Muslims see ‘foreign law’ bill as attack on Shariah

LOL. You think I don't know about criminal intent ? I avoided jail time in a court case a few years ago by proving that I had no criminal intent in the case.

You are talking like an idiot. I've already shown with trial text that the judge most certainly did take Sharia law (the man's Muslim beliefs) into account in his decision. For you and anyone else this dense, here it is again twice >

"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/2010/08/05...#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/...ion/index.html)

As I said before > Sure it was a question of criminal intent > which hinged directly on his practices > Islam, the Koran, Sharia law. Get it ? Yes, it was what the man thought. And what he thought was Islam, Sharia law, the Koran. Get it ? Get it ? Get it ? Pheeeeeeww !! (high-pitched whistle)

And of course the decision was wrong , and the reason why it was wrong, and why the appeal judges nullified it, is because it was based on the husband's (as you just said) "beliefs" > namely Sharia law, Islam, the Koran.

 

Which is precisely why it is unconstitutional, seditious, and should be banned in America.

 

Aha, there's the clincher. As long as they don't take it over. And you are going to tell us here, that after engaging in this discussion this far, that you don't know that it is fundamental to Islam to "take over" ? You don't know that to be a basic aspect of Islam ? To rule the world in an Islamic caliphate ? And you're not aware of Muslims' attempting to do that right now in the USA ?

But Muslim law DOES control American laws in some instances, and yes I DID show that it did in the case of New Jersey Judge Joseph Charles in post # 90 & 101.

PS - I hadn't heard that the Amish or 7th Day Adventists were openly and seditiously working to overthrow the US government, like Islam is. If they were, then they ought to be banned for their seditiousness too.

 

One need not have lived in Saudi Arabia or Iran to know how badly women are subjugated there. This isn't 1910. In this 2011 global village with all our satellite spying, cable TV, internet, etc. Every society is now an open book.
Islamapologists cannot hide the vile lifestyle of Islam no matter where in the world it is practiced. Time and technology have overtaken them.

 

I can't stand those Amish terrorists with their crazy beards and pitchforks!

 

Whatever they're doing, it's got nothing to do with Muslims. I'll take pitchforks over nuclear suitcase bombs any day. (The Day of Islam by Dr. Paul Williams - check it out)

 

Huh?

Sharia councils are ONLY for voluntary civil arbitration between Muslims. US law is in no way subordinate.. Its like the Beth Din arbitrage that has been in the US and UK for a couple hundred years..

Why are you arguing intent?

 

I swear you are hooked on stereotypes.. There is NOTHING vile about their lifestyle.. Women run the home and the social life.. The separation of the sexes is their cultural norm.

An American man working in Saudi Arabia would never get close enough to any Saudi women to know anything or have an opinion.

Ask American women about Saudi women.. they have had the opportunity to socialize with them.

 

Sorry, you're going to have to accept that (1) I know vastly more about our justice system and (2) you've just gotten this topic wrong. Capital letters isn't going to change that.

Your post refutes itself. You say "Sharia", and then the quotes from the reporters (not even quotes from the judge) do not contain the word "Sharia." You have to understand Islam a bit better to discuss this topic intelligently. Sharia does not equal all Islamic beliefs.

The Judge also did not deny the restraining order based on anything to do with the parties' beliefs. He denied a final restraining order because (1) he thought a no-contact order was already in place with regard to the parallel criminal proceeding, and (2) he thought the parties had no further need for contact, as the defendant's visa was about to expire and he was returning to Morocco.

How do I know this? I actually read the appellate court's 14-page decision, instead of just relying on insta-pundit-news blurbs about it. You should try that approach sometime.

Your entire argument has been what supposedly needs to be "done" about this "problem." Clearly, nothing needs to be done, because the courts are already correcting the errors themselves.
And the point has to be about whether it's "succeeding" or not. If it's not succeeding, obviously there's no need for a law against it.
Take, for example, the infamous "Twinkie Defense" used by Dan White in his trial for the murder of Harvey Milk. Now, from your perspective, we should have a whole body of law preventing sugary sweets from being used in a defense. But White was (eventually) convicted, meaning his defense didn't work, and the system did.

Statutes should be to correct injustices, not to correct things that have already been corrected.

Then you're repeating your mistakes. The wife had a no-contact order from criminal court in that case.

It does mention them. It mentions their accident defense. There is no record of them attempting or explaining anything with relation to an honor killing. They shouldn't, and wouldn't, because a defense about the defendant's state of mind would only work with regard to an IIED defense or an insanity defense, neither of which were present here.

And we're supposed to accept that as evidence for your argument? That you recall hearing a news report that some lawyer considered arguing something?

I have two cases on this afternoon. I have a headache. I'm "considering" arguing that I should win just for showing up instead of postponing the case due to my headache. By your standard, all Americans should now demand a law outlawing making arguments about headaches in every court everywhere in the country.

Um...

And that's never happened unless the parties consent to be judged that way. And won't happen. Get it?

 

Evangelical Christians profess to do the same thing. But Christian arbitration is still legal, and there's no drive to outlaw it.

No, it didn't. The Judge applied American law and found that, since the defendant didn't believe he was doing anything wrong (such beliefs just happened to be relating to his religion and lifestyle), he didn't have the intent to commit ONE of the things he was accused of (but the judge still found that he had committed the others). There was no "Muslim law" invoked as controlling or otherwise.

It's notable, also, that the appeals court disagreed with his analysis from a legal standpoint, not a factual one. What the appeals court found was that, in New Jersey, the mens rea for the actions the defendant was accused of is "knowingly," not "with intent". The appeals court found that the defendant "knowingly" committed the acts, and therefore that his belief and intent were irrelevant.

I mean, you're asking for new laws and sounding alarms over a case of first impression, where the trial judge got it wrong but was corrected on appeal, so that an appellate precedent now exists agreeing with your position. Trial judges often get things wrong in cases of first impression; that doesn't mean we need to freak out over it, especially where the mistake was corrected by an appeal.

 

Arbitrage frees up our overburdened court system... and it used by all sorts of Americans and American companies in civil matters.

Even Nancy Grace has a new TV show called Swift Justice that is based on arbitrage.

I just can't believe that Americans are so bloody ignorant.

 

Where have you seen an Evangelical Christian leader arbitrating a case in accordance with the words of Jesus in this country??

 

islam is not a religion. It is an imperialistic, bloodthirsty, ruthless, form of a totalitarian government that uses religion as a cover. Its clear intent is world conquest.

 

LOLOLOL.. .... There's no hope of educating you about reality, is there?

 

I stated reality. muslim denials mean nothing. Did I expect a confession? No!

 

I am not a Muslim.. I am a Christian..

Islam is about social justice and a peaceful, civil society.

If you commit treason against the community and/or work mischief in the land Muslims don't care if you are a Muslim, Christian or Jew.

Clearly you have many prejudices and a great deal of hatred.. Why not find out instead of going off on a tangent??

 

Sharia Law is religious law which must be completely ignored by all levels of government due to the "separation of church and state". (Posted on another thread, but relevant here).

 

Like Beth Din?

I don't think you comprehend the issue..

 

No tangent. I'm able to recognize an enemy. And no hate. If my enemies choose to die for their cause, I'm happy to defend my nation.

 

HOW do you "recognize" the enemy? Have you lived around Muslims? Did they mistreat you or try to convert you?

I would really like to know how you formed your opinion.

Have you read the Koran?

As a practicing Christian who lived in the Middle East I have never had a problem with them of any kind... and I have found them to be not only respectful of Christianity but well informed.

Defend your country? So I take it that you are in the US military??

 

http://www.tarabarthel.com/conciliation.html
http://christianmediationservicesllc.com/
http://www.christian-attorney.net/
http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.nuIWL7MOJtE/b.5367247/k.97EF/Arbitration.htm

And just for fun, here's one from the UK:
http://www.christianmediation.org.uk/home.html

Any other questions that can be answered with a 30-second Google search? "Christian arbitration" turned up over 5,000 results, by the way.

 

Sharia Law played no part in Our Constitution or Bill of Rights

 

Been meaning to say something.. You were obviously trained in critical thinking.. Not much BS gets by you.. How is that?

 

Neither does Beth Din.. but it has NO impact on US law because it is voluntary civil arbitration..

Have YOU ever been involved in civil arbitration???????

 

However, arbitration may not be used to resolve legal issues over which civil courts will not relinquish jurisdiction (e.g., child custody, support, and visitation); issues that are solely within the jurisdiction of the family (e.g., how to teach or discipline children); or issues that are solely within the jurisdiction of the church (e.g., determining doctrine, calling or dismissing a pastor, or exercising church discipline).

A binding arbitration related to contracts, property lines, who broke what; can be done by anyone but we are talking about purely islamo laws that have nothing to do with our traditional laws.

Here the backers of the Shariah ban are not talking about arbitration in a civil setting. They are talking about COURTS. They don't want an Arabic islamo dog in court telling the judge what they think the outcome of a legal matter should be.