*No Islamic Law In OK*!!!!!

[NYcarbineer]

Do you know how predominately Muslim countries attempt to resist the imposition of Sharia law? when they are so inclined?

By declaring their governments to be SECULAR.

Or, put another way,

they establish a separation of Church and State.

(and yes, their conservatives howl just like ours do)

 

[barenakedislam]

Do you know how predominately Muslim countries attempt to resist the imposition of Sharia law? when they are so inclined?

By declaring their governments to be SECULAR.

Or, put another way,

they establish a separation of Church and State.

(and yes, their conservatives howl just like ours do)

Name one, besides Turkey, which is rapidly losing its secular status under the current PM.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sorry bout that,

@chesswarsnow


Are you implying that you have the right to say that all Muslims should be thrown out of the USA and prevented from entering? (sorry, your post is ambiguous)

Yes, you have that fundamental right to free speech; but that most certainly does not make it MORALLY right at all.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.

1. I'm not only implying they be banned/shown the exits from USA, as a religion or whatever they are, cult, political movement, I'm demanding that they be haulted from entering into USA, as the first measure.
2. And I don't care if its *MORALLY* right either.
3. And I don't care if its *Political Correct* either.
4. All I care about is my *COUNTRY*!!!!
5. And seeing I do, I know islam is the only real threat we are going to see here, as far as my *COUNTRY* being over taken from muslims who breed like wild animals, at my expense, the *TAX PAYER*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Your proposal violates the one of the basic rights garrenteed by the Bill of Rights. I must conclude that you do not care that much for the ideals that founded this nation that you claim to care so much about. There is no threat of a Muslim takeover in the United States. There is a real threat of violence against us from Islamic Radicals as well as homegrown terrorist.

There are No Knights in Texas. We don't believe in Royalty.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Do you know how predominately Muslim countries attempt to resist the imposition of Sharia law? when they are so inclined?

By declaring their governments to be SECULAR.

Or, put another way,

they establish a separation of Church and State.

(and yes, their conservatives howl just like ours do)

Name one, besides Turkey, which is rapidly losing its secular status under the current PM.

Iraq before we invaded.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Sorry bout that,

@chesswarsnow


Are you implying that you have the right to say that all Muslims should be thrown out of the USA and prevented from entering? (sorry, your post is ambiguous)

Yes, you have that fundamental right to free speech; but that most certainly does not make it MORALLY right at all.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.

1. I'm not only implying they be banned/shown the exits from USA, as a religion or whatever they are, cult, political movement, I'm demanding that they be haulted from entering into USA, as the first measure.
2. And I don't care if its *MORALLY* right either.
3. And I don't care if its *Political Correct* either.
4. All I care about is my *COUNTRY*!!!!
5. And seeing I do, I know islam is the only real threat we are going to see here, as far as my *COUNTRY* being over taken from muslims who breed like wild animals, at my expense, the *TAX PAYER*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Your proposal violates the one of the basic rights garrenteed by the Bill of Rights. I must conclude that you do not care that much for the ideals that founded this nation that you claim to care so much about. There is no threat of a Muslim takeover in the United States. There is a real threat of violence against us from Islamic Radicals as well as homegrown terrorist.

There are No Knights in Texas. We don't believe in Royalty.

When people are afraid of people civil rights don't matter. Which is why we have a court system. When rights are violated by popular uprising and mob mentality the courts steps in. Which is exactly why people call judges who go against popular opinion "activist judges". The fact is we have a constitution that gives us absolutely no room for compromise under any circumstance. We can't abandon the rule of law because of fear.

 

[EriktheRed]

We can't abandon the rule of law because of fear.

Oh yeah? Just watch 'em!

 

[uptownlivin90]

We can't abandon the rule of law because of fear.

Oh yeah? Just watch 'em!

Anyone on the left and the right who would deny anyone their constitutional right because they don't like their religion is totally and completely unAmerican and has screwed up point of view of what this nation stands for.

They are in the minority.

They are as much in the minority as our declared enemies are.

They are just as defeatable.

Their ideology is based on absolutely nothing but fear and mob rule.


The views represented by the people in this thread do not represent the views of the majority of sane God-fearing Americans, left or right.

 

[Toro]

No, no, no. You're doing it wrong.

You're supposed to fear-monger about unlikely events before the election!

Save it 'till 2012, 'kay?

 

[barenakedislam]

They've already had a taste of sharia law in Texas.

The Second Court of Appeals of the State of Texas has rendered a ruling on the enforceability of shari'a judgments rendered by imams. According to the Texas appeals court, it's all good.

The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within "Seven Days" from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.

In general, private arbitration agreements are enforceable by government courts. Shari'a arbitration agreements are one type of private arbitration agreement. Without a theory as to why shari'a arbitration agreements shouldn't be enforced by the courts, I'm not sure what else the appeals court could have done in this case. Still, this is not a welcome development.

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

 

[uptownlivin90]

They've already had a taste of sharia law in Texas.

The Second Court of Appeals of the State of Texas has rendered a ruling on the enforceability of shari'a judgments rendered by imams. According to the Texas appeals court, it's all good.

The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within "Seven Days" from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.

In general, private arbitration agreements are enforceable by government courts. Shari'a arbitration agreements are one type of private arbitration agreement. Without a theory as to why shari'a arbitration agreements shouldn't be enforced by the courts, I'm not sure what else the appeals court could have done in this case. Still, this is not a welcome development.

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

Where do these fucking "one-issue" trolls come from?

 

[barenakedislam]

They've already had a taste of sharia law in Texas.

The Second Court of Appeals of the State of Texas has rendered a ruling on the enforceability of shari'a judgments rendered by imams. According to the Texas appeals court, it's all good.

The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within "Seven Days" from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.

In general, private arbitration agreements are enforceable by government courts. Shari'a arbitration agreements are one type of private arbitration agreement. Without a theory as to why shari'a arbitration agreements shouldn't be enforced by the courts, I'm not sure what else the appeals court could have done in this case. Still, this is not a welcome development.

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

Where do these fucking "one-issue" trolls come from?

Ad hominems are always nice when you can't refute the facts.

 

[uptownlivin90]

They've already had a taste of sharia law in Texas.

The Second Court of Appeals of the State of Texas has rendered a ruling on the enforceability of shari'a judgments rendered by imams. According to the Texas appeals court, it's all good.

The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within "Seven Days" from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.

In general, private arbitration agreements are enforceable by government courts. Shari'a arbitration agreements are one type of private arbitration agreement. Without a theory as to why shari'a arbitration agreements shouldn't be enforced by the courts, I'm not sure what else the appeals court could have done in this case. Still, this is not a welcome development.

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

Where do these fucking "one-issue" trolls come from?

Ad hominems are always nice when you can't refute the facts.

Your name is barenakedislam you look like a jackass.

No "fact" you present will change that.

The Texas Islamic Court has zero judicial validity. It's a tribunal they do this with other religions as well. I think it's stupid regardless, but who am I to judge?

 

[barenakedislam]

Where do these fucking "one-issue" trolls come from?

Ad hominems are always nice when you can't refute the facts.

Your name is barenakedislam you look like a jackass.

No "fact" you present will change that.

The Texas Islamic Court has zero judicial validity. It's a tribunal they do this with other religions as well. I think it's stupid regardless, but who am I to judge?

You just admitted there IS a Texas Islamic Court. Case closed.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Ad hominems are always nice when you can't refute the facts.

Your name is barenakedislam you look like a jackass.

No "fact" you present will change that.

The Texas Islamic Court has zero judicial validity. It's a tribunal they do this with other religions as well. I think it's stupid regardless, but who am I to judge?

You just admitted there IS a Texas Islamic Court. Case closed.

It is not a function of government. It's a private tribunal, run by a private corporation, or do we not believe in private property rights now?

 

[uptownlivin90]

In addition to the above statement the decision referenced by your article was a decision by a Texas Court to allow a divorced couple to follow the arbitration that was set up in the private Islamic tribunal. In other words because the tribunal broke no secular laws the actual courts in Texas allowed the man and woman to follow what their religious court/tribunal said they should do.

It's not that fucking complicated. A private organization told two people what they should do and the state courts in Texas that actually have legal standing said that that's fine as long as they don't tell you to break any laws. THERE IS NO SHARIA LAW IN TEXAS. NOW HAS THERE EVER BEEN.

And even if it was, it was under Bush's tenure. I'd shutter to believe that Mr. Bush would allow Sharia Law in his own state while he was president, don't you?

 

[barenakedislam]

In addition to the above statement the decision referenced by your article was a decision by a Texas Court to allow a divorced couple to follow the arbitration that was set up in the private Islamic tribunal. In other words because the tribunal broke no secular laws the actual courts in Texas allowed the man and woman to follow what their religious court/tribunal said they should do.

It's not that fucking complicated. A private organization told two people what they should do and the state courts in Texas that actually have legal standing said that that's fine as long as they don't tell you to break any laws. THERE IS NO SHARIA LAW IN TEXAS. NOW HAS THERE EVER BEEN.

And even if it was, it was under Bush's tenure. I'd shutter to believe that Mr. Bush would allow Sharia Law in his own state while he was president, don't you?

There is an Islamic Court in Texas according to the decision.

And there is a judge in NJ who ruled in favor of a Muslim man who raped his wife continuously because it is allowed under the man's religion, which the judge cited.
Fortunately it was overturned in appeals.

And do you know that the lesbian on the SCOTUS, Elena Kagan, is a big fan of sharia law, even made it a course of study at Harvard Law. I just wonder why she never bothered to learn about what Muslims do to homosexuals under sharia law?

 

[uptownlivin90]

In addition to the above statement the decision referenced by your article was a decision by a Texas Court to allow a divorced couple to follow the arbitration that was set up in the private Islamic tribunal. In other words because the tribunal broke no secular laws the actual courts in Texas allowed the man and woman to follow what their religious court/tribunal said they should do.

It's not that fucking complicated. A private organization told two people what they should do and the state courts in Texas that actually have legal standing said that that's fine as long as they don't tell you to break any laws. THERE IS NO SHARIA LAW IN TEXAS. NOW HAS THERE EVER BEEN.

And even if it was, it was under Bush's tenure. I'd shutter to believe that Mr. Bush would allow Sharia Law in his own state while he was president, don't you?

There is an Islamic Court in Texas according to the decision.

And there is a judge in NJ who ruled in favor of a Muslim man who raped his wife continuously because it is allowed under the man's religion, which the judge cited.
Fortunately it was overturned in appeals.

And do you know that the lesbian on the SCOTUS, Elena Kagan, is a big fan of sharia law, even made it a course of study at Harvard Law. I just wonder why she never bothered to learn about what Muslims do to homosexuals under sharia law?

There is an Islamic Court in Texas according to the decision.

It was not established by the Texas government. it's a private organization that calls itself the Texas Islamic Court. It has no jurisdiction or power to make any legally binding decisions. It is a religious tribunal, if they do tell people to do anything illegal they'll still be held accountable under civil law. DUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH!!!

And there is a judge in NJ who ruled in favor of a Muslim man who raped his wife continuously because it is allowed under the man's religion, which the judge cited.
Fortunately it was overturned in appeals.

Yes, that's why we have a constitution. It allows for appeals. It also doesn't allow for Sharia Law in legally binding court cases. Again... DUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!!

And do you know that the lesbian on the SCOTUS, Elena Kagan, is a big fan of sharia law, even made it a course of study at Harvard Law. I just wonder why she never bothered to learn about what Muslims do to homosexuals under sharia law?

Interested in Sharia Law and big fan are two different things. Again.... DUUUUUUUUUHHHH!!!!!

 

[barenakedislam]

In addition to the above statement the decision referenced by your article was a decision by a Texas Court to allow a divorced couple to follow the arbitration that was set up in the private Islamic tribunal. In other words because the tribunal broke no secular laws the actual courts in Texas allowed the man and woman to follow what their religious court/tribunal said they should do.

It's not that fucking complicated. A private organization told two people what they should do and the state courts in Texas that actually have legal standing said that that's fine as long as they don't tell you to break any laws. THERE IS NO SHARIA LAW IN TEXAS. NOW HAS THERE EVER BEEN.

And even if it was, it was under Bush's tenure. I'd shutter to believe that Mr. Bush would allow Sharia Law in his own state while he was president, don't you?

There is an Islamic Court in Texas according to the decision.

And there is a judge in NJ who ruled in favor of a Muslim man who raped his wife continuously because it is allowed under the man's religion, which the judge cited.
Fortunately it was overturned in appeals.

And do you know that the lesbian on the SCOTUS, Elena Kagan, is a big fan of sharia law, even made it a course of study at Harvard Law. I just wonder why she never bothered to learn about what Muslims do to homosexuals under sharia law?

It was not established by the Texas government. it's a private organization that calls itself the Texas Islamic Court. It has no jurisdiction or power to make any legally binding decisions. It is a religious tribunal, if they do tell people to do anything illegal they'll still be held accountable under civil law. DUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH!!!

And there is a judge in NJ who ruled in favor of a Muslim man who raped his wife continuously because it is allowed under the man's religion, which the judge cited.
Fortunately it was overturned in appeals.

Yes, that's why we have a constitution. It allows for appeals. It also doesn't allow for Sharia Law in legally binding court cases. Again... DUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!!

And do you know that the lesbian on the SCOTUS, Elena Kagan, is a big fan of sharia law, even made it a course of study at Harvard Law. I just wonder why she never bothered to learn about what Muslims do to homosexuals under sharia law?

Interested in Sharia Law and big fan are two different things. Again.... DUUUUUUUUUHHHH!!!!!

Nobody but a fan of a legal system that stones women to death, allows honor killings, hangings of homosexuals, beating of wives, sex with children, and more, would want it taught as a course in the school she was dean of.
DUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you know how predominately Muslim countries attempt to resist the imposition of Sharia law? when they are so inclined?

By declaring their governments to be SECULAR.

Or, put another way,

they establish a separation of Church and State.

(and yes, their conservatives howl just like ours do)

Name one, besides Turkey, which is rapidly losing its secular status under the current PM.

Why would a Islam expert like you need that answered?

Here's wiki's list. You wanted one. I'm sure you can find one in there you'll concede.

Burkina Faso
Chad
Gambia
Guinea
Mali
Senegal
Tunisia

Bangladesh
Kazakhstan
Kyrgystan
Tajikstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Iraq
Indonesia
Syria
Lebanon
Albania
Azerbaijan
Turkey

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,

@chesswarsnow


Are you implying that you have the right to say that all Muslims should be thrown out of the USA and prevented from entering? (sorry, your post is ambiguous)

Yes, you have that fundamental right to free speech; but that most certainly does not make it MORALLY right at all.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.

1. I'm not only implying they be banned/shown the exits from USA, as a religion or whatever they are, cult, political movement, I'm demanding that they be haulted from entering into USA, as the first measure.
2. And I don't care if its *MORALLY* right either.
3. And I don't care if its *Political Correct* either.
4. All I care about is my *COUNTRY*!!!!
5. And seeing I do, I know islam is the only real threat we are going to see here, as far as my *COUNTRY* being over taken from muslims who breed like wild animals, at my expense, the *TAX PAYER*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Your proposal violates the one of the basic rights garrenteed by the Bill of Rights. I must conclude that you do not care that much for the ideals that founded this nation that you claim to care so much about. There is no threat of a Muslim takeover in the United States. There is a real threat of violence against us from Islamic Radicals as well as homegrown terrorist.

There are No Knights in Texas. We don't believe in Royalty.

1. Like I have been saying islam is not a religion, and shouldn't be protected, its a political nothing else, you just are unable to understand reality.
2. You want to think that they are some sort of religion, giving them a bennefit of the doubt, because you know nothing of islam.
3. The Constitution/Bill of Rights, are not a suicide pact.
4. We are in so much danger as a Country, and you have no clue.
5. Look around why don't you?
6. Its going on all across ~ Europe/Asia/China/Russia/Africa, right this very moment.
7. Can you see it?
8. Look the other way for your own peril.
9. What if I am a knight in shinning armor?
10. Stranger thinks have happened.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas