|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 25, 2014 15:35:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 25, 2014 21:45:59 GMT -6
Odd, they are one of the states that have out-lawed all forms of Sharia. I guess they only mean Sharia Civil law which can only be applied to Muslims
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 25, 2014 22:33:29 GMT -6
I read about this a couple of weeks ago and thought maybe they could do it right. I guess I was wrong. You simply can't trust an evangelical, they are lying sacks of shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 26, 2014 9:34:12 GMT -6
Odd, they are one of the states that have out-lawed all forms of Sharia. I guess they only mean Sharia Civil law which can only be applied to Muslims Yes, Woodrow...the irony is palpable. Still, the "anti-Sharia" folks have a point with which I agree, even if they don't agree with it themselves, i.e. that civil law is the only law binding on a citizen of this country, whether they affiliate with a religion with its own set of rules or not. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 26, 2014 11:27:01 GMT -6
Jewish Halakha courts operate in the US, though participation is voluntary. There's no reason why Sharia courts couldn't operate legally under the same circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 26, 2014 16:51:17 GMT -6
Jewish Halakha courts operate in the US, though participation is voluntary. There's no reason why Sharia courts couldn't operate legally under the same circumstances. As do some native American tribes that can use tribal laws. The sharia laws most American Muslims want are essentially the same as the Jewish laws, except we want the arbitrator to be a Muslim instead of a Rabbi. Like the Jews we want all Parties involved to agree they want a Sharia ruling. Technically since Sharia is a part of Islamic Worship we are not supposed to use it for non-Muslims. |
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 26, 2014 17:07:55 GMT -6
Odd, they are one of the states that have out-lawed all forms of Sharia. I guess they only mean Sharia Civil law which can only be applied to Muslims Yes, Woodrow...the irony is palpable. Still, the "anti-Sharia" folks have a point with which I agree, even if they don't agree with it themselves, i.e. that civil law is the only law binding on a citizen of this country, whether they affiliate with a religion with its own set of rules or not. But the Sharia laws are civil laws. Except they are specific for Muslims. I do not know of any Muslims asking for lrecognition of the criminal laws as the State laws do cover the 5 Hadud offenses (Criminal offenses under Sharia) Even under Sharia the punishment for a Hadud offense should be what is traditional in a Nation. No addition or changes needed for the Criminal laws as they are in compliance with Sharia. they just make a few more things illegal than what is a criminal offense under Shariah. We are not asking for the changing or removal of any civil laws. we are asking for the Sharia laws that do not violate any criminal laws to be recognized when applied to consenting adults. In other words in the event of dispute to be arbitrated by a Muslim instead of a State Court. While in most states the Civil laws are in compliance with Sharia there are areas in which the civil laws do not address. Especially those dealing with Marriage, Divorce, Inheritance, loans and Property ownership. Those require a contract that is applicable only to Muslims or others who agree to use Sharia instead of secular law. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 26, 2014 23:34:34 GMT -6
Yes, Woodrow...the irony is palpable. Still, the "anti-Sharia" folks have a point with which I agree, even if they don't agree with it themselves, i.e. that civil law is the only law binding on a citizen of this country, whether they affiliate with a religion with its own set of rules or not. But the Sharia laws are civil laws. Except they are specific for Muslims. I do not know of any Muslims asking for lrecognition of the criminal laws as the State laws do cover the 5 Hadud offenses (Criminal offenses under Sharia) Even under Sharia the punishment for a Hadud offense should be what is traditional in a Nation. No addition or changes needed for the Criminal laws as they are in compliance with Sharia. they just make a few more things illegal than what is a criminal offense under Shariah. We are not asking for the changing or removal of any civil laws. we are asking for the Sharia laws that do not violate any criminal laws to be recognized when applied to consenting adults. In other words in the event of dispute to be arbitrated by a Muslim instead of a State Court. No way. "Hey--we're taking care of this in Muslim court. The civil authorities can back off." No, they can't. Whatever consent someone gives to a non-binding authority prior to the fact is going to tend to disappear after the fact, and the idea will quickly be floated that an alternative court is serving the same purpose as the civil. This is a recipe for 14th Amendment badness. |
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 27, 2014 5:43:31 GMT -6
But the Sharia laws are civil laws. Except they are specific for Muslims. I do not know of any Muslims asking for lrecognition of the criminal laws as the State laws do cover the 5 Hadud offenses (Criminal offenses under Sharia) Even under Sharia the punishment for a Hadud offense should be what is traditional in a Nation. No addition or changes needed for the Criminal laws as they are in compliance with Sharia. they just make a few more things illegal than what is a criminal offense under Shariah. We are not asking for the changing or removal of any civil laws. we are asking for the Sharia laws that do not violate any criminal laws to be recognized when applied to consenting adults. In other words in the event of dispute to be arbitrated by a Muslim instead of a State Court. No way. "Hey--we're taking care of this in Muslim court. The civil authorities can back off." No, they can't. Whatever consent someone gives to a non-binding authority prior to the fact is going to tend to disappear after the fact, and the idea will quickly be floated that an alternative court is serving the same purpose as the civil. This is a recipe for 14th Amendment badness. They why does every State permit the Jews to use a Rabbinical court for arbitration in Judaic matters? The World has not fallen apart because of such and most States recognizes it frees up the courts and State Money is not used to arbitrate a religious issue. Why should the State even get involved in matters that are Religious based and applicable only to adherents to that religion? Why should the state be concerned that Muslims get married without clergy or an officiating entity, simply a witnessed contract without vows attested before some type of official? And why should the State become involved if those same people decide to dissolve that personal contract without a court procedure? If it is not dealing with matters that relate to criminal laws and does not affect people outside the religion. Why does the state even want the burden of arbitrating what the participants see as a religious issue? The Catholic church gets by with violating state laws by serving an alcoholic beverage (wine) to minors during communion. True it is only a few drops, but it is still serving alcohol to minors. And in this case it is a Criminal law that is being altered, not a civil matter. Why the double standards when other religions are exempted from state laws for issues that deal with religious beliefs and do not affect the general public? Why should the courts even be concerned that a Muslim is forbidden to enter into a financial transaction that involves interest? Although most state do now allow banks to issue no interest Sharia compliant loans. Not every state outlaws Sharia civil laws for Muslims. About 20 States have outlawed the use of any form of Sharia. Which in effect makes marriage or divorce impossible for Muslims living in those states. True they could still do so under state law, but neither would be considered valid to a Muslim. For example if my wife and I had married under state civil law we would not be considered married and living in sin under Islam. Yes we could do both and in most States the Islamic marriage is considered legal but in 20 states we would be forbidden to marry as Muslims as an Islamic marriage is Sharia and not permitted. What if any State outlawed Christian Marriages and only recognized marriages done in a Civil court? Even Oklahomians would get their underwear knotted over it. There is a bit of a double standard here, every state allows and recognizes religious matters settled under religious doctrine for virtually every religion except Islam. The advocates for the recognition of Shariah law for Muslims are not asking for the changes of any existing laws or for the introduction of New Laws. What is being asked is recognition for all religions to be self responsible in regards to civil matters dealing with adherents of the religion. With the specific condition that any rulings do not violate any criminal laws. In other words it would not legalize polygamy or underage marriages as both are illegal under criminal law in every state. Recognition of Sharia for Religious issues would not give us permission to violate any criminal laws nor infringe upon the rights of non-Muslims. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 27, 2014 6:45:37 GMT -6
I don't support ANY separate system of law.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 27, 2014 7:38:19 GMT -6
I don't support ANY separate system of law. That's fine, but what you would prefer to happen doesn't reflect reality. These religious courts exist and until they're all abolished, we can't play favorites. Woodrow makes a good point in that consenting adults are the people making the decisions to have Sharia laws determine legal outcomes. How many times have we played the consenting adults card in a discussion around religious and government heavy handedness? Give Sharia advocates what they want, and forget about them. If it doesn't affect me, then I don't care, I'll never be forced to be one of those consenting adults. Heck, I'll give 10-1 that my Jewish wife doesn't even know that a Jewish court venue even exists in this country, not that she would trust those chauvinists in the first place, even if she did know. |
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 27, 2014 8:50:26 GMT -6
I don't support ANY separate system of law. The only result I see is a burden upon the Civil courts. There is no major deal with us writing Shariah compliant Contracts. However in the event of default The judge arbitrating will have to be knowledgeable of Islam in order to make a fair and valid Judgement. The Courts have already decided that for Jews it was much easier and more economical to have Rabbinic arbitrator instead of tying a secular judge up with religious interpretation. Islamic Jurisprudence is very similar to Judaic Jurisprudence. For a secular court to have to decide on an Islamic contract is going to tie the courts up and end up being costly to the taxpayers. Remember in a contract people can put in anything they desire as long as it does not violate any criminal laws. There are several precedents set that have allowed for religious matters to be handled separate from the secular courts. I already mentioned the permission being granted for Jewish laws. A kind of reverse is in place in Louisiana. Louisiana unlike the other States does not base its civil codes on British law, it is based upon Napoleonic Code. (Catholicism) however non-Catholics have no problem in using non-Catholic based arbitration if they desire. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on May 1, 2014 14:03:54 GMT -6
I don't support ANY separate system of law. The only result I see is a burden upon the Civil courts. There is no major deal with us writing Shariah compliant Contracts. However in the event of default The judge arbitrating will have to be knowledgeable of Islam in order to make a fair and valid Judgement. I suppose it would be out of the question to just ask you to follow applicable civil law without any extra religious hoops? |
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on May 1, 2014 19:19:56 GMT -6
The only result I see is a burden upon the Civil courts. There is no major deal with us writing Shariah compliant Contracts. However in the event of default The judge arbitrating will have to be knowledgeable of Islam in order to make a fair and valid Judgement. I suppose it would be out of the question to just ask you to follow applicable civil law without any extra religious hoops? Not anymore. Just found out the Feds have over ruled Oklahoma's ban on Sharia. We now can use the civil courts and make contracts between Muslims Sharia Compliant. Looks like the Judges will now have to study all 4 Sharia Madhabs in order to arbitrate on contracts between Muslims. SOURCEThis has absolutely no effect on non-Muslim's unless they choose to make any contracts Sharia compliant. I do not know if this has overturned the other 19 states that had proposed banning all Sharia laws. This is essentially what Muslims have been asking for. Except instead of allowing for disputes to be arbitrated by a Muslim Arbitrator, the local Civil court judge will have to. but it is now permissible for contracts between Muslims to be sharia compliant. States like Oklamoma can not forbid to make Islamic contracts Sharia compliant. I still think it would have been more cost effective to let contracts between Muslims be handled in the Mosque. Like Jewish contracts can be handled in the synagogue. but if the states prefer to spend tax dollars so be it. |
|
