Tennesseeans Attempt to Make Not Robbing Banks a Felony

[meegbear]

Worried about the ever-encroaching menace of Muslims practicing their religion? You may want to move to Tennessee, where State Sen. Bill Ketron and state Rep. Judd Matheny are introducing a bill that would "make following the Islamic code known as Shariah law a felony, punishable by 15 years in jail." Nashville-based Imam Mohamed Ahmed wonders:

"What do you mean, really, by saying I can't abide by Shariah law?" he said. "Shariah law is telling me don't steal. Do you want me to steal and rob a bank?"

To which we say, yes, duh, because if Muslims think robbing banks is bad then we are 110 percent pro-bank robbery. This is how patriotism works! Muslims don't eat pork? Then from now on, Americans only eat pork. Muslims consider it a religious obligation to help the poor? Fuck the poor. Here's a quick guide to some of the other Shariah-sanctioned activities that would be felonized by Ketron and Matheny's law:

* Giving money to the poor
* Not gambling
* Not eating pork and shellfish.
* Staying sober
* Not charging interest on loans
* Dressing modestly

Print it out and keep it in your pocket! You wouldn't want to be arrested for following Shariah law.

http://gawker.com/#!5769025/tennesseeans-attempt-to-make-not-robbing-banks-a-felony

[SwampG8r]

1. but we can continue to not cut off body parts

of offenders then, right?

[Zephie]

2. I thought not charging interest on loans was already a felony in republicon bizarro land

[indepat]

3. Nobody can rightfully claim that the good state of Tennessee doesn't have it fair share of

loonies in the state legislature. :patriot:

[niyad]

4. uhh, "freedom of religion", anyone? you know, part of that pesky, outdated constitution????

[Courtesy Flush]

5. You lost me when you said shellfish

Gotta have my bugs.

[Aerows]

6. No - he's saying ONLY eat shellfish and pork

Which, I could probably get by on that LOL

[fasttense]

7. Shariah law is practiced in Saudi. The bushes are great pals of the royals there.n/t

[Bardley]

9. it's ok to respect shariah of people who have a lot of money

because it observes the washington religious comandment of 'thou shall worhip nothing above money and power'

[Bardley]

8. not eating lobster is just plain shellfish nt

[asjr]

11. You are so punnish.

[enlightenment]

10. While I agree that attempting to outlaw something that isn't an issue

is a problem - and pretty stupid - I think that the gawker is failing to look at what may be driving this attempt, beyond 'Islam-o-phobia'.

Shari'a law is not just a religious code of ethics within the faith; it is also used as part (sometimes the majority) of the reasoning behind legal decisions - remember that there is no separation of church and state in Islam. It's fine to say that much of the law is consistent with western law - it's fine, also, to suggest that parts of the ethical code are 'better' (charity, sobriety, modesty) if that's what floats your boat.

But that isn't all that Shari'a law says, and it certainly isn't all that it does. There are many parts of the law that are not consistent with the values of the western world.

Shari'a law does co-exist in many western nations - but it is largely limited to a counseling role, similar to asking your minister or priest whether or not a proposed action (drinking/having sex before marriage/etc) is sanctioned, or serving as a mediator in a private dispute. In the UK, it is institutionalized in two areas - halal butchers and specific lending institutions for Muslims (to allow them to borrow money without interest). It is not allowed as a complete system of justice for the Muslim community in the UK.

There is a growing movement in many western nations to allow Shari'a law to govern personal status laws for Muslims - those include marriage, divorce, inheritance, child custody, etc. Aside from the fact that allowing that level of involvement would create a bifurcated system of justice in the US, there is also the problem of interpretation of the law. There isn't one set of Shari'a law - there are four; two are more or less liberal and two are extremely conservative. Who gets to choose which interpretation of the law will be brought into play? Chances are, someone is always going to be unsatisfied with the outcome, simply because they do not abide by that particular interpretation.

I don't know what the Tennessee legislators are trying to prevent or what their reasoning is, but the article makes it sound like Shari'a law is nothing more than a nice set of values we should all embrace, and that's playing fast and loose with the facts.