Texas Gov signs off on bill to keep Sharia law out of courts

[iceberg]

well i won't go too deep into arguing against your points cause i've been slammed at work and not able to do the research i like to do.

so that brings me to a simple question - if shaira law is not being pushed for here in the US by muslims, and Texas as well as other states are doing PR type moves to say "NOT HERE" (and this could well be that) does it hurt anything? i mean, they're not going to push for it anyway, right?

Does it hurt anything? It's a waste of time, for one (don't they have more important things to legislate?) and it sends a message to the Muslim community: "you aren't really American".

how does telling them we will not allow Muslim Laws equate to telling them they are not American? If anything it should reinforce the fact we *are* in America and to be American you will follow our laws.

as for wasting time - most gov is a waste really so add on.

It selectively targets ONE religion, it shows an ignorance of what Sharia is - for example, following halal is Sharia, so is giving to charity. It doesn't "reinforce" anything but that the targeted group is singled out for special treatment for a law that is unnecessary other than singling out a group.

i can't think of too many other religions that have their own laws to compare that too.

if catholics are trying trying to live under catholic law, stop that too. i'm cool with that.

Judaism does.

In fact, a number of religious groups use religious law in voluntary arbritation to settle civil manners, which is the only certain aspects of Sharia are utilized - family law such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and business transactions such as mortgages.

interesting. i'll have to do some research into this.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm sure you can provide a link showing such support

The Application of Sharia Law in the United States

Did you ACTUALLY read your source? Because it's not supporting what you think it is....

yea, and i agree it's not 100% dead on but in this case i'm not certain something could be.

for example, in that link a muslim said he can rape his wife cause that's how they live. ie - their laws. he wanted to be found innocent of a crime since under *their* law he would be.

now - if texas is taking a preemptive measure measure here and simply saying "don't bother trying to use your laws we don't recognize them here" then yes, this article would point out why Texas and other states are getting ahead of this one and shutting it down before it becomes an issue.

I don't think that is what it said at all.

It gave that one particular case, where a judge made a bad ruling that was overturned. It also expanded on how erroneous people's ideas of "Creeping Sharia" are by giving examples what can and can not be done in US law as well as how foreign laws (which Sharia would be) come into play if you are dealing with someone married under another country's laws and coming to the US (just one example where courts have to consider other laws).

well i won't go too deep into arguing against your points cause i've been slammed at work and not able to do the research i like to do.

so that brings me to a simple question - if shaira law is not being pushed for here in the US by muslims, and Texas as well as other states are doing PR type moves to say "NOT HERE" (and this could well be that) does it hurt anything? i mean, they're not going to push for it anyway, right?

It hurts in two ways:

1. It makes people believe that Sharia Law could happen, or that anyone is in danger of having this happen, which it could not. Just look at the number of people in this thread who think it's already happening. It's anti-Muslim fear mongering.

2. It wastes the time and resources of the State Legislature in drafting and passing the law.

Of the two, item No 1 does the most damage.

 

[Coyote]

I think a lot of people don't understand what "sharia" is. The see what ISIS does, they see how women are treated in parts of the Arab world, such as Saudi Arabia and they think "Sharia" but it's not that simple- what EXACTLY is a law banning "Sharia" banning? If it's banning murdering gay people, that is already against the law. If it's banning domestic abuse that is already against the law.


I think this is a good interview, and it makes some good points: Who's Behind The Movement To Ban Shariah Law?

On what Shariah law is


"Shariah literally means the way to the watering hole and is more commonly referred to as 'the way.' It is, most simply put, the law that guides Islamic beliefs and actions. But when Westerners think of a legal code, they tend to think of a fixed set of laws and Shariah is a lot more fluid than that, in part because there's no governing authoring in Islam. So while Islam's four major schools of law agree on many basic areas of Shariah, there are many areas that lack consensus and there's really a whole spectrum around the world in ways Muslims observe Shariah law. One of the key points is missing in this debate is that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries like the United States, there is broad agreement that Shariah requires them to abide by the laws of the land in exchange for the right to worship freely."


On creating a debate about Shariah



"[Yerushalmi] really set out on what might seem like an impossible mission, which was to make this very arcane and complex subject of Shariah a focus of national scrutiny. This was a word that was not even part of our vernacular a few years ago. ... A lot of people would argue that what has come of this is not really a substantive debate about Shariah as much as a shouting match. It's a shouting match that involves really simple messages on both sides — 'Shariah is bad' or 'Shariah is a non-issue.' But the leaders of this campaign really talk about it in a most preemptive way than a prescriptive way. What they say they're doing is trying to prevent Shariah from having the kind of influence seen in Europe, particularly in England, where the Muslim community is far less integrated and where there are Shariah tribunals."​

 

[iceberg]

i think a lot of people don't *want* to think about it in a broader context so it's either good or bad based on their own preconceptions and they run with it.

i want to learn more so i'll dig when i have some time and appreciate the viewpoints, agree or not in the end.

 

[Tilly]

..."American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC) efforts would protect against judges imposing any foreign doctrine – not just sharia – which violates American constitutional rights..

Texas the Latest State to Ban Sharia, Foreign Laws from Domestic Courts - Liberty Headlines

Good.

 

[Tilly]

....
Most such conflicts of legal doctrine occur in family-law disputes – child custody battles, for example – where at least one of the parties claims to be guided by foreign cultural or legal practices. The Texas law, in fact, is narrowly tailored specifically to cover foreign child custody judgments and child custody arbitrations, rather than applying more broadly.

But as sharia doctrines – female subservience and the like – are most often at issue in just these sorts of court battles, the Texas law is still seen by its advocates as a major advance, even if not fully following the model of other ALAC laws....

Texas the Latest State to Ban Sharia, Foreign Laws from Domestic Courts - Liberty Headlines

Nothing to object to here.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Actually, not true. It had become common for the north Texas Muslim communities to issue their own rulings within their communities, even if one was an outsider, within a dispute such as divorce. I lived down from their major center and Mosque for a few years. And the local non- Muslim authorities were putting up with it. I personally dealt with one situation in the case of the abuse of a 2-3 yr old girl. I was appalled with the reaction of the local authorities, calling it their culture.

Again, signers of a contract can put anything they want to in it, and they are obligated to go by those pre-agreed restrictions. Other than that, we have our laws and that is what we go by. If you have evidence that is not the case, WE need to stop it. I suspect you are just repeating a story you heard instead of provable facts though. Care to add more specifics to the claim you are making? The judge involved, etc?

No, you can't put anything you want into a contract, and no, people aren't obligated to a contract if the contract is not legal within the laws of the US. Where do you come up with these ideas?

Parties to a contract can agree on what ever kind of arbitration they want.

So you are amending your previous statement -"

Again, signers of a contract can put anything they want to in it, and they are obligated to go by those pre-agreed restrictions. Other than that, we have our laws and that is what we go by.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I might use slightly different words to explain the same thing occasionally, but that doesn't change the basic meaning.

Ok, I'll accept that. You said initially that people can put whatever they like in a contract and they are bound by it. That is not always the case. Then you said that they can choose whatever type of arbitration they want. That is true, and the arbitrator does not necessarily have to decide based on the law. It's a nuance.

 

[depotoo]

Answer me this. Plain and simple. Should the police have returned that toddler I saved, simply because it is their culture?

I think a lot of people don't understand what "sharia" is. The see what ISIS does, they see how women are treated in parts of the Arab world, such as Saudi Arabia and they think "Sharia" but it's not that simple- what EXACTLY is a law banning "Sharia" banning? If it's banning murdering gay people, that is already against the law. If it's banning domestic abuse that is already against the law.


I think this is a good interview, and it makes some good points: Who's Behind The Movement To Ban Shariah Law?

On what Shariah law is


"Shariah literally means the way to the watering hole and is more commonly referred to as 'the way.' It is, most simply put, the law that guides Islamic beliefs and actions. But when Westerners think of a legal code, they tend to think of a fixed set of laws and Shariah is a lot more fluid than that, in part because there's no governing authoring in Islam. So while Islam's four major schools of law agree on many basic areas of Shariah, there are many areas that lack consensus and there's really a whole spectrum around the world in ways Muslims observe Shariah law. One of the key points is missing in this debate is that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries like the United States, there is broad agreement that Shariah requires them to abide by the laws of the land in exchange for the right to worship freely."


On creating a debate about Shariah



"[Yerushalmi] really set out on what might seem like an impossible mission, which was to make this very arcane and complex subject of Shariah a focus of national scrutiny. This was a word that was not even part of our vernacular a few years ago. ... A lot of people would argue that what has come of this is not really a substantive debate about Shariah as much as a shouting match. It's a shouting match that involves really simple messages on both sides — 'Shariah is bad' or 'Shariah is a non-issue.' But the leaders of this campaign really talk about it in a most preemptive way than a prescriptive way. What they say they're doing is trying to prevent Shariah from having the kind of influence seen in Europe, particularly in England, where the Muslim community is far less integrated and where there are Shariah tribunals."​

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Actually, not true. It had become common for the north Texas Muslim communities to issue their own rulings within their communities, even if one was an outsider, within a dispute such as divorce. I lived down from their major center and Mosque for a few years. And the local non- Muslim authorities were putting up with it. I personally dealt with one situation in the case of the abuse of a 2-3 yr old girl. I was appalled with the reaction of the local authorities, calling it their culture.

They didn't have to. It was illegal before they passed anything. This as just another way to stir up the crazies.

Again, signers of a contract can put anything they want to in it, and they are obligated to go by those pre-agreed restrictions. Other than that, we have our laws and that is what we go by. If you have evidence that is not the case, WE need to stop it. I suspect you are just repeating a story you heard instead of provable facts though. Care to add more specifics to the claim you are making? The judge involved, etc?

No, you can't put anything you want into a contract, and no, people aren't obligated to a contract if the contract is not legal within the laws of the US. Where do you come up with these ideas?

Parties to a contract can agree on what ever kind of arbitration they want.

Again you're wrong. You can write in anything you want but clauses which violate the written laws of the jurisdiction, are unenforceable.

Every contract contains a provision which reads:

"This agreement is written and is to construed with the laws of [insert jurisdiction here i.e. the State of Texas]. If any clause contained herein is found to be at variance with such laws, such clause shall be deleted from this agreement. "

In English, it says that any part of the contract which does not conform to the written law of the jurisdiction named, is not enforceable.

There is a slight nuance here. If two parties agree to arbitration, the arbitrators judgement or ruling does not have to conform or be based on the law.

 

[Tilly]

Actually, not true. It had become common for the north Texas Muslim communities to issue their own rulings within their communities, even if one was an outsider, within a dispute such as divorce. I lived down from their major center and Mosque for a few years. And the local non- Muslim authorities were putting up with it. I personally dealt with one situation in the case of the abuse of a 2-3 yr old girl. I was appalled with the reaction of the local authorities, calling it their culture.

Again, signers of a contract can put anything they want to in it, and they are obligated to go by those pre-agreed restrictions. Other than that, we have our laws and that is what we go by. If you have evidence that is not the case, WE need to stop it. I suspect you are just repeating a story you heard instead of provable facts though. Care to add more specifics to the claim you are making? The judge involved, etc?

No, you can't put anything you want into a contract, and no, people aren't obligated to a contract if the contract is not legal within the laws of the US. Where do you come up with these ideas?

Parties to a contract can agree on what ever kind of arbitration they want.

Again you're wrong. You can write in anything you want but clauses which violate the written laws of the jurisdiction, are unenforceable.

Every contract contains a provision which reads:

"This agreement is written and is to construed with the laws of [insert jurisdiction here i.e. the State of Texas]. If any clause contained herein is found to be at variance with such laws, such clause shall be deleted from this agreement. "

In English, it says that any part of the contract which does not conform to the written law of the jurisdiction named, is not enforceable.

There is a slight nuance here. If two parties agree to arbitration, the arbitrators judgement or ruling does not have to conform or be based on the law.

This is how many muslim women are abused by sharia courts in Europe and its proved to be the thin edge of the wedge. They are threatened and ostracised if they decide they need recourse to the law of the land so they suffer the Islamic rulings in silence. Better to nip it in the bud as Texas appears to be doing, imho.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

I think a lot of people don't understand what "sharia" is. The see what ISIS does, they see how women are treated in parts of the Arab world, such as Saudi Arabia and they think "Sharia" but it's not that simple- what EXACTLY is a law banning "Sharia" banning? If it's banning murdering gay people, that is already against the law. If it's banning domestic abuse that is already against the law.


I think this is a good interview, and it makes some good points: Who's Behind The Movement To Ban Shariah Law?

On what Shariah law is


"Shariah literally means the way to the watering hole and is more commonly referred to as 'the way.' It is, most simply put, the law that guides Islamic beliefs and actions. But when Westerners think of a legal code, they tend to think of a fixed set of laws and Shariah is a lot more fluid than that, in part because there's no governing authoring in Islam. So while Islam's four major schools of law agree on many basic areas of Shariah, there are many areas that lack consensus and there's really a whole spectrum around the world in ways Muslims observe Shariah law. One of the key points is missing in this debate is that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries like the United States, there is broad agreement that Shariah requires them to abide by the laws of the land in exchange for the right to worship freely."


On creating a debate about Shariah



"[Yerushalmi] really set out on what might seem like an impossible mission, which was to make this very arcane and complex subject of Shariah a focus of national scrutiny. This was a word that was not even part of our vernacular a few years ago. ... A lot of people would argue that what has come of this is not really a substantive debate about Shariah as much as a shouting match. It's a shouting match that involves really simple messages on both sides — 'Shariah is bad' or 'Shariah is a non-issue.' But the leaders of this campaign really talk about it in a most preemptive way than a prescriptive way. What they say they're doing is trying to prevent Shariah from having the kind of influence seen in Europe, particularly in England, where the Muslim community is far less integrated and where there are Shariah tribunals."​

Muslim women don't attend these Sharia tribunals by choice the evidence collected by member of the House of Lords and renowned human rights activist Baroness Cox for example shows that in the U.K. they are being forced to use these parallel legal systems under the threats of violence, murder, and being ostracized from their families and communities.

Bow Group Report: "A Parallel World - confronting the abuse of Muslim women in Britain" | The Bow Group

We have the President of the Sharia council on record calling for the legalization of marital rape and a member of the board of governors calling for legalizing wife beating.

Apologists for Shariah like Coyote actually support the rape and murder of Muslim women, the evidence for this support is the canary in the coal mine that is the UK. So Coyote, when did you first realize that you support legalizing beating and raping Muslim women?

 

[MindWars]

The sad thing is that a bill was even needed.

It wasn't. The Constitution says you cannot make laws based on religion. All court cases are decided on the laws which are written and in force.

Since Sharia Law is religious law, it's illegal under the Constitution so no court can use Sharia Law in deciding cases.

This whole fear of Sharia Law is just bullshit because the only way it could become law in US is to amend the Constitution.

You are severely misinformed about Sharia Law just like those who are asked about it give the totally wrong answer when asked questions about it. It is a problem and until you learn the truth about it you are supporting everything you shouldn't be all via false information. You won't realize it until it's to late.

 

[BULLDOG]

The purpose of the bill was to insure that Sharia law is NEVER practiced anywhere in Texas. period.

It's now just as important to pass a law insuring that coconut shells are never used as legal tender. That has the same chance of happening as Sharia law had of being used to supercede our laws.

 

[BULLDOG]

Actually, not true. It had become common for the north Texas Muslim communities to issue their own rulings within their communities, even if one was an outsider, within a dispute such as divorce. I lived down from their major center and Mosque for a few years. And the local non- Muslim authorities were putting up with it. I personally dealt with one situation in the case of the abuse of a 2-3 yr old girl. I was appalled with the reaction of the local authorities, calling it their culture.

They didn't have to. It was illegal before they passed anything. This as just another way to stir up the crazies.

Again, signers of a contract can put anything they want to in it, and they are obligated to go by those pre-agreed restrictions. Other than that, we have our laws and that is what we go by. If you have evidence that is not the case, WE need to stop it. I suspect you are just repeating a story you heard instead of provable facts though. Care to add more specifics to the claim you are making? The judge involved, etc?

No, you can't put anything you want into a contract, and no, people aren't obligated to a contract if the contract is not legal within the laws of the US. Where do you come up with these ideas?

Parties to a contract can agree on what ever kind of arbitration they want.

Again you're wrong. You can write in anything you want but clauses which violate the written laws of the jurisdiction, are unenforceable.

Every contract contains a provision which reads:

"This agreement is written and is to construed with the laws of [insert jurisdiction here i.e. the State of Texas]. If any clause contained herein is found to be at variance with such laws, such clause shall be deleted from this agreement. "

In English, it says that any part of the contract which does not conform to the written law of the jurisdiction named, is not enforceable.

Yes. I was remiss in mentioning that. I assumed it went without saying that our laws superseded anything else. It is not against our laws for consenting parties to a contract to agree on their own manner of arbitration. There is no way Sharia law will supercede our laws, before or after that silly bill, unless our laws are changed to do that.

 

[MindWars]

Poll: Most U.S. Muslims would trade Constitution for Shariah

Here is the first problem and they will keep fighting until they win our Constitution away.

 

[MindWars]

Poll: Most U.S. Muslims would trade Constitution for Shariah

Here is the first problem and they will keep fighting until they win our Constitution away.

Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, signers of a contract can put anything they want to in it, and they are obligated to go by those pre-agreed restrictions. Other than that, we have our laws and that is what we go by. If you have evidence that is not the case, WE need to stop it. I suspect you are just repeating a story you heard instead of provable facts though. Care to add more specifics to the claim you are making? The judge involved, etc?

No, you can't put anything you want into a contract, and no, people aren't obligated to a contract if the contract is not legal within the laws of the US. Where do you come up with these ideas?

Parties to a contract can agree on what ever kind of arbitration they want.

So you are amending your previous statement -"

Again, signers of a contract can put anything they want to in it, and they are obligated to go by those pre-agreed restrictions. Other than that, we have our laws and that is what we go by.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I might use slightly different words to explain the same thing occasionally, but that doesn't change the basic meaning.

Ok, I'll accept that. You said initially that people can put whatever they like in a contract and they are bound by it. That is not always the case. Then you said that they can choose whatever type of arbitration they want. That is true, and the arbitrator does not necessarily have to decide based on the law. It's a nuance.

Obviously a contract for illegal things is not enforceable. A contract to rob a bank is not a binding document. I suppose you can look hard enough and find something on the periphery of every subject to object to, but I that was a little far fetched for me to consider in this conversation.

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, signers of a contract can put anything they want to in it, and they are obligated to go by those pre-agreed restrictions. Other than that, we have our laws and that is what we go by. If you have evidence that is not the case, WE need to stop it. I suspect you are just repeating a story you heard instead of provable facts though. Care to add more specifics to the claim you are making? The judge involved, etc?

No, you can't put anything you want into a contract, and no, people aren't obligated to a contract if the contract is not legal within the laws of the US. Where do you come up with these ideas?

Parties to a contract can agree on what ever kind of arbitration they want.

Again you're wrong. You can write in anything you want but clauses which violate the written laws of the jurisdiction, are unenforceable.

Every contract contains a provision which reads:

"This agreement is written and is to construed with the laws of [insert jurisdiction here i.e. the State of Texas]. If any clause contained herein is found to be at variance with such laws, such clause shall be deleted from this agreement. "

In English, it says that any part of the contract which does not conform to the written law of the jurisdiction named, is not enforceable.

There is a slight nuance here. If two parties agree to arbitration, the arbitrators judgement or ruling does not have to conform or be based on the law.

This is how many muslim women are abused by sharia courts in Europe and its proved to be the thin edge of the wedge. They are threatened and ostracised if they decide they need recourse to the law of the land so they suffer the Islamic rulings in silence. Better to nip it in the bud as Texas appears to be doing, imho.

Threatening someone because they take recourse in the law is already illegal. Has been for a long time.

 

[Tilly]

No, you can't put anything you want into a contract, and no, people aren't obligated to a contract if the contract is not legal within the laws of the US. Where do you come up with these ideas?

Parties to a contract can agree on what ever kind of arbitration they want.

Again you're wrong. You can write in anything you want but clauses which violate the written laws of the jurisdiction, are unenforceable.

Every contract contains a provision which reads:

"This agreement is written and is to construed with the laws of [insert jurisdiction here i.e. the State of Texas]. If any clause contained herein is found to be at variance with such laws, such clause shall be deleted from this agreement. "

In English, it says that any part of the contract which does not conform to the written law of the jurisdiction named, is not enforceable.

There is a slight nuance here. If two parties agree to arbitration, the arbitrators judgement or ruling does not have to conform or be based on the law.

This is how many muslim women are abused by sharia courts in Europe and its proved to be the thin edge of the wedge. They are threatened and ostracised if they decide they need recourse to the law of the land so they suffer the Islamic rulings in silence. Better to nip it in the bud as Texas appears to be doing, imho.

Threatening someone because they take recourse in the law is already illegal. Has been for a long time.

And that helps women who are oppressed and who won't avail themselves of our 'man made' laws not one iota. That's the problem with parallel legal systems under which women are abused and frightened.

 

[BULLDOG]

Parties to a contract can agree on what ever kind of arbitration they want.

Again you're wrong. You can write in anything you want but clauses which violate the written laws of the jurisdiction, are unenforceable.

Every contract contains a provision which reads:

"This agreement is written and is to construed with the laws of [insert jurisdiction here i.e. the State of Texas]. If any clause contained herein is found to be at variance with such laws, such clause shall be deleted from this agreement. "

In English, it says that any part of the contract which does not conform to the written law of the jurisdiction named, is not enforceable.

There is a slight nuance here. If two parties agree to arbitration, the arbitrators judgement or ruling does not have to conform or be based on the law.

This is how many muslim women are abused by sharia courts in Europe and its proved to be the thin edge of the wedge. They are threatened and ostracised if they decide they need recourse to the law of the land so they suffer the Islamic rulings in silence. Better to nip it in the bud as Texas appears to be doing, imho.

Threatening someone because they take recourse in the law is already illegal. Has been for a long time.

And that helps women who are oppressed and who won't avail themselves of our 'man made' laws not one iota. That's the problem with parallel legal systems under which women are abused and frightened.

Sharia is not a parallel legal system in the US. It cannot become one, before or after that silly Texas crap. People like Alex Jones and Hannity have convinced you that it has a possibility of becoming a parallel system, but they were just lying to stir up the weak minded and the crazies.