Tenn. bill would make following Shariah a felony

[Soulsearcher]

Tenn. bill would make following Shariah a felony - Yahoo! News

Thoughts?

[Wingnut]

So much for the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[rameumptom]

There is a difference between allowing people to live their religion, and trying to implement a different law that replaces or supplants the Constitution. Sharia law limits freedom of religion and speech, limits the rights of women, etc. To allow it would be the end of our Constitutional Republic.

Due to the Constitutional law, plural marriage was made illegal for Mormons (and all others), and that ruling (Reynolds v USA) is still upheld and used by the Supreme Court in dealing with churches attempting to use freedom of religion as a ploy to establish their own law outside of the Constitutional structure. Ending polygamy does not end our Constitutional Republic.

[Jenamarie]

TheDue to the Constitutional law, plural marriage was made illegal for Mormons (and all others), and that ruling (Reynolds v USA) is still upheld and used by the Supreme Court in dealing with churches attempting to use freedom of religion as a ploy to establish their own law outside of the Constitutional structure. Ending polygamy does not end our Constitutional Republic.

Why not? Polygamy wasn't a "shadow government" or anything like that, to my knowledge. It was one man marrying multiple women, with their consent. What should be illegal about that?

(ETA: Of course it doesn't "end" the Constitutional Republic, but I do believe we lost part of our free exercise of religion when Polygamy was outlawed)

[rameumptom]

Polygamy, in the eyes of Abraham Lincoln, was one of the two symbols of barbarism (along with slavery). Many saw it as a method to enslave women, and felt it risked society's stability.

[Just_A_Guy]

Might I respectfully suggest that we read the bill before getting too worked up over this?

[PrinceofLight2000]

Might I respectfully suggest that we read the bill before getting too worked up over this?

It only appears to ban elements of Sharia that call for overthrow of the constitutions and/or governments.

[Jenamarie]

Read it, and it appears that they're equating Sharia with Terrorism.

DESIGNATION

Under this bill, the attorney general may designate an organization as a sharia organization if the attorney general finds that:

(1) The organization knowingly adheres to sharia;

(2) The organization engages in, or retains the capability and intent to engage in, an act of terrorism; and

(3) The act of terrorism of the organization threatens the security or public safety of this state's residents.

If so, wouldn't that make this law redundant? Aren't there already ways to label an organization as a "terrorist organization", or am I wrong?

And I don't like part of the deffinition of what a Sharia organization is:

This bill defines "sharia" as the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which are said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States or Tennessee Constitutions, or the destruction of the national existence of the United States or the sovereignty of this state, and which includes among other methods to achieve these ends, the likely use of imminent violence. Under this bill, 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.

Wouldn't this mean that any Islamic organization in this state is going to have to be *very careful* about how they word things? Do non-Sharia-abiding Muslims use some of the same terms or phrases as Sharia-abiding Muslims, but without as loaded a meaning? And that one utterance of such a phrase could have the organization labeled "Sharia" and therefore, at least in the public eye, "Terrorist" bothers me.

I'm really uncomfortable with this bill.

[Jenamarie]

It only appears to ban elements of Sharia that call for overthrow of the constitutions and/or governments.

Aren't there already laws that address the bolded? Does one have to be labeled "Sharia" for the law to legally step in and put a stop to anti-government activities?

[PrinceofLight2000]

Read it, and it appears that they're equating Sharia with Terrorism.

If so, wouldn't that make this law redundant? Aren't there already ways to label an organization as a "terrorist organization", or am I wrong?

And I don't like part of the deffinition of what a Sharia organization is:

Wouldn't this mean that any Islamic organization in this state is going to have to be *very careful* about how they word things? Do non-Sharia-abiding Muslims use some of the same terms or phrases as Sharia-abiding Muslims, but without as loaded a meaning? And that one utterance of such a phrase could have the organization labeled "Sharia" and therefore, at least in the public eye, "Terrorist" bothers me.

I'm really uncomfortable with this bill.

That's what it looks like on its face when you focus on particular lines. However, with cursory examination of the full bill, as I said before, the law only targets Sharia-abiding organizations and/or individuals that has the capability to and intends to engage or currently engages in terrorism, and only if "the act of terrorism of the organization threatens the security or public safety of this state's residents." You seem to be forgetting that the first quote you made did more than just focus the legislation on Sharia law.

It might be redundant, but a tighter ship couldn't hurt. The law itself poses no threat to peaceful Sharia-abiding Muslims, only terrorists.

Edited March 1, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Jenamarie]

That's what it looks like on its face. However, with cursory examination, as I said before, the law only targets Sharia-abiding organizations and/or individuals that intends to or engages in terrorism, and only if "the act of terrorism of the organization threatens the security or public safety of this state's residents." You seem to be forgetting that the first quote you made did more than just focus the legislation on Sharia law.

I know it does, but the bill states that organizations who focus on those terrorist activities are going to be labeled "Sharia", not "Terrorist" or "Anti-Government", just "Sharia", with no distinction between US-law-abiding Sharia-adherents and non-US-law-abiding Sharia adherants. It may not have any effect on how the law is applied, but it will certainly do significant harm to the public perception of Muslims who adhere to Sharia law in a peaceful, law abiding manner (which *does* happen).

[PrinceofLight2000]

I know it does, but the bill states that organizations who focus on those terrorist activities are going to be labeled "Sharia", not "Terrorist" or "Anti-Government", just "Sharia", with no distinction between US-law-abiding Sharia-adherents and non-US-law-abiding Sharia adherants. It may not have any effect on how the law is applied, but it will certainly do significant harm to the public perception of Muslims who adhere to Sharia law in a peaceful, law abiding manner (which *does* happen).

Then it just needs clarification.

[Just_A_Guy]

I haven't really looked into this, but my gut reaction is that this could be a backdoor attempt to shut down Islamic advocacy groups like CAIR (dig deep enough, and you can tie anyone to terrorism).

[Jenamarie]

It might be redundant, but a tighter ship couldn't hurt. The law itself poses no threat to peaceful Sharia-abiding Muslims, only terrorists.

But this "tighter ship" comes with some added beurocracy, and therefore government spending (tax dollars). And is it really going to make anti-terrorism efforts *that* much more effective than they already are? It's just adding a new name they can slap onto a terrorist organization, from my reading of the Bill.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I find it ironic that Christians in Muslim countries are highly restricted in their ability to practice their faith and the "crime" of evangelism is met with harsh penalties. I see this law as targeting not those Muslims who come to America to be free, but those who come here to establish religious enslavement. Constitutionally protected religious expression does not grant people the right to insulated cloisters independent of U.S. laws and courts. As someone mentioned earlier, this doesn't hurt peaceful Muslims wanting only to practice their faith.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I haven't really looked into this, but my gut reaction is that this could be a backdoor attempt to shut down Islamic advocacy groups like CAIR (dig deep enough, and you can tie anyone to terrorism).

CAIR should be shut down. The FBI has already determined definitively that they funnel money to terror groups overseas.

[Just_A_Guy]

Do you have a source on that? I would venture to guess that if the FBI had really proven that, CAIR wouldn't be in business today.

[NeuroTypical]

The law itself poses no threat to peaceful Sharia-abiding Muslims, only terrorists.

I'm not sure I understand what you think "Sharia-abiding" means. As I look around wikipedia, it strikes me that "Sharia law" might be one of those words like 'homophobe' or 'liberal' where people struggle for control of the word's definition.

As far as I can tell, "Sharia-abiding" means a muslim is living in a nation ruled by the theocratic sharia law, or is actively trying to change the government of where they do live into a theocratic Islamic state. The concern is from folks who think "Trying to change" amounts to subversion, revolution, traitorous acts, terrorism, conquering, etc.

It's more than following the five pillars of islam. It's more than following the "Basic Code" of the Qur'an and Sunnah. It's more than living as a Muslim in a constitutional republic like the US. Islamists from more extreme sects do not believe Saudi Arabia lives under sharia law, although they have religious courts.

Organizations like the European Court of Human Rights consider the punishments prescribed by Sharia in some countries to be barbaric and cruel.

Lots of stuff to think about here. Folks worried about the free exercise clause may have a point. And folks who want to make it easier to go after terrorist organizations and those who mean our country harm, also have a point.

LM

[rameumptom]

Right after 9/11 CAIR and other American-based Muslim organizations found that some of their charitable funds were actually being funneled to terrorist organizations. They have stopped such donations, as donating to terrorist organizations is a felony here (known as Aiding and Abetting).