06/10/15

Will the Sharia save Morsi?

By: Ashraf Ramelah
Voice of the Copts

death-sentence

death-sentence

Just three weeks ago the Egyptian court sentenced Egypt’s former Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, to the death penalty after evidence presented from Egyptian intelligence documents proved him guilty of spying for Qatar, Iran and Turkey.

There are more than one hundred names on the list with him who are all convicted of the same crimes: murdering protesters, transferring top secret military documents to foreign countries, and burning the museum library which destroyed rare manuscripts and ancient artifacts.

Included on the death-penalty list is Mohamed Badie, the former Muslim Brotherhood spiritual head and his two deputies, Khairat El-Shater and Mahmud Ezzat, as well as Yousef Al Qaradawy, Hamas’ spiritual leader now living in Qatar.

As required by Egyptian law, the Egyptian court directly transmitted the list of the sentenced to the Grand Mufti of Cairo for his pronouncement of the Sharia opinion (approval) on the court’s verdict and sentencing. This past week, a few hours before the court resumed on June 2, a sealed envelope was passed to the court containing the Grand Mufti’s decision.

The court postponed the June 2 proceedings until June 16, and the envelope remains sealed at this moment.  Some say the court did so to protect the country and President Al-Sisi who was in Germany on June 2 — waiting for his return in case violence erupts as a result of the announcement.

What are the chances that the Mufti has approved the death penalty? After all, the hundred or so Morsi aides and accomplices condemned to death along with the former president are guilty of nothing more than consistency with the cleric’s ideological and religious views.

If the death penalty is not approved and the civil court ignores the disapproval and goes forward to implement the death penalty, this could mean that the court is secured by the backing and protection of the President in order to serve justice. This in turn reveals that Al-Sisi is truly willing and able to go forward with cleaning corruption and rolling back religious extremism in an effort to reform the country.

But Al-Sisi is a mystery. He recently gave a statement to the German press indicating his agreement with the official story of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood wherein Morsi was elected fairly and democratically and won with 55 percent of the vote. This is very odd since Al-Sisi’s own legitimacy as the people’s president rests on the opposite view — the well-known truth that Morsi became president through corrupt elections, violence, fraud, and outside interference.

The second alternative would be for the civil court to comply with the Grand Mufti’s disapproval of the death sentences, subjecting itself to the authority of the religious clerics which is current practice. In an unreformed Egypt this can be expected from the court.

If we find that the Mufti has approved the death sentences, we are experiencing Al-Sisi’s power for the first time within his term of office and know as well that he is genuine.  If so, the promise of modern reform has real potential, and Al-Sisi will have succeeded in spite of outside pressures (Merkel, Obama, and the CIA), Egypt’s political legacy (Mubarak, Sadat, and Nasser) and religious ultra-conservatives threatening secular initiatives (Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Ahzar Institute).

The Coptic minority remains under the same pressures today as during previous administrations ruling Egypt. Muslim supremacies prevail, often with violence, against the sub-class within Egypt’s population. Al-Sisi, the man and the president, is yet a sign of hope for the country – Muslim and Christian watch Al-Sisi teetering between positions usually by omissions but not defaulting to the comfortable pattern of his predecessors.

01/30/15

U.S. Courts of Law – Sharia Courts?

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

Shariah Will Dominate There’s a news item on the internet about Sharia courts being used in Texas.  It would appear that what’s good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander; or something like that.  Having read the article it would appear these ‘Sharia’ courts are well within the framework of religious courts, similar to those used by other religious orders.

“Brietbart Texas confirmed Tuesday that “an Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law” is indeed operating in Texas.  But not to worry: an attorney for the tribunal assures us that participation is “voluntary,” and one of the Sharia judges, Dr. Taher El-badawi, says it’s devoted only to “non-binding dispute resolution.”’

That sound less than threatening to our justice system; however, some folks aren’t entirely at ease, saying this is “just the first step”.

This is how it starts. This is how it started in the United Kingdom. When Sharia courts were instituted there, Muslim and non-Muslim officials alike all assured the British public and the world that they would be voluntary, restricted to matters involving non-criminal matters, and subject to the British courts. Any areas in which British law and Sharia law conflicted would be referred not to the Sharia courts, but to the British courts.

That is not how it worked out…”

The article goes on to indicate that, “Many Sharia law bodies rule on a range of disputes from domestic violence to child residence all of which should be dealt with by UK courts of law.” Instead, “they operate within a misogynist and patriarchal framework which is incompatible with UK legislation.”

The solution to these issues becomes self evident, pardon the use of an antique phrase.  If Sharia courts are in violation of the law of the land then enforce the law of the land; it’s that simple.

I’m not at all sure how Sharia Courts operate; but if they are similar to a Bishop’s Court, as are conducted to hold members accountable in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), then their purpose is not to usurp powers designated to the State and serve only to improve the lives of members of the church. 

In the LDS Church, if someone has been unfaithful to their marriage vows, less than ‘up front’ in dealings with others or some other character flaw which requires more than a simple apology; and, if that individual wishes to repent and resume his/her eternal progression toward becoming more like Jesus, then a Bishop’s Court is convened. 

Priesthood courts of the Church are not courts of retribution. They are courts of love. Oh, that members of the Church could understand this fact.”

The Bishop’s Court is not a replacement for Civil or Criminal Courts.  Bishops are required to notify the proper authorities when it becomes apparent that state law has been broken, such as rape, incest or bodily injury.  The purpose of a Bishop’s Court is to permit the repentance process to take effect, an opportunity for individuals to ‘get right with the Lord’; not hide violations of law. 

Sharia Courts should not pose a threat to society, if they are indeed what they claim to be…and yet…

There is a certain amount of distrust generated toward Islam/Muslims; and rightly so.

The Koran teaches its followers that to lie is permissible under a variety of circumstances. (Such as swearing to uphold the constitution of the United States?) 

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.”

When a representative of the “religion of peace” tells us there is nothing to be concerned about, a religion that calls for and murders innocent Christian women and children, sends drugged up teenagers on suicide bombing missions and beheads those who don’t ‘voluntarily’ join their ranks…let’s just say I have my doubts as to the sincerity of their promises.

There’s an old Russian proverb that comes to mind, “Trust, but verify”.   In the case of Sharia Courts being held anywhere in the United States I’d prefer Lady Justice not be blindfolded.

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.