Newt: Deport Everyone Who Agrees With Sharia Law

[mystery-ak]

http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=738770


Newsmax
Newt: Deport Everyone Who Agrees With Sharia Law
Thursday, July 14, 2016 11:02 PM

By: Greg Richter

Newt Gingrich, a finalist in Donald Trump's search for a presidential running mate, echoed a comment that got the GOP presumptive nominee in hot water in December.

Talking about the terror attack in Nice, France that left at least 80 dead, Gingrich told Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity every Muslim in America should be checked for adherence to Islamic law.

"Western civilization is in a war," he said. "We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with western civilization."

Modern Muslims who reject sharia should be welcomed as citizens, Gingrich said, but added, "We need to be fairly relentless about defining who our enemies are. Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felony. It should be closed down immediately."

Every Internet-based source should be shut down, but it shouldn't stop there, Gingrich said.

"We should destroy them with kinetic power, using various weapons starting with Predators [drones] and frankly just killing them. I am sick and tired of being told that the wealthiest, most powerful civilization in history, all of Western civilization, is helpless in the face of a group of Medieval barbarians who, for example, recently burned 20 young women to death – burned them to death because they wouldn't have sex with them."

[Rivergirl]

IMHO Gingrich caught distemper from DT.

[TomSea]

Gingrich's point is good but it depends on how Sharia Law is defined I hear.

[truth_seeker]

IMHO Gingrich caught distemper from DT.

No. They both have the common sense to survive. It is only controversial liberals, and with fools. 

[truth_seeker]

Gingrich's point is good but it depends on how Sharia Law is defined I hear.

The muslim enemy would love to debate till the camels come home. They have lawyers who will do so.

Gingrich used "Sharia Law" as a means of describing violent jihadis, who would do us harm either directly at their own hands, or indirectly by support, preaching, fundraising, logistics, propaganda, etc.

Now you can propose debating "jihadis"

Finally what part of Sharia Law do you desire to be implemented in our country? Fathers and brothers stoning or murdering women for having been raped? Wife beating? Cutting off of hands?

In total it is not defensible, or compatible with our legal system, plain and simple.

[jmyrlefuller]

The muslim enemy would love to debate till the camels come home. They have lawyers who will do so.

Gingrich used "Sharia Law" as a means of describing violent jihadis, who would do us harm either directly at their own hands, or indirectly by support, preaching, fundraising, logistics, propaganda, etc.

Now you can propose debating "jihadis"

Finally what part of Sharia Law do you desire to be implemented in our country? Fathers and brothers stoning or murdering women for having been raped? Wife beating? Cutting off of hands?

In total it is not defensible, or compatible with our legal system, plain and simple.

How much of sharia are we talking here?

Some of sharia is shared with Judeo-Christian values. Should we deport everyone who, for instance, believes in the sanctity of man-woman marriage, something Mr. Gingrich has abandoned at least twice in his life?

[flowers]

How much of sharia are we talking here?

Some of sharia is shared with Judeo-Christian values. Should we deport everyone who, for instance, believes in the sanctity of man-woman marriage, something Mr. Gingrich has abandoned at least twice in his life?

What BS.....how many of these sharia Judeo-Christians have killed in the name of Allah?

[driftdiver]

How much of sharia are we talking here?

Some of sharia is shared with Judeo-Christian values. Should we deport everyone who, for instance, believes in the sanctity of man-woman marriage, something Mr. Gingrich has abandoned at least twice in his life?

You mean Man - woman woman woman woman in the case of Sharia right?   Until the man says 'I divorce you' three times.  Or maybe beats her to death, thats ok too.

[SirLinksALot]

Newt: Deport Everyone Who Agrees With Sharia Law

Good luck pushing that and making it into law.

Remember how Oklahoma very recently (2010) PASSED via a referendum, an amendment to Oklahoma’s state constitution that would have prevented their state courts from considering Sharia and international law?

Guess what happened after it was passed? CAIR sued and a judge STRUCK IT DOWN.

In 2013, Chief District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the Western District of Oklahoma, who issued a temporary restraining order preventing the law from taking effect after it passed in 2010, ruled Thursday that the amendment’s references to Sharia, or Islamic law, violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

So, despite Newt's bravado, how's he going to get his deportation plan passed and implemented when even a REFERENDUM can be overturned by one person in black robes?

[jmyrlefuller]

You mean Man - woman woman woman woman in the case of Sharia right?   Until the man says 'I divorce you' three times.  Or maybe beats her to death, thats ok too.

Ah, but that's what separates the Christians from the Sharia-following Muslims (who, in turn, received their law and much of their punishment from the Jewish law of Moses).

Yet there is some overlap in our principles; the question, once again, is where Gingrich wants to draw the line.

[flowers]

Ah, but that's what separates the Christians from the Sharia-following Muslims (who, in turn, received their law and much of their punishment from the Jewish law of Moses).

Yet there is some overlap in our principles; the question, once again, is where Gingrich wants to draw the line.

Question: "Should Christians be concerned about the idea of Sharia Law?"

Answer: First, we should define Sharia Law. Sharia is, as expressed in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, divine law. The Sunnah is a record of the life and example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The Sunnah is primarily contained in the Hadith or reports of Muhammad's sayings, his actions, his tacit approval of actions, and his demeanor. Where it has official status, sharia is interpreted by Islamic judges who may be influenced by the religious leaders, or imams.

In secular Muslim states (such as Mali, Kazakhstan and Turkey), sharia is limited to personal and family matters. Countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan and Morocco are strongly influenced by sharia, but ultimate authority lies with their constitutions and the rule of law. Saudi Arabia and some Gulf States enforce classical sharia. Iran has a parliament that legislates in a manner consistent with sharia.

“Traditionally, the Islamic umma [community or nation] is divided into three regions: the territory of Islam (dar al-Islam) the territory of peace (dar al-sulh), and the territory of war (dar al-harb).… In regions such as Pakistan, Iran, and Libya, Islamic law is assumed to form the basis of government. The second territory represents regions such as India and Africa where Muslims are in the minority but are permitted for the most part to live in peace and to practise their religion freely. The rest of the world comprises the third territory, which is viewed more as an ideological battleground contested by groups with conflicting values than as a literal theatre of war. Within this territory holy war (jihad) is waged against all non-Muslims or infidels (kafir) in perpetuity until they too are absorbed into the world of Islam. … No systematic exposition of Muslim beliefs appears in either the Qur’an or the Hadith [traditions]. Instead, such exposition is found in the compilation of Islamic canon law (shar’ia), which is considered to be divinely established and enjoins on all adherents strict obedience in all aspects of life. The principal sources for Islamic law are: the Qur’an, Tradition, Consensus (ijma’), and Reason (qiyas). The Shi’ites reject the ‘consensus’ and substitute what is for them the divinely appointed, infallible spiritual guide (Imam)” (from Islam: The Way of Submission by Solomon Nigossian, Crucible, 1987).

Aspects of Sharia Law that concern Christians:

Jihad: Jihad is holy war against the infidels of the world. All Muslims are obliged to kill the infidel. An infidel (or kafir) is a non-Muslim. Many Muslims think that killing an infidel guarantees going straight to paradise.

Apostasy: All apostates are to be killed. An apostate is any person who renounces Islam and changes his religion. Christians are not allowed to convert Muslims to Christianity. Conversion is perceived as blasphemy and carries the death penalty. Distributing Christian literature can result in a five-year prison sentence under Sharia Law.

Criticism of Islam: The death penalty applies to Muslims who criticize Muhammad, the Qur’an or Sharia Law. Severe penalties also apply to Christians who speak out against Islam.

Freedom of Worship: Although Islam pays lip service to “people of the book” (other Abrahamic religions), and the Qur’an says to respect and honor all people irrespective of their religion, the reality is that some Islamic countries are persecuting Christians, targeting their places of worship, and killing and imprisoning believers. Persecution is intense in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Maldives, and other countries with a strong Islamic influence.

Female victims of rape: Sharia Law protects rapists. A woman making an accusation of rape has to provide four male witnesses. If she is unable to do so, she will be charged with zina, for which the prescribed punishment is flogging or stoning. Thousands of women are imprisoned as a result of unsuccessful charges of rape. Some are even stoned to death. On October 27, 2008, Aisha, a 13-year-old girl in Kisayu, Somalia, was stoned to death for adultery; later, her aunt told the British Broadcasting Corporation that Aisha had been raped by three armed men. Rapists are seldom brought to trial, let alone punished.

Miscellaneous crimes: Fornication and adultery: Unmarried fornicators are to be whipped, and adulterers are to be stoned to death. Homosexuality: Homosexuals must be executed. Theft: Any person found stealing is to have a hand cut off. Battery and assault: An injured plaintiff can extract legal revenge; lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”) is in effect.

Should Christians be concerned? Many people in Europe, North America and Australia are unaware of the influence of Sharia Law in Islamic countries and have never considered the possibility of Sharia Law being introduced in their country. In November 2011 the MacDonald-Laurier Institute poll of Canadian Muslims found that 75 percent of respondents want Sharia Law. In December 2012 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the imam at Australia’s largest mosque had issued a fatwa (legal ruling) against Christmas. In July 2011 Islamic extremists called upon British Muslims to establish three independent states within the U.K. There are also Muslim groups in the United States calling for the implementation of Sharia Law in America.

Christianity and Islam have opposing beliefs. Jesus (Isa) is mentioned 25 times in the Qur’an, but the Jesus of the Qur’an bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the Bible. The Qur’an says Jesus was only a human prophet and was not killed; rather, Allah took him up to heaven (Surah 4:157-158). When Jesus returns, he will be a follower of Muhammad and will kill the Antichrist, break the cross and slay the pigs. Everyone who does not accept Islam will be slain (Hadith 656). After ruling on earth for about 40 years, Jesus will die.

The Bible says Jesus is the eternal Word who was with God and who is God. The Word dwelt with man (John 1). The Bible says Jesus was crucified then resurrected and ascended into heaven – in front of eyewitnesses. When He returns, it will be to judge the world in true righteousness.

Allah tells Muslims to kill anyone who rejects Islam, converts to Christianity, or becomes an atheist. Jesus tells Christians to love Muslims because He wants Muslims to join Christians in heaven. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44). Christians bless those who curse them and do good to those who hate them. This is not the way of Islam.

Christians should be very concerned about the spread of Islam in general and the impact of Sharia Law in particular. And we should always be alert to opportunities to witness to Muslims about the love of God through Christ Jesus.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sharia-Law.html

[geronl]

idiotic.

So, a new checkbox on the visa forms. Not as if anyone would ever lie.

Are you a terrorist   Y   N
Do you believe in Sharia Law   Y    N
Do you eat people     Y    N

[guitar4jesus]

idiotic.

So, a new checkbox on the visa forms. Not as if anyone would ever lie.

Are you a terrorist   Y   N
Do you believe in Sharia Law   Y    N
Do you eat people     Y    N

 

[skeeter]

Ah, but that's what separates the Christians from the Sharia-following Muslims (who, in turn, received their law and much of their punishment from the Jewish law of Moses).

Yet there is some overlap in our principles; the question, once again, is where Gingrich wants to draw the line.

This is the question.

Personally, I don't want to share the country with anyone who's prime motive is to replace our representative republic with a murdering theocracy. Any non-muslim who does isn't thinking clearly.

But the conditions for exclusion need to be very specific so as not to be abused by the progressive wackos who will never miss an opportunity to eliminate their political opposition.

[truth_seeker]

Personally, I don't want to share the country with anyone who's prime motive is to replace our representative republic with a murdering theocracy. Any non-muslim who does isn't thinking clearly.

Islam is clever, patient, devious, persistent. Taqiyya is their justification for lying, to advance islam.

CAIR will send forth lawyers, arguing on their behalfs. They will use our open, lawful system, for protection.

Sure we should let in peaceful muslims. But we should not allow ourselves to become weak, or allow our own system of laws to bring harm to ourselves.

(I see no reason to think we need to be  destination for muslim refugees, however. Muslim lands are much better for that.)

The San Bernardino wife could sneak in because we allowed her to do so. She murdered 14 Americans.

I do not value Islamic freedom of religion in America, enough to allow for that, period.

Our constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact. But islam intends to make it just that if they can.

[Fishrrman]

truth_seeker wrote:
"Sure we should let in peaceful muslims. But we should not allow ourselves to become weak, or allow our own system of laws to bring harm to ourselves..."

You were doing pretty good, until you went straight off the rails with the comment above.

islam by its very existence is anathema to The West and everything that is valued here.

By letting in [seemingly] "peaceful" muslims, we are introducing into our national body nascent cancer cells -- with EACH and EVERY muslim.

Although those muslims may appear peaceful on the outside, there is no way to know when "the spark of faith" will ignite within them.
There is no way to tell how deeply their "still waters of islam" (and sharia) run within.

truth_seeker, what would you do if you went to the doctor and he (or she) told you that there was a tumor within?
Even if it seemed to be hardly growing at all, what would your desires be?
Would you leave potentially cancerous cells within yourself, on the grounds that "all cells are equal" and all cells have a right-to-life, and a right to be within you?
Or would you do something else?

I've been there, and I knew what I had to do.

islam is literally cancer to the freedom of The West.
The more islamics that come to The West, the greater the danger of malignancy.
Ask the French about that.

If we truly want to be free of this disease, there's only one way to do it.
Yes, it seems distateful.
Yes, it will bring cries, "that's what the Nazis did!"
Yes, it seems to go against our very grain to deny a specific group of people the same rights which we enjoy ourselves.

But we must do it.
It's no longer a matter of principle.
It's a matter of survival.

[truth_seeker]

truth_seeker wrote:
"Sure we should let in peaceful muslims. But we should not allow ourselves to become weak, or allow our own system of laws to bring harm to ourselves..."

You were doing pretty good, until you went straight off the rails with the comment above.

islam by its very existence is anathema to The West and everything that is valued here.

By letting in [seemingly] "peaceful" muslims, we are introducing into our national body nascent cancer cells -- with EACH and EVERY muslim.

Although those muslims may appear peaceful on the outside, there is no way to know when "the spark of faith" will ignite within them.
There is no way to tell how deeply their "still waters of islam" (and sharia) run within.

truth_seeker, what would you do if you went to the doctor and he (or she) told you that there was a tumor within?
Even if it seemed to be hardly growing at all, what would your desires be?
Would you leave potentially cancerous cells within yourself, on the grounds that "all cells are equal" and all cells have a right-to-life, and a right to be within you?
Or would you do something else?

I've been there, and I knew what I had to do.

islam is literally cancer to the freedom of The West.
The more islamics that come to The West, the greater the danger of malignancy.
Ask the French about that.

If we truly want to be free of this disease, there's only one way to do it.
Yes, it seems distateful.
Yes, it will bring cries, "that's what the Nazis did!"
Yes, it seems to go against our very grain to deny a specific group of people the same rights which we enjoy ourselves.

But we must do it.
It's no longer a matter of principle.
It's a matter of survival.

I believe we have been far too lax, in who we admit. And we have been too reluctant to oust those we mistakenly admitted at the very first sign of problems.

I do not believe we have any moral obligations to admit refugees, for example. If muslim people need to flee Syria for example, flee to another muslim country, where they will fit in nicely.

Is that okay ??

[Fishrrman]

truth_seeker wrote:
"I do not believe we have any moral obligations to admit refugees, for example. If muslim people need to flee Syria for example, flee to another muslim country, where they will fit in nicely.
Is that okay ??"

Fine with me.
muslim refugess belong in dar al-islam.
Not here!

[Chieftain]

"Suffering predators to exist is not the logic of sentient prey." -- Larry Niven

 

[HonestJohn]

Soo... how much Sharia law makes one deportable?  Keeping halal?  Or is it more than that?

How are we going to test?  Ask if one is Muslim?  What if they lie?

Or maybe every man, woman and child in America will have to be tested... and if one won't eat a pork sandwich, out you go?

But that'd be hit the Jews, too.  What's one more, amrite?

[HonestJohn]

The muslim enemy would love to debate till the camels come home. They have lawyers who will do so.

Gingrich used "Sharia Law" as a means of describing violent jihadis, who would do us harm either directly at their own hands, or indirectly by support, preaching, fundraising, logistics, propaganda, etc.

Now you can propose debating "jihadis"

Finally what part of Sharia Law do you desire to be implemented in our country? Fathers and brothers stoning or murdering women for having been raped? Wife beating? Cutting off of hands?

In total it is not defensible, or compatible with our legal system, plain and simple.

So keeping Halal isn't compatible with our legal system?

[HonestJohn]

What BS.....how many of these sharia Judeo-Christians have killed in the name of Allah?

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"... "Onward Christian soldiers"... "Glory, glory, Hallelujah (song)"... etc, etc, etc.

We've got a long and storied history in the West of killing in the name of Jesus.

The difference is we (the US) focus on killing enemy combat forces and try to avoid civilians.

[truth_seeker]

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"... "Onward Christian soldiers"... "Glory, glory, Hallelujah (song)"... etc, etc, etc.

We've got a long and storied history in the West of killing in the name of Jesus.

The difference is we (the US) focus on killing enemy combat forces and try to avoid civilians.

John you might study some military history, including that of the USA.

You do what is needed to win, to defeat an enemy just as committed as you.

Dresden, Berlin bombed civilians in an explicit effort to demoralize the enemy to surrender.

Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombed the enemy in an explicit effort to demoralize the enemy to surrender.

Reasons for doing so included German bombing of London, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

We didn't start it, but we decided to fight all out to win. Truman's decision to drop the nukes, was an act of humanitarian life saving; our and the enemy's.

[montanajoe]

There is  a lot of folks in this country who are Jews, Irish Catholics, Muslims, Mormons etc...

I generally agree with Newt but identifying or being identified with one group  as a cause for deportation...are you kidding me?

I've been arguing since before 2001 we are at war with radical Islam and they are intent on killing us all. However, to have a chance, we need to go after the real threats around the world. Going after folks here with a name you don't like is insane....

[Fishrrman]

\HonestJohn wrote:
"Soo... how much Sharia law makes one deportable?  Keeping halal?  Or is it more than that?
How are we going to test?  Ask if one is Muslim?  What if they lie?"

There's a very simple solution to your (obviously baiting) questions above:
No muslims, at all, in The West.
That means, "ZERO".
None.
Nada.

If they're not here, they can't practice taqiyya (aside: do you know what that means?).
If they're not here, they can't change from "seemingly moderate" to "faithful and jihadist".
If they're not here, they can't attack us from inside our own country.
If they're not here, it doesn't matter -how- they respond to "a test".
If they're not here, we won't have to worry about deporting them any more.

You know what my position is:


Return them all to dar al-islam.
Where they belong.