Judge Blocks Oklahoma’s Ban on Using Shariah Law in Court

[theDoctorisIn]

I know.

"Sharia" courts in England operate the same way.

Private arbitration be it whatever religion or no religion, as 99% of all private arbitration is, is ok with me.
None of that is the law and binding on anyone else in America other than the parties that agreed to it to begin with.

But as the investigation in England found out....many of the "believers" are basically forced to submit to the Sharia courts.....and there are many human rights violations....

No different from Beth Din courts here....

 

[Gadawg73]

Private arbitration be it whatever religion or no religion, as 99% of all private arbitration is, is ok with me.
None of that is the law and binding on anyone else in America other than the parties that agreed to it to begin with.

But as the investigation in England found out....many of the "believers" are basically forced to submit to the Sharia courts.....and there are many human rights violations....

No different from Beth Din courts here....

Big difference.

 

[High_Gravity]

In 10 years, Shariah law will be part of the constitution, Islam will be taught in schools and no woman will be able to leave the house without a burka and a male relative.

 

[Gadawg73]

In 10 years, Shariah law will be part of the constitution, Islam will be taught in schools and no woman will be able to leave the house without a burka and a male relative.

100K that you are wrong.
Anti up?

 

[High_Gravity]

In 10 years, Shariah law will be part of the constitution, Islam will be taught in schools and no woman will be able to leave the house without a burka and a male relative.

100K that you are wrong.
Anti up?

I am exagarrating, but you cannot deny Islam is gaining a foothold in the States.

 

[Varth Dader]

What does that have to do with religion?
If 2 sides agree to abide by a civil contract then so be it. Who gives a shit if they are both in agreement?
Who has jurisdiction over that? A US court, other courts or both? How is jurisdiction determined? Who determines the jurisdiction? If they agree to some model and set of rules and laws then that has a course.
Where is religion in any of that?
One sentence eliminates religion and that is the challenge in this case specifically.

So at least you agree that a civil contract could contain clauses referencing international or religious law.

Let's say person A accepts the jurisdiction of a NY court.
Let's say person A says in his/her testament that they want their assets divided in the manner described by Sharia law X (for example, 2/3 to the boys, 1/3 to the girls).
Person A dies.
Boy 1, Boy 2 and Girl 1 have a dispute over the distribution of the estate.

What do you do now? Does the NY court ignore the testament of person A? Does the NY court apply Sharia law X? Does the NY court refuse to apply all the portions of the testament that are directly linked to Sharia law? Does the NY court refuse to apply all the portions of the testament that are even inspired by Sharia law?

Civil courts resolve civil disputes. Parties can contract to use many laws, including religious or international law. When a dispute arises and they want to go to the courts, you have to decide what you will do with their agreement.

If you really are interested about the issue, these are two interesting posts about it:
http://volokh.com/2010/11/23/americ...r-lebanese-islamic-court-child-custody-order/

In that case, a MA court refused to respect a Lebanese religious court decision.

On the other hand, read this one:
The Volokh Conspiracy Islamic Law in the American Legal System

There, you could see some of the nasty effects of simply disregarding any type of religious law in the American court system.

I think there needs to be a balance here. Sharia or other rules that go against the public order (for example, if person A and B sign a marriage contract in country C that allows A or B to kill the other if the other commits adultery) should not be enforced/allowed, while there are other decisions or laws that should be looked and potentially followed at by courts.

I know the right loves the black and white type of argument (NO RELIGION!), but black and white arguments always fail in real life.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What does that have to do with religion?
If 2 sides agree to abide by a civil contract then so be it. Who gives a shit if they are both in agreement?
Who has jurisdiction over that? A US court, other courts or both? How is jurisdiction determined? Who determines the jurisdiction? If they agree to some model and set of rules and laws then that has a course.
Where is religion in any of that?
One sentence eliminates religion and that is the challenge in this case specifically.

So at least you agree that a civil contract could contain clauses referencing international or religious law.

Let's say person A accepts the jurisdiction of a NY court.
Let's say person A says in his/her testament that they want their assets divided in the manner described by Sharia law X (for example, 2/3 to the boys, 1/3 to the girls).
Person A dies.
Boy 1, Boy 2 and Girl 1 have a dispute over the distribution of the estate.

What do you do now? Does the NY court ignore the testament of person A? Does the NY court apply Sharia law X? Does the NY court refuse to apply all the portions of the testament that are directly linked to Sharia law? Does the NY court refuse to apply all the portions of the testament that are even inspired by Sharia law?

Civil courts resolve civil disputes. Parties can contract to use many laws, including religious or international law. When a dispute arises and they want to go to the courts, you have to decide what you will do with their agreement.

If you really are interested about the issue, these are two interesting posts about it:
The Volokh Conspiracy American Court Refuses to Honor Lebanese Islamic Court Child Custody Order

In that case, a MA court refused to respect a Lebanese religious court decision.

On the other hand, read this one:
The Volokh Conspiracy Islamic Law in the American Legal System

There, you could see some of the nasty effects of simply disregarding any type of religious law in the American court system.

I think there needs to be a balance here. Sharia or other rules that go against the public order (for example, if person A and B sign a marriage contract in country C that allows A or B to kill the other if the other commits adultery) should not be enforced/allowed, while there are other decisions or laws that should be looked and potentially followed at by courts.

I know the right loves the black and white type of argument (NO RELIGION!), but black and white arguments always fail in real life.

This OP is mainly about recognizing/not recognizing Sharia law in our court system for U.S. citizens who reside in the U.S....not about parents who hop around the world with their children....that issue should be dealt with according to foreign treaties made with those countries...

When a foreign-married couple emigrate to the U.S. they should declare their marriage upon entering the U.S., be recognized as legally married per U.S. law, and any subsequent dispute should be determined per the U.S. marriage laws of their state...

Why the hell should the U.S. state courts dither about the marriage laws in other countries.....?

 

[Varth Dader]

This OP is mainly about recognizing/not recognizing Sharia law in our court system for U.S. citizens who reside in the U.S....not about parents who hop around the world with their children....that issue should be dealt with according to foreign treaties made with those countries...

When a foreign-married couple emigrate to the U.S. they should declare their marriage upon entering the U.S., be recognized as legally married per U.S. law, and any subsequent dispute should be determined per the U.S. marriage laws of their state...

Why the hell should the U.S. state courts dither about the marriage laws in other countries.....?

I'm not sure I follow you. If someone married outside the US (say Lebanon) and emigrates to the US, and that person does nothing after coming here, would you consider these people legally married here in the US?

(Alternatively, how about a couple that, while on vacation, marries abroad?)

If the person does not declare their marriage upon entering the US, would you allow this person to (re)marry in the US without seeking a divorce first? Do you recognize the religious marriage that couple entered into?

If you read that second link I enclosed, you will see why US courts had to look at rules outside the US.

And don't forget that marriage is a contract entered by two individuals. It could (should?) have consequences beyond the borders of the country in which it was celebrated.

I think you are confusing the word "recognizing" Sharia law with compulsion. Just because a US court recognizes the existence of Sharia law or renders decisions that use that rules doesn't necessarily mean they would be blindly bound by them.

 

[Varth Dader]

..
This OP is mainly about recognizing/not recognizing Sharia law in our court system for U.S. citizens who reside in the U.S....

By the way, I am not sure where you read in the OP (or the amendment) that it's about US citizens residing in the US...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This OP is mainly about recognizing/not recognizing Sharia law in our court system for U.S. citizens who reside in the U.S....not about parents who hop around the world with their children....that issue should be dealt with according to foreign treaties made with those countries...

When a foreign-married couple emigrate to the U.S. they should declare their marriage upon entering the U.S., be recognized as legally married per U.S. law, and any subsequent dispute should be determined per the U.S. marriage laws of their state...

Why the hell should the U.S. state courts dither about the marriage laws in other countries.....?

I'm not sure I follow you. If someone married outside the US (say Lebanon) and emigrates to the US, and that person does nothing after coming here, would you consider these people legally married here in the US?

(Alternatively, how about a couple that, while on vacation, marries abroad?)

If the person does not declare their marriage upon entering the US, would you allow this person to (re)marry in the US without seeking a divorce first? Do you recognize the religious marriage that couple entered into?

If you read that second link I enclosed, you will see why US courts had to look at rules outside the US.

And don't forget that marriage is a contract entered by two individuals. It could (should?) have consequences beyond the borders of the country in which it was celebrated.

I think you are confusing the word "recognizing" Sharia law with compulsion. Just because a US court recognizes the existence of Sharia law or renders decisions that use that rules doesn't necessarily mean they would be blindly bound by them.

Let me see if I can explain it clearer....

When ANY person enters the U.S. (even coming back from vacation) they need to fill out a form that declares their marriage status...and if they are U.S. citizens but changed their marriage status while gone more investigatin needs to be made....if they are NOT U.S. citizens then they need to make a formal application and be confirmed by U.S. authorities of their marriage status....children, etc.

In other words.....it is the job of Immigration/Federal Govt. to sort out these problems BEFORE they become problems within the U.S. court system....things should be settled up front upon entering the U.S....immigrants need to forego any claims based on their old country/religion laws or customs.....they are supposed to be adopting U.S. laws....

If there is any foreign-related dispute which somehow fell through the cracks......it should be dealt with by a federal court which understands treaty law....

Hell....our courts should NOT recognize Sharia any more than they recognize Christianity.....or haven't you noticed lately how all references to Christianity (even mundane historical ones) have been ripped from our courts....?

 

[Varth Dader]

...
Let me see if I can explain it clearer....

When ANY person enters the U.S. (even coming back from vacation) they need to fill out a form that declares their marriage status...and if they are U.S. citizens but changed their marriage status while gone more investigatin needs to be made....if they are NOT U.S. citizens then they need to make a formal application and be confirmed by U.S. authorities of their marriage status....children, etc.

That would be really invasive, plus I am not sure what that would achieve. Would you force people to then get married in a particular state? People would then get married twice (once abroad, once in a particular state)?

Moreover, it seems to me that since you don't want to recognize religious law, you wouldn't even consider those people married. If you do consider them married, then you would be recognizing religious law. A dispute over that finding would land you in court, and would bring the religious law in the court room, something I thought you did not want.

In other words.....it is the job of Immigration/Federal Govt. to sort out these problems BEFORE they become problems within the U.S. court system....things should be settled up front upon entering the U.S....immigrants need to forego any claims based on their old country/religion laws or customs.....they are supposed to be adopting U.S. laws....

Adopting US law does not mean rejecting other laws. No US law says you cannot get married in country X, etc.

If there is any foreign-related dispute which somehow fell through the cracks......it should be dealt with by a federal court which understands treaty law....

Hell....our courts should NOT recognize Sharia any more than they recognize Christianity.....or haven't you noticed lately how all references to Christianity (even mundane historical ones) have been ripped from our courts....?

If a dispute is something for the state jurisdiction, I don't see why federal courts should be involved. Are you implying that state courts don't have the competence/ability to deal with foreign laws? They do it all the time when it comes to choice of law clauses.

Banning references to Christianity has nothing to do with the ability of a court to look a various rules/laws/rulings when deciding what to do with a particular case.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

...
Let me see if I can explain it clearer....

When ANY person enters the U.S. (even coming back from vacation) they need to fill out a form that declares their marriage status...and if they are U.S. citizens but changed their marriage status while gone more investigatin needs to be made....if they are NOT U.S. citizens then they need to make a formal application and be confirmed by U.S. authorities of their marriage status....children, etc.

That would be really invasive, plus I am not sure what that would achieve. Would you force people to then get married in a particular state? People would then get married twice (once abroad, once in a particular state)?

Moreover, it seems to me that since you don't want to recognize religious law, you wouldn't even consider those people married. If you do consider them married, then you would be recognizing religious law. A dispute over that finding would land you in court, and would bring the religious law in the court room, something I thought you did not want.

Tough shit.....don't you understand what a border is?......it's "invasive" when people come here from another country.....it's OUR country and they need to follow OUR rules.....at the border they need to surrender all ties to laws from other countries if they plan to live here permanently...

As I said before the U.S. needs to recognize the immigrants as being married in a formal process before they enter the U.S. legally. They should have some sort of marriage certificate from their former countries. If they claim they are single and are not, then they forfeit all claims in any dispute which should be taken to a federal court. If they lied upon entering they should also be subject to criminal proceedings

In other words.....it is the job of Immigration/Federal Govt. to sort out these problems BEFORE they become problems within the U.S. court system....things should be settled up front upon entering the U.S....immigrants need to forego any claims based on their old country/religion laws or customs.....they are supposed to be adopting U.S. laws....

Adopting US law does not mean rejecting other laws. No US law says you cannot get married in country X, etc.

Yes it does....if you plan to live here permanently...you must agree to live under U.S. laws.....and only U.S. laws.....

What are you advocating here.....world law....?

If there is any foreign-related dispute which somehow fell through the cracks......it should be dealt with by a federal court which understands treaty law....

Hell....our courts should NOT recognize Sharia any more than they recognize Christianity.....or haven't you noticed lately how all references to Christianity (even mundane historical ones) have been ripped from our courts....?

If a dispute is something for the state jurisdiction, I don't see why federal courts should be involved. Are you implying that state courts don't have the competence/ability to deal with foreign laws? They do it all the time when it comes to choice of law clauses.

Banning references to Christianity has nothing to do with the ability of a court to look a various rules/laws/rulings when deciding what to do with a particular case.

Again....any dispute involving a foreign country should be tried under a federal court which knows treaty law....our state courts should not be involved with foreign affairs....that is the realm of the federal court system....

 

[logical4u]

Why is everyone and his brother an expert on Sharia Law these days except for Muslims?

The muslims that fear Sharia law, but love the spiritual side, are afraid to speak. One of the muslims that uses Sharia for political oppression will hurt them or someone they love. The muslims that have every intention of using Shariah law to oppress the USA will not tell you, until the Constitution has be re-written as Shariah law. "Hate crimes" was one of the first steps.

 

[logical4u]

Is honor killing just "a personal preference for a choice of law"....?

Sure, there are aspects of Islamic practices that would be perfectly legal in the U.S......

However, what is wrong with a law that just flat out says Sharia law is illegal whenever it conflicts with U.S. law....?

The reason CAIR doesn't want that is because they are pushing "stealth jihad".....bit by bit they are out to corrode the laws of the U.S....

What is wrong with "a law that just flat out says Sharia law is illegal whenever it conflicts with U.S. law....?"?

Nothing is wrong with that -- if you talk about an actual public order conflict, it's already the case.

But that's not what Oklahoma law was about.

As for the CAIR "stealth jihad", sounds like a great conspiracy theory to me.

I guess you are a true lib, one that wants to prevent consenting adults from using the law of their choice.

That is why there are different countries. If you want Sharia law, there are lots of countries that use them, please feel free to go there.

 

[Varth Dader]

Again....any dispute involving a foreign country should be tried under a federal court which knows treaty law....our state courts should not be involved with foreign affairs....that is the realm of the federal court system....

I fail to see if this is wishful thinking on your part or simply a lack of recognition of what is going on everyday in state courts.

Consider the decision discussed on this page (JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie)

This was done by the NY state court. Not Federal. (New York Court of Appeals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The court looked at foreign law to reach its decision. It not only looked at foreign law, it even did the whole analysis that a foreign court would do with that foreign law.

So bottom line, you are trying to completely rewrite the way courts deal with foreign law. Congrats.

Now before you really make up your mind, try to see the impact of your bold suggestions.

And finally, stop thinking that only immigrants import international law. US citizens, permanent residents, domestic corporations, foreign corporations, all import foreign laws in the court system. You might not like it, but that is the reality, so instead of trying to limit your analysis to newcomers, look at the big picture.

 

[logical4u]

Why do the people who scream about "creeping sharia" never seem to have a problem with Beth Din courts? There have been Beth Din courts in NY for 50 years or so...

Are the people using Beth Din courts beheading "Westerners" or trying to kill large groups of citizen bystanders?????
Why do the people that thinK Sharia law is perfectly acceptable, scream about 'rightwingers' trying to force their religion, when they have no evidence that is happening? Why do they only site "seperation of church and state" when Christian morals are highlighted?

 

[Varth Dader]

Are the people using Beth Din courts beheading "Westerners" or trying to kill large groups of citizen bystanders?????
Why do the people that thinK Sharia law is perfectly acceptable, scream about 'rightwingers' trying to force their religion, when they have no evidence that is happening? Why do they only site "seperation of church and state" when Christian morals are highlighted?

Are the people wanting to use Sharia law in the US beheading "Westerners"?

If they do, I hope they don't start by their own heads!

 

[Coyote]

Why do the people who scream about "creeping sharia" never seem to have a problem with Beth Din courts? There have been Beth Din courts in NY for 50 years or so...

Are the people using Beth Din courts beheading "Westerners" or trying to kill large groups of citizen bystanders?????
Why do the people that thinK Sharia law is perfectly acceptable, scream about 'rightwingers' trying to force their religion, when they have no evidence that is happening? Why do they only site "seperation of church and state" when Christian morals are highlighted?

Are you suggesting that "Sharia" law calls for "beheading "Westerners" or trying to kill large groups of citizen bystanders?????"

Why is it ok to have a law that specifically singles out Islamic law, and no other religious law?

As a side note: Christian morals are, by and large the same as Islamic morals and Jewish morals. They all have the same roots whether it's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "an eye for an eye".

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Again....any dispute involving a foreign country should be tried under a federal court which knows treaty law....our state courts should not be involved with foreign affairs....that is the realm of the federal court system....

I fail to see if this is wishful thinking on your part or simply a lack of recognition of what is going on everyday in state courts.

Consider the decision discussed on this page (JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie)

This was done by the NY state court. Not Federal. (New York Court of Appeals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The court looked at foreign law to reach its decision. It not only looked at foreign law, it even did the whole analysis that a foreign court would do with that foreign law.

So bottom line, you are trying to completely rewrite the way courts deal with foreign law. Congrats.

Now before you really make up your mind, try to see the impact of your bold suggestions.

And finally, stop thinking that only immigrants import international law. US citizens, permanent residents, domestic corporations, foreign corporations, all import foreign laws in the court system. You might not like it, but that is the reality, so instead of trying to limit your analysis to newcomers, look at the big picture.

What is going on elsewhere is NO EXCUSE to recognize Sharia law inside the U.S.......

Answer this: Why is it we don't recognize "Christian law" or "Jewish law" or "Hindu law" or "Buddhist law" or "Wiccan law" or "Satanic law" in the U.S. court system.....?

 

[logical4u]

Are the people using Beth Din courts beheading "Westerners" or trying to kill large groups of citizen bystanders?????
Why do the people that thinK Sharia law is perfectly acceptable, scream about 'rightwingers' trying to force their religion, when they have no evidence that is happening? Why do they only site "seperation of church and state" when Christian morals are highlighted?

Are the people wanting to use Sharia law in the US beheading "Westerners"?

If they do, I hope they don't start by their own heads!

I think it was you that stated everything was not in black and white. If Sharia law is introduced and accepted, then those that behead "Westerers" will follow. You have given them the same anarchist platform they use in the countries that "use" Sharia law.