Islamists Establish Sharia Tribunal In Texas

[Djorgie]

Islamists Establish Sharia Tribunal in Texas

America, you can't say you have not been warned. The very ideology and law that is prevalent in the Middle East and that condemned Mariam Ibrahim to death for marrying a Christian man is being established in the State of Texas! Keep in mind that this is exactly where Obama's former Homeland Security adviser and Muslim Brotherhood supporter Mohammed Elibiary went to after he left Washington.

 

An Islamic Tribunal that uses Sharia as the basis for law, not the US Constitution, the Bible nor the Texas State Constitution has been set up as a non-profit organization in Dallas. But don't worry, one of the attorneys for the tribunal says that both participation and the acceptance of the tribunal's decision are strictly "voluntary."

Bob Price at Brietbart writes:The tribunal claims that, for the most part, Sharia is in agreement with the laws of Texas. Price was told by El-badawi that if the tribunal ruled in a way in which the parties disagreed, then they could go to the Texas courts, which makes you wonder why one would have this tribunal in the first place.(Dr. Taher El-badawi) said the tribunal follows Sharia law to resolve civil disputes in family and business matters. He said they also resolve workplace disputes.

In matters of divorce, El-badawi said that "while participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal." He compared their divorce, known as "Talaq," as something similar to the Catholic practice of annulment in that the church does not recognize civil divorce proceedings as ending a marriage.

He also said there is a difference between how a man and a woman can request a divorce under their system. "The husband can request the divorce directly from the tribunal," El-badawi stated. "The wife must go to an Imam who will request the divorce for her." He called it "two paths to the same result." The practice of Khula is the process where a wife can initiate a divorce proceeding and where the husband can agree to the divorce in exchange for a financial compensation. It appears the wife must agree to give up any claim to the "dower" that was not already paid or to return it if it has already been paid. Once the financial issues are resolved the husband can then proclaim the Talaq (divorce).

 

 

 

El-badawi said they follow Texas family law when it comes to child support, visitation, and custody. He said that in most cases, custody of children is awarded to the mother.

But what about other issues? What about issues of adultery? What about theft and other crimes? How will the tribunal handle those things, which are a part of criminal law under Sharia?

The tribunal's website explains various forms of law and their origins. The site claims,

 

"The entire text deals with transactions, Mu'amalat in general, which has the same principles and articles used in all transactional laws found throughout the world and are similar to existing laws with the United States.  Stoning adulterers, cutting of the hands, polyandry and the like (all can be traced in the relevant literature and can be explained in their Islamic legal mentality and rational context in fairness and justice), are mainly a part of Islamic Criminal Law.  In fact, criminal law within Islam only makes up a fraction of the Shari'ah.  It is unscholarly and unfair to generalize that type of understanding that is Criminal Law, to compromise the whole of Islamic law if we stick to speaking in technical terms."

While it may be "unscholarly" and "unfair," it would also be a wise thing to keep in mind because these things are not denied as part of what Islam brings in Sharia.

As far as technical terms go, nothing was said about these explicit Koran commands:5:33- "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution (by beheading) or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

47:4- "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives"…

8:12- "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off."

The Bible lays out criminal law too and to some it causes them to revile God's punishments, yet they are holy and just. I cannot say as much for Islam, as the things we have seen pushed forward in the name of Sharia are often corrupt and unjust.

So far, this tribunal has four judges: Imam Yusuf Z.Kavakci, Imam Moujahed Bakhach, Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh and Dr. Taher El-badawi.

The Foxhole comments, "They take advantage of Homeland Security's lax approach to foreign threats and Obama's sympathetic pro-Islam policies. We're saddled with a Dhimmi  in the White House. As I've said, there are reasons why they are confident enough to create a min-Islamic state in this country.  They've been given the green light."

The Foxhole then concludes:

Al Qaeda holds Death To The West conferences in  

Chicago,

 there's a substantial radical muzzie enclave in 

Dearborn, Michigan,

  and 

Jamaat Al Fuqra terrorists

 have established training centers across the United States. The 

Muslim Brotherhood,

 the 

Arab-American Action Network,

 and 

CAIR

, three major facilitators of Islamic terrorism, operate freely in America. A government report concluded that 

Hezbollah has been forming sleeper cells throughout the United States

 that could become operational.

Islam is diametrically opposed to every Constitutional principle on which this country was founded.

Under the muzzie point of view, Sharia Law trumps all other laws. It's meant to overtake and replace all Western civil, criminal, and government jurisdiction.

The founding principles of this country did not hinge on a violent, ideological theocracy that advocated the deaths of those who didn't hold the same religious beliefs.

 

 

[vietnam1969]

Rem

The true meaning of the Statue of Liberty

 

It seems that many people misinterpret the true meaning of the Statue of Liberty. They believe it means that the U.S. wants the impoverished, the poorly educated, and the unfortunate of other nations because of the slogan that is implanted on the base of the statue: "Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses."

Yet that saying was not what the original purpose of the statue was all about. In fact, the original intent of the statue was to give us your folks who are fleeing oppression and we will provide them with an opportunity at a free and successful life. We will give them the opportunity to provide a good life for themselves.

It appears that the "huddled masses" quote was misinterpreted a while back to mean that we want your down trodden, your poor, your unfortunate, your disadvantaged, your uneducated, and we will provide you with a free education, free health care, and allow you to become democrats.

Actually, Emma Lazarus wrote the "huddled masses" poem as part of a campaign to build the pedestal of the statue. The poem was called The New Colossus, and it was written in 1883, and not even inserted onto the pedestal of the statue until 1903 when it was engraved onto the base.

The poem was forgotten and not even a part of the celebration of the opening of the statue in 1883, and it was not until 1903 that it gained much attention outside the original contest to raise money.

In fact, the original intent of the statue had nothing to do with immigration, it had to do with freedom and liberty. France was thanking us for being the first nation ever to make the rulers of their country aware that freedom and liberty was possible. This is ultimately what lead to the French Revolution.

Of course the French Revolution failed because they fought for the rights of man (man as a single entity) while the founders of the U.S. fought for the rights of individual men (we all have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by anything other than the government).

The reason the statue was build had nothing to do with the Lazarus poem, and yet once again history was twisted so that one group of people who wanted to convince the children of the world the Statue of Liberty was all about immigration. This was all one big lie that was taught in schools since 1903. This was a distortion by the progressives to make you think America was willing to take anyone, from any place in the world or universe.

The truth is, the statue was a celebration of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, we don't call it the statue of immigration, we call it the statue of liberty. Lady Liberty is stepping forward. She is meant to be carrying the torch of liberty from the United States to the rest of the world.

And in the proceeding years, that is exactly what she did. And she offered her freedom to France and the rest of Europe, and those countries came up with their own form of freedom, and their own interpretation. That's what other countries do. We have a right to choose our own forms of freedom.

And yet none compare to that of the United States. None. We were the first to establish freedom, we were the first to signs anything like the Declaration of Independence, and we were the first to form a U.S. Constitution that was meant to protect the natural rights of men.

And yet, all these years later, the only country to understand the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence, of the U.S. Constitution, and the Statue of Liberty are those who would consider themselves classical liberals and now conservative or libertarian. The rest of the world has their own skewered interpretation of the true meaning of what kind of freedom we have here in the United States.

Those who intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret the meaning of these great documents, or this great statue, are those who mean to change the United States to be something other than what the founders had intended.

 

 

Remember what this was meant to mean? Some people should not be allowed to live and practice their customs in the United States if it takes away the rights and beliefs of it's citizens.

[Djorgie]

"Remember what this was meant to mean? Some people should not be allowed to live and practice their customs in the United States if it takes away the rights and beliefs of it's citizens."

 

 

Well, unfortunately this (taking away rights and beliefs of citizens) is exactly what is happening right before our eyes...

 

I thank YHWH/God that we have had it so good for so long here in the U.S. and pray that he sees us through the times to come.