You're confused again. The Government was the plaintiff in the case. The government investigated and wiretapped various organizations. The judge agreed there was ample evidence to establish CAIR's link with HAMAS. 5 people were convicted of various crimes including support of terrorism. Afterwards, CAIR argued it injured its organization's standing in the community (as it should). The judge agreed to seal the case and its evidence.

this whole thing about CAIR, ISNA, etc. are very much local American politics, what are you trying to achieve by bringing over an ultra right-wing islamophobic American discussion into a discussion about muslims in Europe? Your overly motivated approach to this, and disregard for fact based discourse, makes me think that you have a hidden agenda.

Always these statements without any link to a credible source

I have made clear in my posts that my criticism is not directed at Muslims but at Sharia. It is a vicious slur to accuse me of Islamophobia and will not succeed in bullying me into not discussing Sharia.

Read the topic thread again. I did not introduce CAIR into this thread: Someone else quoted CAIR in support of their argument; I was refuting CAIR as a reliable source.

And being anti-Sharia is hardly "ultra right wing". After all, by definition, everyone who does not follow Sharia is anti-Sharia.

It is telling that you do not argue my points but resort to libel instead.

its only the American crazies (i.e. right wingers, wing nuts, whatever you call them) who are obsessed about "Sharia", and their European cousins. No one else gives a rats ass.

Dont treat us like fools, everybody here knows where you are coming from and what motivates you.

Come on Phos, if you make a claim of substance then cite a source.

As to CAIR and the UAE judiciary, don't you think there is something just a little bit tenuous about that claim? Not in the sense of their stance with respect to CAIR, but rather the fact that under that judiciary some acts, like the wearing of shorts, are punishable by stoning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_..._Arab_Emirates

"by definition, everyone who does not follow Sharia is anti-Sharia. " There is also the possibility of a class of people who are neutral on the topic; more likely "everyone" is in that class.

I've been tempted to think the same re neutrality, Marton, but have concluded neutrality regarding an absolute belief system, such as Sharia or some other religion's law, is only possible if one is ignorant of its precepts. Once you learn about it, you either accept it as the ultimate truth, as it claims to be, or reject it. There isn't any neutral ground to stand on any longer.

What do you think about Sharia?

You're posting on this thread, so you give more than a rat's ass yet claim not to for some reason.

As for my interest in Sharia, it began by studying under an eminent Islamic law jurist, who has a PhD from Oxbridge, is Muslim, left-of-centre politically, and who is weary of Sharia for reasons much more personal than ones I could ever have. He was imprisoned and nearly killed by a regime invoking Sharia as justification for his persecution. His mentor was executed for blasphemy for just questioning certain tenets of Sharia.

If discussing the topic of Sharia makes you so uncomfortable, you should reflect on why that is. Accusing others of nefarious motivations without engaging on substance is a cop-out.

On which point is that? I thought that was already determined a tangent.

Well there are court papers identifying CAIR as unindicted co-conspirators in funneling funds to Hamas, and founding members affiliation can be traced. I believe there are many artifacts that make this case. I didn't think necessary for me to provide one. But since you seem to insist, here's one from 2011:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fac...cair_a_te.html

I don't think that discussion is limited to the US, or what can be called Ultra Right. That discussion is taking place in the mainstream of European journalism today. Whether or not one chooses to ignore it is another matter.

There was one ruling by a Federal judge in Texas in 2009 that CAIR were involved in funnelling funds to Hamas but the evidence to support this ruling was never publicised.
This ruling never led to CAIR being prosecuted and the FBI were never able to find enough evidence to prosecute CAIR.
Like the FBI the NSA have been seeking to gather evidence against CAIR by recording emails and telephone calls without collecting sufficient evidence for a prosecution

We have to assume that Texas judges are as fallible as the rest of us.

The facts of the case were publicized prior to going to court. I believe a couple of technicalities that arose was that some of the activities occured before Hamas was listed as a terrorist organization. Also, some differentiation between individuals involved and the organizations as a whole. I would also assume CAIR providing evidence and material witness would count in a plea bargain.

Given the evidence and such are sealed, it does not state certain things never happened, only that it did not have relevance to the verdict of the case. Its not really the same thing as saying something never happened.

CAIR has been reported to having provided tips that have prevented attacks. There has been relationships between CAIR and law enforcement. The fact they are still operating seem to indicate they haven't been doing anything illegal, or at least provide some value while overlooking other aspects of CAIR, like some of the extremist outlook of some of its members.

"Given the evidence and such are sealed" They were unsealed in 2011 by the Appeal Court.

If people want to belong to a religion and follow its Rules why should I be concerned; please explain why I should reject Sharia? I do not belong to such a religion and am not subject to Sharia.

I am more concerned about the health related rules.

• Catholics banned from using condoms.
• Christian Science and the Jehovah's Witnesses recommend that members generally reject medical attention in favour of prayer leading to unnecessary deaths of their children!

Most Muslim-majority countries adopt various aspects of sharia. Some countries adopt only a few aspects of Sharia, others apply the entire code.

Look at Indonesia which is the largest Muslim country with over 200 million believers.
Only the province of Aceh fully implements Sharia but as Aceh only has ca. 4% of the Indonesian population then it is not really significant.

Exactly: In other words, you reject Sharia.

No, neutral!

Why don't you follow Sharia?

I am not a follower of the Islam faith

Why don't you.

I am still waiting for your reasoning?

I don't follow it because I reject its tenets.

You state that you are not a follower, but the question to you is: Why don't you follow Sharia?