It appears more and more advocates are trying to introduce Sharia into the US legal system. Fortunately, it appears that appeals courts are turning them away. It is, however, a sign of the incessant efforts of Muslim legal scholars to try to expand the authority of their beliefs on our American system of jurisprudence. Get a toe in the door, and the foot follows, soon with the rest of the body inside your home. Read the full story with links - @ https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/shariah-in-american-courts-2/
The ability to voluntarily arbitrate is an essential freedom. Sharia law should be kept out of the government, of course - but people should be free to settle their agreements however they choose. If they want pistols at dawn - so be it.
funny, US Courts enforce Jewish religious law through binding arbitration. but its not ok for Muslims to do the same thing?
So let's say theoretically I had a daughter and she married a Muslim man. If she decides to leave him, does that mean his family has the right to honor kill my daughter? Let's say my daughter has a daughter and she gets raped do I have to let her father stone her to death? Yeah shariah law has no place in America. It is against everything we stand for.
guess you aren't familiar with civil vs criminal action. Nor that religious arbitration is entirely voluntary and only covers civil matters like divorce. It does not supercede any secular laws in any way. Of course the solution is to simply ban ALL religious based civil arbitration and replace it with a one size fits all secular arbitration process. Ontario did that a few years ago. So put aside your paranoia. since it appears rather ill informed.
Do you understand Sharia at all? You do realize that under Sharia honor killings are more than fine and that woman can be forbidden to drive, lashed, stoned or even beheaded for minor infractions of Sharia? Of course those are just a couple of the twisted penalties that are subject to "domestic" Sharia,, So yeah there is a big difference between Sharia and Jewish religious mediation considering the consequences under Sharia are brutal/oppressive and violate civil rights. Of course the second anyone allows Sharia to be recognized and practiced it becomes a slippery slope, so 30 years from now it would be quite possible based on precedent set that the SCOTUS could be hearing Sharia based cases and "Sharia Law" could be a defense in a murder trial or assault trial etc... Once that door is opened it will be difficult to close.
What are you going to say when some nut beheads his daughter and uses Sharia as a defense and cites government recognition as precedent for his defense? This is a can of worms you just don't want to open. For example the Patriot Act is similar - it went from 'spying on terrorists' to spying on everyone and militarizing local police forces in a matter of years...... You see how fast a slippery slope can roll? Also, don't underestimate lawyers, they will use any defense to win a case and if Sharia happens to be a good defense they will use it and if successful could set precedent for pure anarchy... Also, don't forget - the Bill of Rights and Constitution means nothing to activist judges that are sympathetic, so don't think for a second that it would be impossible for such a defense to ever be heard by the SCOTUS.
More like creeping hysteria. Sharia law would only be voluntary arbitrage between Muslims in civil matters... Beit Din has never been a threat to US law...........
Apparently you have no clue how the law works. You are describing an honor killing, which isn't in any part of Sharia. He can use whatever he wants as a defense, but it still won't get him acquitted of murder. the law of the land prevails in ALL CASES, and last time I looked that means the constitution and the institutions of government. Seriously? you want to compare voluntary family arbitration rules to the Patriot Act? Unbelievable. I am afraid I can't subscribe to your outré paranoid and seriously ill informed perspective.
I know plenty about law (especially criminal law), and honor killings are absolutely covered under Sharia - even to the point of method such as stoning or beheading. It appears you're just unwilling to accept reality. As far as a defense is concerned in a criminal case - well if we open the door to religious law, precedent can be progressively set that could justify honor killings. Sharia Law is incompatible with our Bill of Rights and Constitution. If they want a kangaroo court that isn't legally binding then why don't they already have that? there is nothing stopping them from playing pretend and if everyone involved is a 'willing member' then enforcement of rulings wouldn't need to be legal. I wouldn't have a problem with that, however what they're asking is that their court be legally binding - and that is opening a can of worms.
You know squat about Sharia law. Honor killings are not any part of Sharia nor are they any part of Islam. Beheading and stoning are METHODS OF EXECUTION of the convicted. It appears you are totally willing to sop up propaganda swill at the expense of actual knowledge. BINGO! give the man a cigar. You were saying you know plenty about the law? Right, one wonders how you obtained your purported knowledge of criminal law, because it wasn't out of a textbook.
Quit playing games, there is no difference between law and religion in Islam both are one and the same and those "punishments" are outlined in the Quran. You're more than welcome to look ANY OF THAT UP and I suggest that you do for your own reputation. It appears to me you're just babbling what you deem to be politically correct instead of what is actual fact. If you haven't figured it out yet the majority of Muslim countries adhere to Muslim law (Sharia Law)....
Where is Sharia law does it advocate Honor killings or stoning? Do you know the meaning of voluntary civil arbitrage?
The Quran IS Sharia Law, and punishments are clearly outlined in the Quran. You do realize Sharia Law is called "Gods Law?" Here learn something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia Yes, I know all about civil arbitration and lawsuits - which are BTW, legally binding. In what universe can a religious law be legally binding? I would love to hear an atheists take on this, however most atheist activists are really just anti-Christian so they probably support the idea of arbitration via Sharia Law. Also, if you want to know the ins and outs of Sharia Law - just look at Saudi Arabias 'judicial system' which is entirely Sharia. Better yet maybe we should just let Saudi Law (which is Sharia) arbitrate these cases - there is no difference.
Sharia law is different from country to country.. If you'd lived in the Arab world you would know that. Sharia law means the well traveled path to clean, life giving water.
No it's absolutely NOT. Sharia Law is generally the same in EVERY Muslim country that basis it's laws on Islamic theology. I know all about Sharia Law - you apparently don't. It seems you're just trying to babble and be PC.
No its NOT.. Which Arab countries have you lived in? Wiki is sometimes a good place to start.. but sometimes the information is poor.. and it certainly won't make you an instant expert.
There is most definitely a difference between civil/criminal law and religion in Islam. they are not one in the same at all. Are you really this ignorant of basic facts or are you merely playing at it? Beheading is mentioned in ONE verse of the Quran, but granted the Perverted Islamists use it as justification. It would be like Christians using Jesus quote "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" to kill in jesus name - its a perversion of scripture. Stoning is not in the Quran, but it is in the bible. why don't you take your own advice and look up the kinds of sharia law and the number of countries that adhere to each kind. for somebody whose attitude reeks of "I know", you sure as hell don't know much. BTW, my "reputation" around here is that I am a liberal agnostic atheist who deals in facts and is not afraid to admit to being wrong. If I am wrong then I welcome the seemingly truly bizarre possibility that you may correct me. - - - Updated - - - Demonstrations of ignorance couched as assertive statements of "fact" make it glaringly obvious that the guy has no clue what he doesn't know.
You want sharia, go to Saudi Arabia. They use it there. They behead people left, right and centre, the barbarous bastards. Sharia will not insert itself into any western secular legal system simply because secular law resists all canonical and religious law. Won't happen. But that doesn't matter to the hate and fear mongers does it? Sharia does exist in western countries, it exists wherever a muslim observes it. But it does not influence non-muslims and it never will.
Are you trying to assert that the only way for me to comprehend Sharia Law or the idea of Sharia Law (or a theocracy) if for me to live in an Arab Country - especially when not ALL Arab countries base their laws on Sharia????? Oh and why does it have to be an Arab country? last time I checked there are plenty of African countries ruled by Sharia Law to boot. Now, it's quite obvious you have absolutely NO (*)(*)(*)(*)ING CLUE as to what you're talking about and are just kneejerkingly defending Sharia any possible way you can to come off as "politically correct." Sure wikipedia can be a little gray, however Sharia Law isn't a "gray" idea or issue - it's a well understood concept and religious law which makes it into the news on a daily basis. With that said do you really think I would be capable of understanding all these news stories and concerns of organizations such as amnesty international if I didn't understand the concepts of Sharia Law first?
You clearly don't know anything about Sharia Law and you're just making it up as you go along. That's the problem with progressives - you make crap up as you go along while you believe your lies to be the truth despite the fact you knowingly just made everything up.... It appears you would rather sound politically correct and tow a politically correct lie than acknowledge the truth and accept the facts. Right now you're just saying what you want to believe. Now please by all means continue with your defense of your invented concept of Sharia.
I deal in facts. Perhaps you can use your unparalleled knowledge of both Islam and Sharia to actually prove that facts I have provided you with are incorrect.
You keep on saying that, yet it is quite clear you don't. This wiki article is very clear and supports absolutely everything I have been asserting... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia Now you sit there and want to talk about facts when you haven't even stated one? All you have stated is this: - I don't know what I'm talking about because I have never lived in an Arab country (as if that has anything to do with Sharia Law). - There are many types of Sharia (which is semi-true for the exception of minor differences).
