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

[Coyote]

Sharia law IS islam. It is the base for the religion. Once Sharia law is implemented, you are considered a practicing muslim with all the laws of the faith to be used against you, if you do not practice the faith according to another's standards. You are then, OPPRESSED.

No, Sharia law is not "Islam" - Sharia law is a part of Islam. You really need to learn more about Islam than what you glean from partisan websites and inaccurate talking points.

You also did not answer the questions.

Sharia is not practiced without muslims. Islam teaches: convert, kill or tax unfairly those that do not follow islam. I would reason that once Sharia is accepted, then islam beliefs will also become "accepted" and that would mean killing "Westerners".

Where in Sharia does the law call for "beheading "Westerners" or trying to kill large groups of citizen bystanders"

There are a number of Muslim countries with dual systems of Sharia/secular law or Sharia law. Can you quote me any of codes of law that call for "beheading "Westerners" or killing large groups of citizen bystanders?

 

[Coyote]

Sharia law does not equate Islam.....Islam is more than just Sharia law.....however he has a point.....show us where an Islamic follower does NOT follow Sharia law....if you claim that all U.S. muslims forego Sharia law.....i will call you a liar...

If US Muslims commit illegal acts, they should arrested and prosecuted. Same as everyone. If anyone, Muslim or not, beheads someone, s/he should be in jail.

What exactly are you trying to do? Prevent all US Muslims from using the part of Sharia law they like and that is compatible with the laws in the US?

Then, why don't they just follow USA laws?????

Well...why don't Jews? Why don't Christians?

 

[logical4u]

No, Sharia law is not "Islam" - Sharia law is a part of Islam. You really need to learn more about Islam than what you glean from partisan websites and inaccurate talking points.

You also did not answer the questions.

Sharia is not practiced without muslims. Islam teaches: convert, kill or tax unfairly those that do not follow islam. I would reason that once Sharia is accepted, then islam beliefs will also become "accepted" and that would mean killing "Westerners".

Where in Sharia does the law call for "beheading "Westerners" or trying to kill large groups of citizen bystanders"

There are a number of Muslim countries with dual systems of Sharia/secular law or Sharia law. Can you quote me any of codes of law that call for "beheading "Westerners" or killing large groups of citizen bystanders?

Look, you want specifics. I am asking you to "connect the dots". Please read the above statement, and TRY to comprehend: Sharia = practicing muslims. Not all muslims live by Sharia law, but where Sharia law is elevated, islam "rules". Islam does call for the conversion, murdering or overtaxing "non-believers". It is like saying that a strip joint will not bring in crime to a neighborhood where they want to build one. It is hard to prove that the "strip joint" brings in the crime, but where you have strip joints, there too, tends to be more crime.

I am not saying all muslims are bad. I think the "spiritual" side of islam can be beneficial for a "believer's" well being. At the same time, I believe the political side (that would be with the laws you call Sharia) is about absolute power; that leads to absolute corruption. Why invite a system that has demonstrated its use leads to poverty, abuse, and oppression? Why use a system that has no proven to be beneficial to communities or societies in one thousand four hundred YEARS?

 

[Coyote]

As far as i know...none so far....however....when you look at the goals of CAIR.....and you look at what is happening in England right before your eyes.....we would be STUPID to invite the same problems here....thus Oklahoma is on the cutting edge....

Ok.

So. There is not a single case of Sharia law being used in U.S. courts. That justifies singling out one religion only, in a body of law? Shouldn't we simply say "religious" law?

After all, it was religious law that issued the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda; or that mandates no liquor can be sold in some states on Sundays. In fact, we can find cases of other religion's laws in our codes of law. Shouldn't that worry you....we might someday adopt a death penalty or jail term for sodomy just like in Uganda?

Or, maybe our system of law is far stronger than you give it credit for. Christians have long sought to impose more of their morals and laws onto our legal system and we have thus far managed keep it secular. You don't think we can do so against erosion by other religions? I do.

The only time I've heard of religious law being "allowed"- whether it's Jewish, Islamic, or that of certain Christian sects (for example Mormons or Amish) is in arbitration and family court type of things. Even then they do not trump U.S. law - at least not that I'm aware of. Those involved agree to abide by the arbitration willingly, but they always have recourse to other courts of law.

I could be wrong but that is how I understand it.

Sure there are cases:

“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 judge ruled. “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.”

The ruling is based on a Muslim belief which says that “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).

Breaking News Blog Archive Court Reverses Decision by U.S. Judge Who Applied Sharia Law to Domestic Violence Case

His 17 year old bride said she was being raped and the judge felt that this was okay since the man believed it to be okay under his religious beliefs.

That particular case is the one that is always brought up, in fact - it seems to be the only one that is. But if you read it - the judge (who's opinion was rightfully overturned) did not make his ruling based on Sharia law but on a legal concept called "cultural defense"

 

[Coyote]

Sharia is not practiced without muslims. Islam teaches: convert, kill or tax unfairly those that do not follow islam. I would reason that once Sharia is accepted, then islam beliefs will also become "accepted" and that would mean killing "Westerners".

Where in Sharia does the law call for "beheading "Westerners" or trying to kill large groups of citizen bystanders"

There are a number of Muslim countries with dual systems of Sharia/secular law or Sharia law. Can you quote me any of codes of law that call for "beheading "Westerners" or killing large groups of citizen bystanders?

Look, you want specifics. I am asking you to "connect the dots".

You are asking me to connect the dots by making a broad leap of "faith" that isn't logical. And the fact that you can't provide specifics indicates that.

Please read the above statement, and TRY to comprehend: Sharia = practicing muslims. Not all muslims live by Sharia law, but where Sharia law is elevated, islam "rules". Islam does call for the conversion, murdering or overtaxing "non-believers".

Again - IS THAT STATEMENT accurate? Not exactly. One can take portions of the Christian Bible - both testements - and come up with some pretty damning stuff, stuff used by religious heads of state at one time to justify wars of aggression and bloody conversion. That is the same thing with Sharia. There are many ways of interpreting it and, there is currently much discussion in the islamic world about whether it can work in the modern world and how.

Yet, despite your claim - very few modern countries that include Sharia in their laws are legally murdering their "non-believers". I'm not sure about "overtaxing" does every Muslim-dominated country tax it's citizens based on religion? Do even many?

I suspect the origin of the law might have to do with the fact that Muslims, like a number of religions have a legal and religious obligation to give a portion of their earnings towards the care of the poor - non-believers, having no such requirements might well have to pay a higher tax. That's just a guess.

It is like saying that a strip joint will not bring in crime to a neighborhood where they want to build one. It is hard to prove that the "strip joint" brings in the crime, but where you have strip joints, there too, tends to be more crime.

No, it's like saying Jews that follow Halakha in their civil arbitrations and family law are going to insist that everyone follow the most orthodox version of Halakha regardless of thet law or person's religion.

As long as U.S. law trumps ANY religious law in a dispute, then there is no problem and there is no need to single out ANY religion's laws. If you're going to single out religious law - make it all religious law. Of course, there are issues there too because sometimes, religious law should be considered: The Volokh Conspiracy Why American Courts Should Sometimes Consider Islamic Court Rulings (and Islamic Law)

I am not saying all muslims are bad. I think the "spiritual" side of islam can be beneficial for a "believer's" well being. At the same time, I believe the political side (that would be with the laws you call Sharia) is about absolute power; that leads to absolute corruption. Why invite a system that has demonstrated its use leads to poverty, abuse, and oppression? Why use a system that has no proven to be beneficial to communities or societies in one thousand four hundred YEARS?[/QUOTE]

 

[CaféAuLait]

Ok.

So. There is not a single case of Sharia law being used in U.S. courts. That justifies singling out one religion only, in a body of law? Shouldn't we simply say "religious" law?

After all, it was religious law that issued the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda; or that mandates no liquor can be sold in some states on Sundays. In fact, we can find cases of other religion's laws in our codes of law. Shouldn't that worry you....we might someday adopt a death penalty or jail term for sodomy just like in Uganda?

Or, maybe our system of law is far stronger than you give it credit for. Christians have long sought to impose more of their morals and laws onto our legal system and we have thus far managed keep it secular. You don't think we can do so against erosion by other religions? I do.

The only time I've heard of religious law being "allowed"- whether it's Jewish, Islamic, or that of certain Christian sects (for example Mormons or Amish) is in arbitration and family court type of things. Even then they do not trump U.S. law - at least not that I'm aware of. Those involved agree to abide by the arbitration willingly, but they always have recourse to other courts of law.

I could be wrong but that is how I understand it.

Sure there are cases:

“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 judge ruled. “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.”

The ruling is based on a Muslim belief which says that “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).

Breaking News Blog Archive Court Reverses Decision by U.S. Judge Who Applied Sharia Law to Domestic Violence Case

His 17 year old bride said she was being raped and the judge felt that this was okay since the man believed it to be okay under his religious beliefs.

That particular case is the one that is always brought up, in fact - it seems to be the only one that is. But if you read it - the judge (who's opinion was rightfully overturned) did not make his ruling based on Sharia law but on a legal concept called "cultural defense"

Cultural defense?

The entire opinion issued ( which you linked to) cites religion or his Islamic beliefs as his defense.

a6107-08.opn.html


Imam's testified for the husband.

From a link within your link:

At the conclusion of this testimony, in response to the judge's questions, the Imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The Imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband's sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere. However, a husband was forbidden to approach his wife "like any animal." The Imam did not definitively answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his advances if his wife said "no." However, he acknowledged that New Jersey law considered coerced sex between married people to be rape...

and

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs

a6107-08.opn.html

 

[logical4u]

Where in Sharia does the law call for "beheading "Westerners" or trying to kill large groups of citizen bystanders"

There are a number of Muslim countries with dual systems of Sharia/secular law or Sharia law. Can you quote me any of codes of law that call for "beheading "Westerners" or killing large groups of citizen bystanders?

Look, you want specifics. I am asking you to "connect the dots".

You are asking me to connect the dots by making a broad leap of "faith" that isn't logical. And the fact that you can't provide specifics indicates that.

Please read the above statement, and TRY to comprehend: Sharia = practicing muslims. Not all muslims live by Sharia law, but where Sharia law is elevated, islam "rules". Islam does call for the conversion, murdering or overtaxing "non-believers".

Again - IS THAT STATEMENT accurate? Not exactly. One can take portions of the Christian Bible - both testements - and come up with some pretty damning stuff, stuff used by religious heads of state at one time to justify wars of aggression and bloody conversion. That is the same thing with Sharia. There are many ways of interpreting it and, there is currently much discussion in the islamic world about whether it can work in the modern world and how.

Yet, despite your claim - very few modern countries that include Sharia in their laws are legally murdering their "non-believers". I'm not sure about "overtaxing" does every Muslim-dominated country tax it's citizens based on religion? Do even many?

I suspect the origin of the law might have to do with the fact that Muslims, like a number of religions have a legal and religious obligation to give a portion of their earnings towards the care of the poor - non-believers, having no such requirements might well have to pay a higher tax. That's just a guess.

It is like saying that a strip joint will not bring in crime to a neighborhood where they want to build one. It is hard to prove that the "strip joint" brings in the crime, but where you have strip joints, there too, tends to be more crime.

No, it's like saying Jews that follow Halakha in their civil arbitrations and family law are going to insist that everyone follow the most orthodox version of Halakha regardless of thet law or person's religion.

As long as U.S. law trumps ANY religious law in a dispute, then there is no problem and there is no need to single out ANY religion's laws. If you're going to single out religious law - make it all religious law. Of course, there are issues there too because sometimes, religious law should be considered: The Volokh Conspiracy Why American Courts Should Sometimes Consider Islamic Court Rulings (and Islamic Law)

I am not saying all muslims are bad. I think the "spiritual" side of islam can be beneficial for a "believer's" well being. At the same time, I believe the political side (that would be with the laws you call Sharia) is about absolute power; that leads to absolute corruption. Why invite a system that has demonstrated its use leads to poverty, abuse, and oppression? Why use a system that has not proven to be beneficial to communities or societies in one thousand four hundred YEARS?

[/QUOTE]

If you check the news, you will find that countries that use Sharia law ARE MURDERING "non-believers". In Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and don't even get me started on the African nations with large muslim popultations.

Again, Christian and Jews using "arbitration" outside of the courts has not been proven to be detrimental to the population, at large. Sharia law has been proven to punish with discrimmination those that do not belong to islam.

Now will you answer the questions: Why invite a system that has demonstrated its use leads to poverty, abuse, and oppression? Why use a system that has not proven to be beneficial to communities or societies in one thousand four hundred YEARS?

 

[Coyote]

Sure there are cases:

Breaking News Blog Archive Court Reverses Decision by U.S. Judge Who Applied Sharia Law to Domestic Violence Case

His 17 year old bride said she was being raped and the judge felt that this was okay since the man believed it to be okay under his religious beliefs.

That particular case is the one that is always brought up, in fact - it seems to be the only one that is. But if you read it - the judge (who's opinion was rightfully overturned) did not make his ruling based on Sharia law but on a legal concept called "cultural defense"

Cultural defense?

The entire opinion issued ( which you linked to) cites religion or his Islamic beliefs as his defense.

a6107-08.opn.html


Imam's testified for the husband.

From a link within your link:

At the conclusion of this testimony, in response to the judge's questions, the Imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The Imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband's sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere. However, a husband was forbidden to approach his wife "like any animal." The Imam did not definitively answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his advances if his wife said "no." However, he acknowledged that New Jersey law considered coerced sex between married people to be rape...

and

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs

a6107-08.opn.html

Yes, his religious beliefs are also his cultural beliefs.

The judge also said:

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.

and the article stated:

After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.

The judge did not use Sharia to make his decision (exactly what part of Sharia did he cite?) - he was basing it the defendent's cultural norm, which includes his religious beliefs and which led him to act as he did, without "criminal intent". It was overturned.

 

[CaféAuLait]

That particular case is the one that is always brought up, in fact - it seems to be the only one that is. But if you read it - the judge (who's opinion was rightfully overturned) did not make his ruling based on Sharia law but on a legal concept called "cultural defense"

Cultural defense?

The entire opinion issued ( which you linked to) cites religion or his Islamic beliefs as his defense.

a6107-08.opn.html


Imam's testified for the husband.

From a link within your link:



and



a6107-08.opn.html

Yes, his religious beliefs are also his cultural beliefs.

The judge also said:

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.

and the article stated:

After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.

The judge did not use Sharia to make his decision (exactly what part of Sharia did he cite?) - he was basing it the defendent's cultural norm, which includes his religious beliefs and which led him to act as he did, without "criminal intent". It was overturned.

His religious beliefs are also based on Sharia law ( the Imam testified to such laws) . In the same religion it is okay to commit honor killings-- the same one which allows rape of your wife. So tell me-- if that man had killed based on his religious beliefs would that too be considered cultural defense?

So would he not be acting with criminal intent if he was following his religious law? That is what the judge found that he was okay rape his wife because of religious beliefs. Would it be okay to kill her too if it were not a with 'criminal intent'?

 

[Coyote]

I am not saying all muslims are bad. I think the "spiritual" side of islam can be beneficial for a "believer's" well being. At the same time, I believe the political side (that would be with the laws you call Sharia) is about absolute power; that leads to absolute corruption. Why invite a system that has demonstrated its use leads to poverty, abuse, and oppression? Why use a system that has not proven to be beneficial to communities or societies in one thousand four hundred YEARS?

[/QUOTE]

Part of the issue with Sharia is it is not one thing - it's application and interpretation varies widely. I certainly wouldn't agree to see it's application in criminal law but I don't see the issue with it's use by consentual agreements between two parties in family or personal law - for example, dealing with finances, marriage or divorce. It's no different then other religions in that regard and we allow them that leeway and that is really the only way it is being used.

If you check the news, you will find that countries that use Sharia law ARE MURDERING "non-believers". In Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and don't even get me started on the African nations with large muslim popultations.

But is it legal? Is it part of their system of laws?

Many of those countries have a host of problems creating instability including ethnic conflicts (Africa).

Again, Christian and Jews using "arbitration" outside of the courts has not been proven to be detrimental to the population, at large. Sharia law has been proven to punish with discrimmination those that do not belong to islam.

Where has the use by Muslims in western countries of "arbitration" outside of the courts been shown to be detrimental to the population at large?

As far as punishing with discrimmination non-believers, that is hardly unique to Islam.

Now will you answer the questions: Why invite a system that has demonstrated its use leads to poverty, abuse, and oppression? Why use a system that has not proven to be beneficial to communities or societies in one thousand four hundred YEARS?

I will answer that question.

First: Our country was built upon the concept of freedom of religion. Singling out any one religion in our laws violates that concept and our constitution. Second: there are no cases of Sharia trumping US law nor, I believe, in other western countries. The use of Sharia has been limited to arbitration and family law.

Sharia does not automatically lead to poverty, abuse, oppression (correlation does not necessarily equal causation) - any more than biblical law does. But like any religion - it's laws do not belong in a secular code of law and when it is used, by consenting parties - it does not overrule U.S. law.

Lastly, we are not talking about "using a system" - we are talking about allowing the use of elements, by consent, in specific circumstances that still will be subservient to U.S. Law. We allow this for other religions - and if you look at the fundamentalist aspects of those religions, they are pretty brutal. Either say no religious law, or admit that the OK law is flawed, unnecessary and idiotic.

 

[Coyote]

Cultural defense?

The entire opinion issued ( which you linked to) cites religion or his Islamic beliefs as his defense.

a6107-08.opn.html


Imam's testified for the husband.

From a link within your link:



and



a6107-08.opn.html

Yes, his religious beliefs are also his cultural beliefs.

The judge also said:


and the article stated:

After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.

The judge did not use Sharia to make his decision (exactly what part of Sharia did he cite?) - he was basing it the defendent's cultural norm, which includes his religious beliefs and which led him to act as he did, without "criminal intent". It was overturned.

His religious beliefs are also based on Sharia law ( the Imam testified to such laws) . In the same religion it is okay to commit honor killings-- the same one which allows rape of your wife. So tell me-- if that man had killed based on his religious beliefs would that too be considered cultural defense?

So would he not be acting with criminal intent if he was following his religious law? That is what the judge found that he was okay rape his wife because of religious beliefs. Would it be okay to kill her too if it were not a with 'criminal intent'?

I doubt a cultural defense would fly in criminal law and, it didn't fly in this case either. I'm not supporting that defense by the way - I'm just pointing out the judge was not making his decision based on Sharia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

An Oklahoma constitutional amendment aimed at stopping the use of Islamic law in its courts



Now no law can discriminate against any religion in the US.

Want a law that says a judge can not use the laws of christianity in a court?

This is what Shari'ah gives you


Sharia Law

 

[logical4u]

I am not saying all muslims are bad. I think the "spiritual" side of islam can be beneficial for a "believer's" well being. At the same time, I believe the political side (that would be with the laws you call Sharia) is about absolute power; that leads to absolute corruption. Why invite a system that has demonstrated its use leads to poverty, abuse, and oppression? Why use a system that has not proven to be beneficial to communities or societies in one thousand four hundred YEARS?

Part of the issue with Sharia is it is not one thing - it's application and interpretation varies widely. I certainly wouldn't agree to see it's application in criminal law but I don't see the issue with it's use by consentual agreements between two parties in family or personal law - for example, dealing with finances, marriage or divorce. It's no different then other religions in that regard and we allow them that leeway and that is really the only way it is being used.

If you check the news, you will find that countries that use Sharia law ARE MURDERING "non-believers". In Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and don't even get me started on the African nations with large muslim popultations.

But is it legal? Is it part of their system of laws?

Many of those countries have a host of problems creating instability including ethnic conflicts (Africa).

Again, Christian and Jews using "arbitration" outside of the courts has not been proven to be detrimental to the population, at large. Sharia law has been proven to punish with discrimmination those that do not belong to islam.

Where has the use by Muslims in western countries of "arbitration" outside of the courts been shown to be detrimental to the population at large?

As far as punishing with discrimmination non-believers, that is hardly unique to Islam.

Now will you answer the questions: Why invite a system that has demonstrated its use leads to poverty, abuse, and oppression? Why use a system that has not proven to be beneficial to communities or societies in one thousand four hundred YEARS?

I will answer that question.

First: Our country was built upon the concept of freedom of religion. Singling out any one religion in our laws violates that concept and our constitution. Second: there are no cases of Sharia trumping US law nor, I believe, in other western countries. The use of Sharia has been limited to arbitration and family law.

Sharia does not automatically lead to poverty, abuse, oppression (correlation does not necessarily equal causation) - any more than biblical law does. But like any religion - it's laws do not belong in a secular code of law and when it is used, by consenting parties - it does not overrule U.S. law.

Lastly, we are not talking about "using a system" - we are talking about allowing the use of elements, by consent, in specific circumstances that still will be subservient to U.S. Law. We allow this for other religions - and if you look at the fundamentalist aspects of those religions, they are pretty brutal. Either say no religious law, or admit that the OK law is flawed, unnecessary and idiotic.[/QUOTE]

"Sharia" is not a religion. It is a system of law that directly conflicts with the Bill of Rights in this country.

Please, please, give an example of a country that uses Sharia laws that you would want this country to follow. Where does Sharia law offer the freedom and liberty that are found here?

 

[chanel]

Canada recognizes Sharia Law. Penalty for honor killing - 3 yrs probation.

Sharia Law in Canada: Honor Killing Mom Gets off: Daughter Strangled by Mom, No Time in Prison - Atlas Shrugs

 

[Coyote]

Canada recognizes Sharia Law. Penalty for honor killing - 3 yrs probation.

Sharia Law in Canada: Honor Killing Mom Gets off: Daughter Strangled by Mom, No Time in Prison - Atlas Shrugs

Umh. No. Perhaps Atlas Shrugs (a source about as reliable as WMD) is not the best source of information about this case.

Honor killing was not part of it.

Sharia had zip to do with it.

CBC News - Calgary - Calgary mom who killed daughter gets probation

 

[Varth Dader]

Interesting - good find. But it sounds like it would be impossible to judge that case without referring to Sharia since the divorce was in Jordan and it's legitimacy set under Jordanian (Sharia) law?

Indeed, unless you think like some of the posters in this thread that feel that the judge should have disregarded reality or given a decision based on black and logic.

The art of judging is certainly a difficult one, and I think constitutional amendments like the one we are discussing here only show how clueless some people are.

 

[Gadawg73]

Canada recognizes Sharia Law. Penalty for honor killing - 3 yrs probation.

Sharia Law in Canada: Honor Killing Mom Gets off: Daughter Strangled by Mom, No Time in Prison - Atlas Shrugs

You forgot to read the FACTS of the case. The mother was charged with manslaughter to begin with.
You know that Canada does not honor Sharia law so why are you shitting us?
Read the transcripts of the case, the police investigative reports and the district attorney's investigative file and get back to us. The right wing looney sites you frequent forgot to include the facts and left the evidence out.
Imagine that.
Everyone knows this was not a "honor killing".
Please join us in the real world.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Canada recognizes Sharia Law. Penalty for honor killing - 3 yrs probation.

Sharia Law in Canada: Honor Killing Mom Gets off: Daughter Strangled by Mom, No Time in Prison - Atlas Shrugs

You forgot to read the FACTS of the case. The mother was charged with manslaughter to begin with.
You know that Canada does not honor Sharia law so why are you shitting us?
Read the transcripts of the case, the police investigative reports and the district attorney's investigative file and get back to us. The right wing looney sites you frequent forgot to include the facts and left the evidence out.
Imagine that.
Everyone knows this was not a "honor killing".
Please join us in the real world.

Are we in the real world missing something or are you trying to push some bull shit?
Was the mother convicted of strangling her daughter? What would motivate any mother to strangle her daughter?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Canada is screwed up or aat least the judge was
CBC.ca Player

 

[chanel]

Feel free to post other precedents where a mother was given probation for a similar killing. As far as I know, not wearing a hat is not justification for manslaughter.

While this my be an extreme case, Canada is full of examples of Sharia gone wild. Might not find it on the MSM though.