ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

Islamic Law Is Not An Excuse For Barring Muslim Immigrants From US. Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
My distinguished colleague and immigration law scholar, Nolan Rappaport, has posted a video in this week's Letters section of Immigration Daily based on the theme that Muslim immigrants and their children may soon form a majority in the heart of Europe and impose Sharia law on that continent, extinguishing democracy. The video, which was produced by CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), founded by the well known controversial right wing televangelist, Pat Robertson, features an interview with the leader of an Islamic group in Belgium who wants to do exactly that and who claims to speak for all European Muslims.

The video, however, also makes clear that his group is a small one that does not represent the overwhelming Muslim majority, whom he accuses of "not being real Muslims" because of their more secular views. The clear intent of the video is to stoke fears that if Europe admits more Muslim refugees, democracy on that continent could be extinguished as early as by 2030 and replaced by a Muslim "fascist ideology", in the words of a non-Muslim commentator who also appears in the video. For the link to the video, please go to Nolan's above-mentioned letter.

Fears that Muslim immigrants might impose Sharia law in the US have also been expressed in some state legislatures, and may very possibly have led to Donald Trump's win in the February 9 New Hampshire primary. According to the Huffington Post, two thirds of all Republican voters in that primary, including many who did not actually support Trump, stated in exit polls that they favor his proposed ban on admitting any Muslims to the United States.

Coincidentally, the New Hampshire presidential primary was, according to the Huffington Post and other reports, the first one in American history that was won by a Jewish candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT)

It goes without saying that America has a long and unenviable history of prejudice against Jewish immigrants, including accusations that they also wanted to impose foreign ideologies, ranging from everything to Communism to "International Zionism" on America. Accusations that Jews favored "imposing Talmudic law" have not been absent from this infamous legacy of hate and abuse.

Nor is anti-Semitism entirely a thing of the past in America. On February 9, the same day as the New Hampshire primaries, the National Rifle Association came under fire because on of its board members, Ted Nugent, posted a number of vile, openly anti-Semitic photos and comments, which are too despicable to be repeated here verbatim, on his Facebook page alleging that some prominent Jews were behind gun control.

See

http://huffingtonpost.com/entry/nra-...b0c3c5504f06c8

With the above as background, it is interesting and instructive to note that the traditional religious legal systems of both Jews and Muslims, two of America's most persecuted immigrant groups, past and present, not only have many common features, but also a long history of interaction with and influence upon each other.

I also want to make clear that my references to Islamic Law, or Sharia Law, are to the real Islamic Law as developed by Muslim jurists and legal scholars over a period of more than a thousand years, not the violent, perverted and barbaric travesties of this system now being used as instruments of murder, torture and oppression by ISIS and other extremist groups and even government officials in certain Muslim countries which shall not be named.

For a fuller explanation, i turn to an article in the Jewish Virtual Library called: Jewish and Islamic Law, A Comparative Review: The Relationship between Jewish and Islamic Law

See:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...1_0_10121.html

The next part of this series will show how much these two legal traditions have in common.

To be continued in Part 2.
______________________________
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from many different parts of the world and ethnic/religious backgrounds obtain work visas and green cards. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com




Submit "Islamic Law Is Not An Excuse For Barring Muslim Immigrants From US. Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Islamic Law Is Not An Excuse For Barring Muslim Immigrants From US. Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Islamic Law Is Not An Excuse For Barring Muslim Immigrants From US. Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Islamic Law Is Not An Excuse For Barring Muslim Immigrants From US. Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Islamic Law Is Not An Excuse For Barring Muslim Immigrants From US. Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Islamic Law Is Not An Excuse For Barring Muslim Immigrants From US. Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Islamic Law Is Not An Excuse For Barring Muslim Immigrants From US. Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 02-11-2016 at 12:24 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Unregistered222's Avatar
    Interesting reading Roger. Thanks.
  2. Unregistered222's Avatar
    Second link is broken!
  3. Harry DeMell's Avatar
    How can you compare Talmudic law with Sharia law. I do not want to call you a name so I'll just say you're misinformed. The whole Talmud is a record of scholars questioning scripture and coming to conclusions that for the most art moderate the law. Sharia has a history of no questions and punishment for those that question the law. Sharia gets it's supporters through threats of violence. The Talmud gets it's supporters through reason.

    As for ILW: I have to say that this is an immigration law and policy site. This article, even if it was worth publishing has nothing to do with the subject. Where are the editors? I'm going to publish an article on my Aunt Ruthie's recipe for meatballs. It's just as relevant.
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar

    First, thank you, Unregistered222 for pointing out the problem with my link to the article comparing Jewish and Islamic law. I have corrected the link and it should now be working.

    In response to Mr. DeMell's comment, and in order to make the relevance of comparing Islamic law to Jewish law in a blog devoted to discussion of immigration policy clearer, I have changed the title of this post to:

    "Islamic Law Is Not An Excuse For Barring Muslim Immigrants From US"

    I do not claim by any means to be an expert in either Jewish or Islamic law, but even a quick glance at the opening page of the article will dispel Mr. DeMell's simplistic, and I believe totally inaccurate and uninformed distinction between these two legal traditions.

    With further regard to relevance of discussing Islamic law in an immigration law blog, I am not aware that anyone has tried to use Mr. DeMell's Aunt Ruthie's recipe for meatballs as an excuse to bar Muslim immigrants from coming to the US or to stir up hatred against those who are already here. In the case of Sharia law, the situation is quite different.

    My purpose in writing about the common features in both the Jewish and Muslim legal traditions (which, among other things, both allow for many different interpretations of scripture by legal scholars, contrary to Mr. DeMell's assertion), is to try to combat prejudice against Islamic law and legal traditions which, in the minds of many Americans, justifies prejudice against Muslim immigrants on the grounds that they might "impose" Sharia law on America.

    Given the fact that such a large percentage of Republican voters in New Hampshire reportedly support Donald Trump's bigoted and unconstitutional ban on letting any Muslims into the US at all, it is hard for me to think of any subject that could be more important or topical to discuss in terms of immigration policy today.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 02-11-2016 at 12:26 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. Generalcategory's Avatar
    Advertisement deleted.
    Updated 08-19-2016 at 10:20 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. Generalcategory's Avatar
    Advertisement deleted.
    Updated 08-19-2016 at 10:22 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. Rabbi Tosev's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry DeMell
    How can you compare Talmudic law with Sharia law.
    Same foundation; that?s how.

    I do not want to call you a name so I?ll just say you?re misinformed.
    Read: ?I don?t have a refutation, so I?ll insult you and claim I?m right.

    The whole Talmud is a record of scholars questioning scripture and?
    ?occasionally ?winning? debates against God.

    coming to conclusions that for the most art moderate the law.
    If legalizing sex with children under 3 is ?moderating? the law, I don?t want to see the hardliners.

    Sharia gets it's supporters through threats of violence. The Talmud gets it's supporters through reason.
    ?What?s the reason, rabbi?? ?Violence.? ?Oh, okay.?

    It's just as relevant.
    Talmudic law is as relevant as meatballs (kosher, I hope) to the policies of an organization staffed by jews? Really?
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: