Muslims see ‘foreign law’ bill as attack on Shariah

No, judges are not taking Shariah that into account when litigating a case.

 

If, as I said judges are not "pondering" taking the shariah cultist rules into account, then why are so many states passing laws to stop it??

I don't know of another religious based arbitration system. Do you??

 

Because politicians love to get the votes of stupid people. And passing laws like this makes stupid people happy.

It's pandering.

Then you haven't looked.

There's Beth Din (Jewish) arbitration in almost every country in the world where Jews live.

And, in the United States, there's a burgeoning practice of Christian arbitrators who profess to use the principles in the Bible to guide their decisions. Their decisions are binding.

 

Yes, the Jewish Beth Din courts.

 

Why do you assume there is a problem with Sharia tribunals here? They are no more significant than Jewish Beth Din courts and both are subject to British law at all times.
Only idiotic, narrow-minded idiots who don't live here-and have probably never been outside America-can conjure-up scenarios which don't exist.

So where is this 'problem' I gather you're so concerned about? No, wait, I get it-it's all about Islam's bid for world domination, ain't it, genius?

 

Voluntary arbitration is one thing. Going to a different set of laws (Sharia) that does not give American residents the protection of the US constitution is another. Having Sharia law exist side by side with the US Constitution is an illegsl violation of Article 6 section 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause).
It is also a violation of the sedition laws (Seditious conspiracy - 18 U.S.C. § 2384 and TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385 Advocating overthrow of Government).

There should be no need for legislation to protect Americans from Sharia law, when the laws are already there, and every time some bonehead judge agrees to allow Sharia to occur here he/she is committing an illegal act.

 

It doesn't exist side by side with the US Constitution..

Its voluntary civil arbitration.. exactly like Beth Din that has been in the US for 200 years.

 

I have to agree that these laws are a overreach and a grave misunderstanding of what is going on for the greater part. Most courts deal in contractual law not criminal law esp with fed and even state level AG's. Almost all cases that I know of that the Judge entertained or use Sharia Law had everything to do with "Common Practice" type of clause, meaning did all parties understand it when signed and if they did the Judge had to give it weight as it violated no US Legal use of Common Practice. I seriously doubt if any can show a direct link to where Sharia Law was use to prosecute anyone. Now are their boneheaded judges running around out there, oh yea surely many. Yet one can not pass otherwise Unconstitutional laws to prevent what Judges are suppose to prevent! You can allow say Asians to enter into and expect their contracts to be allowed and then turn around and tell Muslim's that they can not.

If anyone Judge fails in his duty then go after him not the entire legal system.

 

Kiss my ass.

 

Not in every case, as this link will clarify :

http://ironicsurrealism.com/2011/05...iah-law-involved-in-court-cases-in-23-states/

 

This "study" is a joke!!!

The contention that these cases show Shariah law being applied it actually the opposite - Sharia Law was NOT applied.

But, in any event, in one case, the courts were determining the status of marital property of people living in OTHER countries! The courts did NOTHING different than what they would do if a court case was in the USA, but to examine whether or not the couple was in a community property state, which evaluates the couple's individual shares of the couple's property VERY different from a non-community property state at the time the couple was being sued!

Other cases involve contracts between a Muslim pastor and the board of a church concerning his employment contract specified to be written per Sharia Law, and the courts properly hold they have no right to interfere with ANY church's internal actions, or to evaluate a church's internal values. No crime had been committed, both parties had agreed to a church contract to start with, so the court said tough luck! Don't sign contracts that abrogate your interests, and then change your mind!!

Another case concerned Muslims in prison wishing to get a copy of the Koran. This case has NOTHING to do with Sharia Law, and everything to do with AMERICAN law!

The "study" simply assumes no one will read it to discover its idiocy and false representations, as is usual in "studies" from these kinds of sources.

 

I don't even have to click the link and go into it to refute what you just said.
The most obvious example of your shoot-from-the-hip error is the New Jersey case where a Muslim wife applied for a restraining order, and the dumbbell judge honoring the husband's claims of immunity based on Sharia law (which allows wifebeating - Koran sura 4:34) actually ignored a crime under NJ law (battery) and refused the restraining order. SO this poor woman had to put up with her abusive husband without the protection that the restraining order might have supplied for a year, until common sense prevailed in an appeals court and the judges ruled > of course the restraining order is granted and Sharia law is irrelevant.

Another case is the infamous Faleh Hassan Al-Maleki vs. Arizona, in which Maleki's lawyers first tried to pose their case based on the honor killing code of Sharia law. Only when they saw that avenue wasn't going to get Maleki off, did they then enter it as an accident. With a judge who was not sympathetic to Sharia law or any Muslim degree of redefining law, Maleki still managed to use his Sharia law concept to his advantage. In the end, he was sentenced to 16 years prison for 2nd degree murder. 2nd degree ? This left a lot of heads being scratched. Why not 1st degree, when it was so obvious this was a blatant deliberate attempt, with forethought, to kill someone ? Only answer could be a semi-pass based on Sharia, and a defeat for America and all of our legal foundation.

The study is not a joke. You are.

Besides the 3 examples I just mentioned, the mere fact that Sharia law is even being discussed in American courts shows its creeping nature which the Muslim Brotherhood will continue to push,. As soon as Sharia is mentioned, judges should announce that that content is inadmissable and irrelvant.

 

Well, we're still waiting for a refutation.

The judge ruled that the man did not have the requisite intent to commit the behavior he was accused of. The judge didn't even relate the man's case to "Sharia law," he talked in his decision about religious beliefs in general. Furthermore, his decision was overturned on appeal. So his decision is a nullity. The system worked. Sometimes judges make mistakes, this one did, it was corrected on appeal.

Actually, the real only answer is that you are clueless about the concepts you're discussing. Well, not clueless, more like "just enough knowledge to be dangerous."

Maleki's defense attorneys did not use the "honor killing" tact at all. In fact, it was prosecutors who brought up that scenario, in an attempt to establish motive for the crime. Defense attorneys argued that the killing was an accident.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...eh-hassan-almaleki-amal-edan-khalaf-kpho-news

In regard to 1st vs. 2nd degree murder, Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1105 does not have as many possible facets of 1st degree murder as in some other states, like NY. The only one that could even come close to applying is sub. 1, which is the intentional murder subdivision. In that regard, obviously his attorneys argued that this was accidental or not premeditated... Which they obviously couldn't do if they were arguing for it to be an "honor killing."

In short, Sharia law wasn't a "defense" in this case, it was something the prosecution tried to pin on the defendant, which failed.

But there are many times when it is both admissible and relevant.

1. Often times in a criminal prosecution, the defendant's state of mind and beliefs are relevant, regardless of what religion that state of mind is.
2. In a contract dispute, the understanding of the parties is pretty much the only issue. If the understanding of the parties involves Sharia law, Sharia law needs to be discussed. In arbitration appeals, if the understanding of the parties is that the case would be arbitrated with respect to Sharia law, that's supremely important.

Giving deference to the understanding of the parties isn't Sharia law, it doesn't give any credit to Sharia law. If we have a contract, and it says you're going to plant red grass in my lawn, and somewhere else the contract specifies that "red" is actually green, if the grass is green, the contract is fulfilled, even though it's patently silly to make "red" mean green in a contract.

 

ANY matter can be discussed in an American court. If a defendant wants to testify Sharia Law made him do the crime, or Jesus told him to do it, or Casper the Friendly Ghost made him do it, he CAN!

It doesn't do him any good, but you have a right to speak in court in the USA. It is funny how many so-called "patriots" want to end that freedom!

 

FALSE, FALSE, and FALSE.

1. No, you're NOT waiting for a refutation. You already got it in my post # 87. In addition, you now have another refutation - of your post # 88. To say that "The judge didn't even relate the man's case to "Sharia law," indicates that either you are lying, or you have no clue about the case. The judge certainly did refer to the man's religion (and the Sharia law of it-that's what we're talking about. Islam and Sharia law are inseperable) Here's the actual text from the trial > "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."

So yeah, it was a question of criminal intent > which hinged directly on his practices > Islam, the Koran, Sharia law. Get it ?

"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..." ( http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/0...measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/#ixzz1WadufdoU)

"The judge ruled against her, saying that her husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties." (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/28/oklahoma.sharia.question/index.html)


2. What do you mean "furthermore" ? The fact that the appeals court overturned it, doesn't refute what I said. There still was a case in which Sharia law was considered in the decision. My point was not that Sharia laws was succeeding or not, but that it was being considered in US courts and factoring in the decision of a case. Also, it did succeed for the time that the wife had to go without the restraining order. That's what I said before, and say it again now.

3. The Daily News link you gave does not confirm your statement that defense attorneys "did not use "the "honor killing" tact at all". It doesn't even mention them. It only mentions prosecutors. I recall hearing a news report that said that Maleki's lawyers initially intended to use the honor killing tact as a defense, but then dismissed the idea when they found it wouldn't fly. THEN, their approach became the spitting & "accident" scenario. I did not say that Sharia law was a defense in this case. You are invited to go back and read my words again.

4. You said there are times when Sharia law is admissable and relevant. Sure, but I was talking about judges deciding cases in which the ultimate decision would hinge on Sharia law - in other words, someone's actions being judged as OK or not OK based on what Sharia law says is OK or not OK. Get it ?

 

Who gives a rats ass what Islamo's think, or what their unjust vengeful hate filled lawa say? I know I don't.

 

You are refuting something that I didn't say. Of course anything can be mentioned in a court case. As I already stated in post # 90, "I was talking about judges deciding cases in which the ultimate decision would hinge on Sharia law - in other words, someone's actions being judged as OK or not OK based on what Sharia law says is OK or not OK. Get it ?"

 

Of course it shouldn't have any legal standing in the USA, but some lamebrain judges (like New Jersey Judge Joseph Charles) do factor it in to make a legal decision. Something we need to be alert for, and on guard against. A prime facet of the Muslim Brotherhood's Islamization.

 

You should learn a little about American law!

Many criminal issues hinge on INTENT! For there to be fraud, the prosecution need to PROVE the CEO INTENDED to defraud his company out of a billion dollars (this is why you see very few CEOs and bankers going to jail). It doesn;t matter that a billion dollars of company money ended up in the CEO's personalc hecking account, it was the CEO's INTENT that must be proven.

The same is true of murder vs manslaughter, various levels of felony assault and domestic abuse!

It doesn't matter HOW the person got their idea, the judge can take it into account in his ruling. This judge did NOT consider "Sharia Law" itself, he considered that the man was and had been sincere in his beliefs, and I presume since they were divorced the man was no longer a threat.

Any "anti-Sharia law" would not have applied to this case. It was what th MAN thought, not what "Sharia Law" thought.

Thus, the decision could easily have been rendered the same way for a Christian Fundamentalist couple, the men who often state that a "woman must obey the husband according to God", and I certainly have heard more than few men state that.

In any event, the decision was wrong, and is no longer defensible no matter what a judge thinks since a higher court has ruled it incorrect.

 

I see foreign law as an attack on our Constitution.


Article 6 of the US Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Islam does not subordinate to the law of the United States; nor does its system of law, Sharia.

 

Neither does Christian laws "subordinate to the law of the United States" . Ask a 7th Day Adventist or an Amish farmer!

But none of these, including any Muslim fantasies, control American laws, and no one is showing anything that says they do. But if two people want to make a private contract based on their religious beliefs, it IS a free country, at least as long as the Muslim-haters don't take it over!

 

You're exactly right!

 

Thank you! Now this sounds like the real Arab/Islam world for women...

 

America has it's own laws and doesn't need laws from some medieval backward culture,especially laws as brutal and unjust to woman as Sharia laws are.

I don't really care how this creeping infringement upon our freedoms and our
laws is stopped, it must be stopped!

This is a subject I have read a lot about and over the course of the past seven years.

 

But you could be arrested if you were with a man that was not your husband or your brother. (In Saudi Arabia) But, groups of women go out all the time, but a non-husband cannot be with them.

I lived in Iran for 3 years, and my dad has worked extensivly in Saudi Arabia and other ME countries. There is no way anyone can say that men and women are of equal status in Saudi Arabia, on any issue that I can think of.