U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-07-2010, 01:13 AM
 
202 posts, read 325,229 times
Reputation: 156

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
I know very little about Shariah Law, other than the misogynist aspects, and honor killings. Would you mind sharing a few examples of un-Islamic practices?
honor killing IS NOT ISLAMIC AND ITS NOT SHARIAH. That my friend is a practice that is cultural and pre-dates Islam. Honor killings happen in India by hindus so obviously it's not something islamic. Islam actually preaches AGAINST THAT SORT OF THING.

oh and by the way, I am female. I find nothing mysoginistic in islam.

An example of something unislamic is drinking alcohol, eating pork or anything derived from pork, as well as any meat or other food that is not halal (look it up), paying interest or earning interest, gambling, pornography, adultry, intoxicants, etc etc and also making a living off of any of these things that in islam is considered haram (forbidden).

I hope I've given you some insight.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2010, 01:17 AM
 
202 posts, read 325,229 times
Reputation: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
There are 22 nations in the world with a Muslim majority. In nearly all of those countries women and non-Muslims are second class citizens BY LAW. \
That's completely false.

Eleanora, have you ever been to one of those muslim countries you are speaking of? Actually that is a rhetorical question because it's obvious that you have not. I really wish you would get your head out of your little box and travel the world. You might be surprised what you find.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 01:52 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
11,687 posts, read 5,412,834 times
Reputation: 1817
Quote:
Originally Posted by m92tiger View Post
honor killing IS NOT ISLAMIC AND ITS NOT SHARIAH. That my friend is a practice that is cultural and pre-dates Islam. Honor killings happen in India by hindus so obviously it's not something islamic. Islam actually preaches AGAINST THAT SORT OF THING.

oh and by the way, I am female. I find nothing mysoginistic in islam.

An example of something unislamic is drinking alcohol, eating pork or anything derived from pork, as well as any meat or other food that is not halal (look it up), paying interest or earning interest, gambling, pornography, adultry, intoxicants, etc etc and also making a living off of any of these things that in islam is considered haram (forbidden).

I hope I've given you some insight.
Well that's just no fun at all.

Neither are fatwas.

After reading this So, Why am I a Hindu? Hindu doesn't sound so bad.

At least if one didn't like their life the first go around, they can come back and try again, until they get it right.

India, isn't that where the cows live in the house? I don't know if I could deal with a pet cow. Hard enough now for me to empty the cat box...oh man.

As for as being a woman comment. A person as long as they believe it is right, no one can tell them any different. I use to get hit by my husband twice a year. If some one was to talk to me about abusive men, then, I never would have thought that person would be my husband. We live and learn.

I'm still around this man and he believes sex with a woman is love. That's all he needs to do, is have sex, to show his love. Sad really, cause this woman ain't having no sex until she sees love. (to much information, I'm sure) However, that's just him, that is what he thinks and that way of thought is right for him and no one can tell him any different....and that's okay. It's just not, me.

Yes, he still hits 'em too and that's his love, his way.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 05:02 AM
 
7,273 posts, read 6,112,919 times
Reputation: 10237
Quote:
Originally Posted by m92tiger View Post
honor killing IS NOT ISLAMIC AND ITS NOT SHARIAH. That my friend is a practice that is cultural and pre-dates Islam. Honor killings happen in India by hindus so obviously it's not something islamic. Islam actually preaches AGAINST THAT SORT OF THING.

oh and by the way, I am female. I find nothing mysoginistic in islam.

An example of something unislamic is drinking alcohol, eating pork or anything derived from pork, as well as any meat or other food that is not halal (look it up), paying interest or earning interest, gambling, pornography, adultry, intoxicants, etc etc and also making a living off of any of these things that in islam is considered haram (forbidden).

I hope I've given you some insight.

Very good explanation! What if a community (in the U.S.), is, say, 75 percent Muslim and 25% "other"? Couldn't the Muslims tailor the local laws against the "unislamic" practices mentioned above, i.e., no pork or bacon sold in supermarkets, no bars or liquor stores, no Playboy magazines at the news stand, etc.? No stoning or amputations, but it is still inflicting Sharian law. It seems a bit far fetched, but look at the incidents in which Islam cab drivers will not transport patrons carrying purchases of liquor, unclean meat, etc.? How would the "other" 25 percent feel about having their lives and rights tailored to Muslim law, IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY? We're already seeing that in Michigan, where the H.S. football practice is orchestrated by the Ramadan rules. Those non-Muslim folks are sports for putting up with it, less tolerant people wouldn't. Look at England and France - there are tight pockets of un-integrated Muslims in those countries that may as well still be in the mid-east. Do we want that to happen here?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 06:00 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 18,700,825 times
Reputation: 7751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Skeffington View Post
Very good explanation! What if a community (in the U.S.), is, say, 75 percent Muslim and 25% "other"? Couldn't the Muslims tailor the local laws against the "unislamic" practices mentioned above, i.e., no pork or bacon sold in supermarkets, no bars or liquor stores, no Playboy magazines at the news stand, etc.? No stoning or amputations, but it is still inflicting Sharian law. It seems a bit far fetched, but look at the incidents in which Islam cab drivers will not transport patrons carrying purchases of liquor, unclean meat, etc.? How would the "other" 25 percent feel about having their lives and rights tailored to Muslim law, IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY? We're already seeing that in Michigan, where the H.S. football practice is orchestrated by the Ramadan rules. Those non-Muslim folks are sports for putting up with it, less tolerant people wouldn't. Look at England and France - there are tight pockets of un-integrated Muslims in those countries that may as well still be in the mid-east. Do we want that to happen here?

Yes, they could do that because The People hold all the power in this country and, according to the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence, have the God-given right to chose for themselves.

For over 200 years, the final choices in this country have been made by white, Protestant decendants of Europeans because we've been the majority. Those who aren't like us surely haven't liked everything our numbers have allowed us to do, but that's how a democracy works. Fortunately for the minorities, the law gives them avenues to protect their rights from the tyranny of the majority. A good case in point is this very subject as the Muslim minority has access to the courts to protect their rights.

At some point in the future, Anglos will no longer be the majority. The demographics of birth rate and immigration clearly show a changing of the guard and it will come sooner than you think. And, as that coming new majority gains political power as their numbers increase, they'll have the voting power to change this country into anything they please. That same Constitution which preserved our rights will preserve theirs too and it will also still preserve the new minority's power to protect their rights, just as it does now.

That's the reality of it. America is changing and that change is empowered by the Constitution. The only way to prevent it would be to throw out the Constitution which has served us for so well and impose some other form of government which preserves the status quo in spite of the demographics. That would be a direct slap in the face to the Declaration of Independence, which everyone claims to hold so dear.

But, will we hold it dear when it's God-given principles apply to someone else? That's the question which drives much of the outrage about Muslim's and Hispanics and a question we have not yet answered.

Where do you stand? Prevent the new majority from claiming the power their numbers will give them under the Constitution, or accept the same protected minority status others have lived under for over 200 years?

By the way, I'd suggest that assidously defending that separation of church and state now would be our best defense for the future when it comes to the possiblie imposition of Muslim law, however remote the possibility. In other words, the best thing any of us could do who don't want to live under religious law is to support CAIR in this suit because, whether they know it or not, they are defending the legal principles we will need in the future.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 06:30 AM
 
75,073 posts, read 35,089,334 times
Reputation: 10661
Meanwhile, in a New Jersey court...
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)

Rape your wife because your belief allows it... Sharia law at it's finest.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 08:14 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 4,815,666 times
Reputation: 1855
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Meanwhile, in a New Jersey court...
a6107-08.opn.html (http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html - broken link)

Rape your wife because your belief allows it... Sharia law at it's finest.
It is also a componant of many of the Christian cults. A mainstay of the "family values" package. You are either against spousal rape and abuse or you are not. The correct term for it is "intimate partner violence". Which side of the road do you stand on?


And on another note, one of the best ways that we can keep someone from imposing their religion on us is to get rid of the blue laws.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 09:59 AM
 
1,476 posts, read 1,838,978 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by m92tiger View Post
honor killing IS NOT ISLAMIC AND ITS NOT SHARIAH. That my friend is a practice that is cultural and pre-dates Islam. Honor killings happen in India by hindus so obviously it's not something islamic. Islam actually preaches AGAINST THAT SORT OF THING.

oh and by the way, I am female. I find nothing mysoginistic in islam.

An example of something unislamic is drinking alcohol, eating pork or anything derived from pork, as well as any meat or other food that is not halal (look it up), paying interest or earning interest, gambling, pornography, adultry, intoxicants, etc etc and also making a living off of any of these things that in islam is considered haram (forbidden).

I hope I've given you some insight.
Are you okay with the Sharia Law that allows a Husband to beat his wife and children as long as it doesn't leave bruises? And what about Polygamy? I, understand that the U.K. and I believe, more recently Canada allows this under Sharia Law. In fact, the U.K. now covers up to 4 wives under their welfare rights. Please respond. Sounds like you are a female Muslim, correct?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 10:15 AM
 
1,476 posts, read 1,838,978 times
Reputation: 703
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.
In regards to criminal courts not considering Shariah Law, there was a case in New Jersey in which a judge used Sharia Law to base his decision regarding Spousal Rape. The case was appealed and eventually overturned. But at what emotional and monetary expense? Why not preemptively avoid this type of thing?

With regard to Muslims abiding by Sharia Laws that do NOT conflict with Oklahoma Law, I don't see what the problem is as long as they keep it out of the U.S. Courts. They can handle these matters within the confines of their mosques since these are religiously mandated matters. An analogy would be the Catholic Church prohibitting birth control. A violator would not be taken to court since it does not violate the laws of the country. It would be handled within the confines of the church through counseling or excommunication, etc.

There should be no mixing of specific Religious Laws and Governmental Laws and since there have been incidents of this in other states, I see Oklahoma's preemptive law as a wise and economical move.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2010, 10:18 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 4,815,666 times
Reputation: 1855
The case wasn't about Sharia Law. But, don't let the facts get in the way.
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