Creeping Sharia - It's not just a bumper sticker

[chanel]

Um ok. And who will make this determination? You libs are so tolerant and open minded. Do you fantasize about throwing people through plate glass windows?

 

[Dr Grump]

Um ok. And who will make this determination? You libs are so tolerant and open minded. Do you fantasize about throwing people through plate glass windows?

1) It will never happen.
2) I am not a lib
3) I am very intolerant
4) I am very open minded - more so than any neocon or conservative I have ever met.
5) No to the plate glass window.

 

[chanel]

Well I must congratulate you for answering the questions. And just for the record: I do NOT support Sharia Courts in the U.S. for the same reasons it has been opposed in Britain and Canada. It is un-American to have two sets of laws.

 

[maineman]

Well I must congratulate you for answering the questions. And just for the record: I do NOT support Sharia Courts in the U.S. for the same reasons it has been opposed in Britain and Canada. It is un-American to have two sets of laws.

Are you also opposed to the Jewish Halacha Arbitration Courts already functioning in the US? What about Christian Mediation Services? What about the Native American Tribal courts? Are all those religious and culturally based non-judicial arbitration processes un-American as well? Why this fear of allowing muslims to do what we already allow other religions to do?

 

[chanel]

If they are treating women as second class citizens, they should be abolished. Period.

 

[maineman]

nice dodge... the fact is, we already have several systems in America that decide civil cases on the basis of something other than our constitution. this faux outrage at the possibility of muslims doing so also is nothing but bigotry.

 

[Kalam]

15 and was pushed to marry a 29 year old man under the Sharia law.

Marriage is impermissible without the consent of the woman; this cannot be obtained under duress.

Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger said, "A woman without a husband must not be married until she is consulted, and a virgin must not be married until her permission is sought." They asked the Prophet of Allah, "How can her consent can be solicited?" He said, "That she keeps silence." - Sahih Muslim, Marriage, no. 3303​

according to Sharia the custody of the children goes to the father.

Complete lie. Custody is determined on a case-by-case basis and differs depending on which school of jurisprudence you follow. If any one parent is more likely to receive custody, it's the mother.

http://www.islamic-sharia.org/children/islamic-perspective-on-child-custody-after-divorce.html

If you're going to lie about Islam, at least use something more credible than a blog post.

 

[chanel]

nice dodge... the fact is, we already have several systems in America that decide civil cases on the basis of something other than our constitution. this faux outrage at the possibility of muslims doing so also is nothing but bigotry.

Dodge? I said emphatically that they should be abolished - if they treat women as second class citizens. Do they?

Glad to know you only support the Constitution when it agrees with your world view. Isn't that the left's argument for supporting the Ground Zero mosque?

We already know where you stand Kalam. Thanks for sharing.

Homa Arjomand - October 28, 2004

Speech at METRAC (Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence against Women and Children) on “Emerging Issues in Women’s Equality –A look at Sharia Law”


While, technically, all Muslim women have access to Canadian laws and courts, and while the Canadian legal system would reject the oppressive decisions made under Shari'a as being contrary to Canadian Law, the reality is that most women would be coerced (socially, economically and psychologically) into participating in the Shari'a tribunal. Women would be told that the Shari'a Tribunal is a legal tribunal under the Arbitration Act. Even women who know that Canadian law would not uphold the decisions, would not challenge the decisions for fear of physical, emotional, economic and social consequences.

Allowing religious interference in the justice system endangers the life and safety of battered immigrant women who are at the merci of male-chauvinist cultures.

Homa Arjomand

So Kalam, is this woman an Islamophobe?

 

[bodecea]

Well I must congratulate you for answering the questions. And just for the record: I do NOT support Sharia Courts in the U.S. for the same reasons it has been opposed in Britain and Canada. It is un-American to have two sets of laws.

Are you also opposed to the Jewish Halacha Arbitration Courts already functioning in the US? What about Christian Mediation Services? What about the Native American Tribal courts? Are all those religious and culturally based non-judicial arbitration processes un-American as well? Why this fear of allowing muslims to do what we already allow other religions to do?

Mooslims aren't allowed to have what these other religions/groups have. Let's make this clear right now.

 

[Kalam]

We already know where you stand Kalam. Thanks for sharing.

It's not a matter of where I stand; it's a matter of what's true and what isn't. There is nothing in Shari'ah that allows women to be forced into unwanted marriages - if this occurs, Shari'ah has been implemented improperly. There is also nothing in Shari'ah about custody being automatically granted to the father. In fact, I just read a piece written by an exponent of Hanbali jurisprudence (generally the strictest and most repressive of the four schools) who explained that custody is most likely to be given to mothers. You are posting information without bothering to verify that it's true because it suits your political agenda.

So Kalam, is this woman an Islamophobe?

I can't find enough information about her to draw serious conclusions. Do we even know if she's a practicing Muslim?

 

[manifold]

3) I am very intolerant
4) I am very open minded.

Exactly how you square those two in your mind is a mystery to me.

That's some damn fine mental gymnastics right there.

 

[maineman]

nice dodge... the fact is, we already have several systems in America that decide civil cases on the basis of something other than our constitution. this faux outrage at the possibility of muslims doing so also is nothing but bigotry.

Dodge? I said emphatically that they should be abolished - if they treat women as second class citizens. Do they?

Glad to know you only support the Constitution when it agrees with your world view. Isn't that the left's argument for supporting the Ground Zero mosque?

Three quick points:

one... these other systems have been in place for years, yet you yahoos on the right try to make it seem like muslims wishing to do what other religions do is some never before heard of outrage... some never before contemplated violation of our consitition... and that is just plain not true. Why aren't you upset about there being two sets of laws when it is Jews or Christians or Native Americans using them? Why is it only when muslims wish to use their religious ethos as a basis for voluntarily resolving civil issues that you become so indignant?

two... we are talking about CIVIL cases that arise between adult muslims. This would have NOTHING to do with non-muslims... and each one would have to affirmatively agree to allow the muslim clerics to adjudicate their case. If either one preferred to go through the normal civil courts system then the case must go there.

three... muslim women in America have WAY more rights than muslim women living in the middle east. They would know they have the right to have their cases heard by normal civil courts. Muslim women in the middle east have no such right. If American muslim women chose to allow themselves to be subjegated, that is not the fault of the muslim clerics, anymore than it is the fault of OUR civil courts system if a Christian or Jewish woman refuses to leave an abusive relationship. Regardless, I can see how a devout muslim women might feel more comfortable having her spiritual leaders who more fully understand her culture and her faith adjudicating her civil issues than putting it in the hands of non-muslims. And again...if she does NOT feel that way, she can always opt for the civil courts system.

 

[Paulie]

Yeah, the US is CLEARLY only a few short years away from just saying fuck it all and going sharia.

 

[Hister]

Yeah, the US is CLEARLY only a few short years away from just saying fuck it all and going sharia.

Nixon would have had his hand chopped off!
Clinton wouldn't have had to answer about his sex life to a commitee, he would have just had all the congressmen killed. Their families killed. Their friends. Their friends children...

 

[chanel]

nice dodge... the fact is, we already have several systems in America that decide civil cases on the basis of something other than our constitution. this faux outrage at the possibility of muslims doing so also is nothing but bigotry.

Dodge? I said emphatically that they should be abolished - if they treat women as second class citizens. Do they?

Glad to know you only support the Constitution when it agrees with your world view. Isn't that the left's argument for supporting the Ground Zero mosque?

Three quick points:

one... these other systems have been in place for years, yet you yahoos on the right try to make it seem like muslims wishing to do what other religions do is some never before heard of outrage... some never before contemplated violation of our consitition... and that is just plain not true. Why aren't you upset about there being two sets of laws when it is Jews or Christians or Native Americans using them? Why is it only when muslims wish to use their religious ethos as a basis for voluntarily resolving civil issues that you become so indignant?

two... we are talking about CIVIL cases that arise between adult muslims. This would have NOTHING to do with non-muslims... and each one would have to affirmatively agree to allow the muslim clerics to adjudicate their case. If either one preferred to go through the normal civil courts system then the case must go there.

three... muslim women in America have WAY more rights than muslim women living in the middle east. They would know they have the right to have their cases heard by normal civil courts. Muslim women in the middle east have no such right. If American muslim women chose to allow themselves to be subjegated, that is not the fault of the muslim clerics, anymore than it is the fault of OUR civil courts system if a Christian or Jewish woman refuses to leave an abusive relationship. Regardless, I can see how a devout muslim women might feel more comfortable having her spiritual leaders who more fully understand her culture and her faith adjudicating her civil issues than putting it in the hands of non-muslims. And again...if she does NOT feel that way, she can always opt for the civil courts system.

1. I was unaware of a dual court system until I started researching this. As I said, it is un-American. And the report I posted on the U.K. system shows it is clearly misogynistic.

2. I know full well it is about Muslims only. Why would anyone support an inferior "civil system" for legal Americans? Do you understand "family law"? Domestic violence, arranged marriages, adultery, custody, incest... Do you understand "battered wife syndrome"?

3. I am not talking about the Middle East. If you had read the thread, I mentioned England and Canada. Prob. our closest allies. Saying that a woman can "opt out" is bullshit.

We cannot and should not allow it. And arguing in favor an inferior legal system in the name of "tolerance" and "freedom of religion" is nothing short of segregation. Shame on you.

How many lefties have argued that military courts for ENEMY COMBATANTS is un-American? Our own president wanted to try KSM in NYC. Yet religious courts for innocent U.S. citizens is perfectly fine. Get a fucking grip. The writing is on the wall.

This thread has gone from "not gonna happen" to "not likely" to "why not?". Creeping sharia is not a bumper sticker.

We have separation of church and state in this country. And that includes our court system. Hello????

 

[Neubarth]

If your religion wants you to kill in the name of God, GUESS WHAT? It is not of God.

 

[Neubarth]

Yeah, the US is CLEARLY only a few short years away from just saying fuck it all and going sharia.

Paulie your dreams and wishes are never going to come true.

 

[maineman]

Dodge? I said emphatically that they should be abolished - if they treat women as second class citizens. Do they?

Glad to know you only support the Constitution when it agrees with your world view. Isn't that the left's argument for supporting the Ground Zero mosque?

Three quick points:

one... these other systems have been in place for years, yet you yahoos on the right try to make it seem like muslims wishing to do what other religions do is some never before heard of outrage... some never before contemplated violation of our consitition... and that is just plain not true. Why aren't you upset about there being two sets of laws when it is Jews or Christians or Native Americans using them? Why is it only when muslims wish to use their religious ethos as a basis for voluntarily resolving civil issues that you become so indignant?

two... we are talking about CIVIL cases that arise between adult muslims. This would have NOTHING to do with non-muslims... and each one would have to affirmatively agree to allow the muslim clerics to adjudicate their case. If either one preferred to go through the normal civil courts system then the case must go there.

three... muslim women in America have WAY more rights than muslim women living in the middle east. They would know they have the right to have their cases heard by normal civil courts. Muslim women in the middle east have no such right. If American muslim women chose to allow themselves to be subjegated, that is not the fault of the muslim clerics, anymore than it is the fault of OUR civil courts system if a Christian or Jewish woman refuses to leave an abusive relationship. Regardless, I can see how a devout muslim women might feel more comfortable having her spiritual leaders who more fully understand her culture and her faith adjudicating her civil issues than putting it in the hands of non-muslims. And again...if she does NOT feel that way, she can always opt for the civil courts system.

1. I was unaware of a dual court system until I started researching this. As I said, it is un-American. And the report I posted on the U.K. system shows it is clearly misogynistic.

2. I know full well it is about Muslims only. Why would anyone support an inferior "civil system" for legal Americans? Do you understand "family law"? Domestic violence, arranged marriages, adultery, custody, incest... Do you understand "battered wife syndrome"?

3. I am not talking about the Middle East. If you had read the thread, I mentioned England and Canada. Prob. our closest allies. Saying that a woman can "opt out" is bullshit.

We cannot and should not allow it. And arguing in favor an inferior legal system in the name of "tolerance" and "freedom of religion" is nothing short of segregation. Shame on you.

How many lefties have argued that military courts for ENEMY COMBATANTS is un-American? Our own president wanted to try KSM in NYC. Yet religious courts for innocent U.S. citizens is perfectly fine. Get a fucking grip. The writing is on the wall.

This thread has gone from "not gonna happen" to "not likely" to "why not?". Creeping sharia is not a bumper sticker.

We have separation of church and state in this country. And that includes our court system. Hello????

you need to gain some degree of understanding of the difference between voluntary civil non-judicial arbitration and criminal justice. Until you do, we'll continue to talk past one another.

No one is suggesting that anyone give up any rights, so knock off the indignant pompous "shame on you" crap...mmmkay?.

As I said, we already have a long history of non-judicial arbitration for civil cases that include the Jewish Halacha Arbitration Courts Christian Mediation Services, and Native American Tribal courts. None of them violate the separation of church and state. sorry

 

[Neubarth]

three... muslim women in America have WAY more rights than muslim women living in the middle east. They would know they have the right to have their cases heard by normal civil courts. Muslim women in the middle east have no such right. If American muslim women chose to allow themselves to be subjegated, that is not the fault of the muslim clerics, anymore than it is the fault of OUR civil courts system if a Christian or Jewish woman refuses to leave an abusive relationship. Regardless, I can see how a devout muslim women might feel more comfortable having her spiritual leaders who more fully understand her culture and her faith adjudicating her civil issues than putting it in the hands of non-muslims. And again...if she does NOT feel that way, she can always opt for the civil courts system.

Not realistic there, maineman. In beheading, throat slitting and stoning religion world, they drag a "woman oppressive culture" around with them, and many of the women are culturally coerced into compliance with the insanity of the believers.

When a religion is obviously insane and totally evil, such as Islam is, there is no substance behind the assumption that those subjugated by it will in some way defy the oppressive culture with any semblance of consistency in all cases. 'Taint gonna happen. There are women who will chose to die rather than defy their culture.

 

[chanel]

Native American Courts: Precedent for an Islamic arbitral system *

by Issa Smith
Quote:
In the United States today, there is a system of courts which is just outside of the federal and state court systems, known as the American Indian Tribal Courts. The Tribal Courts deal with criminal, civil and family court issues, and have their own lawyers, judges, and court officials. The Muslim Community can learn from the experience of the American Indian Tribal Court System as we attempt to implement Muslim Family Law in North America.

Non-judicial civil arbitration? What the hell is that? Sharia Courts in the U.K. are used for civil and family matters.

We have LAWS in this country that are to be followed by everyone and disputes are resolved by a JUDGE; not the clergy. If the Orthodox Jews are in violation of the constitution, then they should stop.

And I'm not going to even go into the Native Americans. Shall we put the Muslims on a reservation too?