U.S. Shari'a watch

[bignaf]

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/index.html

[Haggis@wk]

Big,

Once again you miss (or ignore) my point.

Muslims have been living and working in our country for decades if not centuries. Where was the uproar before now? Nothing has changed in the Koran so maybe it’s the way the Koran is being taught now as opposed to then?

It’s only in the last couple of decades that the main faith of Islam practice in the U.S. is radical Wahhabism funded almost completely by Saudi Arabia.

How long did that cashier work in the same job selling bacon and pork rinds before she got religion? And for that matter why is it only now that taxi drivers in the same town as the cashier gotten similarly religious?

Consider how the same story would have unfolded if a Jewish cashier refused to handle pork? They have the same religious stricture against pork as the Muslim.

I hold the same opinion of the cashier and people who immigrate here and refuse to learn English.

Go home.

[bignaf]

re: Haggis post:
I think the issue is rising now because we have more Muslims of different types. we have some Muslims with a stricter interpretation, which they are entitled to. If it doesn't render them useless in the workplace, I don't think they should be fired, nor forced to go against their beliefs.
re: Jewish law and pork. orthodox Jews are not allowed to sell pork to other Jews (not allowed to assist other Jews in breaking the commandment). so an Orthodox Jew would have the same problem with handling pork (or any non-kosher food) if they don't know that the customer is not Jewish. what most Orthodox Jews do, is to avoid as much as possible working in non-kosher food places. that option might not be as available to the Muslim immigrants. however, I concede that this problem may be arising out of intentional Muslim desire to raise the issue, by necessarily working at places where religious problems will arise. I, however, don't think that these circumstances should change what is considered just in this matter.

[bignaf]

Muslim censorship at Leeds

[Haggis@wk]

more Muslims of different types

Completely false. America's Mosques are 99.9% Wahhabi. period.

Don't throw out facts that you can't validate.

Backed by money from Saudi Arabia, Wahhabis have built or taken over hundreds of mosques in North America and opened branches of Saudi universities here for the training of imams as part of the effort to spread their beliefs, which are intolerant of Christianity, Judaism and even other strains of Islam.

Reza F. Safa, author of Inside Islam, estimates that since 1973, the Saudi government has spent an unbelievable $87B to promote Wahhabism in the United States, Africa, Southeast Asia and Europe. According to official Saudi information, Saudi funds have been used to build and maintain over 1,500 mosques, 202 colleges, 210 Islamic Centers wholly or partly financed by Saudi Arabia, and almost 2,000 schools for educating Muslim children in non-Islamic countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia and Asia.

The Kingdom has fully or partially financed Islamic Centers in Los Angeles; San Francisco; Fresno; Chicago; New York; Washington; Tucson; Raleigh, N.C. and Toledo, Ohio as well as in Austria, Great Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, Turkey, and even in some Muslim countries such as Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia and Djibuti.

Saudi aid to Muslims abroad, however, comes with strings attached, and most of the recipient institutions end up promoting the Wahhabi version of Islam.

If you don't want to accept what I'm saying, fine, don't post, but don't throw out meaningless statements like that, they only highlight what you dont't know.

[bignaf]

according to http://www.amp.ghazali.net/html/mosques_in_us.html a study about mosques in US by CAIR:

Muslims have been in the United States for generations. Muslim immigrants from the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. arrived in North America in 1893. They were mainly Turks, Kurds, Albanians, and Arabs. However, the Muslims have grown rapidly in the last two or three decades mainly because of immigration from South Asia and the Middle East and converts from the African-American community.

I don't see the Turks and Albanians as so-called Wahhabis. this source clearly indicates a change in the texture of the US muslim community.

The study also concluded that slightly more than half (55%) mosques are affiliated with at least one Muslim organization while 45% of all mosques are not affiliated with any organization. Twenty-seven percent mosques are associated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The percentage has decreased from 1994 when 39% mosques were affiliated with ISNA. About one in five mosques is affiliated with the Muslim American Society (the Ministry of Imam W. Deen Mohammed). About 10% mosques are affiliated with other organizations, including the American Muslim Turkish Association, the American Muslim Council, As-Sabiqun, and Council of American Islamic Relations.

if they are affiliated with various competing organizations, they must have differences, no?

according to Wikipedia (no citation) (italics mine):

Within the Muslim community in the United States there exist a number of different traditions. As in the rest of the world, the Sunni Muslims are in the majority. The Shi'a Muslims, especially those in the Iranian immigrant community, are also active in community affairs. All four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence fiqh are found among the Sunni community. Some Muslims in the US are also adherents of certain global movements within Islam such as the Salafi, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Tablighi Jamaat, as well as movements which most Muslims would consider non-Muslim, such as Jama'at Ahmadiyya or the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement or Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

Salafi is the self-desription of those you call Wahabbis. this has no citation, but I know for a fact of Iranian mosques on the west coast. they must be shiite, and therefore different from sunni-Saudi-funded mosques.

[Catmando]

[bignaf]

I couldn't find support for your 99.9% claim in the source you cite. it says it is spreading, in fact. which means it can't be 99.9%, otherwise it wouldn't have where to spread to.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

(now issuing fire-retardant overcoats at the tool room)

[bignaf]

I'll take one.

[dai bread]

Bear in mind that all this Saudi funding comes largely from U.S. & European sources.

The need for a substitute for Middle Eastern oil is now urgent, and not because of the weather.

[barfle]

How about that Clara Schumann?

[bignaf]

The need for a substitute for Middle Eastern oil is now urgent, and not because of the weather.

I agree, but temper it to "not just because of the weather."

[OperaTenor]

How about that Clara Schumann?

[Shapley]

German Judge Tells Battered Muslim Wife: Koran Says 'Men Are in Charge of Women'

Never mind what German law says...

[Marye]

From your link Shapley...

The judge was removed from the case on Wednesday and the Frankfurt administrative court said it was considering disciplinary action.

and

Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries condemned the judge's decision.

"Every so often, there are individual rulings that seem completely incomprehensible," she said.

Lawmakers from Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats said traditional Islamic law, or Sharia, had no place in Germany.

"The legal and moral concepts of Sharia have nothing to do with German jurisprudence," Wolfgang Bosbach, a lawmaker with the Christian Democrats, told N24 television.

"One thing must be clear: In Germany, only German law applies. Period."

[Shapley]

Mary,

Yes, I read that. I'm glad cooler heads prevailed in the long run. Even so, the judges ruling placed the woman in jeopardy until the appeal went through. I found it rather frightening.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

"The legal and moral concepts of Sharia have nothing to do with German jurisprudence," Wolfgang Bosbach, a lawmaker with the Christian Democrats, told N24 television.

"One thing must be clear: In Germany, only German law applies. Period."

Yes....and lets hope that in the US only US law will apply

[bignaf]

German Judge Tells Battered Muslim Wife: Koran Says 'Men Are in Charge of Women'

Never mind what German law says...

The judge was clearly wrong, but what she did had nothing to do with following Koran law. she quoted the Koranic verse to support her decision that the woman doesn't suffer from "unreasonable hardship," because it is accepted in her society. that is very faulty reasoning, but we should not jump to "Shari'a is taking over" conclusions from it. basically, the judge (if you read her decision and not just the headline) brought the Koranic verse to support her claim regarding the woman's culture. it's a fine distinction, but it should be made. again, I agree the judge was extremely wrong.

[Haggis@wk]

Introducing H.R. 1640 (Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act) on the floor of the House, Rep. Stevan Pearce had the following comments:

“It is a sad day in America when our own institutions of freedom are being used against us in the battle against terrorism. When I first heard about the lawsuit brought by the 'imams' in Minnesota, it was clear to me that this was an injustice against Americans who were simply trying to protect themselves. These brave citizens should be recognized as heroes for their efforts to report suspicious activity, particularly activity that has been associated with previous terror attacks.

As Americans, we must not allow ourselves to be bullied by individuals who seek to disrupt our way of life. We can not allow the sympathizers of terrorism to make Americans wonder if they could be sued before reporting possible terrorist activity. Whether it is an intimidation tactic or a full scale attack, Americans have the right and responsibility to protect themselves and their fellow citizens. I introduced this legislation to protect Americans and keep all citizens alert and vocal as they serve on the front line in our battle against terrorism here in America.”

If your not familiar with this or why the law is being proposed, go here.

To recap, the incident of the six “flying Imams” who made fellow passengers nervous who then reported their concerns to airline officials resulting in the airline pulling them off the flight. Now the Imams have brought a lawsuit and included “John Doe” defendants, a legal maneuver used in lawsuits that hasn’t identified all the defendants and use that as a place holder until they can be identified.

The complaint describes them as "an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch" as they prayed. "The gentleman ('John Doe') in the couple ... picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray," then "moved to a corner" and "kept talking into his cellular phone."

To many, including me, this appears to be an attempt to create a chilling effect where people, afraid of getting sued, might not voice concerns when they witness future incidents that gives them concerns.

The bill being put forward would protect people from those types of lawsuits. I think it says a lot when we have to have such laws in the first place.