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

[High_Gravity]

Shariah will be here in the States also.

 

[Jos]

Shariah will be here in the States also.

And will only be used by contracting parties, IE Muslims

 

[Jos]

This is what Shari'ah gives you


Sharia Law

According to a Peyke Iran spokesperson who corrected the record last November in a note posted on Little Green Footballs, the young boy whose arm was run over was not being punished for a crime. He was part of a "Maareke giry" or street magic act and allegedly performed the stunt for money (note the gentleman speaking into a microphone in image #1). The seventh and eighth pictures in the series, which appear to show the child shaken but otherwise unharmed after the ordeal, were omitted from the email flier but can still be viewed on Peykeiran.com (where all the images are attributed to photographer Siamak Yari).

8-Year-Old Iranian Child Caught Stealing Bread [Analysis]

 

[High_Gravity]

Shariah will be here in the States also.

And will only be used by contracting parties, IE Muslims

Shariah law has no business in this country, if Muslims want shariah law there are plenty of countries they can go to for that. If the Muslims get shariah law, what next? should we allow separate courts for Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Satanists and Voodoo also?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Sure I can deny it. Easily.

 

[Varth Dader]

Shariah will be here in the States also.

And will only be used by contracting parties, IE Muslims

Shariah law has no business in this country, if Muslims want shariah law there are plenty of countries they can go to for that. If the Muslims get shariah law, what next? should we allow separate courts for Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Satanists and Voodoo also?

It's funny, but I think you are missing the point. Actually what Oklahoma is doing is encouraging Muslims to create their own legal infrastructure. If laws are passed to prevent regular courts from dealing with situations that have Sharia law as a component, you are encouraging those people of creating their own separate court.

 

[High_Gravity]

And will only be used by contracting parties, IE Muslims

Shariah law has no business in this country, if Muslims want shariah law there are plenty of countries they can go to for that. If the Muslims get shariah law, what next? should we allow separate courts for Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Satanists and Voodoo also?

It's funny, but I think you are missing the point. Actually what Oklahoma is doing is encouraging Muslims to create their own legal infrastructure. If laws are passed to prevent regular courts from dealing with situations that have Sharia law as a component, you are encouraging those people of creating their own separate court.

Why do courts even have to take Shariah law into consideration? did I wake up in Pakistan this morning?

 

[Varth Dader]

Shariah law has no business in this country, if Muslims want shariah law there are plenty of countries they can go to for that. If the Muslims get shariah law, what next? should we allow separate courts for Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Satanists and Voodoo also?

It's funny, but I think you are missing the point. Actually what Oklahoma is doing is encouraging Muslims to create their own legal infrastructure. If laws are passed to prevent regular courts from dealing with situations that have Sharia law as a component, you are encouraging those people of creating their own separate court.

Why do courts even have to take Shariah law into consideration? did I wake up in Pakistan this morning?

Earlier, I pointed a link to a decision where a US state court looked at "Sharia law" in order to reach a decision.

Read the decision. http://162.114.92.72/COA/2004-CA-001531.pdf

This is the part you want to read (read before and after that):

We must first determine whether the trial court’s
findings of fact regarding the interpretation of Islamic law
were supported by substantial evidence. We hold that there is
substantial evidence in the record from the testimony of both
Mohammad and his expert witness to support the finding that the
Jordanian divorce was final, at least as to Mohammad, as of the-8-
date it was filed. Therefore, this finding is not clearly
erroneous.

Tell me what you think the court should have done instead.

 

[High_Gravity]

It's funny, but I think you are missing the point. Actually what Oklahoma is doing is encouraging Muslims to create their own legal infrastructure. If laws are passed to prevent regular courts from dealing with situations that have Sharia law as a component, you are encouraging those people of creating their own separate court.

Why do courts even have to take Shariah law into consideration? did I wake up in Pakistan this morning?

Earlier, I pointed a link to a decision where a US state court looked at "Sharia law" in order to reach a decision.

Read the decision. http://162.114.92.72/COA/2004-CA-001531.pdf

This is the part you want to read (read before and after that):

We must first determine whether the trial court’s
findings of fact regarding the interpretation of Islamic law
were supported by substantial evidence. We hold that there is
substantial evidence in the record from the testimony of both
Mohammad and his expert witness to support the finding that the
Jordanian divorce was final, at least as to Mohammad, as of the-8-
date it was filed. Therefore, this finding is not clearly
erroneous.

Tell me what you think the court should have done instead.

Give me a second to read this.

 

[High_Gravity]

It seems to me that Shariah law was addressed in that particular case because the man was married in Jordan before he married an American here in the States, the courts had to determine whether his divorce in Jordan would actually be valid here in the States. To me thats different than allowing Sharia law to be used to determine an outcome of a divorce here in the States or any other dispute because alot of the stuff in Shariah goes against the law of the land, for instance in Shariah a man can have 4 wives, should we allow Muslim men in the States to keep 4 wives because it is according to Shariah?

 

[Varth Dader]

It seems to me that Shariah law was addressed in that particular case because the man was married in Jordan before he married an American here in the States, the courts had to determine whether his divorce in Jordan would actually be valid here in the States. To me thats different than allowing Sharia law to be used to determine an outcome of a divorce here in the States or any other dispute because alot of the stuff in Shariah goes against the law of the land, for instance in Shariah a man can have 4 wives, should we allow Muslim men in the States to keep 4 wives because it is according to Shariah?

Well in this case the Sharia law decision affected the outcome of a US came in a direct way.

The problem is that for the hypothetical you are giving (a man wanting to marry 4 wives), the outcome would be that the situation would be against the public order here. So my guess is that courts wouldn't allow someone to keep 4 wives. On the other hand, I could imagine a case where a court is confronted with that situation. For example, imagine person X dies and we discovered he was married twice in another country and that those marriages were totally legit in those countries. What would the court do with respect to his estate if he dies without a will. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already cases about this.

But what would you do if the person dies here and has property here. Would you want the court to refuse to give anything to the second wife because you can't be married twice? It's an interesting question...

 

[High_Gravity]

It seems to me that Shariah law was addressed in that particular case because the man was married in Jordan before he married an American here in the States, the courts had to determine whether his divorce in Jordan would actually be valid here in the States. To me thats different than allowing Sharia law to be used to determine an outcome of a divorce here in the States or any other dispute because alot of the stuff in Shariah goes against the law of the land, for instance in Shariah a man can have 4 wives, should we allow Muslim men in the States to keep 4 wives because it is according to Shariah?

Well in this case the Sharia law decision affected the outcome of a US came in a direct way.

The problem is that for the hypothetical you are giving (a man wanting to marry 4 wives), the outcome would be that the situation would be against the public order here. So my guess is that courts wouldn't allow someone to keep 4 wives. On the other hand, I could imagine a case where a court is confronted with that situation. For example, imagine person X dies and we discovered he was married twice in another country and that those marriages were totally legit in those countries. What would the court do with respect to his estate if he dies without a will. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already cases about this.

But what would you do if the person dies here and has property here. Would you want the court to refuse to give anything to the second wife because you can't be married twice? It's an interesting question...

Thats what I'm saying, what if a Muslim marries two women in Saudi Arabia and brings both of them here, would the marriages be legit because it happened under Shariah Law? This is starting to get complicated and this just me and you discussing what if's on a message board!

 

[Varth Dader]

Thats what I'm saying, what if a Muslim marries two women in Saudi Arabia and brings both of them here, would the marriages be legit because it happened under Shariah Law? This is starting to get complicated and this just me and you discussing what if's on a message board!

I'll do some research and see what I find. I'm pretty sure that might come up in the past.

The thing though is that regardless of the answer, it's not easy to decide. I don't think it's clear cut one way or another. Either we recognize the validity of two marriages, which is bad because it's not legal here or we decide in a way that unfairly penalizes the second wife (i.e. she didn't do anything bad per se, she simply comes from a place where a husband can legally be married twice).

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It seems to me that Shariah law was addressed in that particular case because the man was married in Jordan before he married an American here in the States, the courts had to determine whether his divorce in Jordan would actually be valid here in the States. To me thats different than allowing Sharia law to be used to determine an outcome of a divorce here in the States or any other dispute because alot of the stuff in Shariah goes against the law of the land, for instance in Shariah a man can have 4 wives, should we allow Muslim men in the States to keep 4 wives because it is according to Shariah?

Well in this case the Sharia law decision affected the outcome of a US came in a direct way.

The problem is that for the hypothetical you are giving (a man wanting to marry 4 wives), the outcome would be that the situation would be against the public order here. So my guess is that courts wouldn't allow someone to keep 4 wives. On the other hand, I could imagine a case where a court is confronted with that situation. For example, imagine person X dies and we discovered he was married twice in another country and that those marriages were totally legit in those countries. What would the court do with respect to his estate if he dies without a will. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already cases about this.

But what would you do if the person dies here and has property here. Would you want the court to refuse to give anything to the second wife because you can't be married twice? It's an interesting question...

This is NOT a case that provides you with the "proof" that we must allow Sharia law to operate here in the U.S.......instead it is more proof that Immigration needs to do its job better in order to prevent stupid cases like this...

...this is not a case of based on"using" Sharia law here in the states....but a case determining whether or not the guy was actually married or not married to someone else in a foreign country when he got married here...(because Immigration did not do its job as it should have...)

Polygamy is illegal in the U.S......therefore Immigration should weed these people out before they enter the U.S....thus PREVENTING stupid problems like this...

The outcome of this particular case was solely based upon evidence of the FACTS....the fact that the guy did not attempt to reunite with his former wife during the "idda" period of three months back in Jordan....

It also refers to another similiar case.....where the Board of Immigration Appeals also dealt with the validity of a revocable divorce....by reviewing the FACT that the guy did not return to his former wife during the idda period of three months...

ps...if anything....this is just more proof that we should NOT allow Sharia to operate in our country.....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is what Shari'ah gives you


Sharia Law

According to a Peyke Iran spokesperson who corrected the record last November in a note posted on Little Green Footballs, the young boy whose arm was run over was not being punished for a crime. He was part of a "Maareke giry" or street magic act and allegedly performed the stunt for money (note the gentleman speaking into a microphone in image #1). The seventh and eighth pictures in the series, which appear to show the child shaken but otherwise unharmed after the ordeal, were omitted from the email flier but can still be viewed on Peykeiran.com (where all the images are attributed to photographer Siamak Yari).

8-Year-Old Iranian Child Caught Stealing Bread [Analysis]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOIbgd5qcrg&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Coyote]

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

Sharia is a system of law - WITHIN a religion, like Halakha. It can be interpreted different ways and some of those ways may not conflict with the Bill of Rights. If they do, well, in our country, the Bill of Rights overrules.

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?

No. I'm not. Because that is a strawman argument. We aren't arguing that our country should follow Sharia - or any religious law and the possibility of that happening is so small as to be laughable. We are a constitutional government with a bill of rights. Religious law from a variety of religions, most notably Christianity is already in use, through voluntary agreements in our civil and family law system in much the same way muslims want to use Sharia to in mortgages, divorce, and similar types of situations. And in none of those cases do religious law overrule U.S. law. To do so would take a tremendous political movement to amend the constitution that, quite frankly I don't see happening when our Muslim population is only 2%, and quite westernized in outlook and values. If the dominant Christian fundamentalists haven't been able to bring about the changes they've been striving for how would you expect Muslims to?

Are you going to answer my question?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

Sharia is a system of law - WITHIN a religion, like Halakha. It can be interpreted different ways and some of those ways may not conflict with the Bill of Rights. If they do, well, in our country, the Bill of Rights overrules.

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?

No. I'm not. Because that is a strawman argument. We aren't arguing that our country should follow Sharia - or any religious law and the possibility of that happening is so small as to be laughable. We are a constitutional government with a bill of rights. Religious law from a variety of religions, most notably Christianity is already in use, through voluntary agreements in our civil and family law system in much the same way muslims want to use Sharia to in mortgages, divorce, and similar types of situations. And in none of those cases do religious law overrule U.S. law. To do so would take a tremendous political movement to amend the constitution that, quite frankly I don't see happening when our Muslim population is only 2%, and quite westernized in outlook and values. If the dominant Christian fundamentalists haven't been able to bring about the changes they've been striving for how would you expect Muslims to?

Are you going to answer my question?

So if the Oklahoma law is only reinforcing Constitutional law what is the big problem....?

 

[Varth Dader]

...
This is NOT a case that provides you with the "proof" that we must allow Sharia law to operate here in the U.S.......instead it is more proof that Immigration needs to do its job better in order to prevent stupid cases like this...

I don't see why you put so much energy into the immigration angle.

If person X, a natural born citizen, goes to country Y and gets married twice and returns to the US alone, what exactly do you want Immigration to do?

Grill him on whether or not he got married twice while he was abroad? He lies, and enters. What next?

What world do you live in? People, including US citizens, move around the world all the time, and situation could be created where they enter into contractual agreements where Sharia law plays a part of. Or they could get decisions from foreign courts that have an impact on them (for example a decision of a family court outside the US granting child custody to a party).

Religious based law, international law, treaties and co. are here to stay. Instead of trying to build a wall that will never be tall enough to stop them, the best is to deal with them in an efficient, moral and legal manner.

 

[Ozmar]

I think the matter is pretty simple to decide. I'm not a muslim. If I need arbitration for personal matters, I go to legal council as established by jurisprudence here in the United States. Why should muslims get preferential treatment because of their faith? That is the whole reason there is a legal system set up here. Justice is supposed to be blind and equal. I know it's not always, but it is supposed to be. Once you start accepting religious arbitration as admissible in court, you are already undermining the legal system and the idea of separation of church and state. You are also undermining justice as blind and equal.

If someone is allowed to marry 4 wives under sharia law, that is irrelevant to the legal system here. Here, only one wife is recognized. Only that first wife has any legal rights under our system. End of story. If the litigants want to arbitrate to come to some fairer deal, that's another matter. It is not for the courts to consider religious laws. People bitch about the Ten Commandments being removed from court houses, but this is 10 times worse.

Separation of church and state means all religions. Why is there suddenly this back door diplomacy to recognize some sort of legitimacy to sharia law? And only the extremely naïve wouldn't look to other countries and realize that this is only a first step in setting up a dual legal system where one set of laws applies to muslims, and another one to infidels.

 

[Jos]

Jewish sex abuse claims are sometimes handled quietly in Orthodox rabbinical courts, rather than being reported to authorities.