Immigration Without Assimilation is an Invasion
Segment #643
The information below provides a superficial and media biased account of failure of the immigrant community to assimilate into western cultures. Immigration without vetting has proven to be a disaster for Europe and Canada. LBGT+ are protesting in favor of the same religion that would stone them in Sharia state.. I have included clips of real world Europe and what the countries and dealing with from radical Islam.
Sharia law, derived from the Quran, Hadith, and scholarly interpretations, varies in its application across contexts and schools of thought (e.g., Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali). Below is an overview of its traditional rulings on homosexuality, gay rights, women’s rights, voting rights, and criminal punishment, with a focus on their relevance to discussions about imposition in Western countries, particularly the U.S. Note that interpretations range from strict to progressive, and modern Muslim scholars and communities often adapt these to contemporary legal and cultural contexts.Homosexuality and Gay Rights
We have no problem with peaceful Muslims. But Sharia Law in the U.S. is not religious liberty—it’s legal sabotage. You want to live under Sharia? There are 22 countries for that. America isn’t one of them
Traditional Stance: Classical Sharia, based on interpretations of Quranic verses (e.g., Surah Al-A’raf 7:80-84, referencing the story of Lot) and Hadith, generally prohibits homosexual acts (liwat). Punishments in strict interpretations, drawn from certain Hadith, can include severe penalties like flogging or, in extreme cases, execution, though these require stringent evidence (e.g., four witnesses to the act). Same-sex marriage or public expressions of gay identity are not recognized in traditional Sharia frameworks.
Variations: Some modern Muslim scholars, especially in Western contexts, argue for reinterpretation, emphasizing compassion and privacy over punishment. For example, figures like Imam Daayiee Abdullah in the U.S. advocate for inclusive mosques that affirm gay Muslims, citing Quran’s emphasis on mercy (e.g., Surah Al-An’am 6:12).
U.S. Context: No U.S. Muslim community or organization has legal authority to enforce Sharia-based penalties on homosexuality. American Muslims (est. 3.5 million, Pew Research 2017) largely navigate U.S. laws, which protect gay rights (e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, legalizing same-sex marriage). Isolated incidents, like a 2016 Dearborn cleric’s sermon condemning homosexuality, reflect personal views but lack legal weight. Polls (e.g., 2017 Pew) show 52% of U.S. Muslims support same-sex marriage, higher than evangelical Christians (34%), indicating integration with U.S. norms.
Women’s Rights - Muslim men are harassing Muslim women they do not know but have been observed to be friendly with infidels
Traditional Stance: Sharia governs women’s roles in family, inheritance, and public life, often emphasizing complementary gender roles. Key rulings include:
Marriage: Requires male guardianship (wali) for a bride in some schools; husbands have primary financial responsibility but also authority (qiwama, Quran 4:34).
Inheritance: Women typically inherit half the share of men (Quran 4:11), reflecting traditional economic roles where men were providers.
Dress and Conduct: Modesty (hijab) is mandated in many interpretations (Quran 24:31), though enforcement varies.
Divorce: Men have easier access to divorce (talaq); women can initiate divorce (khula) but often with financial concessions.
Progressive Views: Reformist scholars, like Amina Wadud, argue Sharia’s principles of justice (Quran 4:135) override patriarchal interpretations, advocating equal rights. In the U.S., Muslim women lead organizations like the Women’s Mosque of America, emphasizing agency.
U.S. Context: Sharia-based family practices (e.g., mahr in marriage contracts) are enforceable as civil contracts but must align with U.S. gender equality laws. For example, in Zawahiri v. Alwattar (Ohio, 2008), a court upheld a mahr agreement but ensured it complied with equitable distribution laws. Attempts to enforce unequal inheritance or guardianship are void under U.S. law. Polls (Pew, 2017) show 64% of U.S. Muslim women feel Sharia supports gender equality when interpreted contextually.
Voting Rights
Traditional Stance: Classical Sharia does not explicitly address democratic voting, as it emerged in pre-modern contexts. Some scholars derive support for participatory governance from shura (consultation, Quran 42:38), while others, in stricter interpretations, limit political authority to religious or male elites.
Modern Application: Most Muslim-majority countries have electoral systems, and scholars like Yusuf al-Qaradawi endorse voting as a form of shura. No major Sharia text prohibits voting for men or women.
U.S. Context: American Muslims vote under U.S. constitutional protections. Organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) actively encourage Muslim voter turnout, with 84% of U.S. Muslims registered to vote (ISPU, 2020). No evidence exists of Sharia-based efforts to restrict voting rights in the U.S., as this would violate federal law (e.g., Voting Rights Act of 1965).
Criminal Punishment
Traditional Stance (Hudud): Sharia prescribes fixed punishments (hudud) for specific crimes, requiring high evidentiary standards (e.g., four witnesses for adultery):
Theft: Amputation of the hand (Quran 5:38), though rarely applied even in strict regimes due to strict conditions (e.g., no necessity-driven theft).
Adultery: Flogging or stoning (based on Hadith), though stoning is contested and rare.
Apostasy: Death in some interpretations, though others argue for freedom of belief (Quran 2:256, “no compulsion in religion”).
Slander/False Accusation: Flogging (Quran 24:4).
Modern Variations: Many Muslim-majority countries (e.g., Turkey, Tunisia) suspend hudud in favor of secular penal codes. Reformists argue punishments were context-specific, not universal. In practice, even in strict regimes like Saudi Arabia, hudud cases are rare due to procedural hurdles.
U.S. Context: Sharia-based criminal punishments have no legal standing in the U.S., where the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment (prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment) and due process clauses prevail. No documented cases exist of U.S. Muslim communities attempting to enforce hudud. Arbitration panels, like the Islamic Tribunal in Texas, handle only civil matters (e.g., divorce) and are subject to U.S. judicial review. For example, in Jabbar v. Jabbar (California, 2012), a Sharia-based arbitration was overturned for violating state custody laws.
Relevance to Imposition in the U.S.
Legal Barriers: The U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and supremacy of secular law, prevents Sharia from being imposed. Religious practices are protected only if consensual and compliant with U.S. law (e.g., Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 1993, affirming religious freedom limits).
Community Dynamics: Most U.S. Muslims (70%, Pew 2017) view Sharia as a personal guide, not a legal system for imposition. Isolated calls for Sharia arbitration (e.g., in Dearborn or Minneapolis) are limited to civil disputes and subject to court oversight. Anti-Sharia legislation in states like Oklahoma (2010) has been struck down as unconstitutional (e.g., Awad v. Ziriax, 10th Circuit, 2012), as it targets religion without evidence of harm.
Public Perception: Fears of “Sharia creep” often stem from misinformation or rare, unrepresentative cases (e.g., a 2011 Florida imam’s advocacy for hudud, widely condemned by U.S. Muslim leaders). No mainstream U.S. Muslim organization, like ISNA or MPAC, supports imposing Sharia over U.S. law.
In summary, while traditional Sharia includes strict rulings on homosexuality, women’s roles, and criminal punishment, its application in the U.S. is limited to private, consensual practices (e.g., marriage contracts, halal finance) and is always subordinate to U.S. law. Voting rights are unaffected, and no credible efforts exist to impose Sharia criminally or politically. American Muslims largely adapt Sharia to fit constitutional protections, with reformist voices gaining traction.
Epic City
Radical Imam Yasir Qadhi—a terror-linked extremist—is now building EPIC City, a 1,000+ home Islamic stronghold just 30 minutes from Dallas, complete with Sharia-compliant schools, a mosque, and commercial hubs. And he’s selling it to non-Americans, pushing an Islamic separatist agenda right in the heart of Texas.
Declared: “Jews and Christians are filthy” and that their lives & property can be taken in jihad Justified taking women as sex slaves in war Bragged about the Muslim takeover of Sweden, calling birthrate a “halal secret weapon”
Raised funds for Hamas-linked charities Was placed on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s terrorist watch list
Graduated from the radical Islamic University of Medina
Denies the Holocaust, promoting the book The Hoax of the Holocaust and claiming “Hitler never intended to mass-destroy the Jews”
Quoted the antisemitic forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion to argue that Jews have no right to Israel Supports replacing democracy with Sharia, calling the U.S. a “Pharonic society” built on slavery Was an acolyte of Ali al-Timimi, the Virginia-based imam currently serving life in prison for inciting jihad against U.S. troops
Overview of the Texas Rangers Investigation into EPIC CityThe Texas Rangers investigation into EPIC City stems from a proposed 402-acre Muslim-centric community development in unincorporated areas of Collin and Hunt Counties, near Josephine, Texas (about 40 miles northeast of Dallas). Spearheaded by the East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC), a prominent mosque in Plano, the project—envisioned by Community Capital Partners (CCP), a for-profit entity formed by EPIC members—includes over 1,000 homes, a K-12 faith-based school, a mosque, senior housing, apartments, clinics, retail spaces, sports facilities, and a community college. Promotional materials described it as a "master-planned community" tailored for Muslim families, emphasizing halal amenities and Islamic values, which sparked widespread controversy over potential religious segregation, financial improprieties, and fears of "Sharia law" imposition.The investigation, directed by Governor Greg Abbott on March 31, 2025, focuses on "potential criminal activities" and is one of at least a dozen state-led probes. As of October 25, 2025, the Rangers' criminal inquiry remains ongoing, with no charges filed, but it has halted project progress amid permit denials and public hearings. Critics, including Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, allege violations of Texas laws on housing, securities, and consumer protection, while EPIC and CCP maintain the project is inclusive, lawful, and aimed at fostering community without excluding non-Muslims.Timeline of Key Events and Investigations
Date
Event
Details
Late 2024
EPIC City Announced
CCP purchases land and promotes the project via videos and seminars, raising funds from Muslim investors. No permits submitted to counties yet.
March 2025
Initial State Probes Launched
Abbott announces investigations by 12 agencies, including Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) for Fair Housing Act violations (e.g., alleged "non-Muslim bans"), Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) for investor fraud, Texas Funeral Service Commission for unlicensed services, and Texas AG for consumer protection issues.
March 31, 2025
Rangers Investigation Directed
Abbott orders the Texas Rangers (part of Texas DPS) to probe "potential criminal law violations" by EPIC and affiliates. He states: "Texas is a law-and-order state... Texas will ensure that anyone affiliated with EPIC who is breaking the law is brought to justice." Collin County holds a 4.5-hour public hearing with ~60 residents voicing opposition (e.g., fears of a "no-go zone").
April 2025
Escalation and Public Backlash
Abbott reiterates on X (formerly Twitter): "Sharia law is not allowed in Texas." Social media amplifies claims of "Sharia enclaves" and jihadist ties, though unverified. EPIC's attorney, Dan Cogdell, accuses Abbott of "racial profiling" and misinformation.
June 2025
Federal Involvement
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) opens a religious discrimination probe but closes it after developers affirm inclusivity and compliance.
September 19, 2025
TWC Resolution
TWC reaches a Conciliation Agreement with CCP, dismissing Fair Housing allegations. CCP agrees to enhance diversity measures; no fines imposed. CCP President Imran Chaudhary calls it a "deep dive" that strengthens the project.
October 14, 2025
AG Paxton Referral
Paxton refers findings to TSSB, alleging CCP violated federal/state securities laws (e.g., procedural issues and fraud in investor solicitations). TSSB must approve before any AG lawsuit. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issues a letter on missing utility permits, further stalling development.
Ongoing (as of Oct 25, 2025)
Rangers Probe Continues
No public updates on criminal findings; Rangers focus on potential fraud, unlicensed operations, and land use violations. Project remains in planning phase—no construction started.
Key Allegations and Counterarguments
Criminal/Financial Issues (Rangers' Focus): Potential fraud in fundraising (e.g., misleading investors on returns or risks), unlicensed funeral services at EPIC, and securities non-compliance. Paxton's October letter cites "fraudulent conduct" in CCP's operations.
Housing Discrimination: Initial claims of excluding non-Muslims (e.g., via targeted marketing) violated Texas Fair Housing Act. Resolved via TWC agreement, with CCP committing to broader outreach.
Sharia Law Fears: Abbott and critics (e.g., on X) decry the project as a "Sharia compound" enabling self-governance outside U.S. law. EPIC scholars like Yasir Qadhi have praised global Islamic networks (e.g., International Union of Muslim Scholars), fueling unproven terrorism ties claims. EPIC counters that Sharia is personal/ethical, not legal, and the community is open to all.
Environmental/Land Use: TCEQ flags lack of municipal utility district permits; no plat approvals from counties.