Sharia Law vs. the Constitution

[Book of Jeremiah]

Coyote, it is very simple. Americans do not want sharia law being used in ANY american courtroom and that includes Michigan - ALL the states.

First we must determine if it is being used. Otherwise this is a non-existent problem designed to single out Muslims. Why not ANY religious law? Why ONLY Islamic religious law?

You realize "Sharia" law is what governs the selling of Halal acceptable food? You realize Jewish religious law is what governs Kosher food? Those are two examples where religious law is used in order to make claims about certain foods - so that they meet the standards of certain religions. So we eliminate Sharia but keep Kosher?

Both Islamic, Christian and Jewish religious law are used within certain kinds of negotiations - for example monetary and business dealings, marriages, divorces. Typically the parties consent to negotiate under those rules but they always have recourse to state and federal law and in no way does religious law ever trump state law. So my question to you is should we only single out Islamic laws here or all of them? Should people be banned from it using Sharia-compliant banking systems if they want to?

We abide by our constitution. Not Sharia. If you want that? Go to the middle east. That's all we are saying! This is America! Our courtrooms shall use American Law period. NO SHARIA LAW.

We abide by our constitution. Yes.

So Christian religious law is ok then?

Would you be comfortable with Sharia law in your community? Eschewing US Constitutional, State and local laws?

I wouldn't be. It is fine as it is.

 

[pinqy]

Has it been pointed out yet that MOST MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES DON'T USE SHARIA LAW?
Many others allow it for some non-criminal matters, such as divorce, inheritence etc, in which case they only apply to Muslims. But Muslim countries with full Sharia? Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania, parts of the UAE, one province in Indonesia and about a fourth of the provinces in Nigeria.

So why is it a threat here and not in all the Muslim countries that use secular law?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

They are working on full sharia in Britain. Do you want to see that happen here, Pingy? Should we wait until there is a stronghold before acting to prevent such a thing in our own courts?

 

[Coyote]

They are working on full sharia in Britain. Do you want to see that happen here, Pingy? Should we wait until there is a stronghold before acting to prevent such a thing in our own courts?

Link?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, it is very simple. Americans do not want sharia law being used in ANY american courtroom and that includes Michigan - ALL the states.

First we must determine if it is being used. Otherwise this is a non-existent problem designed to single out Muslims. Why not ANY religious law? Why ONLY Islamic religious law?

You realize "Sharia" law is what governs the selling of Halal acceptable food? You realize Jewish religious law is what governs Kosher food? Those are two examples where religious law is used in order to make claims about certain foods - so that they meet the standards of certain religions. So we eliminate Sharia but keep Kosher?

Both Islamic, Christian and Jewish religious law are used within certain kinds of negotiations - for example monetary and business dealings, marriages, divorces. Typically the parties consent to negotiate under those rules but they always have recourse to state and federal law and in no way does religious law ever trump state law. So my question to you is should we only single out Islamic laws here or all of them? Should people be banned from it using Sharia-compliant banking systems if they want to?

We abide by our constitution. Not Sharia. If you want that? Go to the middle east. That's all we are saying! This is America! Our courtrooms shall use American Law period. NO SHARIA LAW.

We abide by our constitution. Yes.

So Christian religious law is ok then?

Like it or not our laws are based on Judeo-Christain values and tenets.
The majority of the population is of the Christian faith.
I see no problem here.

Biblical law is eye for an eye and stoning adulterers amongst other things.

I see a problem there.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, it is very simple. Americans do not want sharia law being used in ANY american courtroom and that includes Michigan - ALL the states.

First we must determine if it is being used. Otherwise this is a non-existent problem designed to single out Muslims. Why not ANY religious law? Why ONLY Islamic religious law?

You realize "Sharia" law is what governs the selling of Halal acceptable food? You realize Jewish religious law is what governs Kosher food? Those are two examples where religious law is used in order to make claims about certain foods - so that they meet the standards of certain religions. So we eliminate Sharia but keep Kosher?

Both Islamic, Christian and Jewish religious law are used within certain kinds of negotiations - for example monetary and business dealings, marriages, divorces. Typically the parties consent to negotiate under those rules but they always have recourse to state and federal law and in no way does religious law ever trump state law. So my question to you is should we only single out Islamic laws here or all of them? Should people be banned from it using Sharia-compliant banking systems if they want to?

We abide by our constitution. Not Sharia. If you want that? Go to the middle east. That's all we are saying! This is America! Our courtrooms shall use American Law period. NO SHARIA LAW.

We abide by our constitution. Yes.

So Christian religious law is ok then?

Would you be comfortable with Sharia law in your community? Eschewing US Constitutional, State and local laws?

You didn't answer my question.

My position is and always has been for strictly secular law.

How about you? Shouldn't we have a law making sure not JUST Sharia creeps in but any religious law? Jewish law? Biblical law? Why discrimminate?

 

[Coyote]

Eventually we can expect to begin hearing about 5 yr old girls forced to marry Muslims in USA. It is only a matter of time. Another aspect of Islam I cannot condone. Paedophilia.

You mean like pedophilic priests and ministers and leaders of Christian cults marrying children?

Pedophilia is no more a part of Islam than it is Christianity and child marriages (and polygamy) were endemic in both historically.

 

[Coyote]

Here is story:



Telegraph.co.uk

Five-year-old girl a victim of forced marriage
A five-year-old girl has become Britain’s youngest known victim of forced marriage, it has emerged.

Forced marriage: criminalisation could deter victims, claim Photo: ALAMY By John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor
8:00AM BST 31 Mar 2012


The child, who has not been named, was among 400 children dealt with by the Home Office’s dedicated Forced Marriage Unit, last year. An 87-year-old woman was also a suspected victim.

But campaigners warned that the case could be just the tip of the iceberg with “thousands” of children in some communities believed to have been promised in marriage from birth.

The case was highlighted by Amy Cumming, joint head of the unit, who was speaking as a consultation on plans to make forced marriage a criminal offence.

Currently it is not illegal in Britain to force someone to get married against their will.

The strongest sanctions available are “Forced Marriage Orders”, a type of civil court order which operate like an injunction but are viewed as little more than a “slap on the wrist” by critics.

Related Articles
Chances to protect white honour killing victim missed
29 May 2012
Forced marriage expected to be made a crime
07 Jun 2012
'Moral values' enshrined in 'radical' overhaul of child protection.
12 Jun 2012
Hidden tide of 'honour' violence in Britain's communities
28 Dec 2011
Forced marriage victims could number 8,000 as ministers plan to make it illegal
12 Dec 2011
Children at risk of abuse 'because too few doctors' Royal College warns
05 Apr 2012
Last year David Cameron signalled his support for tightening up the law likening forced marriage to “slavery” and Theresa May pledged to “stamp out this appalling abuse”.

But a similar consultation exercise eight years ago – which led to the introduction of the civil orders – prompted the then Government to decide against criminalising force d marriage.

That followed claims from some quarters that the law might “stigmatise” communities and drive the practice even further underground.

Supporters of criminalisation say that only by making it a crime will victims feel confident to come forward.

Jasvinder Sanghera, herself a former victim who now runs the support group and helpline The Honour Network, said it is likely the girl had been promised from birth to a first cousin.

The practice is particularly prevalent among Muslims of Pakistani origin, she said.

Although the marriage would not be recognised by law in Britain, children can take part in religious “Nikkah” ceremonies – or weddings – in a Mosque or even a private home.

She told of one friend who had been taken to Pakistan as a seven-year-old boy for what he thought was a “party” only to realise later that he had been married.

“We have had cases where girls have rung the helpline and said ‘I’ve been forced into a marriage, they have done the Nikkah, they have done it over the phone’.

“The interesting question here would be to know where that girl is today, whether she has been placed in foster care or sent back to the perpetrators.

“I also wonder who is holding her parents to account for doing this.”

She said that many such cases only come to light because the child stops attending school.

“The professionals are not looking at this as child protection, they are just pandering to concerns around cultural sensitivity," she said.

“How can a five-year-old can be forced into a marriage? This would not happened to a white British five year-old girl because people would be jumping up and down about it.”

Supporters of the ban have actively campaigned to involve the general public in this year’s consultation.

The Honour Network collected responses from more than 2,500 people, 96 per cent of whom supported a ban and only three per cent were against.

Last year the Forced Marriage Unit handled 1,468 cases involving victims ranging in age from five to 87.

One in 10 cases involved children under 15 and almost half were between 16 and 21. More than 65 per cent of cases involved people of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin.


SOURCE: The Telegraph

Child marriages have little to do with the religion and more to do with the local (in this case Pakistani) culture. You find the same problem in Christian and Muslim African countries and amongst all the religions in India. In many of those areas 16 is considered adult. Forced marriages are a serious problem but not one of religious origin - it's cultural.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

They are working on full sharia in Britain. Do you want to see that happen here, Pingy? Should we wait until there is a stronghold before acting to prevent such a thing in our own courts?

Link?

I just read it on the other post - he had four links. I will go get it.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Coyote, it is in the top link. Nospoon put it up on this thread.


Britain's Sharia Courts: "You Cannot Go Against What Islam Says" :: Gatestone Institute
Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge | Mail Online
Archbishop of Canterbury warns sharia law in Britain is inevitable - Home News - UK - The Independent

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

First we must determine if it is being used. Otherwise this is a non-existent problem designed to single out Muslims. Why not ANY religious law? Why ONLY Islamic religious law?

You realize "Sharia" law is what governs the selling of Halal acceptable food? You realize Jewish religious law is what governs Kosher food? Those are two examples where religious law is used in order to make claims about certain foods - so that they meet the standards of certain religions. So we eliminate Sharia but keep Kosher?

Both Islamic, Christian and Jewish religious law are used within certain kinds of negotiations - for example monetary and business dealings, marriages, divorces. Typically the parties consent to negotiate under those rules but they always have recourse to state and federal law and in no way does religious law ever trump state law. So my question to you is should we only single out Islamic laws here or all of them? Should people be banned from it using Sharia-compliant banking systems if they want to?



We abide by our constitution. Yes.

So Christian religious law is ok then?

Would you be comfortable with Sharia law in your community? Eschewing US Constitutional, State and local laws?

You didn't answer my question.

My position is and always has been for strictly secular law.

How about you? Shouldn't we have a law making sure not JUST Sharia creeps in but any religious law? Jewish law? Biblical law? Why discrimminate?

The law as it stands is fine.

 

[Coyote]

Would you be comfortable with Sharia law in your community? Eschewing US Constitutional, State and local laws?

You didn't answer my question.

My position is and always has been for strictly secular law.

How about you? Shouldn't we have a law making sure not JUST Sharia creeps in but any religious law? Jewish law? Biblical law? Why discrimminate?

The law as it stands is fine.

Why? It keeps the door open for other forms of religious law to enroach.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

lol. What a clever reply, Coyote!

Still I believe it isn't wise to accept a bit more security for a bit less freedom. That isn't the way it goes. We need to keep our constitution and defend it. That may take some creativity in the days ahead.

 

[American_Jihad]

January 27, 2016
Why Sharia Is Incompatible with American Values
ByJames Arlandson


You and I don't like sharia, while hundreds of millions love it. Chillingly, it's stillmaking inroadsin American society.

Who's right? Are we stuck in relativism? Worse, is the side with the strongest military right?

How do we break the deadlock? Any objective – timeless and transcultural – moral truths out there?

It's time to go deeper and figure out what's happening in us that makes us recoil at it.

ISIS and many Islamic nations believe, because original Islam teaches, the following:

• Mosque and state are not separate.
• Apostasy, or leaving Islam, is outlawed up to the penalty of death.
• Speaking against Islam is outlawed up to the penalty of death.
• Jihad orqital(military war only) to force conversions or submit to a tax is allowed.
• Having sex with female prisoners of war is allowed.
• Drinkers and gamblers may be flogged.
• Adulterers and fornicators may be flogged (and adulterers may be stoned to death).
• Bearing false witness about sexual sin (a "crime" in Islam) can incur flogging.
• Homosexuals may be flogged or executed.
• A woman inherits half of what a man does.
• Domestic violence is allowed.
• A woman's testimony counts as half of a man's testimony.
• A man may divorce his wife by pronouncing three times "you are divorced" outside a court of law, and the divorce is legal and final.

It should be pointed out that sharia has laws that look like those of any other system (e.g., don't murder, steal, or traffic drugs).

And it is true that in seventeenth-century American society, thepunishments were harsh, but we have worked hard to move away from the past.

America has improved on that list and the whole tone of sharia, like head coverings for women.

Specifically, our Constitution by itself eliminates most of those sharia laws. The First Amendment offers freedom of religion, without government intrusion, and free speech. TheEighth Amendmentprohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

...

Read more:http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/why_sharia_is_incompatible_with_american_values.html#ixzz3yWEqBg00

 

[American_Jihad]

Innocence of Muslims lawsuit is over. Courts back away from elevating Sharia law command to censor blasphemy of Muhammad over the First Amendment.

FFA supporters sent close to 25,000 emails to each appellate court judge urging this decision.

Innocence of Muslims lawsuit is over.

Courts back away from elevating Sharia law command to censor blasphemy of Muhammad over the First Amendment.

FFA supporters sent close to 25,000 emails to each appellate court judge urging this decision.

The threat posed by the 9th US Circuit Court’s panel ruling that would have changed copyright law to respond to a fatwa issued by several Imams is over.
(Side note: how come we don't see any fartwa's on ISIS???)

Courthousenews.com reports LOS ANGELES (CN) - The legal fight between Google and an actress who sued over her brief appearance in the movie trailer "Innocence of Muslims" is over. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald dismissed the action after Cindy Garcia, filmmaker Nakoula Basseley and Google filed a joint stipulation stating that all the parties had agreed to drop the case. Read more at Courthousenews.com.

...

FFA - Innocence of Muslims lawsuit is over. Courts back away from elevating Sharia law command to censor blasphemy of Muhammad over the First Amendment.