States banning Sharia Law

[bripat9643]

I dont think banning sharia will pass constitutional muster. If Muslims want to establish sharia courts and voluntarily submit themselves to them, fine.

What about people who don't want to submit to them? What happens when a Muslim kills his daughter because she had sex before she was married?

 

[CaféAuLait]

You're misreading your article, and seeing what you want to see (or what the Telegraph wants you to see). No law has been changed.

A guidance has been sent out advising lawyers on how to create "sharia" compliant wills. "Sharia" compliant wills have never been against the law in Britain.

You're right I did misread that law/guidance. the point to me, is it is being accepted and guidance is being given which supersedes exiting laws, Wills Act 1837 according to the article.

I don't care if its Muslim law, Jewish Law, Satanic law, or Scientology law. If it allows a woman to be treated differently than her peers its wrong IMO.

If I were to have 2 kids, a boy and a girl, and chose to leave all of my money to my son and nothing to my daughter, that wouldn't violate any laws - whether or not I did it for religious reasons.

The Wills Act of 1837 does not require "fairness" to women. (1837 wasn't really that big of a year for "women's rights", after all)

I see what you are saying about your 'daughter and son'. The difference is you can make that decision all on your own. It is not a law which is followed and mandated by religion. All Muslim women are by marriage not to have equal parts, as well as female children.

Boys will always receive more than their sisters, and mothers. If the man who dies has brothers, then the wife will get even less. The same mandate excludes any illegitimate children, while the law of 1837 states illegitimate children can and should receive an inheritance.

I also know what you mean by women not being respected in 1837. There have been many amendments to that law since then. That is my point women have fought for so much, from getting voting right to what have you, it seems as if this sets some women back IMO.

Allah commands you as regards your children (inheritance),
To the MALE, a portion equal to that of TWO FEMALES;
If (there are) only DAUGHTERS, two or more, their share is TWO-THIRDS of the inheritance;
If only one, her share is HALF.
For PARENTS, a SIXTH share of inheritance to EACH if the deceased left CHILDREN;
If NO CHILDREN, and the PARENTS are the (ONLY) heirs, the MOTHER has a THIRD;
If the deceased left BROTHERS or (SISTERS), the MOTHER has a SIXTH.

If there are TWO SISTERS, they shall have TWO-THIRDS of the inheritance;
If there are BROTHERS and SISTERS, the male will have TWICE the share of the female.
(Thus) does Allah make clear to you (His Law) lest you go astray. And Allah is the All-Knower of everything.

http://www.muslimpersonallaw.co.za/Inheritance according to Islamic Sharia Law.pdf

As I said earlier I don't care what religion it is. It is very angering when I see children or anyone die in the name of religion because of its laws regarding no pharmaceuticals. ( There are a few in the states, cant recall their names). I recall reading about Jehovah Witnesses allowing their children to die repeatedly in the 70s by refusing blood transfusion and nary a word was said except they are following their religion. There is more focus on it now, but it was very bad then according to articles I read.

Hearing women being treated differently is accepted because of religion after all we have worked for is even more irritating. Recognizing religious practices which treat women and girls differently is not good IMO.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I dont think banning sharia will pass constitutional muster. If Muslims want to establish sharia courts and voluntarily submit themselves to them, fine.

What about people who don't want to submit to them?

Then they won't appear in "Sharia" courts. It's not complicated. "Sharia" courts are arbitration courts.

What happens when a Muslim kills his daughter because she had sex before she was married?

He'll go to prison.

 

[bripat9643]

I dont think banning sharia will pass constitutional muster. If Muslims want to establish sharia courts and voluntarily submit themselves to them, fine.

What about people who don't want to submit to them?

Then they won't appear in "Sharia" courts. It's not complicated. "Sharia" courts are arbitration courts..

Then they aren't really courts because they can't enforce Sharia.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What about people who don't want to submit to them?

Then they won't appear in "Sharia" courts. It's not complicated. "Sharia" courts are arbitration courts..

Then they aren't really courts because they can't enforce Sharia.

It took you this long to realize that?

They are arbitration courts. Their rulings can only be enforced if all parties agree to it beforehand.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're right I did misread that law/guidance. the point to me, is it is being accepted and guidance is being given which supersedes exiting laws, Wills Act 1837 according to the article.

I don't care if its Muslim law, Jewish Law, Satanic law, or Scientology law. If it allows a woman to be treated differently than her peers its wrong IMO.

If I were to have 2 kids, a boy and a girl, and chose to leave all of my money to my son and nothing to my daughter, that wouldn't violate any laws - whether or not I did it for religious reasons.

The Wills Act of 1837 does not require "fairness" to women. (1837 wasn't really that big of a year for "women's rights", after all)

I see what you are saying about your 'daughter and son'. The difference is you can make that decision all on your own. It is not a law which is followed and mandated by religion. All Muslim women are by marriage not to have equal parts, as well as female children.

Boys will always receive more than their sisters, and mothers. If the man who dies has brothers, then the wife will get even less. The same mandate excludes any illegitimate children, while the law of 1837 states illegitimate children can and should receive an inheritance.

I also know what you mean by women not being respected in 1837. There have been many amendments to that law since then. That is my point women have fought for so much, from getting voting right to what have you, it seems as if this sets some women back IMO.

Allah commands you as regards your children (inheritance),
To the MALE, a portion equal to that of TWO FEMALES;
If (there are) only DAUGHTERS, two or more, their share is TWO-THIRDS of the inheritance;
If only one, her share is HALF.
For PARENTS, a SIXTH share of inheritance to EACH if the deceased left CHILDREN;
If NO CHILDREN, and the PARENTS are the (ONLY) heirs, the MOTHER has a THIRD;
If the deceased left BROTHERS or (SISTERS), the MOTHER has a SIXTH.

If there are TWO SISTERS, they shall have TWO-THIRDS of the inheritance;
If there are BROTHERS and SISTERS, the male will have TWICE the share of the female.
(Thus) does Allah make clear to you (His Law) lest you go astray. And Allah is the All-Knower of everything.

http://www.muslimpersonallaw.co.za/Inheritance according to Islamic Sharia Law.pdf

As I said earlier I don't care what religion it is. It is very angering when I see children or anyone die in the name of religion because of its laws regarding no pharmaceuticals. ( There are a few in the states, cant recall their names). I recall reading about Jehovah Witnesses allowing their children to die repeatedly in the 70s by refusing blood transfusion and nary a word was said except they are following their religion. There is more focus on it now, but it was very bad then according to articles I read.

Hearing women being treated differently is accepted because of religion after all we have worked for is even more irritating. Recognizing religious practices which treat women and girls differently is not good IMO.

I agree with you in spirit. But practically, we quickly reach a fine line between protecting women and children and preventing people from practicing their religion as they wish.

I'm Jewish and I grew up in Brooklyn. My family was mostly secular, but I spent a lot of time around orthodox and Hasidic Jews growing up - my grandparents still live in a very Hasidic neighborhood and many of my friends growing up were orthodox Jews.

There are many sexist practices common in Hasidic communities. Women must shave their heads when they get married, have restrictions on what they can wear and where they can go. It bothers me, but forcing Hasidic women to not shave their heads seems worse.

Where do you draw the line? If "sharia courts" are sexist and shouldn't exist, what about Catholic Churches refusing to marry divorced people? Should they be forced to do so?

Should a Jewish rabbi be forced to marry a Jew and Gentile?

Things get hairy quickly.

 

[The T]

Sharia courts in western countries function the same as Beth Din courts, or private arbitration.

No non-Muslims are forced to be subject to them.

The ridiculous fear mongering about "sharia" is a pretty good example of why it's so hard to take you people seriously.

But it doesn't COUNT HERE. Learn it, Live It, KNOW it.

So you don't believe that individuals should have the right to enter contracts as they wish, simply because you don't like their religion?

Sure they do but under the auspices of our LAW, enforced by OUR system. You are trying hard to twist the issue. Not buying it, sorry.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But it doesn't COUNT HERE. Learn it, Live It, KNOW it.

So you don't believe that individuals should have the right to enter contracts as they wish, simply because you don't like their religion?

Sure they do but under the auspices of our LAW, enforced by OUR system. You are trying hard to twist the issue. Not buying it, sorry.

What do you think Sharia or Beth Din courts in the US do?

They're not allowed to break OUR laws, or enforce anything at all. All they function as are private arbitration courts.

 

[Coyote]

The last 2 posts ignore the statistics of it..................

Why did it increase after the immigration, and why 77% of it in Muslim areas.....................

While it's still a crime, it denies the fact that their culture is part of the problem

you were given the statistics. you don't care about the statistics.

fist address why rape on campuses has increased. that has nothing to do with islam.

correlation is not causation.

You divert the subject................the original post was about the Rape stats in Sweden...................................

And the subject matter was specific to increases in the country and NOT AT COLLEGE...................

Do we have problems with it here...........Yes............and on Campus according to your stats.................yes................but as a culture of drunken partying..............

That is not the same as the stats presented in my article even though the numbers are similar...............

Riddle me this...........Before Sweden went Diverse the rape rate was 9.4%...........

Why did it go through the roof after the massed immigration of Muslims.................

Which you have failed to address.

Those claims have been largely spread by folks like Geller and Spencer, well known racists who take statistics out of context in an attempt to demonize. One example: Gil Ronen's Fabricated Statistics About Oslo Rapists Being All Muslim | loonwatch.com

 

[Clementine]

How can we condone legally allowing Muslims to trample women's rights? If they divorce, for instance, they want to kick the woman out the door with nothing. They don't want women to vote, drive or have a mind of their own. We cannot respect such stupid laws. If women wish to be treated like dogs, there is little we can do, but we shouldn't uphold such cruelty in courts.

 

[jillian]

How can we condone legally allowing Muslims to trample women's rights? If they divorce, for instance, they want to kick the woman out the door with nothing. They don't want women to vote, drive or have a mind of their own. We cannot respect such stupid laws. If women wish to be treated like dogs, there is little we can do, but we shouldn't uphold such cruelty in courts.

who says they get to do that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How can we condone legally allowing Muslims to trample women's rights? If they divorce, for instance, they want to kick the woman out the door with nothing. They don't want women to vote, drive or have a mind of their own. We cannot respect such stupid laws. If women wish to be treated like dogs, there is little we can do, but we shouldn't uphold such cruelty in courts.

who says they get to do that?

No one.

Just more hysterical hyperbole from the lunatic right.

 

[Indofred]

Anything that bans muslim extremism is good to go in my book, sharia definitely falls in that category.

That would depend on many factors.

Oklahoma Ban on Sharia Law Unconstitutional, US Judge Rules - Law Blog - WSJ

In a footnote, the judged noted that state attorneys “admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of any instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.”

Firstly, they're banning something that has never been tried.
Secondly, you're making the classic mistake of assuming full, strict sharia is normal sharia, it is not.
This idiotic law would ban sharia banking, a form of banking that would never had allowed the financial crash and sub prime mortgage scandal to happen.
It would ban sharia courts, sometimes elected to be used by Muslims in other countries, but have no actual power in law - the parties agree to abide by the court's ruling.
Saves the mainstream courts a lot of time and money.

I like to be fair and even handed so I should mention, a few other people are a bit pissed off at this idiotic law.

Court strikes Oklahoma ban on Shariah law | Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Jewish groups opposing the law include the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Agudath Israel of America and the Orthodox Union. Jewish law, or halachah, has been considered in U.S. courts in deciding cases.

So, to sum up - our esteemed OP is having a nice go at Islamic law, that has never been used in that state, but totally fails to mention, Jewish law, that has been used, is also in the firing line.

Tut tut, the naughty anti Semites.

 

[jon_berzerk]

VICTORY: Multiple States Have Now Banned Sharia Law

From everything that I know about this law, it has no place in the United States. It has brutal and archaic standards concerning women and punishment.

they have some crazy banking laws too

 

[hipeter924]

Muslim infighting is interesting enough, here is one case from New Zealand: Muslim leader bashed as battle over mosque worsens - National - NZ Herald News

A man is in hospital with serious injuries after he was beaten up at an Auckland mosque.

Haider Lone, immediate past president of the NZ Muslim Association and administrator of the Avondale Islamic Centre, says he fears for his life as he believes the attack was an assassination attempt.

Yesterday, police and security were again called in as ugly scenes erupted at the Blockhouse Bay Rd mosque where two Islamic factions are fighting for control.

Security officers had to intervene to stop a worshipper from using a weapon to attack another man who turned up at the mosque border despite having been trespassed.

New Zealand Police Superintendent Wally Haumaha, who went to the centre after the incident, said police were working with the parties towards a "peaceful solution".

The centre's imam Sheikh Abu Abdulla, 50, was trespassed along with his sons and some supporters on May 6.

 

[Flopper]

VICTORY: Multiple States Have Now Banned Sharia Law

From everything that I know about this law, it has no place in the United States. It has brutal and archaic standards concerning women and punishment.

The most objectionable parts of Shari Law is illegal without any additional laws being passed. Muslims can enforce Shari law just as any church can enforce the rules of the church on it's members. However, if those laws are in contradiction to US laws, they are illegal and the offenders are subject to prosecution.

For states to pass laws that ban Sharia Law in it's entirety would be as blatantly unconstitutional as banning Jewish law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States banning Sharia Law

Actually, there’s no point in ‘banning’ Sharia ‘law,’ particularly since it isn’t ‘law’ to begin with, as it must conform to existing state contract law.

 

[Flopper]

Anything that bans muslim extremism is good to go in my book, sharia definitely falls in that category.

The problem is there is no agreement on what Shari Law is. There is no one thing called Shari Law. There is no official document, such as the Ten Commandments that encapsulates it. Muslim communities have very different interpretations of Shari. It is overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting. To outlaw Shari is equivant to outlawing Islam which of course is unconstitutional.

 

[idb]

Why not just agree that illegal stuff is still illegal?
What does banning Sharia Law achieve?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why not just agree that illegal stuff is still illegal?
What does banning Sharia Law achieve?

Feelings.

It makes the people who've already been trained to live in fear of anything Muslim feel safe from their imaginary demons.