Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

The Year in Islamophobia: Timeline
— By Tim Murphy
| Thu Dec. 30, 2010 11:00 AM PST

It’s never a good sign when you find yourself longing for the halcyon days of George W. Bush. But after a year in which right-wing activists and politicians identified America’s greatest threats as mosques and infants, you could be forgiven for feeling a bit nostalgic for the man who responded to the 9/11 attacks by emphasizing that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

So, is America Islamophobic? It depends. For the overwhelming majority of Muslims, America’s still a pretty sweet place to work and pray (just watch out for these fellas
http://www.kens5.com/news/Chupacabra-re ... 74579.html ).

And as conservatives like Jeff Jacoby are quick to point out, when it comes to reported hate crimes, Jewish Americans still have it worse. Much, much worse.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/data/table_01.html

But with precious few exceptions, anti-Semitism is confined to the paranoid fringe; you’d never see a slew of presidential candidates line up to, say, protest the construction of a synogogue.

2010 was the year Islamic fearmongering officially went mainstream. Here’s a quick look back at how the heck it happened. Enjoy.

The Year in Islamophobia Timeline:
http://www.dipity.com/timothypmurphy/Th ... amophobia/

PUBLIC CHAPTER NO. 983
HOUSE BILL NO. 3768
By Representatives Dennis, Lundberg, Campfield, Niceley, Coley, Evans,
Weaver, Floyd, Harry Brooks, Lynn, Maggart, White, Rich, Lollar, Halford,
Moore, Carr
Substituted for: Senate Bill No. 3740
By Senators Bunch, Gresham, Tracy, Black
AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or
Tennessee Constitution.
WHEREAS, while the general assembly fully recognizes the right to contract
freely under the laws of this state, it also recognizes that this right may be reasonably
and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state's interest to protect and promote rights
and privileges granted under the United States or Tennessee Constitutions; now,
therefore,
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. As used in this act, "foreign law, legal code, or system" means any
law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United
States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied
by that jurisdiction's courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.
SECTION 2. It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a
court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under
the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under
any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether
the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in
this state guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution or the United States Constitution or
any statute or decision under those constitutions.
SECTION 3.
(a) If any contract, arbitration agreement or other agreement provides for
the choice of a foreign law, legal code or system to govern its interpretation or
the resolution of any claim or dispute and if the enforcement or interpretation of
the contract, arbitration agreement or other agreement applying that choice of
law provision either resulted or would result in a violation of any right guaranteed
by the Tennessee Constitution or the United States Constitution, then it is the
public policy of this state that the primary factor in interpretation, enforcement or
application of the contract, arbitration agreement or other agreement shall be
preservation of the constitutional rights of the natural person in this state against
whom enforcement is sought, unless otherwise directed by state statute.
Public Chapter No. 983 PUBLIC ACTS, 2010 2
(b) Nothing in this act shall be interpreted to limit the right of a natural
person of this state to voluntarily restrict or limit their own constitutional rights by
contract or specific waiver consistent with constitutional principles; however, the
language of any such contract or other waiver shall be strictly construed in favor
of preserving the constitutional rights of the natural person in this state.
SECTION 4.
(a) If any contract, arbitration agreement or other agreement provides for
the choice of venue or forum outside any state or territory of the United States
and if the enforcement or interpretation of the contract, arbitration agreement or
other agreement applying that choice of venue or forum provision either resulted
or would result in a violation of any right of a natural person in this state
guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution or the United States Constitution,
then it is the public policy of this state that, in interpreting or construing the
contract or arbitration agreement or other agreement, the primary factor to be
considered is whether it can be interpreted or construed to preserve the
constitutional rights of the natural person in this state against whom enforcement
is sought.
(b) If a natural person of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this
state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency or similarly binding
proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of
forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate the
constitutional rights of the non-claimant in the foreign forum with respect to the
matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be
denied.
SECTION 5. Without prejudice to any other legal right, this act shall not apply to
a corporation, partnership or other form of business association.
SECTION 6. The public policies expressed in this act shall apply only to actual
or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a natural person in this state from
a foreign law, legal code or system.
SECTION 7. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person
or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of the act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to that end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable.
SECTION 8. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare
requiring it.
PASSED: May 13, 2010

Tennessee Bans Sharia
May 27, 2010
Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signs into law Senate Bill no. 3740, which explicitly prohibits judges from citing foreign or religious law in their rulings. The bill's supporters hope it will save the state from Sharia.

Here they are, the six principles of shariah:

1. The right to the protection of life.
2. The right to the protection of family.
3. The right to the protection of education.
4. The right to the protection of religion.
5. The right to the protection of property (access to resources).
6. The right to the protection of human dignity.

Shari'a is a set of religious principles and is not the law of the land anywhere in the world. The 50-some Muslim-majority countries are all constitutional states and nearly all of them have civil codes (many of these based on the French system). Being Muslim does not require a governmental imposition of something called "shari'a law," any more than being a Christian requires the implementation of "Biblical law" (though there are, of course, a tiny minority of both Christians and Muslims who do advocate such things, including Sarah Palin).

kanelli wrote:I would oppose any laws that are not secular ones

symmetric wrote:In my opinion, the West has full right to reject Sharia laws.

capsicum wrote:

symmetric wrote:In my opinion, the West has full right to reject Sharia laws.

DAMN RIGHT!

Bora Bora wrote:

capsicum wrote:

symmetric wrote:In my opinion, the West has full right to reject Sharia laws.

DAMN RIGHT!

I second that!!!

Didn't read the articles, but I gather that Muslims want Sharia law recognized in the US where there is one law for everyone. Shaf, would Muslims what to pick and choose what laws be recognized?? Or would it take into consideration ALL the laws under Sharia? Should there be separate courts for Sharia law? Would it mean that if a Muslim was, say, caught stealing, he could choose to be tried under "US law" rather than lose a hand under Sharia law? If a man proclaims "I divorce you" three times, that's the end of the marriage? He's free to walk away? Sharia law when it comes to marriage and crime is still in the dark ages and very backwards.

Why should Muslims have a choice of law, and non-Muslims be left with no choice? Why do a group of Muslims feel that they are entitled to special treatment by virtue of being a Muslim? Assuming they are citizens of the country they live in they took that citizenship with the understanding that they live by the laws of that country. If they were born in that country and have issues with the laws in place and want to live under Sharia law - then they should leave. No one is holding them hostage. They are free to go.

I'm really sick of some Muslims thinking that there is a certain entitlement due them, especially those who migrate to developed countries. If they want to live by Sharia law then they should live in a country that practices Sharia law. Can you show me where there is a developed country that practices two or more types of law to accommodate different religions/sects??

Fortunately they can make all the demands they want, it will never happen.

Bora Bora wrote:Happy New Year Sym. May it be a healthy, happy and prosperous one for you.

kanelli wrote:Well, I do feel the same way about any set of laws dictated by any religion, so it isn't just Islam.

shafique wrote:I also pointed out that Shariah is already part of the British legal system, just as Judaic law is part of it. As it is in the UK, yes Muslims (and Jews) have a choice for certain issues to go to a religious court or a secular court. I see no issue with this.

On criminal matters, I would not advocate any choice - there should be one law for all for criminal acts.

symmetric wrote:In my opinion, the West has full right to reject Sharia laws.

Berrin wrote:

symmetric wrote:In my opinion, the West has full right to reject Sharia laws.

What happens,say, if half of the christians in America revert to islam means goes into contract with God according to the islamic laws set in the quran therefore demand shariah?

Shall we shift them back into Dubai?

Bora Bora wrote:When you refer to Muslims and Jews having a choice of courts, I assume that the "certain issues" in question are of a very, very minor religious nature that does not impact society or the welfare of the individuals involved, as in the case of Catholic tribunals (courts).

Non-Muslims turning to Sharia courts to resolve civil disputes
Fiona Hamilton, London Correspondent
Increasing numbers of non-Muslims are turning to Sharia courts to resolve commercial disputes and other civil matters, The Times has learnt.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) said that 5 per cent of its cases involved non-Muslims who were using the courts because they were less cumbersome and more informal than the English legal system.

Freed Chedie, a spokesman for Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, a barrister who set up the tribunal, said: “We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not.”

In a case last month a non-Muslim Briton took his Muslim business partner to the tribunal to sort out a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company. “The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” said Mr Chedie. “The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”
...

Bora Bora wrote:Once again,evidence of how much Jews and Muslims have in common. The line between who suffers more with regard to religious persecution is blurring.

and with any luck, their passports cancelled.