In Six Minutes, an Atheist Tears Apart the Way Liberals Defend Muslim Atrocities ‘In the Name of Multiculturalism’

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In the first link the following appears:

With regard to liberal ideology, Maher opines:

"Freedom to practice any religion or NO religion without the threat of violence."

In the second link:

With regard to atheists attacking religion, Maher sets up the following:

1. Muslim women and forced genital mutilation

2. He states that 98% of Somalian women have. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was one of them.

3. She was scheduled to speak at Yale last week, but the school's atheist organization, my people, complained that she did not represent the totality of the ex-Muslim experience. Meaning what? The women who like mutilation?

4. You're atheists! You should be attacking religion not siding with the people who hold women down and violate them, which apparantly you will defend in the name of multiculturalism and then lose your shiite with someone refers to Chaz Bono by the wrong pronoun.

We've discussed this ad nauseum - some will never get it. FGM is NOT a Muslim phenomenon. It's cultural and has nothing to do with religion. FGM was widespread in Ethiopia, for example. Out in the country there, it still is. And those are mostly orthodox Christians practicing it.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

We've discussed this ad nauseum - some will never get it. FGM is NOT a Muslim phenomenon. It's cultural and has nothing to do with religion. FGM was widespread in Ethiopia, for example. Out in the country there, it still is. And those are mostly orthodox Christians practicing it.

I don't know what the hell FGM is, but I assume by using it you mean: Female Genital Mutiliation. If so, please refrain from focusing on that particular aspect of this topic. The topic is much more generalized in that it's about supporting freedom of religion as long as it does not harm others, or oppress, or threaten their own, or others with violence. These are human issues. They are NOT cultural. Islam makes a habit of hiding their treatment of others and especially their own women under the veil of religion. Radical Islam does not hide their intention of the desire to impose Sharia law in the USA. Some of the more gullible in our society allow that.

Edited September 28, 2014 by ExExpat

[Dan and Judy 614]

The topic is much more generalized in that it's about supporting freedom of religion as long as it does not harm others, or oppress, or threaten their own, or others with violence.

I thought we were just Muslim bashing.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

I thought we were just Muslim bashing.

Either you got a mouse in your pocket or an agenda. The topic of this thread is clear. It's obvious and well stated. Get with the program.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Either you got a mouse in your pocket or an agenda. The topic of this thread is clear. It's obvious and well stated. Get with the program.

that's not a mouse but thanks for noticing

[Dan and Judy 614]

The topic is much more generalized in that it's about supporting freedom of religion as long as it does not harm others, or oppress, or threaten their own, or others with violence.

If that's the topic why isn't any of that in the title?

Replying to In Six Minutes, an Atheist Tears Apart the Way Liberals Defend Muslim Atrocities ‘In the Name of Multiculturalism

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It

Religion News Service | By Omar Sacirbey

Posted: 07/29/2013 7:10 am EDT Updated: 07/29/2013 7:10 am EDT

(RNS) North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday (July 24) approved a bill to prohibit judges from considering “foreign laws” in their decisions, but nearly everyone agrees that “foreign laws” really means Shariah, or Islamic law.

North Carolina now joins six other states — Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee — to pass a “foreign laws” bill. A similar bill passed in Missouri, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it, citing threats to international adoptions.

The bills all cite “foreign laws” because two federal courts have ruled that singling out Shariah — as Oklahoma voters originally did in 2010 — is unconstitutional.

So what’s the big deal with Shariah?

Many Americans think of Shariah as an Islamic legal system characterized by misogyny, intolerance, and harsh punishments. Some anti-Islamic activists warn that Muslims are trying to sneak Shariah into the American legal system in ways that do not reflect U.S. legal principles or beliefs.

Many Muslim Americans counter that Shariah is essential to belief, and that any harsh punishments or unconstitutional aspects associated with Islamic law have either been exaggerated, abrogated or are superseded by American law.

Muslims around the world have varying views about what Shariah entails, and its role in personal and public life. So what exactly is Shariah? Here are five facts that might help make sense of this complex and often misunderstood term.

1. What is Shariah?

Shariah is an Arabic word that literally means a path to be followed, and also commonly refers to a path to water. The term is broad, encompassing both a personal moral code and religious law.

There are two sources of Shariah: The Quran, which many Muslims consider to be the literal word of God; and the “Sunnah,” the divinely guided tradition of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

The interpretation of Shariah is called “fiqh,” or Islamic jurisprudence. Because fiqh is man-made, it can be changed; Shariah, for many Muslims, is divine and cannot be changed.

Some Muslims use the term Shariah to apply to both the injunctions in the Quran and Sunnah, and the interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah. Islamic law consists of Shariah and fiqh.

2. What does Shariah cover?

While often thought of as a legal system, Shariah covers personal and collective spheres of daily life, and has three components – belief, character, and actions. Only a small portion of the “action” component relates to law. In fact, only about 80 of the Quran’s 6,236 verses are about specific legal injunctions.

The “belief” component of Shariah commands Muslims to believe in God, the angels, prophets, revelation, and other metaphysical and physical aspects of the faith.

In terms of “character,” Shariah commands Muslims to strive for traits like humility and kindness, and to avoid traits such as lying and pride.

“Actions” include those relating to God, such as prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage, as well as actions relating to other humans, such as marriage, crime, and business.

Some actions relating to other humans can be regulated by the state, while actions relating to God (as well as belief and character) are between an individual and God. Nevertheless, some Muslim-majority countries have criminalized violations of the belief, character, and action components of Shariah.

--more--

Edited September 28, 2014 by ExExpat

[decocker 7,198]

What he said is perfectly clear to an unclouded mind. There is no need for me to use words different from what he used as the words he chose were perfect. It's understandable, clear, articulate, and for that reason makes sense. Two major points he made:

1. Liberals support freedom of religion as long as that religion do not threaten others with violence

2. Atheists should NOT be attacking a woman who had her genitals involuntarily mutilated in Somalia. Rather, the Atheists should attack aspects of religion that oppress others with threats or acts of violence.

It's clear that you don't like or agree with his message. But, trying to twist his words shows you are desperately trying to make his message different than what he intended.

and yet you felt the need to add (not just use) words to what he said.

i hardly think that an atheist group at yale changing their minds on a speaker's appearance is 'attacking'. and again, how do you ATTACK aspects of a religion? how does one do this - how is the attack carried out?

i laughed a couple times throughout his rant, thing is - i've been watching bill a long time and i know how he feels about muslims and religion in general. that's why i make it a point to call him a hypocrite. i'm not twisting or adding anything to what he said in that clip.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Who chooses these titles? It wasn't made clear to me why the states would want to ban Shariah laws

[LibCampFireClub 635]

and yet you felt the need to add (not just use) words to what he said.

i hardly think that an atheist group at yale changing their minds on a speaker's appearance is 'attacking'. and again, how do you ATTACK aspects of a religion? how does one do this - how is the attack carried out?

i laughed a couple times throughout his rant, thing is - i've been watching bill a long time and i know how he feels about muslims and religion in general. that's why i make it a point to call him a hypocrite. i'm not twisting or adding anything to what he said in that clip.

You're getting all wrapped up into the messenger who is simply presenting a valid message. That message is:

You are free to practice your religion in the USA. Anything you do that harms another human being, or threatens another human being is against the law in the USA. It's a NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO , NO. The first three NO's should be recited slowly, followed quickly by the next five.

You see, the Rule of Law in the US takes precedence over any other law. So, if you have something your religion suggests or demands you do that violates US law, that is a big ole WHOOPSIE.

To watch it, is kinda like this college football fan running around on a football field during an active game. Whoops, got caught. Damn, that's gotta hurt.

Edited September 28, 2014 by ExExpat

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't know what the hell FGM is, but I assume by using it you mean: Female Genital Mutiliation. If so, please refrain from focusing on that particular aspect of this topic. The topic is much more generalized in that it's about supporting freedom of religion as long as it does not harm others, or oppress, or threaten their own, or others with violence. These are human issues. They are NOT cultural. Islam makes a habit of hiding their treatment of others and especially their own women under the veil of religion. Radical Islam does not hide their intention of the desire to impose Sharia law in the USA. Some of the more gullible in our society allow that.

If you don't want to focus on FGM, then maybe you shouldn't have focused on it in your own post - and then incorrectly ascribing it to a faith no less. It's not a faith-based practice. Try to work that into your skull.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Try to work that into your skull.

Hahaha. You're a funny guy! Like a clown.

Edited September 28, 2014 by ExExpat

[LibCampFireClub 635]

An interesting read regarding the 'creep' of Sharia law into the American court system:

Purview

This study evaluates published appellate legal cases that involved “conflict of law” issues between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. For every case in this sample drawn from published appellate legal cases, there are innumerable cases at the trial level that remain unnoticed except by the participants. Thus, this report is a only a sample of possible cases—a “tip of the iceberg”—of legal cases involving Shariah in local, state and federal courts.

Our findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases. Others state with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in the case at bar. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections. This is a serious issue and should be a subject of public debate and engagement by policymakers.

Background

From its founding, America has debated the conflict between domestic and foreign laws. Much of America’s identity, as a sovereign democratic republic with strong Constitutional protections from government intrusion, was forged through the rejection of foreign laws. Now American courts are confronting increasing numbers of cases of a new foreign legal doctrine—the Islamic law known as Shariah. Authoritative, institutionalized Shariah legal doctrine is the only law in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran, and it is a dominant legal institution in most other Muslim-majority countries. In many countries with increasing populations of Muslim immigrants, some Muslim groups are demanding the right to observe—and to impose on their fellow Muslims – Shariah doctrine, even when that doctrine conflicts with the federal and state constitutions and public policy. Other Muslims come to the U.S. to escape Shariah law, and seek the protections of the secular courts and law enforcement to protect them from Shariah law.

--more--

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Top 20 Cases of Sharia Law in American Courts

APPEAL: Appeals Court Shariah Compliance Outcome Review:

Yes: ACSY

No: ACSN

Indeterminate: ACSI

Not Applicable: ACSNA

1. S.D. v. M.J.R., 2 A.3d 412 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSN

S.D. (wife) and M.J.R. (husband) were both Muslims and citizens of Morocco and both resided in New Jersey. After only three months of marriage, husband began physically abusing wife. The physical abuse administered by husband injured wife’s entire body including her breasts and pubic area. Additionally, husband forced himself on wife and had non-consensual sex with her on multiple occasions. Husband stated to wife that Islam allowed him to have sex

with her at any time he wished.

Wife asked the trial court to grant a restraining order against husband shortly after he verbally divorced her in front of their imam. The trial court refused to issue a final restraining order against husband finding that, although husband had harassed and assaulted wife, husband believed it was his religious right to have non-consensual sex with his wife and that belief precluded any criminal intent on the part of husband. The New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial court and ordered that the trial court enter a final restraining order against husband.

The New Jersey appellate court stated that the trial court erroneously allowed the husband’s religious beliefs to excuse him from New Jersey’s criminal code and that husband knowingly engaged in non-consensual sex with wife.

2. Hosain v. Malik, 671 A. 2d 988 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSY

Hosain (wife) and Malik (husband) lived in Pakistan as a married couple for approximately eight years before Hosain fled to the United States with the couple’s daughter. Malik filed for custody of their daughter in a Pakistani court. Hosain did not appear before the Pakistani court because she would have been arrested in Pakistan for adultery because she lived with a man after she fled to the United States. The Pakistani court granted custody to Malik. Malik requested that American courts recognize and enforce the Pakistani custody order via a mechanism known as comity. A Maryland trial court granted comity to the Pakistani custody order. On appeal, the Maryland appellate court affirmed the trial court and granted comity to the Pakistani custody order holding that the Pakistani court considered the best interests of the child in granting custody to Malik. However, the minority opinion disagreed that the Pakistani court considered the child’s best interest and instead focused on factors outside of the “best interests of the child” analysis. These other factors included that the child would live in an “un-Islamic” society if it were allowed to remain with Hosain in the United States.

3. In re Marriage of Obaidi, 227 P. 3d 787 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSN

Qayoum (husband) and Obaidi (wife) signed a pre-marital agreement known as a “mahr” which was written in Farsi. Husband was a U.S. citizen; had little understanding of any culture outside of America; and did not speak, read, or write Farsi. The contents of the mahr required that husband pay wife $20,000 at some future date, but husband was not advised about the mahr’s contents until after he had signed it. A few months after the couple signed the mahr, they were married in an Islamic wedding; and later they were wed in a civil ceremony. Several months after the civil ceremony, wife was kicked out of the couple’s residence and filed for divorce in Washington state court.

The trial court found the mahr enforceable and awarded wife $20,000 per the terms of the mahr. The trial court noted that husband initiated the divorce without good cause; and therefore, was liable, per Islamic law, to pay the amount due under the mahr. The Washington appellate court held that the trial court erred by looking to Islamic law; and instead should have applied neutral principles of law to determine whether the mahr was enforceable. The appellate court stated that under neutral principles of law (Washington contract law) the parties must agree on the essential terms of a contract in order for the contract to be enforceable.

Applying this neutral principle of law, the appellate court held the mahr was unenforceable because the parties never agreed why or when the $20,000 would be due.

4. Chaudry v. Chaudry, 388 A. 2d 1000 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSN; ACSY

Husband and wife were both Pakistani citizens. Wife filed for divorce in a New Jersey court alleging that her husband had abandoned her. Husband answered the divorce suit by stating that he had already been granted a divorce under Pakistani law; and thus, the trial court was without jurisdiction to divide the marital estate. The trial court ruled that Pakistani law violated New Jersey public policy because of its gross bias against the wife. The trial judge invalidated the Pakistani divorce and ordered husband to pay spousal maintenance to wife.

The New Jersey appellate court did not show much concern regarding whether the Pakistani divorce court offended New Jersey public policy. Instead, the appellate court held that the trial court should have recognized the Pakistani divorce and should not have ordered husband to pay spousal maintenance to wife because the couple’s Islamic pre-marital agreement did not provide for spousal maintenance and did not allow wife to take an interest in husband’s property. The appellate court stated that the pre-marital agreement was freely negotiated, but apparently ignored the fact that the couple’s parents negotiated the agreement and the wife had no role in negotiating the pre-marital agreement that would cause her to be without spousal maintenance and without an interest in marital assets acquired by husband.

--more--

Edited September 28, 2014 by ExExpat

[Curmudgeon 227]

What part of liberal ideology allows for the premise to be true? My understanding of liberalism certainly doesn't allow for acts of violence to be perpetrated against innocent citizens based on a misunderstanding of multiculturalism. How does yours differ? Are you saying the liberal ideology allows for lassez faire even when it actively causes harm? That's nonsensical.