jump to navigation

Islamic sharia court operating in Texas? February 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Dallas Diocese, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, the enemy.
trackback

That’s the claim of this report on Breitbart Texas from last week.  It is here in the Diocese of Dallas, and City of as well.  Great.  I am told the population of Irving is almost 20% muslim although I don’t see much evidence of that.  It seems more like 70% Hispanic to me, at least in grungy but lovable south Irving where I live.

Nevertheless, as we continue to allow absolutely nonsensical unconstrained immigration of muslims from the Mideast (while immigrating from Germany or Britain remains tightly limited and basically a nightmare of red tape), we can only expect to see more of this.  If the last 20+ years and the experience of most European countries have taught us, muslims appear to want to create the “ummah” and all its horrid aspects wherever they arrive in large numbers. I am still waiting to hear from the mythical moderate muslim:

An Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law in Texas has been confirmed by Breitbart Texas. The tribunal is operating as a non-profit organization in Dallas. One of the attorneys for the tribunal said participation and acceptance of the tribunal’s decisions are “voluntary.”

Breitbart Texas spoke with one of the “judges,” Dr. Taher El-badawi. He said the tribunal operates under Sharia law as a form of “non-binding dispute resolution.” El-badawi said their organization is “a tribunal, not arbitration.” A tribunal is defined by Meriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a court or forum of justice.” The four Islamic attorneys call themselves “judges” not “arbitrators.”

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. [The similarities are strictly skin-deep.  The article goes on to discuss how women can ask for a divorce under sharia.  But in practical terms, in countries where sharia is the only law, divorce is a one-way street where women are frequently abandoned by their husbands and have no recourse to even minimal continued support. Since in those countries women have extremely limited options for work or even to be in public without male familial escort, and since the “shame” of divorce for these women involves a stigma that frequently incurs familial rejection, very often, these women are left penniless and with no means to care for themselves.  I have read about women in Pakistan abandoned in this manner, and they appear to be quite numerous.]

……..El-badawi restated several times that participation in the tribunal is voluntary. However, he would not discuss what happens to someone who did not follow their rulings……..

Of course it’s voluntary.  Just as conversion to islam is voluntary, except that if you don’t there’s a rather unpleasant man over there prepared to cut your head off.  Or in the more “enlightened” areas, they might allow you to keep your religion as a strictly second-class and persecuted basis.

It’s got to be noted that the comments made in the article tie in with the islamic practice of “taqqiyah,” that is, “holy lying” oriented to fool the infidel and keep them off their guard while the “ummah” takes shape in a soon-to-be-conquered land.  Sure they present sharia as voluntary and JUST LIKE WHAT YOU CATHOLICS DO, but this is “sharia-lite,” the most they can get away with in this country at present.  This is not what we would have should this country be like regions of France, Belgium, and whole swaths of England – a full-on may as well be Waziristan muslim dominated no-go zone.  No, what would exist in that case would be the real thing, most definitely not voluntary for muslims, and without the seeming “reasonable” aspects.

And the Church continues to lose room for maneuver, increasingly squeezed between militant sexular paganism and radical islam.

I, for one, agree with comments I’ve seen elsewhere of late that, given the experience of the past 15 or so years worldwide, and most recently in Europe, why on earth is immigration by muslims not completely blocked at this point?

As a final aside, does anyone know if large numbers of Iraqi and Syrian Christians have been able to emigrate to the US at this point?  Or was the rhetoric that they would be allowed to do so just another bit of false flotsam thrown out during a moment of crisis?

Comments

1. Neil Frazier - February 2, 2015

The last I read was that 85 thousand Muslims are being move to the U.S. as refugees under the aegis of the U.N. Christians are not allowed because they are not being persecuted by their government, but are actually under the protection of their respective countries. Would that it were true. It is truly a huge shame to bring incompatible people here while more compatible persons die as they are expelled from their homes.

2. MFG - February 2, 2015

It’s a very good question to ask. If we had understood that many of the 9-11 hijackers were here legally on student visas maybe someone with intelligence would have at least restricted Muslims from coming here. But to do so would violate the religion of secular globalism which requires no borders, no homogenous culture. Especially homogenous Christian or Catholic culture. Instead they imposed on the privacy and lives of American citizens with TSA body, NSA domestic surveillance and quixotic pursuits abroad.

Tantumblogo - February 2, 2015

All true. The TSA situation has been especially ludicrous. Five year olds violated, old women sequestered as terrible threats, but you can’t ask a muslim woman to remove her burqa! Yeah……that makes sense.

Eventually this double standard is going to be a direct cause of a successful attack……but more than likely the elites will try to keep the role their own idiotic leftist policies play in that success a close secret. And with the media being the way it is today, totally gone over the left-wing advocacy, there will be few to call them to account.

3. c matt - February 2, 2015

It would be interesting to see what kind of legal authority such tribunals have. Arbitration is also voluntary, but an arbitration award (if arbitration has been agreed to) can be enforced through the state or federal judicial system. Often, those arbitration clauses are slipped in without much awareness by one of the parties (practically every credit card application has them). Will a sharia arbitration award be enforceable through the government courts?

4. Wakeup - February 2, 2015

Everyone is talking up and upset about Latino immigrants but that is not the reason for the immigration reform, it is for these specifically.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: