Waters Defended Sharia Law in US

Congresswoman Maxine Waters

Congresswoman Maxine Waters jumped into the Hawthorne-South Los Angeles district as a representative in 1990, then two years later California fell into the Democratic Presidential column for the first time in twenty years.

She has sparked controversy not just in her outgoing support for the rioters following the Rodney King verdict in 1992. She defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when those two public-private institutions helped hasten the Housing Crisis and the massive Bank Bailouts which followed.

Recently, she has toned down her controversial rhetoric, and reports indicate she is reaching across the aisle to work with Republicans on business-friendly issues.

Still, her list of insults and political threats reveal a political nature defined by conflict, lacking intelligence and integrity.

She called the former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor "a demon", and she has demeaned other conservative, Republican colleagues in a similar, invidious vein.

She threatened to nationalize the oil companies, and claimed that the 2013 sequestration would cost one hundred seventy million jobs.

She is best known for shouting at an Inglewood jobs forum "The TEA Party can go straight to hell."

In 2012, she gave a speech at an Islamic Society of Orange County Town Hall, in which she claimed that Sharia Law and the United States Constitution are compatible.

"I am so pleased to be here to talk about the American Constitution and Sharia."

She mentioned that the federal government was making key decisions on the issue of Sharia and its purported conflicts with Western legal and political culture. Attacking Republicans as fear-mongers, Waters outlined a concern among Americans that Islam and Sharia pose a threat to public safety, and acceptance of Sharia in more cities will turn the United States into an Islamic country. She mentioned that thirteen states have considered legislation which would ban Sharia within their borders.

The controversies around Islam, Muslim extremism, and the permission of religious freedoms balanced against national security pose difficult choices for lawmakers. The First Amendment protects all religious freedoms, and forbids imposing one religion. At the same time, research into Islamic fundamentalism reveals a system of religious and political thought contrary to the tenets of liberal democracy. How does one permit study and practice of a religion which contains seemingly current exhortations to violence and forced submission?

Sharia law enforced in various Arab countries has enabled some of the most violent acts, especially against women.

Women's rights and status fare very poorly
in Islamic countries

This clip showed some disturbing photos and interviews portraying the trauma and abuse which women have endured in Muslim countries because of religious extremism.

One woman was repeatedly raped, and yet she was punished for riding in a car with non-related male. When she appealed the case, she was sentenced to more lashes. The judge in the case blamed the woman for being raped.

This Egyptian shared her and her mother's conversion from Islam to Christianity, and the threats against her life from government (and its Sharia influences) for her conversion.

This former Muslim explains that there is no such thing a Moderate Islam, although there are many Muslims in name only, who do not practice the faith. He also identified in mosques throughout the country in which imams preach hate and extremism.

Here are clips of extremist protests in the United Kingdom, as well as the radicalization of moderate Islam.

How can Congresswoman Waters turn away from these disturbing trends in Islamic countries under Sharia law, then claim that the same religious code is compatible with the United States Constitution?

Another website some of the outstanding, and outrageous codes in Sharia:

According to Sharia Law:

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls’ clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad‘s words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah – i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

Richard Dawkins

This documentary presented Sharia in a positive light. The attempt is unpalatable. None of the interviewed imams disputed the severity of Sharia. They argued that the legal code creates safe societies, despite the growing evidence to the contrary. One of the imams declares that there is freedom of belief. Yet in Islamic countries, the punishment for apostasy from Islam is. . .death. Atheist Richard Dawkins soundly rebuked one Muslim apologist on this issues. Even Muslims in Islamic countries are more fearful of terrorism from their extremists peers than other religious perversions.

The brutal subjugation of women, the draconian punitive measures, the severe limits which men have over women and children are completely incompatible with Western Democracy, and particularly with the United States Constitution. The irony of Waters' protests on behalf of Sharia flies in the face of her constant support for women's issues. A vocal feminist, she claimed in a Southern California Town Hall that one of the Affordable Care Act's chief benefits was that "being a woman" would no longer be a medical condition. Yet women are persecuted and marginalized with unparalleled zeal in Islamic countries, where Sharia is the defining legal standard. Waters' defense of Sharia law is indefensible, and the rising violence from Islamic militants (including the recent beheading of a woman in Oklahoma) should raise concerns about Sharia and its militant adherents.

She might as well have shouted at the Islamic Center: "The United States Constitution can go straight to hell!" (or "Jahannam", as referenced in the Islamic religion).

"The Constitution can go straight to hell!"