Muslims see foreign law bill as attack on Shariah A national drive against citing foreign laws in U.S. courts one that critics say is a veiled attack on Islamic Shariah law has reached the state with the nations largest concentration of Muslims. The Michigan bill, which mirrors American Laws for American Courts legislation introduced in more than 20 other states, was introduced in June by state Rep. Dave Agema, Grandville Republican. He has argued that it has nothing to do with Islam or the faiths Koran-based Shariah law, but is designed to stop anyone who seeks to invoke a foreign law in state courts. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/22/muslims-see-foreign-law-bill-as-attack-on-shariah/ How is it an attack, if they don't want Sharia law in the US? Or, do they? _
I did some digging, but this group pushing these "anti foreign law" laws make a lot of noise but don't seem to have any information on all the "Shariah" case law they supposedly have collected. The one example floating around of a misogynistic judge backing an abusive Muslim husband is nothing but the usual woman hating court decision.
Muslims consider the "no foreign law" principle to be an attack on Sharia? Great! That's exactly what America SHOULD be doing to Sharia...everywhere.
LOLOL.. You don't have enough accurate information to make a decision..and neither does that moron, State Rep. Dave Agema
They do. Shariah is an inseparable part of Islam, unlike other religious law systems, and it is naive to think that Muslims will be willing to give it up here on US soil, or Europe, or anywhere. The goal of Islam is to spread Sharia around the globe. It is more of a political system than it is a religion. If it was purely political, we could oppose it as a seditious political system. However, it's called a "religion", so it subverts our own system while we find it taboo to talk about.
Sharia law in the West is voluntary arbitrage between Muslims in civil matters. Its no different than any other arbitrage that free up the courts. Further, in the Koran .. Muslims who find it burdensome to live under the laws of the countries where they live are obligated to LEAVE. You should know more about your subject matter before shooting off your mouth.
Your post did nothing to refute mine. Just thought I'd point that out. Muslims are constantly pushing for more Sharia in our courts, and the story in the OP is proof. Every state that attempts to prevent creeping Sharia is challenged by CAIR and other pro-Islamist groups. The goal is to make the US like Britain, with actual Sharia courts running parallel to the regular judicial system, both being enforced by the Government. "Obligated to LEAVE"? So, you're saying if we make it hard for them to establish their agenda here, they are required to leave the country? Thanks for giving us a goal to shoot for.
"Lol"? Get juvenile much? I didn't make a "decision"; I made a atatement. Anything that "attacks Sharia" is quite allright with me. If this law does...GREAT; if it doesn't, then let's make it so...
One story is proof of "constant" pushing? Your argument is absurd, as is your definition of constant.
LOLOL.. with regard to civil matters.. like divorce, inheritance and contract disputes.. These voluntary arbitrations free up the court system like Beth Din does. Ignorance is really toxic.
Where the women cannot even divorce without the consent of the man. Your sad attempt to deceive us will not work. Quote the passage that says this in the Koran. Put up or shut up. Same old Margot. Always claiming to be so smart until you are challenged.
in 2004 it was Ken Mehlman and his ridiculous assault on gays, this year it is Moooozlims' turn. Conservatives always resort to creating "wedge issues" to energize their ignorant base, issues that are complete bullsht with zero effect on average US citizen life. Sharia is unconstitutional, period. Passing bills to ban sharia is like passing bills to legalize free speech.
It really isn't my problem that you are ignorant about how often CAIR and other, similar pressure groups litigate on behalf of Muslims to keep advancing the Sharia agenda. It's really not. I guess if you didn't hear it on MSNBC, it doesn't exist.
LOLOL.. you have no clue.. the divorce rate is 50 percent in Riyadh and women have EVERY right to divorce, support and child custody for the past 1300 years. Study... its not that difficult and you can stop making a fool of yourself on this subject. Read the Koran yourself.. I am tired of spoon feeding lazy, ignorant bigots.
Not sure why you feel the need to continue with this point, since I never mentioned anything about "civil matters." I am aware that Sharia is, at this time, limited to arbitration agreements. That isn't all that CAIR is fighting for, however. They want the doors to Sharia to remain open, so that, down the line when there are more Muslims in the country, they will have the legal option to enact more Sharia. Still waiting for an answer on why you write "asaillakum" every time you mention Muhammad, by the way.
As long as it doesnt go against the laws of the land.... and there are mechanisms in place to ensure it doesnt. If a cultural system promotes illegal activity directly or indirectly and that cultural system refuses to adjust to stop it, then the local legal system should hold that cultural system responsible and adjust loca laws to hold the cultural system to account.
because anti Sharia bills are themselves totally worthless but they are used as wedge issues aimed to marginalize an ethnicity and turn the public against them in order to energize GOP base.
One Nation, one legal system, don`t allow your Nation to become fragmented like a middle eastern hell hole.
Carrying their water isn't going to make them your friends. Your liberal lifestyle is more opposed by Muslims than conservative lifestyles. If these bills were so "worthless", then Muslim pressure groups wouldn't be expending so much energy trying to shoot them down.
Britain would be the best example of what happens when liberals allow Muslims to have their own legal system.
I don't know about Muslims but this ruling certainly hurts my chances of linking the US 2nd amendment, "the so called 'gun rights' one," to the European common laws for conscription, so as to invalidate the gun-nuts' claims that #2 is all about the personal right to MAD weapons.