Truck kills 30 in France

[Anonymous]

Can we please just do away with all religion already? Where is the movement for people of reason. How can we conquer with math and science and compassion? It doesn't have as many zingers or cool outfits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Sharia law globally. They will not assimilate like other immigrant populations. There is zero regard for human life. Sharia law is incompatible with Western Civilization.

You can be sweet and nice and not go into their countries...and they'll still want you dead. The idea of personal freedom is a the antithesis to their religion. Hence, attacking France on its day of Freedom.

The killing of innocents wasn't even collateral damage in a wartime situation. It was murder.

White supremacists want to remove minorities from the USA. They want to implement their own WHITE only constitution. It doesn't mean they will get what they want. Middle eastern Muslims(not including black Muslims) are about 1% of the US population. If White racists who are more than 10% of US population can't get their wish fulfilled, how can a tiny Muslim population get sharia law in the USA. Get a grip. Like JFK said "we don't have anything to fear but fear itself".

You must be dense. Let's look at it another way.

A small country like Italy has 1,613,000 Muslims. That's over 30% of the population. Most live in the North. It is the second largest religion in Italy next to Catholicism. 

The US, by comparison, has about 3 million Muslims.

Here's a visual comparing size. Making new babies always grows a religion.

Show me the statistics of muslim birth rate in the USA. Please understand who is dense when you are showing irrelevant data to the USA and making comparison. statistics is only as good as the the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Are you too stupid to do your own research?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/06/a-new-estimate-of-the-u-s-muslim-population/

Maybe Pew's not your thing, but it's credible. The US is larger than Italy and can absorb more. But I guess you don't think size is important.

Pew Research Center estimates that there were about 3.3 million Muslims of all ages living in the United States in 2015. This means that Muslims made up about 1% of the total U.S. population (about 322 million people in 2015), and we estimate that that share will double by 2050.

Since our first estimate of the size of the Muslim American population in 2007, we have seen a steady growth in both the number of Muslims in the U.S. and the percentage of the U.S. population that is Muslim.

A projection is only an estimate based on current condition(in this case maybe 2010 or earlier). Most projections never pan out, and even if it becomes 2%, it is a small number. Your fear is irrational and is solely driven by the nonwhite population. Have you seen the hispanic population growth by 2040? US will be a minority majority country by 2040 whether anyone like it or not. US will be like TX demography by 2030 and like CA demography by 2040. I for one welcome diversity and not scared by it. Because fear only makes you look the worst of intentions from others, Bush said that, not me.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Honest question here and I would appreciate serious answers. Can anyone provide any evidence that this event was an act of terrorism? I mean, obviously it terrorized people, but a formal "act of terrorism" requires a bit more than that. In the US, our laws have several, though similar, definitions of terrorism. Here is how the USA Patriot defines terrorism: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

The Nice attack clearly meets "(A)" and "(C)" is immaterial to this discussion. But, "(B)" has three parts and I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that those factors exist.

Similarly, is there any evidence that this attack was motivated by religion? Many of us -- me included -- immediately jumped to the conclusion that this attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. Now, it appears that it may not have been terrorism at all, let alone Islamic terrorism.

They are reporting he was recently radicalized, extremely quickly. He could have not been connected, but he answered the call and committed the Terrorist act. To me, it's even scarier if it's not a 'formal' act. ISIS is making this idealogogyviral so it will reproduce on its own. It is harder to track and stop. It can happen anywhere with little prep time.

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/islamic-state-group-claims-nice-attacker-as-a-soldier

What ISIS says is immaterial. They could claim that you and I are supporters but it wouldn't make it so. Reports are not evidence. My question is if there is any evidence of a political or religious motive or evidence that the act meets the formal definition of terrorism. If we start calling acts "terrorism" that don't meet the definition of "terrorism", the word really don't have any meaning or usefulness.

There were accounts from sources claiming he yelled out Allahu Akbar, but those were sources most wouldn't value on these threads - The Sun, for example, or The Mirror or Daily Mail. The NYT, however, is allowing the reader to make inferences by referencing the Nice attack and discussing how the truck has become the killing machine for ISIS. Apparently, in Al Queda's Inspire magazine, the truck was described as a weapon to "mow down the enemies of Allah." The article then referenced a "lone actor" who rammed his car into two soldiers in Quebec after being "inspired" by Adnani.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/truck-attack-nice-france.html

an article on Adnani - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-told-supporters-run-people-cars-years-nice-article-1.2712241

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It says % of muslims who want Sharia BUT NOT what percent of each country's population are muslims, which is more important. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if a country has only 1% of population who are middle east muslims, as in the USA. Statistics are only as good as the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Also, what is meant by "supporting Sharia" is not clearly defined. There is not a single version of "sharia" documented and in most countries which have implemented a version of "sharia", it is only for personal issues. Does it really matter that 90% of a country's Muslims support Sharia but that only means that they want to get married and divorced according to Islamic traditions?

Doesn't Sharia Law mean the government makes people obey Sharia? We're not talking about people making personal decisions here. You know that.

What is "Sharia"? Where is it documented? If a government "makes people obey Sharia", what does that mean? Does that mean that the government ordains beheadings and amputations or does it mean that weddings are conducted according to Muslims traditions? Everyone talks about "sharia" as if it is documented like the US Constitution. That is not the case. In fact, discussing it that way is one of the surest signs that the person discussing it is unformed about what it even is.

I'm sorry, I thought it was a given that we were talking about making Sharia the law of the land, the government's law. Isn't that what people mean when they say they want sharia law -- not that they are free to marry and divorce and punish based on their own personal beliefs, but that everyone must do the same because that is the official law of the land? Come on, you know that's what the discussion is about.

You are really misunderstanding. "Personal" issues are issues related to people such as marriage, divorce, funerals, etc. As opposed to "criminal" issues such as rape, murder, extortion, etc. "Sharia" is not a defined set of laws as you seem to believe that it is. So, if you say "making Sharia the law of the land" what exactly will be the law of the land? What are the nuts and bolts? How will trials be conducted? What will be the penalty for murder? In most countries that have implemented sharia, they have only done it for personal issues such as marriage, divorce, etc. Criminal and business laws may be influenced by Islam, but are not from Sharia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Algeria was better off as a French colony than an independent nation, any Algerian will tell you that. It's why they begged to get their colonial status back.

Look what that got.

Now this Tunisian decides to kill the best thing about his heritage - his relationship to Western Civilization.

It's getting difficult to trust anyone who can't agree on the profound and fundamental importance of a civilization which has been through the Enlightenment, and one which has not. The philosophical underpinnings to even belonging in the 21st century apparently are missing.

Liberals base much of their political identity on protecting and promoting the rights of women. It is a complete mystery to me why they are not concerned about the fact that we are importing a culture that has disregard for the rights of women as a central tenet (and I say "culture," as we can have a discussion about whether that is based on Islam or tribal law -- but the fact remains). When I see women wearing headscarves and walking behind their husbands, it makes me sad. Many of these people have no intention of assimilating and adopting the western values of equality and freedom of speech and religion that we hold dear. I would have no problem with Muslims wearing scarves if men wore them, too. The whole practice is based upon the premise that a woman's sexuality must be hidden, and men can't be expected to control themselves. Do we really want to send the message to our daughters that repressing is ok if it's your "culture."

How exactly are we importing that?

And how exactly do you dictate to people what to wear and how to walk?

Clinton plans to bring in one million refugees in her first term. How many 'lone wolves' will be hiding among them?

Every one of the terrorists so far in the USA have been US citizens born here. That's the case in Europe too. It is the same as Stopping Dylan ROof or Timothy Mcveigh, American terrorists. The solution is to look inside and stop guns from reaching those on no fly list, felons, FBI watch list etc.

Show me a link which says Hillary accepted 1Million MUSLIM refugees. US hasn't even taken in 10000 but Canada has taken in 100,000. That's ten times more when Canada population is ten times less. How many terrorist attack happened in Canada? Do what Canada does. They don't go to foreign countries on an unjust war and kill millions of foreign civilians. Canada doesn't keep its military in the Middle East for oil. Would you like if Chinese military is stationed in TX to siphon off oil and also kill millions of Americans?

They were the children of immigrants. Both were Muslim. They did not have an allegiance to the US. Not really US citizens except on paper. The Orlando shooter cheered when 911 happened. Things have changed and so must we and our constitution may need to be amended as well to accomdate the changes.

You never bothered to read the PP's post. You know the truth is our meddling with foreigners and keeping our military that kills. Remove that and Tighten gun control and US will be like Canada. But you want to do everything else but that.

How do you stop White racists killing blacks and Jews. FBI stats for hate crime says most hate crime is done against Jews and blacks. Who is doing it? Muslims? It's the white racist guy? Are you gonna deport them to Europe too?

As a Jew in my 50s, I have never had one iota of an issue with white supremacists. I have, however have had issues with Muslim men.

One person doesn't make a trend or even a population. FBI stats says a different story. https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/victims_final

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It says % of muslims who want Sharia BUT NOT what percent of each country's population are muslims, which is more important. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if a country has only 1% of population who are middle east muslims, as in the USA. Statistics are only as good as the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Also, what is meant by "supporting Sharia" is not clearly defined. There is not a single version of "sharia" documented and in most countries which have implemented a version of "sharia", it is only for personal issues. Does it really matter that 90% of a country's Muslims support Sharia but that only means that they want to get married and divorced according to Islamic traditions?

Doesn't Sharia Law mean the government makes people obey Sharia? We're not talking about people making personal decisions here. You know that.

What is "Sharia"? Where is it documented? If a government "makes people obey Sharia", what does that mean? Does that mean that the government ordains beheadings and amputations or does it mean that weddings are conducted according to Muslims traditions? Everyone talks about "sharia" as if it is documented like the US Constitution. That is not the case. In fact, discussing it that way is one of the surest signs that the person discussing it is unformed about what it even is.

Which part of the divorce laws are you in favor of?

http://info.legalzoom.com/sharia-law-divorce-20649.html


"When immigrants arrive in the United States, they bring the traditions of their faith with them. Sharia and its laws guide devout Muslims. Based on the teachings of the Quran and Mohammed, this Islamic code defines acceptable behavior in almost every aspect of a Muslim’s life, and it extends to ways in which a couple may end their marriage.


Divorce by Islamic Court

In many Muslim nations, the courts are set up to accommodate Sharia law through a process called “tafriq.” Depending on the country, the court may act in addition to a traditional Sharia divorce or in lieu of it. A couple can register with the court, notifying it that they would like to terminate their marriage. They’re then required to meet with a counselor over the course of a three-month period called “iddat.” The counselor will attempt to reconcile the couple before allowing them to move forward with divorce proceedings. If counseling fails, the couple’s divorce moves on to a judge, who will decide whether to permit them to end their marriage. (References 1, 2 and 5)


Talaq Divorce

Before approaching an Islamic court for a legal divorce, a couple may already have divorced by the traditional terms of “talaq.” This involves a husband notifying his wife three times that he is divorcing her. After he does so the third time, the divorce is final. A wife might also have the right to divorce her husband this way if she included the provision in her marriage contract. Some countries, such as Kuwait, allow talaq by electronic means, such as a text message or email. After making the pronouncement, the couple can proceed to court for tafriq if they choose, or they may simply be content with a talaq divorce. If they go to court and the husband denies that he’s committed talaq, the marriage continues. If he admits it, the legal divorce proceeds.


Khula Divorce

“Khula” is a mutual divorce under Sharia law. It involves a woman paying her husband to gain his permission to allow her out of the marriage. Payment can be monetary or through some service provided to him. Her family might return his dowry to him, the goods or payment they received in exchange for their daughter as his wife. If he accepts, the divorce can move on to court for the tafriq process.


Iddat

Some Muslim nations require a wife to submit to a period of iddat after a divorce, and the three-month counseling period of a tafriq divorce accommodates this. The three months coincide with three menstrual periods to prove that she is not pregnant. Traditionally, she is not to leave her home during these months, so she cannot conceive by another man during this time. If her husband decides he does not want a divorce after all, he can resume marital relations with her during iddat, with or without her agreement. If he does so, the divorce is off. If he doesn't, they are divorced.


Application in U.S.Courts

Other than the provisions of khula for a mutual divorce, Sharia law does not ordinarily address issues of property division or child custody. In the United States, however, couples must address these issues to receive a legal divorce. According to both CBS News and “Sharia Law and American State Courts,” American courts are increasingly considering the fundamentals of Sharia law when making divorce decisions for Muslim couples, even when those tenets fly in the face of the Constitution and individual state laws.


I'm sorry, I thought it was a given that we were talking about making Sharia the law of the land, the government's law. Isn't that what people mean when they say they want sharia law -- not that they are free to marry and divorce and punish based on their own personal beliefs, but that everyone must do the same because that is the official law of the land? Come on, you know that's what the discussion is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Sharia law globally. They will not assimilate like other immigrant populations. There is zero regard for human life. Sharia law is incompatible with Western Civilization.

You can be sweet and nice and not go into their countries...and they'll still want you dead. The idea of personal freedom is a the antithesis to their religion. Hence, attacking France on its day of Freedom.

The killing of innocents wasn't even collateral damage in a wartime situation. It was murder.

White supremacists want to remove minorities from the USA. They want to implement their own WHITE only constitution. It doesn't mean they will get what they want. Middle eastern Muslims(not including black Muslims) are about 1% of the US population. If White racists who are more than 10% of US population can't get their wish fulfilled, how can a tiny Muslim population get sharia law in the USA. Get a grip. Like JFK said "we don't have anything to fear but fear itself".

The goal of Islamic extremist groups is to infiltrate and conquer. They will rely upon the literal interpretation (perhaps the original meaning) of the koran to support beheadings, slavery and crucifixions.

If Pew states that Muslims are the fastest growing group in the world, I believe JFK may eat his words wherever he is. The goal of any religion - however bastardized the interpretation is - is to expand b/c there's safety in numbers.

Muslims are the fastest-growing religious group in the world. The growth and regional migration of Muslims, combined with the ongoing impact of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other extremist groups that commit acts of violence in the name of Islam, have brought Muslims and the Islamic faith to the forefront of the political debate in many countries.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

This chart needs further explanation. It indicates support for any type of shariah law. Many countries already have shariah for matters of civil status such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. So the numbers really reflect in large degree support for the existing religious courts for family law. In countries that use Shariah for family law, non-Muslims use church courts.

Most Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia notwithstanding) do not use shariah for criminal law. And the support for that is much, much less even in Muslim countries. Note in the charts below you have to multiply the percentages in the lower charts by the percentage of those supporting Sharia law in the chart near the beginning to find overall support.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/#how-should-sharia-be-applied

It is absurd to think Muslim immigrants want to spread Shariah in the West. First, the Western view of Sharia focuses on criminal law. I am guessing few of the Shariah fear mongers understand that the only role Shariah plays in the vast majority of Muslim countries is in family law. Second, the more fanatic Muslims haven't succeeded in implementing criminal Shariah law in their own countries. So how is it their agenda to establish it in Western countries?

I fault Pew for highlighting the chart PP posted in its overview. It results in a very distorted picture.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Honest question here and I would appreciate serious answers. Can anyone provide any evidence that this event was an act of terrorism? I mean, obviously it terrorized people, but a formal "act of terrorism" requires a bit more than that. In the US, our laws have several, though similar, definitions of terrorism. Here is how the USA Patriot defines terrorism: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

The Nice attack clearly meets "(A)" and "(C)" is immaterial to this discussion. But, "(B)" has three parts and I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that those factors exist.

Similarly, is there any evidence that this attack was motivated by religion? Many of us -- me included -- immediately jumped to the conclusion that this attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. Now, it appears that it may not have been terrorism at all, let alone Islamic terrorism.

They are reporting he was recently radicalized, extremely quickly. He could have not been connected, but he answered the call and committed the Terrorist act. To me, it's even scarier if it's not a 'formal' act. ISIS is making this idealogogyviral so it will reproduce on its own. It is harder to track and stop. It can happen anywhere with little prep time.

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/islamic-state-group-claims-nice-attacker-as-a-soldier

What ISIS says is immaterial. They could claim that you and I are supporters but it wouldn't make it so. Reports are not evidence. My question is if there is any evidence of a political or religious motive or evidence that the act meets the formal definition of terrorism. If we start calling acts "terrorism" that don't meet the definition of "terrorism", the word really don't have any meaning or usefulness.

There were accounts from sources claiming he yelled out Allahu Akbar, but those were sources most wouldn't value on these threads - The Sun, for example, or The Mirror or Daily Mail. The NYT, however, is allowing the reader to make inferences by referencing the Nice attack and discussing how the truck has become the killing machine for ISIS. Apparently, in Al Queda's Inspire magazine, the truck was described as a weapon to "mow down the enemies of Allah." The article then referenced a "lone actor" who rammed his car into two soldiers in Quebec after being "inspired" by Adnani.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/truck-attack-nice-france.html

an article on Adnani - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-told-supporters-run-people-cars-years-nice-article-1.2712241

It would be a stretch to even describe this as circumstantial evidence. Inspire is written in English and directed to English speakers. It is AQAP's publication, not ISIS's. I understand that lots of publications and lots of individuals are doing their best to make this a case of Islamic terrorism, but where is the evidence? If there is any, we don't know about it. In the absence of such evidence, a lot of people are jumping the gun, if not outright wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we please just do away with all religion already? Where is the movement for people of reason. How can we conquer with math and science and compassion? It doesn't have as many zingers or cool outfits.

I think Christianity has a lot to offer. If I could live as a real Christian, I'd be a good person. Compassion is a big part of being a real Christian, TBW. I also love math and science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Sharia law globally. They will not assimilate like other immigrant populations. There is zero regard for human life. Sharia law is incompatible with Western Civilization.

You can be sweet and nice and not go into their countries...and they'll still want you dead. The idea of personal freedom is a the antithesis to their religion. Hence, attacking France on its day of Freedom.

The killing of innocents wasn't even collateral damage in a wartime situation. It was murder.

Are the Muslims killing Brazilians or Argetinians or Canadians or Japanese. You get the picture. You can't expect civility when you are uncivil to them. Maybe you are the type that would like Chinese Military in TX and would gladly accept them and welcome them. But most Americans won't like foreign power in their backyard, as are any humans. You reap what you sow, Americans are no more special than anyone else to be exception to this rule.

The Olympics haven't started yet...

Yeah, you guys want innocent people killed so you can feel good about yourself. But you dont seem to worry when Dylann Roof killed Blacks in a church or Robert Dear killed planned planet hood folks? Why not? Do You think black lives matter less? or because the murderer is a white man?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Sharia law globally. They will not assimilate like other immigrant populations. There is zero regard for human life. Sharia law is incompatible with Western Civilization.

You can be sweet and nice and not go into their countries...and they'll still want you dead. The idea of personal freedom is a the antithesis to their religion. Hence, attacking France on its day of Freedom.

The killing of innocents wasn't even collateral damage in a wartime situation. It was murder.

White supremacists want to remove minorities from the USA. They want to implement their own WHITE only constitution. It doesn't mean they will get what they want. Middle eastern Muslims(not including black Muslims) are about 1% of the US population. If White racists who are more than 10% of US population can't get their wish fulfilled, how can a tiny Muslim population get sharia law in the USA. Get a grip. Like JFK said "we don't have anything to fear but fear itself".

What happened in Nice will become more frequent in ALL Western countries. The US wasn't even mentioned in the post you are referencing. However, you are delusional if you think this type of thing isn't going to start happening here.

According to 2014 FBI stats on HATE CRIME Terrorism, Blacks and Jews have been targeted the most. The White Supremacists have committed more Terror activities than Muslims in the past 10 years. Lone White men have killed Blacks, children in schools, Jews in Synagogue, Indian Americans in temples, people in Planned parenthood, people in movie theaters.

You maybe white and You dont care IF NONWHITE is killed. But I am Minority and I worry about the WHITE RACISTS who have killed so much more than Muslims ACCORDING TO FBI. I go by what FBI says than what you say. Check the link below and educate yourself.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/victims_final

I'm white and I care if NONWHITES are killed. I care about what's done to minorities. I believe in Black Lives Matter. I also know that the issue with Jihadists is that they want to irradiate our entire way of life. They are not out to kill a few people or a group of people, they are out to destroy our entire way of life, our entire society. Surely you can see the difference.

They are only 1% of the population here. Get a grip will you? What you should be fearful of is the ideology of white supremacists who are 10% of the population. Besides the muslim hate is atleast partially driven by US MILITARY stationed in the middle east for decades killing their people in millions. Will you accept if Chinese military is in TX for decades and kill Americans in Millions? Answer that truthfully without ignoring it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It says % of muslims who want Sharia BUT NOT what percent of each country's population are muslims, which is more important. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if a country has only 1% of population who are middle east muslims, as in the USA. Statistics are only as good as the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Also, what is meant by "supporting Sharia" is not clearly defined. There is not a single version of "sharia" documented and in most countries which have implemented a version of "sharia", it is only for personal issues. Does it really matter that 90% of a country's Muslims support Sharia but that only means that they want to get married and divorced according to Islamic traditions?

Doesn't Sharia Law mean the government makes people obey Sharia? We're not talking about people making personal decisions here. You know that.

What is "Sharia"? Where is it documented? If a government "makes people obey Sharia", what does that mean? Does that mean that the government ordains beheadings and amputations or does it mean that weddings are conducted according to Muslims traditions? Everyone talks about "sharia" as if it is documented like the US Constitution. That is not the case. In fact, discussing it that way is one of the surest signs that the person discussing it is unformed about what it even is.

I'm sorry, I thought it was a given that we were talking about making Sharia the law of the land, the government's law. Isn't that what people mean when they say they want sharia law -- not that they are free to marry and divorce and punish based on their own personal beliefs, but that everyone must do the same because that is the official law of the land? Come on, you know that's what the discussion is about.

You are really misunderstanding. "Personal" issues are issues related to people such as marriage, divorce, funerals, etc. As opposed to "criminal" issues such as rape, murder, extortion, etc. "Sharia" is not a defined set of laws as you seem to believe that it is. So, if you say "making Sharia the law of the land" what exactly will be the law of the land? What are the nuts and bolts? How will trials be conducted? What will be the penalty for murder? In most countries that have implemented sharia, they have only done it for personal issues such as marriage, divorce, etc. Criminal and business laws may be influenced by Islam, but are not from Sharia.

Obviously I am no expert but this is from Wikipedia:

Sharia deals with many topics, including crime, politics, marriage contracts, trade regulations, religious prescriptions, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting. Adherence to sharia has served as one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Muslim faith historically.[5] In its strictest definition, sharia is considered in Islam as the infallible law of God....

Sharia is a significant source of legislation in many Muslim countries where some countries apply a majority or some of the sharia code, and these include Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen and Mauritania. In these countries, sharia-prescribed punishments such as beheading, flogging and stoning continue to be practiced judicially or extra-judicially.[10][page needed][11][page needed] There has been controversy over what some perceive as a movement by various Islamist groups to introduce and implement sharia throughout the world, including in Western countries,[citation needed] but attempts to impose sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[12] violence,[13] and even warfare....

The concept of crime, judicial process, justice and punishment embodied in sharia is different from that of secular law.[18] The differences between sharia and secular law have led to an ongoing controversy as to whether sharia is compatible with secular forms of government, human rights, freedom of thought, and women's rights....

As a legal system, the Sharia law covers a very wide range of topics. While other legal codes deal primarily with public behavior, Sharia law covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs.

According to the Sharia law and after due process and investigation:

Habitual theft past a specific threshold, and after repeated warnings, is punishable by amputation of a hand.
The punishment for adultery and fornication such that it becomes a public ordeal, according to the Holy Qur'an, is lashing. Before the revelation of these verses, Muhammad followed the Judaic law in implementing the punishment of death by stoning. This was only given if the person admitted to it repeatedly, was not intoxicated and knew the repercussions. Even then, if during the punishment he repented, he was to be released.
A woman is allowed to be accompanied by another woman in giving testimony in court for financial affairs
A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits. The concept being that Islam puts the responsibility of earning and spending on the family on the male. Any wealth the female earns is strictly for her own use. The female also inherits from both her immediate family and through agency of her husband, her in-laws as well.


ETC.!!!!!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It says % of muslims who want Sharia BUT NOT what percent of each country's population are muslims, which is more important. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if a country has only 1% of population who are middle east muslims, as in the USA. Statistics are only as good as the intelligence of the person who is reading it.

Also, what is meant by "supporting Sharia" is not clearly defined. There is not a single version of "sharia" documented and in most countries which have implemented a version of "sharia", it is only for personal issues. Does it really matter that 90% of a country's Muslims support Sharia but that only means that they want to get married and divorced according to Islamic traditions?

Doesn't Sharia Law mean the government makes people obey Sharia? We're not talking about people making personal decisions here. You know that.

What is "Sharia"? Where is it documented? If a government "makes people obey Sharia", what does that mean? Does that mean that the government ordains beheadings and amputations or does it mean that weddings are conducted according to Muslims traditions? Everyone talks about "sharia" as if it is documented like the US Constitution. That is not the case. In fact, discussing it that way is one of the surest signs that the person discussing it is unformed about what it even is.

I'm sorry, I thought it was a given that we were talking about making Sharia the law of the land, the government's law. Isn't that what people mean when they say they want sharia law -- not that they are free to marry and divorce and punish based on their own personal beliefs, but that everyone must do the same because that is the official law of the land? Come on, you know that's what the discussion is about.

You are really misunderstanding. "Personal" issues are issues related to people such as marriage, divorce, funerals, etc. As opposed to "criminal" issues such as rape, murder, extortion, etc. "Sharia" is not a defined set of laws as you seem to believe that it is. So, if you say "making Sharia the law of the land" what exactly will be the law of the land? What are the nuts and bolts? How will trials be conducted? What will be the penalty for murder? In most countries that have implemented sharia, they have only done it for personal issues such as marriage, divorce, etc. Criminal and business laws may be influenced by Islam, but are not from Sharia.

Obviously I am no expert but this is from Wikipedia:

Sharia deals with many topics, including crime, politics, marriage contracts, trade regulations, religious prescriptions, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting. Adherence to sharia has served as one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Muslim faith historically.[5] In its strictest definition, sharia is considered in Islam as the infallible law of God....

Sharia is a significant source of legislation in many Muslim countries where some countries apply a majority or some of the sharia code, and these include Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen and Mauritania. In these countries, sharia-prescribed punishments such as beheading, flogging and stoning continue to be practiced judicially or extra-judicially.[10][page needed][11][page needed] There has been controversy over what some perceive as a movement by various Islamist groups to introduce and implement sharia throughout the world, including in Western countries,[citation needed] but attempts to impose sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[12] violence,[13] and even warfare....

The concept of crime, judicial process, justice and punishment embodied in sharia is different from that of secular law.[18] The differences between sharia and secular law have led to an ongoing controversy as to whether sharia is compatible with secular forms of government, human rights, freedom of thought, and women's rights....

As a legal system, the Sharia law covers a very wide range of topics. While other legal codes deal primarily with public behavior, Sharia law covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs.

According to the Sharia law and after due process and investigation:

Habitual theft past a specific threshold, and after repeated warnings, is punishable by amputation of a hand.
The punishment for adultery and fornication such that it becomes a public ordeal, according to the Holy Qur'an, is lashing. Before the revelation of these verses, Muhammad followed the Judaic law in implementing the punishment of death by stoning. This was only given if the person admitted to it repeatedly, was not intoxicated and knew the repercussions. Even then, if during the punishment he repented, he was to be released.
A woman is allowed to be accompanied by another woman in giving testimony in court for financial affairs
A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits. The concept being that Islam puts the responsibility of earning and spending on the family on the male. Any wealth the female earns is strictly for her own use. The female also inherits from both her immediate family and through agency of her husband, her in-laws as well.


ETC.!!!!!

You didn't link to the Wikipedia page in question, but without looking for it, I'm going to have to say that page is not very accurate. As I and others have repeatedly posted, most countries that implement Sharia only do so for personal status issues. So, the entire discussion of criminal law above in irrelevant. If you ask someone, "do you support Sharia?" what exactly are you asking them? Are you asking them if they support Sharia as described by Wikipedia? Are you asking if they support Sharia for personal status issues alone as it is implemented in most cases, or do you mean something else? It is clear that you personally don't have a clue what Sharia is and are busy Googling answers. But, without further Googling, what is it that you think you are asking? Or, in the case of Pew, what were they asking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I'm sorry, I thought it was a given that we were talking about making Sharia the law of the land, the government's law. Isn't that what people mean when they say they want sharia law -- not that they are free to marry and divorce and punish based on their own personal beliefs, but that everyone must do the same because that is the official law of the land? Come on, you know that's what the discussion is about.

I can't think of one Muslim country that has non-Muslim citizens subject to Islamic family courts. They have church courts that carry out family law according to their arrangements.

So what you seem to be saying is that the goal of those who want to impose Shariah law in the US is to force the of use religious courts for matters of family status. And these could be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist etc.

They are many objections to this, starting with the Constitution, but posing this goal (if it even exists outside the minds of Muslim fear mongerers) with its huge obstacles as a threat to the core of Western civilization seems a bit over the top. Europe functioned this way for many centuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Sharia law globally. They will not assimilate like other immigrant populations. There is zero regard for human life. Sharia law is incompatible with Western Civilization.

You can be sweet and nice and not go into their countries...and they'll still want you dead. The idea of personal freedom is a the antithesis to their religion. Hence, attacking France on its day of Freedom.

The killing of innocents wasn't even collateral damage in a wartime situation. It was murder.

White supremacists want to remove minorities from the USA. They want to implement their own WHITE only constitution. It doesn't mean they will get what they want. Middle eastern Muslims(not including black Muslims) are about 1% of the US population. If White racists who are more than 10% of US population can't get their wish fulfilled, how can a tiny Muslim population get sharia law in the USA. Get a grip. Like JFK said "we don't have anything to fear but fear itself".

What happened in Nice will become more frequent in ALL Western countries. The US wasn't even mentioned in the post you are referencing. However, you are delusional if you think this type of thing isn't going to start happening here.

I'm beginning to agree with this sentiment, and I'm a huge liberal. I remember a couple of years ago when that Jewish woman wanted to post anti-Muslim posters in the metro, and then had to get a bodyguard. She said, "They want to cut my throat -- but they also want to cut your throat. If you think you are safe, you're kidding yourself -- they want Sharia law all over the world." I remember thinking what a nut job she sounded like. Now -- sadly, it seems like she was right. I don't know how people like me, who were raised to think people of all ethnicities and all religions are equals, and to believe people of all backgrounds should be embraced and loved as exactly like we are, can go on. I'm genuinely confused. I do believe there are Muslims coming to this country without the intention of assimilating, with only the intention of harming us. That's not to say the vast majority of Muslims are NOT like that, but we have to deal with the tiny minority if we are to survive. Sad.

Exactly. One truck can kill lots of people.