2016 Presidential Election Thread

I'm a Greens voter here in Australia, but Jill Stein is batshit and should never be near any kind of power.

Yeah, very icky. But consider whose votes they want to capture. A lot of the Bernie or bust folks will find this sort of thing appealing. I'd never vote for Stein. My wife knows her, says she's not only crazy, but also a mega bitch.

Alright, yes, that is disturbing. Speaking out against terrorism is "Euro centric" and an example of "white power"?

These people aren't making it easy for me to vote for them.

I am going to have to take one of those political compus surveys and see if there are any more third party candidates worth looking at.

I don't agree with Johnson on a lot but maybe supporting him will help promote third parties.

How does she know her?

Dr. Stein was involved in a research study that my wife was running five or six years ago. I can't remember the particulars of the study, but apparently there was a lot of meetings involving the two. Ever since then, my wife has said that Stein was completely crazy and a mega bitch. I'm prepared to believe her. Certainly the VP candidate selection doesn't change that impression.

Khizr Kahn is turning out to be pretty disturbing too. He founded a Muslim law journal in which he propounds the supremacy of sharia law over Western legal system.

Breitbart article which closes with:

For now, the most patriotic Muslim in America, according to media myth-making, remains Khizr Muazzam Khan, the father of a fallen American soldier who claims to hold the Constitution so dear he keeps a copy in his breast pocket.

But what does he really believe? His Islamist writings offer a window into his ideological thinking — and the view is a contradictory and highly disturbing one, especially in light of the fanfare he has received.​

Breitbart.
You gonna cite that right-wing bloviating noise, you're gonna have to include links that are closer to center as backup.

In case anyone else is tempted to read this, I've done so and you don't have to. It's typically dishonest, trainagulating Mr. Khan with a Pakistani figure named Brohi and pretending that whatever nasty things the latter has said are attributable to the former, because he said a couple of mildly complimentary and heavily qualified things about him in a book review 33 years ago.

Surprise, surprise!

Khazir Khan's book review and Khizr Khan writing on sharia law, both on Scribd.

Read what he said.

1982. 34 years ago. People and opinions aren't static, especially in that time frame.

For example, in 1982, the Republican party was occasionally reasonable.

Islam is static. In fact, Khan's position is that sharia must remain very static because it's the perfect and divinely revealed word of God.

That's another lie.

I've now read the entire pamphlet and it is very clear that only the Koran is "static", and that the invariable rules that it prescribes are very few since it is not a legal document and it's meaning can be debated in most cases. "Sharia" is a broader term with many other sources. This is of course a very liberal view.

What's your problem here? That a lawyer from Pakistan would write a piece about Islamic law?

Yes.

No, his problem is that a lawyer from Pakistan would thoroughly embarrass his favorite candidate.

You obviously misread his position. He argues that interpretations based on the Koran and hadith must be controlling over subsequent legal opinions based on later sources. This isn't in any real dispute among the various Islamic legal schools.

“The Shari’ah-was completed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed, in the Quran and Sunnah. This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited. All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.” ​

That might sound "open-minded" to you until you realize he's arguing that jurists have to be open to ditching any of the legal opinions picked up since the days of Muhammed and the first caliphs, and go back to true Islam.

This is reflected in his book review of human rights under Islam, where he says:

"The keynote speech of Dr. A.K. Brohi, former Pakistani Minister of Legal and Religious Affairs, is a hallmark of this book. It successfully explains the Islamic concepts of "right" and "just" in comparison to their Christian and Judaic counterparts."​

Allah K. Brohi worked for General Zia-ul-Haq, and brought Pakistan back to true sharia, including amputations, rape victims having to have four witnesses, death for apostasy or adultery, and of course stonings. Khizr Khan is praising the person who turned Pakistan from a former British colony into something that only the Taliban would be proud of, because Khizr Khan agrees with the need for true sharia.

Perhaps you would prefer that he describe some version of Islamic law that is not based on Islam?

I think you are confusing Kahn's review written in 1983 with the book he was reviewing. The book was written by A. K. Brohi.

I don't see anything disturbing in what he wrote. And no, he does not propound the supremacy of sharia law over a western legal system. He may be in favor of Islamic law in Muslim/Islamic states.

Here is a link to the review. Quote if you will, what aspect of his review is disturbing. For the book, we'll have to rely on what Breitbart copied.

Kahn found this passage from Brohi's book meaningful:

First we have to locate the human being in a given social cosmos, view him against the background of certain economico-political and socio-cultural conditioning before we can meaningfully talk about his rights.
​

What part of what he wrote disturbs you?

Yeah I mean you have to give it to Hillary, she's really good at making cash.

Meanwhile Donald Trump bankrupts casinos.

Yes, I would, and a lot of Muslim countries were not enforcing sharia during the long period of European influence prior to World War I - because sharia is utterly stupid, backwards, and barbaric - and Europeans gave leaders cover for making changes. After WW-I Ataturk abolished sharia law, along with Islamic schools. He held that Islam was incompatible with secularism and science.

Khazr Khan obviously rejects this view, and is almost certainly cheering Erdogan returning Turkey to true Islam.

FTFY.

If you were more familiar with Islamic legal thought, you'd know that's how they explain why bashing a girl's head in for getting raped, though it seems to make no sense to us, is the right thing to do because of humanity's place in the social cosmos.

Then you're stupid, on top of being a liar. Islamic law is necessarily Islamic, and as such it necessarily based on the Koran. Whether it's desirable for any society is an entirely separate matter.

No, it's not a separate matter, as Khazr Khan supports Islamic law, writes on Islamic law, and has a degree in it. Did you note that his wife stood beside him in a hijab and kept her mouth shut like a proper Muslim woman?

His legal practice is devoted to business with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other Gulf states that enforce sharia. He supports the person who did the heavy lifting on the Islamification of Pakistan, a place that now produces armies of jihadists.

When the US toppled the Taliban and were helping Afghanistan form a new government, it was people like Khazr Khan that insisted that the country's constitution and laws must be based on sharia. They are the ones who've kept the Muslim world stuck in the 7th century.

You're getting there!

You actually read this shit?

The book review is at best mildly complimentary. His writing on Sharia law is basically a survey or explainer. Do you think everyone writing about the thought processes behind the anti-vax movement is anti-vax?