CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[elektra]

As it has been said, Muslims want Sharia law, but of course that does not mean all Muslims, some Muslims wish to leave Islam, which it seems can be very dangerous do to Sharia Law.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Ex-Muslims

Islam is the only major world religion that does not allow its followers the freedom to change faith. According to Shari'ah laws (extracted from the Qur'an and Sunnah), apostates of Islam must be sentenced to death. This has led to former Muslims often being persecuted, abused and killed. This treatment of apostates is not simply down to the issue of state-enforced religion as some may suggest. As you will find out on this page, the violence or threats of violence against apostates in the Muslim world usually derives not from government authorities but from family members and individuals from the Islamic communities themselves, who operate very often with impunity from the government. This point is further emphasised by the persecution and murder of former Muslims which has now become evident in many non-Muslim societies across the globe.

• Falls Church conference registration and entrance process under tight security to protect converts who fear for their lives
• Planned opening of a refuge center for Christian converts in New York City, as the plight of ex-Muslims in western countries continues to be ignored
• Ohio teenager in State custody after her father threatens to kill her because she converted to Christianity
• Runaway teen convert to Christianity who suffered from random, violent, and unprovoked beatings from her father, gets internet death threat: 'We need to kill her'
• Convert's brother brags he leaked her foster care location to Muslim stalker-blogger, who issues veiled threat, "if she's not safe in Ohio, she's not safe in Florida"
• Ex-Muslim atheist ostracized and threatened with death by Muslims temporarily living in Tulsa. His mother is told "You're not going to see your son anymore", and his Muslim wife is offered $10,000 to leave him
• Father attempts to assault his daughter and have her marriage annuled after learning of her conversion to Christianity
• New imam at the Ground Zero mosque believes people who are gay were probably abused as children and that people who leave Islam and preach a new religion should be jailed

 

[elektra]

This information seems old, but it is true, Muslims want to leave Islam, to be Christians, but they fear for their lives, for under Sharia Law, they can die.

Persecution of Ex-Muslims (United States) - WikiIslam

“'We will kill you.' That's the verbal abuse--OK?” Khaleed said. “’…One day you'll die. And you will die suddenly.’ It was death threats all the time. And I got more and more -- actually physical attacks several times -- from them.”

Khaleed left Europe and now lives in the U.S., but he is careful not to advertise his Christian faith.

So what is being done to protect converts like Khaleed? According to one former Muslim, who also wanted his face hidden, not nearly enough.

Author and renowned scholar Ibn Warraq said, “I would find it difficult to give you precise statistics, but many people have been killed by the family to save the family honor if they discover the family member has converted to Christianity, especially...and you don't hear about it. The police just turn a blind eye to it.”

Warraq is the author of Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. Warraq considers himself a secularist and lives in an undisclosed location because he fears for his family's safety. He says the left, in particular, has largely ignored the plight of apostates.

"There was an article by a Muslim in the Columbia Law Review that argued strongly enough that even Muslims in the West who leave Islam should be punished in the most severe form possible," Warraq said. “No one thought to criticize this,” Warraq said. “It was accepted by the Columbia Law Review.”

Gartenstein-Ross points to what he calls a stark contrast in the West: “Those who convert out of Christianity and to Islam are often interviewed favorably in glossy magazines, talk about their conversion very openly, and are lauded for it. It's seen as something of a brave step.”

But he says that those who leave Islam usually do so quietly, even in the Christian world, because it's dangerous -- “In large part, because even in the Christian world, those who leave Islam for Christianity are not safe,” he said.

Fred Farrokh wants to change that. Farrokh is executive director of the Jesus for Muslims Network. Raised Muslim, he is now a Christian. His book is called Jailbreak: A Christian's Guide to Praying for the Muslim World. Farrokh is opening a refuge center for Christian converts in New York City.

“Muslim background believers who are suffering persecution can come live and receive discipleship, training, equipping...and then, they themselves will be among the greatest missionaries, if you will, to Muslim people,” Farrokh said.

Warraq says that the West needs more people like Farrokh--who are willing to stand up and protect the rights of apostates here. But he says that even after the Abdul Rahman fiasco, the West remains crippled by political correctness--and largely indifferent to the plight of apostates.
Muslims Turned Christian Pay the Price
Erick Stakelbeck, CBN News, June 7, 2006

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I think it's important to recognize that the US is not Britain, for one - and that Muslims in the US come from different cultural backgrounds than many in the UK, where the majority is from Pakistan. Culture makes a big difference.

Yes -- we have many educated people from places like Iran who came here to ESCAPE this sort of thing.

Why people want to sell them down the river by giving Islamists the tool of oppression they seek is downright mystifying.

I think this where you are off base.

I know a educated people from Iran....in fact, I work with some of them. And, they are trying to find ways to stay in OUR country, because they don't get along with the Mullahs (no surprise). But despite that, they are STILL Muslims.

I disagree with your claim that ANYONE wants to "sell them down the river". This thread is melding a bit with the "regressive left thread" so I'm not sure which place to post things. Maybe both.

Instead of looking at it from a view point of complete condemnation vs complete denial (the other side) - what is there in the middle that is workable? You have religious people who want to be able to PRACTICE their religion in a way that INCLUDES the rights and equalities we value here. We should be SUPPORTING that.

What's this business of telling anyboby they can't be Muslim?

Supporting ISLAMISTS by allowing them one of the hammers they use isn't restricting Muslims from practicing their faith.

Imams steeped in Sharia Jurisprudence will deny due process to women because that is how they have been trained. The very law, itself, is discriminatory against women. I happen to believe a woman's testimony should be equal to a man's and so I listen to all those Muslim women who tell of their treatment under sharia family courts. When they are being abused by their husbands physically and the Imams tell them they should double down on the sex slavery, do you REALLY think that is consistent with liberal values? I suppose if you agree with the Islamists that they are worth less than a man, you can just ignore what they say, but I think somebody should listen to them, myself.

If we were to set up a parallel legal system in the south run exclusively by those from the KKK, would you be as eager to support it if the situation was so oppressive to people of color that they were forced to use it? Would the judgments be fair? Would they be equitable? Would you support it if a person of color were so browbeaten by the system as to claim it was their choice?

You cannot solve systemic problems by feeding the system. It is ISLAMOISTS who want sharia family courts, and once these courts are operational, pressure is put on their fellow Muslims to use it or else.

We already have a legal system predicated on equal rights. Why support the establishment of one that doesn't?

.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Can you cite a single instance - in the United States - in which anyone other than Muslims has been affected by Sharia law? Take your time.

So, what you are saying is that as long as you are not denied equal rights, it's just fine and dandy if it's just Muslim women.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[elektra]

Has anybody heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? I was not sure where I was going with this post, but an epiphany has come to me. Based on the last quote. Sharia Law has no place in the USA, Muslims do. They have not the ability to question Islam and Sharia Law, because of the Islamic Culture, and society. We must destroy Sharia Law to free these slaves. The female children grow up as slaves to Allah, yet they live in the USA. We imprison the female children to a life of slavery, by allowing Sharia law, Islamic Marriages.

Burqas and Sharia Law, as bad, but worst, than slavery of the past, for this is slavery in the 21st century.

What do Muslims want, they do not know, they are taught not to think, to question, and to submit to Allah, they are slaves. They have not the education or understanding to know what they want.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Quotes (Author of Infidel)
“However, some things must be said, and there are times when silence becomes an accomplice to injustice.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali

“I cannot emphasize enough how wrongheaded this is. Withholding criticism and ignoring differences are racism in its purest form. Yet these cultural experts fail to notice that, through their anxious avoidance of criticizing non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness. The experts may have the best of intentions, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam

“By declaring our Prophet infallible and not permitting ourselves to question him, we Muslims had set up a static tyranny. The Prophet Muhammad attempted to legislate every aspect of life. By adhering to his rules of what is permitted and what is forbidden, we Muslims supressed the freedom to think for ourselves and to act as we chose. We froze the moral outlook of billions of people into the mind-set of the Arab desert in the seventh century. We were not just servants of Allah, we were slaves.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel

 

[Vigilante]

MOD EDIT: Vig, you are in the CDZ...did you forget to wipe your feet?

 

[Coyote]

I think it's important to recognize that the US is not Britain, for one - and that Muslims in the US come from different cultural backgrounds than many in the UK, where the majority is from Pakistan. Culture makes a big difference.

Yes -- we have many educated people from places like Iran who came here to ESCAPE this sort of thing.

Why people want to sell them down the river by giving Islamists the tool of oppression they seek is downright mystifying.

I think this where you are off base.

I know a educated people from Iran....in fact, I work with some of them. And, they are trying to find ways to stay in OUR country, because they don't get along with the Mullahs (no surprise). But despite that, they are STILL Muslims.

I disagree with your claim that ANYONE wants to "sell them down the river". This thread is melding a bit with the "regressive left thread" so I'm not sure which place to post things. Maybe both.

Instead of looking at it from a view point of complete condemnation vs complete denial (the other side) - what is there in the middle that is workable? You have religious people who want to be able to PRACTICE their religion in a way that INCLUDES the rights and equalities we value here. We should be SUPPORTING that.

What's this business of telling anyboby they can't be Muslim?

Supporting ISLAMISTS by allowing them one of the hammers they use isn't restricting Muslims from practicing their faith.

Imams steeped in Sharia Jurisprudence will deny due process to women because that is how they have been trained. The very law, itself, is discriminatory against women. I happen to believe a woman's testimony should be equal to a man's and so I listen to all those Muslim women who tell of their treatment under sharia family courts. When they are being abused by their husbands physically and the Imams tell them they should double down on the sex slavery, do you REALLY think that is consistent with liberal values? I suppose if you agree with the Islamists that they are worth less than a man, you can just ignore what they say, but I think somebody should listen to them, myself.

So here is the question - do you eliminate it in it's entirety? Or, do you seek to change it to prevent some of it's abuses and provide some oversight? I posted in the other thread on this as well.

If we were to set up a parallel legal system in the south run exclusively by those from the KKK, would you be as eager to support it if the situation was so oppressive to people of color that they were forced to use it? Would the judgments be fair? Would they be equitable? Would you support it if a person of color were so browbeaten by the system as to claim it was their choice?

The problem is, the KKK is not religion and has no protections in that regard. Also, keep in mind, this "parallel legal system" is very limited in scope.

You cannot solve systemic problems by feeding the system. It is ISLAMOISTS who want sharia family courts, and once these courts are operational, pressure is put on their fellow Muslims to use it or else.

We already have a legal system predicated on equal rights. Why support the establishment of one that doesn't?

.

Ok, so here is the question - how do you support religious freedom (as expressed in rabbinical councils, sharia councils and catholic councils ruling on items of a religious nature) while making sure individual rights are protected?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Has anybody heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? I was not sure where I was going with this post, but an epiphany has come to me. Based on the last quote. Sharia Law has no place in the USA, Muslims do. They have not the ability to question Islam and Sharia Law, because of the Islamic Culture, and society. We must destroy Sharia Law to free these slaves. The female children grow up as slaves to Allah, yet they live in the USA. We imprison the female children to a life of slavery, by allowing Sharia law, Islamic Marriages.

Burqas and Sharia Law, as bad, but worst, than slavery of the past, for this is slavery in the 21st century.

What do Muslims want, they do not know, they are taught not to think, to question, and to submit to Allah, they are slaves. They have not the education or understanding to know what they want.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Quotes (Author of Infidel)
“However, some things must be said, and there are times when silence becomes an accomplice to injustice.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali

“I cannot emphasize enough how wrongheaded this is. Withholding criticism and ignoring differences are racism in its purest form. Yet these cultural experts fail to notice that, through their anxious avoidance of criticizing non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness. The experts may have the best of intentions, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam

“By declaring our Prophet infallible and not permitting ourselves to question him, we Muslims had set up a static tyranny. The Prophet Muhammad attempted to legislate every aspect of life. By adhering to his rules of what is permitted and what is forbidden, we Muslims supressed the freedom to think for ourselves and to act as we chose. We froze the moral outlook of billions of people into the mind-set of the Arab desert in the seventh century. We were not just servants of Allah, we were slaves.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel

Yep. She is a very courageous women and a true feminist.

She is also almost universally despised by much of the left that claims it stands for women's rights.

Some crazy double standards come in to play whenever the subject is Islam.

 

[elektra]

Can you cite a single instance - in the United States - in which anyone other than Muslims has been affected by Sharia law? Take your time.

9/11? The terrorists believed they were acting according to Sharia Law.

Here is one example, the mother of the boyfriend of a muslim girl was ran over by the girl's muslim father.

Muslim Man Guilty of 'Honor Killing' in Daughter's Death

An Iraqi immigrant was found guilty of second degree murder today for running over his daughter, a crime motivated, prosecutors said, by the Arizona Muslim man's belief that the 20-year-old woman had Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, was also convicted of aggravated assault, because the mother of his daughter's boyfriend was also injured when he ran down the two women with his Jeep Cherokee in a suburban Phoenix parking lot in the October 2009 incident.

 

[Coyote]

Can you cite a single instance - in the United States - in which anyone other than Muslims has been affected by Sharia law? Take your time.

9/11? The terrorists believed they were acting according to Sharia Law.

Here is one example, the mother of the boyfriend of a muslim girl was ran over by the girl's muslim father.

Muslim Man Guilty of 'Honor Killing' in Daughter's Death

An Iraqi immigrant was found guilty of second degree murder today for running over his daughter, a crime motivated, prosecutors said, by the Arizona Muslim man's belief that the 20-year-old woman had Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, was also convicted of aggravated assault, because the mother of his daughter's boyfriend was also injured when he ran down the two women with his Jeep Cherokee in a suburban Phoenix parking lot in the October 2009 incident.

9/11 was an act of terrorism, not Sharia. Your second example was murder, plain and simple.

 

[Coyote]

As it has been said, Muslims want Sharia law, but of course that does not mean all Muslims, some Muslims wish to leave Islam, which it seems can be very dangerous do to Sharia Law.

There's no reputable evidence that American Muslims want Sharia law.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So here is the question - do you eliminate it in it's entirety? Or, do you seek to change it to prevent some of it's abuses and provide some oversight? I posted in the other thread on this as well.

I would say if, and this is a big if -- if the potential Imams were subject to an absolutely exhaustive vetting process in order to select only those with a clear understanding that they must respect equality, and if there was a very rigorous oversight process, then I would support it.

If the hearings are held behind closed doors with no access, that would be a no-go for me. People should be allowed to attend, minutes and/or recordings should be taken, and the Imams in question removed if they show a track record of prejudice against women.

If the courts, themselves, were wrenched into the 21st century, they could no longer be used by those trying to freeze the world at the seventh.

 

[Syriusly]

I think it's important to recognize that the US is not Britain, for one - and that Muslims in the US come from different cultural backgrounds than many in the UK, where the majority is from Pakistan. Culture makes a big difference.

Yes -- we have many educated people from places like Iran who came here to ESCAPE this sort of thing.

Why people want to sell them down the river by giving Islamists the tool of oppression they seek is downright mystifying.

So we have persons who flee Islamic oppression and come here to the United States- and therefore we should deny them the right to worship as they please (even if they are not breaking any American laws).

That makes sense to you?

You "syriously" believe that a legal system is the same thing as worshiping ?

There is nothing implicit in the right to worship that suggests that law is included.

Should scientologists have the right to practice according to a different legal system? How about Santoria? Raelianism, perhaps?

Heck, why not just let everybody follow whatever legal system they want, eh?

You haven't been following the conversation here, have you?

I have pointed out repeatedly that everyone has to follow U.S. law, but Americans can choose to follow their religious laws when dealing with private transactions.

This applies to Muslims who choose to live by Sharia law, Jews who choose to live by Judaic law and Catholics who choose to live by Catholic law.

As an example, Catholics under U.S. law can have a civil divorce, but Catholic law prevents them from divorcing within the Catholic Church.

So yes- it is a matter of religious freedom, and yes we let Americans worship as they want to as long as they do not violate the Constitution including the rights of others.

 

[Coyote]

So here is the question - do you eliminate it in it's entirety? Or, do you seek to change it to prevent some of it's abuses and provide some oversight? I posted in the other thread on this as well.

I would say if, and this is a big if -- if the potential Imams were subject to an absolutely exhaustive vetting process in order to select only those with a clear understanding that they must respect equality, and if there was a very rigorous oversight process, then I would support it.

If the hearings are held behind closed doors with no access, that would be a no-go for me. People should be allowed to attend, minutes and/or recordings should be taken, and the Imams in question removed if they show a track record of prejudice against women.

If the courts, themselves, were wrenched into the 21st century, they could no longer be used by those trying to freeze the world at the seventh.

Should that then be applied to ALL religious councils?

Two aspects occur to me - one is competency and certification
The other is - maintaining religous freedom
The third is - maintaining individual rights

That makes three.

Seems to me that the best way to guarantee the last without infringing on religious liberty is to not give it the force of law until it's ratified by a secular court.

You really can't hold hearings in such an atmosphere without absolutely infringing on religious freedom. You can enourage the community to move in that direction - but it's not very heirarchical and unified in fact, quite the opposite - criteria for being a religious leader is all over the board.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU
We already have a legal system predicated on equal rights. Why support the establishment of one that doesn't?

.

No one is supporting the establishment of any law that does not provide equal rights.

I am supporting the rights of those Muslim Americans who chose to use Sharia law in their lives and between themselves- as long as no laws or rights are broken.

 

[elektra]

As it has been said, Muslims want Sharia law, but of course that does not mean all Muslims, some Muslims wish to leave Islam, which it seems can be very dangerous do to Sharia Law.

There's no reputable evidence that American Muslims want Sharia law.

You stated it yourself! You stated American Muslims practice Sharia Law when they eat, their diet is governed by Sharia Law.

Then of course you went much further, so I cite your post #368 as the reputable evidence that American Muslims want Sharia Law

CDZ - What do American Muslims want?

Islamic law, or sharia, is the code of religious belief and conduct that governs many aspects of Muslim life. It covers a broad range of areas, including crime and punishment; marriage, divorce and inheritance; banking and contractual relations; and diet and attire. Some elements of sharia, especially concerning worship and other religious practices, are clearly outlined in the Quran, the Islamic holy book, while other questions are settled according to different clerics’ interpretations of general sharia principles.


The purpose of sharia is to allow Muslims to live their earthly lives according to Allah’s wishes, according to Sheik Abdool Rahman Khan, an expert on sharia law and chairman of the Shariah Council of the Islamic Circle of North America, a Muslim education and advocacy group in New York City: “We believe that if we do not do things properly in this world, then we will have consequences in the hereafter.”

 

[320 Years of History]

I doesn't make any sense that anyone is having such a conniption over Sharia Law in this thread. Why, of all the things "Muslims want," may want, think they want, etc. why is there such an extreme focus on Sharia Law, most especially with regard to Muslims who are U.S. citizens or who seek American citizenship?

If Sharia Law were so damned important to them -- as important as several writers in this thread imply as a consequence of all the ruckus they're raising about it -- well, there are a ton of places those would be American citizens can go that have it in spades. It's not as though Muslim immigrants head to the U.S. thinking they will arrive in a nation governed by Sharia Law, much less by the extremely fundamentalist interpretations of it that several folks here are "on about."

What makes more sense, as evidenced by the fact that in many cases Muslim immigrants have left everything familiar to themselves and come to a new land where they know before they get here that they will face a ton of "jackass" opinion from millions of folks who talk about Sharia Law as though they are experts on it yet have never so much as read the transcripts from a Sharia Law case, don't speak Farsi or Arabic, who haven't actually read the entirety of the Quran or Bible, to say nothing of actually pursuing scholarly comparison and contrast of the two.​

Look at who is in here talking about Sharia Law, and yet not one person has dialectically presented their case.

• Has anyone in 600+ posts bothered to present the case against Sharia Law achieving comity in U.S. courtrooms from the standpoint of a Muslim?
• With regard to the treatment of women, who's, for instance, addressed the matter of personal status codes in Islamic countries or in Islam?
• Has anyone discussed the concept and application of jtihad, fitnah, or fardh? Does anyone here fully understand those concepts as expressed in Islamic culture and the role they play in Sharia Law or the treatment of women?

I tried to inject an element of cognitive rigor into the discussion only to be met by a clown who can't distinguish the difference in meaning between singular and plural nouns.

 

[Syriusly]

Has anybody heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? I was not sure where I was going with this post, but an epiphany has come to me. Based on the last quote. Sharia Law has no place in the USA, Muslims do. They have not the ability to question Islam and Sharia Law, because of the Islamic Culture, and society. We must destroy Sharia Law to free these slaves. The female children grow up as slaves to Allah, yet they live in the USA. We imprison the female children to a life of slavery, by allowing Sharia law, Islamic Marriages.

Burqas and Sharia Law, as bad, but worst, than slavery of the past, for this is slavery in the 21st century.

What do Muslims want, they do not know, they are taught not to think, to question, and to submit to Allah, they are slaves. They have not the education or understanding to know what they want.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Quotes (Author of Infidel)
“However, some things must be said, and there are times when silence becomes an accomplice to injustice.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali

“I cannot emphasize enough how wrongheaded this is. Withholding criticism and ignoring differences are racism in its purest form. Yet these cultural experts fail to notice that, through their anxious avoidance of criticizing non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness. The experts may have the best of intentions, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam

“By declaring our Prophet infallible and not permitting ourselves to question him, we Muslims had set up a static tyranny. The Prophet Muhammad attempted to legislate every aspect of life. By adhering to his rules of what is permitted and what is forbidden, we Muslims supressed the freedom to think for ourselves and to act as we chose. We froze the moral outlook of billions of people into the mind-set of the Arab desert in the seventh century. We were not just servants of Allah, we were slaves.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel

I have heard Ms. Ali's thoughts before- and there are many things I do agree with her about.

But regardless- we cannot deny Muslim Americans their religious freedom to be wrong any more than we can deny Scientologists their rights to be wrong

 

[Syriusly]

More thoughts of American Muslims:

I spoke today with a friend who is a Muslim soldier stationed at Fort Hood. He is a 22-year veteran of the U.S. Army and a recent convert to Islam. He agreed to share his perspective with me if I granted him anonymity. So we will call him Richard.


Richard is exactly the kind of soldier we need to protect our country from those that seek to do us harm. A combat veteran who has served in Iraq, Richard became interested in studying Islam initially as a strategic means of understanding his adversary in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. But as he began to study the religion’s teachings, he became struck by how different they were from what was being claimed by men like Osama Bin Laden.


Instead of a religion of hatred and misogyny, he found an Islam of love, wisdom, and human empowerment. His strategic analysis blossomed into spiritual identification, and Richard embraced Islam just over two years ago. As a “revert” (as Muslim converts like to call themselves, since Islam believes everyone is born a Muslim), Richard was faced with the added challenge of being a soldier in a conflict in which members of his new faith were on the other side.


Richard decided that the best way he could be true to his military oath and his religious convictions was to use his position as an American Muslim soldier to build bridges of understanding. He currently works as a liaison between the U.S. military and Muslim leaders in the Middle East to garner their support against the common enemy – the Islamist radicals who oppose both the American military and the mainstream Muslim community that wants nothing to do with their extremism. Richard has very much been in the forefront of our military’s efforts to win hearts and minds in the Muslim world.

 

[Coyote]

As it has been said, Muslims want Sharia law, but of course that does not mean all Muslims, some Muslims wish to leave Islam, which it seems can be very dangerous do to Sharia Law.

There's no reputable evidence that American Muslims want Sharia law.

You stated it yourself! You stated American Muslims practice Sharia Law when they eat, their diet is governed by Sharia Law.

Then of course you went much further, so I cite your post #368 as the reputable evidence that American Muslims want Sharia Law

CDZ - What do American Muslims want?

Islamic law, or sharia, is the code of religious belief and conduct that governs many aspects of Muslim life. It covers a broad range of areas, including crime and punishment; marriage, divorce and inheritance; banking and contractual relations; and diet and attire. Some elements of sharia, especially concerning worship and other religious practices, are clearly outlined in the Quran, the Islamic holy book, while other questions are settled according to different clerics’ interpretations of general sharia principles.


The purpose of sharia is to allow Muslims to live their earthly lives according to Allah’s wishes, according to Sheik Abdool Rahman Khan, an expert on sharia law and chairman of the Shariah Council of the Islamic Circle of North America, a Muslim education and advocacy group in New York City: “We believe that if we do not do things properly in this world, then we will have consequences in the hereafter.”

There is living by Sharia, and there is wanting Sharia to be the law of the land - two different things.

What are your thoughts on American Muslims - do you think they want Sharia to be the law of the land or do you think they want the Constitution to govern our land?