Thread: Proposal to Ban Sharia Law in the U.S. from Saneworks.us

This is a proposal from Saneworks.us to ban Sharia law in the United States.

http://www.saneworks.us/SANE-Immigratio ... -379-1.htm


SANE Act to Deal with the Islamic Threat to America’s National Existence (SADITANE)


Whereas, Islam is a political ideology combined with certain religious beliefs; further, this political ideology and religious belief system is based historically and traditionally on Shari’a or the Islamic Way, the full corpus of Islamic law dealing with all aspects of a Muslim’s personal and social life and political society.


Whereas, Islam as a political ideology is maintained, supported, and promulgated by Shari’a, which in turn requires all Muslims to actively and passively support the establishment of a political society based upon Shari’a as a replacement of any political entity not governed and governing by Shari’a.


Whereas, Islam requires all Muslims to actively and passively support the replacement of America’s constitutional republic with a political system based upon Shari’a.

Whereas, Islam and Shari’a in particular includes a war doctrine known as Jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic and central feature of the laws and traditions of Shari’a.

Whereas, Jihad and Shari’a are inextricably linked, with Shari’a formulating and commanding Jihad, and Jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting Shari’a.


Whereas, the unchanging and ultimate aim of Jihad is the imposition of Shari’a on all states and nations, including the United States; further, pursuant to its own dictates, Shari’a requires the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America.


Whereas, the imposition of Shari’a on non-Islamic states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means, including terrorism, and by lawful and non-violent means, including immigration-fed population growth and the resulting increase of Islamic political influence and power.


Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is adherence to Shari’a and to Jihad;


Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution and the imposition of Shari’a on the American People.


THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:


[1] A “Shari'a-adherent Muslimâ€

They need to take the illegal Mexicans with them.

Recirocity,

I would like to ask what you think about our government flagrantly ignoring its own previous UN Security Council Resolution, from Pres, George H.W. Bush and attacking Iraq, precipitating immense loss of life and great financial cost to the United States.

Do you believe this was the only option that would also preserve US sovereignty? Or, would it have been possible to partner with an international team and continue to monitor violations of the Resolutions in Iraq and eventually rectify all of them?

I'm just curious: I know it's a different subject than what you have posted.
It seems like every time a Muslim nation is attacked muslims from all over the region flock there as an underground resistance. Are we actually pushing these people into embracing Sharia law?

The proposed SANE Act raises a lot of good issues. How do we oppose Sharia law, and at the same time, not stir up further militancy? How do you keep extremists in America from pushing too far and making a worse mess?

Having grown up during the Cold War I think it was, for the most part, a Big Waste, beacuse now we have to partner with the Russians to control terrorism; they are (and have been for decades) affected in much the same way as we are. Do you think Reagan was right to be calling the Soviet Union an Evil Empire? So how would we not make a simlar mistake now.

I agree that we need to meet the Muslim Sharia law challenge. How do we do that without making it worse because our own extremists got carried away?

Congress and the Supreme Court should deffinitely publicly announce that implimentation of Sharia law within our borders is a violation of our constitution and therefore will not be tolerated.

Originally Posted by Captainron

Recirocity,

I would like to ask what you think about our government flagrantly ignoring its own previous UN Security Council Resolution, from Pres, George H.W. Bush and attacking Iraq, precipitating immense loss of life and great financial cost to the United States.

Do you believe this was the only option that would also preserve US sovereignty? Or, would it have been possible to partner with an international team and continue to monitor violations of the Resolutions in Iraq and eventually rectify all of them?

Your method would allow a day to come when Saddam conquers the area around him again and when we say stop it he says he'll nuke us if we don't let him rule the Middle East. Your method would allow a day to come when we hear of a nuke going off in Israel via suicide bomber and the world would say why did we allow Iraq to get the nuke why didn't we do something about it. Your method would require that we only do something about things when it is too late to stop the damage that we wanted to prevent.

The deaths we have gone through probably saved millions of lives in the future because we attacked Iraq.

Isn't it insane that we even have to discuss this. This country is full of spineless wimps! PM Howard of Australia told the muslims what to do with Sharia law. He said if you want that then go back to your country of origin,Australia won't stand for it. Of course I'm paraphrasing but you get the gist. Our tough talking Texan Pres is more spineless than some Dems and thats pretty bad. I'm soooo disgusted.

Only evidecne I have about sharia law or aka, muslim law is to take a look at every nation on this planet they rule over .

If this is not plain enough for all to see, than all has to blind or a self hating fool,imo.

The only ones who benefit are the ones getting rich off them or the islamic rulers who keep people in fear and misery .

I think the reason for going into iraq may have been to keep our interest in the middle east at the least cost of blood , not because Saddam was a threat to anyone but his own people .

OR ..........

The leaders of the world is allowing the radical muslims to take over the world for them, then call them off when they have us all in bondage . One bad attack can put free nations into MACHALL LAW .

Anyone who thinks Palistine , run by two terror groups needs more land or weapons is not thinking .

In reality all I know is i don't know what they are up to !

Originally Posted by wilma1

Isn't it insane that we even have to discuss this. This country is full of spineless wimps! PM Howard of Australia told the muslims what to do with Sharia law. He said if you want that then go back to your country of origin,Australia won't stand for it. Of course I'm paraphrasing but you get the gist. Our tough talking Texan Pres is more spineless than some Dems and thats pretty bad. I'm soooo disgusted.

That was last year when Australia did this . This year it is looking like it is back in the hands of the muslims .

Use search engines , "Australia, muslims, sharia ."