re: #98 Simply Sarah

Assuming the linked bill is the same version of the text the article is about, I think the article overstates what would actually be criminalized. The part of it describing what is covered seemed pretty limited to what would be considered by most reasonable to be terrorist activities.

Of course, just because the bill limits what would actually be covered doesn’t mean it can’t/won’t/isn’t intended to be used in a much broader manner of harassment and intimidation. That is what the real goal is, most likely.

Just coming back long enough to address this.

The article isn’t overstating anything. The part you mentioned in your #46 where you said that you weren’t sure exactly what it entails is key, namely:

Any rule,precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ja’afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie sharia without any further evidentiary showing;

Any rule,precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ja’afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie sharia without any further evidentiary showing;

The vast majority of Muslims follow one of the 4 classical schools of (Sunni) Islamic jurisprudence. The 5th one (Ja’fari) is Shia, and I think everyone probably has an idea what the Salafi thing is (i.e. not mainstream).

These 4 schools cover everything from inheritance laws, marriage laws, how to pray, make ritual ablutions, fast, perform the Hajj, give alms (zakat), etc. (including the more controversial criminal stuff). The reason they cover these things (in great detail) is because the Qur’an only provides a general outline for many things, with the details being provided by the Hadith (sayings) and Sunnah (habits/practices) of Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) This whole package is what constitutes Sharia—e.g. Sharia isn’t only about criminal law as it covers ALL aspects of Muslim life.

So to summarize, criminalizing the following of the schools of jurisprudence would in essence criminalize the entire practice of Islam, in much the same manner that criminalizing Halacha would basically outlaw the practice of Judaism.

As for the scary bits (like the cutting off of hands & such), Muslims living in non-Muslim lands are required to obey the laws of of the country in which they live, provided that the laws don’t require them to commit any sins (e.g. if there was a law that mandated that everyone eat pork and drink alcohol, then a Muslim would have a moral obligation to refuse to follow that law). Ironically, this means that the Sharia detailed in the 4 schools that orders American Muslims to respect American laws is the very same Sharia these people seek to criminalize.

I hope that clarifies the issue for you a little.

Gotta run. I’ll check back later if you have any more questions.