CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[320 Years of History]

I presume most folks here genuinely care more about resolving "the problem" than about vitriolic rhetoric, even though the nature and timbre of many of the thread's posts allude oppositely. Giving the benefit of the doubt, however, I imagine everyone has watched Dr. Zakaria's Why Do They Hate Us. If you didn't see it (I haven't seen a full publishing of the show on the WWW, but CNN may rebroadcast it at some point.), the didactic, poignant and insightful conclusion from it is below in text format.

The next time you hear of a terror attack — no matter where it is, no matter what the circumstances — you will likely think to yourself, “It’s Muslims again.” And you will probably be right.

In 2014, about 30,000 people were killed in terror attacks worldwide. The vast majority of those perpetrating the violence were Muslim but — and this is important — so were the victims. Of the some 30,000 dead, the vast, vast majority were Muslims.

That’s crucial to understand because it sheds light on the question, “Why do they hate us?” Islamic terrorists don’t just hate America or the West. They hate the modern world, and they particularly hate Muslims who are trying to live in the modern world.

Let’s be clear. While the jihadis are few, there is a larger cancer within the world of Islam — a cancer of backwardness and extremism and intolerance. Most of the countries that have laws that restrict the free exercise of religion are Muslim majority, while those that have laws against leaving the faith are Muslim majority.

But are these things inherent in the religion?

When experts try to explain that in the 14th century, Islamic civilization was the world’s most advanced, or that the Quran was once read as a liberal and progressive document, they’re not trying to deny the realities of backwardness today. What they are saying is that it can change.

Islam, after all, has been around for 14 centuries. There have been periods of war and of peace. Before 1900, for hundreds of years, Jews fled European pogroms and persecution to live in relative peace and security under the Ottoman Caliphate. That’s why there were a million Jews in the Muslim Middle East in 1900. Today, Jews and Christians are fleeing from Iraq and Syria and radical Islamists take control of those lands. It’s the same religion then and now. So what is different?

It’s not theology, it’s politics. Radical Islam is the product of the broken politics and stagnant economics of Muslim countries — they have found in radical religion an ideology that lets them rail against the modern world, an ideology that is now being exported to alienated young Muslims everywhere — in Europe, and even in some rare cases in the United States.

How can we bring an end to this?

There’s really only one way: Help the majority of Muslims fight extremists, reform their faith, and modernize their societies. In doing so, we should listen to those on the front lines, many of whom are fighting and dying in the struggle against jihadis. The hundreds of Muslim reformers I’ve spoken to say their task is made much harder when Western politicians and pundits condemn Islam entirely, demean their faith, and speak of all Muslims as backward and suspect.

But here’s another way to think about this. In America, African-Americans make up about 13 percent of the population, yet they comprise about 50 percent of homicide offenders, according to a Justice Department study. Now we understand — I hope we understand — that when we see a black man on the street, we cannot and must not treat him as a likely criminal. It would be dehumanizing, unfair and racist. In America, of all places, people should be treated as individuals and not as stereotypes from a racial, ethnic or religious group. And remember, the Bangladeshi cabdriver who drives you to the airport has nothing, nothing to do with ISIS, even though he is also a Muslim.

Of course, it is hard not to make these quick associations — especially in the wake of a terror attack. But if America is about anything, it is the idea that people should be judged as individuals with individual liberties and rights. It is what they hate about us. We might as well live up to our own ideals.
​

 

[320 Years of History]

The whole point is; islamists in this country see themselves worthy of enjoying the luxury to practice their religion freely, to the point of enjoying sharia courts...

While I have no issue with the idea of granting courtroom and jurisprudential comity of Sharia Law to Muslims in civil or criminal cases, comity constitutes the limit of inclusiveness I have for it in U.S. jurisprudence.

they see no problem voting for their islamist parties promoting anti-secular sharia laws...

While I'm unprepared to argue the accuracy of the motivational and intuitive similarity impelling the behavior you describe and that of American voters, the passage quoted above immediately reminded me of the incongruity observed in the U.S. whereby we incessantly hear of the dissatisfaction with Washington, yet overwhelmingly, incumbents consistently win reelection, until they really screw up. There appears to be a collective sense in the electorate that "they are all 'a mess,' except the one(s) I helped send back to Washington," and therein lies the dichotomy that produces our near incessantly impotent, inefficient and ineffective modality of political governance. And yet we have this bizarre charade of a GOP candidate of whom can be accurately said that the raisons d'etre for his electoral success thus far is (1) that he isn't an experienced politician, public policy maker, economist, sociologist, philosopher, etc., and (2) he unabashedly and with unintelligent sympathy proposes idiotic initiatives that make sense because they are common, not because they are commonsensical.

 

[Coyote]

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

If you look at the history of ghettos they are not created by ethnic culture. You cant force people to take on your beliefs and abandon their culture. Thats a personal choice.

Discussion here is about isolation in terms of liberty, justice and law. The cultures practicing Islam come from places where ALL of that is rolled into the culture. The power and authority of those cultures stem from religious law. CONTINUING that practice in a Western culture is gonna lead to huge conflicts with actual Civil law and liberties.

The discussion here is about what American Muslims want.

Some want mediation services like those used by Jews and Catholics and Christians.

Most don't.

As long as those practices do not violate U.S. law, then Americans are free- and should be free to practice their religion as they see fit. And that includes working within their religion to resolve disputes.

Polling and Analysis

April 8, 2013
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year.1 In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

According to Khan, at the Islamic Circle of North America the resolution of each case also must be in line with secular American law and procedure. For instance, he says, “I let people know that I cannot issue a [religious] divorce decree unless a court has given them a [civil] divorce document first.”

Here's the diff. And it has NOTHING to do with the SCOPE or CONTENT of any of these religious laws. It's a matter of trust actually.

Americans TRUST that Catholics/Jews are largely confining themselves to things like anullments and financial disputes that are no where near CRIMINAL matters...

And since when do you speak for all Americans or even any other Americans other than yourself?

What you are saying is really nothing more than a religious bias.

And since when in America do we allow a bias for or against any religion to determine how we treat the people who follow that religion?

Whether you trust Catholics or Jews more than you trust Muslims is immaterial.

They all have the same rights under the Constitution.

You find examples of abuse of religious courts- criminal or civil abuse- and regardless of what religion it is, and I will be glad to condemn it.

But what I can condemn right now is an argument that we should treat one religious group differently in America because you have decided that you don't trust them as much.

I strongly suspect it DOES occur in regards to divorce where the desire is to keep a marriage intact and the religion gives males more weight - and that applies really to the 3 groups we've brought up - Islam, Orthodox Judaism and Catholocism ALL have the potential to overlook abuse (hell, we know the Catholic church did.....) so singling out one for different treatment is a dangerous erosion of religious freedom.

 

[Coyote]

I could certainly produce the evidence that there are attempts to handle criminal matters as they were handled in the "old country". Unlike those Catholic authorities who didn't USE religious law to justify their decision not to report criminal or serious civil matters to authorities -- there is a clear danger that Sharia WOULD be used to counsel women (EG) to place the sanctity of the Islamic family ABOVE their rights as American citizens. OR to justify not reporting that son or daughter who has been radicalized and seeks to go fight with ISIS in the Sinai.

This produced a bit more thinking on my part (ignore the smoke)...the Catholic authorities DID use religious law to justify their decision not to report it to the secular authorities - they felt it could or should, be handled under canonical law.

I don't see how there is any greater danger of having them counsel a woman to place the sanctity of the Islamic family above their rights as an American citizen then there is in any of the other religious counseling venus.

For example:

Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome: Christian Women and Domestic Violence

Andersen writes from personal experience, describing an episode of being held hostage by her husband—an associate pastor in their Kansas Baptist church—for close to twenty hours after he’d nearly fractured her skull. Andersen was raised in the Southern Baptist Convention, where she heard an unremitting message of “submission, submission, submission.” She saw this continual focus reflected in her ex-husband’s denunciations, while he detained her, of women who wanted to “rule over men.” Though Andersen was rescued by her church’s pastor, who had his assistant pastor arrested himself, she says other churchwomen aren’t so lucky, particularly when churches tell couples to attend joint marriage counseling under lay ministry leaders with no specific training for abuse survivors, who instead offer an unswerving prescription of submission and headship, often telling women to learn to submit “better.”​

Orthodox Jewish communities sweep abuse under rug | Pavement Pieces

One in four women in the United States will suffer domestic violence in her lifetime. There is no evidence that Orthodox communities have any higher — or lower — incidence of domestic violence. But the secretive way the community handles it differs from the norm: In Orthodox communities, it is looked down upon to openly talk about private family issues, report to the police or get divorced. The first Orthodox domestic violence agency was created in 1986 — 12 years after the first mainstream domestic violence agency. Since then, 70 more agencies have opened, said Nancy Aiken, director of Counseling, Hotline and Aid Network for Abused Women in Baltimore, Md.


There is a hush-hush sentiment in Orthodox communities, which experts say dates back to biblical law. Shoshana Ringel, an associate professor and co-chair at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, interviewed 10 Orthodox domestic violence survivors in a 2007 study in Research on Social Work Practice. She found that denial, avoidance, shame and fear of divorce in the Orthodox community act as barriers for women seeking help.

...A few days after Sarah left her husband, the Cohens went back to town where they lived to go to the hospital. Sarah was not positive, but thought her husband had drugged and raped her. They decided she should get a rape examination, in case her suspicion was correct.


The events that unfolded at the hospital shocked an already shock-ridden family.


“It started out as a normal rape exam. But then the rabbis found out we were there. The rabbinic liaison to the police department (in that neighborhood) told all the rabbis. They tried to get her put in a mental institution because they thought she was lying. It was a horror story,” Cohen said.​

There are a lot of similarities to the situation for Muslim women, and especially when you read about community, shame, biblical values and roles, and the advice of religious clergy.

 

[320 Years of History]

This is what I think...I don't know how true or false it is....

Muslims are like Americans: Most of them want X, and a very vocal minority of them want something other than X, and that minority's volume creates the impression among "everyone else" that most or all Muslims want that "other than X" shit when in fact they don't.

IMO, the vocal minority of Muslims want to return the planet's cultural clocks to about 700 A.D. The remaining Muslims seem to me perfectly content to allow their practice of Islam to evolve with the rest of the world, albeit a few ticks more slowly.

 

[alpine]

The whole point is; islamists in this country see themselves worthy of enjoying the luxury to practice their religion freely, to the point of enjoying sharia courts...

While I have no issue with the idea of granting courtroom and jurisprudential comity of Sharia Law to Muslims in civil or criminal cases, comity constitutes the limit of inclusiveness I have for it in U.S. jurisprudence.

they see no problem voting for their islamist parties promoting anti-secular sharia laws...

While I'm unprepared to argue the accuracy of the motivational and intuitive similarity impelling the behavior you describe and that of American voters, the passage quoted above immediately reminded me of the incongruity observed in the U.S. whereby we incessantly hear of the dissatisfaction with Washington, yet overwhelmingly, incumbents consistently win reelection, until they really screw up. There appears to be a collective sense in the electorate that "they are all 'a mess,' except the one(s) I helped send back to Washington," and therein lies the dichotomy that produces our near incessantly impotent, inefficient and ineffective modality of political governance. And yet we have this bizarre charade of a GOP candidate of whom can be accurately said that the raisons d'etre for his electoral success thus far is (1) that he isn't an experienced politician, public policy maker, economist, sociologist, philosopher, etc., and (2) he unabashedly and with unintelligent sympathy proposes idiotic initiatives that make sense because they are common, not because they are commonsensical.

The difference is that;

American voters are voting in this country, where they are living, so they are impacted by the consequences first hand

The American muslims voting in their mother land elections, are voting in a country they are not living in anymore, therefore, there is no consequences as a result


Although this is not as common as in europe, you will find an American muslim voter voting liberal in this country, so they can enjoy the extended religious freedoms; and vote full blown conservative in their mother land elections, and elect a hard liner right wing islamist anti-secular government into power that regularly flex its muscles on religious minorities...


How is this fair?

How is this honest?

 

[Syriusly]

If you look at the history of ghettos they are not created by ethnic culture. You cant force people to take on your beliefs and abandon their culture. Thats a personal choice.

Discussion here is about isolation in terms of liberty, justice and law. The cultures practicing Islam come from places where ALL of that is rolled into the culture. The power and authority of those cultures stem from religious law. CONTINUING that practice in a Western culture is gonna lead to huge conflicts with actual Civil law and liberties.

The discussion here is about what American Muslims want.

Some want mediation services like those used by Jews and Catholics and Christians.

Most don't.

As long as those practices do not violate U.S. law, then Americans are free- and should be free to practice their religion as they see fit. And that includes working within their religion to resolve disputes.

Polling and Analysis

April 8, 2013
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year.1 In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

According to Khan, at the Islamic Circle of North America the resolution of each case also must be in line with secular American law and procedure. For instance, he says, “I let people know that I cannot issue a [religious] divorce decree unless a court has given them a [civil] divorce document first.”

Here's the diff. And it has NOTHING to do with the SCOPE or CONTENT of any of these religious laws. It's a matter of trust actually.

Americans TRUST that Catholics/Jews are largely confining themselves to things like anullments and financial disputes that are no where near CRIMINAL matters...

And since when do you speak for all Americans or even any other Americans other than yourself?

What you are saying is really nothing more than a religious bias.

And since when in America do we allow a bias for or against any religion to determine how we treat the people who follow that religion?

Whether you trust Catholics or Jews more than you trust Muslims is immaterial.

They all have the same rights under the Constitution.

You find examples of abuse of religious courts- criminal or civil abuse- and regardless of what religion it is, and I will be glad to condemn it.

But what I can condemn right now is an argument that we should treat one religious group differently in America because you have decided that you don't trust them as much.

I strongly suspect it DOES occur in regards to divorce where the desire is to keep a marriage intact and the religion gives males more weight - and that applies really to the 3 groups we've brought up - Islam, Orthodox Judaism and Catholocism ALL have the potential to overlook abuse (hell, we know the Catholic church did.....) so singling out one for different treatment is a dangerous erosion of religious freedom.

There are other religious groups that I suspect that can happen with- including the Church of Latter Day Saints, Scientologists and the Amish.

There is always a potential for abuse in any religious group- which is inherently based on rules that we may not agree with- but if we believe in the right of freedom of religion we have to allow people that freedom until it is abused- rather than presuming it will be abused- especially if the presumption is only for one specific religion.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

If you look at the history of ghettos they are not created by ethnic culture. You cant force people to take on your beliefs and abandon their culture. Thats a personal choice.

Discussion here is about isolation in terms of liberty, justice and law. The cultures practicing Islam come from places where ALL of that is rolled into the culture. The power and authority of those cultures stem from religious law. CONTINUING that practice in a Western culture is gonna lead to huge conflicts with actual Civil law and liberties.

The discussion here is about what American Muslims want.

Some want mediation services like those used by Jews and Catholics and Christians.

Most don't.

As long as those practices do not violate U.S. law, then Americans are free- and should be free to practice their religion as they see fit. And that includes working within their religion to resolve disputes.

Polling and Analysis

April 8, 2013
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year.1 In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

According to Khan, at the Islamic Circle of North America the resolution of each case also must be in line with secular American law and procedure. For instance, he says, “I let people know that I cannot issue a [religious] divorce decree unless a court has given them a [civil] divorce document first.”

Here's the diff. And it has NOTHING to do with the SCOPE or CONTENT of any of these religious laws. It's a matter of trust actually.

Americans TRUST that Catholics/Jews are largely confining themselves to things like anullments and financial disputes that are no where near CRIMINAL matters...

And since when do you speak for all Americans or even any other Americans other than yourself?

What you are saying is really nothing more than a religious bias.

And since when in America do we allow a bias for or against any religion to determine how we treat the people who follow that religion?

Whether you trust Catholics or Jews more than you trust Muslims is immaterial.

They all have the same rights under the Constitution.

You find examples of abuse of religious courts- criminal or civil abuse- and regardless of what religion it is, and I will be glad to condemn it.

But what I can condemn right now is an argument that we should treat one religious group differently in America because you have decided that you don't trust them as much.

Sorry you didn't understand me. I don't have a problem with Islam. I don't have a problem with American Muslims. I hate Arab culture. For very good reasons. And i thought i made it clear that this "trust" issue did NOT matter with 2nd or older generation Amer. Muslims or converts. I EXPLICITLY have been saying the problem is with ACCELERATED Muslim integration where fresh new folks who have only known the Tyranny of Arab government and the mixed in versions of Sharia law might EXPECT that American Mosques would CONTINUE to support their EXPECTED concepts of law and justice.

OR --- as has been the case in Lefty Euroland, new immigrants CAN expect that the local govts will turn a blind eye to enforcement of Civil laws in the "ghettos" and police and contact with the sovereign system of Western justice will be virtually non-existent where they live and work..

I don't want to see accelerated Muslim lead to similar CULTURAL problems here.

 

[Syriusly]

[

Although this is not as common as in europe, you will find an American muslim voter voting liberal in this country, so they can enjoy the extended religious freedoms; and vote full blown conservative in their mother land elections
How is this fair?

How is this honest?

I certainly don't know- which American Muslim voter will you find doing that? I certainly don't know any.

I am not certain that your question is fair or honest- because I don't know of any actual examples that exist that fit your scenario.

 

[flacaltenn]

Trust is heavily influenced by popular opinion...not always fact. And to base policy involving religious freedom and discrimination on public perception is wrong imo....

When JFK was elected, he had a huge hurdle to overcome in regards to trust because he was a Catholic and the prevailing opinions were Catholics were more loyal to the Pope (who was some kind of nebulous EVIL entity...) and they could not be trusted.

Pffft.. Do the Dems ever KNOW that Bernie is a Jew? Guarantee a lot of far left supporters would feel conflicted if they knew...

Hey - I LOVE Bernie - he got my vote! Everyone knows he's a Jew, I'm not conflicted because he, as a person has a shitload of integrity and a consistent unvarying message

Let's start on the obvious --- do you trust Scientology to handle family matters and financial settlements? You "think" MAYBE there's more going on there in matters of "religious law"? Should we be concerned? OF COURSE.

So -- what do you think a 1000 BRAND NEW syrian immigrants dropped out in Peoria might expect from their Mosque and muslim community leaders in terms of adjudicating things that IN THIS country should ALWAYS be criminal matters -- or MORE than mundane Civil disputes?

Guy beats his wife for watching Oprah on American TV or going for a driving lesson ---- think that should be a "religious mediation"?

I think I've made it clear that these religious "mediations" are ONLY for civil matters - NOT for criminal matters. Domestic abuse is CRIMINAL and should be turned over to the secular authorities without question. Just like the pedophile priests. I've never said otherwise.

Here's the thing. Big worry with Islamic religious rulings on civil situations is with domestic abuse. If it's suspected, it should be reported to the proper SECULAR authorities. But lets look at the situation in perspective.

Many religious people are reluctant to divorce because the major religions frown upon it. Women are "encouraged" to stand by their man and...violence is somehow the victims fault. Usually, the first option is to go to one's religious authority - priest, imam, rabbi for marital counseling or, if seeking a religious divorce - counseling is first suggested and it really is often helpful in working through disputes particularly if both members are religious.

There is this implied assumption that Islam is uniquely brutal to women and that therefore religious counseling can not possibly be done in such a way that benefits the woman. That's a stereotype that ignores the reality of domestic abuse in this country which is that it can occur anywhere to any person. Reporting it can occur but if the woman refuses to press charges or even go to the police - what then?

There is good religious counseling and there is bad religious counseling, and in another post - not sure if it was in this thread - it's quite clear that in Britain at least, the quality of advice given to women is all over the board. One of the common complaints - not just of Islamic counseling, but also in Catholic and Jewish groups also, is that domestic abuse is not reported and couples are encouraged to stay together because the cultural proscription against divorce is so strong.

So what are you going to do with these people and, if denied a religious avenue - what will you give them that is acceptable and not an infringement of state into religion? And I mean not just Muslim women, but Orthodox Jews and Catholics. Observent Orthodox Jewish women, even if abused are in the same position as observent Muslim women - Jewish women can not get a religious divorce without her husband providing the "get". Islamic women CAN - but, may not know it (bad advising) or they have pay money they don't have if the man controls the purse so they too are stuck.

What is a win - win situation where vulnerable women can be identified and helped, and those people who need a religious avenue can get what they need?

There are a lot of strategies that are possibly more effective then outright bans and that don't cross the freedom of religion line - for example: American Orthodox Jewish Women and Domestic Violence: An Intervention Design | University of Chicago - SSA

That "religious court" WILL BE USED AS A CRUTCH -- to avoid cultural immersion. And I simply don't TRUST that it won't because of the CULTURAL differences are to freaking enormous..

Do you have any evidence that this is causing a lack of "cultural immersion" in the US?

Cultural immersion doesn't and never has meant giving up one's religion - it means accommodating it to the cultural norms of the country you are now a citizen of and inevitably, over several generations that has happened in this country regardless of dire warnings.

Do you realize that the argument on "cultural differences" is the same one that has been used on other immigrant groups? Yet, they assimilated.

Wouldn't simply mandating that religious rulings have NO FORCE OF LAW without a secular court backing resolve the main problem which is protecting vulnerable people?

you are on the right track. And appreciate the effort to BUILD the trust that is required for tolerance of religious practices.

I could certainly produce the evidence that there are attempts to handle criminal matters as they were handled in the "old country". Unlike those Catholic authorities who didn't USE religious law to justify their decision not to report criminal or serious civil matters to authorities -- there is a clear danger that Sharia WOULD be used to counsel women (EG) to place the sanctity of the Islamic family ABOVE their rights as American citizens. OR to justify not reporting that son or daughter who has been radicalized and seeks to go fight with ISIS in the Sinai.

I'll go fetch your "evidence" after I'm done moving a couple ton of wall rock from one place to another in my yard. Consider it a religiously imposed penalty for disagreeing with you.. Hope you're happy.

umh....you can have some of my m&m's....at no charge...

I think the "not reporting" radicalization is complicated - many are not aware of what is happening until it's too late, ISIS is supremely good at "grooming" and I would liken their methods to a pedophile ring in that respect.

What needs to be done and is being done is Imams and people within their community banding together to identify vulnerable youth, come up with strategies to deflect ISIS propoganda and help young people resist it.

Another aspect is - what will happen to their children if they are reported to authorities? Are they faced with the prospect of losing them to ISIS vs losing them to the prison system? For a parent, this must be a horrible choice and, if they are immigrants from countries with corrupt and brutal regimes, they are going to have a difficult time trusting authorities.

There is not an easy answer here and my heart breaks for the parents - every time they lose a child to this group. Once they leave the US, there gone. There is no sure and safe way to bring them in that I'm aware of - it's a tricky and horrible situation.

"Your heart breaks" about the parent facing a choice of losing a child to ISIS or prison? My God -- they have to choose between their kid potentially KILLING American soldiers or being detained for questioning. Or PREVENTED from linking up with the groups were in conflict with as an American citizen. Not our decision, but anyone suppressing that knowledge is an accessory to a crime.

We have about 700 KNOWN Americans who have contacted or trained with Radical groups abroad -- and all we do is STAMP their freaking VISAs and put them "on a list" and say Welcome Back to the USA.. That crap needs to stop. If the current US govt is that callous about "terror" risks, I have ZERO confidence that we can "vet" refugees from a war zone where there is NO MEANS of gaining information about their former lives.

 

[flacaltenn]

The link below is a BBC special on UK Sharia Councils. I want you folks denying that there is any concern about repeating these mistakes in America when LARGE immigration flows inevitably install the same accomodations here.

Listen carefully to the "advice" these BRITISH women are getting from the councils. NEVER does the Imam point out to the 1st couple that there IS NO civil marriage. Or that the woman has ANY RIGHTS guaranteed under BRITISH law.

Or the later case when the women with the Civil marriage is AGAIN not advised of her rights under Civil law.

Or the other case where the Leyton Sharia Counsel attempts to OVERRIDE the child custody ruling determined in a BRITISH court.

It CAN happen here. And it shouldn't. Any immigrants need to be FULLY ADVISE of their legal status and options BEFORE consenting to judgements handed out in Religious proceedings.

Crimes that SHOULD be reported to the police -- SHOULD NEVER be taken as "religious law" cases. It needs to be fixed here BEFORE we get these results already seen in Europe.

 

[flacaltenn]

[
All that has to happen here is for AMERICAN Muslim clergy to certify that their counseling and mediation will not attempt to handle Criminal or serious Civil cases. And that they will take local Civil Law into account in all their "verdicts". AND ideally that they will report or ENCOURAGE the reporting of such instances of Civil crimes committed that are REVEALED thru these mediations to authorities.

Or what?

I understand what you want- and we have provided quotes to you from American Muslim clergy that have clearly stated that their rulings are not handling Criminal matters and are none binding- and that all of their rulings are subject to Federal, State and local laws.

But why would they take local Civil law into account in their 'verdicts'? The Catholic Church doesn't care whether a couple can divorce according to Civil Law- they still will not allow that couple to divorce according to the Catholic Church.

And reporting sounds good- but remember- Catholic priests are forbidden to reveal what is told to them in confession- and cannot by law be compelled to.

Why again do you seem to think that Muslims should be held to a different standard than every other religious group?

Why SHOULD they take Civil Law into account in their verdicts? See the BBC documentary. Because they mis-serve the interests of Open Western societies to ADVISE folks of their rights under Civil Law. Bruised women asks "should I go to the police?" ===== What is the APPROPRIATE "religious judge" answer?

And in Germany, the problem became that Sharia Counsels were PREPPING both sides in Criminal Cases. Where the Civil lawyers would just shake their heads when critical evidence just gets WITHDRAWN because of advice of the "religious council". Made it almost impossible to prosecute criminal cases where this happened.

This is not Catholic confession. It is classified as civil mediation. SUPPOSED to be voluntary and the parties are allowed to discuss the proceedings and results on the outside.

 

[Syriusly]

[
All that has to happen here is for AMERICAN Muslim clergy to certify that their counseling and mediation will not attempt to handle Criminal or serious Civil cases. And that they will take local Civil Law into account in all their "verdicts". AND ideally that they will report or ENCOURAGE the reporting of such instances of Civil crimes committed that are REVEALED thru these mediations to authorities.

Or what?

I understand what you want- and we have provided quotes to you from American Muslim clergy that have clearly stated that their rulings are not handling Criminal matters and are none binding- and that all of their rulings are subject to Federal, State and local laws.

But why would they take local Civil law into account in their 'verdicts'? The Catholic Church doesn't care whether a couple can divorce according to Civil Law- they still will not allow that couple to divorce according to the Catholic Church.

And reporting sounds good- but remember- Catholic priests are forbidden to reveal what is told to them in confession- and cannot by law be compelled to.

Why again do you seem to think that Muslims should be held to a different standard than every other religious group?

Why SHOULD they take Civil Law into account in their verdicts? .

You ignored my example.

The Catholic Church does not take Civil Law into account when deciding whether a couple can have a religious annulment of their marriage.

Why do you insist that a different standard be used when it comes to Muslims?

 

[Syriusly]

It CAN happen here. And it shouldn't. Any immigrants need to be FULLY ADVISE of their legal status and options BEFORE consenting to judgements handed out in Religious proceedings.

Crimes that SHOULD be reported to the police -- SHOULD NEVER be taken as "religious law" cases. It needs to be fixed here BEFORE we get these results already seen in Europe.]

All women should be fully advised of their legal status and protections- and especially immigrant women. You keep on insisting that this is somehow an exclusively Muslim phenomenon.

Yes- a religious 'court' decision can be terribly unfair- especially to women. But adults have a right to freedom of religion in the United States- and that right presumes that adult women can decide whether to agree to let a religious council decide a religious civil matter. IF anyone's rights are abused, then I am all for criminal prosecution of anyone abusing their rights.

Crimes certainly should be reported to the police- I absolutely agree that they should- and no religous council anywhere in the United States should be involved in any decisions regarding criminal matters- for example the Catholic Church and its child molesting priests.

What needs to be 'fixed' here- exactly?

And remember- any 'fix' has to include persons of all religions- so that fix may affect the priest taking confessions, or the church who refuses to divorce a battered woman because they don't allow divorce- only annulment.

 

[flacaltenn]

[
All that has to happen here is for AMERICAN Muslim clergy to certify that their counseling and mediation will not attempt to handle Criminal or serious Civil cases. And that they will take local Civil Law into account in all their "verdicts". AND ideally that they will report or ENCOURAGE the reporting of such instances of Civil crimes committed that are REVEALED thru these mediations to authorities.

Or what?

I understand what you want- and we have provided quotes to you from American Muslim clergy that have clearly stated that their rulings are not handling Criminal matters and are none binding- and that all of their rulings are subject to Federal, State and local laws.

But why would they take local Civil law into account in their 'verdicts'? The Catholic Church doesn't care whether a couple can divorce according to Civil Law- they still will not allow that couple to divorce according to the Catholic Church.

And reporting sounds good- but remember- Catholic priests are forbidden to reveal what is told to them in confession- and cannot by law be compelled to.

Why again do you seem to think that Muslims should be held to a different standard than every other religious group?

Why SHOULD they take Civil Law into account in their verdicts? .

You ignored my example.

The Catholic Church does not take Civil Law into account when deciding whether a couple can have a religious annulment of their marriage.

Why do you insist that a different standard be used when it comes to Muslims?

And ............ Again. I have restricted my comments about Sharia law to RECENT IMMIGRANTS (or 1st generation) in America. Those who LIKELY are unfamiliar with the LEGAL options available in Western secular societies. These folks come from tyrannical hellholes where all they have ever experienced is the Islamic way of life and it's perfusion into the law of their lands.

I SUPPOSE --- in terms of Catholics -- I would be concerned about a wave of Catholic immigration from these hell holes ----- IF there was any. But there is not. The Yazidis are Christian but not Catholic and could be in the same boat if THEIR NEW community in Peoria was DOMINATED by "Yazidi religious councils" -- but that's not a reality.

I have no concern for Westernized people making their OWN DEALS with their "religious authority". Whether it be Catholic or Jewish. But moreso Catholic because the large majority of Jews are NOT under the thumb of ORTHODOX religious authority.

 

[flacaltenn]

It CAN happen here. And it shouldn't. Any immigrants need to be FULLY ADVISE of their legal status and options BEFORE consenting to judgements handed out in Religious proceedings.

Crimes that SHOULD be reported to the police -- SHOULD NEVER be taken as "religious law" cases. It needs to be fixed here BEFORE we get these results already seen in Europe.]

All women should be fully advised of their legal status and protections- and especially immigrant women. You keep on insisting that this is somehow an exclusively Muslim phenomenon.

Yes- a religious 'court' decision can be terribly unfair- especially to women. But adults have a right to freedom of religion in the United States- and that right presumes that adult women can decide whether to agree to let a religious council decide a religious civil matter. IF anyone's rights are abused, then I am all for criminal prosecution of anyone abusing their rights.

Crimes certainly should be reported to the police- I absolutely agree that they should- and no religous council anywhere in the United States should be involved in any decisions regarding criminal matters- for example the Catholic Church and its child molesting priests.

What needs to be 'fixed' here- exactly?

And remember- any 'fix' has to include persons of all religions- so that fix may affect the priest taking confessions, or the church who refuses to divorce a battered woman because they don't allow divorce- only annulment.

I already told you what needs to be fixed. It needs to made clear that any "religious tribunal" will not insert itself into CRIMINAL or serious CIVIL matters. Like the Euro experience has demonstrated. And that the folks that subject themselves to these "mediations" ARE AWARE of the Civil Law protections and Liberties afforded to them.

This is underway in Europe. And as you demonstrated pages ago, the Jewish and Catholic Orthodox authorities have STATED all these concessions in their position papers. We should have the SAME guarantees from the Muslim authorities.

I'm not a fan of FORCING compliance or new law on most anything. It's the Libertarian in me. I'd rather take this as a simple matter of trust and good faith. Show that Muslim clergy are agents of assimilation, not the ONLY resort for authority of law. Don't need the religion to change. But the Arab culture that comes along with large influx of Muslims is baggage that needs to be tagged for "extra screening"..

 

[flacaltenn]

I looked it up.. Fraction of ORTHODOX Jews in America is about 10%. That's why quoting Talmudic law and talking about Bet Din is virtually irrelevant for comparisons in THIS country.. Fraction of Catholics subject to "orthodox religious law" I assume is greater than 90%.. So leave us out of the national discussion please.

Now in Israel ---- those numbers reverse and the minority of Jews are secular or Reform or Conservative. The vast MAJORITY is Orthodox..

 

[alpine]

[

Although this is not as common as in europe, you will find an American muslim voter voting liberal in this country, so they can enjoy the extended religious freedoms; and vote full blown conservative in their mother land elections
How is this fair?

How is this honest?

I certainly don't know- which American Muslim voter will you find doing that? I certainly don't know any.

I am not certain that your question is fair or honest- because I don't know of any actual examples that exist that fit your scenario.

You dont have to know any actual examples (although would certainly help to analyze),
you just simply need to look at the election results which usually end up islamists crushing seculars.

In the US, islamists have around 20% support among muslim population.
In EU, this would be somewhere around 50% and above.



Now you know...

 

[JoeMoma]

This is what I think...I don't know how true or false it is....

Muslims are like Americans: Most of them want X, and a very vocal minority of them want something other than X, and that minority's volume creates the impression among "everyone else" that most or all Muslims want that "other than X" shit when in fact they don't.

IMO, the vocal minority of Muslims want to return the planet's cultural clocks to about 700 A.D. The remaining Muslims seem to me perfectly content to allow their practice of Islam to evolve with the rest of the world, albeit a few ticks more slowly.

Nice and pithy.
Many Muslims are afraid to speak out against the minority of Muslims that want jihad.

 

[320 Years of History]

I hate Arab culture.

Well, that pretty succinctly says all that you need to say. You could have just said that at the thread outset (maybe you did?) and everyone would have from that moment on known precisely where you stand on everything pertaining to Arabs and Arab Muslims and Arab Jews and Arab Christians and Arab pagans, and Arab atheists, and so on. Of course, whether you hate Arab culture or not is hardly informative or relevant in a discussion about American Muslims and what they want.

I EXPLICITLY have been saying the problem is with ACCELERATED Muslim integration where fresh new folks who have only known the Tyranny of Arab government and the mixed in versions of Sharia law might EXPECT that American Mosques would CONTINUE to support their EXPECTED concepts of law and justice.

The "Tyranny of Arab government" remark implies the following realities escape you yet:

• Arabism is an ethnic and language identity; Muslimism is a religious identity. They not the same things nor are they by definition or necessity inextricably linked.
  • What Nobody Tells You About Muslims and Arabs
    
  • Common Misconceptions about Muslims | Encountering the World of Islam
    
  • The Third Myth About World Religions: All Muslims Are Arabs
    
  • Common Confusions About Arabs and Muslims
• There are non-Arab Muslims who live in and immigrate to the U.S. from predominantly Muslim countries that are also non-Arab.
  • Albania, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Indonesia, Senegal, and Turkey
• There are non-Arab Muslims who emigrate from their minority Muslim non-Arab countries to the U.S.
  • Austria, Belgium, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands
• In terms of governance, tyranny is a matter of what the ruler or ruling body finds acceptable and unacceptable. From what I can tell, you've taken exception with the draconian punishments meted out in response to violations of Islamic laws. Well, believe it or not, draconian retribution does not require tyranny, although tyrannical governments do often exact draconian -- by Western standards -- forms of punishment. That has nothing to do with Arabism or Muslimism.

The Sharia Law gets incorporated in the fabric of daily life in Arab cultures..

Sharia law gets incorporated into the daily life of any culture -- Arabic or otherwise -- if the culture adopts and declares Islam as its source of the law. Whether that happens or not has nothing to do with Arabism.

How exactly does it happen that MUSLIMS "misunderstand Sharia"? Perhaps you've heard of the Taliban or the Shia clerics in Iran with "radical interpretations". How about the Wahabi Saudis who are making an industry of exporting radicalized Islam all over the world? Do ALL THESE folks simply misunderstand Shariah?

Red:
That is strictly a matter of interpretation. It happens that Muslims "misunderstand Sharia" in precisely the same way Christians "misunderstand" all sorts of things about their faith. One need only look at the various ways Christians interpret the Bible and the schisms that result from those interpretation. The phenomenon isn't even a new one. What was Martin Luther's 95 Thesis other than his bold assertion that the Roman Catholic Church had misinterpreted the Bible, God and Jesus' intents?

Here broadly are some examples of how self-identified adherents to a given faith-based belief system can be asserted by other adherents to the same system (or by non-adherents) to have misunderstood their common faith. What are some examples? Well.....

• Everything that distinguishes Roman Catholicism from every Protestant sect of Christianity
• Everything that distinguishes Roman Catholicism from the other Catholic sects such as Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.
• Everything that distinguishes one Protestant sect from another.

You may find yourself inclined to note the apparently greater tranquillity expressed by, say, most modern Christians who disagree about a variety of things. In turn, you may cite that quietude as relevant in comparing and understanding Christianity and Islam and how the scale/scope of misunderstanding makes the misunderstandings somehow different. To do that would be a mistake.

• Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008
  
• Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012
  
• The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996
  
• The Campaign of Terror Against Abortion Doctors and Clinics -- 1977 to October 2015/the present
  
  • Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994
• Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010
  
• Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995
  
• Everything The Ku Klux Klan Has Ever Done
  
• he Massacre At Zion Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C, June 17, 2015

The incidence of "crazies" who think the rest of Christendom misunderstand their faith (the sentiment is, of course, shared in reverse by the rest of Christendom) isn't limited to "lone wolves."

• Lord’s Resistance Army
  
• The Christian Identity Movement
  
• Aryan Nations (yes, there are multiple groups that fit under this "catch all" label)
• The Orange Volunteers
  
• Catholic Reaction Force/Protestant Action Force (Ireland)
  
• Antibalaka (Africa)
  
• National Liberation Front of Tripura (India)
  
• The KKK
• And there are more I haven't listed

So you tell me:

• Are you a Christian?
• Can you identify any high level or low level Christian guidelines they routinely ignore or twist to their own ends?
• Would you, after looking into what those Christian groups believe and do, say they (any of them) misunderstand and bastardize the meaning of Christianity?
• Would you care to be adjudged based on the actions of those groups and their members?

If you can answer "yes" to those questions, well, you know exactly how it is that some Muslims can misunderstand their faith as well. (If you cannot answer "yes" to the first question, find a Christian who isn't a member of one of those groups and ask them the questions.)

​