Muslims are ANGRY at Texas Mayor After She Stops “Sharia Court”

[Asclepias]

again, you're just making shit up. ...

RELATIVISM: ON PARADE!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Still no link to your claim they were seeking government sanction?

 

[Coyote]

..

so it has nothing to do with whether or not a lash or death is a felony... it's that you just hate islam.

"It" is Islam... which stands wholly antithetical to the principles that define AMERICA. And as an AMERICAN... that is all I need to know ABOUT Islam to reject Islam, entirely and without exception to any of its evil facets.

it, in my sentence, actually referred to your objection to the courts. ...

The Courts ... which are illegal in the United States, because we already have a legal system, which rests in principle rejected by ISLAM. Which is the basis of my REJECTION OF SUCH.

so judge judy is illegal? the people's court is illegal? jewish and amish courts... illegal?
why aren't you protesting them?

incidentally, none of those are illegal.

Does Judge Judy have also have a 1200 year record of employing mass-murder as a means to acquire political power? I wasn't aware?

(Reader Judge Judy considers civil matters to which the parties sign contracts within the scope of the program... Judge Judy does not have any authority over the individuals and she cannot use law enforcement to enforce her rulings. Where the individuals fail to adhere to her ruling, the prevailing parties would need to seek judgement from a duly appointed court to enforce such.

By seeking sanction from the City of Irvine, the Muslims were seeking to increase their perceived authority... a first step to becoming recognized as an ACTUAL "AUTHORITY".)

No one has a 1200 year record of employing mass-murder. Let's stick to reality.

 

[ogibillm]

so it has nothing to do with whether or not a lash or death is a felony... it's that you just hate islam.

"It" is Islam... which stands wholly antithetical to the principles that define AMERICA. And as an AMERICAN... that is all I need to know ABOUT Islam to reject Islam, entirely and without exception to any of its evil facets.

it, in my sentence, actually referred to your objection to the courts. ...

The Courts ... which are illegal in the United States, because we already have a legal system, which rests in principle rejected by ISLAM. Which is the basis of my REJECTION OF SUCH.

so judge judy is illegal? the people's court is illegal? jewish and amish courts... illegal?
why aren't you protesting them?

incidentally, none of those are illegal.

Does Judge Judy have also have a 1200 year record of employing mass-murder as a means to acquire political power? I wasn't aware?

(Reader Judge Judy considers civil matters to which the parties sign contracts within the scope of the program... Judge Judy does not have any authority over the individuals and she cannot use law enforcement to enforce her rulings. Where the individuals fail to adhere to her ruling, the prevailing parties would need to seek judgement from a duly appointed court to enforce such.

By seeking sanction from the City of Irvine, the Muslims were seeking to increase their perceived authority... a first step to becoming recognized as an ACTUAL "AUTHORITY".)

hold on, i thought you opposed the sharia court because they were illegal because we already have a court system. now it has something to do with your perception of history?
and seeking sanction... you have a link for that i suppose?

 

[ogibillm]

again, you're just making shit up. ...

RELATIVISM.

you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again Reader... Do you see how easy this is?

Remember, the key to defeating Leftists in debate, rests in two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to SPEAK!

 

[rightwinger]

so it has nothing to do with whether or not a lash or death is a felony... it's that you just hate islam.

"It" is Islam... which stands wholly antithetical to the principles that define AMERICA. And as an AMERICAN... that is all I need to know ABOUT Islam to reject Islam, entirely and without exception to any of its evil facets.

it, in my sentence, actually referred to your objection to the courts. ...

The Courts ... which are illegal in the United States, because we already have a legal system, which rests in principle rejected by ISLAM. Which is the basis of my REJECTION OF SUCH.

so judge judy is illegal? the people's court is illegal? jewish and amish courts... illegal?
why aren't you protesting them?

incidentally, none of those are illegal.

Does Judge Judy have also have a 1200 year record of employing mass-murder as a means to acquire political power? I wasn't aware?

(Reader Judge Judy considers civil matters to which the parties sign contracts within the scope of the program... Judge Judy does not have any authority over the individuals and she cannot use law enforcement to enforce her rulings. Where the individuals fail to adhere to her ruling, the prevailing parties would need to seek judgement from a duly appointed court to enforce such.

By seeking sanction from the City of Irvine, the Muslims were seeking to increase their perceived authority... a first step to becoming recognized as an ACTUAL "AUTHORITY".)

Where is it ever mentioned that the Muslim Court is seeking any "sanction" from the City of Irvine?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

..

"It" is Islam... which stands wholly antithetical to the principles that define AMERICA. And as an AMERICAN... that is all I need to know ABOUT Islam to reject Islam, entirely and without exception to any of its evil facets.

it, in my sentence, actually referred to your objection to the courts. ...

The Courts ... which are illegal in the United States, because we already have a legal system, which rests in principle rejected by ISLAM. Which is the basis of my REJECTION OF SUCH.

so judge judy is illegal? the people's court is illegal? jewish and amish courts... illegal?
why aren't you protesting them?

incidentally, none of those are illegal.

Does Judge Judy have also have a 1200 year record of employing mass-murder as a means to acquire political power? I wasn't aware?

(Reader Judge Judy considers civil matters to which the parties sign contracts within the scope of the program... Judge Judy does not have any authority over the individuals and she cannot use law enforcement to enforce her rulings. Where the individuals fail to adhere to her ruling, the prevailing parties would need to seek judgement from a duly appointed court to enforce such.

By seeking sanction from the City of Irvine, the Muslims were seeking to increase their perceived authority... a first step to becoming recognized as an ACTUAL "AUTHORITY".)

No one has a 1200 year record of employing mass-murder. Let's stick to reality.

Actually, that is literally; thus the real and actual history of Islam.

 

[Asclepias]

Again Reader... Do you see how easy this is?

Remember, the key to defeating Leftists in debate, rests in two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to SPEAK!

Who is Reader? I searched and could not find a username. Who are you talking to?

 

[Conservative65]

Muslims are ANGRY at Texas Mayor After She Stops "Sharia Court"... Here Is Her EPIC Response! - The Political Insider

"This radical group of Muslims is not pleased with the Mayor of Irving, Texas after she put the end to America’s first “Sharia Court.” Mayor Beth Van Duyne has accused mosque leaders of creating separate laws for Muslims, which is why the city voted to stop these supposedly “voluntary” tribunals from operating.

In a very close 5-4 vote, the city of Irving ruled to back the Texas state bill banning foreign law from the state. The bill doesn’t mention Sharia or any religion, but it’s a huge defeat for Sharia supporters, as such courts are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is how Mayor Duyne responded on Facebook, before the historic and controversial vote:

This falls under who gives a shit what they think.

 

[Coyote]

Again Reader... Do you see how easy this is?

Remember, the key to defeating Leftists in debate, rests in two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to SPEAK!

Translation: "I concede"

Thank you for not wasting any more of our time.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

RELATIVISM.
you keep using that word.

Yes and that's because I am speaking to the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only within the relation to one's culture, society, or historical context, and as such can never be seen as soundly reasoned absolutes.

Such is the basis of Left-think and is the rationalized means through which evil is advanced.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Translation: "I concede"... .

Oh my! Look at that? A projection being used to represent a conclusion?

How wonderful...

Once again reader, one need look no farther than the nearest Leftist to see a FIRST CLASS Demonstration of RELATIVISM.

You second concession to the same standing point(s) is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Third party civil arbitration is completely legal in the US.

within the law, not separate laws that don't conform to the state's

do you have a point?

>>
Sharia law advocates many practices that conflict with the rights afforded under the United States Constitution and/or violate state and federal law including:

• Abolition of adoption rights otherwise granted under American laws.
• Abolition of Wills, Inheritance Instruments and Last Testaments established under American laws.
• Abolition of certain interest income otherwise specified in loan, mortgage and other borrowing documents.
• Diminished rights of women in court. It takes the testimony of two women to equal one man in Sharia court.
• Polygamy, Muslim men may marry up to four wives.
• Muslim husbands are given the right to beat their wives as a form of discipline.
• Severe discipline toward women including isolation, discrimination, full body cover, genital mutilation and beatings.
• Savage retribution including amputating limbs and gouging out eyes for crimes like theft.
• Barbaric marital punishment toward women including rape, honor killing and public stoning.
  <<

• 
  Women might not be aware or allowed access to state courts instead of the sharia tribunal. They might be threatened that the state will arrest them or be harsher. They might be deported.

• 
  Women and children might not believe they will be allowed to appeal to the state courts that the state takes far too long, witnesses and evidence might be lost or police and courts will manhandle and force women to remove their coverings. Some might be told that they would have to swear on a bible. If they go to the state courts they will be outcasts in their community and family.

• 
  It is not such a simple thing for many

American libs have no problem with any of that, as long as Muslims are involved.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

hold on, i thought you opposed the sharia court because they were illegal because we already have a court system.

Congrats! You finally managed to retain something.

Good for you! That can only be a good sign of something.. .

 

[Asclepias]

Translation: "I concede"... .

Oh my! Look at that? A projection being used to represent a conclusion?

How wonderful...

Once again reader, one need look no farther than the nearest Leftist to see a FIRST CLASS Demonstration of RELATIVISM.

You second concession to the same standing point(s) is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[pwjohn]

Big deal. Sharia doesn't supersede our law now, and never will. That doesn't mean that anyone who wants to can't agree to any type of legal settlement or arbitration that they want. If they want to settle their personal, civil disagreements according to sharia law, or by flipping a coin, it's nobodies business but theirs.

There's nothing legal it. There's only one way to make it legal and binding and that's through a court of law.

So personal contracts aren't binding? That's just dumb.

Why is that dumb?

 

[dannyboys]

The mayor is a bigoted idiot. ... .

The absolute COOLEST thing about the use of the word "bigot"; where such is advanced to frame the character of another, is that it is a marvelous demonstration of BIGOTRY!

HYSTERICALLY! ... such is a paradox that is lost to the Intellectually Less Fortunate. So it happens among them... as a matter of ROUTINE!

The absolute coolest thing about your statement is.....you actually think you said something

Are you really a 'moderator'? And a USMB staffer?
Does'nt look like you're doing much 'moderating' friend.


Moderation Clarification:

Different Zones -- different rules and levels of Moderation. THIS is Zone3 -- where ISOLATED conversational exchanges are totally allowed. Doesn't have the Zone2 requirement where EVERY POST has to have topical information. My guess is -- Coyote was just pulling a "pop quiz" on you guys -- so we could take this 1 Minute Moment to give posting tips !!! --- FCTenn

 

[Asclepias]

Big deal. Sharia doesn't supersede our law now, and never will. That doesn't mean that anyone who wants to can't agree to any type of legal settlement or arbitration that they want. If they want to settle their personal, civil disagreements according to sharia law, or by flipping a coin, it's nobodies business but theirs.

There's nothing legal it. There's only one way to make it legal and binding and that's through a court of law.

So personal contracts aren't binding? That's just dumb.

Why is that dumb?

Because its simply not true. All you need for a personal contract to be legally binding is a agreement and consideration. Have you ever heard of FSBO or a promissory note?

 

[ogibillm]

hold on, i thought you opposed the sharia court because they were illegal because we already have a court system.

Congrats! You finally managed to retain something.

Good for you! That can only be a good sign of something.. .

So which is it? Are arbitration courts illegal because we have courts already or does it have something to do with your view of history?

 

[pwjohn]

Political grandstanding

There is nothing the state can do if litigants voluntarily accept the terms of a muslim court
If it was a Christian church, I'm sure they would be celebrating

Without recourse what good is the decision. And what if sharia courts differ in areas such as same sex marriage and women's rights.