Sharia Versus the US Constitution

You dispute the fact that there is NOTHING in the Quran about stoning?

You dispute fact that there is only one reference to beheading in the Quran that islamists like to take out of context?

You dispute fact that the bible actually does include multiple instances of stoning?

You dispute the fact that only a minority muslim countries implement full Sharia law? And the fact that majority that use sharia do so for civil law only?

You dispute the fact that there are differing versions of Sharia, and that statutes differ from implementation to implementation so you must also dispute the fact that Sharia has been vastly expanded by religious jurists from different tribes/ethnicities/sects and the fact that there is no central jurisprudence authority for Sharia laws?

Seems you have a hard time recognizing facts.

And I didn't say anything about you living in an arab country. I guess you are easily confused.

Of course I totally understand that you believe a brief reading of a Wikipedia article makes you an expert, despite some glaringly obvious comprehension issues.

 

You haven't lived in any African country either... and you are a rank amateur when it comes to Sharia law.

 

No, you dispute all of that - I CLEARLY STATED ALL OF THAT.

I will no longer reply to your insanity.

 

How do you know this? furthermore there are plenty of countries that have a large Islamic populaces that aren't in Africa and whom don't adhere to Sharia either... Ever hear of Asia?

 

You haven't been to Asia either.............

 

good riddance.

 

Well, tell me where else I have never been?

What if I told you I served on the DMZ and in Iraq, Afghanistan and was stationed in Somalia for a brief period of time?

What if I told you have have been though Bosnia, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Syria, Turkey Morocco etc...

Would that change your opinion? of course it wouldn't, so why the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you think where I have been matters?

 

No.. a soldier in a war zone on a short tour learns very little about a country.

 

If people are dumb enough to agree to civil arbitration based on religious guidelines, that's their own fault and allowed legally as it has been for quite some time.

However, any judge that defers to any religious "law" in terms of a criminal trial should be immediately removed from the bench and never be allowed to wear the robes again.

 

None of the above has anything to do with Shariah.

 

Like who? Who are these "advocates" and how does it appear theyre increasing in number?

Who are these apparent legal scholars?

Like any religious or special needs group in society really, though you havent shown its notably significant regarding "Muslim legal scholars".

I'd rather you provide evidence for your claims, specifically the statistic you described at the beginning of the OP.

- - - Updated - - -

I completely agree.

 

So are you advocating sharia law? If so, tell me what you would consider great points in its favor. I will be watching for your reply.

 

If it allows for people to resolve disputes amicably and without cost to each other and the legal system, sharia law in specific instances, for example arbitration in divorce proceeding agreed to by both parties, has many points in its favor. Ultimately if participants feel there arent enough good points they dont have to participate - and both parties (assuming there's two) must willingly participate for it to operate in the first place.

 

And the divorce laws in the states are flawed . . . how?

 

Didnt this creeping sharia stuff start on Fox with cab drives at some major airports not wanting to take pigs home or alcohol or something?

- - - Updated - - -

They have cost me two houses.

 

I never said they were flawed, nor does my argument hinge on such a claim, so stop your fallacious strawman there mate.
To answer your fallacious question regardless, you'll need to ask the individuals who prefer particular Islamic (or any other religion, since these are also quite extensive in many areas of the world, notably Catholics) divorce proceedings. They clearly have their reasons. If not they would stick to the standard secular provisions.

 

They favor women.

 

so, women don't have rights after all................only the males do She can own property that a any males allows...right, gotcha

 

Have you ever heard of Beit Din or a Catholic seeking an annulment?

 

They have rights. It's just that they aren't favored, like they are in the West.

 

I just realized where you're from......................... propaganda minister, mayhap? We keep hearing from you how lustrious it is to be Muslim. I don't care, just keep it out of My House... boy, o, boy, talk about a War on Women.................

 

Well, mate, you are willing to spout off FOR sharia law in divorce cases when you say:

"If it allows for people to resolve disputes amicably and without cost to each other and the legal system, sharia law in specific instances, for example arbitration in divorce proceeding".

So if this is not a hooray for sharia law, I don't know what is . . .mate.

- - - Updated - - -

And in sharia law women have NOTHING. They are not even equal citizens. Whadya say about that?

 

I say you are talking BS.

 

First of all, Catholics can seek an annulment under a variety of pretexts. Easy to find this out. Secondly, how about if we talk about laws here where we live. If you live outside the US, then sorry about your luck.

 

Well stated for such a scholar.

Where do you live anyhow? United States? No? Oh, so sorry about your luck as well.