دمج منتدى سودانيات دوت نت في دوت أورغ !!! عبد السلام

آخر 5 مواضيع
إضغط علي شارك اصدقائك او شارك اصدقائك لمشاركة اصدقائك!
آخر الأخبار العالمية

العودة   سودانيات .. تواصل ومحبة > منتـديات سودانيات > منتـــــــــدى الحـــــوار

مشاهدة نتائج الإستطلاع: هل تعتقد أن الشريعة الإسلامية سوف تلقي حظها عالمياً في طاولة الاقتراع للناخبين
نعم لان نسبة المسلمين في ازدياد في الغرب 1 100.00%
لا لان الشريعة هي مدخل للاسلام السياسي الإرهابي 0 0%
لا لان القوانين الاجتماعية العالمية ترفض هذه القوانين 0 0%
نعم لان الحقوقين قد يطالبوا بحق الاقليات المسلمة ودعمه 0 0%
لا لان نسبة الأصوات المسلمة التي ترفض الشرعة في ازدياد 0 0%
هذا الخيار متروك لك قم بالتعليق لتوضيح السبب بمداخلة 0 0%
المصوتون: 1. أنت لم تصوت في هذا الإستطلاع

إضافة رد
 
أدوات الموضوع انواع عرض الموضوع
قديم 08-09-2013, 09:06 AM   #[1]
أحمد محمد صلاح الدين
:: كــاتب نشــط::
الصورة الرمزية أحمد محمد صلاح الدين
 
افتراضي الشريعة الاسلامية و الاحزاب العالمية

Republicans Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum don’t agree on everything, but they all concur that we must stop Sharia law from being imposed upon America.

And Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, winner of a Tea Party convention straw poll in February, went a step further when he recently declared that he would not even nominate an American-Muslim to his Cabinet because in his words, Muslims “are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country.” (Although to be honest, Charlie Sheen has a better chance of “winning” the 2012 presidential election than Cain.)

Add to this mix Republican state legislators in more than a dozen states who have introduced legislation to ban state court judges from considering Sharia law. And in Tennessee, Republican state Sen. Bill Ketron has upped the ante by proposing a law that would make it a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison for any person who knowingly supports Sharia law.

To warrant this hysterical call to arms by these Republicans, American-Muslims must certainly be aggressively pushing for Sharia law to be imposed upon all Americans — which would be an especially amazing feat considering only about 2% of our nation’s population is Muslim.

Sharia is a system of law based on the tenets of Islam. Certain Republican politicians have claimed that American-Muslims want to replace our Constitution and system of law with Sharia. So I went to see which American-Muslims are calling for this.

I started out simply enough by asking the Muslims in my family and my Muslim friends if they wanted Sharia law to be the new law of America. After they stopped laughing, they all responded “no.”

This isn’t surprising to me because I have never met an American-Muslim who has commented: “America is great, but you know what would make it even better? More laws like Afghanistan.”

OK, then maybe it’s the American-Muslims in elected office? In their positions of power, they could easily propose legislation calling for Sharia law.

First stop, the two American-Muslim representatives –Keith Ellison and Andre Carson. But both their records are devoid of pushing for Sharia law.

Well, then maybe it’s the American-Muslim state legislators who serve in places such as New Hampshire, Missouri, Michigan and North Carolina — including the longest-serving Muslim state-elected official, Larry Shaw, who has been a member of the North Carolina General Assembly for 16 years. Maybe they’re the ones hankering for Sharia law? But alas, I came up empty.

Oh, I know, how about Dearborn, Michigan, the city with the highest concentration of Muslims in America? If there is any place in America that wants Sharia law, it has to be there. However, Dearborn Mayor Jack O’Reilly — clearly a very Muslim name — said in an interview last year: “There’s no Sharia law in Dearborn, Michigan. … It isn’t even talked about in Dearborn.”

I keep striking out. Then it occurred to me, perhaps Sharia law is part of the agenda of the biggest American-Muslim organizations in the country: the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America.

So I reached out to the Islamic Society of North America’s national director, Sayyid Syeed, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ national outreach coordinator, Aseel Elborno, and asked them point-blank: Do you want to impose Sharia law across the United States? Their answer: a resounding “no.” They explained they simply want to be able to practice their faith just like all other proud Americans. Nothing more.

This is now getting confusing. My Muslim friends and family members don’t want Sharia law, neither do the Muslim elected officials nor the biggest American-Muslim groups — not even the people of Dearborn. Then who is furthering this dastardly plan?!

The best evidence these Republicans cite in support of their claim is a case from New Jersey where a trial judge sided with a Muslim man who had raised Sharia law as a defense to the charge of marital rape. The state that brought us “Jersey Shore” actually brought us something worse with this court decision. However, thankfully, the New Jersey appellate court correctly overturned the trial judge’s decision, alleviating any concern about Sharia law trumping American law.

If religious law — regardless if it is Muslim, Jewish or Christian — does not comport with the principles of U.S. law, our courts will not follow it. It’s that simple. This is a well-established principle of our American legal system — one that I would have hoped the Republican politicians would have been known. Of course, maybe I’m assuming they know more than they do, as I was reminded by Bachman’s recent gaffe in saying the American Revolution began in New Hampshire instead of Massachusetts.

It appears that certain Republicans have created this “Sharia monster” for their own purposes. They scare us with their monster, and then they want to take credit for saving us from their own creation.

To those Republicans who continue to stoke the flames of fear and bigotry to attract media attention and benefit their own political careers, I hope you will heed the words of your fellow Republican Ronald Reagan, who famously stated: “No one group in this country is better than another. No one race or religion or sex or color is better than another. … It’s time we erased the last vestiges of intolerance, bigotry and unkindness from our hearts. Decency demands this and so does our history.”

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Dean Obeidallah



التوقيع:
دائما السكران صراعه يتوه مابين السلطان و الاسلام )
أحمد محمد صلاح الدين غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 08-09-2013, 12:06 PM   #[2]
أحمد محمد صلاح الدين
:: كــاتب نشــط::
الصورة الرمزية أحمد محمد صلاح الدين
 
افتراضي السلام .. نرجوا المساعدة بالترجمة .. تحياتي

Then why are we so scared of Shariah law? What is it about Shariah that has Tea Bag Republicans so fearful? It’s hard to put a finger on the roots of this fear, because the people most virulent in their condemnation are also the people most uniformly unwilling to cite specifics about Shariah legal codes or decisions that have them upset.

رابط للحالة الاجتماعية و السياسية



التوقيع:
دائما السكران صراعه يتوه مابين السلطان و الاسلام )
أحمد محمد صلاح الدين غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 08-09-2013, 03:21 PM   #[3]
أبو جعفر
:: كــاتب نشــط::
الصورة الرمزية أبو جعفر
 
افتراضي

السلام عليكم أحمد صلاح
وشيء غريب جداً أن يسود - عند أصدقاء وأعداء الإسلام - الكفر المسمى بـ: (الشريعة الإسلامية في السلطة والحكم).. والأغرب أن يحمل البعض رأسه على كفه لتطبيق منظومته - الباطلة ديناً ومنطقاً - وهي المؤدية إلى طغيان مصيره نار جهنم بلا لبس أو جدال بنص القرآن الكريم والسنة الموافقة له. قال تعالى: ((إن جهنم كانت مرصاداً للطاغين مآباً لابثين فيها أحقاباً لايذوقون فيها برداً ولا شراباً إلا حميماً وغساقاً)).


وفي نفس الوقت يغييب منهج الإسلام القائم على ديمقراطية الحكم وحق المسلمين في سلطة إمارتهم من بعد الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بنص وصف القرآن الكريم للمؤمنين قال تعالى: ((وأمرهم شورى بينهم)) وتعني إمارتهم شورى بينهم.



التعديل الأخير تم بواسطة أبو جعفر ; 08-09-2013 الساعة 04:03 PM.
أبو جعفر غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 08-09-2013, 03:39 PM   #[4]
أحمد محمد صلاح الدين
:: كــاتب نشــط::
الصورة الرمزية أحمد محمد صلاح الدين
 
افتراضي الرجاء المساعدة ترجمة

The movement to ban the use of sharia in the United States continues to grow, even as its proponents struggle to find examples of Islamic law posing a threat to the American way of life.

Anti-sharia activists have now resorted to focusing on an obscure Florida civil lawsuit called Mansour vs. Islamic Education Center of Tampa. The case, which has been elevated to cause celebre status in the right-wing blogosphere involves a mundane financial disagreement between two factions of the Islamic organization.

But in a ruling in the case last month, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen wrote a sentence that has been seized on by anti-sharia activists: "This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

On the surface that may sound odd. And, indeed, the typical right-wing reaction has gone something like this: "A Florida judge ruled that a Muslim v. Muslim case can proceed under sharia law. I'm being unbelievably serious here! This kind of crap is why I drink, which would get me beheaded under sharia law. " Ironically, Nielsen is a registered Republican and Jeb Bushappointee.

And as it turns out, the case is entirely routine, according to Cyra Akila Choudhury, a professor at the College of Law at Florida International University who has been following the case closely. Nevertheless, the uproar over the case is "already bolstering the political prospects of an [anti-sharia] bill being considered by the Florida legislature," Politico reported.

I spoke with Choudhury to find out more about the case and why it's not at all cause for alarm. The following transcript of our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

What is the dispute that led to this ruling?

The dispute is between two factions of an Islamic organization, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, and centers on control of money that was given to them by the government through an eminent domain taking. It was about $2.2 million in this taking, so the controversy arose over who was going to control the proceeds from the settlement. As the lawsuit was moving along, the parties agreed to arbitrate, and the arbitrator would be a Muslim law scholar, an a'lim. That is somebody who is well-versed in Islamic law and would settle the dispute in terms of Islamic law principles.

Who are the two parties?

They're different factions of this organization. In January, the side that emerged victorious from the arbitration filed a motion asking the court to essentially enforce the decision of the arbitrator. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, in which parties decide not to go into court and not litigate. The rules that apply are chosen by both parties in the agreement. We do lots of arbitration in this country. We apply all kinds of laws, we have many religious mechanisms; for instance, the Jewish community has the beth din. That is basically an alternative court that applies Jewish law and performs litigation with regards to all kinds of civil disputes. It's very common, and it has existed for many years.

In this Florida case, the judge's ruling is getting all the attention. When he uses the line "this case will proceed under ecclesiastical Islamic law," what is that actually about?

What the ruling put very simply was, "You agreed to these rules, and the court is bound to apply them." It isn't about who wins. The arbitrator has already decided who wins. The judge's role in the conflict is to enforce or to set aside the arbitration result. It is very difficult to set aside an arbitration result. You have to show that there was some sort of impropriety in the procedure.

Did the judge decide that the arbitrated agreement should or shouldn't be enforced?

It's still out. He still has to hear evidence about the process. The decision says "the court will require further testimony to determine whether the Islamic resolution procedures have been followed in this matter." So it's clear from this that one side is resisting enforcement based on some challenge of improper procedure. The judge has to hear evidence on that. This is very similar to many other arbitration scenarios. You can pick for your arbitration any set of laws that both parties agree to -- within reason. It's really a contractual matter. You're entering into a contract with the other side to arbitrate your disagreement, and you agree upon the rules, and the arbitrator applies those rules. So for instance sharia law in this case simply applies the ecclesiastical religious law of the two parties. This is a conflict around a religious institution. It's not a dispute between say, a Muslim property owner and his Christian or Jewish neighbor -- but even there, if they agreed to use sharia law, that would be enforced.

What do you make of the intense reaction to this decision around the country?

It has been peculiar. What the judge did was extremely noncontroversial, particularly when it comes to religious organizations. It happens all the time. It happens with regards to the Jewish mediation and arbitration, it happens with arbitration that has used foreign law. What's disheartening about this is the level of misinformation and the level of ignorance about our own legal system that has been propagated by people who either have an agenda or simply do not understand what we do in the civil system. This really is fundamentally about our right to contract. If we unsettle arbitration rules on the grounds that we don't like a law that somebody is agreeing to arbitrate under, we're going to have a lot of problems when it comes to all kinds of other contractual arbitration clauses that call for foreign law. In a place like Florida, for example, with Latin America on its doorstep, there's so much business done with Latin American countries.

There's currently an anti-sharia bill in the Florida legislature. If a law like that passed, how would it effect a situation like this?

The way that the Florida measure is written, it would only prevent the application of foreign law if that foreign law did not guarantee the constitutional rights of the litigators. So essentially it creates a floor. It creates our state constitutional rights as a floor and says you cannot apply foreign law in any arbitration proceeding if that foreign law will work to deny the rights provided by the constitution of the state. Which is an incredible waste of time. Our laws are already the laws of the land.

If you ask the lawmakers, "Has there ever been a situation in which sharia has been applied in a way that is antithetical to our public policy?" The answer is always no. It's a fundamental misapprehension of our legal system to believe this can actually happen. People are writing on the blogosphere "Judge Nielsen is pro-sharia law, what's next? Stoning of women?! Chopping off heads?!" We have a criminal system of law in the United States. The state prosecutes criminals under state criminal law. It's never going to apply Jordanian law in the United States. That would never happen. You have to be completely ignorant to make these claims, unless you're making them opportunistically in order to fan the flames of bigotry.



التوقيع:
دائما السكران صراعه يتوه مابين السلطان و الاسلام )
أحمد محمد صلاح الدين غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 08-09-2013, 04:22 PM   #[5]
اشرف السر
:: كــاتب نشــط::
الصورة الرمزية اشرف السر
 
افتراضي

الأخ أحمد


متن الموضوع باللغة الانجليزية والاستطلاع باللغة العربية
ومعلوم بالضرورة ان التعابير عن المعنى تختلف من لغة لأخرى

فيا اما اجعل خيارات الاستطلاع باللغة الانجليزية
او ترجم لنا متن الموضوع باللغة العربية


تحياتي



التوقيع:

اشرف السر غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 09-09-2013, 11:31 AM   #[6]
أحمد محمد صلاح الدين
:: كــاتب نشــط::
الصورة الرمزية أحمد محمد صلاح الدين
 
افتراضي السلام عليكم ..

اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة أبو جعفر مشاهدة المشاركة
السلام عليكم أحمد صلاح
وشيء غريب جداً أن يسود - عند أصدقاء وأعداء الإسلام - الكفر المسمى بـ: (الشريعة الإسلامية في السلطة والحكم).. والأغرب أن يحمل البعض رأسه على كفه لتطبيق منظومته - الباطلة ديناً ومنطقاً - وهي المؤدية إلى طغيان مصيره نار جهنم بلا لبس أو جدال بنص القرآن الكريم والسنة الموافقة له. قال تعالى: ((إن جهنم كانت مرصاداً للطاغين مآباً لابثين فيها أحقاباً لايذوقون فيها برداً ولا شراباً إلا حميماً وغساقاً)).


وعليك السلام ورحمته تغشاك

وفي نفس الوقت يغييب منهج الإسلام القائم على ديمقراطية الحكم وحق المسلمين في سلطة إمارتهم من بعد الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بنص وصف القرآن الكريم للمؤمنين قال تعالى: ((وأمرهم شورى بينهم)) وتعني إمارتهم شورى بينهم.
اقتباس:
وشيء غريب جداً أن يسود - عند أصدقاء وأعداء الإسلام - الكفر المسمى بـ: (الشريعة الإسلامية في السلطة والحكم).
إذا قصتَ بالكفر الرفض حللت المشكلة ولن تجد غرابه عند من سميتهم أصدقاء وأعداء الإسلام لأنهم يفتقدون الاعتقاد الذي يلزمهما بالتطبيق .
اقتباس:
والأغرب أن يحمل البعض رأسه على كفه لتطبيق منظومته
بالطبيعي أن يفعل ذلك لأنه يعتقد في منطقية منظومتيه
و الأغرب هو أن يكون مذبذب لا إلي هؤلاءِ ...

اقتباس:
والأغرب -------------------------- الباطلة ديناً
ومنطقاً
لكن ليس كل شيء ديني يؤخذ بالمنطق .. بمعني أن ليس كل شي منطقياً دينيا إلا داخل منظومة المنطق الديني لأصحاب هذا الدين وليس كل شي ديني هو منطقيا أو يشترط فيه الفهم التام فإذا سُئلتَ
لماذا تأكل بيمينك بمعني ما هو المنطق في ذلك ..
لا تقل أن الرسول صلي الله عليه وسلم قال أو أن القرآن تحدث .. لان هذا معتقد وليس منطق
فهل لديك إجابة منطقية ... لذلك الدين مبني علي المعتقد وليس علي المنطق ..
فإذا أختفي المعتقد الديني ... لا يمكن أن نقول أن المنطق قد اختفى... إذن لأبدا أن يظهر منطق آخر من معتقد أخر سمه ديني أو لا ديني
وإلا كان العقل هو الفيصل في كل الأمور الدينية ويختفي الاعتقاد و هو الإتباع المنهجي الروحية الكاملة للإنسان ومبعث السكينة



التوقيع:
دائما السكران صراعه يتوه مابين السلطان و الاسلام )
أحمد محمد صلاح الدين غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
قديم 09-09-2013, 12:12 PM   #[7]
أحمد محمد صلاح الدين
:: كــاتب نشــط::
الصورة الرمزية أحمد محمد صلاح الدين
 
افتراضي

اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة اشرف السر مشاهدة المشاركة
الأخ أحمد


متن الموضوع باللغة الانجليزية والاستطلاع باللغة العربية
ومعلوم بالضرورة ان التعابير عن المعنى تختلف من لغة لأخرى

فيا اما اجعل خيارات الاستطلاع باللغة الانجليزية
او ترجم لنا متن الموضوع باللغة العربية


تحياتي

تفهمت موقفك : ولكن تعليلي رقم أني أتفق معك أني مقصر في موضوع الترجمة :
أن الاستطلاع ليس عن المواضيع بل هو سؤال وعدد من الخيارات ..
لكن المواضيع التي نقلتها هي لتوضيح المسار الذي دفعني عن الكتابة للموضوع .. هي للاطلاع وليست لها علاقة مباشرة بخيارات المشاركين إن وجدوا ..هنالك خيار في الاستطلاع يترك لك البراح في التعبير عن ما توصلت إليه
الاستطلاع عن ما توصلنا إليه من رصد لوضع الشريعة الإسلامية .. وليس عن هل تعتقد في تطبيقها أم لا ... يعني أين هي الآن فى الغرب
أين هي الان في الغرب هل وصلت إلي مائدة وقهوة الاقتراع .. ام ان الموضع ما ذال شأن شرق أوسطي



التوقيع:
دائما السكران صراعه يتوه مابين السلطان و الاسلام )
أحمد محمد صلاح الدين غير متصل   رد مع اقتباس
إضافة رد

أدوات الموضوع
انواع عرض الموضوع

تعليمات المشاركة
لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك

BB code is متاحة
كود [IMG] متاحة
كود HTML معطلة

الانتقال السريع

التصميم

Mohammed Abuagla

الساعة الآن 11:21 PM.


زوار سودانيات من تاريخ 2011/7/11
free counters

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.