Runaway teen to return to Ohio -- but when? | The Columbus Disp...

Thanks for keeping this thread ongoing...it gives us a better chance to alert Columbus folks to attend the RALLY FOR RIFQA BARY'S CIVIL RIGHTS on Monday, November 16, outside her next hearing at Franklin County Juvenile Court in Columbus:

http://digg.com/politics/RALLY_FOR_RIFQA_BARY...

Where are all the Rifqa Bary detractors now?

I imagine they are out defending the Fort Hood Muslim jihadist as a "poor little victim of military stress" whose bloody massacre was the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nor...

LOL wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately, the law says that a child is underage until they are 18, and it seems the trend is to increase that age to 21.

Until they commit a crime, then the courts want to charge them as adults. It's crazy.

I forget who wrote the post but someone said all the people supporting Rifqa Bary have a political agenda - said as a sarcastic negative.

I agree that Everyone involved or interested in this unique case has a Political Agenda.

Let's start with Rifqa. Codified Law under Islamic Jurisprudence as stated in Umdat al-Salik is crystal clear p. 595 o8.1 "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed"

Rifqa has seen this law enforced on American soil in numerous honor killings in the last two years. Rifqa's father threatened to kill her for changing faiths and Rifqa took that threat seriously.

Rifqa said in Court she is going to trial not for herself but for the thousands of other girls just like her.

Rifqa's political agenda is to bravely defy those Islamists who wish her grave harm by following the Sharia Law as instructed by Allah.

My political agenda is to educate people that Sharia Law is not commpatible with our U.S. Constitution. Our U.S. courts, in the Rifqa case, can not put Sharia Law on trial because how do you adjudicate against a political system itself. And technically no crime has been committed until Rifqa Bary is killed or injured.

Naturally there will be speculation,could the father have done it? Could the Ohio Muslim community carry out the apostasy punishment? We don't know but based on past performance of Islam the safe bet would be take Sharia Law very seriously and err on no reunification (unless Rifqa wants that) until she is 18 and of majority age.

Culture clash, Sharia Law v. our Constitution - it all leads back to two immovable forces unwilling to yield. Islamists and Sharia will not submit to Our man made laws as written in the Constitution. That is Islam's political agenda.

So yes there are many political agendas in play with the Rifqa Bary Case - And all these conversations are good and worth having.

Listen to Radio Jihad at www.RadioJihad.org

Arizona Don wrote:

Where are all the Rifqa Bary detractors now?
I imagine they are out defending the Fort Hood Muslim jihadist as a "poor little victim of military stress" whose bloody massacre was the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nor...

It's interesting that anyone who doesn't buy Pam Geller's and Robert Sprencer's anti-Islamic world view are labelled as being a Rifqa Bary detractor.

A rush to judgment based on circumstantial evidence is always a mistake, although the overwhelming circumstantial evidence would argue against the every Muslim is a terrorist at heart version of truth. Given the number of Arab-Americans and Muslims who have served faithfully in the United States Armed Forces over time, I think it is premature to adopt an automatic assumption that Hasan's particular motive derived from his religion. As more is learned, it would appear that there are likely a number of factors entering into his situation--just as Jim Jones was affected by far more than his Christianity. I would imagine that some see this as making excuses. I believe the rational response is that this is necessary to understanding--and some day providing better protections for the victims of folks like Hasan--or an other mass killer.

Radio Jihad wrote:

My political agenda is to educate people that Sharia Law is not commpatible with our U.S. Constitution.

Who cares? Sharia law isn't part of our legal code. Quit trolling.

LOL wrote:

<quoted text>
Who cares? Sharia law isn't part of our legal code. Quit trolling.

I think the logic is that we need to formally outlaw Sharia law and anything less than that grows out of PC favoritism towards Muslims.

Has this little brat been returned to her parents yet?

Radio Jihad wrote:

Rifqa has seen this law enforced on American soil in numerous honor killings in the last two years. Rifqa's father threatened to kill her for changing faiths and Rifqa took that threat seriously.
Rifqa said in Court she is going to trial not for herself but for the thousands of other girls just like her.

Rifqa was in Texas, and in New York to witness the killings there? I suspect not. Far more likely, in her numerous ramblings on the internet she has encountered the anti-Muslim hysterics who maintain that conversion to Christianity means instant death to any Muslim--with those cases (which have nothing to do with conversion, by the way) offered up as evidence. And because she had little formal schooling in Islam--and as a Sri Lankan immigrant in New Albany knew the pain of being different--this version of reality was not only believable, but perhaps also attractive. It offered her a way to shed the trappings of being different and move into a situation in which she was rather idolized for her epic bravery.

I have been reading for days the idiotic rantings of those who oppose Islam out of ignorance, misunderstandings or pure bigotry. Imagine what it is to be a young girl growing up in a society where your parents, and by definition yourself, are regularly reviled as being the demons who wish only to kill. The desire to pass as one of the mainstream is neither particularly heroic, nor anything new. Adolescents normally act in ways that distance themselves from family--it is a part of asserting independance. Sometimes situations exacerbate this normality. At times teens are preyed upon as a result of their vulnerability as they reach out to establish themselves as mature participants in the world. Frankly, I see more of this every day than I see of honor killing. We just have become conditioned to it.

Elmer wrote:

Has this little brat been returned to her parents yet?

So Rifqa Bary is a little brat?!? I imagine that in your perverse view, the Islamic terrorist that massacred 13 innocent people at Fort Hood was justified because someone once scraped a bumper-sticker off his car!! Either that or his brutal massacre had "nothing to do with radical Islam" and his calls overseas to Muslim radicals were strictly coincidental...you are merely suffering from a recently discovered psychological disorder called JIHAD DENIAL SYNDROME!!

Arizona Don, you should be ashamed of yourself. For you to even make the slightest comparision of this girl's antics and the tradegy at Fort Hood is disgusting.

Actually Sharia Law is the thread that ties Honor Killings and Death for Apostasy Laws together. Now alone or seperate these two Islamic Laws are not compatible with our Constitution.

We are in the middle of a culture war folks - between SHARIA/ISLAMIC LAW V. THE CONSTITUION

We have two immovable objects here. Islam will not accept any "man made" laws to rule over "allah's law = sharia" Most foreigners when they come to our shores become American's first and adopt our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and our unique American Culture, language, lifestyles, etc....

Islam does not assimilate to our culture but Islam demands we make accomodations for their culture. That is why there are now 85 Sharia Courts in England, car b ques everytime the Islamists get upset, and killing people over cartoons.

So if you want the big picture there it is - For whatever it's worth.

I like individual Muslims but I hate Sharia Law.

Radio Jihad, If Islam requires that it's followers follow Sharia Law, how do you explain the existance of Turkey, where 85-90% of the country objects to Sharia law, but Islam is the religion of 99% of the population? Remember that you are saying that Muslims MUST follow Sharia. Are you saying that Turks aren't Muslims? What about the individual Muslims that you claim to like? Do they follow Sharia Law? My point is that anyone who comes on here and claims this girl's parents MUST kill her because Islam demands it, is full of crap.

LOL

There are no absolutes in the world. I don't know if you saw this story about your Secular Islamist country Turkey "Turkey Promises Iran Intelligence, Aid Against Israel,DEBKAfile" Link: http://www.newmediajournal.us/world/11112009a...

Does this one story make all Turkish Muslim Citizens fundamental Islamists - NO. It just means the Turkish government is rapidly moving towards their more totalitarian roots.

The part of my argument you can't deconstruct is that there is NO separtation of Mosque and State in Islam. Islam is Sharia Law and Sharia Law is Islam. Why? Because Allah's Laws are superior to ALL man made laws. That is fact. Sharia Law also prescribes death sentences for blasphemy which is exactly what Islamist reformers are trying to do. Take out the bad parts of the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Sharia. The fear of death sentences that can be carried out by the Islamic community is a powerful motivation to keep your mouth shut and go along to get along. This is how a Totalitarian Political system controls its population and maintains power. The template is as old as human history and dates back thousands of years befor Mohammad came on the scene.

Radio Jihad wrote:

LOL
There are no absolutes in the world. I don't know if you saw this story about your Secular Islamist country Turkey "Turkey Promises Iran Intelligence, Aid Against Israel,DEBKAfile" Link: http://www.newmediajournal.us/world/11112009a...
Does this one story make all Turkish Muslim Citizens fundamental Islamists - NO. It just means the Turkish government is rapidly moving towards their more totalitarian roots.
The part of my argument you can't deconstruct is that there is NO separtation of Mosque and State in Islam. Islam is Sharia Law and Sharia Law is Islam. Why? Because Allah's Laws are superior to ALL man made laws. That is fact. Sharia Law also prescribes death sentences for blasphemy which is exactly what Islamist reformers are trying to do. Take out the bad parts of the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Sharia. The fear of death sentences that can be carried out by the Islamic community is a powerful motivation to keep your mouth shut and go along to get along. This is how a Totalitarian Political system controls its population and maintains power. The template is as old as human history and dates back thousands of years befor Mohammad came on the scene.

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about a 17 year old who ran away from home, and not the political alliances of the middle east. I'm not talking about the Turkish Government, I am talking about the average everyday Turk, who flatly rejects Sharia law. Under your logic, We were all communists during WWII because we provided aid and intelligence to the Red Army.

Radio Jihad wrote:

We are in the middle of a culture war folks - between SHARIA/ISLAMIC LAW V. THE CONSTITUION
Islam does not assimilate to our culture but Islam demands we make accomodations for their culture. That is why there are now 85 Sharia Courts in England
I like individual Muslims but I hate Sharia Law.

No--we are not in the middle of a culture war. The Constitution remains the law of our land. When people violate the Constitution and laws of our country, state, city or other jurisdiction, to the extent that they can be discovered and caught, they are brought to justice. This has not been altered in any way by the fact that some of the people now--and throughout our history--are Muslim. Some folks want special interpretations of justice--such as empowering the state to respond differently, more harshly, to a Muslim family (because we can identify other Muslims who have committed heinous acts) than to others. This, in fact, would be unconstitutional.

Throughout this country's history there have been various religious courts operating--with the consent of the governed--outside of official jurisprudence. For practicing Catholics, a church-provided annulment is required before a divorcee can remarry in the eyes of the church. In Jewish orthodoxy a similar system exists, and may decide other community matters as well. The Amish operate systems of justice within their own communities--and frequently choose this in preference to reporting crimes to law enforcement. Nothing in the law of the United States requires religious observers to utilize these parallel systems--nor do they prohibit it--unless they operate in conflict with some established law (such as imprisonment, killing, etc). They are based on willing participation. Native Americans have been granted somewhat more far-reaching powers in their courts based on their status as a nation within the United States.

I rather suspect that someone who chooses the name of Radio Jihad knows less than squat about Sharia Law--and I would place myself in the same category. But, I certainly recognize hysteria when I see it, as well as bigotry. The supposition of a culture war between Sharia Law and the Constitution smells of both.

Reader - for someone who admittedly does not know alot about Sharia Law you sure are full of conclusions about me, my radio show, and how much I know about the subject matter.

LOL is right we did diverge a bit so I will get back to the topic and how Sharia Law is the problem in the Rifqa Bary Case. Rifqa's Bary fear of her father is based on Sharia Law. Rifqa's father was notified of her apostasy by his fellow Muslims in his community. Mr. Bary was under considerable pressure to "take care of the matter" as came out in the FDLE report.

Rifqa committed NO crime in America other than being illegal because her father chose to overstay his visa and conduct business illegally in the States. Rifqa claimed her life was in danger because her parents were devout Muslims and her father said he will kill her for her apostasy.

Like you guys, the court did not find the death for apostasy fact in Sharia could be admitted into evidence because no crime was committed and the victim Rifqa Bary was remaining stubbornly alive and outspoken about her apostasy. Mohammad Bary told the court everything they needed to hear denying Sharia Law would be carried out. The court was forced to take Mohammad Bary at his word because Sharia was not admissable since no Sharia law had been committed.

In fact it wouldn't surprise me on damn bit if Mohammad Bary and his CAIR lawyers dropped the lawsuit they filed against Rifqa in the Ohio court just to get Rifqa back to Ohio - hoping once they drop the charges against Rifqa the OH courts will commence reunification by court order, Rifqa will go back to her family and the situation she ran away from. That would make you guys and all the apologists happy.

I however take Sharia Law very seriously. From my experience most all Muslims will protect Sharia Law because it can not be removed in Islam. The two are cna't be seperated. That doesn't mean everyone follows Sharia but they will protect it. i.e. The Saudi Royal Family are notorious drinkers, partiers, and whore mongers when they leave the kingdom. Yet this same Saudi Royal Family will finance and keep the Wahabbis close, wealthy, and part of the government so the Wahabbis will not turn around and kill off the Royal Family. Yes it is an interesting sidenote.

You do this conversation no justice when you dispel an argument becuase of an absolutist contradiction.

Rifqa committed NO crime at the end of the day except change her faith. The outcome would have been the same if choose to become Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, or worship fire hydrants. That is a part of the argument you two guys are missing in my opinion.

Radio Jihad wrote:

Rifqa committed NO crime at the end of the day except change her faith. The outcome would have been the same if choose to become Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, or worship fire hydrants. That is a part of the argument you two guys are missing in my opinion.

Wrong, she ran away from home, all the way to Florida, and sat in someone's house for 2 weeks before the authorities were contacted. If running away from home should be allowed in this case, what's to stop any child from running away from home for any reason whatsoever. Should little billy be allowed to go live with someone else, because he doesn't like peas? Should kids be allowed to run away from home because they don't want to go to Christian church? Last I checked, running away from home was grounds for declaring a child unruly, which would correspond to an adult misdemeanor. It seems to me that Rifqa's so-called "supporters," including yourself, are the ones who wants to throw American jurisprudence out the window.

Radio Jihad wrote:

Rifqa committed NO crime at the end of the day except change her faith. The outcome would have been the same if choose to become Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, or worship fire hydrants. That is a part of the argument you two guys are missing in my opinion.

Changing one's faith, in America (Ohio or Florida) is not illegal. However, Rifqa did commit the "status offense" (meaning that it only applies to juveniles because of their minor status) of running away from home and leaving the state. This is covered under the general heading of "unruly," which is what she is charged with (not sued--legally charged with a violation). Yes, this was necessary to counter Florida's claim of emergency jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction could only be over-ridden if there was a case in Ohio. It was clear that Florida, due to political pressures on the Governor, was overstepping its bounds (the FDLE investigation reiterated many times that no crime had been committed in the state of Florida)--but but they weren't going to let go until challenged by another court. FCCS had no evidence with which to charge the parents--but the status crime was clear. Parents are generally loath to press such charges against their children, however this is frequently the mechanism that is required to force an involvement from Children's Services and to receive support of various kinds (out of home placement, counseling, etc) not available to the family.

The FDLE report--far from substantiating that pressures were being brought to bear on Mr. Bary by the "community" or the Mosque--stopped short of any investigation there due to lack of any specific indicators of involvement.

Now--I am no expert in Sharia law--but I know enough about law in general, and have read enough commentary regarding to Sharia--to understand that there is not a single interpretation, or agreement regarding the implications of "following" Sharia in the 21st Century. Not that this matters, of course, because there is not suggestion that anyone in this case has appealed to Sharia to make decisions.

LOL wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong, she ran away from home, all the way to Florida, and sat in someone's house for 2 weeks before the authorities were contacted. If running away from home should be allowed in this case, what's to stop any child from running away from home for any reason whatsoever. Should little billy be allowed to go live with someone else, because he doesn't like peas? Should kids be allowed to run away from home because they don't want to go to Christian church? Last I checked, running away from home was grounds for declaring a child unruly, which would correspond to an adult misdemeanor. It seems to me that Rifqa's so-called "supporters," including yourself, are the ones who wants to throw American jurisprudence out the window.

You freaking hypocrite libs have no problem when some teenage hoochie gets an ABORTION without her parents' permission, but that's only because it fits your perverse liberal agenda more: "SAVE THE WHALES, ABORT THE BABIES"...