Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
There has been a lot of argument over whether the military judge in the trial of Major Nidal Hasan was right in not imposing a gag order on the defendant. I think it was a good decision to let him say whatever he wants. Here is why:
Not only is he making it clear that this was an act of terror and an act of war, which benefits the victims, who have been victimized again by the government's decision to call it workplace violence, it also has allowed Hasan to clarify a point about Sharia law that seems to have been overlooked in his writings that have been published by Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/01/hasan-sends-writings-ahead-fort-hood-shooting-trial/#ixzz2alLCYkZi
To whit:
"Hasan declares that American democracy and Shariah law are incompatible. "There is an inherent and irreconcilable conflict. ... in an American Democracy 'we the people' govern according to what 'we the people' think is right or wrong; even if it specifically goes against what All-Mighty God commands." (See full link in the Fox article)
Are you reading this, all you Islamic propagandists in the US who go around and tell gullible non-Muslims that Sharia is compatible with US law?
Faisal Abdul Rauf
Muzammil Siddiqi
Are you reading this all you you government officials who spoke at that town hall on Sharia law at the Islamic Center of Orange County in February 2012/?
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/02/town-hall-at-islamic-center-of-orange.html
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/07/february-town-hall-at-islamic-center-of.html
What say you now, Maxine Waters, Judy Chu, Loretta Sanchez, Chief Michael Downing of LAPD, LA County Sheriff Lee Baca and US Attorney Andre Birotte? You all promoted the concept that Sharia law was compatible with US law. Now no less than Nidal Hasan tells it like it is.
It is not.
You should all be ashamed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Funny how Gary treats the words and opinions of a terrorist as gospel.
Almost as funny as how the terrorist exclusively chooses Fox News to transmit his propaganda.
Workplace violence, eh??
Also, I am happy to see that even Gary can double-post, as I have inadvertently done on more than one occasion in the past (lol.
El;,
How did I do that?
Anonymous,
It's called taking your enemies at their word. Hasan, (who I can't wait to see dancing at the end of a rope) has no interest in lulling us to sleep with taqiyya at this point like others who I named above.
Gary--it's easy when you are a computer illiterate like me, I either do it, or am afraid I have done it, with some frequency. Just had to jab you a little bit.
Gary Fouse annoints Nidal Hasan as expert on Islamic law...
...there's the fallacy in your tirade Gary. Nidal Hasan represents nobody but himself. If he thinks Islam is inconsistent with American democracy, that's his opinion. There are plenty of Muslims who would differ.
How can they all have different opinions? Well, how many different Christian doctrines have emerged from studying the same sacred texts? But Sharia isn't even the Koran. It is a nebulous concept, with no codified authoritative text, no universally recognized interpretive body.
So Sharia means whatever the person speaking says it means, until some other Muslim comes along and says no, it means something else again.
And Gary Fouse believes it is what Nidal Hasan says it is. Well, he would, wouldn't he?
I do not claim to be an expert on anything, most certainly not on Muslim/Islamic matters, but this Sharia law thing sounds at least somewhat, if not actually quite, analagous to the British/UK Constitution. Best I can see, and according to
Siarlys on Sharia, both are somewhat to essentially "unwritten" and "uncodified", have no single "interpretive body" . This does not mean, however, that neither has force of law.
It seems to me that while individual Muslims may disagree on smaller details, a great many of them appear to agree on the larger policies and procedures contained within Sharia. To again use Siarlys' example, while a very, very few Christians actually espouse "snake-handling" or "speaking in tongues" in response to their own individual interpretations of Christian doctrine, they would most probably agree with other non snake-handling, non tongue-speaking Christian groups far more than they would disagree with them in the larger context and definitions of Christianity such as the Holy Trinity, baptism by immersion, etc. Seems like it would be that way with Sharia also.
You may be on to something elwood... so if Nidal Hasan says that Sharia mandates snake handling, that's not really so universal as denial of the perverse abomination that a transcendent God could have had a son, and well documented requirements like praying five times a day and making the Hajj once in a lifetime if possible.
But the analogy to the British unwritten constitution... there is no Islamic parliament, elected or otherwise, nor is there a Vatican. You might get a rough consensus on what Sharia is to the Shia, but you couldn't actually get Hezb-i-ul-Lah to agree with their Druze neighbors on what it is, and they would all disagree with the overwhelming Sunni majority, which is much too diverse to agree on much of anything, except "peace be upon him" and "God willing."
Technically, the Ottoman Sultan was the successor to the Caliphs, who were themselves the successors to the Prophet, so if HE said that Sharia meant x, y, and z, that might have some force and effect... except by the end of the Ottoman empire, the Arabs were in revolt, and 200 years before that, the little emirdoms on the North African coast, nominally dependencies of the Ottoman empire, had gone their own way to all practical purposes. And there has been no sultan since Kemal Attaturk slaughtered the Armenians.
Complicated, ain't it?
Post a Comment