Islamists aim to build a "parallel society" in Canada

[nec209]

OTTAWA - Islamists aim to build a "parallel society" in Canada that risks undermining its democracy and multiculturalism and becoming a "catalyst for violence," warned a national security report published Monday.

 

 

The newly declassified document obtained by the National Post says Islamic hardliners are calling on Muslims living in Western countries to segregate themselves and adhere only to Shariah law.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Muslim+parallel+society+within+Canada+threat+Report/3831385/story.html#ixzz15O8ZHEzv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note I have no idea that is going on in Canada.

[ydoaPs]

What is an 'Islamist'?

[Moontanman]

What is an 'Islamist'?

 

 

Some one who promotes Islam?

[padren]

I can understand why a group may promote an isolationist philosophy - many religious groups already do this. The issue I have is any attempt to promote Sharia Law above the legal "law of the land" is inherently illegal, and I would assume racketeering laws could even be used against any group that tries to promote or conceal illegal conduct from law enforcement. Since this movement (no group was named in the article) has expenses I assume they collect donations.

 

If those donations promote illegal activity and interference with law enforcement, doesn't the group become subject to racketeering laws?

 

At that point it's a criminal organization.

[ydoaPs]

That article seems to be the same sort of inaccurate fearmongering that occurred with the 'Ground Zero' 'Mosque' that was neither a Mosque nor at Ground Zero. Is there any proof aside from the clearly biased article which attached the infamous -ist to words that they plan to use Shariah ABOVE Canadian law? If they plan to use Shariah law as a more restrictive set of rules for their community in which all federal, state, and local laws still apply, I fail to see how that is any different than any of the several gated communities in the US where you must agree to certain conditions to live in the community.

[Pangloss]

That article seems to be the same sort of inaccurate fearmongering that occurred with the 'Ground Zero' 'Mosque' that was neither a Mosque nor at Ground Zero. Is there any proof aside from the clearly biased article which attached the infamous -ist to words that they plan to use Shariah ABOVE Canadian law?

 

There is evidence. The article points out that the story is based on the findings of a government intelligence report last year. Here's a quote from the original article that the one linked above was based on.

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Muslims+Told+Reject+West+Report/3828689/story.html

 

The report was written by the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, which monitors threats to Canada's national security and is composed of representatives of CSIS, the RCMP, Foreign Affairs, National Defence and other agencies.

 

It was circulated internally last year after Hizb-ut-Tahrir invited Muslims to a conference in Mississauga, Ont., to discuss the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. A copy of the document was recently released under the Access to Information Act.

 

This quote from the Gazette article also seems relevant -- apparently the Canadians aren't the only ones concerned with Islamic groups operating within their borders.

 

But the report also notes the Dutch Intelligence Service has labeled the movement as "sinister" and one which "could gradually harm social cohesion and solidarity and could harm certain fundamental human rights."

 

As well, it cites examples in Denmark in which Muslims bypassed the court system to administer their own form of justice, in one case beating a man accused of assaulting a young boy.

 

In my opinion there is a larger story here that the American political left seems determined to ignore (though in fairness the right's trumpeting is hurting more than helping), which is that the modern Western Islamic movement seem to be really struggling to find a moderate path that its members can agree on that supports compatibility with Western cultural norms.

[ydoaPs]

There is evidence. The article points out that the story is based on the findings of a government intelligence report last year. Here's a quote from the original article that the one linked above was based on.

Do you have a link to the actual report? The news article to which you linked doesn't even say that they'd hold to Shariah OVER Canadian law. It does share the same quote saying the groups wanting to form isolated communities aren't violent. It even points out multiple other religious groups who have done the same exact thing, but they're Christian so it's okay. The difference cited in the article is (with an underlying assumption that all Muslims are extremists and terrorists) that Muslims are out to destroy western culture-yes the article ACTUALLY said that.

 

It still seems like fearmongering to me.

 

In my opinion there is a larger story here that the American political left seems determined to ignore (though in fairness the right's trumpeting is hurting more than helping), which is that the modern Western Islamic movement seem to be really struggling to find a moderate path that its members can agree on that supports compatibility with Western cultural norms.

 

What is the larger story? Islamaphobia? Protests any time a Mosque is to be built? Muslims not wanting to automatically be associated with blowing up buildings? How about Muslims being able to be free to worship without being put under a microscope.

 

I still don't see any evidence that this community is a real danger to anything. Maybe that'll change after I see what's inside this report.

[Pangloss]

Does the Canadian government have a motivation for "fearmongering"? I'm not entirely familiar with Canadian politics, but it's my understanding that their current PM is a conservative, which will certainly help some folks here leap to conclusions. I agree with you that the content of the report would seem to be relevant.

 

What is the larger story? Islamaphobia? Protests any time a Mosque is to be built? Muslims not wanting to automatically be associated with blowing up buildings? How about Muslims being able to be free to worship without being put under a microscope.

 

I still don't see any evidence that this community is a real danger to anything.

 

Perhaps not, but that's not what I said. What I said was that in my opinion the Western Islamic movement seems to be struggling internally with its own compatibility with Western culture. I believe that to be the case, and it's also, by the way, the subject of this thread.

[lemur]

With all the criticism of Islam that emanates from liberal democracy, you would think western governments would jump at the chance to allow voluntary immersion-Islam to be practiced in a situation where people would be free to seek refuge if they felt oppressed. Of course, the problem would be that someone would choose for Islam until they get to the point of having to submit to truly repressive punishments and they would seek refuge at that time, which would sort of defeat the use of harsh punishments as a deterrent. So, while you might think it will work to get your lust under control to live among covered women and fear hellish punishments for any transgressions, you could get to a point where you fall to temptation with the thought that you can flee to the west when you get caught. Thus, I don't know if it would really work to try to segregate Muslims from others in this way. On the other hand, if it was voluntary for people who choose this lifestyle to practice among others with similar values, it could be inspiring and spiritually beneficial. Still, it would probably result in more distrust and aversion to "outsiders," which would also promote more suspicion among those "on the inside." Of course this social effect occurs in any form of relative cultural-segregation, and the term "xenophobia" actually describes it in the most general way. As far as I know the only cure/prevention for xenophobia is integration in some form or other. Multicultural education also helps, but this is a weak for of integration, insofar as people to gain some exposure to ethno-cultural "others."

[Pangloss]

Western Islamic leaders can't even agree that they should submit to the same security standards as other Americans. The sheer gall of that is just staggering.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-02-11-airport-scanners-muslims_N.htm

 

If the Obama administration grants Muslim women a pat-down pass because CAIR asked for it, the spam is going to hit the fan. Y'all can say whatever you want about root causes and unfair generalizations, but the irony here is pretty obvious. If such a forbearance were passed it would hardly be restricted to women in burqas -- any Muslim would be able to ask for it. Any Muslim.

 

Gonna be kinda tough to ignore the flyover states when you're falling all over them in bits and pieces.

[lemur]

Western Islamic leaders can't even agree that they should submit to the same security standards as other Americans. The sheer gall of that is just staggering.

 

http://www.usatoday....s-muslims_N.htm

 

If the Obama administration grants Muslim women a pat-down pass because CAIR asked for it, the spam is going to hit the fan. Y'all can say whatever you want about root causes and unfair generalizations, but the irony here is pretty obvious. If such a forbearance were passed it would hardly be restricted to women in burqas -- any Muslim would be able to ask for it. Any Muslim.

 

Gonna be kinda tough to ignore the flyover states when you're falling all over them in bits and pieces.

What does this have to do with this thread?

[ydoaPs]

Does the Canadian government have a motivation for "fearmongering"?

Did I say the Canadian government was fearmongering? It is entirely possible that the articles(given their clear bias) are attempting to twist what the report actually said. In fact, that is probably the case as the part of the government report they quoted explicitly said the group is nonviolent.

 

Regardless, it is also possible that there is motivation for the Canadian government to stir up fear or be influenced by existing fear. A large Muslim population may represent a change and people fear unfamiliar change. If this were the case, it is not unheard of from a government agency.

 

I'm not entirely familiar with Canadian politics, but it's my understanding that their current PM is a conservative

That may also be a factor. Who knows?

[padren]

Western Islamic leaders can't even agree that they should submit to the same security standards as other Americans. The sheer gall of that is just staggering.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-02-11-airport-scanners-muslims_N.htm

 

If the Obama administration grants Muslim women a pat-down pass because CAIR asked for it, the spam is going to hit the fan. Y'all can say whatever you want about root causes and unfair generalizations, but the irony here is pretty obvious. If such a forbearance were passed it would hardly be restricted to women in burqas -- any Muslim would be able to ask for it. Any Muslim.

 

Gonna be kinda tough to ignore the flyover states when you're falling all over them in bits and pieces.

 

Obama can't blow his nose without being accused that it proves he's a secret Muslim, and frankly he doesn't have the cajones to make such any exceptions for Muslims if he did think it was wise - something I seriously doubt. On top of that, you may want to read the article you posted:

 

"One option offered to passengers who don't want to use the scanners would be a pat down by a security guard. The Muslim groups are urging members to undergo those instead."

 

A ) Apparently pat-downs are already considered a viable secure alternative to the body-scans, and available to passengers (not just Muslim ones)

B ) The Muslim groups are urging members to opt for that already freely available option, not get special treatment.

 

So in short, the body scanners probably save time but are not currently considered a requirement to pass security, and the Fatwa issued called the scanners inconsistent with Islamic beliefs and thus recommends they take the extra time for the freely offered (to all) pat-down option instead.

 

There is honestly no problem with with this Islamic Fatwa - if they don't want to go through the screening process over modesty concerns let them not go through them. They get patted down like anyone else who doesn't want to be scanned. If they don't want that either, fine, they just won't be allowed in airports, no more than they would be issued "photo ids" if they won't show their face to a camera at a DMV. Quakers don't like buttons let alone airplanes but they get along just fine, this is really a whole lot about nothing.

 

It honestly appears to be a trend that people get in a flap over nothing, and are excused over some "looking at the bigger picture" that is really just the background din of wharbargl with no excusable basis in reality.

Edited November 17, 2010 by padren

[skyhook]

Religion is soft power. just like any religion. Shariah law is an integral part of their religion. You can probably form a political party with a religious theme, at least in my part of the world. So by having enough people who are decidedly aligned to a faction, you can get the state to compromise, and have Religious laws as parallel or even an Islamic state.

 

btw, Today is Hari Raya Haji. Happy holiday !

[nec209]

I can understand why a group may promote an isolationist philosophy - many religious groups already do this. The issue I have is any attempt to promote Sharia Law above the legal "law of the land" is inherently illegal, and I would assume racketeering laws could even be used against any group that tries to promote or conceal illegal conduct from law enforcement. Since this movement (no group was named in the article) has expenses I assume they collect donations.

 

If those donations promote illegal activity and interference with law enforcement, doesn't the group become subject to racketeering laws?

 

At that point it's a criminal organization.

 

I don't understand I thought they wanted their own law and courts?So if you believe in their god you go to theire court? Was there not same thing in UK where they wanted their own laws and court? I'm sure people who do not believe in their god would go to their court.

 

Religion is soft power. just like any religion. Shariah law is an integral part of their religion. You can probably form a political party with a religious theme, at least in my part of the world. So by having enough people who are decidedly aligned to a faction, you can get the state to compromise, and have Religious laws as parallel or even an Islamic state.

 

btw, Today is Hari Raya Haji. Happy holiday !

 

I'm sure they are not making Canada a Islamic state nor did the UK did they want a Islamic state.

 

Western Islamic leaders can't even agree that they should submit to the same security standards as other Americans. The sheer gall of that is just staggering.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-02-11-airport-scanners-muslims_N.htm

 

If the Obama administration grants Muslim women a pat-down pass because CAIR asked for it, the spam is going to hit the fan. Y'all can say whatever you want about root causes and unfair generalizations, but the irony here is pretty obvious. If such a forbearance were passed it would hardly be restricted to women in burqas -- any Muslim would be able to ask for it. Any Muslim.

 

Gonna be kinda tough to ignore the flyover states when you're falling all over them in bits and pieces.

 

The US does not live under a Islamic state so has power to do any thing they like .Do you even know some of the scanners show such detail that you nude on the screan and for even non-Muslim this will be a big problem.

[padren]

I don't understand I thought they wanted their own law and courts?So if you believe in their god you go to theire court? Was there not same thing in UK where they wanted their own laws and court? I'm sure people who do not believe in their god would go to their court.

This really isn't a new issue, David Koresh tried to create an isolated community with their own religious laws that bypassed US law (stockpiling arms that are illegal under US law) and regardless of what a sect may want, they will always be held accountable to breaking US law. It doesn't matter if the practitioners are of a Christian sect or an Islamic one - there is more than enough case precedent that demonstrates that religious views do not trump the laws of the state or nation.

 

It's really just a matter of what words are used: You can say "Biblical Values" but those sects treat it as "Biblical Law" just as Islamic fundamentalists refer to "Sharai Law" - the only reason it's more touchy on the Islamic side is that the word "law" implies direct conflict with the legal system, where was "Sharai Values" would sound far less threatening.

 

The fact is both are the same issue - groups wanting to live by a code of values based on their religion, which they are allowed to do up to the point that it conflicts with state or federal law. What we have not seen (and is implied by the concerns Pangloss raised) is any legal challenges to establishing that religious practices should be allowed to be practiced with legal immunity from state and federal laws. The "wife beater judge" made a ruling that supported that idea, but he was overturned and aside from the standard "white noise" of random poor rulings case precedent is pretty well established for all religions.

 

It's worth noting that (allegedly) Scientology supports the harassment, intimidation, and "dirty tricks" to be used against enemies of their church without concern for the moral implications of those actions. The degree to which they act in accordance to the legal limitations of state and federal law has only to do with not wanting to be caught, jailed and/or fined. According to their beliefs (again, allegedly, I'm not a lawyer or expert) anyone who decides to place themselves in the position of being an enemy of the church is "a criminal" and deserves no ethical consideration.

They are no less dedicated to their beliefs than any Muslim that believes their laws are set down from a higher authority than state or federal authorities. All the same they know if they publicly commit a crime against state or federal law, they will be pursued for it.

 

This is all based on pretty basic principals within our society, and there is a ton of case precedent involving everything from the Branch Davidian to Scientology and the Catholic Church demonstrating how groups that believe in a higher authority still have to act within accordance of state and federal law. No group of Muslims will be able to change that. No isolated crackpot rulings by errant judges, or ACLU challenges are going to change that now at this point in our society.

 

Even if some Muslims make legal protests and try to challenge the laws it will not matter. They can want their own laws all they want - hell, David Koresh wanted his own army - but it's not going to go anywhere. Legal precedent is far too established and no matter how many fringers (and no matter what religion those fringers adhere to) no religious group will be above the law in this country.

 

 

The concern is beyond laughable.

[swansont]

In the US the standard has been pretty clear that you can believe whatever you want, but you cannot practice acts which are in conflict with the law. The examples of groups who have their own traditions is legion; in addition to several examples have already been given you have Hasidic Jews and the Amish and just about every ethnicity out there. To the extent they want to practice legal traditions and rituals, even to the point of social isolation, they can. The notion that Muslims would somehow succeed in illegal acts any more than anyone else does is nothing more than fear-mongering.

[nec209]

This really isn't a new issue, David Koresh tried to create an isolated community with their own religious laws that bypassed US law (stockpiling arms that are illegal under US law) and regardless of what a sect may want, they will always be held accountable to breaking US law. It doesn't matter if the practitioners are of a Christian sect or an Islamic one - there is more than enough case precedent that demonstrates that religious views do not trump the laws of the state or nation.

 

It's really just a matter of what words are used: You can say "Biblical Values" but those sects treat it as "Biblical Law" just as Islamic fundamentalists refer to "Sharai Law" - the only reason it's more touchy on the Islamic side is that the word "law" implies direct conflict with the legal system, where was "Sharai Values" would sound far less threatening.

 

 

Is that what they want a isolated community or Islamic court? Why is Sharai Law less in direct conflict ?

 

What is causing this movement ? Are Western Islamic struggling with a moderate Western way of life .

The fact is both are the same issue - groups wanting to live by a code of values based on their religion, which they are allowed to do up to the point that it conflicts with state or federal law. What we have not seen (and is implied by the concerns Pangloss raised) is any legal challenges to establishing that religious practices should be allowed to be practiced with legal immunity from state and federal laws. The "wife beater judge" made a ruling that supported that idea, but he was overturned and aside from the standard "white noise" of random poor rulings case precedent is pretty well established for all religions.

 

 

What groups of same issue? The religious nature in the US and Canada is very complex has it is saying you can believe in any religione.So religious law would conflit if you have other belief system.That say you 14 or 22 years old in religious community and your parents and family are very religious you not or believe in other religione would the Amendment of the constitution be in conflit .

 

Even the first Amendment of the constitution would be in conflit ?

 

 

 

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as erecting a separation of church and state.[1]

 

Originally, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

 

Read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

 

So is it time for the constitution to be change to make easer?

 

It's worth noting that (allegedly) Scientology supports the harassment,

intimidation, and "dirty tricks" to be used against enemies of their church without concern for the moral implications of those actions. The degree to which they act in accordance to the legal limitations of state and federal law has only to do with not wanting to be caught, jailed and/or fined. According to their beliefs (again, allegedly, I'm not a lawyer or expert) anyone who decides to place themselves in the position of being an enemy of the church is "a criminal" and deserves no ethical consideration.

 

My view is law on the freedom of speech makes it illegal for the state to do any thing.In such way in courts Scientology would say this is freedom of speech .

 

They are no less dedicated to their beliefs than any Muslim that believes their laws are set down from a higher authority than state or federal authorities. All the same they know if they publicly commit a crime against state or federal law, they will be pursued for it.

 

That is the confict of seporation of curch and state law and religious law .And every group that wants own law .

 

This is all based on pretty basic principals within our society, and there is a ton of case precedent involving everything from the Branch Davidian to Scientology and the Catholic Church demonstrating how groups that believe in a higher authority still have to act within accordance of state and federal law. No group of Muslims will be able to change that. No isolated crackpot rulings by errant judges, or ACLU challenges are going to change that now at this point in our society.

 

But the problem is these people do not want to live in seporation of church and state law but under a religious law .Look at the gays, lesbians, abortion and sex and there is major conflit here.They view seporation of church and state is very evile .

 

And still have killings over gays, lesbians and abortion .Even the Islamic leaders are in confict with other Islamic leaders if women is person and if should be coverd or not .There are Islamic sects that say a women is not person but low life .Such Islamic confict with other Islamic confict .

 

Even if some Muslims make legal protests and try to challenge the laws it will not matter. They can want their own laws all they want - hell, David Koresh wanted his own army - but it's not going to go anywhere. Legal precedent is far too established and no matter how many fringers (and no matter what religion those fringers adhere to) no religious group will be above the law in this country.

 

Wanting own community is different than own court.If non Muslims goes into a Muslims community they must do want the community is saying is right or wrong/

Edited November 18, 2010 by nec209

[lemur]

Does anyone else have the feeling that all the "cultural incompatibility" propaganda that circulates regarding Islam is just the latest in a long history of attempts to prove that there are legitimate bases for segregation for one reason or another? I think there are lots of people who dream of segregation for any number of purposes and they tend to support establishing precedents for any form of segregation in hopes that it will eventually become normal enough that their version will become viable. Such people should be integrated into multicultural social situations along with everyone else, imo.

[nec209]

lemur It has been said over and over multicultural has been making segregation areas look at any cities in Canada or the US white area, black area ,Cuban area , Italian area ,Mexican area ,Chinese area ,philapinenos area ,Russan area so on.

 

My take on it is simple we Americans move to Mexico we cannot read,write ,speak or understand language at all and very hard to get a job and get education not say very much so a culture shock so whe feel more at home if we find a community in Mexico with Americans and even find Americans who better at the language and more established to help us. If we are in 20's or 30's when we get in are 50's or 60's we are more likely to learn the language by that time.The kids we have are more Mexican and better at than us.

 

 

Not only has multicultural made segregation areas but breaks down by the second or third generation of kids.Back in time alot of Europeans came to the US and Canada but English and western culture taken over by the second or third generation of kids.

 

 

Well Spanish is growing has language because it is third or so most spoken language in the world.It is very hard to get any where in life with out English in Canada and US and Spanish will be next with NAFTA ,big businesses in Central or South America and Spanish people moving to the US.

 

 

What is happing is government is bringing people into the country and allowing them to fight for them self than the government helping them get a job ,free education and free ESL and this making problems.And English is hard to learn than like other language in the world.The fact people can read and write amazes me that people can do that.

[Pangloss]

The notion that Muslims would somehow succeed in illegal acts any more than anyone else does is nothing more than fear-mongering.

 

Okay, but if it's so impossible for a religious group to obtain exceptions to the law, then why is there so much fear-mongering from the left about the religious right?

[Mr Skeptic]

Okay, but if it's so impossible for a religious group to obtain exceptions to the law, then why is there so much fear-mongering from the left about the religious right?

 

They can vote and in enough numbers to get their way -- to change the law (not make an exception to it). Muslims can also vote but they are a very small minority and in our winner takes all system they're largely irrelevant for voting purposes.

[Pangloss]

Okay, but if it's so impossible for a religious group to obtain exceptions to the law, then why is there so much fear-mongering from the left about the religious right?

They can vote and in enough numbers to get their way -- to change the law (not make an exception to it). Muslims can also vote but they are a very small minority and in our winner takes all system they're largely irrelevant for voting purposes.

 

So are you saying that Muslims are dangerous too, but you say that they're not dangerous because their numbers are smaller? Did I read that right?

 

If that's representative of liberal opinion it's pretty fascinating. It seems contrary to what the left says, which is that it's standing up for downtrodden, scapegoated western Muslims. Apparently what that really means is "until they acquire as much political power as Christians". I wonder, then, why Whoopi Goldberg walked out on Bill O'Reilly when he said we were attacked by Muslims on 9/11. I mean, if the only difference between what the left thinks of western Muslims and what the right thinks of western Muslims is a matter of relative political power, then I wonder why she was so offended.

[swansont]

So are you saying that Muslims are dangerous too, but you say that they're not dangerous because their numbers are smaller? Did I read that right?

 

If that's representative of liberal opinion it's pretty fascinating. It seems contrary to what the left says, which is that it's standing up for downtrodden, scapegoated western Muslims. Apparently what that really means is "until they acquire as much political power as Christians". I wonder, then, why Whoopi Goldberg walked out on Bill O'Reilly when he said we were attacked by Muslims on 9/11. I mean, if the only difference between what the left thinks of western Muslims and what the right thinks of western Muslims is a matter of relative political power, then I wonder why she was so offended.

 

I think the liberal frustration is the convenient blurring of distinction between Muslim extremists and Muslims in general whenever someone wants to question or attack the liberals' motives or actions. The analogous act would be to interpret support for Christian Protestants as support for the KKK, and I don't see that happening.

 

Okay, but if it's so impossible for a religious group to obtain exceptions to the law, then why is there so much fear-mongering from the left about the religious right?

 

The religious right has actually done things, e.g. creationism in schools, despite court rulings that it's unconstitutional. Is it fear-mongering (or at the same level) to point out things that have actually taken place? Is the left claiming that the religious right has attacked the country, and is planning to do so again? If an attempt at passing something contained in Sharia law which had no secular purpose actually happened, the left would fight it as a first amendment issue.

[ydoaPs]

I think the liberal frustration is the convenient blurring of distinction between Muslim extremists and Muslims in general whenever someone wants to question or attack the liberals' motives or actions. The analogous act would be to interpret support for Christian Protestants as support for the KKK, and I don't see that happening.

 

 

 

The religious right has actually done things, e.g. creationism in schools, despite court rulings that it's unconstitutional. Is it fear-mongering (or at the same level) to point out things that have actually taken place? Is the left claiming that the religious right has attacked the country, and is planning to do so again? If an attempt at passing something contained in Sharia law which had no secular purpose actually happened, the left would fight it as a first amendment issue.

QFT

I think this is the first time I've ever wanted to +rep a post more than once.