I have no doubt that Sharia law in its brutal forms is antithetical to the Bill of Rights and has no place in America.  Although there are less violent and therefore perhaps more palatable forms of it, I still cling too tightly to the American form of justice (flawed though it is) to even consider replacing any of it with Islamic law.  That I know.

There are two things (at the very least) that I don't know:

First, is there is a real push by Islamists to try to have me be governed by Sharia?  I know Herman Cain wants to err on the side of caution and has promised an Islamic-free cabinet and judiciary to ensure against it.

Does anyone have a yardstick by which I can measure just how big the push is among Islamic people in America to make Sharia part of our civil and criminal code, if there is such a push?  Should I be concerned about it?

Second, not being a world traveler, I'd like to know if secular but majority Muslim countries like Turkey and Indonesia use Sharia Law in their civil or criminal code, or if they have separate proceedings to handle matters involving questions of Sharia.  Maybe Claire Berlinski can help me out?

Let me next address a sub-issue, which is letting Muslims be Muslims in America and allowing them to follow Sharia so long as the parties to the dispute all agree (and our civil rights laws and the Bill of Rights are respected). 

I'm talking about separate Sharia courts, funded by them, to allow disputes involving Sharia interpretation to be resolved there.  Great Britain has a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal which operates under a British statute for that reason.

There is some precedent in America, too.  American Jews have the Beth Din, where Jews can mediate disputes ranging from divorce to loans using Jewish Law. 

The American in me who knows his country was founded on religious freedom wants to say yes to such private courts for Muslims.  The American in me who worries about a chipping away of our culture eventually leading to it's weakening and collapse has serious reservations about it.

I'd like to know what the rest of you think, as I remain so conflicted.

Here is the Santorum video about Sharia:

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

TeamAmerica
Joined
Oct '10
TeamAmerica

The Santorum video isn't there, at least on my pc.

Tommy De Seno
TeamAmerica: The Santorum video isn't there, at least on my pc. · Jun 29 at 12:28pm

Saw that - just fixed it. Sorry 'bout that.

Michael Patrick Tracy
Joined
Apr '11
Michael Patrick Tracy

Reading Mark Steyn's, America Alone would certainly heighten ones concern.

Tommy De Seno
Michael Patrick Tracy: Reading Mark Steyn's, America Alone would certainly heighten ones concern. · Jun 29 at 12:35pm

Help me out - what are his major points and proofs?

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

Tommy De Seno: ...

First, is there is a real push by Islamists to try to have me be governed by Sharia?  I know Herman Cain wants to err on the side of caution and has promised an Islamic-free cabinet and judiciary to ensure against it.

In America more than almost anywhere, yes. Under Carter I was a recruitment target. My recruiter laid out the plan, supplant the Constitution with Sharia, establish strategically placed mosques, colonize and convert. He gave me a copy of the Protocols of Zion so that I could better understand the horror Islam would free my country from. As Allah's chosen people, he was firm in the faith that, whatever the setback, Islam would ultimately prevail. His "radical" sect was Hanafi, then as now representing a slim majority of muslims world wide.

80% of the mosques in the United States are Wahhabi colonization efforts. The Wahhabis were a violent, radical sect that the Sauds used to take control of Saudi Arabia. Success has not made them meeker. My friends who read the Gray Lady assure me that these people are too backward and ignorant to be a threat, while supporting the Twin Towers mosque.

Brian Watt
Joined
Jun '10
Brian Watt

I believe at the moment if there's an effort to introduce Shariah law it's more of a separate but equal push, much as what has occurred in Britain, in other words separate Shariah courts to deal with civil or criminal matters between Muslims; not that parts of Shariah would encroach into our current civil and criminal codes. But, of course, that could be a first phase.

CoolHand
Joined
Dec '10
CoolHand

Sisyphus nailed it.

Edited on Jun 29, 2011 at 12:55pm
David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson

Rick Santorum is very good on this stuff - it's a pity that his time seems to have passed.

I'd agree that Sisyphus's post says it all. And what remains is said by Brian Watt.

Edited on Jun 29, 2011 at 1:14pm
Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

To clarify: If my government came to me tomorrow and said, we understand the connections between the Wahhabis, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, CAIR, ISNA, Iran, et. al., and we will not tolerate the colonization of Dearborn, Washington, and so on, advocating to replace the Constitution with Sharia Law, and we recognize that Sharia is incompatible with the liberties and freedoms we enjoy, the threat would be recognized and diminish very quickly in most places.

I know devout muslims who are patriotic Americans, they make the very Western distinction between religion and political system. They do not go near the mosques, because they know they and their families would become targets of "political" Islam. Muhammad is not a Jesus-like figure persuading souls to take up the path. He is closer to Alexander the Great with his own theology of submission (the correct translation of the word islam). Intimidation in the name of Allah is no vice to these folks.

My government is ruled by people who receive briefings and meet with others who have received briefings from vetted sources. (I have given such briefings.) Vetted sources like CAIR. Like Wahhabi experts from Saudi Arabia, our close ally.

Tommy De Seno

 Sisyphus,

What about a Muslim verson of Beth Din to handle disputes involving Sharia.  Would you be for or against them?  Why or why not?


Joined
Aug '10
Anneke9
Sisyphus: ... If my government came to me tomorrow and said, we understand the connections....

Well said.  I'm not any where near as afraid of what Muslims are attempting to do re: instituting Sharia in America as I am of what our government will unwittingly do to prove themselves paragons of diversity and tolerance. After all, it was the Trojans who rolled the Horse into their own city.

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

Tommy De Seno:  Sisyphus,

What about a Muslim verson of Beth Din to handle disputes involving Sharia.  Would you be for or against them?  Why or why not? · Jun 29 at 1:28pm

If kept strictly as a matter of torts, applicable only by consent of all the parties involved, I have no strong objection. Already, though, an American judge has sent a dispute to a Sharia council against the objections of one of the parties. Our judiciary is a whole other problem. If our system worked as it ought, and kept clean barriers between categories of law, I would be more comfortable. I think the reasonable approach today is to limit Sharia arbitration to unanimous consent cases with judicial oversight, and perhaps wills. The same rights I would extend to any individual. I do not think the practice would survive into many future generations provided assimilation occurs.

I have read the tenets Sharia, in translation and, mercifully, in summary, and I find no improvements there from our Burkean traditions. Quite the opposite, it reinforces a power structure designed to oppress all but a few powerful mullahs and oligarchs. Immigrant populations probably assimilate better if allowed some degree of syncretism.

Tommy De Seno

Thanks Sysyphus.

I think you raise a great point about assimilation.   Allowing such courts may unnecessarily prolong the necessary process.

jhimmi
Joined
Oct '10
jhimmi

Unlike Sharia, Beth Din doesn't claim to have jurisdiction over every thought, word, and action of every human on earth, nor does it include lashings, stonings, or death as punishments. (Sharia contains punishments for non-Muslims)

The concept of allowing a Muslim to use Sharia to settle a legal dispute with another Muslim is fine with me, if both parties agree. However, believing Muslims don't think of Sharia as simply a way to settle a contract dispute. Sharia is a way of life - religion, philosophy, civil law, criminal law, and foreign policy all rolled into one.

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

jhimmi: Unlike Sharia, Beth Din doesn't claim to have jurisdiction over every thought, word, and action of every human on earth, nor does it include lashings, stonings, or death as punishments. (Sharia contains punishments for non-Muslims)

The concept of allowing a Muslim to use Sharia to settle a legal dispute with another Muslim is fine with me, if both parties agree. However, believing Muslims don't think of Sharia as simply a way to settle a contract dispute. Sharia is a way of life - religion, philosophy, civil law, criminal law, and foreign policy all rolled into one. · Jun 29 at 2:29pm

The totality of Sharia in its native context is why I consider active, responsible judicial oversight so important in torts cases. There is a lot that translates just fine into prerogatives and considerations under Western contract law, but without a strong basis in American law, problems could crop up. I'll leave it to the lawyers to speculate further.

Tommy De Seno

 Question:  I just heard from a friend who is married to a Turk and spends much time there.  She tells me that as far as she knows, they don't use Sharia law at all.

If it isn't creeping into the system there despite being marjority Muslim (where you would expect that it would be easier to establish), is there truly a concern that it could be established in any form here?

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

Tommy De Seno:  Question:  I just heard from a friend who is married to a Turk and spends much time there.  She tells me that as far as she knows, they don't use Sharia law at all.

If it isn't creeping into the system there despite being marjority Muslim (where you would expect that it would be easier to establish), is there truly a concern that it could be established in any form here? · Jun 29 at 2:55pm

Repost this when you have received a building permit to build or maintain an active church or synagogue in Turkey.  You can no more do that in Turkey than in Saudi Arabia under Sharia. The good news, despite a brief kerfuffle to the contrary, Turks are generally against the death penalty for apostates, a measure very popular in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Turkish law is inevitably influenced by Sharia, even if Kemalist secularism eliminated Sharia's authority, elements creep back in through cultural inertia.

Another point to consider, how many muslims in these Islam-majority countries are really religious in the Western sense of having chosen a religion based on their on conscience? And how many are captive muslims?

Roberto
Joined
Mar '11
Roberto

Tommy De Seno:  Question:  I just heard from a friend who is married to a Turk and spends much time there.  She tells me that as far as she knows, they don't use Sharia law at all.

If it isn't creeping into the system there despite being marjority Muslim (where you would expect that it would be easier to establish), is there truly a concern that it could be established in any form here? · Jun 29 at 2:55pm

You seem to be completely disregarding decades of Kemalist ideology enforced by a military that was no friend to democracy and more than willing to intervene whenever Islamism appeared as a threat. Under Turkey's current leadership this is a system that is now breaking down, you would be well rewarded by giving Ms. Berlinski's various postings on Operation Sledgehammer a thorough reading.  

jhimmi
Joined
Oct '10
jhimmi

It does seem to me that many people (Turks included) seem to think Turkey is secular and non-theocratic by chance, or could have been predicted simply because Turks are not arabs.

I've always seen Turkey's secularism as a direct result of Ataturk, who, along with the military and judiciary, waged a relentless, decades long war against Islamism, Islamic extremism, Islamic theocracy using tactics we would consider a violation of our constitution.

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

Rick who? 

Oh, wait a second, I just Googled him.  He's the guy who campaigned for Arlen Specter in 2004.

Edited on Jun 29, 2011 at 7:45pm

Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In