PDA

View Full Version : Local Missouri Sharia Bill


HonestChieffan
03-02-2011, 07:58 AM
State Legislators announced House Bill 708 Tuesday, that would ban Sharia law, as well as other foreign laws, from being applied in Missouri courts.

State Representative Paul Curtman (R-Pacific) is sponsoring the legislation, and says Missourians should be governed by American law.

“I think this is another important step in defending the rights and liberties of our citizens,” Curtman said. “Our heritage is grounded in the idea that our government must protect those rights and liberties. This legislation will help make it clear the constitution and laws of our country are the only laws that should be considered when governing our citizens in our country.”

In a press conference with Speaker of the House Stephen Tilley (R-Perry) Tuesday morning, Curtman could not provide an example of foreign law trumping domestic law in Missouri courts.

More...http://politicmo.com/2011/03/01/representatives-seek-to-ban-shariah-law-from-state-courts/

WV
03-02-2011, 08:08 AM
The scariest part about this is that the bill has to be introduced at all.

BucEyedPea
03-02-2011, 08:09 AM
The scariest part about this is that the bill has to be introduced at all.

I'm with ya' on this.

Jenson71
03-02-2011, 08:18 AM
The scariest part about this is that the bill has to be introduced at all.

Did it have to be?

HonestChieffan
03-02-2011, 08:18 AM
worse....someone will oppose it....

Count Zarth
03-02-2011, 08:19 AM
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ih4jkKzz75A?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ih4jkKzz75A?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 08:20 AM
Since no one can cite any examples of this ever actually happening, it doesn't seem like it needs to be introduced. Seems more like political grandstanding. But whatever, it's not like the law would hurt anything.

Vaspar
03-02-2011, 08:25 AM
Did it have to be?

Have you been paying attention to any of the goings on in Washington? Agreements with Canada and the US to use each others troops for domestics crises...Not to mention that the US Congress and the Media seem to be biased toward granting favorable views toward Muslims as well as the fact that illegals in this country have access to programs that most Citizens in this country would not qualify for? It is always better to proactive instead of reactive.

Jenson71
03-02-2011, 08:26 AM
worse....someone will oppose it....

Did you actually read the bill? It essentially says that "any law that is not law under the state or the United States is against public policy." Are you concerned that judges are disregarding US law and implementing Islamic law in place of?

Jenson71
03-02-2011, 08:28 AM
Have you been paying attention to any of the goings on in Washington? Agreements with Canada and the US to use each others troops for domestics crises...Not to mention that the US Congress and the Media seem to be biased toward granting favorable views toward Muslims as well as the fact that illegals in this country have access to programs that most Citizens in this country would not qualify for? It is always better to proactive instead of reactive.

What are the US Congress' "favorable views" toward Muslims? Do you have any example of that? What programs do illegals have that most citizens can't get? Any examples?

The Mad Crapper
03-02-2011, 08:29 AM
I think it's intended to protect muslims (particularly women) who don't want to be bullied by self appointed clerics in this country, and perhaps it may even encourage them to question why they would want to belong to this cult in the first place? Because US Judges sure aren't looking out for their best interests...

A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs — and that he did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife.

Jenson71
03-02-2011, 08:34 AM
worse....someone will oppose it....

And clearly, those people are anti-American. How would you like to run with that label for your next election: "The congressmen who wants Sharia law."

The opposing party should propose a bill: "Apple Pie is Great!" and then we can beat each other over who supports it or not. Because nothing is more American than Apple Pie.

orange
03-02-2011, 08:50 AM
Saturday, Feb 26, 2011 10:01 ET
What sharia law actually means
The right wants to ban it in America, but do they even know what it is?
By Justin Elliott

Last week in Tennessee, a Republican legislator introduced a bill that would make following sharia -- Islamic law -- a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. How such a law would be enforced is not clear; furthermore, it's probably unconstitutional.

It is clear, though, that an anti-sharia movement is growing in the United States. Last year Oklahoma voters approved a measure that bars courts from considering sharia. Similar measures have now been introduced or passed in at least 13 other states. Indeed, anti-Muslim political operatives have been warning of "creeping sharia" and "Islamist lawfare" for years, though the anti-sharia efforts have gained new prominence in recent months.

But even basic facts about sharia -- what is it? how is it used in American courts? -- are hard to come by. So I decided to talk to Abed Awad, a New Jersey-based attorney and an expert on sharia who regularly handles cases that involve Islamic law. He is also a member of the adjunct faculties at Rutgers Law School and Pace Law School. He recently answered my questions via e-mail.

Can you define sharia -- is it a specific body of laws?

Sharia is more than simply "law" in the prescriptive sense. It is also a methodology through which a jurist engages the religious texts to ascertain divine will. As a jurist-made law, the outcome of this process of ascertaining divine will is called fiqh (positive law), which is the moral and legal anchor of a Muslim's total existence. Sharia governs every aspect of an observant Muslim's life. The sharia juristic inquiry begins with the Quran and the Sunna. The Quran is the Muslim Holy Scripture -- like the New Testament for Christians or the Old Testament for the Jews. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed.

After the two primary sources of Islamic law, the Quran and the Sunna, the two main secondary sources of Islamic law are: (1) ijma (consensus of the scholars and jurists, and sometimes the entire community), and (2) qiyas (reasoning by analogy to one of the higher sources). Other secondary sources of Islamic law are juristic preference, public interest and custom. Sharia is extremely flexible and subject to various interpretations. In the 19th century, Western colonialism decimated the sharia legal system, replacing it with Western codes. This caused a serious decline in the community of jurists. In addition, there is today a debate that revolves around the failure of the modern jurists -- not the system of sharia -- to develop the sharia to adapt with the current circumstances of modernity.

How often does sharia come up in U.S. courts? Has there been an uptick recently?


It comes up often because the American-Muslim community is growing. With an estimated 8 million Americans who adhere to Islam, it is only natural to see a rapid increase of Muslim litigants before American courts where sharia may be an issue -- especially in family matters. 


Can you give a couple examples of when sharia has come up in cases that you've handled?



In the past 12 years as an attorney, I have handled many cases with an Islamic law component. U.S. courts are required to regularly interpret and apply foreign law -- including Islamic law -- to everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, probating an Islamic will and the damages element in a commercial dispute. Sharia is relevant in a U.S. court either as a foreign law or as a source of information to understand the expectations of the parties in a dispute.

Suppose a New York resident wife files for divorce in New York; her husband files for annulment in Egypt claiming the parties were never validly married. A New York judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of New York requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law.

Another common use of sharia in American courts is in the enforcement of Muslim marriage contracts. Like the majority of Americans, Muslims opt for a religious marriage ceremony. In every Muslim marriage, the parties enter into a Muslim marriage contract. The contract includes a provision called mahr, which is a lump sum payment from the groom to the bride that, unless otherwise agreed, would be due at the time of the husband's death or the dissolution of the marriage. An American court would require expert testimony to understand what a mahr is, what a Muslim marriage contract is, and to better understand the expectations of the parties at the time of the contract. All of this would be necessary for the court to determine whether the contract is valid under state law.

Is sharia used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? 


No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.

A lot of critics of sharia have cited a case in New Jersey in which a husband cited sharia to argue that he did not rape his wife. What happened in that case? 


The case is S.D. v. M.J.R. It's not about sharia as much as it is about a state court judge who failed to follow New Jersey law. In this case, the plaintiff-wife sought a restraining order against her husband, alleging that his nonconsensual action constituted physical abuse. She testified that her husband told her repeatedly that, according to his religion, she was obligated to submit to his sexual requests.

The trial judge refused to issue the restraining order, finding that the defendant was operating under a religious belief that he was entitled to have marital relations with his wife whenever he wanted. Thus, he did not form the criminal intent to commit domestic violence. But, of course, the appellate court reversed the trial court decision, holding that the defendant's nonconsensual sexual intercourse with his wife was "unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did." The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. A minority of Muslims mistakenly believe that a husband can discipline his wife with physical force in the interest of saving the marriage and avoiding divorce.

What about stoning, which critics also claim is part of sharia?

The Quran does not provide for the stoning of adulterers. The punishment prescribed in the Quran is lashing. However, there is a prophetic tradition that adopted the Jewish custom of stoning adulterers. Many people describe the American legal system as having a Judeo-Christian heritage. Does that mean that we will stone adulterers as required in the Bible? No.

As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures.

What do you make of these state-level efforts to ban consideration of sharia in American courts?

Other than the fact that such bans are unconstitutional -- a federal court recently held that a ban would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment -- they are a monumental waste of time. Our judges are equipped with the constitutional framework to refuse to recognize a foreign law. In the end, our Constitution is the law of the land.

The only explanation is that they appear to be driven by an agenda infused with hate, ignorance and Islamophobia intent on dehumanizing an entire religious community. That a dozen states are actively moving to adopt anti-sharia laws demonstrates that this is part of a pattern. This is not haphazard. Someone -- a group of people -- is trying to turn this into a national issue. I believe this will become an election issue. Are you with the sharia or with the U.S. Constitution? It is absurd.

Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More: Justin Elliott

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/26/sharia_the_real_story/index.html

The Mad Crapper
03-02-2011, 08:53 AM
A muslim woman divorces her husband, he rapes her, and the judge says it's ok...

U.S. Judge Ruled Sharia Law Trumps State Law

By Jerry A. Kane
Tuesday, July 27, 2010

In the June 14, 2010, story "Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma," ABC News reporter Joel Siegel scoffed at the Oklahoma referendum prohibiting the courts from using sharia law in their decisions, as if the state's referendum were a waste of time.

"Legal experts contacted by ABC News said they did not know of one instance of a judge in the U.S. invoking sharia in rendering a decision."—Joel Siegel

However, Jihad Watch.org exposed the limited knowledge of ABC's legal "experts."

According to Jihad Watch, a New Jersey judge found a Muslim man not guilty of forcing his wife to have sex with him. The judge ruled the man should be excepted from the State's criminal law due to his religious beliefs.

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

In other words, the Muslim husband acted in accordance with his belief in sharia law; therefore, he did not commit a crime because his desire to have sex was "consistent with his practices" which were "not prohibited," i.e., the judge determined sharia law trumps New Jersey criminal law.

An appellate court eventually overturned the judge's outrageous decision, yet this case escaped the purview of the legal experts contacted by ABC News.

For more on the New Jersey judge's sharia compliant ruling, see "Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex" by Jihad Watch and "Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal" by Eugene Volokh

Copyright by Jerry A. Kane


http://www.michnews.com/jerry_a_kane/jak072710.shtml

healthpellets
03-02-2011, 08:56 AM
look, when the mosloums take over amereeka, they're gonna be in power anywayz so they will just change the silly lawz we have now to do what they need to do.

DJ's left nut
03-02-2011, 09:23 AM
Did it have to be?

No.

Stupid political grandstanding.

I was kinda hoping we could keep that confined to the Federal level, but evidently our state governments are learning.

What a worthless waste of time this bill is.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 09:28 AM
I think it's intended to protect muslims (particularly women) who don't want to be bullied by self appointed clerics in this country, and perhaps it may even encourage them to question why they would want to belong to this cult in the first place? Because US Judges sure aren't looking out for their best interests...

A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs — and that he did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife.


That one case, the only one anyone can cite, was overturned on appeal, and rightfully so.

DJ's left nut
03-02-2011, 09:28 AM
A muslim woman divorces her husband, he rapes her, and the judge says it's ok...

U.S. Judge Ruled Sharia Law Trumps State Law

By Jerry A. Kane
Tuesday, July 27, 2010

In the June 14, 2010, story "Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma," ABC News reporter Joel Siegel scoffed at the Oklahoma referendum prohibiting the courts from using sharia law in their decisions, as if the state's referendum were a waste of time.

"Legal experts contacted by ABC News said they did not know of one instance of a judge in the U.S. invoking sharia in rendering a decision."—Joel Siegel

However, Jihad Watch.org exposed the limited knowledge of ABC's legal "experts."

According to Jihad Watch, a New Jersey judge found a Muslim man not guilty of forcing his wife to have sex with him. The judge ruled the man should be excepted from the State's criminal law due to his religious beliefs.

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

In other words, the Muslim husband acted in accordance with his belief in sharia law; therefore, he did not commit a crime because his desire to have sex was "consistent with his practices" which were "not prohibited," i.e., the judge determined sharia law trumps New Jersey criminal law.

An appellate court eventually overturned the judge's outrageous decision, yet this case escaped the purview of the legal experts contacted by ABC News.

For more on the New Jersey judge's sharia compliant ruling, see "Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex" by Jihad Watch and "Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal" by Eugene Volokh

Copyright by Jerry A. Kane


http://www.michnews.com/jerry_a_kane/jak072710.shtml

This was a very very stupid judge. In fact, this judge was probably stupid enough to ignore any rule put in place to prevent said stupidity.

I mean hell, one of the first things you'll learn in law school is that the Constitution protects religious beliefs. However, acts based on religious beliefs are still subject to the laws of the jurisdiction (beliefs /= actions). The fact that this base-level legal doctrine somehow escaped a sitting judge stumps the hell out of me.

That judge is just a moron. An absolute, unconditioned, moron. No amount of legislating against stupidity would've prevented it.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 09:33 AM
A muslim woman divorces her husband, he rapes her, and the judge says it's ok...

U.S. Judge Ruled Sharia Law Trumps State Law

By Jerry A. Kane
Tuesday, July 27, 2010

In the June 14, 2010, story "Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma," ABC News reporter Joel Siegel scoffed at the Oklahoma referendum prohibiting the courts from using sharia law in their decisions, as if the state's referendum were a waste of time.

"Legal experts contacted by ABC News said they did not know of one instance of a judge in the U.S. invoking sharia in rendering a decision."—Joel Siegel

However, Jihad Watch.org exposed the limited knowledge of ABC's legal "experts."

According to Jihad Watch, a New Jersey judge found a Muslim man not guilty of forcing his wife to have sex with him. The judge ruled the man should be excepted from the State's criminal law due to his religious beliefs.

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

In other words, the Muslim husband acted in accordance with his belief in sharia law; therefore, he did not commit a crime because his desire to have sex was "consistent with his practices" which were "not prohibited," i.e., the judge determined sharia law trumps New Jersey criminal law.

An appellate court eventually overturned the judge's outrageous decision, yet this case escaped the purview of the legal experts contacted by ABC News.

For more on the New Jersey judge's sharia compliant ruling, see "Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex" by Jihad Watch and "Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal" by Eugene Volokh

Copyright by Jerry A. Kane


http://www.michnews.com/jerry_a_kane/jak072710.shtml

The New Jersey opinion by that nutty judge doesn't reference Sharia law, so ABC News and Judicial Watch can argue about parsing that hair.

The stupid decision was overturned. This isn't exactly a significant threat.

Amnorix
03-02-2011, 09:34 AM
The fact that this base-level legal doctrine somehow escaped a sitting judge stumps the hell out of me.

That judge is just a moron. An absolute, unconditioned, moron. No amount of legislating against stupidity would've prevented it.

The quality of state judges is very uneven. Some are superb. Some (and I may be more biased here, but I think it's fair to say -- especially in states that elect their judges) are so bad as to be shocking.

Vaspar
03-02-2011, 09:36 AM
What are the US Congress' "favorable views" toward Muslims? Do you have any example of that? What programs do illegals have that most citizens can't get? Any examples?

http://faulkforcongress.org/news/?p=11847
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=24&ved=0CDYQFjADOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkumarforcongress.net%2F2010%2F02%2F22%2Fwhite-house-advisor-defends-sharia-and-overthrow-of-us-constitution.aspx&rct=j&q=Congress%20and%20Sharia%20Law&ei=g3BuTbjeNIO78gbRlZm7Dw&usg=AFQjCNFYgZjpRI2rFWd2CeF6LJT70kxaoQ&cad=rja

Here are a couple of links for you concerning Sharia Law in this county (not the implementation, mind you).

DJ's left nut
03-02-2011, 09:43 AM
The quality of state judges is very uneven. Some are superb. Some (and I may be more biased here, but I think it's fair to say -- especially in states that elect their judges) are so bad as to be shocking.

No doubt. My practice is especially prone to the whims of state judges. We run a multi-state practice that has a presence in virtually every county in those states.

We have to run our cases based on the judge we end up in front of every bit as much as the facts that we're working with.

Some judges are just really damn stupid. Others are willfully ignorant and outright hostile. The non-partisian court plan does an okay job of avoiding that issue, but even then some completely useless folks manage to sneak in.

HonestChieffan
03-02-2011, 09:45 AM
The probable cause behind the issue is the progression down this road in Europe particularly Great Britain. The multiculturalism failure in Europe can be a good guide for the US as these same tactics are used and Political Correctness takes the place of actual thought.

Here is a bit of background..http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/sharia_law_in_canada_and_brita.html


The spread of sharia law to the entire world is part of jihad. In Canada and Britain, jihad is advancing.

A June 2010 report entitled "Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights" begins with Secretary General of the Islamic Sharia Council Suhaib Hasan saying, "If Sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country [Great Britain] into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal." Furthermore, "once[,] just only once, if an adulterer is stoned[,] nobody is going to commit this crime at all," and finally, "[w]e want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."

This perverse logic is illustrative of the brutality that is sharia law's penal code. The writers of the report have compiled evidence of "the discriminatory nature of these courts and make recommendations for curtailing sharia and religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality, and are incompatible with human rights." The authors explain that "whilst there is an obvious difference between stoning a woman to death and denying her the right to divorce and child custody, the fundamentals and misogyny behind sharia's civil and penal codes are the same -- it is just a matter of degree. It is deceptive, or at best a mistake, not to see the civil aspects of sharia law as part of and an extension of its penal code."

The first Sharia Council was begun in Birmingham, England in 1982. Muslim tribunal courts begun passing sharia judgments in August 2007 in Great Britain. In September 2008, Richard Edwards of the Telegraph reported that five sharia courts had been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford, and Manchester, and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The British government had "quietly sanctioned" the sharia courts and made their rulings "enforceable with the full power of the judicial system." Prior to this, "the [sharia] rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims." These cases dealt with sharia civil code, i.e., Muslim divorce and inheritance. In one inheritance case, the sons received twice as much as the daughters because men are favored over women in sharia law. Under British law, the daughters would have received equal amounts; in addition, in sharia law, "a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's." Furthermore, "a woman's marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband," and finally, "a Muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-Muslim."

Opposition leaders in Britain voiced their deep concerns about a dual legal system. Nonetheless, Muslims had taken advantage of a British clause in the Arbitration Act of 1996. Thus, "under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case." Given the second-class status of women under sharia law and the intimidation of women therein, it becomes rather clear that theirs is often not a voluntary decision. Furthermore, "the proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgments. Nor is there any real right to appeal." Sharia law is absolute.

The Muslim Tribunals cite the Jewish Beth Din courts, which have handled civil legal cases for over one hundred years. But as Melanie Phillips has explained, this is a total misrepresentation. The implication is that British Jews are not bound by the law of the land but instead get an exemption. This is false. Though Jewish religious courts (Beth Din) deal with such issues as dispute arbitration, family issues, marriage, and divorce, the Jewish courts "have never sought official recognition of their rulings, and these are not recognized under English law. ... Jewish religious marriage and divorce rituals have no status in English law. ... Jews have to marry or be divorced according to English law just like everyone else. ... But the crucial difference is that ... Muslims want their rulings to be accepted by the state as having the same legal authority as English law" (emphasis mine). While Jews have always acknowledged that as a minority, they live under the law of the land and do not seek to change, the Muslims have a very different outlook and intent. Therefore, sharia law's "imposition represents a concerted attempt by Islamists to gain further influence in Britain." Unlike aborigine, Catholic, or Jewish tribunals, Muslim tribunals seek "to impose their cultural values on Western society." For example, Jewish kosher laws are never imposed upon non-Jewish people; the same cannot be said concerning Islamic halal food. In one British nursing home, the non-Muslim residents were obligated to forgo bacon in their meals in deference to Islamic halal demands.

Thus, life in Nigeria has resulted in Christian provinces now forcibly being made to accept sharia law in place of the secular constitution. In 2003 in Aubervilliers, Fance, the city council was forced to close the municipal swimming pool so that Muslim women could swim in private. And in America and Great Britain, seeing-eye dogs raise the ire of Muslim taxicab drivers who consider dogs "impure."

Yet, by October 2008, secret talks were underway to bring Islamic sharia law courts to Scotland. Again, many raised concerns about the establishment of a "dual legal system."

A Scottish Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken stated that "in criminal matters Scottish courts must have total jurisdiction. ... We cannot have private arrangements when human rights are an issue." Nevertheless, by June 2009, "at least 85 Islamic sharia courts" were operating in Britain. This figure was "17 times higher than previously accepted." Academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin stated that "among the [sharia] rulings, we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts."

In a Spring 2010 report entitled "An Unjust Doctrine of Civil Arbitration: Sharia Courts in Canada and England," author Arsani William scrutinizes the gender-biased discrimination of sharia. The report examines the former Canadian Attorney General Marion Boyd's examination about the use of Muslim sharia law in private arbitration. Interestingly, it was Canadian Muslim women who claimed that sharia law would treat women in the Islamic community in ways contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights. Boyd, however, concluded that sharia law would not be problematic when used in private arbitration.

Notwithstanding, author William argues that "sharia is a dangerous doctrine of civil arbitration," and he advocates for "its rejection from binding arbitration." And, in fact, attempts to set up sharia courts in Canada in 2005 were abandoned after protests. William notes that "verdicts of an entire community of Islamic Sheiks could neither be answerable nor accountable to anyone." He highlights Boyd's failure to address the danger of "Muslim women [being] forced to cave into social pressure and accept unfair decisions." Furthermore, since the Jewish community and the Catholic community did not want Muslims introducing sharia into Canada, they accepted the decision to ban all religious arbitration in Ontario, including their own respective tribunals. Robert Spencer mused that "it is ... unfortunate that other religious arbitration arrangements [had] to be sacrificed, which feeds the assumption that they are all morally equivalent. If Western authorities could dare to speak honestly about the distinctive characteristics of Islamic law, this would not be necessary."

With this Canadian backdrop, William, in the Stanford Journal of International Relations, amplifies that "sharia courts threaten the integrity of law in the British democracy, by promoting the unequal treatment of women in the British Islamic community." He writes that "In Islam, marriages are seen as contracts. The dissolution of these contracts will provide for settlements that undermine the status of women, as women are not granted equal compensation or child-custody claims." Unlike contractual Jewish law, "sharia recognizes men as superior to women in matters of civil arbitration. Men can divorce their wives suddenly. ... However, [Muslim] women must undergo multiple legal proceedings to be granted a religious divorce. ... In disputes over child custody, sharia recognizes the absoluteness of a father's ownership if the child is over seven years old." Furthermore, in several documented cases, English Muslim women who were victims of domestic abuse and being judged under sharia law were "told to halt police investigations and continue with marriage peacefully."

Russel Bywaters, an English lawyer known for his work in marital and inheritance settlements, points to the "horror at Malaysia's attempts to run the two systems -- a civil code/Sharia." The fact that sharia law conflicts with many of the precepts of the Human Rights Act of 1998 makes it incompatible with Canadian law, and it was these fears that "prompted its ousting from the Canadian system."

It behooves every American to seriously consider what is happening as sharia law advocates (e.g., Obama appointee Dalia Mogahed) continue to insinuate their beliefs into this country. As Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the British One Law for All Campaign, has written, "The existence of a parallel legal system that is denying a large section of the British population their fundamental human rights is scandalous." Sharia law is antithetical to freedom and equality. Oklahoma is leading the way and has already established a firewall against sharia law. The evidence continues to mount that the Islamists will keep chipping away if we do not push back, and push back hard!

Vaspar
03-02-2011, 09:49 AM
http://faulkforcongress.org/news/?p=11847
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=24&ved=0CDYQFjADOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkumarforcongress.net%2F2010%2F02%2F22%2Fwhite-house-advisor-defends-sharia-and-overthrow-of-us-constitution.aspx&rct=j&q=Congress%20and%20Sharia%20Law&ei=g3BuTbjeNIO78gbRlZm7Dw&usg=AFQjCNFYgZjpRI2rFWd2CeF6LJT70kxaoQ&cad=rja

Here are a couple of links for you concerning Sharia Law in this county (not the implementation, mind you).

Here is another example for you Jenson71

Congressman refuses to condemn Sharia Law in the US

by Infidelesto on October 9, 2007 · | 36 Comments and 0 Reactions

Mel Watt (D-NC) says that Sharia Law in the US is a “religious principle” and that it would be unconstitutional to deny someones right to vote for their religious principles. (via Jihadwatch)

One of his constituents writes on July 26th, 2007:

To the Honorable Representative of the State of North Carolina:

In order to assure the protection of the American People and the preservation of our Constitution, I think at this point in American history it would be a good idea to introduce legislation like the following:

“In no instance shall the practice of Islamic Sharia law be established or permitted within any state or territory under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.”

Thank you.

And Congressman Watt’s response came on Sept 14, 2007

Thank you for your email about the establishment and practice of Islamic Sharia law in the United States.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religious principles. Therefore, I believe that the language proposed in your email would be unconstitutional and I would not support it.

I appreciate your input on this issue. If I or my staff can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Melvin L. Watt

Vaspar
03-02-2011, 09:56 AM
What are the US Congress' "favorable views" toward Muslims? Do you have any example of that? What programs do illegals have that most citizens can't get? Any examples?

Here is a link concerning programs for illegal immigrants

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4505357/costs-of-social-welfare-programs-for-illegal-immigrants/

Pitt Gorilla
03-02-2011, 10:06 AM
The scariest part about this is that the bill has to be introduced at all.It didn't.

Vaspar
03-02-2011, 10:13 AM
Here is a link concerning programs for illegal immigrants

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4505357/costs-of-social-welfare-programs-for-illegal-immigrants/

One more for you to consider, it is bad enough that we currently have the highest unemployment rate this country has seen in decades, apparently it would cost too much to train American Citizens to do this particular work.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=44&ved=0CDIQFjADOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.agriview.com%2Farticles%2F2010%2F12%2F02%2Fdairy_news%2Fdairy02.txt&rct=j&q=Programs%20for%20Illegal%20Immigrants&ei=c3huTcLiIIH78AbR9vSdDw&usg=AFQjCNE73YMBGvxhdSbqBGsdcPvjh8OmIA&cad=rja

BucEyedPea
03-02-2011, 10:46 AM
Have you been paying attention to any of the goings on in Washington? Agreements with Canada and the US to use each others troops for domestics crises...Not to mention that the US Congress and the Media seem to be biased toward granting favorable views toward Muslims as well as the fact that illegals in this country have access to programs that most Citizens in this country would not qualify for? It is always better to proactive instead of reactive.

Sounds like we're working more and more toward political interdependence which would be be a foundation for a World Govt. ( allowing illegal immigration, the Dream Act, phony free-trade agreements with tribunals that override our laws, replacing rogue govts around the world under the guise of the War on Terror), multiculturalism, diversity and on and on and on...)

go bowe
03-02-2011, 11:14 AM
I think it's intended to protect muslims (particularly women) who don't want to be bullied by self appointed clerics in this country, and perhaps it may even encourage them to question why they would want to belong to this cult in the first place? Because US Judges sure aren't looking out for their best interests...

A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs — and that he did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife.new jersey, huh?

you need to get on that mr. crappy...

i bet the judge is a democrat, though...

go bowe
03-02-2011, 11:23 AM
Sounds like we're working more and more toward political interdependence which would be be a foundation for a World Govt. ( allowing illegal immigration, the Dream Act, phony free-trade agreements with tribunals that override our laws, replacing rogue govts around the world under the guise of the War on Terror), multiculturalism, diversity and on and on and on...)honey, i don't think you mean to be funny, but you should really consider a career in political satire/kookery...

sort of like a cousin of glenn beck, but on the silly side of the family...

Jenson71
03-02-2011, 11:33 AM
http://faulkforcongress.org/news/?p=11847
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=24&ved=0CDYQFjADOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkumarforcongress.net%2F2010%2F02%2F22%2Fwhite-house-advisor-defends-sharia-and-overthrow-of-us-constitution.aspx&rct=j&q=Congress%20and%20Sharia%20Law&ei=g3BuTbjeNIO78gbRlZm7Dw&usg=AFQjCNFYgZjpRI2rFWd2CeF6LJT70kxaoQ&cad=rja

Here are a couple of links for you concerning Sharia Law in this county (not the implementation, mind you).

It seems like the court held valid a contract between the two that said disputes would be arbitrated by a "Texas Islamic Court." If we outlaw things like "Texas Islamic Courts" as arbitrators, we'd be undoing people's basic rights to contract in whatever forum they see fit.

Was the person compelled to sign a contract that would hold arbitration in a designated Islamic court? I think we can all agree that they should't. But is that the issue here?

The Mad Crapper
03-02-2011, 11:40 AM
That one case, the only one anyone can cite, was overturned on appeal, and rightfully so.

Uh, yeah. I know, I read the article. :rolleyes:

And in the meantime a woman continued to be menaced and raped by an abusive ex-husband because she can't get a restraining order.

Pants
03-02-2011, 11:52 AM
This the state that outlawed strip clubs? LAWL

Already on the way there.

Vaspar
03-02-2011, 11:58 AM
It seems like the court held valid a contract between the two that said disputes would be arbitrated by a "Texas Islamic Court." If we outlaw things like "Texas Islamic Courts" as arbitrators, we'd be undoing people's basic rights to contract in whatever forum they see fit.

Was the person compelled to sign a contract that would hold arbitration in a designated Islamic court? I think we can all agree that they should't. But is that the issue here?

It certainly sets a precedent. I agree that no person should be compelled to do so. Allow me to ask, how much outrage would be expressed if this were a Christian issue and the court upheld that the issue should be heard in a "Texas Christian court"? A lot of people would be screaming about the separation of church and state, does this cross that line?

go bowe
03-02-2011, 12:00 PM
This the state that outlawed strip clubs? LAWL

Already on the way there.speaking of that, are there any good strip clubs on the kansas side?

LiveSteam
03-02-2011, 12:31 PM
Guess I wont be smashing the skulls of radical towel heads , with the butt of my rifle in the state of Missouri

go bowe
03-02-2011, 12:37 PM
Guess I wont be smashing the skulls of radical towel heads , with the butt of my rifle in the state of Missourikudos for limiting your violent hatred to radical towel heads...

too many equate terrorist islamists with all muslims...

HonestChieffan
03-02-2011, 12:38 PM
kudos for limiting your violent hatred to radical towel heads...

too many equate terrorist islamists with all muslims...


Aint that true.

FD
03-02-2011, 12:45 PM
This is honestly about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

go bowe
03-02-2011, 12:51 PM
This is honestly about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.errr, how long have you been on cp?

Pants
03-02-2011, 01:05 PM
speaking of that, are there any good strip clubs on the kansas side?

The Outhouse outside of Lawrence is classic. BYOB, topless and bottomless and the things you can do there are pretty crazy.

The Mad Crapper
03-02-2011, 01:06 PM
The Outhouse outside of Lawrence is classic. BYOB, topless and bottomless and the things you can do there are pretty crazy.

You need to pay a chic money to talk to you?

Loser.

go bowe
03-02-2011, 01:07 PM
The Outhouse outside of Lawrence is classic. BYOB, topless and bottomless and the things you can do there are pretty crazy.hmmmm...

gettin' into shit in the outhouse...

sounds good to me... :skip:

go bowe
03-02-2011, 01:10 PM
You need to pay a chic money to talk to you?

Loser.he's obviously a communist...

as for me, they don't have to talk... :D :D :D

LiveSteam
03-02-2011, 01:17 PM
kudos for limiting your violent hatred to radical towel heads...

too many equate terrorist islamists with all muslims...

Their is a difference to be sure.

Jenson71
03-02-2011, 02:28 PM
It certainly sets a precedent. I agree that no person should be compelled to do so. Allow me to ask, how much outrage would be expressed if this were a Christian issue and the court upheld that the issue should be heard in a "Texas Christian court"? A lot of people would be screaming about the separation of church and state, does this cross that line?

If I'm understanding this right, this isn't a public court, it's a private arbitration meeting.

Pants
03-02-2011, 02:41 PM
You need to pay a chic money to talk to you?

Loser.

That's what you got out of that post, huh?

The Mad Crapper
03-02-2011, 02:47 PM
That's what you got out of that post, huh?

That and Kansas NAH! :drool:

jettio
03-02-2011, 03:31 PM
The New Jersey opinion by that nutty judge doesn't reference Sharia law, so ABC News and Judicial Watch can argue about parsing that hair.

The stupid decision was overturned. This isn't exactly a significant threat.

This thread and that case are interesting in that it was only until relatively recently that a husband could get criminally charged, in the United States, with raping his wife.

It was somewhat controversial when marital rape was argued for by the women's movement.

This thread suggests that it does not take much longer than a generation for the idea of marital rape to be universally accepted in this country even though the idea of someone being criminally charged with the rape of his wife was very controversial not very long ago.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-02-2011, 09:51 PM
Since no one can cite any examples of this ever actually happening, it doesn't seem like it needs to be introduced. Seems more like political grandstanding.

Agreed.

The Mad Crapper
03-19-2011, 11:31 AM
Florida circuit court judge allows case to proceed under Islamic law

What was that Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacist groups were saying about how it was utterly fanciful that Sharia would ever be used to judge cases in American courts:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/florida-circuit-court-judge-allows-case-to-proceed-under-islamic-law.html

go bowe
03-19-2011, 02:35 PM
Florida circuit court judge allows case to proceed under Islamic law

What was that Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacist groups were saying about how it was utterly fanciful that Sharia would ever be used to judge cases in American courts:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/florida-circuit-court-judge-allows-case-to-proceed-under-islamic-law.html we've been through this one before...

it was an arbitration case where the parties agreed to have the dispute arbitrated in accordance with islamic law...

the parties could contract to have their disputes settled under the rules of scientology if they wanted to...

this was not a case being heard in court or decided in court, it was simply a confirmation of the arbitration findings...

the arbitration used islamic law, but the court was following american law, not sharia...

why do you keep posting the same lame game? do you think other people will forget that it's already been discussed and explained? does it make the inaccurate and misleading "headline" somehow correct if you repeat it enough times?

what do they say about the big lie? repeat it often enough...,