Sharia law is a type of medieval Fascism. It is essentially a set of laws made up by Islamic scholars and became laws of all the Islamic Caliphates. Now radical Islam seeks to impose it, whether through violent jihad or through cultural jihad, the latter of which is a jihad to overthrow existing societies, including the democratic west, and to impose Sharia law from within. North America is the strongest bastion of freedom, democracy, humanistic values and secularism, where state and church have nothing in common. And this can not be tolerated by the fundamentalists. Hence the desire to have Sharia law here.
Sharia law is a contradiction in terms, as it controls every aspect of the individual’s life. Under Sharia, leaving Islam is punishable by death. Under Sharia, when a woman is raped, she receives the death penalty for adultery while nothing happens to the rapist. That’s why Sharia law appeals to rapist and gets rapists to be radical Islamists. That’s a large part why Jihadist Fascism thrives in America's prisons.
The appointment of Harold Koh gave a lot of impetus to this concept. Basically, as the state Department’s legal adviser will be someone who sees no wrong in Sharia law, which punishes rape victims instead of rapists and which kills people for leaving Islam.. It’s people like Harold Koh who will turn the non-Muslims into second-class Dhimmis. Armenian freedom fighters fought to free the Armenian people from being second-class dhimmis under the Ottoman Empire. As a result, the Ottoman Nazi-like leadership carried out a genocidal campaign on the Armenians.
Harold Koh sees nothing wrong with imposing Sharia law and who has no idea what being a Dhimmi is like. The US, as the superpower leading the free world, has an obligation to protect itself and do its part in protecting the world from radical Islam. Yet how will America do that if the legal adviser for the State Department sees no wrong in Sharia law. Middle East expert Bernard Lewis said,” Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.”
With Obama, America is heading down the same road as Europe, where the cultural jihad eats more and more of America's institutions. Some places in Europe already have Sharia courts and no go zones for the police in those countries where Sharia is enforced. Muslim radicals plan to use those areas as bases in order to expand to the rest of Europe in imposing their Fascist system, which includes Sharia law.
But Sharia law and US constitution are diameterically opposed. Let us have a look at the Sharia law as it exists. Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences with other legal traditions, including those in both common law and civil law.
1. Sharia courts do not generally employ lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves.
2. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system.
3. There is no pre-trial discovery process, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no penalty of perjury (on the assumption that no witness would thus endanger his soul) Unlike common law, judges’ verdicts do not set binding precedents under the principle of stare decisis and unlike civil law, Sharia does not utilize formally codified statutes (these were first introduced only in the late 19th century during the decline of the Ottoman Empire).
4. Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.
5. Sharia courts’ rules of evidence also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony and excluding written and documentary evidence (including forensic and circumstantial evidence), on the basis that it could be tampered with or forged.
6. A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of a witness are the only evidence admissible in a Sharia court, written evidence is only admissible with the attestations of multiple, witnesses deemed reliable by the judge, i.e. notaries.
7. Testimony must be from at least two witnesses, and preferably free Muslim male witnesses, who are not related parties and who are of sound mind and reliable character; testimony to establish the crime of adultery, or zina must be from four direct witnesses.
8. Forensic evidence (i.e. fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA etc.) and other circumstantial evidence is likewise rejected in hudud cases in favor of eyewitnesses, a practice which can cause severe difficulties for women plaintiffs in rape cases.
9. Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men, and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether in case it is against a Muslim.
10. In lieu of written evidence, oaths are accorded much greater weight; rather than being used simply to guarantee the truth of ensuing testimony, they are themselves used as evidence.
11. Plaintiffs lacking other evidence to support their claims may demand that defendants take an oath swearing their innocence, refusal thereof can result in a verdict for the plaintiff.
12. Sharia courts, with their tradition of pro se representation, simple rules of evidence, and absence of appeals courts, prosecutors, cross examination, complex documentary evidence and discovery proceedings, juries and voir dire proceedings, circumstantial evidence, forensics, case law, standardized codes, exclusionary rules, and most of the other infrastructure of civil and common law court systems, have as a result, comparatively informal and streamlined proceedings.
13. This can provide significant increases in speed and efficiency (at the cost of the safeguards provided in secular legal systems), and can be an advantage in jurisdictions where the general court system is slow or corrupt, and where few litigants can afford lawyers.
This being the situation, is it possible to have Sharia Law in this land of human equity?
The rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in America has brought with it a wave of largely-unsubstantiated suggestions from conservative media commentators and politicians that America is at risk of falling under the sway of Sharia law.
:Sharia law is strict Islamic law. It is designed to guide devout Muslims in their personal and professional dealings, and has been used by the Taliban and others to justify limits on women's rights and harsh punishments, including amputation and stoning. The others are not supposed to be ruled by it. And you can not have two laws. Then it is not justice. And if you a personal law for Muslims, then why not a personal law for other religions as well.
The notion that Sharia law is coming to America has been percolating in the conservative media for a while. It is high time, all right thinking men stand up and raise a voice against any such disastrous action. |
