Sunday, December 11, 2016   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » IslamophobiaToday

Daily Show: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia?


Jon Stewart puts Peter King on trial.

Peter King may have ties to the IRA, but he believes that Muslim Americans should be investigated for failing to denounce terrorist organizations.

Share/Bookmark




8 Comments »

  1. Well, King’s spot on about the British Army back in those days…

  2. [QUOTE]Daily Show: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia?”[/QUOTE]

    Well, Jon Poppins… You certainly don’t solve any problem by pretending it doesn’t exist.

    Is Sharia law problem in and of itself? Perhaps not. For those who wish to subscribe to it, perhaps not. So when does Sharia become a problem? When it encroaches on the rights of others. Such as:

    ¤ In parts of Indonesia. Where even non-Muslims are forced to comply with Sharia Law.

    ¤ All over the U.K. which has become infested with Sharia courts, that have been wreaking havoc with laws of the land.

    ¤ And though we don’t have Sharia courts in the U.S… in many court-cases involving Muslims, across the country, special privileges have been granted by considering Sharia law and the Islamic faith of the defendant (or plaintiff, whichever the particular case may be). What’s wrong with this? Good grief – what isn’t wrong with it?? For starters: It is insanely unfair to non-Muslims. What is so dang special about Muslims that they should be excused/exempt from the laws that apply to me????

    What-the-heck? How chaotic would it be if each and every race, religion, culture, ethnicity expected special exceptions based on their respective identifiers? The states are to make adjustments and considerations for each of us??? Alter their laws on a case-by-case basis, depending on who we are… not what we do??? Think, people, think!!!! AND GET REASONABLE, already! Same laws should apply to all of us. Period. No exceptions.

    Why-the-heck do you think states are trying to reinforce their own laws, with special legislation which would prohibit courts from considering Sharia law in court cases? If your answer has anything to do with the oxymoronic term, “islamophobia”, try using something new: Examine the real reasons with at least a half-ounce of logic, common sense, knowledge and facts.

    The ONLY thing wrong with the new anti-Sharia bills is this:
    The whole concept of a need to reinforce one’s own laws with new legislation is insane! They should be able to enforce there own laws WITHOUT new legislation.

    It should be this simple:
    OUR state – OUR laws.
    NO exceptions for Muslims. NO exceptions for non-Muslims.
    End of Story.

  3. Halakha is the religious law of Judaism, analogous to the sharia. So is the canon law of the catholic church.

    Today there are sharia court for the Jews in USA and UK. In UK they have even legal status. In usa, u can look up the local Rabbanical Council and they can guide u to the local jewish sharia court, ie rabbanical court.

    The question is that why is this brouhaha against sharia for the Muslims, when there is none against the sharia courts for the Jews (ie rabbanical courts) or Catholic church making decisions on the basis of their Canon laws?

    as the last writer said, No exception for Muslims, Jews or catholics. but the problem today is tat Muslims r being scapegoated.

  4. Written by Mohamed Adlouni, for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood… approved and adopted by the Shura Council as a supplement to the “long-term plan” for North America:

    [QUOTE] “The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to pertform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes…” [/QUOTE]

    Gee… they must be some kind of “islamophobes” or something…

  5. YOU THINK ISLAMICS IN AMERICA DO NOT WANT SHARIA LAW? Well then you are not paying attention..IT IS A REAL PROBLEM…WAKE UP AND DEFEND AMERICA or go live in IRAN under SHARIA LAW..SIMPLE AS THAT!

    This lovely Website should tell ya something..IN CASE YA DID NOT KNOW..they were to have a rally in DC on 3 MARCH to promote SHARIA LAW until they remembered..AMERICANS ARE ARMED AND WAITING ON THEM, so they postponed it lol :) CHECK IT OUT AND THINK AMERICA! YOU ARE STUPID IF YOU DO NOT SEE THE THREAT!

    http://www.shariah4America.com
    http://www.shariahboard.org/

  6. well if there are courts that hear jewish or catholic laws over american laws that should be stopped. we are supposed to have seperation of religion and state. and muslim laws should not be heard either. lady justice wears a blindfold for a reason. voodoo laws and hindu laws and santeria laws should not be heard either. bahai’i, zorostian, buddist and what ever else religous law you can think off should not be heard. we are a civil society and civil law should rule. we are one nation and should have one set of laws. women should not be force to inherit half as much as men because they are muslim. atheist adulterers should not go un flogged while muslim adulteres receive 100 lashes. (no one shouldbe flogged), it’s called cruel and unusual punishment.

  7. No one finds fault with nationalism. Nationalism is an essential characteristic of our contemporary world,
    But a thorough understanding of the dynamics of ethnic politics is missing in countries which have a diverse groups of minorities. How do we go about on majority-minority relations is a big issue.

    Nation States must aim at answering questions of justice in ethnic relations, questions that are often overlooked in the relevant political discourse.

    Pluralism should be willing to weigh the importance of universal laws against the importance of cultural survival, which is a collective goal for all communities. Ethnic relations are characterized both
    as intra- and inter-state relations, it involves not only domestic arrangements but also different international instruments of minority rights in order to see whether these fall short of the prescriptions of multicultural pluralism.

    An emphasis on minority rights need not occur at the expense of national unity or loyalty because instead of being mutually exclusive, group and national loyalties can be mutually reinforcing. The most important promise of today’s increased emphasis on pluralism and divided sovereignty is that it provides for a fair and equitable solution for minority rights.

  8. I love how Jon Stewart eats ham during his discussion of religious law.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>