Comments on: Ohio Imposes Sharia on an ex-Muslim Girl – by Jamie Glazov

By: Weather Armor

Weather Armor — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:53:58 +0000

You did a great job! Very interesting topics you have here. I have been looking around for this kind of information. Please check out my website as well at http://www.themaidssouthcoast.com and maybe you can find interesting services you might want to try.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:15:26 +0000

"… the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
(Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 9, No. 57 p. 45)

In Shari’ah law, the penalty for a Muslim who departs from Islam is death.

'Ikrimah said: 'Ali burned some people who retreated from Islam. When Ibn 'Abbas was informed of it, he said: If it had been I, I would not have them burned, for the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Do not inflict Allah's punishment on anyone, but would have had killed them on account of the statement of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him). The Apostle said: Kill those who change their religion. — Sunan Abu Dawud, Book XXXIII, Kitab al-Hudud

A book published in the United States, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, is a translation of 'Umdat al-salik by Ibn Naqib (died 1368 A.D.). This Shari’ah legal manual explicitly presents the punishment for Muslim who leaves Islam. It states that, if a sane person leaves Islam voluntarily, the person is to be killed by the proper Islamic authority. However, if someone kills an apostate on his own, the killer does not face the capital punishment, because he has killed someone who deserves to die. Although this book is published in the United States, it has not been denounced by Muslims. In fact, it is featured by many respected Islamic bookstores without a word warning that it advocates murderous acts contrary to human rights and constitutional law. Many fundamentalist Muslims believe that, even within Western nations, Shari’a law is supreme over all human legal systems.

o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to he killed.

o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).

o8.5 If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (O: i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def: o8.7(12))) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17).

Quotations from: Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, Beltsville, MD, 1997 Revised Edition, p. 595-598.)

By: aj21

aj21 — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:48:38 +0000

Note - ZIPCODE FOR RIFQA CHRISTMAS CARDS IS CHANGED
Valid zipcode is 43210 (not 43201)

See links below

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firef...

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs...

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:19:40 +0000

I understand that cards and gifts to Rifqa are allowed. Hmmm. That's interesting. I wonder which Ohio official will decide what is and is not appropriate for Rifqa to receive. Can she receive anti-Islamic literature? Most likely not. What about Islamic literature like The Reliance of the Traveller that outlines in very specific terms regarding the death penalty for apostates. That too is probably not allowed since it would undermine the Islamic position that Islam does not kill apostates. Maybe the storming of the Bastille is required. That seems to be the only way to deal with politically-correct idiots in Ohio.

By: EccoLa100

EccoLa100 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:23:00 +0000

If her parents, who appear to have entered this country and stayed illegally, moved to San Francisco they would be protected by the Sanctuary City policies.

Apropos legal action against the father for allegedly beating his daughter, where is the legal action against Rifqa's parents for their illegal alien status? Deportation of the illegal parents back to their paradise of Dar al Islam would be an elegant solution to this situation.

By: EccoLa100

EccoLa100 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:13:38 +0000

It's the Umma, darling. These members of the Umma are living in the Dar al Harb, and the theo-legal system of Sharia does not respect national boundaries.

Must you springboard from innacurate and tendentious sophistry about the US legal system, custody law, etc. to faux naivety regarding the Muslim world?

Of course, once a pedant, always a pedant....

By: EccoLa100

EccoLa100 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:59:30 +0000

Three cheers!

By: EccoLa100

EccoLa100 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:51:50 +0000

Yeah, and Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King practiced civil disobedience too — after having repeatedly articulated a fear for their people's human rights, whether fact-based or not, whether rational or not….. For my money, I'll side with Rifqa, Gandhi and Martin Luther King — all of whom fought the pedants and the legalists in the name of human rights. Two of the three were murdered for their battles. We are trying to save the third one.

Ohioan: what an unimaginative, pedantic drone you are. No wonder Ohio's legal system is so behind the times. And who are you to imply that Rifqa's fears are irrational? Rare indeed is the “honour”-killing family that telegraphs their intentions in the public arena prior to committing murder. The Muslim father who recently ran down and murdered his 20 year old daughter in Arizona for becoming “too Westernized” was sane enough to fly to England by way of Mexico to try to avoid being brought to justice. It's easy for you to sit back and play fast and loose with someone else's life. I'm so glad you don't actually practice in the legal system (yes, it's that obvious….)

By: EccoLa100

EccoLa100 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:50:44 +0000

I didn't realize Female Genital Mutliation was becoming common in the U.S. I had always assumed that if they tried to do that here, the parents would be imprisoned. How is it possible these parents and their mutilation partners are not being sent to prisons for practicing physical mutilations on innocent girls on U.S. soil? This is unbelievable!

By: TheRawDeal

TheRawDeal — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:27:16 +0000

While there are several reasons as to why Sharia Law cannot coexist with Constitutional Law, I will choose just one; 'freedom if religion' does not provide protections for murder, abuse, and terror. If practicing Sharia Law includes killing/harming in any way, non-believers, than it cannot be freely practices in the United States.

http://the-raw-deal.com/2009/12/01/is-islam-mis...

Freedom of religion in the United States can never include the 'full' practice of Sharia Law. Why? Because Sharia Law includes provisions that break our Constitutional Law. Further, there is no separation between church and state in reference to Islam and Sharia Law. Hence, Sharia Law and Islam are both cultural elements with no clear division.

Nathan R. Jessup
www.the-raw-deal.com

By: oldwhiteguy

oldwhiteguy — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:12:50 +0000

islam will not be defeated by by words. never has never will. unless the people of the u.s. stand up and physically push islam you will lose.

By: odl003

odl003 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:58:32 +0000

Ohio state has filed no charges against Rifqa's father for his beatings of Rifqa. Has the law been eliminated against parents beating their children, or has the law been re-written by pro-Islam Ohio that the law applies to everyone except Muslims?

http://badabingbaby.com

By: 301

301 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:46:50 +0000

I bet if this girl had joined the Gay and Lesbian Club she would now be in San Francisco with Kevin Jennings protecting her right to choose.

By: robert a

robert a — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:30:24 +0000

to morrisminor

I tried analyzing your comment. I couldn't finish. It wasn't worth the effort. As far as I went, your thinking and writing ,under examination, turns into meaningless gibberish.You impress me as a Muslin-lover propagandist.

By: Hymie

Hymie — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:22:24 +0000

Shoulda bombed em into the stone age in 79, Jimmuh!

By: morrisminor

morrisminor — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:48:27 +0000

Geller has little credibility herself. Like all right wingers she turns everything into some childish talk radio rant against the liberals while omitting inconvenient facts. She is just another Long Island egomaniacal JAP who kisses up to Xtian theocons, unlike her Rand model.

By: Ohioan

Ohioan — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:23:39 +0000

And you wonder why her internet and phone use are being monitored by her foster family?

By: Ohioan

Ohioan — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:22:21 +0000

I'm sorry, and why do you suspect that the Muslim community would be involved? The Barys are from Sri Lanka.

By: Ohioan

Ohioan — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:20:50 +0000

See–in the US we resolve custody issues legally. We don't grant children to anyone who swoops them up and claims a right to them. The preference in the law is for children to be in the care of their parents unless there is some overriding evidence of abuse or neglect. Living in another country with whom we have profound ideological and poltical disagreements is not evidence of abuse or neglect. Neither does a belief in Islam substantiate a threat of death to a convert.

In this country, belief in and the practice of the religious tenets of Islam are not illegal–regardless of what some would like to see happen. We are not free to rewrite custody laws when we don't care for the parents or their beliefs. Despite this, the court in Ohio HAS NOT (repeat HAS NOT) ordered Rifqa back to her family's home–as might be expected, given the lack of evidence of any credible threat from her family. FCCS has demonstrated extreme sensitivity to the reality of this case which is that, whether fact-based or not, whether rational or not, Rifqa has repeatedly articulated a fear for her life–and demonstrated an extreme facility in getting far away and hiding. If returned to her family, there is always the danger that she will do so again–and likely be hidden so deeply that she cannot be found. While many would cheer–this is an extremely risky proposition for a seventeen year old with a year and half of high school yet to complete. Recall that the only law-breakers in this case have been on the side claiming to offer protection. They were the first to put together a legal team, and they have been the ones garnering all the publicity.

By: Goetz

Goetz — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:35:24 +0000

How, for Pete's sake, did such an epicenter of foreigners appear in the middle of the Midwest! Who let them in?