Shariah Law: A response and invitation

Published: November 10, 2011, 12:49 am ET
President of the Muslim Law Student Association

Anna Kuta’s Shariah Law Op Ed on The Collegian website illustrates the exuberance of her deliberate ignorance and incoherent argumentation. Few, if any, of her assertions are found in legitimate peer-reviewed journals. As I do not have space to fully address Kuta’s dozen or more baseless allegations, this piece repudiates just two of her most deceptive assertions to illustrate her fundamentally flawed platform.

Example 1

Kuta alleges, “Islamic law also teaches honor killings. Sura 6:151 says, “Do not kill the soul, which Allah forbids, except for a just cause.” What is the “just cause”?”

The verse states, “Say, ‘Come, I will rehearse to you what your Lord has forbidden: that you associate not anything as partner with Him and that you do good to parents, and that you kill not your children for fear of poverty…and that you approach not foul deeds, whether open or secret; and that you kill not the life which Allah has made sacred, save by right…”

Kuta ignores the verse’s numerous beautiful exhortations and somehow translates “save by right,” into a commandment to kill innocent women. The Qur’an defines “save by right” in 5:32, “We prescribed for the children of Israel that whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”

In fact, the Qur’an considers life sacred and allows capital punishment only for convicted murderers and for those who create disorder in the land, i.e. violent rebellion and treason — just as the U.S. Constitution endorses. Kuta translated capital punishment for murder and treason into justification for killing innocent women — absolute dishonesty.

Example 2

Kuta claims that the Qur’an has been abrogated, and thus, “There is no compulsion in religion,” (2:256) is void. Incorrectly defining who an idolator is, she cites 9:5 as an alleged example of religious compulsion. On the contrary, chapters eight and nine together guide Muslims to defend against those who launch preemptive attacks and break peace treaties. The Qur’an commands Muslims to give the invading army four months to retreat, forbidding Muslims from retaliating. Once those four months have ended, 9:5 commands Muslims to fight in defense of their sovereign nation — only against those who fight the Muslims first, no one else.

Far from abrogating 2:256, the Qur’an 9:5 goes to extensive lengths to maintain peace, remarkably giving an invading army the chance to retreat without consequence. After Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. launched a full scale retaliation. According to Kuta, this was wrong, because she objects to the Qur’an allowing a nation to defend itself when attacked preemptively. These two examples are just a small snapshot of the numerous deceptive measures Kuta employs.

Open Prejudice

That notwithstanding, she engages in open prejudice in claiming, “Muslims are [migrating] to America to change our laws.” In my Op Ed, as an American Muslim, I made clear that American Muslims do not want to impose Shariah Law, but are obliged to consider the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Without presenting a shred of evidence, Kuta inexorably demands that American Muslims stop trying to impose Shariah Law. Why?

Moreover, Muslims are not merely “immigrating here.” Muslims arrived on American shores from Africa as early as 900 C.E., centuries before Europeans. Even in contemporary times, countless Muslims are in America not just through immigration, but through birth and the conscious decision to revert to Islam.

In Conclusion

If Kuta wishes to reply to this article, I welcome a live debate before the greater university community to address every allegation her Op Ed presents. Her fabricated and misquoted verses, and prejudice rhetoric are abhorrent to journalistic integrity. Likewise, I encourage everyone to read the Qur’an for themselves, in full, with an open mind. Find it online at http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=EN.
If she — or anyone — has the courage, I invite them to a public discussion on the Qur’an. I invite Kuta specifically because as a religion and news editor, I am sure she is more than qualified.

Related Article Topics

,
Comments »
To post a comment, leave your first and last name and a valid e-mail address. Comments may not appear immediately because they must be approved by a moderator before posting. No registration is required, but you may sign in with DISQUS, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, or OpenID.
  • Amaar Ahmad

    Bravo for the answer!

    Anna Kuta’s comments were utterly dishonest and provocatively insulting.

    • Adam Priest

      Amaar, you speak as a peaceful Muslim?

      Why do you deny that radical Islamists interpret the Qur’an differently and wage jihad?

      Qasim’s interpretation of Shariah is a minority view. He should have acknowledged that Americans have very legititmate concern with Shariah since we see buildings destroyed with airplanes, Fort Hood mass murder, massacre of Christians daily by jihadists (latest is Nigeria), churches turned into mosques, suicide bombers, and the list goes on and on.

      To imply that somehow Americans do not understand Islam or Shariah is just plain wrong.  You want us  to ignore the threat of jihad and manipulate us into thinking that being concerned about the jihad threat would somehow victimize peaceful Muslims.

    • http://madaboutmahound.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

      That’s funny because I found Kasim Rashid’s comments to be utterly dishonest and provocatively insulting.

  • Brendan Ellis

    Right on.

  • Shahina Bashir

    I commend Mr. Rashid for his beautiful rebuttal to Ms. Kuta’s Op-Ed. I also think it is surely a wonderful idea to invite everyone to a public dialogue with regards to the Quran. It is unfortunate that there are people who launch baseless allegations at a religion followed by over a billion people in the world. Let’s do as the Quran says, “Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in a way that is best.” (16:125)

  • Saima Ahmad

    An excellent response. Anna Kuta should avail this opportunity if she really is a true journalist.

  • Adam Priest

    If moderate Muslim like you would stop attacking anyone who questions the war verses in the Quran and stop defending and denying any existence of an ideological role in radical Islam, you would decrease anger among Westerners. People who study Islam, like myself, recognize the reality that violent verses and teachings in the Quran DO exist and DO incite some Muslims to violence. Your denial approach clashes with the fact that almost all approved interpretations of Islamic core text and Islamic jurisprudence books promote values such as declaring war to spread Islam, justifying killing Muslim apostates, and allowing the beating of women, polygamy, and stoning for adultery.

    Your words demand tolerance for Islam, however tolerance for Shariah simply means intolerance for its victims. I am a human rights advocate and I do not tolerate death for “apostates,” adulterous women and homosexuals, who would be killed under Shariah. Shariah violates human rights. I have not seen you denounce this reality of Shariah law. It is insane to show tolerance to cancer cells and normal cells at the same time.

    Can you provide one mainstream-approved Islamic book that negates and theologically refutes the violent Shariah concepts? To claim that Islam is peaceful without changing the violent teachings is merely deception.

    If you and other moderate Muslims would expose the violent teachings and practices in Islam and stop ignoring the role ideology plays, perhaps a true reformation of Islam can begin. Until you do that, other Muslims will NOT feel the need to reform. I want a peaceful coexistence with a new Islamic teaching that refutes the violent edicts of Shariah and emphasizes the peaceful aspects of other religions. Until Islamic scholars change the interpretations of the violent texts, they are not truly willing to stop Islamophobia.

    Instead of brutally attacking a messenger of concern, Anna Kuta, why don’t you offer to work with her and others like her who have legitimate concerns? Acknowledging someone’s concern is the first step toward a civil discourse. Stop the angry personal attacks as they don’t represent your claim to be a Muslim of peace.

    Please read this good article on, “Searching for a peaceful Islam”

    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/searching_for_a_peaceful_islam

     

    • http://twitter.com/MuslimIQ QasimRashid

      Adam – I stand with you in condemning capital punishment for apostasy, adultary, homosexuality, etc. If you read my numerous articles, you will see to that. You must understand, however, these things are NOT in shariah law, but in the corrupted minds of individuals claiming to practice shariah law. This is the point you must understand.

      I am not demanding tolerance for Islam as if it is something special. I am requesting pluralism and honest scholarship, hence why I invite a transparent open discussion to address the concerns you and Ms. Kuta are bringing up. Will you accept my invitation or continue to claim that Muslims are not speaking up?

      The article you linked is by a person who only has exposure to an extremist religion he likes to attribute to Islam. By that logic, I may as well speak to members of the KKK to learn about Christianity.

      Here is a book written by Sir Justice President Muhammad Zafrullah Khan. Yes, “Sir” because he was knighted by the Queen of England. Justice because he was President of the World Supreme Court. and President because he was President of the UN General Assembly. He also translated the Qur’an into English. By all standards, he is one of the foremost authorities on Islam, and he died only in 1986. He wrote countless books, this one is called Islam and Human Rights and will address your concerns from a mainstream scholarship perspective, should you choose to read it: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Islam-HR.pdf

      • Adam Priest

        Qasim, thank you for condemning some aspects of Shariah, however, there is only one Islam and one Shariah. You claim corrupted minds have hijacked Islam yet we see Jihad waged around the world using the same Quran you read and claim is peaceful. You claim I don’t understand. You claim the war verses are not part of  the “real” Quran and Shariah. 

        I heard Anjem Choudary, the Muslim leader of the UK, say in Oct 2010, “One day the whole world will be governed by the Shariah, as Mohammad says. Implementing Shariah is beneficial for man and it can be implemented peacefully, where people accept it, like in Ethopia, Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries, or it could be on the battlefields like we see today in Iraq and Afganistan where Muslims having authority could implement the Shariah. But ultimately, we believe the Shariah is the best for mankind – it provides for the basic needs of the people; food, clothing and shelter. We want to engage and propagate what is good for society.”

        This type of forced religious mandate (Shariah) is not from God because it denies basic human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of equality of women, etc. Those are God-given rights and are anchored within the human dignity of each person. What Anjem Choudary describes is worse than communism. Who wants to live like that?

        Every time I mention anything of concern about Islam or Shariah, you or others will mention Christianity in some form, but we are not talking about Christianity. You didn’t write an article about Christianity. The fact that Christians have done something wrong doesn’t change the fact that Shariah is bad for society. When you mention Christianity, you are just attempting to deflect attention away from the evil done in the name of Islam.

        But since you mentioned Christianity, can you name any Christian group anywhere that is committing violence and explaining and justifying it by referencing a Christian text and teaching?  If you read the writings of Bin Laden, he always explained violence and supremacy by referencing Islamic text and teaching.

        The article I linked earlier was written by an Islamic scholar and former terrorist. Of course he was exposed to Islam and practiced it. He was born a Muslim and read the same Quran you read.

        Thank you for your invitation to discuss Shariah in an open debate. I think that is good. I will not be able to travel to the University of Richmond for your event but wish that I could.

        • http://twitter.com/MuslimIQ QasimRashid

          1. You wrote, “Qasim, thank you for condemning some aspects of Shariah, however, there
          is only one Islam and one Shariah.”

          If that’s the case, then there is only one Christianity and one Biblical Law. i.e. the KKK and you are the same.

          2. You wrote, “can you name any Christian group anywhere that is committing violence
          and explaining and justifying it by referencing a Christian text and
          teaching?”

          Yes, look up the Lords Resistance Army. They have maimed, killed, and raped tens of thousands in the name of the 10 Commandments and Christianity. By your assertion in point one, there is only one Christianity, and you and the LRA murderers are the same.

          3. You asked for a logical Muslim scholar, I provided it to you. I hope now, that you will do me the courtesy and read his work.

          • Adam Priest

            Qasim,
            There is only one Bible with it’s teachings, the Old and New Testament, however, Jesus, fulfilled the Old Testament and during Passover the year of his death, He initiated a New Covenant. The New Covenant dealt with sin and punishment a different way from the Old Testament as Jesus offered himself as a ransom (payment) for all sin for all people for all time, once and for all,  IF people put their faith and trust in Him and stopped following other gods. Because of God’s love for people, He sent his Son to earth to redeem mankind from sin because mankind couldn’t keep the law. The Old Testament did make it clear that sin meant death, which is why God commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals as atonement for sin. Jesus was declared to be “the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”

            You seem to judge Christianity by the Old Testament only, which is a false and incomplete understanding of Christianity. Christianity is not the Old Testament. People who follow Jesus are called Christians and their religion is Christianity. The writings of the New Testament are filled with verses of God’s love for people, how to lovingly deal with church conflict, that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, we are to pray for our enemies, along with many teachings on how Jesus was the Son of God who came to earth to show us and teach us how to live. The overriding message of the New Testament is a sacrificial love for others(beginning with Jesus himself), which is a vivid and stark contrast to the Quran.

            The KKK, LRA and any other nut jobs (Norway murderer) are not following anything Christian, written or spoken. There is no Christian text or teaching that commands, supports or implies murder, rape, wife beating, etc., unlike the Quran. As stated above, Christianity is love, grace and redemption of sin. When you proof-text a verse from the Old Testament and say that represents Christianity you are just plain false and glaringly wrong.

          • http://twitter.com/MuslimIQ QasimRashid

            Adam, your double standard is astounding.

            1. You asked for a legitimate contemporary Muslim scholar who presents a peaceful Islam. I gave you a second to none scholar. You have not even acknowledged this and I would be shocked if you even clicked on the link, let alone read the book in full.

            2. You asked for a terrorist organization that claims to be Christian and references the Bible in their terroristic activities. I gave you a prime contemporary example. You dismiss this as “nutjobs”

            3. Rather than looking at how peaceful Muslims practice Islam properly, you look at extremists and say “look, that’s Islam!!” But, when the same analogy is used with extremists who ascribe to Christianity, you say “no no Christianity is love.” If you cannot see the biased in this, then I am not about to try to convince you of it.

            And for the record, though you insist on agreeing with extremists like bin Laden in your Qur’anic (mis)interpretation, nothing in the Qur’an allows “murder, rape, wife beating, etc.” But, feel free to be of the mindset of bin Laden and make baseless assertions without any facts to back them up. Forgive me for finding such thinking disgusting, inhumane, unIslamic, and unGodly.

            Anyway, you’ve proven your point that you do not like Islam. Good for you. Islam gives you that right, even if you don’t think it does.

            In the spirit of open discussion, however, I look forward to hearing from Anna Kuta.

            I hope that she is willing to back up her Op Ed in an open discussion, just as any legitimate journalist would be willing to do.

          • Adam Priest

            Qasim, I did in fact read a lot of the scholar (Muhammad Zafrullah Khan) you linked to and listened to some of his youtube presentations at the U.N. I see that he and you are Ahmadiyya Muslims. I did find Khan’s writings and words to be contrary to radical Islam. It is unfortunate that the majority of Muslim leaders today do not subscribe to his interpretation of the trilogy.

            I still do not understand why you would want to promote Shariah if you are a moderate Muslim, knowing radical Islamists would interpret it differently from you and Muhammad Zafrullah Khan, as they are doing today.

            I heard a Muslim last night say there are no moderate Muslims. He implied you are not Muslim. How do you counter such a statement by other Muslims?

            I wish you would stop insulting me (calling me: “disgusting, inhumane, unIslamic, and unGodly”) when I make statements you don’t agree with. I called your interpretation of Christianity false, incomplete and wrong but I did not insult you.

            Thank you for answering my questions.

          • http://twitter.com/MuslimIQ QasimRashid

            Dear Adam – To be sure, I called the beliefs that “rape, murder, etc” are okay to be “disgusting, unGodly,” etc. I absolutely did not call you those things.

            Thank you for reading those links. I’m glad we agree. I am confidant you better understand my perspective – and I thank you for that.

            I’m still confused, however, why you think my Op Ed clarifying what Shariah actually is, is an Op Ed that is somehow promoting the use of Shariah Law in America over the US Constitution?

            I specifically said that Muslims do NOT want to impose Shariah in favor of the US Constitution. (Ironically, Shariah itself forbids this).

            The Op Ed was designed to demonstrate exactly what your point is – that we live in a democracy where church and state are separated, and each of us has freedom of religion. Thus, Muslims should be allowed to live their private religious lives, just as Jews are, just as Christians are. I’m missing why you translate Muslims living private religious lives into Muslims imposing Shariah Law on non-Muslims? Does my question make sense?

        • Humaira Suleri-Latif

          Real and true Islam as practised by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community- followers of the Promised Messiah as- is LOVE FOR ALL,HATRED FOR NONE! How can it then practise such barbarism and spoil the image of true Shariah ( none other that human rights and true respect duh). Islam is from Adam to all prophets, including Moses, Jesus peace be upon them is all their major chracateristics were shown in The Promised Messiah as who clarified all the develpoed misundertsandings of Islam. The mainstream orthodox Islamic World as not accpeted him that’s why they are misinterpreting the Quranic verses and promoting barbarism in the name of Islam. Hence, true and original Christianity is PART of Islam. Please dig deeper for the sake of human intelligence and as food for thought and if youare for true justice,nothing but the truth and pure humanity in the website http://www.alislam.org.
          Thanking you in advance.

          • Adam Priest

            Thank you Humaira for your kind response and website link. I looked at many links on the site and read many articles there. I learned more about Ahmadis from your link.

            I want you to know I have absolutely no problem with you practicing your religion. That is one of the great attributes of America – the free practice of any religion or no religion. Ahmadis can freely and safely practice their religion in America without fear of persecution.

            One of the articles I read in your link made a statement of endorsing separation of Mosque and state. This has been my point all along. We cannot impose any form of Shariah into our already established American legal system. Shariah is religious law, the enforcing of Islam. Since there are many different Shariahs based on different interpretations of the Quran and Hadith, we cannot allow any religious law to creep into our legal system. It would be a step in the wrong direction for America.

          • Humaira Suleri-Latif

            First of all being an MS patient which has affected my hand; I make silly typing mistakes. God Bless you for your respective logical answer and patience. You would have noticed the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in the so-called ‘Islamic’ Pakistan and Indonesia. as we believe the coming of the Promised Messiah (peace be upon him) who clarified Islam further and the one and only Shariah brought about by God via the Holy Prophet Muhammad, which is none other than that of human rights and justice and promoting a peaceful society with the emphasis on  education, love, tolerance.   Indeed,as is happening in the developed countries of the world.

             Moreover,The Ahmadi Muslims are being persecuted in eaxctly the same way as were the early Christians and Muslims. . Coimg back to your points yes, religion and the state are separate in the real Islam: http://www.alislam.org/egazette/egazette/september-2011-egazette-separation-of-mosque-church-and-state/.

            Could I request you to read this as well please: http://www.reviewofreligions.org/. This magazine was started off with the advent of the Promised Messiah in order to bridge the gap among all religions. We promote and hold interfaith, peace dialogues and symposiums: http://www.alislam.org/press-release/Peace-Conference-2011.pdf

            Again, I would reiterate that the mainstream orthodox Muslims who are in majority and are twisting the real teachings of Islam. They have hijacked the real Islam which is submission to Go’s will and what is Go’s will-> Love for all, hatred for none. They have not accpeted The Promised Messiah and hence are still living the the barbaric dark ages. There is no force in isma and no violence. In fact , the Quran states that whosoever kills a fellow human being, its is as if he has killed all of mankind. Thus, how can Islam promote people to kill? It is happening because of their refusal to accepted the Promised Messiah ( pbuh) and hence in the revival of Islam which was prophesized by the Holy Prophet Muhammad, by the way. Thanks for reading and God Bless! 

      • Adam Priest

        Qasim, thank you for condemning some aspects of Shariah, however, there is only one Islam and one Shariah. You claim corrupted minds have hijacked Islam yet we see Jihad waged around the world using the same Quran you read and claim is peaceful. You claim I don’t understand. You claim the war verses are not part of  the “real” Quran and Shariah. 

        I heard Anjem Choudary, the Muslim leader of the UK, say in Oct 2010, “One day the whole world will be governed by the Shariah, as Mohammad says. Implementing Shariah is beneficial for man and it can be implemented peacefully, where people accept it, like in Ethopia, Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries, or it could be on the battlefields like we see today in Iraq and Afganistan where Muslims having authority could implement the Shariah. But ultimately, we believe the Shariah is the best for mankind – it provides for the basic needs of the people; food, clothing and shelter. We want to engage and propagate what is good for society.”

        This type of forced religious mandate (Shariah) is not from God because it denies basic human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of equality of women, etc. Those are God-given rights and are anchored within the human dignity of each person. What Anjem Choudary describes is worse than communism. Who wants to live like that?

        Every time I mention anything of concern about Islam or Shariah, you or others will mention Christianity in some form, but we are not talking about Christianity. You didn’t write an article about Christianity. The fact that Christians have done something wrong doesn’t change the fact that Shariah is bad for society. When you mention Christianity, you are just attempting to deflect attention away from the evil done in the name of Islam.

        But since you mentioned Christianity, can you name any Christian group anywhere that is committing violence and explaining and justifying it by referencing a Christian text and teaching?  If you read the writings of Bin Laden, he always explained violence and supremacy by referencing Islamic text and teaching.

        The article I linked earlier was written by an Islamic scholar and former terrorist. Of course he was exposed to Islam and practiced it. He was born a Muslim and read the same Quran you read.

        Thank you for your invitation to discuss Shariah in an open debate. I think that is good. I will not be able to travel to the University of Richmond for your event but wish that I could.

      • http://madaboutmahound.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

        It’s funny that you should claim that apostasy, adultery and homosexuality are not covered by sharia, since sharia is cobbled together from suras of the koran and the hadiths.

        sura 24:2 The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to allah, if ye believe in allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.

        There are 5 suras that mention homosexuality but no punishment is mentioned (apart from the reference to Lot). However, this covers it in more detail -

        http://answeringislam.org/Authors/Arlandson/homosexual.htm

        The koran has a whole chapter, The Defaulters, covering apostates. This covers the details -

        http://answeringislam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm

        Naturally, as you anmadis are considered apostates by every other pislamic sect, you have a lot to fear from them. And, as I said elsewhere, rewriting the koran doesn’t help your cause.

    • Athena Hensel

      Qasim, I also thank you for this article. I don’t understand how Adam
      and Anna don’t see the obvious parallels between the tenets of
      fundamentalist, extremist Islam and fundamentalist, extremist
      Christianity.

      And Adam, I would like to point out that if “moderate” Christians like
      yourself would stop attacking anyone who tries to defend their religious
      views by assuming that they are fundamentally wrong and keep denying
      the possible legitimacy of other religious views, you would decrease
      anger among rationally-minded people. Never did the author deny any
      existence of fundamentalist Muslims nor did he deny that these
      individuals derive their ideology from a fundamentalist, radical
      interpretation of the Qu’ran. I’d also like to point out that the Bible,
      too, has passages which “[allow for] the beating of women, polygamy,
      and stoning for adultery.” 

  • Anna Kuta

    First of all, it is ridiculous of you to accuse me of thinking we shouldn’t have retaliated after 9/11. You have twisted my words, and none of the rest of your allegations against me even deserve a response. However, since you opened up the invitation, I do have a friend who wants to debate you in an open forum. You can arrange it and contact me with a few options for dates.

    • http://twitter.com/MuslimIQ QasimRashid

      Great to hear from you Anna.

      Twisted your words? Interesting analysis. To be sure, are you personally declining my invitation for an open discussion? I’m surprised and disappointed, but respect your decision.

      I will be happy to discuss with your friend. I do not have your email. Please email me at q.rashid@richmond.edu

    • Humaira Suleri-Latif

      Dear Anna,

      The problem of is that you are in denial as to the fact that The Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as HAS come and clarified the true meaning of the Holy Quran which is a continuation of the Torah and the real original Bible!! Please read the following http://www.alislam.org as food for thought and for the sake of human intelligence. The so-called Islamic world has not accepted the truth and the the Promised Messiah as , hence all this barbarism in the name of Islam. True Islam is PEACE, LOVE and TOLERANCE. Shariah is Human rights and not the neanderthal barbarism which is still being  practised by so-called mainstream orthodox Muslims. The Ahmadiyya Community- followers of true peaceful Islam are being persecuted in exactly the same way as were the early, Jew, Christians and Muslims. God Bless! ‘Love for all, hatred for none’.

  • Anna Kuta

    First of all, it is ridiculous of you to accuse me of thinking we shouldn’t have retaliated after 9/11. You have twisted my words, and none of the rest of your allegations against me even deserve a response. However, since you opened up the invitation, I do have a friend who wants to debate you in an open forum. You can arrange it and contact me with a few options for dates.

  • Katherine Schmidt

    Thank you for this article, Qasim. 

  • Megan Venable

    I am all for an open forum.

  • Adam Priest

    We do not want Shariah courts in America and here is one reason. The radical Islamists will overrule the minority  Ahmadis: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/11/indonesia-attacker-partially-severs-ears-of-deaf-mute-ahmadi-man.html

    • Big Greg Jackson

      Good thing there wont ever be “Sharia Courts” in the United States, just like there wont ever be “Biblical Courts.” 

      Hey did you all hear that the economy collapsed recently? Lots of people need jobs. So whenever you get done arguing about imaginary threats, start writing some editorials about things that are real.

  • Adam Priest

    This short video sums up every American concern with Islam and Shariah. Mr. Rashid, Mr. Ahmad and Ms. Suleri-Latif and all other peaceful Ahmadi Muslims, which are not radical and intrepret the Quran differently, should be just as concerned as non-Muslim Americans about Shariah creeping into America. Ahmadis are a tiny minority of Muslims and their version of a peaceful Shariah will never overrule the majority of radical Islamists who dominate Islam and promise they will subjugate all non-Muslims AND all peaceful Muslims like the Ahmadis. This is why no religious law, Shariah, should ever be used in Amerian courts.

    • http://madaboutmahound.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

      I doubt the anmadis are any more peaceful than any other muzzies. Why else would they got into bat for sharia or spout takiya about it?