Just your average day of "peaceful Islam"...

[Roudy]

We're not talking about fanatics and extremists. We are talking about systems of law. You keep deflecting by trying to bring in Jews and turn this into anti-semitism issue when it's not. What you keep ignoring is that the groups that most support OT/Mosaic law being the law of the land are Christian.

The portions of Mosaic law that Jews use, like the portions of Sharia that used in western countries - involve civil and family law. What you fail to understand is that Sharia is not ONE thing. Kind of like Mosaic law in that sense. The way it's applied in Muslim countries is variable - countries with mixed system of law use Sharia for civil, and secular law for criminal and penal.

In this country there are none calling for the imposition of Sharia. Given that - and given, as you point out there are few calling for the imposition of OT/Mosaic law into our system - I have to ask why?

If the excuse being made for not making all forms of religious law illegal, is that no one in the US is calling for it to be the law of the land, then clearly Sharia and OT/Mosaic law are at the same level. No one is calling for it.

If the excuse for singling out Sharia is that it's abusive and contradictory to American values and freedoms, then so is OT/Mosaic law.

So what is it Roudy?

OT law calls for killing gays you know.

Again the comparison to Mosaic law is false.

How about you ask the Turks, Muslims themselves, why they banned Shariah law, ALL PORTIONS OF IT? Perhaps as Muslims themselves they know what it is? Just saying...

You keep dodging the issue and throwing out red herrings (this time the Turks).

Fact #1: there is no real difference between biblical law and sharia in terms of offenses and punishments.

Fact #2: there IS a minority of Christians calling for the implementation of biblical law (source previously provided)

Fact #3: there appears to be no movement in the American Muslim community to institute Sharia

Fact #4: Despite the fact that biblical law calls for essentially the same crimes and punishments and subordinate status for women....and that there is minority Christian support for it - there is no need to ban it.

Irrational Behavior: We MUST ban Sharia in the US because..because...because....we hate Muslims and they're bad and despite no evidence we know they want to impose Sharia anyway and anyone who wants to apply logic to this is just a Muslim apologist.

If the above were pointed at Jews you would be screaming anti-semite Roudy.

Case closed.

You have misrepresented many times that Shariah law originates from Mosaic law, and is therefore the same. It isn't, unless you think the Koran is the same as the Old Testament and New Testament. More false comparisons and futile attempts.

Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are two sources of Sharia (understood as the divine law): the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Qur'an is viewed as the unalterable word of God. Much of the Qur'an exhorts Muslims to general moral values; only 80 verses of the Qur'an contain legal prescriptions.[63] The Sunnah is the life and example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The Sunnah's importance as a source of Sharia, is confirmed by several verses of the Qur'an (e.g. [Quran 33:21]).[64] The Sunnah is primarily contained in the hadith or reports of Muhammad's sayings, his actions, his tacit approval of actions and his demeanor. While there is only one Qur'an, there are many compilations of hadith, with the most authentic ones forming during the sahih period (850 to 915 CE). The six acclaimed Sunni collections were compiled by (in order of decreasing importance) Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah. The collections by al-Bukhari and Muslim, regarded the most authentic, contain about 7,000 and 12,000 hadiths respectively (although the majority of entries are repetitions). The hadiths have been evaluated on authenticity, usually by determining the reliability of the narrators that transmitted them.[65] For Shias, the Sunnah may also include anecdotes The Twelve Imams.[66]
The process of interpreting the two primary sources of Islamic law is called fiqh (literally meaning "intelligence") or Islamic jurisprudence. While the above two sources are regarded as infallible, the fiqh standards may change in different contexts. Fiqh covers all aspects of law, including religious, civil, political, constitutional and procedural law.[67] Fiqh depends on 4 sources:[67]
Interpretations of the Qur'an
Interpretations of the Sunnah
Ijma, consensus amongst scholars ("collective reasoning")
Qiyas/Ijtihad analogical deduction ("individual reasoning")
Amongst the sources unique to fiqh, i.e. ijma and qiyas/ijtihad, the former is preferred.[67] In Shi'a jurisprudence the fourth source may be expanded to include formal logic (mantiq).[68] Historically the fiqh also came to include comparative law,[66] local customs (urf)[69] and laws motivated by public interest, so long as they were allowed by the above four sources.[69] Because of the involvement of human interpretation, the fiqh is considered fallible, and thus not a part of Sharia (although scholars categorize it as Islamic law).[67]

 

[High_Gravity]

And Tim McVeigh wasn't a Christian.

Incorrect.

Apparently, Tim McVeigh had a change of heart at the last minute and let a Priest administer 'Last Rights' before he died.

{In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would “improvise, adapt and overcome”, if it turned out there was an afterlife. “If I’m going to hell,” he wrote, “I’m gonna have a lot of company.”}

He was hedging his bets.

So in essence, he was raised Christian, and decided to leave this world as a Christian..

Not exactly.

And his terrorist act had nothing to do with Christianity - in fact it have more of a Connection to Islam. While scumbag Timmy never promoted Christ, he had a LOT to say about "ZOG" and other Nazi topics.

"Timothy McVeigh received the Last Rites shortly before his death a priest told reporters yesterday. Fr Ron Ashmore, of St. Margaret Mary Church, said McVeigh asked to see Terre Haute prison chaplain Fr Frank Roof in the execution chamber minutes before his death. One of McVeigh's attorneys, Nathan Chambers, said when he arrived at the prison, the warden told him a priest was available if McVeigh wanted the Last Rites. Chambers said, when he asked McVeigh, he replied: "Sure, send him in.'" Fr Ashmore said: "Tim was raised a Catholic. He knows when you ask for that, it's like saying, 'I'm sorry for everything I've done Lord. Please love me."

Timothy McVeigh asked for Last Rites on Independent Catholic News

I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, he ain't stupid enough to buy into a last second hedge.

To be fair whether Timothy McVeigh is a Christian or not is irrelevant to me because he did not commit terror in the name of Christ or for religious purposes at all.

 

[Coyote]

Again the comparison to Mosaic law is false.

How about you ask the Turks, Muslims themselves, why they banned Shariah law, ALL PORTIONS OF IT? Perhaps as Muslims themselves they know what it is? Just saying...

You keep dodging the issue and throwing out red herrings (this time the Turks).

Fact #1: there is no real difference between biblical law and sharia in terms of offenses and punishments.

Fact #2: there IS a minority of Christians calling for the implementation of biblical law (source previously provided)

Fact #3: there appears to be no movement in the American Muslim community to institute Sharia

Fact #4: Despite the fact that biblical law calls for essentially the same crimes and punishments and subordinate status for women....and that there is minority Christian support for it - there is no need to ban it.

Irrational Behavior: We MUST ban Sharia in the US because..because...because....we hate Muslims and they're bad and despite no evidence we know they want to impose Sharia anyway and anyone who wants to apply logic to this is just a Muslim apologist.

If the above were pointed at Jews you would be screaming anti-semite Roudy.

Case closed.

You have misrepresented many times that Shariah law originates from Mosaic law, and is therefore the same. It isn't, unless you think the Koran is the same as the Old Testament and New Testament. More false comparisons and futile attempts.

Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are two sources of Sharia (understood as the divine law): the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Qur'an is viewed as the unalterable word of God. Much of the Qur'an exhorts Muslims to general moral values; only 80 verses of the Qur'an contain legal prescriptions.[63] The Sunnah is the life and example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The Sunnah's importance as a source of Sharia, is confirmed by several verses of the Qur'an (e.g. [Quran 33:21]).[64] The Sunnah is primarily contained in the hadith or reports of Muhammad's sayings, his actions, his tacit approval of actions and his demeanor. While there is only one Qur'an, there are many compilations of hadith, with the most authentic ones forming during the sahih period (850 to 915 CE). The six acclaimed Sunni collections were compiled by (in order of decreasing importance) Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah. The collections by al-Bukhari and Muslim, regarded the most authentic, contain about 7,000 and 12,000 hadiths respectively (although the majority of entries are repetitions). The hadiths have been evaluated on authenticity, usually by determining the reliability of the narrators that transmitted them.[65] For Shias, the Sunnah may also include anecdotes The Twelve Imams.[66]
The process of interpreting the two primary sources of Islamic law is called fiqh (literally meaning "intelligence") or Islamic jurisprudence. While the above two sources are regarded as infallible, the fiqh standards may change in different contexts. Fiqh covers all aspects of law, including religious, civil, political, constitutional and procedural law.[67] Fiqh depends on 4 sources:[67]
Interpretations of the Qur'an
Interpretations of the Sunnah
Ijma, consensus amongst scholars ("collective reasoning")
Qiyas/Ijtihad analogical deduction ("individual reasoning")
Amongst the sources unique to fiqh, i.e. ijma and qiyas/ijtihad, the former is preferred.[67] In Shi'a jurisprudence the fourth source may be expanded to include formal logic (mantiq).[68] Historically the fiqh also came to include comparative law,[66] local customs (urf)[69] and laws motivated by public interest, so long as they were allowed by the above four sources.[69] Because of the involvement of human interpretation, the fiqh is considered fallible, and thus not a part of Sharia (although scholars categorize it as Islamic law).[67]

Which, for all that - is another red herring Roudy and doesn't address the points I made though I'm assuming it's meant to address this:

...the fact that biblical law calls for essentially the same crimes and punishments and subordinate status for women

But it doesn't.

 

[Coyote]

We are talking about the U.S. - have you clued into that yet?

You are tossing out dishonest absurdity in an attempt to cover for the crimes of Islam.

The discussion at that point was anti-Sharia law in the US and attitudes of American Muslims. Try to keep up.

Levitical law is irrelevant to any discussion, there are a net total of zero advocates. You are merely tossing out a red herring in a flaccid attempt to distract from the evil that is Islam.

Wrong. Clearly, not only do you not read your own sources, but you don't bother to read what others link to either.

Perhaps you can show me figures on the enormous number of Muslims advocating for Sharia in the US? Perhaps you can show me how they exceed in numbers the Christian Reconstructionists advocating for biblical law in the US (which isn't zero as indicated in the source I quoted)?

Perhaps you can show me anyone - even one - advocating for Levitical law in the USA?

No?

Already shown. Read the thread, I'm not going to post it again.

Were you lying for Allah?

Only this time, I suggest you read your sources first before quoting them

Read your sources yet?

 

[Coyote]

Biblical law....Actions punishable by death in the Old Testament - RationalWiki

Punishable by death (just a small sampling):

• Adultery (Leviticus 20:10-12, man and woman)
• Lying about virginity. Applies to girls who are still in their fathers' homes, who lie about their virginity, and are presented to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
• Being the victim of rape, if one is an engaged female virgin and the rape occurs in a city. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)
• (for men): Sex with a man in the same manner as sex with women. Generally interpreted as male homosexuality. The text omits any mention of and punishment for female homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22)
• Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14-16,23).
• Trying to convert people to another religion. (stoning) (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20).
• Apostasy - If most people in a town come to believe in a different god. (Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town.) (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)[6]

A lot like Sharia. Shouldn't we ban it?

 

[High_Gravity]

Biblical law....Actions punishable by death in the Old Testament - RationalWiki

Punishable by death (just a small sampling):

• Adultery (Leviticus 20:10-12, man and woman)
• Lying about virginity. Applies to girls who are still in their fathers' homes, who lie about their virginity, and are presented to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
• Being the victim of rape, if one is an engaged female virgin and the rape occurs in a city. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)
• (for men): Sex with a man in the same manner as sex with women. Generally interpreted as male homosexuality. The text omits any mention of and punishment for female homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22)
• Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14-16,23).
• Trying to convert people to another religion. (stoning) (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20).
• Apostasy - If most people in a town come to believe in a different god. (Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town.) (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)[6]

A lot like Sharia. Shouldn't we ban it?

Who practices this?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Biblical law....Actions punishable by death in the Old Testament - RationalWiki

Punishable by death (just a small sampling):

• Adultery (Leviticus 20:10-12, man and woman)
• Lying about virginity. Applies to girls who are still in their fathers' homes, who lie about their virginity, and are presented to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
• Being the victim of rape, if one is an engaged female virgin and the rape occurs in a city. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)
• (for men): Sex with a man in the same manner as sex with women. Generally interpreted as male homosexuality. The text omits any mention of and punishment for female homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22)
• Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14-16,23).
• Trying to convert people to another religion. (stoning) (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20).
• Apostasy - If most people in a town come to believe in a different god. (Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town.) (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)[6]

A lot like Sharia. Shouldn't we ban it?

So what?

Zero countries practicing, zero people advocating.

You are just dishonestly trying to create an equivalence to something that doesn't exist.

 

[Coyote]

Biblical law....Actions punishable by death in the Old Testament - RationalWiki

Punishable by death (just a small sampling):

• Adultery (Leviticus 20:10-12, man and woman)
• Lying about virginity. Applies to girls who are still in their fathers' homes, who lie about their virginity, and are presented to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
• Being the victim of rape, if one is an engaged female virgin and the rape occurs in a city. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)
• (for men): Sex with a man in the same manner as sex with women. Generally interpreted as male homosexuality. The text omits any mention of and punishment for female homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22)
• Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14-16,23).
• Trying to convert people to another religion. (stoning) (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20).
• Apostasy - If most people in a town come to believe in a different god. (Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town.) (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)[6]

A lot like Sharia. Shouldn't we ban it?

Who practices this?

It's not who practices it - it's who supports it.

In the USA, zero people support Sharia.

Therefore, logic dictates, we must create legislation banning Sharia (thus singling out one religion for discrimmination). Which means banning everything from Halal food practices, religious courts to settle civil disputes via arbritration (but - Jewish and Roman Catholic religious courts would still be ok).

Mind you - there are no American Muslims advocating for a Sharia legal system.

Rational? or discrimminatory?

 

[Coyote]

Biblical law....Actions punishable by death in the Old Testament - RationalWiki

Punishable by death (just a small sampling):

• Adultery (Leviticus 20:10-12, man and woman)
• Lying about virginity. Applies to girls who are still in their fathers' homes, who lie about their virginity, and are presented to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
• Being the victim of rape, if one is an engaged female virgin and the rape occurs in a city. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)
• (for men): Sex with a man in the same manner as sex with women. Generally interpreted as male homosexuality. The text omits any mention of and punishment for female homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22)
• Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14-16,23).
• Trying to convert people to another religion. (stoning) (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20).
• Apostasy - If most people in a town come to believe in a different god. (Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town.) (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)[6]

A lot like Sharia. Shouldn't we ban it?

So what?

Zero countries practicing, zero people advocating.

You are just dishonestly trying to create an equivalence to something that doesn't exist.

Wrong.

 

[YWN666]

At least one of the Tsarnaev brothers was an American citizen too. Was he one of the forgotten ones.

Then there is Ramsay Yousef the man who bombed the WTC the first time. Now he was a solid American family man. Then there was the Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shahzad. Don't forget Nidal Hassan the Ft. Hood shooter. He was an American Military man.

If you are saying that American muslims are not committing such atrocities, you are either not thinking, or outright lying.

I was speaking of American Muslims as a whole, not a handful of isolated cases as I already explained. If you're going to blame all Muslims for the atrocities committed, then you better be prepared to demonstrate that such violence is a regular occurrence among them and you can't. That's the point.

They aren't a significant enough percentage of the population in the United States yet. In every country where their numbers have grown, such violence is a regular occurrence. First there are isolated incidents, as the numbers grow so do the incidents. I just cited the most well known. Honor killings would add to that number significantly. Moderate muslim, Muzzammil Syed Hassan, beheaded his wife. Yaser Said killed both his daughters. Shaima Alawadi was beaten to death by her husband and daughter.

Most muslims want to live under sharia law.

Study: Most Muslims want sharia law, split on interpretation - Alarabiya.net English | Front Page

A majority of Muslims around the world want sharia law to be implemented in their countries but are split on how it should be applied, according to a study released Tuesday.

The comprehensive Pew Research Center survey conducted between 2008 and 2012 focused on 38,000 people in 39 countries drawn from a global Muslim community of 2.2 billion people.

A solid majority, notably in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, were in favor of sharia -- traditional Islamic law -- being adopted as “the law of the land” in their countries, it found.

“But I would also note that support for making sharia law does vary,” said Jim Bell, Pew's director of international survey research.

From 12 percent in Turkey, support for sharia as official national law stood at 56 percent in Tunisia, 71 percent in Nigeria, 72 percent in Indonesia, 74 percent in Egypt and 99 percent in Afghanistan.

The question is whether American Muslims want Sharia law and you keep offering irrelevant stats for Muslims in other countries.

 

[YWN666]

You did not because American Muslims are not committing such atrocities.

At least, that's what the Tsarnaev brothers told you,

OK that's TWO. You'll need a lot more than that to make me believe that 3 million American Muslims are guilty.

You clearly are doing just that.



That doesn't mean Islam is responsible.

Islam admonishes Muslims to murder or enslave all non-Mulisms.

Yeah, it is evil, and it is responsible for the people who act on the evil it promotes.

That is YOUR spin on it, anyway.

Do they? Can you show me evidence of this?

There are a dozen polls in this thread alone that show most Muslims support violence against civilians.

In this country?

Why should mainstream Muslims answer for acts committed by an extremist group?

Mainstream gun owners are punished for the actions of insane killers, and every single gun owner condemns people like James Holmes, et al. And the left is good with it - actually the left is the group perpetrating the scapegoating of gun owners.

But it is rare that a Muslims will utter even a mild reproach to terrorists, and in those rare occasions, there will be justification as to why the victims actually deserved it, even if the Muslim disapproves of the act.

So when a handful of American Muslims incite violence, you blame them all but when just a few speak up, you drop your broad brush. A little hypocritical, don't you think? Also your gun control comparison is irrelevant.

 

[Roudy]

You keep dodging the issue and throwing out red herrings (this time the Turks).

Fact #1: there is no real difference between biblical law and sharia in terms of offenses and punishments.

Fact #2: there IS a minority of Christians calling for the implementation of biblical law (source previously provided)

Fact #3: there appears to be no movement in the American Muslim community to institute Sharia

Fact #4: Despite the fact that biblical law calls for essentially the same crimes and punishments and subordinate status for women....and that there is minority Christian support for it - there is no need to ban it.

Irrational Behavior: We MUST ban Sharia in the US because..because...because....we hate Muslims and they're bad and despite no evidence we know they want to impose Sharia anyway and anyone who wants to apply logic to this is just a Muslim apologist.

If the above were pointed at Jews you would be screaming anti-semite Roudy.

Case closed.

You have misrepresented many times that Shariah law originates from Mosaic law, and is therefore the same. It isn't, unless you think the Koran is the same as the Old Testament and New Testament. More false comparisons and futile attempts.

Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are two sources of Sharia (understood as the divine law): the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Qur'an is viewed as the unalterable word of God. Much of the Qur'an exhorts Muslims to general moral values; only 80 verses of the Qur'an contain legal prescriptions.[63] The Sunnah is the life and example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The Sunnah's importance as a source of Sharia, is confirmed by several verses of the Qur'an (e.g. [Quran 33:21]).[64] The Sunnah is primarily contained in the hadith or reports of Muhammad's sayings, his actions, his tacit approval of actions and his demeanor. While there is only one Qur'an, there are many compilations of hadith, with the most authentic ones forming during the sahih period (850 to 915 CE). The six acclaimed Sunni collections were compiled by (in order of decreasing importance) Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah. The collections by al-Bukhari and Muslim, regarded the most authentic, contain about 7,000 and 12,000 hadiths respectively (although the majority of entries are repetitions). The hadiths have been evaluated on authenticity, usually by determining the reliability of the narrators that transmitted them.[65] For Shias, the Sunnah may also include anecdotes The Twelve Imams.[66]
The process of interpreting the two primary sources of Islamic law is called fiqh (literally meaning "intelligence") or Islamic jurisprudence. While the above two sources are regarded as infallible, the fiqh standards may change in different contexts. Fiqh covers all aspects of law, including religious, civil, political, constitutional and procedural law.[67] Fiqh depends on 4 sources:[67]
Interpretations of the Qur'an
Interpretations of the Sunnah
Ijma, consensus amongst scholars ("collective reasoning")
Qiyas/Ijtihad analogical deduction ("individual reasoning")
Amongst the sources unique to fiqh, i.e. ijma and qiyas/ijtihad, the former is preferred.[67] In Shi'a jurisprudence the fourth source may be expanded to include formal logic (mantiq).[68] Historically the fiqh also came to include comparative law,[66] local customs (urf)[69] and laws motivated by public interest, so long as they were allowed by the above four sources.[69] Because of the involvement of human interpretation, the fiqh is considered fallible, and thus not a part of Sharia (although scholars categorize it as Islamic law).[67]

Which, for all that - is another red herring Roudy and doesn't address the points I made though I'm assuming it's meant to address this:

...the fact that biblical law calls for essentially the same crimes and punishments and subordinate status for women

But it doesn't.

What red herring is that? The one where you kept repeating that Shariah is derived directly from Mosaic law when it wasn't? Seriously, offenses punishable by death in Old Testament stories, which even 3500 years ago, it wasn't widely practiced? So what, you're proposing they ban the Old Testament and New Testament, just because your dear barbaric Shariah law is under scrutiny? You're off your rockers.

The banning of Shariah law should and will continue, until it becomes the universal law of the land. As it is with Muslim majority Turkey.

Atatürk's Reforms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal reforms

Legal

On 8 April 1924, sharia courts were abolished with the law "Mehakim-i Şer'iyenin İlgasına ve Mehakim Teşkilatına Ait Ahkamı Muaddil Kanun".

Equality of the sexes
Atatürk's Reforms made polygamy became illegal, and became the only nation located in the Middle East that has abolished polygamy, which was officially criminalized with the adoption of the Turkish Civil Code in 1926, a milestone in Atatürk's reforms. Penalties for illegal polygamy set up to 2 years imprisonment.

Under the Islamic law, a woman's inheritance was half the share of a man where as under the new laws man and women inherited equally.
Besides the advancements, men were still officially heads of the household in the law. Women needed the head of the household's permission to travel abroad.

Equality at the workplace[edit]
Atatürk's Reforms aimed to break the traditional role of the women in the society. Between 1920 and 1938, ten percent of all university graduates were women.[31]In the workplace; In 1930 first women Judges were appointed.

 

[Coyote]

You have misrepresented many times that Shariah law originates from Mosaic law, and is therefore the same. It isn't, unless you think the Koran is the same as the Old Testament and New Testament. More false comparisons and futile attempts.

Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are two sources of Sharia (understood as the divine law): the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Qur'an is viewed as the unalterable word of God. Much of the Qur'an exhorts Muslims to general moral values; only 80 verses of the Qur'an contain legal prescriptions.[63] The Sunnah is the life and example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The Sunnah's importance as a source of Sharia, is confirmed by several verses of the Qur'an (e.g. [Quran 33:21]).[64] The Sunnah is primarily contained in the hadith or reports of Muhammad's sayings, his actions, his tacit approval of actions and his demeanor. While there is only one Qur'an, there are many compilations of hadith, with the most authentic ones forming during the sahih period (850 to 915 CE). The six acclaimed Sunni collections were compiled by (in order of decreasing importance) Muhammad al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah. The collections by al-Bukhari and Muslim, regarded the most authentic, contain about 7,000 and 12,000 hadiths respectively (although the majority of entries are repetitions). The hadiths have been evaluated on authenticity, usually by determining the reliability of the narrators that transmitted them.[65] For Shias, the Sunnah may also include anecdotes The Twelve Imams.[66]
The process of interpreting the two primary sources of Islamic law is called fiqh (literally meaning "intelligence") or Islamic jurisprudence. While the above two sources are regarded as infallible, the fiqh standards may change in different contexts. Fiqh covers all aspects of law, including religious, civil, political, constitutional and procedural law.[67] Fiqh depends on 4 sources:[67]
Interpretations of the Qur'an
Interpretations of the Sunnah
Ijma, consensus amongst scholars ("collective reasoning")
Qiyas/Ijtihad analogical deduction ("individual reasoning")
Amongst the sources unique to fiqh, i.e. ijma and qiyas/ijtihad, the former is preferred.[67] In Shi'a jurisprudence the fourth source may be expanded to include formal logic (mantiq).[68] Historically the fiqh also came to include comparative law,[66] local customs (urf)[69] and laws motivated by public interest, so long as they were allowed by the above four sources.[69] Because of the involvement of human interpretation, the fiqh is considered fallible, and thus not a part of Sharia (although scholars categorize it as Islamic law).[67]

Which, for all that - is another red herring Roudy and doesn't address the points I made though I'm assuming it's meant to address this:

...the fact that biblical law calls for essentially the same crimes and punishments and subordinate status for women

But it doesn't.

What red herring is that? The one where you kept repeating that Shariah is derived directly from Mosaic law when it wasn't? Seriously, offenses punishable by death in Old Testament stories, which even 3500 years ago, it wasn't widely practiced? So what, you're proposing they ban the Old Testament and New Testament, just because your dear barbaric Shariah law is under scrutiny? You're off your rockers.

The banning of Shariah law should and will continue, until it becomes the universal law of the land. As it is with Muslim majority Turkey.

Atatürk's Reforms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal reforms

Legal

On 8 April 1924, sharia courts were abolished with the law "Mehakim-i Şer'iyenin İlgasına ve Mehakim Teşkilatına Ait Ahkamı Muaddil Kanun".

Equality of the sexes
Atatürk's Reforms made polygamy became illegal, and became the only nation located in the Middle East that has abolished polygamy, which was officially criminalized with the adoption of the Turkish Civil Code in 1926, a milestone in Atatürk's reforms. Penalties for illegal polygamy set up to 2 years imprisonment.

Under the Islamic law, a woman's inheritance was half the share of a man where as under the new laws man and women inherited equally.
Besides the advancements, men were still officially heads of the household in the law. Women needed the head of the household's permission to travel abroad.

Equality at the workplace[edit]
Atatürk's Reforms aimed to break the traditional role of the women in the society. Between 1920 and 1938, ten percent of all university graduates were women.[31]In the workplace; In 1930 first women Judges were appointed.

We are talking about American Muslims, freedom of religion and no support for Sharia in the US.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not who practices it - it's who supports it.

Which is no one at all - so just another red herring.

In the USA, zero people support Sharia.

Will Allah reward you per lie? I mean, as you tell more and more lies, do you amass greater rewards in the Muslim paradise?

Therefore, logic dictates, we must create legislation banning Sharia (thus singling out one religion for discrimmination). Which means banning everything from Halal food practices, religious courts to settle civil disputes via arbritration (but - Jewish and Roman Catholic religious courts would still be ok).

Mind you - there are no American Muslims advocating for a Sharia legal system.

Rational? or discrimminatory?

The only logic in your dishonest posts is logical fallacy - which is overbearing.

 

[Roudy]

Coyote:

In the USA, ZERO people support Shariah.

Wow, you are either that delusional to actually believe that, or, you are lying through your teeth. I just posted 50 court cases all over the US where Sharia law was a factor.

 

[Roudy]

Which, for all that - is another red herring Roudy and doesn't address the points I made though I'm assuming it's meant to address this:

...the fact that biblical law calls for essentially the same crimes and punishments and subordinate status for women

But it doesn't.

What red herring is that? The one where you kept repeating that Shariah is derived directly from Mosaic law when it wasn't? Seriously, offenses punishable by death in Old Testament stories, which even 3500 years ago, it wasn't widely practiced? So what, you're proposing they ban the Old Testament and New Testament, just because your dear barbaric Shariah law is under scrutiny? You're off your rockers.

The banning of Shariah law should and will continue, until it becomes the universal law of the land. As it is with Muslim majority Turkey.

Atatürk's Reforms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal reforms

Legal

On 8 April 1924, sharia courts were abolished with the law "Mehakim-i Şer'iyenin İlgasına ve Mehakim Teşkilatına Ait Ahkamı Muaddil Kanun".

Equality of the sexes
Atatürk's Reforms made polygamy became illegal, and became the only nation located in the Middle East that has abolished polygamy, which was officially criminalized with the adoption of the Turkish Civil Code in 1926, a milestone in Atatürk's reforms. Penalties for illegal polygamy set up to 2 years imprisonment.

Under the Islamic law, a woman's inheritance was half the share of a man where as under the new laws man and women inherited equally.
Besides the advancements, men were still officially heads of the household in the law. Women needed the head of the household's permission to travel abroad.

Equality at the workplace[edit]
Atatürk's Reforms aimed to break the traditional role of the women in the society. Between 1920 and 1938, ten percent of all university graduates were women.[31]In the workplace; In 1930 first women Judges were appointed.

We are talking about American Muslims, freedom of religion and no support for Sharia in the US.

Ha ha ha. Just the thought that you think that is even remotely true, is funny. I guess you haven't been listening to Sunni man, right here on this board, who not only supports Shariah, but thinks Muslim Americans should be allowed to have four wives. Heck he knows many that have four wives, but they are married to one and the rest are only married according to Islamic law and live with the husband. LOL

 

[High_Gravity]

What red herring is that? The one where you kept repeating that Shariah is derived directly from Mosaic law when it wasn't? Seriously, offenses punishable by death in Old Testament stories, which even 3500 years ago, it wasn't widely practiced? So what, you're proposing they ban the Old Testament and New Testament, just because your dear barbaric Shariah law is under scrutiny? You're off your rockers.

The banning of Shariah law should and will continue, until it becomes the universal law of the land. As it is with Muslim majority Turkey.

Atatürk's Reforms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal reforms

Legal

On 8 April 1924, sharia courts were abolished with the law "Mehakim-i Şer'iyenin İlgasına ve Mehakim Teşkilatına Ait Ahkamı Muaddil Kanun".

Equality of the sexes
Atatürk's Reforms made polygamy became illegal, and became the only nation located in the Middle East that has abolished polygamy, which was officially criminalized with the adoption of the Turkish Civil Code in 1926, a milestone in Atatürk's reforms. Penalties for illegal polygamy set up to 2 years imprisonment.

Under the Islamic law, a woman's inheritance was half the share of a man where as under the new laws man and women inherited equally.
Besides the advancements, men were still officially heads of the household in the law. Women needed the head of the household's permission to travel abroad.

Equality at the workplace[edit]
Atatürk's Reforms aimed to break the traditional role of the women in the society. Between 1920 and 1938, ten percent of all university graduates were women.[31]In the workplace; In 1930 first women Judges were appointed.

We are talking about American Muslims, freedom of religion and no support for Sharia in the US.

Ha ha ha. Just the thought that you think that is even remotely true, is funny. I guess you haven't been listening to Sunni man, right here on this board, who not only supports Shariah, but thinks Muslim Americans should be allowed to have four wives. Heck he knows many that have four wives, but they are married to one and the rest are only married according to Islamic law and live with the husband. LOL

Having 4 wives is easy, only marry one legally and just keep the others off the books. I am sure plenty have done this.

 

[Roudy]

Which, for all that - is another red herring Roudy and doesn't address the points I made though I'm assuming it's meant to address this:

...the fact that biblical law calls for essentially the same crimes and punishments and subordinate status for women

But it doesn't.

What red herring is that? The one where you kept repeating that Shariah is derived directly from Mosaic law when it wasn't? Seriously, offenses punishable by death in Old Testament stories, which even 3500 years ago, it wasn't widely practiced? So what, you're proposing they ban the Old Testament and New Testament, just because your dear barbaric Shariah law is under scrutiny? You're off your rockers.

The banning of Shariah law should and will continue, until it becomes the universal law of the land. As it is with Muslim majority Turkey.

Atatürk's Reforms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal reforms

Legal

On 8 April 1924, sharia courts were abolished with the law "Mehakim-i Şer'iyenin İlgasına ve Mehakim Teşkilatına Ait Ahkamı Muaddil Kanun".

Equality of the sexes
Atatürk's Reforms made polygamy became illegal, and became the only nation located in the Middle East that has abolished polygamy, which was officially criminalized with the adoption of the Turkish Civil Code in 1926, a milestone in Atatürk's reforms. Penalties for illegal polygamy set up to 2 years imprisonment.

Under the Islamic law, a woman's inheritance was half the share of a man where as under the new laws man and women inherited equally.
Besides the advancements, men were still officially heads of the household in the law. Women needed the head of the household's permission to travel abroad.

Equality at the workplace[edit]
Atatürk's Reforms aimed to break the traditional role of the women in the society. Between 1920 and 1938, ten percent of all university graduates were women.[31]In the workplace; In 1930 first women Judges were appointed.

We are talking about American Muslims, freedom of religion and no support for Sharia in the US.

Then what's this shariah approved polygamy? <LOL>

Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy : NPR

No one knows how many Muslims in the U.S. live in polygamous families. But according to academics researching the issue, estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 people.

Secret Ceremonies

In the past decade, Muslim clerics began to notice that some men who wanted a religious wedding were already married to someone else.

Mona, a Palestinian woman with six children from her first marriage, is happy to be a second wife. When Mona got divorced in 1990, she became a pariah in her conservative Muslim community in Patterson, N.J.

 

[Sunni Man]

Having 4 wives is easy, only marry one legally and just keep the others off the books. I am sure plenty have done this.

We learned how to get away with it from the Mormons. ..

 

[PrometheusBound]

Did you read this in WorldNetDaily?

I don't use pre-owned professional sources or their clones on the Internet. I analyze things from logic, experience, and knowledge of historical facts rather than accepting the historians' conclusions from what they have mindlessly investigated. This evolutionary challenge has been with us for 30,000 years; it is now in one of its most threatening phases.

In your case citing the crap from WND would be a step up on the credibility ladder.

OK, Young White Neutered 666, you've just proved you can't answer my accusation against these pre-historic subhumans. A typical correlation was that the bloodthirsty psycho Mongols, who made Hitler look like Mother Teresa, converted to Islam after they went on their rampage in the Middle East. Any one with a long view of history could have seen that coming, just as the present Nazislami war against civilization was predictable.