U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-28-2011, 01:09 PM
 
39,995 posts, read 24,249,026 times
Reputation: 12580

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
American Islamic Group Supports Oklahoma Ban on Foreign Laws Like Sharia | Video | TheBlaze.com
"The debate over Sharia law in America is taking some interesting twists and turns. In Oklahoma, courts are debating whether citizens have the right to ban Sharia law. And in Michigan, a group of Muslims have actually come out in strong opposition to Islamic law in America."


Why would American Muslims do that if, Sharia is not a collection of laws but a set of diversely interpreted guidelines for religious practice?


DC, Strel, your words are still empty.
Why would American Muslims protest?

If Oklahoma banned Catholics seeking annulments, do you think Catholics would protest?

American Muslims protested because the majority of Sharia law is compliant with US legal code. If two Muslims living in Tulsa want a business contract based on Sharia law, which would primarily govern the terms of repayment because Sharia law doesn't allow interest to be charged, Oklahoma's law would bar them from doing so. That's an infringement on their freedom, their religious freedom to follow their religion, but more importantly on their freedom as American citizens to define the terms of a contract between themselves.

The law is so broadly written, that it forbids Sharia law (which it explicitly mentions, and so is Unconstitutional), even when Sharia law is completely within United States legal code. In the same exact way that the Catholic Church annulling a marriage is completely within United States legal code and doesn't conflict with US laws at all.

That's why American Muslims would protest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2011, 01:14 PM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,875,321 times
Reputation: 3189
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
That's the best debunk you got?

I have both sides of this argument where as you haven't even shown the one.
It's a YouTube video.

Show me some cases. Oh wait, you did. The same ones I debunked months ago.

Once again, link is above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,505 posts, read 4,389,347 times
Reputation: 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
It's a YouTube video.

Show me some cases. Oh wait, you did. The same ones I debunked months ago.

Once again, link is above.
Its a video that addresses the establishment clause as it applies to the Qur'an. You would know that if you viewed the the video.

You did what? Where is the text in the WestLaw that debunks them? For that the text on both documents is needed. So far all we have is your opinion, not the opinion of the courts or a rule of law.

I advocate that the original intent is to show active Sharia Law in the U.S

I have done that here: Islamic Family Law Contract law is law, that is governing the people with in agreement of the contract document. You threw out those cases, based on, 'it's a contract'. Show the laws governing the contract applicable, or inapplicable (constitutional or unconstitutional) based on the actual cases; based on U.S American Law and a comparison of the two within the decision of the judge's ruling.

You also used the word, comity to state that it had no bearing and I am giving you, "Comparing different legal systems, therefore, must be undertaken with care, and it is dangerous to assume that a comity-based recognition of an alternative norm is always a concession to the lesser law. Sometimes it may be a step forward. " (link for further view of the contents above)

Yet again two laws active in the U.S., is this constitutional?

And show me, due process:

"Maklad v. Maklad, where the court declined to give comity to an Egyptian certificate of divorce because the wife was not present at the time the decree was issued, had no prior notice that the certificate was sought, and was given no opportunity to be heard prior to its issuance."

For the OP, I bring to the table yet another find:

http://www.politicalislam.com/pdf/We...aNonMuslim.pdf
"Sharia In Europe Today

"When you study Islam in Europe today, you are seeing America in 20 years. Why? The actions by Muslims in Europe are based on Sharia law, the same Sharia law that is beginning to be implemented in America today
."

My comment: Sharia is not a collection of laws but a set of diversely interpreted guidelines for religious practice, yet, Islam classically draws no distinction between religious, and secular life. So, is it religion they wish or is it law they wish or is it both?

"Looking at both academic and grass roots work, this review also points the reader in the direction of future trends and goals, including potential community-based efforts to address Islamic family law issues not satisfactorily resolved in formal American courtrooms. "

"The establishment of Muslim Law Shariah Councils (MLSC) whose aim it is to, �keep the identity of our community, to keep its laws, to keep it whole, while at the same time not breaking the laws of the state, having our own private language, while speaking the common language� (Shah-Kazemi 2001: 10)
" Islamic Family Law

And so whoop, there it is, there is the how...not to mention Americans not paying attention and using slang rhetoric in order to deflect from what is. If America paid better attention, we may get better candidates for Presidential elections. (I'm hopeful with this generation of young people)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,505 posts, read 4,389,347 times
Reputation: 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Why would American Muslims protest?

If Oklahoma banned Catholics seeking annulments, do you think Catholics would protest?

American Muslims protested because the majority of Sharia law is compliant with US legal code. If two Muslims living in Tulsa want a business contract based on Sharia law, which would primarily govern the terms of repayment because Sharia law doesn't allow interest to be charged, Oklahoma's law would bar them from doing so. That's an infringement on their freedom, their religious freedom to follow their religion, but more importantly on their freedom as American citizens to define the terms of a contract between themselves.

The law is so broadly written, that it forbids Sharia law (which it explicitly mentions, and so is Unconstitutional), even when Sharia law is completely within United States legal code. In the same exact way that the Catholic Church annulling a marriage is completely within United States legal code and doesn't conflict with US laws at all.

That's why American Muslims would protest.
If it Sharia Law is compliant with the US legal code, then there should not be an issue in regards to interest repayment. One law in contract is just as good as another.

imho, I believe it goes more like this “Many of us fled the Muslim world to escape Shariah law…We do not wish these laws to follow us here.” Quote taken from the cited page above.

That would be like Americans reestablishing the Church of England after all this time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 03:57 PM
 
39,995 posts, read 24,249,026 times
Reputation: 12580
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
Its a video that addresses the establishment clause as it applies to the Qur'an. You would know that if you viewed the the video.

You did what? Where is the text in the WestLaw that debunks them? For that the text on both documents is needed. So far all we have is your opinion, not the opinion of the courts or a rule of law.

I advocate that the original intent is to show active Sharia Law in the U.S

I have done that here: Islamic Family Law Contract law is law, that is governing the people with in agreement of the contract document. You threw out those cases, based on, 'it's a contract'. Show the laws governing the contract applicable, or inapplicable (constitutional or unconstitutional) based on the actual cases; based on U.S American Law and a comparison of the two within the decision of the judge's ruling.

You also used the word, comity to state that it had no bearing and I am giving you, "Comparing different legal systems, therefore, must be undertaken with care, and it is dangerous to assume that a comity-based recognition of an alternative norm is always a concession to the lesser law. Sometimes it may be a step forward. " (link for further view of the contents above)

Yet again two laws active in the U.S., is this constitutional?

And show me, due process:

"Maklad v. Maklad, where the court declined to give comity to an Egyptian certificate of divorce because the wife was not present at the time the decree was issued, had no prior notice that the certificate was sought, and was given no opportunity to be heard prior to its issuance."

For the OP, I bring to the table yet another find:

http://www.politicalislam.com/pdf/We...aNonMuslim.pdf
"Sharia In Europe Today

"When you study Islam in Europe today, you are seeing America in 20 years. Why? The actions by Muslims in Europe are based on Sharia law, the same Sharia law that is beginning to be implemented in America today
."

My comment: Sharia is not a collection of laws but a set of diversely interpreted guidelines for religious practice, yet, Islam classically draws no distinction between religious, and secular life. So, is it religion they wish or is it law they wish or is it both?

"Looking at both academic and grass roots work, this review also points the reader in the direction of future trends and goals, including potential community-based efforts to address Islamic family law issues not satisfactorily resolved in formal American courtrooms. "

"The establishment of Muslim Law Shariah Councils (MLSC) whose aim it is to, �keep the identity of our community, to keep its laws, to keep it whole, while at the same time not breaking the laws of the state, having our own private language, while speaking the common language� (Shah-Kazemi 2001: 10)
" Islamic Family Law

And so whoop, there it is, there is the how...not to mention Americans not paying attention and using slang rhetoric in order to deflect from what is. If America paid better attention, we may get better candidates for Presidential elections. (I'm hopeful with this generation of young people)
Is there any harm to the American legal system if a Catholic couple pursues dissolving their marriage via annulment as long as they also dissolve their marriage via divorce?

You have to answer no, because clearly Catholic couples have been doing this for many, many decades.

Muslims who seek to have their contract comply with Sharia law are doing exactly the same thing. When Catholics seek an annulment they are voiding a contract that has a religious element. Muslims who want to make contracts with a religious element are no more violating US legal code than Catholics or any other people who incorporate their religion into their day to day lives.

The move by yourself and others who seek to restrict Muslims is the real threat to freedom of religion. Because you don't like a religion, you seek to restrict its practice, even when the practice is perfectly legal, and once you start doing that, what's the next religion you're going to target?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,505 posts, read 4,389,347 times
Reputation: 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Is there any harm to the American legal system if a Catholic couple pursues dissolving their marriage via annulment as long as they also dissolve their marriage via divorce?

You have to answer no, because clearly Catholic couples have been doing this for many, many decades.

Muslims who seek to have their contract comply with Sharia law are doing exactly the same thing. When Catholics seek an annulment they are voiding a contract that has a religious element. Muslims who want to make contracts with a religious element are no more violating US legal code than Catholics or any other people who incorporate their religion into their day to day lives.

The move by yourself and others who seek to restrict Muslims is the real threat to freedom of religion. Because you don't like a religion, you seek to restrict its practice, even when the practice is perfectly legal, and once you start doing that, what's the next religion you're going to target?
First off there is this post of mine:
Quote:
If it Sharia Law is compliant with the US legal code, then there should not be an issue in regards to interest repayment. One law in contract is just as good as another.

imho, I believe it goes more like this “Many of us fled the Muslim world to escape Shariah law…We do not wish these laws to follow us here.” Quote taken from the cited page above.

That would be like Americans reestablishing the Church of England after all this time.
with no response from you. You jumped posts again.

Secondly they can practice their religion any where they wish to practice their religion, including in a court of law if they choose to do so. Are they 1st Amendment compliant to do so? I believe they are.

Finally, the studies show bias on the part of the judges decisions and in a court of law, where Sharia is applied and this is dangerous.

I cited above only a portion of the case Maklad vs Maklad:
Maklad v. Maklad (http://www.karamah.org/RESEARCH/SelectCases/MakladvMaklad/tabid/266/language/en-US/Default.aspx - broken link) gives more detail.

Again where is the wife's due process? Sharia is compliant with the U.S. law code, yes?

If we were talking about Catholics I would be asking the same question and also the same question in regards to Cannon Law, for the scope of this discussion, Sharia.... so, where is the problem that the wife does not receive her due process?

Note: Check link and source before you proceed....Quoted from the page
KARAMAH is founded on the fundamental principle that education, dialogue, and diligent action are the best tools to eradicate the dangerous and destructive effects of ignorance, silence and prejudice.

PS: You asked for one case...I gave you one, plus 22 others.

Last edited by Ellis Bell; 10-28-2011 at 08:38 PM.. Reason: Note, and PS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 09:22 PM
 
Location: The middle of nowhere Arkansas
3,326 posts, read 2,709,565 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
Not scared in the least. The closest thing I've heard of Sharia law in the US is the bible belt. I have no intention of going to the bible belt in the next 50-60 years.
You would be wrong, tho we would appreciate it if you would stay away from the south. We have far too many californians and yankees here already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:06 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,885 posts, read 12,992,350 times
Reputation: 5211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
Harold Hongju Koh

American lawyer and legal scholar. He currently serves as the Legal Adviser of the Department of State. He was nominated to his current position by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2009, and confirmed by the Senate on June 25, 2009.

Harold Koh's opinions on sharia

A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that “in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.”

sharia law has NO basis for case law in the USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 12:07 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,505 posts, read 4,389,347 times
Reputation: 1373
Default "conflict of law" between Shariah and American state law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
I already debunked the hell out of this so-called report.

In this thread: First Amendment Trumps Sharia in Dearborn

See post 82. You should probably stop now.
Number 9 from your debunk
Strel posted:
Quote:
9. Another comity issue, but with added unprofessional and biased commentary by the author - inserting his personal opinion without any authority.
"conflict of law" between Shariah and American state law.

Tazziz v. Tazziz - Google Scholar

"[5] Failure of a judge to recognize that there is a range of discretion for judicial action may constitute a reviewable error of law. Long v. George, 296 Mass. 574, 578 (1937). Peterson v. Cadogan, 313 Mass. 133, 134-135 (1943). Fletcher v. Cape Cod Gas Co., 394 Mass. 595, 601 (1985). Commonwealth v. Ramos, 402 Mass. 209, 216 (1988). See also Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 400 Mass. 214, 215 (1987), and cases there cited.

[6] The 1984 custody case then continued (392 Mass. at 735-736), "We would grant that we might not enforce a foreign custody determination made in an arbitrary or capricious manner, even if the applicable foreign law were comparable. Here, however, we see no indication of arbitrary or capricious action.... Finally, as the Appeals Court said, the foreign order must be based on a determination of the best interests of the child. This is a corollary to the requirement that the foreign substantive law must be reasonably comparable to ours. Here the Australian judge expressly recognized that standard (`welfare of the child as the paramount consideration' ...)...." (Emphasis supplied.) The 1984 custody case (at 733) referred to c. 209B, § 2(d), as not applicable to the case then before the court, but gave the caution that the 1984 court "read § 2(d) as telling Massachusetts judges not to act when custody proceedings are pending in another State and the circumstances described in... [§ 2(d)] exist." We recognize that there is probably doubt about (1) how far this admonition is to be applied, (2) whether it has application where broader problems and considerations exist, and (3) whether the Massachusetts proceeding in the present case preceded in time the foreign (and as yet undecided) Israeli proceeding. Although the 1984 custody case involved a preexisting order of a foreign court, it is relevant to an inquiry whether a Massachusetts court would or should recognize any order which might be entered by the Sharia Court." (found in the fine print at the bottom from the link provided)
****
At least the author of the pdf was familiar with the case before they gave their opinion. ( Not Without My Daughter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) PS: the movie, that's how I knew, you had not done the homework.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2011, 07:41 AM
 
39,995 posts, read 24,249,026 times
Reputation: 12580
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
First off there is this post of mine:with no response from you. You jumped posts again.

Secondly they can practice their religion any where they wish to practice their religion, including in a court of law if they choose to do so. Are they 1st Amendment compliant to do so? I believe they are.

Finally, the studies show bias on the part of the judges decisions and in a court of law, where Sharia is applied and this is dangerous.

I cited above only a portion of the case Maklad vs Maklad:
Maklad v. Maklad (http://www.karamah.org/RESEARCH/SelectCases/MakladvMaklad/tabid/266/language/en-US/Default.aspx - broken link) gives more detail.

Again where is the wife's due process? Sharia is compliant with the U.S. law code, yes?

If we were talking about Catholics I would be asking the same question and also the same question in regards to Cannon Law, for the scope of this discussion, Sharia.... so, where is the problem that the wife does not receive her due process?

Note: Check link and source before you proceed....Quoted from the page
KARAMAH is founded on the fundamental principle that education, dialogue, and diligent action are the best tools to eradicate the dangerous and destructive effects of ignorance, silence and prejudice.

PS: You asked for one case...I gave you one, plus 22 others.
NO, you didn't give me 23 cases. You gave me zero cases.

I asked for cases in the United States where Sharia law was imposed, where Sharia law was not in compliance with US legal code. You gave me ZERO, because you don't have any cases. And you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the Maklad v Maklad case totally supports my argument, NOT your argument. MY argument, that Sharia law doesn't have a toehold, and won't get a toehold in US legal code. YOUR argument, that we should all be AFRAID of Sharia Law taking over US legal code. Maklad v Maklad is an example of US jurists REJECTING foreign rulings that don't comply with US legal code, for whatever reason they don't comply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:12 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top