jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Very well said. It seems these discussions often go like this:

Anti-Sharia poster (ASP): Muslims are a threat to our society because they support Sharia!

Me: What does "supporting Sharia" mean?

ASP: It means they support Sharia.

Me: Yes, but what does "support Sharia" mean? What is Sharia?

ASP: They support Sharia and that is a threat to our society.

Me: So, you've said, but what is Sharia? What exactly to do they want to change about our society?

ASP: Here is the Wikipedia page about Sharia.

These posters have no idea what Sharia is or what Muslims who support Sharia actually support in concrete terms. Yet, they are convinced that it is a huge threat. The problem here is simply ignorance. The time spent posting anti-Muslim posts on DCUM would be much better spent finding an actual Muslim with which to have a conversation.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Very well said. It seems these discussions often go like this:

Anti-Sharia poster (ASP): Muslims are a threat to our society because they support Sharia!

Me: What does "supporting Sharia" mean?

ASP: It means they support Sharia.

Me: Yes, but what does "support Sharia" mean? What is Sharia?

ASP: They support Sharia and that is a threat to our society.

Me: So, you've said, but what is Sharia? What exactly to do they want to change about our society?

ASP: Here is the Wikipedia page about Sharia.

These posters have no idea what Sharia is or what Muslims who support Sharia actually support in concrete terms. Yet, they are convinced that it is a huge threat. The problem here is simply ignorance. The time spent posting anti-Muslim posts on DCUM would be much better spent finding an actual Muslim with which to have a conversation.

Or...
These posters could acknowledge that many of them support Christian "Sharia" law: divorce impossible to get, birth control hard to get, abortion illegal.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Very well said. It seems these discussions often go like this:

Anti-Sharia poster (ASP): Muslims are a threat to our society because they support Sharia!

Me: What does "supporting Sharia" mean?

ASP: It means they support Sharia.

Me: Yes, but what does "support Sharia" mean? What is Sharia?

ASP: They support Sharia and that is a threat to our society.

Me: So, you've said, but what is Sharia? What exactly to do they want to change about our society?

ASP: Here is the Wikipedia page about Sharia.

These posters have no idea what Sharia is or what Muslims who support Sharia actually support in concrete terms. Yet, they are convinced that it is a huge threat. The problem here is simply ignorance. The time spent posting anti-Muslim posts on DCUM would be much better spent finding an actual Muslim with which to have a conversation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not understanding your question, but I'll tell you I object to anyone trying to make their religious law the law of the land. That's anathema to our way of life. Period. And you know as well as I do that people are actively trying to turn the planet into a place where people live according to Sharia law -- whatever your (or more likely, their) interpretation of it may be.

And I'd object to anyone who'd like to cleanse all but white people from America as white supremacists would want. But I don't waste a nanosecond thinking about it because there is near zero chance this could even rise to the level of a real threat. Same with the chances of forcing everyone in the US to use religious courts for marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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?

I'm not understanding your question, but I'll tell you I object to anyone trying to make their religious law the law of the land. That's anathema to our way of life. Period. And you know as well as I do that people are actively trying to turn the planet into a place where people live according to Sharia law -- whatever your (or more likely, their) interpretation of it may be.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not understanding your question, but I'll tell you I object to anyone trying to make their religious law the law of the land. That's anathema to our way of life. Period. And you know as well as I do that people are actively trying to turn the planet into a place where people live according to Sharia law -- whatever your (or more likely, their) interpretation of it may be.

jsteele wrote:

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 wrote:

I'm not understanding your question, but I'll tell you I object to anyone trying to make their religious law the law of the land. That's anathema to our way of life. Period. And you know as well as I do that people are actively trying to turn the planet into a place where people live according to Sharia law -- whatever your (or more likely, their) interpretation of it may be.

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.!!!!!

jsteele wrote:

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?

jsteele wrote:

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 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

Anonymous wrote: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.