part time job 7pm to 11pm in mumbai for male

date: 21 feb 2008



comment:



?esterners must mount a united front against islamic law? sure! 

comment by jerry gordon



daniel pipes in this jewish world review article demonstrates the danger and absurdity of letting sharia law ?eep?into our courts here in the west, especially north america. we have posted on the furor raised about archbishop of canterbury, dr. rowan williams trying to accommodate sharia domestic and financial ?aw?into british common law. the uproar nearly cost him his position as a senior prelate in the anglican church. in the words of several critics, he effectively opened his mouth without thinking.



pipes talks about the absurdity of muslim cab drivers denying the right of a seeing eye dog for a blind fare, because their ?eligion?says that the canine was ?nclean?



witness this comment from pipes:



islamist organizations initially responded to this problem by supporting anti-canine cabbies. the muslim association of canada pointed out how muslims generally regard dog saliva as unclean. cair on one occasion echoed this assertion, claiming that ?he saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer.?on another, the head of cair, nihad awad, declared that ?eople from the middle east especially ?have been indoctrinated with a kind of fear of dogs?and justified a driver rejecting a guide dog on the grounds that he ?as a genuine fear and he acted in good faith. he acted in accordance with his religious beliefs.?


however, when the police and the courts are called in, the legal rights of the blind to their basic needs and their dignity almost always trump the muslim dislike for dogs. the muslim proprietor or driver invariably finds himself admonished, fined, re-educated, warned, or even jailed. the judge who found a cabby? behavior to be ? total disgrace?spoke for many.



the sunday new york times published an article entitled, ?hen god and the law don? square?by writer adam liptak. about how sharia has crept into our courts here in the us. 



he noted about a texas divorce case of a muslim woman:



in 2003, a texas appeals court referred a divorce case to a local tribunal called the texas islamic court. in the texas case, however, it was a woman rola qaddura, who sought arbitration in a dispute over a dowry and the distribution of assets after a divorce. the parties had signed an agreement to arbitrate their case ?ccording to islamic rules by law by texas islamic court?

in 2003, a texas appeals court referred a divorce case to a local tribunal called the texas islamic court. in the texas case, however, it was a woman rola qaddura, who sought arbitration in a dispute over a dowry and the distribution of assets after a divorce. the parties had signed an agreement to arbitrate their case ?ccording to islamic rules by law by texas islamic court?





the texas appeals court said the agreement was valid. the attorney representing the woman said the appeals court ruling was peoper and unexceptional.





in the end the parties could not agree and the arbitration collapsed. 





i have argued that the way sharia will insinuate itself into our law would be through arbitration and mediation of domestic and financial disputes through an extra-judicial arbitration system condoned by our courts. that would entail setting up separate a sharia law section of the american arbitration association overseen by islamic law panels. the texas appeals court decision reaffirms my view and should be a warning to all about how sharia will spread through the proverbial legal back door.





at the end of the pipes piece he naively says:





if westerners stick together, the shari? is doomed. if we do not, we are doomed.





based on the excerpt from the new york times article, it looks like we already are headed that way, unless we reject sharia arbitration panels completely.





by daniel pipes, jewish world review, february 19, 2008





westerners opposed to the application of the islamic law (the shari?) watch with dismay as it goes from strength to strength in their countries ?harems increasingly accepted, a church leader endorsing islamic law, a judge referring to the koran, clandestine muslim courts meting out justice. what can be done to stop the progress of this medieval legal system so deeply at odds with modern life, one that oppresses women and turns non-muslims into second-class citizens?





a first step is for westerners to mount a united front against the shari?. facing near-unanimous hostility, islamists back down. for one example, note the retreat last week by the council on american-islamic relations (cair) in a dispute concerning guide dogs used by the blind.





muslims traditionally consider dogs impure animals to be avoided, creating an aversion that becomes problematic when muslim store-owners or taxi drivers deny service to blind westerners relying on service dogs. i have collected fifteen such cases on my weblog, at ?uslim taxi drivers vs. seeing-eye dogs? five from the united states (new orleans, cincinnati, milwaukee, brooksville, fl.; everett, wash.); four from canada (vancouver, twice in edmonton, fort mcmurray, alberta); three from the united kingdom (cambridge, twice in london); two from australia (melbourne, sydney); and one from norway (oslo).



muslims traditionally consider dogs impure animals to be avoided, creating an aversion that becomes problematic when muslim store-owners or taxi drivers deny service to blind westerners relying on service dogs. i have collected fifteen such cases on my weblog, at ?uslim taxi drivers vs. seeing-eye dogs? five from the united states (new orleans, cincinnati, milwaukee, brooksville, fl.; everett, wash.); four from canada (vancouver, twice in edmonton, fort mcmurray, alberta); three from the united kingdom (cambridge, twice in london); two from australia (melbourne, sydney); and one from norway (oslo).



news accounts quote muslim cabbies rudely rejecting blind would-be passengers, yelling at them, ?o dog, no dog, get out, get out? ?et that dog out of here? and ?o dogs, no dogs.?the blind find themselves rejected, humiliated, abandoned, insulted, or even injured, left in the rain, dropped in the middle of nowhere, made late for an appointment, or caused to miss a flight.



islamist organizations initially responded to this problem by supporting anti-canine cabbies. the muslim association of canada pointed out how muslims generally regard dog saliva as unclean. cair on one occasion echoed this assertion, claiming that ?he saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer.?on another, the head of cair, nihad awad, declared that ?eople from the middle east especially ?have been indoctrinated with a kind of fear of dogs?and justified a driver rejecting a guide dog on the grounds that he ?as a genuine fear and he acted in good faith. he acted in accordance with his religious beliefs.?


however, when the police and the courts are called in, the legal rights of the blind to their basic needs and their dignity almost always trump the muslim dislike for dogs. the muslim proprietor or driver invariably finds himself admonished, fined, re-educated, warned, or even jailed. the judge who found a cabby? behavior to be ? total disgrace?spoke for many.



cair, realizing that its approach had failed in the courts of both law and of public opinion, suddenly and nimbly switched sides. in a cynical maneuver, for example, it organized 300 cabbies in minneapolis to provide free rides for participants at a national federation of the blind conference. (unconvinced by this obvious ploy, a federation official responded: ?e really are uncomfortable ?with the offer of getting free rides. we don? think that solves anything. we believe the cabdrivers need to realize that the law says they will not turn down a blind person.? and, finally, last week, the canadian office of cair issued a statement urging muslims to accommodate blind taxi passengers, quoting a board member that ?slam allows for dogs to be used by the visually impaired.?


cair? capitulation contains an important lesson: when westerners broadly agree on rejecting a specific islamic law or tradition and unite against it, western islamists must adjust to the majority? will. guide dogs for the blind represent just one of many such consensus issues; others tend to involve women, such as husbands beating wives, the burqa head coverings, female genital mutilation, and ?onor?killings. western unity can also compel islamists to denounce their preferred positions in areas such as slavery and shar?-compliant finances.

(continue reading this article)



000000000

Service Unavailable

Service Unavailable


HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.