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 11-08-2010, 12:01 PM
 
3,566 posts, read 4,806,434 times
Reputation: 1855

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBMe View Post
If they are willing to abide by the law of the land then there is no need to worry about banning Sharia's use within the U.S. courts as it is in the U.K.

BTW, you may wish to not call the New Jersey case a Sharia Law case, but we all know it was.

Here is the link provided by the previous poster in case you missed it, regarding the U.K.'s Sharia Laws that point out how according to Sharia Law a wife cannot be raped by her husband because he has a right to have sex with her on demand.

UK Islamic Council: You Can't Rape Your Wife

These Sharia Laws were fought for and won by Muslims in the United Kingdom. They are now in place there. I think a preemptive move to prevent that happening in the U.S. is a good thing.


It wasn't a Sharia case.

The judge didn't find evidence simply because the guy was muslim. He didn't find evidence. Preponderance of evidence.

I am an err on the side of caution when it comes to domestic violence. I say that with the luxery of not being a judge.

All criminal offenses look at intent. When you are looking at protection orders you are looking at preventing future criminal offenses from occurring. Domestic violence can be very difficult to prove. Especially when you are dealing with he said/she said stuff.

Thus, it would not be correct to throw the bill of rights under the bus if what you are against is IPV. It would be correct to go against IPV.
Unless, you're not truly against IPV----you're just using it to further your cause.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:29 PM
 
74,703 posts, read 34,863,276 times
Reputation: 10569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandamonium View Post
If you need more clarification read the court order again.

Try again.
Okay... here you go, again:
Quote:
This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
a6107-08.opn.html (http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html - broken link)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:34 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,405,534 times
Reputation: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
Depending on the scale of it, that law is quite unconstitutional. Of course criminal courts wouldn't consider Shariah law(In which case the only valid argument for the proposal is a strawman as no one has seriously suggested that) but I don't see how this could constitutionally apply to civil cases. If two parties decide to make a contract that adheres to the rules of Shariah and doesn't conflict with Oklahoma law, who's to say they can't?

But I do have to lol @ banning something that doesn't even have a remote possibility of coming to fruition. It's right up there with banning human cloning, a science which doesn't even exist yet.
It doesn't have a remote possibility of coming to fruition? Apparently you have not been paying attention to life on planet earth.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:35 PM
 
74,703 posts, read 34,863,276 times
Reputation: 10569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandamonium View Post
The judge didn't find evidence simply because the guy was muslim. He didn't find evidence.
...because of the defendant's Muslim belief in Sharia Law.
Quote:


So let's review the Muslim position being presented by Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed [President and senior cleric of Britain’s main sharia court]:
  • Wives cannot be raped by their husbands
  • Women do not have a right to refuse to have sex with their husbands
  • A man forcing his wife to have sex is not contrary to Shariah law
  • Equality and equal rights are false ideas created by the West
  • Prosecution for rape is a worse aggression than a man forcing his wife to have sex
UK Islamic Sharia Council: You Can't Rape Your Wife
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 5,801,128 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzschean Gangsta View Post
Sharia only applies to Muslims. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-MUSLIMS. And what's more, Muslims have the right to opt out of it if they wish. It's judgements are nonbinding. The people of Oklahoma have no idea what they just voted against. I doubt that very few people even know what Sharia is.
Wrong. Sharia law is extensive and includes interactions between Muslims and non-Muslims, including spelling out the value of life for Muslims and non-Muslims (hint: thery're not equal).
As for Muslims having the right to 'opt out', that is laughable. Even where Sharia law is not the law of hte land, coercion and intimidation are rampant. Where it IS the law of the land there are severe penalties for not following it, including, of course, death.
One last question you should ask yourself: If this is such a non-issue, why did the Muslim groups move so quickly to attack it? If they have no intention of importing Sharia law to America (which would be a first for a country Muslims have come to) then why would they care about this law?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 18,652,839 times
Reputation: 7751
CAIR wins the first round in Federal District Court:

Order blocks Oklahoma constitutional amendment | NewsOK.com
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 02:42 PM
 
1,476 posts, read 1,833,705 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
CAIR wins the first round in Federal District Court:

Order blocks Oklahoma constitutional amendment | NewsOK.com
Time to pony up.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Ohio
22,798 posts, read 15,979,434 times
Reputation: 19283
Seriously, I just love this. It's absolutely wonderful.

The US muscles its way into other countries and rams American values down other people's throats.

Well, now Americans are getting a taste of their own medicine, and it doesn't seem they like it.

Boohoo.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Glencoe, IL
313 posts, read 529,542 times
Reputation: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandamonium View Post
Can you wear the hijab to get a drivers license? Like no.
Like, yeah.

You're probably confusing the hijab with something that covers the face, like the woman who lost the court case to keep a driver's license photo she already had that showed her in niqab
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 5,801,128 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Seriously, I just love this. It's absolutely wonderful.

The US muscles its way into other countries and rams American values down other people's throats.

Well, now Americans are getting a taste of their own medicine, and it doesn't seem they like it.

Boohoo.
We haven't pushed our values down another country's throat since the end of WW2. If we did then Afganistan's constitution wouldn't be based on Sharia law now would it? Oh, and those countries on whom we did push our values -- they seem to be doing pretty well now don't they.
Rate this post positively 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top