt with comity; 15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens; 4 cases dealt with choice of law; 1 case involved forum selection; 3 cases involved arbitration and 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse. In addition, the cases were also assessed as to whether or not the ultimate decision of the court was in accordance with Shariah at both the trial court and appellate court levels: At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

Across the 146 cases there were 21 foreign countries from which Shariah— based legal conventions or decisions were brought to bear upon the case. Some cases made reference to more than one country while others involved Shariah without reference to a specific foreign country. Among the cases that referenced Shariah in a foreign country: 10 were from Pakistan; 8 were from Iran; 7 were from Egypt; 6 were from Jordan; 5 from Lebanon; 4 from Turkey; 3 from Saudi Arabia; 2 each were from India, Indonesia, Iraq and Nigeria; and 1 each was from Afghanistan, Algeria, Gaza [sic], Israel, Kenya; Morocco, the Philippines, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In summary, of the 146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy. This alarming success ratio of Shariah submitting American law in our state courts provides ample evidence of the increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization. This effort, and the intent of those organizations taking part in it, are described in greater detail in Appendix A and B, while Appendix C provides the reader hope for a mechanism to counter it. Finally, It should also be noted that the cases in this survey dealing with prisoner cases and asylum cases are illustrative only; there are literally too many such cases to include in this study. Indeed a whole separate volume could be produced dealing just with each of these issues.

Center for Security Policy Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Shariah_in_American_Courts1.pdf

Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System Civilization Jihad Reader Series Volume 1 Center for Security Policy 9780692345559 Amazon.com Books

Almost all of those cases were using sharia in civil disputes or cases involving dealings with other countries. None of this shows that American Muslims are calling for Sharia and Hadith to be the law of the land.

For example - here's a look at the actual cases:

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts The Nation

As an attorney, consultant or expert witness, I have handled more than 100 cases involving components of Sharia. In a case I tried in 2002, Odatalla v. Odatalla, a New Jersey couple had signed an Islamic marriage contract consistent with their cultural traditions. When the wife filed for divorce, she asked the court to enforce the mahr, or dowry provision, in her contract, which called for the husband’s payment of $10,000 upon the dissolution of their marriage. Superior Court Judge John Selser found the marriage contract valid under New Jersey law, concluding, “Clearly, this court can enforce a contract which is not in contravention of established law or public policy.”​

In a 2003 case involving Exxon Mobil and a Saudi oil company, the parties had agreed as part of a commercial transaction that Saudi law would govern any potential disputes. After the Saudi company sued its former business partner, Exxon Mobil, the Delaware Superior Court heard testimony on Saudi law, which applies traditional Sharia, and the judge instructed the jury to base its decision accordingly. The jury returned a $400 million–plus verdict in favor of Exxon Mobil and against the Saudi firm.


Finally, in a more recent case I was involved in, a state judge declined to recognize a Syrian court order that would have transferred the custody of a child to her father because of the mother’s remarriage. The judge reasoned that remarriage alone is not sufficient to transfer custody. Far from deferring to judgments from foreign countries, US courts regularly refuse to recognize such orders due to the constitutional and due-process implications.​

A few more sources:

Column The sharia myth sweeps America - USATODAY.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-foreign-law-that-incorporates-religious-law/

What you are looking at is the use of sharia in very limited ways, just like any international laws might be used because sharia is the law in certain countries. None of this shows evidence that American Muslims are pushing for this and that is what I am asking you for - evidence that American Muslims, as a group, are pushing for sharia and hadith to be the law of the land. You are flinging a lot of mud in an attempt to obscure the fact that you can not answer this.

I thought so. I answer your question sincerely, and you come back with biased bullshit invalidation cards, that I've seen 1000 times. I see no point in talking to you. And the 146 cases involved (AS I SAID ALREADY) contained cases of domestic violence, criminal cases, like the infamous New Jersey rape/wife beating case. There are thousands more cases that didn't go to court and are just Muslims imposing Sharia law on American like the Muslim cab drivers who wouldn't pick up people with alcoholic beverages, the ones who wouldn't pick up blind people with a dog, the Muslim-owned company Rising Star, who fired an employee (Lina Morales) for bringing a BLT sandwich to work, the Muslims who got airports and universities to install foot-washing basins at great expense, etc. etc etc etc.

The majority of the cases did not involve domestic violence OR criminal cases. There was only one that involved domestic violence, where the judge ruled wrongly and was overturned as was appropriate.

Drivers refusing to pick up people with alcoholic bevereges or service dogs are not "imposing sharia law" they are acting on their own religious beliefs and no different than Christians refusing to provide services to gays or dispense birth control. Whether it flies or not depends on the law.

None of this shows that Muslims in America are trying to make Sharia and Hadith The Law - you just have personal cases of religious belief.

Hey dumbass! What the fuck do you think you're doing, responding to a post that I haven't even finished posting yet ? It's only about 50% done. TAKE NOTE; DON'T EVER RESPOND TO A POST OF MINE UNTIL 24 HOURS HAS PASSED. ALLOW FOR EDITING.

I will not read your Post # 398 which purports to be a response to my 397, which irt cannot be, since my # 397 is still being written. Dumbshit.

Post # 397 will not be finished until sometime tomorrow (Sunday, May 10)

 

[JFish123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk