Sharia Law In America?

[Cold_Zero]

Hey I heard that the landing gear for one of the planes actually fell right into the building they are wanting to turn into this mosque.

I also heard this today. Not to sound insensitive, but what does it matter if the landing gear fell from the sky into a Burlington Coat Factory? Somehow I dont think that this act makes it a national memorial.

[stebo0728]

Hey I heard that the landing gear for one of the planes actually fell right into the building they are wanting to turn into this mosque.

I also heard this today. Not to sound insensitive, but what does it matter if the landing gear fell from the sky into a Burlington Coat Factory? Somehow I dont think that this act makes it a national memorial.

Perhaps not, I was just throwing it out there.

[AZhitman]

After looking at the map, I'm kinda wondering what the original fuss was all about. There are still buildings (undamaged and unaffected by the 9/11 attack) in the location where they want to build Islamland.

[heliochrome85]

Hey I heard that the landing gear for one of the planes actually fell right into the building they are wanting to turn into this mosque.

I also heard this today. Not to sound insensitive, but what does it matter if the landing gear fell from the sky into a Burlington Coat Factory? Somehow I dont think that this act makes it a national memorial.

i think it was doing us a service, since Burlington Coat Factories are terrible places. Its like taking out a Kmart. No harm done

[heliochrome85]

Oh wow, goody, we got the mosque argument going again? LOL

Hey I heard that the landing gear for one of the planes actually fell right into the building they are wanting to turn into this mosque.

Also I heard all the argument about this being a "multi-faith" establishment, that will just so happen to have a muslim prayer chamber? I heard that the main financier for the project has publicly stated that "no in fact it will be a mosque"

As for mosques built over churches, lets see theres The Dome of The Rock, built over the ancient hebrew temple mount, theres Istanbul, theres Cordova in Spain, and others. Although I believe that the eastern muslim nations will most likely view this mosque as a similar symbol of conquest, I am not convinced just yet that its the actual intent of the project. That is entirely possible, and perhaps even plausible. Ive heard alot of bad press about the Imam involved, his calls for "sharia compliance" in America, which wont happend anytime soon, but still advocating it is a bit squeamish. But all said, Im still not convinced that its intended as a symbol of conquest. But I still think, above all else, it is in extremely poor taste to conceive such a plan, whether your free to do it or not.

Without getting into the nitty gritty of religion, we are strictly prohibited from harming or persecuting "people of the book" which means Jews, or Christians. As a result, for hundreds of years, their societies and religions flourished even though they were living in areas of Muslim control. For a matter of sheer practicality, yes, many churches were converted to mosques during the conquest, but given that these conquests lasted over 800 years, i think its just a matter of practicality rather than malice. The islamic empire did not demolish or destroy any of these places because, like i said, we are strictly prohibited from doing so. As for Greg's question on Victory mosques, or the ilk, as far as I know there is 0 grounding of this in text, nor is it a practice I have ever heard of.

Dome of the Rock was built over a specific Rock, where it is said the prophet ascended to heaven, and it is purported to have an imprint of his foot as he stepped onto the horse that took him up there. Hence its importance. It is also the third most important mosque in Islam and is the site of the Scales of judgement on the day of Judgement, or so our apocalpyse story goes.

The Grand Mosque in Cordoba was initialy a 100 year old church in Cordoba, but over the course of 600 years, it was converted to a Mosque. Only after the Moors were expelled, was a church built in the middle of the mosque. I have been to this mosque personally, and it is a sight to see. If you read the wikipedia on it, you can easily see that there is no mention of any desecration to the mosque. But rather a reworking. We believe Mosques, churches and Synagogues are God's homes, and therefore it is prohibited to attack, descrate, or demolish any of them. Even in places like Saudi Arabia, there are remnants of Jews and Christians that were mentioned in the Bible.

As for the imam, he was hand picked by GWB to promote healing. One would think that since he has been in his job for a couple years, and has represneted the US, his views would be one that would be politically defensable. I guess even mother teresa would need a background check before opening a church near Ground Zero.

[heliochrome85]

After looking at the map, I'm kinda wondering what the original fuss was all about. There are still buildings (undamaged and unaffected by the 9/11 attack) in the location where they want to build Islamland.

these are important reads
http://www.slate.com/id/2264046/

and yes, i know its Salon, but its worth at least perusing
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_ ... ue_origins

[n00b240]

Walkin quite the fine line here. Such a potential for this topic to turn into one of religion.

Im getting quite annoyed with all the coverage on this mosque. Depending on what news sources you like to watch or listen to, you would think they are building this mosque right in the heart of ground zero, right where the steel structure of ground zero was still burning for months. Fear mongering is where the money seems to be at these days.

[wingFeather]

Is this the thread about the 9/11 mosque, or Sharia law?

the mosque I will attend

This explains your generally sour attitude towards me. Now it all makes sense. Haters be hatin'

[heliochrome85]

the mosque I will attend

This explains your generally sour attitude towards me. Now it all makes sense. Haters be hatin' [/quote]

what are you trying to say?

[n00b240]

Is this the thread about the 9/11 mosque, or Sharia law?

the mosque I will attend

This explains your generally sour attitude towards me. Now it all makes sense. Haters be hatin'

Yes, Im interested in this as well? Im interested in how you came to such a conclusion.

[IBCoupe]

Cold, you aren't reading what I'm writing.

I KNOW that the government didn't do anything to invoke Constitutional correction (which would have happened in the Court - the President and the Mayor merely pointed to the Constitution as an argument).

YOU KNOW that there were people trying to get the government to block this project.

YOU KNOW that they were using intolerant arguments of collective guilt.

I KNOW that there's nothing unconstitutional or illegal about those arguments.

YOU KNOW that if their arguments had carried the day, the action the government would have taken on their behalf would have been unconstitutional.

AND THAT'S WHY the Mayor and the President invoked the Constitution as a counter-argument to those demands for unconstitutional government action.

Got it? If you make an argument that Police should have just stormed into Habib's (or Jose's, or Jamal's, depending on your issue of choice) apartment without a warrant and without probable cause, you're going to run into Fourth Amendment issues, and it's entirely probable that someone will (and proper for someone to) raise the Fourth Amendment as a counter argument to your demand for unconstitutional action.

[Cold_Zero]

If only the Mayor and President believed in true Freedom of Religion. Then I would find the comments not ironic and jumping the gun.

[Cold_Zero]

Without getting into the nitty gritty of religion, we are strictly prohibited from harming or persecuting "people of the book" which means Jews, or Christians. As a result, for hundreds of years, their societies and religions flourished even though they were living in areas of Muslim control. For a matter of sheer practicality, yes, many churches were converted to mosques during the conquest, but given that these conquests lasted over 800 years, i think its just a matter of practicality rather than malice. The islamic empire did not demolish or destroy any of these places because, like i said, we are strictly prohibited from doing so. As for Greg's question on Victory mosques, or the ilk, as far as I know there is 0 grounding of this in text, nor is it a practice I have ever heard of.

Dome of the Rock was built over a specific Rock, where it is said the prophet ascended to heaven, and it is purported to have an imprint of his foot as he stepped onto the horse that took him up there. Hence its importance. It is also the third most important mosque in Islam and is the site of the Scales of judgement on the day of Judgement, or so our apocalpyse story goes.

The Grand Mosque in Cordoba was initialy a 100 year old church in Cordoba, but over the course of 600 years, it was converted to a Mosque. Only after the Moors were expelled, was a church built in the middle of the mosque. I have been to this mosque personally, and it is a sight to see. If you read the wakopedia on it, you can easily see that there is no mention of any desecration to the mosque. But rather a reworking. We believe Mosques, churches and Synagogues are God's homes, and therefore it is prohibited to attack, descrate, or demolish any of them. Even in places like Saudi Arabia, there are remnants of Jews and Christians that were mentioned in the Bible.

As for the imam, he was hand picked by GWB to promote healing. One would think that since he has been in his job for a couple years, and has represneted the US, his views would be one that would be politically defensable. I guess even mother teresa would need a background check before opening a church near Ground Zero.

T, I love you man, you know that. And at the sake of throwing this into a full blown religious/historical debate (out of the respect and love for Greg) I will just say, I disagree with the slant of most of your historical analysis.

[heliochrome85]

Without getting into the nitty gritty of religion, we are strictly prohibited from harming or persecuting "people of the book" which means Jews, or Christians. As a result, for hundreds of years, their societies and religions flourished even though they were living in areas of Muslim control. For a matter of sheer practicality, yes, many churches were converted to mosques during the conquest, but given that these conquests lasted over 800 years, i think its just a matter of practicality rather than malice. The islamic empire did not demolish or destroy any of these places because, like i said, we are strictly prohibited from doing so. As for Greg's question on Victory mosques, or the ilk, as far as I know there is 0 grounding of this in text, nor is it a practice I have ever heard of.

Dome of the Rock was built over a specific Rock, where it is said the prophet ascended to heaven, and it is purported to have an imprint of his foot as he stepped onto the horse that took him up there. Hence its importance. It is also the third most important mosque in Islam and is the site of the Scales of judgement on the day of Judgement, or so our apocalpyse story goes.

The Grand Mosque in Cordoba was initialy a 100 year old church in Cordoba, but over the course of 600 years, it was converted to a Mosque. Only after the Moors were expelled, was a church built in the middle of the mosque. I have been to this mosque personally, and it is a sight to see. If you read the wakopedia on it, you can easily see that there is no mention of any desecration to the mosque. But rather a reworking. We believe Mosques, churches and Synagogues are God's homes, and therefore it is prohibited to attack, descrate, or demolish any of them. Even in places like Saudi Arabia, there are remnants of Jews and Christians that were mentioned in the Bible.

As for the imam, he was hand picked by GWB to promote healing. One would think that since he has been in his job for a couple years, and has represneted the US, his views would be one that would be politically defensable. I guess even mother teresa would need a background check before opening a church near Ground Zero.

T, I love you man, you know that. And at the sake of throwing this into a full blown religious/historical debate (out of the respect and love for Greg) I will just say, I disagree with the slant of most of your historical analysis.

fair enough. this not eating bidness weakens me, which probably doesnt help my argumentative skills

[IBCoupe]

If only the Mayor and President believed in true Freedom of Religion. Then I would find the comments not ironic and jumping the gun.

I'm going to regret asking this, but: what makes you think Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama do not believe in "true" Freedom of Religion?

[Cold_Zero]

fair enough. this not eating bidness weakens me, which probably doesnt help my argumentative skills

BTW Happy Ramadan.

[n00b240]

fair enough. this not eating bidness weakens me, which probably doesnt help my argumentative skills

Its all about a mean a** breakfast topped off with a protein shake

[stebo0728]

fair enough. this not eating bidness weakens me, which probably doesnt help my argumentative skills

Its all about a mean a** breakfast topped off with a protein shake

OJ, milk, and 2 raw eggs, blended well .... wait isnt it illegal to eat raw eggs now?!?

[AZhitman]

fair enough. this not eating bidness weakens me, which probably doesnt help my argumentative skills

A Ramadan thing?

Hang tough. A good fast now and again is great for the body and mind. I haven't done it in quite some time, and it shows.

On a side note, guess who's changed his position on this issue?

<-- That guy.

[stebo0728]

fair enough. this not eating bidness weakens me, which probably doesnt help my argumentative skills

A Ramadan thing?

Hang tough. A good fast now and again is great for the body and mind. I haven't done it in quite some time, and it shows.

On a side note, guess who's changed his position on this issue?

<-- That guy.

How so? Whats your new position?

[AZhitman]

I don't give a damn. Let them build the thing, it's nowhere near the towers' location, they have every right to build it, and in the US, you're allowed to be offended.

I don't know what I was thinking.

[Cold_Zero]

Now that the issue of the Ground Zero Mosque is solved..j/k

Back to the OT
Here are my questions:
1. Is the law of Saudi Arabia, sharia law? Or is Saudi law based on sharia law? Is this a difference without a distinction?
2. How would sharia law be homologated into the United States code, since the US code derives from British Common Law
3. Does anyone else seem to see that the reason why liberals are not all up in arms about people floating the idea of introducing sharia law into the United States or at a bare minimum compliant, is because they believe that the enemy of the enemy is my friend. And if they rip apart the current culture, thinking and form of government they can rebuild it how they want it. The trouble I have with this theory is that one you let the Genie (pun intended), in introducing sharia law, then you wont be able to get rid of it.

[heliochrome85]

Now that the issue of the Ground Zero Mosque is solved..j/k

Back to the OT
Here are my questions:
1. Is the law of Saudi Arabia, sharia law? Or is Saudi law based on sharia law? Is this a difference without a distinction?
2. How would sharia law be homologated into the United States code, since the US code derives from British Common Law
3. Does anyone else seem to see that the reason why liberals are not all up in arms about people floating the idea of introducing sharia law into the United States or at a bare minimum compliant, is because they believe that the enemy of the enemy is my friend. And if they rip apart the current culture, thinking and form of government they can rebuild it how they want it. The trouble I have with this theory is that one you let the Genie (pun intended), in introducing sharia law, then you wont be able to get rid of it.

as far as i know, saudi law is based on sharia, but has some significant digresses. for example, saudis have a form of marriage, where it lasts a predetermined length. say, you are a businessman, and are travelling for 2 weeks, you can marry soemone for 2 weeks, have sex with them, and when you return, divorce them. that way you dont breach the sharia. that being said, they are one of two places that do this, the other is Iran.

From Wiki

Muslim states using classical Sharia: Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states do not have constitutions or legislatures. Their rulers have limited authority to change laws, since they are based on Sharia as it is interpreted by their religious scholars. Iran shares some of these characteristics, but also has a parliament that legislates in a manner consistent with Sharia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

2.) Have other Legal systems been incorporated into US law? I honestly dont know. That being said, religiously, we are supposed to follow the laws of the place we live in. In this situation, we follow US law. Personally, I think the people calling for Sharia to be incorporated are people who also want women to be segregated in the work place, and have no intent of becoming accustomed to US culture. You will find them in all cultures, in all places.

3.) Honest to god, i think that the reason Liberals arent more afraid of Sharia law, is that they are either too weak to use people's latent Xenophobia to play up the threat, or they have bigger fish to fry. Right now, the Right has a monopoly on the domestic conversation on Islam, they set the terms of the debate. If we have learned anything, its the the democrats cant be trusted to handle a bowl of popcorn. They are too worried about not offending anyone to actually do anything. Had they played up the threat, they may have earned more of current conversation.

An alternative, albeit far fetched, is that they are looking way into the future, and letting the Right run with the George Wallace/Mccarthy style Inquisition of anyone foreign. It will pay off dividends if things get more shrill, but nothing short term. November will be the proof.

[heliochrome85]

I don't give a damn. Let them build the thing, it's nowhere near the towers' location, they have every right to build it, and in the US, you're allowed to be offended.

I don't know what I was thinking.

there is a place for reasoned opposition to the site. I understand that there are emotional scars left, but the fact is that some families of victims are in favor of the center. why should their voices be drowned out by famous new yorkers liek Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Harry Reid?

and if i played any role in changing your mind, id be surprised. you are a smart guy. its one of the reaosns i keep coming back to this nuthouse of a forum.

[IBCoupe]

It might be that the liberals aren't afraid of Sharia law because we still have the First Amendment. I don't know why this would make only liberals unafraid, but, hey, maybe they're just that much more observant of American law.

[AZhitman]

why should their voices be drowned out by famous new yorkers liek Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Harry Reid?

None of those people are New Yorkers.

and if i played any role in changing your mind, id be surprised. you are a smart guy. its one of the reaosns i keep coming back to this nuthouse of a forum.

Actually, it just started seeming absurd... I was listening to a local radio show that I really, really like (KTAR.com's Bruce St. James)... He had a caller on who was opposed to it, and the guy's rationale was just idiotic.

We'd be bummed if you ever left. Besides, if you leave, how am I gonna defend myself against claims of racism?

"...but...but...I have a Muslim friend!!!"

[szh]

"...but...but...I have a Muslim friend!!!"

More than one.

Z

[AZhitman]

Well, damn - at this rate, I might just be the next Ambassador to Kuwait!

Wait... what?

[Cold_Zero]

nah, maybe thd next ambassador to Cleveland.