9 thoughts on “Creeping Shariah

  1. Regardless of the intentions (good or malignant) of the average Muslim, all you have to do is look at a World map. Observe the periphery of the Islamic World. Whether it's in Africa (think Somalia, Sudan, and Kenya), the Balkins (think Kosovo), or Asia (think India and Pakistan), countries are franctured/ing along religious lines, with Muslims wanting their own country. It's the same thing that's been happening for over a thousand years–just expanding.
    Now, America might be able to assimilate them: we've assimilated other very different cultures before. But it will require them to interpret Islam in a way different from how the Saudi funded mosques, Imams, and curriculum do. It will require them to view Islam as a religion (in the Western sense of the word, ie as a single part of society just like Economic, Finance, Law, Governance, etc.) and not as ALL of those. I don't know if that's possible though.
    Europe, however, has tough times ahead (think Lebanon). I hope that I'm wrong here, but I'm just looking at history, demographics, and birth rates, and making a conclusion.

  2. YES, to answer the soft-spoken one who would back-door us, WE WANT TO ALIENATE THEM. Isn't that clear?

    It is like the president – he isn't one of us – not an issue of race, but he just isn't one of us.

    And until they want to be one of us, they will be alienated.

    The USA is governed by its laws and the prohibition of religious mandate means (not that you can't show the 10 commandments, but that is another issue) that you cannot declare any religious observance to be mandated by the state. Such would be the case with their proposal of Sharia and, therefore, it is unconstitutional. If they want Sharia Law, go somewhere else, like Bradford in the UK where the people have not courage to stand up for themselves and their traditions.

  3. That part about immigrants being "accomodated" rather than "assimilated" hits the nail on the head.

    "Nations" are founded on principles of UNITY, not diversity, a house divided against itself cannot stand. Diversity is a divide and conquer strategy, a self destruct mechanism. It is communism that regards all races, colors, creeds, and national origins as equal.

    "Nations" are historically outgrowths of a primal "family". The "people" of that "nation" are kindred blood relatives sharing a common gene pool. They are united socially by a common religion (the source of their nation's organic law), and a common language. See law dictionary definition of "nation".

    When aliens are to be "adopted" into the "host" nation's body politic, they are expected to abandon their alien customs and beliefs and accept and adopt those of the "host" nation that is accepting them into its national "family" fold. They become a part of the fabric of the new nation, their old one ceases to exist in this new scenario.

    Unfortunately, old loyalties remain inherent in their genetics, they always have a blood bond connection to thier own kindred. Some succesfully adapt but others cannot. Muslims didn't come here to become Americans, they came here to take over America for allah. They are not even trying to hide it anymore.


  4. You obviously know the subject well Will. My argument is simple. I'm no big fan of alcohol either, but if I work for a company that mandates I carry the stuff- I either do what I'm told or leave the job.

    Lots of jobs offend my moral code- therefore I simply work in other areas. I don't take someone's money then refuse to carry out their instructions.

  5. Argument # 3: Alcohol is `Ithm` (sin) and ithm has been forbidden.

    This argument is based on verses 2:219 and 7:33.

    As with point # 2, this argument is not valid based on a simply study of the Quranic text.

    While `ithm/sin` is indeed clearly forbidden in 7:33, the verse linking alcohol with `ithm` is saying `fihima ithm` (`in them is ithm`) and not they are Ithm. Thus, alcohol in itself is not `Ithm` but may be used in a way that produces the `Ithm` (which is in-line with the previous point that the devil uses these tools against people).


    1.Nowhere does God forbid alcohol in the Quran.

    2.God informs us that Salat is not to be approached while intoxicated. This nullifies the `haram` argument in its infancy.

    3.God tells us heaven will have rivers of alcohol as well as milk and honey. This again nullifies the `haram` argument as no pig or blood or any other `haram` elements are made available.

    4.The verse used most to outlaw alcohol speaks of the `devil` and that he should be avoided (not the alcohol).

    Cleary alcohol is not forbidden in Islam and the only restriction found in the Quran is to avoid making Salat if intoxicated.

    However, having said all of the above, it must be noted that alcohol is to treated with `caution` as it may lead to sin and is one of the preferred tools used by the devil to entice humankind.

  6. Hi Trevor.
    Argument # 1: Alcohol is `haram/forbidden`

    This statement is usually uttered by followers of the Hadith or Ulema with no ability to provide direct evidence from the Quran. This statement is based on no knowledge or research as the Quran is very explicit in the items that are `haram` (see verse 5:3 for an example of how forbidden items are directly stated).

    When confronted with obvious contradictions to their statement such as the verse (see 4:43) stating that Salat is not to be approached if a person is intoxicated, they will go into a spin that alcohol was permitted at the beginning of the Quran`s revelation as God did not want to scare people away from the new religion (God had no problem ripping the very fabric of their social and political and religious lives, but did not want to upset people by taking away their drink!). And that when Islam was established, God went ahead and forbade it.

    Argument # 2: God tells us that alcohol is `to be avoided` which is far stronger than being `haram/forbidden`.

    This statement, although wrong, is somewhat creative. The debaters have decided to create a new category called `stronger than being forbidden` and they base their view on verse 5:90 which they claim God tells people to `avoid` alcohol and therefore this is more powerful than being forbidden as you have to make a conscious effort to even get out of places and situations where alcohol is present.

    SHAKIR: O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness (Rijs), the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful. (5:90)

    Why is this argument wrong?

    Simply because the verse being quoted and used as evidence has been mistranslated.

    The word in question is the Arabic `faijtanibuh`. Nearly all translators (and even Arabic speakers) automatically relate this word (which means: `avoid / stay-away`) as addressing the subject of alcohol quoted in the beginning of 5:90. What is obvious to a careful reader is that the wording ends with the `H` which is in Arabic called `dhameer` and is referring to a singular.

    Now, the verse in question has two singular items that it may be referring to: 1. Rijs/Uncleanness, 2. Shaitan.

    While the majority have obviously selected the `Rijs` to support their theory of alcohol being avoided, the verse is correctly referring to the Devil `Shaitan` as can be seen in the very next verse:

    "The devil only wants to cause strife between you through intoxicants and gambling, and to repel you away from remembering God and from the Salat. Will you be deterred?" (5:91)

    The correct translation therefore becomes:

    "O you who believe, intoxicants, and gambling, and sacraments, and fortunes are foul tools used by the devil. You shall avoid him so that you may be successful." (5:90)

  7. I just read that some Republicans in Wisconsin are wobbling in favor of the Unions.

    No stomach for standing for what is right and proper.

    We're doomed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *