Creeping Sharia - It's not just a bumper sticker

[fyrenza]

According to Eugene Volokh, quoting court records, even though the woman proved that her husband had engaged in nonconsensual sex with her several times, she had not proved that she had been raped, assaulted, or abused, and therefore the request for a restraining order was denied. The reasoning the family law judge, Joseph Charles, used is disquieting to say the least:

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

associatedcontent.com ~ new_jersey_family_judge_accepts_sharia

WTF is this "judge" THINKING???



P.S. It's ALREADY invading our system of laws, folks, so you can quit dazzling yourselves with the "When and/or IF" questions.

 

[maineman]

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.

muslims don't do that in America because it is against the law. If islamic clerics were allowed to arbitrate civil issues between willing muslim participants, there would be no beheading and throat slitting decided upon by those civil arbitrators. That is pure foolishness.

 

[chanel]

Back in 2004, Muslims in the province of Ontario also used the existence of long-standing provincial Catholic and Jewish arbitration tribunals to campaign for the establishment of Sharia courts. When some expressed concern, Sharia supporters accused their critics of “Islamophobia” and paranoia. Undaunted, one intrepid reporter took the time to visit the website of the pro-Sharia Canadian Society of Muslims. What he found there was chilling.

“As Canadian Muslims, you have a clear choice,” wrote the group’s president Syed Mumtaz Ali. “Do you want to govern yourself by the personal law of your own religion or do you prefer governance by secular Canadian family law? If you choose the latter, then you cannot claim that you believe in Islam as a religion and a complete code of life actualized by a prophet who you believe to be a mercy to all.” The punishment for apostasy under Sharia law is death.

FrontPage Magazine - Britain?s Sharia Courts

The Times reported that already, “in the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.” Each woman subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police, who then called off their criminal investigations. For his part, Siddiqi viewed these outcomes as a triumph because “marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.” Similarly, in a recent inheritance dispute heard before a UK Sharia court, a Muslim father’s estate was split unevenly, in compliance with Sharia law: each son received twice as much as each daughter.

Violent crimes, too, have fallen under the purview of Sharia courts. Last month, the Evening Standard revealed that “a teenage stabbing case among the Somali community in Woolwich had been dealt with by a Sharia ‘trial’” instead of by the secular justice system. Incredibly, after the victims told police that “the matter would be settled out of court,” officers released the suspects in the violent attack on bail.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is Patrick Sookhdeo’s assertion in his book, Faith, Power and Territory: A Handbook of British Islam, that the “Sharia Council of the Darul Uloom London even appears to assume the possibility of child marriages, as there are instructions on its website for how to deal with the divorce of a girl who has not yet reached puberty.”

 

[maineman]

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?

idiocy. again.... civil and family matters....NOT criminal matters... and ONLY if BOTH parties are muslim and both parties agree to have the panel of clerics adjudicate their case. Don't want your civil suit heard by the clerics, go to court.

I pointed out to you that we have long standing systems in America where religious authorities DO, in fact, perform arbitration and adjudication of civil, NON-CRIMINAL issues. Suggesting that if we allowed muslims to do exactly the same thing would somehow be an egregious attack on our system of laws is just plain silly.

 

[chanel]

Are you that dense? Are those stories from the U.K. bullshit? Do you know nothing about FAMILY LAW?

 

[maineman]

Are you that dense? Are those stories from the U.K. bullshit? Do you know nothing about FAMILY LAW?

I know that we, as Americans, can limit the scope of civil, non-judicial arbitration, and have already done so. Why are you so convinced that we are required to do everything the way some other country has done it? Jewish arbitration in other countries is ALSO more extreme and encompassing than it is here. so what?

Again...for you to bring up military tribunals in this argument shows how dense YOU are.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Well the usual suspects will laugh & ridicule people for discussing this but i assure you "Creeping Sharia" has and still is happening in Western Europe and now even in parts of Canada as well. The Leftists will scoff at this because it is they who have caused this terrible mess in Western Europe and Canada. We should learn from what the Leftists did in these regions and not allow our Leftists here to do the same thing. "Multi-Culturalism" and Unfettered Immigration can and will lead to Creeping Sharia.

 

[chanel]

It's already happening. And when you have people arguing that just a little bit of sharia is ok, you know we are in trouble. The goal of the Cordoba Initiative and the Sharia Index Project is the "perfect Islamic state".

Shari'ah Index Project
Imagine: a Perfectly Islamic State
Goal: To define, interpret and implement the concept of the Islamic State in modern times.

http://bigpeace.com/files/2010/08/ht...ex-project.pdf

 

[boedicca]

A "Little Bit Of Sharia Law" is like a "Little Bit Of Slavery".

Just sayin'.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"Multiculturalism" is dead. The Leftists in Western Europe and Canada have done so much damage with their 'Multiculturalism at any cost' mentality. Creeping Sharia is a reality in these places. Don't let the Leftists fool ya with their ridicule and dismissive attitude on this. They have done so much damage. Lets hope we don't allow our Leftists here to repeat that awful history.

 

[chanel]

Londonistan

According to critics, Britain's "deep tradition of civil liberties and protection of political activists" led to the country becoming "a crossroads for would-be terrorists" for a decade after the mid 1990s. The Islamists used London "as a home base" to "raise money, recruit members and draw inspiration from the militant messages."[8] The British government's perceived unwillingness to prosecute or extradite terrorist suspects provoked tensions with countries in which attacks occurred.

According to 2005 and 2006 statements by the Director General of MI5, the British internal national security agency, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, there are more than "1,600 identified individuals" in the UK willing to carry out suicide bombings and "over 100,000 of our citizens consider the July 2005 attacks in London justified."[3]

Some intelligence analysts saw the open-doors approach to radicals, which was slowly abandoned after September 11, 2001, as a ready source of intelligence.[1

Londonistan (term) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can we learn anything?

 

[maineman]

bottopm line: from your perspective, it's perfectly acceptable in America for SOME religions to have the authority to adjudicate civil cases among their adherents, it's just NOT OK for muslims to have that authority. I understand your position on this. I just don't agree with it.

 

[chanel]

Wrong again. If Jewish and Catholic tribunals are handling family court issues with legal binding authority, then they should be abolished. If you have any information, that suggests this is going on, please let us know. And I will personally contact the ACLU.

 

[maineman]

Wrong again. If Jewish and Catholic tribunals are handling family court issues with legal binding authority, then they should be abolished. If you have any information, that suggests this is going on, please let us know. And I will personally contact the ACLU.

google it....you'll be amazed

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

1) I am very intolerant of hacks and bigots.

2) I am for gay marriage etc

Nothing is ever black and white...

 

[logical4u]

You're out of your fucking mind.

Liberals are the only ones fighting to defend the constitution these days.

It's the right who wants to dismantle our laws and take up new ones to punish Mexicans and others who aren't white Christian males.

Our Constitution gives the feds the "authority" to protect our borders; are they doing that?
Why that answer would be NO.

There are more people being deported now than at any time during the Bush administration. There are more guards at the border now than at any time during the Bush administration. There are less illegal immigrants getting through the border than at any time during the Bush administration.




The Constitution was designed to PREVENT the US government from infringing on the rights of US PERSONS. US persons are anyone on US soil or in the custody of the US government.



The constitution has nothing to do with healthcare. The majority of Americans WANT health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions and kids up to the age of 25 to stay on their parent's policies. They don't want the insurance companies to be able to kick them off the policy when they get seriously ill.



That's silly. No one's trying to do that.



Freedom of speech ends when you're infringing on the rights of your neighbor. Don't use the constitution to spread hate and hurt other people.

Our Constitution supports the individual.
Our government supports elevating groups (based on race, religion, sexual preference) over the rights of the individual.

False. Give examples of this ridiculous assertion.

Shari'ah is against individual rights and gives ABSOLUTE POWER (and we all know the saying about power) to a small group, while subjugating the rest of the population. No wonder the leftist radicals are supporting it.

Who are these mystery leftist radicals?

Is some right wing radio talker telling you wacky stories again?

Did the US gov put up signs in the southwest warning US citizens from going into those areas because of the dangers posed by citizens of another country? It would seem they are not protecting our borders.

According to you, the people that flew the planes into NYC and the pentagon were citizens because they were on US soil? Does that go for any enemy or just 'mexicans'?

If the "majority" of Americans want gov healthcare, how can 61% of the population be against it? Where in the Constitution does it give the authority to the feds to order every citizens to "buy" a product?

"Amnesty" is rewarding law breakers and encouraging them to continue to break US laws.

How can someone 'stating an opinion' "hurt" their neighbors? Yet hate crime legislation gives the power to the gov to "selectively" prosecute for "opinions".

There is no mystery 'left radicals'. They are the ones voting for "rulers" instead of representatives, and the "nanny state", where they rely on the gov to provide their basic needs. It seems the USA is just to 'hostile' for them to take the opportunities offered and make something of themselves.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's already happening. And when you have people arguing that just a little bit of sharia is ok, you know we are in trouble. The goal of the Cordoba Initiative and the Sharia Index Project is the "perfect Islamic state".

Shari'ah Index Project
Imagine: a Perfectly Islamic State
Goal: To define, interpret and implement the concept of the Islamic State in modern times.

http://bigpeace.com/files/2010/08/ht...ex-project.pdf

So those two institutes represent mainstream Islam in the US do they? Like the KKK represents mainstream whites? The Nation of Islam represents mainstream blacks?

 

[logical4u]

Yes. We should take away the vote from people we disagree with.

Back to topic: The leading opposition to Sharia in Canada were Muslim women. Canada got it right.

A staunch crusader against the new law is social activist Homa Arjomand who fled Iran in 1989 with her husband and two toddlers after being tipped off that her life was in danger. She has set up an International Campaign Against Setting Up Sharia Court in Canada which has already been signed up by thousands of women. The petition states that the proposed Sharia tribunals are anti-freedom, anti-women, misogynist, anti-modernist and racist. It calls for religion to be declared the private affair of the individual and complete separation of religion from education for children under age 16 as well as prohibition of inhuman religious ceremonies and practice of religion that is incompatible with people’s civil rights and liberties.

The petition states, “We believe that all people who live in Canada are citizens with equal rights and should live according to same social laws and norms. We do not divide society into cultural, religious, national and racial majorities and minorities. We stand for equal and universal laws and freedoms for all humanity, which should embrace all, irrespective of sex, race, ethnicity.”

Arjomand cites a case to bring home the fact that Muslim law and secular law can be at odds. “I have a client in Toronto,” she states, “who was taken out of school by her parents at the age of 15 and was pushed to marry a 29 year old man under the Sharia law. According to the eyes of the Sharia they are married but according to the Canadian legal system they are not. At the age of 16 this young pregnant girl is going through separation because of abuse (verbal, mental, financial and sexual). In a secular court, the fact that she was forced to marry at a young age is considered a crime and her husband will be charged for assault and child abuse. As for her parents, they too will be charged…..however, in the eyes of the Sharia tribunal no crime has taken place and the matter is civil and can be resolved.”

She also cited another case where a Pakistani Canadian lady banker used to give all her salary to her husband and had to ask him for money even to buy a cup of coffee. She wanted to keep just $50 per month for her needs but the husband refused. They took the matter to an elder who decreed that because the wife had disobeyed her husband he could stop having sexual relations with her and could take another “temporary” wife to satisfy his needs. The woman now wants a divorce but is devastated because according to Sharia the custody of the children goes to the father.

Sharia Law: A Canadian Controversy

Freedom of religion?

Funny, the same people that have absolutely no problems with this type of system being openly brought into this country under the guise of "building bridges" have a fit about a Christian standing in a homosexual community yelling "repent".

 

[logical4u]

No, you should take away the vote from people who do not have the ability to think critically.

Would that be the people that do not pay income taxes?

 

[logical4u]

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.

Then can you explain why so many women in the ME are catching themselves on fire or committimg suicide to escape that 'wonderful world of islam'?