A brief word about these anti-sharia protests happening tomorrow across 28 cities in the U.S.. In short, these protests are totally bogus. The facts show that so-called infiltration of sharia in the American legal system is a non-existent problem or threat.
To date, there is not a single Muslim organization calling for sharia to trump the U.S. Constitution. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the U.S.’s primary Muslim civil rights organization, regularly denounces the accusation that Muslim Americans are trying to topple the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law. In 2011, CAIR leader Cyrus McGoldrick, while sitting in front of the New York Senate Standing Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs, stated that, “The Constitution is the law of the land and CAIR likes it that way. Our organization expends enormous legal and advocacy energy defending its principles.” Similarly, Corey Saylor, the National Legislative Director of CAIR, wrote in a 2011 blog post:
The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. Individuals may enter into agreements based on their faith. Such practices are reasonably common. However, any such agreement must comply with U.S. law. So if I choose to finance my house with a sharia-compliant company, the resulting contract must be within the boundaries of standing law.
McGoldrick and Saylor follow the U.S. Constitution. No religious code can replace American law. Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states, “This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. …” Additionally, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion. …” Also, as Saylor notes, “America has an already established tradition of allowing people of faith to make agreements and resolve disputes within the parameters of their religion, as long as any resulting contract complies with U.S. law. Catholic Canon law and Jewish Halacha are the most frequently cited examples in the context of the debate surrounding Islamic practices.”
Most of the people involved in the anti-sharia protests probably have no idea how to even accurately define sharia. Sharia, which means “path” in Arabic, guides all aspects of Muslim life, including daily routines, familial obligations, and financial transactions. It is not this all-encompassing legal system that the bigots say it is. And let us not get it twisted. Sharia – like Islam – is not a monolith. Sharia is interpreted differently by Muslim jurists around the world. Sharia is also not static. In fact, it is dynamic. Sharia is able to adjust to time, place, and national legal systems.
Again, the fact of the matter is that there is no sharia takeover of the U.S. Experts and scholars have said this over and over again. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), too, has supported this claim in 2012, stating, “[there] is simply no documentation or unconstitutional application of foreign law in our judicial system.”
So let us be honest – this anti-sharia movement is intended to create a political wedge to ferment fear of Muslims. It is built on rumors and conspiracy theories. Nothing more. These bigots are creating a problem out of nothing simply because they hate Muslims. How sad. How pathetic.
craigconsidinetcd.com 
There you go on the typical way Muslims like to shut down real concerns…by calling us bigots
When top women argue FOR FGM And child marriage (UN Consultant Dr Fuambai Ahmadu, Germaine Greer) I think we have something to be concerned about. A slow wear-down of our freedoms for women ? Freedom and protection of women and girls should trump religious mores.
But keep calling me a bigot…and see the plank in your own eye.
Btw I am British and many areas are under Sharia to the detriment of female.
LikeLike
Thanks for that expert opinion.
LikeLike
Bigot – Noun – Progressive for “someone who disagrees with me”. One of a group of words used to paralyze discourse. Widespread and inappropropriate use has rendered the word nearly meaningless and it now serves mainly as a warning to the reader of the intent of the writer..
LikeLike
Off course they all lies! Sharia Law is specifically for Muslims ONLY, just as Halakha Laws are for Jews ONLY and Biblical Laws are for Christians ONLY!! They are making “Sharia” Laws and Islam a “Bogeyman” to instill FEAR and Paranoia amongst Americans and the Westerners> to make Wars on Muslim Countries Freely, without outrage\outcry from their Citizens. Their Wars>Mass Murders of Innocent Men and Women> are sure to come back n haunt their future generations. What goes around will come around in the same form or in many different ways.
Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom – let your email find you!
LikeLike
Sharia Law where practiced in countries does not apply only to Muslims. It applies to all peoples in the land. Where tolerance of other religions are allowed – certain aspects apply to all peoples of the land. Sharia Law is much more encompassing than merely moral compasses such as “Biblical Laws”. In fact in Christianity, biblical edicts are not law and are not interpreted nor adopted as laws. Christian churches do not police its constituents. Certainly, Christianity has influenced the laws that were adopted in the United States and other Western nations. Certain laws that were created to support basic fundamental rights of the citizens are based on Christian edicts that are very similar to edicts of Sharia Law and of Islam itself. For instance it is unlawful to commit murder and rape under both which protects the basic rights of an individual to fear for their life or be violated sexually. Sharia Law is indeed a “living breathing body” that changes and as I understand with later pronouncements superceding previous pronouncements. If this is so, why are there different interpretations that use older pronouncements and more extreme interpretations of the law? I believe that a world body on Sharia Law that all accept would eliminate many of the issues with extreme interpretations that cause so many problems in society today. If we all found a common ground to work together instead of pushing non-tolerant extremes then we could find a way to live peacefully.
LikeLike
amen
LikeLike
“Sharia Law is specifically for Muslims ONLY”? Who on earth told you that? If that was so then non-Muslims would have no concern with Sharia Law. I suggest you read section “O” of The Reliance of the Traveller, the well known manual of Islamic Law, which goes into detail about jihad and dhimmitude.
LikeLike
I understand that under current conditions in the US, Sharia Law is not able to circumvent US laws. However the basic tenants of Sharia Law state that is is the only true law and man-made laws are false. Thus to follow Sharia Law would imply that you have to reject the laws of the US and respect Sharia Law instead. As you know, at the time that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was implemented (Bill of Rights sometime after the constitution), there was still concern about separation of church and state. Sharia Law implies that church and state are one and the same. Whereas certain cultural practices such as the rights of females subservient to the rights of males may be practiced in other countries as allowed by the laws of those countries, in the US this is against the law. There have been several instances of “honor killings” and other atrocities against females in the US in Muslim communities in the guise of following “Sharia Law”. My understanding is that you can participate fully as a Muslim following the tenants of Islam without practicing Sharia Law. So it is not Muslims nor Islam that concerns people but rather the extremes of Sharia Law.
LikeLike
Did you read what I wrote? Much of what I included can clear up some of your misunderstandings.
LikeLike
I did read what you said. But as Sharia Law can change and be modified so can US Laws. There is certainly a fear of this change being made in the name of political correctness to appease certain populations. The US Constitution is a framework of basic rights and of the functioning of the US Government. The framework is just that without details sufficient to protect against wayward laws. Just like Sharia Law, interpretations can be made that could circumvent the original intent of the constitution. To say that someone is against Sharia Law must be a bigot and anti-Muslim is wrong and is just creating fear in the Muslim community. Is it not true that Islam can be practiced without Sharia Law?
LikeLike
In an article titled “Founding Fathers of America’s Indebtedness to Islamic Thought”, Dr Zulfiqar Ali Shah posits how Islamic thought, which gave way to European enlightenment, influenced people like John Locke and Sir Issac Newton who in return inspired some of our founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson. Dr zulfiqar writes:
“John Lock summarized the inalienable human rights into four: Life, Health, Liberty and Possession. In his famous “Two Treatises of Government” published in October 1689 with a 1690 date on the title page Lock stated that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” He incorporated “Reason”, the fifth objective of Islamic Shari’ah, as the fundamental source of all his religious, political and scientific thinking. Many historians such a J. R. Pole in “The Pursuit of Equality in America History” has shown that Thomas Jefferson took Lock’s tally of inalienable rights and summarized them further into three: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Therefore, the American dream “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is a summarized version of the five objectives of Islamic Shari’ah highlighted by Ibn Tufail and incorporated by John Lock in his Treatises.”
The Prophet Mohammad said that “Loyalty to ones country is a part of faith”. Even though, the US Constitution could not adapt Sharia, whatever that means, I would say that the US Constitution is closer to what the Quran teaches than most, if not all, Muslim countries.
Source: http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/node/2
LikeLike
I looked up Zulfiqar Ali Shah and the FCNA on Wikipedia. This is what I found, which I hope Dr Considine will agree is quite alarming:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh_Council_of_North_America
It quotes the chairman Muzammil Siddiqi saying “The criminal law of the shariah is not practiced here and it is not even required for Muslims to practice the criminal law in a non-Islamic state…Once more people accept Islam, insha’allah, this will lead to the implementation of sharia in all areas.”
So while there may be no Muslim organizations openly calling for sharia to trump the US constitution, here is at least one working towards its implementation by demography. Does that not therefore mean that the protesters do have some cause for concern?
LikeLike
You’re citing Wikipedia. You can’t be serious.
LikeLike
FGM, Child marriages and honor killings are all wrong neither of which has any root in religious doctrine. For example, child marriages are legal in some US States. But I would not say that it is a Christian belief although it is mainly prevalent in Christian communities A New Your Times editorial in May 2017 reported a case about an 11 yr old Christian female teenager forced by her Church into marrying a much older man who allegedly abused her. The report then cites States where it is legal for minors to get married. Ironically, a high percentage of minors who get married live in Texas.
Whilst FGM is practiced by some Muslim sects, most of the 30 countries, reported by the WHO, where FGM is practiced, is in African tribal communities. FGM has no religious roots in Islam – It is cultural.
Honor killings do happen, mainly in South Asian cultures but they happen in Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities. Again FGM has no religious doctrine on which it is based.
According to the Bureau of Justice statistic, nearly 3 women in the US are murdered everyday by intimate partners. The Violence Policy Center website cites that more than 90 percent of women murdered by men were known to their victims. A Harvard report states that 87 percent of American women between 18 and 25 had been sexually harassed. Even President Trump has been accused of sexual harassment. Now should I blame Christianity for that?
LikeLike