Kansas governor signs bill banning Islamic law

Unlikely, the courts would clog up. We can't even try 10% of criminal cases which is why we have pleas bargains. If we tried to take all disputes into courts, the mind boggles. How about an issue of where a car is parked on the sidewalk between neighbors? Take that to court? It may be the case, it doesn't make it any less absurd.

 

I would call you an Islamophobe, but I don't think that even scratches the surface. This might actually reach the level of trolling. Congratulations, many people dislike Islam(they're jealous of the beards) but you're actually at the loathe level and not many people can do that.

 

LOL... So if I don't "fear" another system of law which has no chance whatsoever of ever being applied to me, I can't be civilized?

Sometimes you don't have to work hard to prove someone is out in left field... sometimes they do it all on their own.

Wow... historical revisionism in an attempt to lionize Joe McCarthy? Wonders never cease...

LOL... If you seriously think that Sharia will ever apply to anyone who has not agreed to be bound by it (i.e. Muslims), there's really no talking you down from that ledge.

Why? Do you have evidence that anyone not agreeing to be bound by Sharia has ever had Sharia applied to them? Anywhere?

Umm... People "operate" under non-U.S. law, or laws other than the law of their locality, all the time. It's called "choice of laws," and it's actually a fairly common concept in U.S. jurisprudence.

For example, there's a famous "choice of laws" case where all Burger King franchisees agree, per their contract, that if they have a dispute with Burger King corporate, they agree to litigate under the laws of Florida. Other people have made various contracts stating similar things. Or, people make contracts requiring arbitration under a certain type of arbitrator, instead of litigation. It's quite common.

Once again, the people that support these "ban Sharia" laws are simply ignorant of how American jurisprudence functions.

Excellent post from someone who obviously understands what is really at stake here.

I would just add that, in our laws, if the decision of an arbitrator is 100% unconscionable, it will be reversed by the courts. In other words, a Sharia arbitrator couldn't order someone's hand to be cut off, or a beheading, or any of that nonsense.

It is really all about hatred of Muslims. Not one of these people would suggest making it illegal for a Christian church to hold a council of elders to kick someone out of the church for violating church laws, even where those church laws prohibit behavior that is entirely legal in the U.S., like for example, premarital sex. And it's exactly the same thing - a person being punished by a religious entity for a violation of religious laws in a religious court-like proceeding. And it happens in the U.S. right now.

But that isn't a problem for them. It's only the scary brown Muslims.

 

The problem and the huge difference is that Sharia lawyers want Sharia to over ride or supersede State Laws and or constitution, they want the State to be under Sharia or give Sharia preference over State laws and constitution.

Christian organization, private organizations, such as Mason, and other social clubs have their own internal set of laws any members that feel their rights have been violated or victimize can always sue and ask the State to intervene and the State constitution supersede any private laws.

Supporters of Sharia law will always claim that any attempt to ban Sharia is anti Muslim and it will take strong leadership to apply State laws against these Sharia supporters and declare them as undesirable members of the State and have them deported to Muslim countries that practice Sharia law.

 

How many American sharia lawyers have you spoken to, WanRen?

 

And your evidence of this in the United States, or anywhere else in the western world, is what?

And do you know what the courts do when that occurs? Here's a hint: the exact same thing they do (or would do) in the case of a sharia situation.

What is undesirable about a group of people who have devised a way of resolving disputes among themselves without involving anyone else or the use of taxpayer dollars?

 

First of all the issue of Sharia law would not have become an issue if it wasn't for actual cases that courts have entertain Muslim lawyers arguments to decide cases involving Muslims to allow Muslims involve to be rule under Sharia laws. The banning of Sharia law in lawful courts did not just happen it was presented challenging the USA constitution not the other way around.

The sharia debate in the U.S. is heating up as more and more Americans are reacting to lawyers requesting rulings based on sharia law, and local judges agreeing to make them. This has happened in a New Jersey divorce case, a Maryland child custody case, and most recently in a Florida property case. These cases are now a precedent for other American-Muslim communities. In addition, according to the Center for Security Policy study that was published in May 2011, there are actually over fifty Appellate Court cases from 23 states that all involve conflicts between sharia law and American state law.

Sharia lawyers are more aggressive and will invoke or exploit the freedom of religion as a right to use Sharia law involving Muslims.
Individuals can resolve their personal issue among themselves as long as it does not violate the USA constitution, example: gangsters laws that require the killing of rival gangs or settling debt by killing will not be accepted by the courts and when those gangs dose carry out their laws that way the US government will get involved and have them arrested, tried and sentence base on the US constitution not base on their gangster or Mafia laws and this applies to any Muslims who because their Sharia law allows them to punish their wife or children by killing or torturing them will not be recognize by the US constitution and those Muslims involve will be brought to justice under US laws not Sharia laws even though under Sharia they are consider innocent not under US laws.

 

Zero, because all cases that I am familiar with or read about have been tried base on Canadian laws. At the same time I have read which I am sure you have too about cases in the USA involving Muslims wanting to be tried under Sharia law.

At the same time why should you be worry about the banning of Sharia law, are you in favor of Sharia law over secular laws?

 

1. NONSENSE! Sharia law is law that supports numerous practices which are ILLEGAL and unconstitutional in America. To have a foreign law that violates US law, be supported by a US judges is preposterous. Of course Sharia law should be banned, as should Islam entirely.

2. There is nothing irrational about opposing a system that opposes/violates US law and constitution (supremacy, murder, torture, wife-beating, sex discrimination, rape, slavery, animal cruelty, pedophilia, etc) And the only hatred is hatred of hatred (as is expressed by Islam)

 

Islam is not a religion. It is a vile ideology, concocted by a 7th century immoral lunatic, to shield him from severe criticism for all his immoral behaviors.

 

CAIR is a primary Muslim Brotherhood organization dedicated to destroying America. This post is either the work of jihadism or idiocy.

 

1. If Sharia is unconstitutional (and you are right, it is), then why waste the government's time and the taxpayer's money to make a law for against something that is already illegal? That would be like if Miami passed a law that made the killing of a person illegal.

2. You are right, which is why we should pass a law banning Biblical Law, for the exact same reasons (supremacy, murder, torture, wife-beating, sex discrimination, rape, slavery, animal cruelty, pedophilia, etc).

 

1. Because as in the Arizona SB1070 case, the federal govt (Obama administration, heavily pro-Mulsim Brotherhood) refuses to enforce US law. If they did, Islam would be banned overnight. Thus, in this vacuum of responsibility, the states act to protect themselves.

2. I don't see biblical law as being supremacist (and therefore unconstitutional) as Islam clearly is. I also don't know of non-Muslims pushing Biblical law as an excuse for illegal behavior, as Muslims routinely do.

 

I'm no fan of Sharia law, but was there any real possibility of Sharia law taking over Kansas?

This is like passing a ban on Communism.

 

1. There is a BIG difference between not enforcing a law and trying to get an unconstitutional law on the books.

2. I beg to differ: "But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" Acts 5:29 and
"So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted." Habakkuk 1:4,

Also this: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/12/16/103532/64

 

A pointless exercise, in other words.

 

You don't want Sharia law because it's against the Constitution, but you'd ban a religion?

 

this post shows ignorance of sharia, islam and us law.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the vast majority of Sharia law has nothing to do with anything that would be unconstitutional. Ignorance is not a value, please learn before your speak. Trying to ban Sharia is like banning Halacha or Canon law. It is the stupid act of stupid people.

 

The point is this will ban sharia in commerce IE banking and will ban the private implementation of Sharia law on a community level to prevent the rise of no-zones and the like, Kansas should be just the first of all 50 states to ban the Islamization of the United States and in order to never allow NYC to become a new Londonistan, look at Europe and then tell me it can't happen!

 

What a stupid stupid STUPID waste of time and tax payer money.

 

Meh. So does christianity. Just go google up "Christian Domestic Discipline"

It will give you full instructions on how to lovingly instruct your wife with a beating, either by rod, open hand, or belt.

 

Europe's situation is a bit different from our own for multiple reasons.

First, the largest immigrant groups in most European nations are Islamic, so there's more of a conflict with certain orthodox Muslims.

Second, many of these countries don't have constitutions as strict as our own.

As far as America goes, we have more to worry from Mexico than any Islamic country.

 

Pass all the anti-Sharia laws you want. It won't help.
The USA is actively supporting Allah-Akhabar terrorists against many nations and has brought millions of their associates into the USA.
Wait till all that nice democracy bloodshed we are dishing out to Libya, Egypt and Syria comes to America.
Then, it will be too late to repent of our support of terrorism.

PS Al CIAda has operatives in Mexico that are building a case for Jihad USA.

 

Sorry to upset you so bad. I misspoke and I apologize. I went and read up on Sharia Law, and you are right, the vast majority of it is constitutional. Of course any law that tries to break down the barrier between church and state is unconstitutional, but this is true with Halacha or Canon law too. You don't have to look any farther than Prop 8 to see that in action.

 

Really. You have a link for that, of course. Let's see.