Reality & Society: Can Laws From Other Countries Be Implemented Into Our Society? Sharia Law? China?
Updated: Jan 25
Sharia Law is an Islamic law and you would think it is a set of rules that our constitution over rules. The questions that arise as we see more Muslims and other nationalities whos law are both religio-political ideologies enter into the US is:
Do they have a right to practice their Laws under the US Constitution? Does our Constitution have to abide by those who fail to assimilate? What authority does our Constitution give when it comes to other ideologies pertaining to laws?
Insider Info: In my studies I chose to take an Islamic Civilization course in college. I will be using some information out of my college book and it it searchable and available for purchase on-line. I highly recommend you pick it up and read what they Actually Believe.
What is Religio-Political?
Of or pertaining to both religion and politics.
Is Islam a religio-political system?
1.) In Islam, unlike Christianity, there is no tradition of a separation of church and state, of religious organization as contrasted with political organization. At least, this is the oft-repeated statement contrasting the two religions. There will be occasion to suggest important modifications to this assertion, but let it serve as a point of departure.
One simple reason for this difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam knows no “church” in the sense of a corporate body whose leadership is clearly defined, hierarchical, and distinct from the state. The organizational arrangement of Muslim religious specialists, or ulama,¹ makes an institutional...
2.) Islam emphasizes the religious importance of man’s deeds in this world. Islam decidedly does not turn its back on mundane matters. Islam, moreover, grew up in early political success. Thereafter, the overwhelming majority of the world’s Muslims usually lived free of political threat from non-Muslims—until modern times. Muslims cling to the ideal of the early umma, which, unlike the early Christian Church, was a this-worldly religio-political community par excellence.
What is an Umma?
It is a synonym for ummat al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Community), and it is commonly used to mean the collective community of Islamic peoples. In the Quran the ummah typically refers to a single group that shares common religious beliefs, specifically those that are the objects of a divine plan of salvation. In the context of Pan-Islamism and politics, the word Ummah can be used to mean the concept of a Commonwealth of the Believers
What are Sharia Courts?
Sharia courts are a class of officials or religious police charged with the supervision and enforcement of public morals. The office of muhtasib (ombudsman) originally referred to a market inspector who was to regulate business transactions and practices in the market places.
Sharia Law later became the law of family court: handling religious endowments, divorce, marriages, and inheritance. Grievance court became the court of public law.
What are Grievance Courts?
Grievance courts focus on public laws. Criminal, taxation, and commercial.
Courts of Law
Application of Sharia was the task of the courts and their judges qadis. Judges are not independent but appointed by the government and paid for by the caliph.
What is a caliph?
A caliphate is an Islamic state. It's led by a caliph, who is a political and religious leader who is a successor (caliph) to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. His power and authority is absolute.
When the organization known as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) announced at the end of June 2014 that it was seeking to restore the Islamic caliphate, with its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as caliph, it set off a wave of debate both among jihadists and western analysts.
Can the Sharia Laws be legally implemented in the United States?
Beginning in 2010, legislators in half of the U.S. states proposed and in two states adopted series of bills or state constitutional amendments designed to restrict the use of international law and foreign laws by state (and sometimes federal) courts. This Insight will summarize the trend in adopting legislation hostile to international law and foreign laws and briefly discuss its causes and consequences.
The Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment and Awad v. Ziriax
Some of the proposed state constitutional amendments have proved popular. The Missouri joint resolution has 105 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. The Oklahoma amendment was actually approved by a comfortable margin. On May 25, 2010, the Oklahoma House of Representatives adopted joint resolution 1056 to amend the state constitution. The resolution, presented to Oklahoma voters as State Question 755, was approved by 70% of the voters.
The amendment was not immediately certified to the state supreme court because a resident of Oklahoma challenged it, inter alia, as contrary to the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause generally prohibits arbitrary government discrimination against any religion.  The federal district court for the Western District of Oklahoma, which interpreted the reference to âSharia lawâ to apply to religious beliefs rather than a system of law, found that the plaintiff had made a âstrong showing of a substantial likelihood of successâ in proving that the amendment unconstitutionally stigmatized Muslims. For now, the Oklahoma State Board of Elections is pursuing an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Measures Prohibiting Consideration of International Law
Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, treaties to which the United States is a party are the âsupreme Law of the Land.â Any state law or constitutional provision barring courts from enforcing international treaty law would likely run afoul of the Supremacy Clause. Those state bills and joint resolutions prohibiting courts from considering or enforcing international law would be void.
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly incorporate customary international law into federal law. However, the Supreme Court declared in The Paquete Habana (1900) that customary international law âis part of our law.â More recently, in the context of suits against foreign citizens for serious human rights violations, the Court reaffirmed that at least some customary international law rules, if sufficiently well defined and widely accepted, are enforceable in U.S. courts as federal law.  To the extent that the state bills and constitutions would forbid courts to enforce the ânarrow classâ of customary international law directly enforceable under Supreme Court precedent, they too would violate the Constitution.
Measures Prohibiting Consideration of Foreign Law
Whether excluding foreign law from state courts would violate the federal Constitution is a more complex question. Those bills subordinating foreign laws to fundamental state and federal constitutional rights, such as the adopted Louisiana Act No. 886, would have minimal effects in most states if reasonably interpreted. However, bills and proposed state constitutional amendments forbidding judges to look to precepts of and to enforce foreign laws could conflict with a broad range of federal laws and policies. They would also require state courts to abandon the practice of citing to foundational English cases and would preclude enforcement in state courts of federal laws that require recognition or enforcement of foreign judicial or arbitral decisions.
Several of the bills and proposed constitutional amendments, such as bills introduced in Arizona and Texas, and the Oklahoma Save Our State Resolution, could be interpreted to deny state government officials and courts the power to recognize foreign juristic persons, as well as marriages or child adoptions originating on foreign soil. Most would also nullify state laws that rely on recognition of foreign laws and court judgments.
Some bills, including the New Jersey, Florida, and Iowa bills, would require conflicts of law to be decided in favor of the forum state, or the case dismissed, whenever the law suit or arbitration would threaten a personâs state or federal constitutional rights. Others would do the same regardless of whether a constitutional right is threatened.
Finally, the Arizona bill would nullify the choice of a foreign law or foreign forum in an agreement between private parties, and nearly all of the bills and proposed constitutional amendments would do the same when the choice of law or forum is perceived to threaten state or federal constitutional rights. Unless interpreted very narrowly, such limitations could not only foil the reasonable expectations of the parties in many cases, but defeat their clearly expressed intentions. It is unclear what desirable policies these provisions would serve.
Sharia is an Islamic penal code, based on religious beliefs that dictate prayers, diet and fasting. Punishments include chopping off the hands of thieves, stoning adulterers, and killing those who deny Allah.
If enacted, House Bill 4499 would “limit the application and enforcement by a court, arbitrator, or administrative body of foreign laws that would impair constitutional rights; to provide for modification or voiding of certain contractual provisions or agreements that would result in a violation of constitutional rights; and to require a court, arbitrator, or administrative body to take certain actions to prevent violation of constitutional rights,” and would apply “only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the 16 application of the foreign law.” [Read more].
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) announced today that the City of Dearborn, its Mayor, John B. O’Reilly, its Chief of Police, Ronald Haddad, 17 City police officers, and two executives of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce were named as defendants in a ninety-six page federal civil rights lawsuit filed in the Federal District Court in Detroit this morning.
The lawsuit, brought by TMLC and co-counsel and Sharia law expert, David Yerushalmi, stems from two separate police actions at the June 2010 Dearborn, Michigan Annual International Arab Festival.
Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel, commented, “Muslims dominate the political and law enforcement process in Dearborn. It seems that police were more interested in placating the Mayor and Muslims than obeying our Constitution. Sharia law makes it a crime to preach the Gospel to Muslims. This is a classic example of stealth Jihad being waged right here in America. And it should be a wake-up call for all patriotic Americans.”
Sharia Compliance Loans
Somali entrepreneurs in the neighborhood have transformed an abandoned machinery warehouse into this bustling indoor bazaar. Karmel Square is one of several commercial districts they've revived in recent years with support from an unexpected ally: the city.
Since 2006, Minneapolis has loaned more than $1 million to Muslim business owners through a program that complies with sharia law, which prohibits Muslims from paying or earning interest in a financial transaction. The program, which is operated in partnership with the African Development Center, makes Minneapolis the only city in the country to offer Islamic financing at a time when states are trying to ban sharia from the courts. "Minneapolis is a very welcoming city," says Kristin Guild, the city's business development manager. "Because [Somali immigrants] wear headscarves, they are visible as entrepreneurs and people see that they are setting up businesses in our town and creating jobs."
The Effects of Sharia Guidelines in a Non Sharia Country
The city of Pitt Meadows is removing signs posted in one of its off-leash dog parks asking owners to keep their canines away from Muslim people.
A number of flyers were recently posted in Hoffman Park asking dog owners to keep their pets leashed.
"Many Muslims live in this area and dogs are considered filthy in Islam. Please keep your dogs on a leash and away from the Muslims who live in this community," the flyers read.
Communist China Laws and Policies That are Being Implemented in The United States
What is Marxism?
Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after Karl Marx. It examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism in favor of communism.
What is Communism?- economicshelp.org
The main difference is that socialism is compatible with democracy and liberty, whereas Communism involves creating an 'equal society' through an authoritarian state, which denies basic liberties. ... Communism is a political and economic ideology – closely associated with the state Communism of the Soviet Union and China
Social Credit System- fastcompany.com (2019)
Have you heard about China’s social credit system? It’s a technology-enabled, surveillance-based nationwide program designed to nudge citizens toward better behavior. The ultimate goal is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step,” according to the Chinese government.
In place since 2014, the social credit system is a work in progress that could evolve by next year into a single, nationwide point system for all Chinese citizens, akin to a financial credit score. It aims to punish for transgressions that can include membership in or support for the Falun Gong or Tibetan Buddhism, failure to pay debts, excessive video gaming, criticizing the government, late payments, failing to sweep the sidewalk in front of your store or house, smoking or playing loud music on trains, jaywalking, and other actions deemed illegal or unacceptable by the Chinese government.
Punishments can be harsh, including bans on leaving the country, using public transportation, checking into hotels, hiring for high-visibility jobs, or acceptance of children to private schools. It can also result in slower internet connections and social stigmatization in the form of registration on a public blacklist.
Here are some of the elements of America’s growing social credit system.
Life Insurance Comapnies
The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this year that life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts. That Instagram pic showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in one hand, a bucket of cheese fries in the other, and a cigarette in your mouth, could cost you. On the other hand, a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money. (Insurance companies have to demonstrate that social media evidence points to risk, and not be based on discrimination of any kind—they can’t use social posts to alter premiums based on race or disability, for example.)
The use of social media is an extension of the lifestyle questions typically asked when applying for life insurance, such as questions about whether you engage in rock climbing or other adventure sports. Saying “no,” but then posting pictures of yourself free-soloing El Capitan, could count as a “yes.”
PatronScan helps spot fake IDs—and troublemakers.
When customers arrive at a PatronScan-using bar, their ID is scanned. The company maintains a list of objectionable customers designed to protect venues from people previously removed for “fighting, sexual assault, drugs, theft, and other bad behavior,” according to its website. A “public” list is shared among all PatronScan customers. So someone who’s banned by one bar in the U.S. is potentially banned by all the bars in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada that use the PatronScan system for up to a year. (PatronScan Australia keeps a separate system.)
Airbnb—a major provider of travel accommodation and tourist activities—bragged in March that it now has more than 6 million listings in its system. That’s why a ban from Airbnb can limit travel options.
Airbnb can disable your account for life for any reason it chooses, and it reserves the right to not tell you the reason. The company’s canned message includes the assertion that “This decision is irreversible and will affect any duplicated or future accounts. Please understand that we are not obligated to provide an explanation for the action taken against your account.” The ban can be based on something the host privately tells Airbnb about something they believe you did while staying at their property. Airbnb’s competitors have similar policies.
What’s wrong with social credit, anyway?
Nobody likes antisocial, violent, rude, unhealthy, reckless, selfish, or deadbeat behavior. What’s wrong with using new technology to encourage everyone to behave?
The most disturbing attribute of a social credit system is not that it’s invasive, but that it’s extralegal. Crimes are punished outside the legal system, which means no presumption of innocence, no legal representation, no judge, no jury, and often no appeal. In other words, it’s an alternative legal system where the accused have fewer rights.
Social credit systems are an end-run around the pesky complications of the legal system. Unlike China’s government policy, the social credit system emerging in the U.S. is enforced by private companies. If the public objects to how these laws are enforced, it can’t elect new rule-makers.
Equality Act Lays Groundwork by Dictating Reality-The Federalist-Jan 28,2020
This leads to the next question: Is there any means by which a social credit system might become centralized in the United States? The First Amendment remains a sticking point. But one key may lie in the possibility of Congress enacting the so-called Equality Act.
The Equality Act builds on most of the elements needed to establish something very much like China’s social credit system. It undermines individual freedom of expression. It extends government direction and control over speech. And it provides for government and private punishment, both material and social, on citizens who don’t comply.
Below are just a few of the ways the Equality Act aims to enforce conformity of thought through threat of punishment.
The Equality Act also sets up a collision course between SOGI rights and the First Amendment. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) while the main law it amends, the Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. Therefore, conflict is guaranteed. But the SOGI side wins out over freedom of religion because the Equality Act expressly states that religious beliefs may not be a part of freedom of expression, particularly in defense against any accusation of SOGI discrimination.
The bill also specifically invalidates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which was intended to breathe new life into the First Amendment, stating that the RFRA “shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”
The bill also encourages private surveillance and snitch culture. We already live in a highly polarized culture. If lawfare against such thought crime is encouraged, we can expect to see new depths of vindictiveness rewarded by the state and a further decline in social trust. People will feel pressure to show mandatory enthusiasm for ideas that we do not personally accept.
When you federalize thought policing, which is essentially what the Equality Act does, then it seems you are creating a social credit system that nationalizes the punishment of wrong think both materially and socially. Imagine a federal law like New York City’s $250,000 fine for misgendering. Imagine activist judges everywhere—not just in states and localities—eager to bankrupt anyone who doesn’t reject biological reality.
Study to make one wise. Understand when there is a difference and why that difference is in existence. The United States is a Land of Laws and Liberties as designed by our forefathers. When we make adjustments for others who come here "Looking for the American Dream" Then they need to be Law Abiding and assimilate. They chose to come here, we didn't choose to bring our Laws to them and we didn't say "change them to your ideology".
There has to be a "One World Government" that is more cohesive than what it is now which is why sudden changes to the United States Governments both federal and state are occurring. We have been learning the Whole World is Mystery Babylon and for their systems to work, most governments need to have a unilateral government.
Remember The Unholy Roman Catholic Church/Government is apart of the United Nations and has its seat at the table. The Holy See. There is Not a Separation of Church and State and never was which is why we must all do our part to Implement The True Word of Abba Yah, The Lord God Almighty into Everything and work to Wake Up people while we still can. For there is a time coming that True Believers His Remnant will be persecuted on scales we have not see...For it is written in Revelation and other books for Abba Yah to Return. Just Remember, He Will Protect You!
He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
2 I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.
3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.
4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;
6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.
7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.
8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.
9 Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;
10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.