Kansas Stiffs Sharia

[questionmark]

Here is a scenario for you.

Muslim husband and wife divorce, agree to split property as per Sharia Law - no need for court proceedings as both parties agree.

A year later, ex-wife decides she isn't happy with what she got from the divorce. Gets a good lawyer who knows that this Bill illegalises the use of Sharia Law in any sort of legal proceedings (which divorce is) and successfully sues ex-husband for greater share of property.

Because the initial agreement was illegal under this Bill, the parties original agreement is null and void. The liberty of both parties to agree to use Sharia Law, and for this to be binding upon each, is taken away from them.

Where we have to say: if it applies to Sharia it must apply to all religious "law", so no more catholic divorce and no more Jewish divorce, etc, etc, etc.

[Michelle]

I guess I'm going to have to wait until I get a new computer up and running. I keep trying to look up Sharia laws and everything this would pertain to, but my computer keeps freezing up. I feel woefully ignorant at the moment.

[minera]

I did not see so much outcry about 'racism' when the rights of the indiginous population was trampled on. The law of the land or the constitution is what America is about and that is getting trampled with the rest. There will always be those who want THEIR way but if it denies the rights and invades the lives of others it should be banned. When it was said to go forth and multipy, I don't think God intended to pass on the idiot gene or the bigotry and intolerance genes either. I for one am so tired of those who claim racism for everything that others might say or do, why can't we just get along?

[+and-then]

IDK about the picking on Christians part. Bigotry is still bigotry regardless of the reason.

With that said I think the bolded is a great post and is really dead-on with whats happening with Christianity today. Somehow being Christian has become synonymous with being GOP and with being pro war. My own stint as an ultra religious person came to an end in large part because of all the republican bumper stickers I saw in the church parking lot. How one can justify supporting both is absolutely beyond me (I would say that about either party BTW) , yet somehow the church has become rabid in its fervor for the repubs.

I think this has become reflexive with social conservatives due to the perceived extreme actions of the left. It's just another step on the way to absolute polarization and gridlock. Here in the south we are predominantly Baptist/Methodist and neither will be excited about voting for Romney due to his religion. But they WILL turn out to attempt to defeat the greater of two "evils". I think that overall the religious influence in politics is waning. There has been a battle for the "soul" of our nation and the religious types have lost. I think they will gradually pull back into their communities and try to work more on local issues since the greater part of the country seems to be shifted to the left now. JMO

[+and-then]

Here is a scenario for you.

Muslim husband and wife divorce, agree to split property as per Sharia Law - no need for court proceedings as both parties agree.

A year later, ex-wife decides she isn't happy with what she got from the divorce. Gets a good lawyer who knows that this Bill illegalises the use of Sharia Law in any sort of legal proceedings (which divorce is) and successfully sues ex-husband for greater share of property.

Because the initial agreement was illegal under this Bill, the parties original agreement is null and void. The liberty of both parties to agree to use Sharia Law, and for this to be binding upon each, is taken away from them.

No legal system is perfect but I would rather see an occasional miscarriage such as you describe than to see the constitution being subtly trumped by political correctness. I would feel the same if the influence were from a Jewish court or an American Indian tribal council.

[Mr Right Wing]

I don't think any other law but the law of the US should have any consideration when deciding a case or passing sentence, etc.

The irony of the situation!

Most people think that the Koran is going to be like the Bible when it isnt. The texts in the Koran were given to Mohammed to solve problems in society ranging from trade to legal matters. They are written as a constituition on which to build a state. Sharia Law is the application of it to the state.

If you ask any US solicitor or politician about their nations constituition they'll tell you that it comes from the Koran. The freemasons believe all religions are a worship of the same God and that the texts in newer religions have had less time to be corrupted. Therefore, instead of using the Bible they used the Koran on which to base the US constituition (gasps).

You also have to remember that modern day US is not like the one at the declaration of Independance. Back then you could keep slaves, you could beat your wife and numerous other things as defined by the Koran. Applying Sharia Law now just means a return to that era.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[Babe Ruth]

According to Webster, bigotry requires that one be intolerant of other points of view, regarding religion or politics or race.

I am not intolerant of the religious. Indeed, I fully support the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. I greatly respect those religious who are able and principled enough to render unto Caesar what is his, and to God what is his. That is not difficult, but these days it is rare to find an american christian who DOES NOT want to have the government use its secular power to enforce religious dogma.

While I am not intolerant of religious folks, and actually admire those advance the traditional christian virtues of love, peace, tolerance, and others, I cannot help but ridicule those who advocate for torture, sodomy, war and authoritarianism.

And I have too many opportunities in this cyber world to poke fun at those torturers and war mongers who claim to be christians.

It's hard not to respond in kind to those people. After all, there still is such a thing as right and wrong. It is wrong to advocate for torture and killing, no matter what sort of jewelry or vestments one might wear.

[questionmark]

The irony of the situation!

Most people think that the Koran is going to be like the Bible when it isnt. The texts in the Koran were given to Mohammed to solve problems in society ranging from trade to legal matters. They are written as a constituition on which to build a state. Sharia Law is the application of it to the state.

If you ask any US solicitor or politician about their nations constituition they'll tell you that it comes from the Koran. The freemasons believe all religions are a worship of the same God and that the texts in newer religions have had less time to be corrupted. Therefore, instead of using the Bible they used the Koran on which to base the US constituition (gasps).

You also have to remember that modern day US is not like the one at the declaration of Independance. Back then you could keep slaves, you could beat your wife and numerous other things as defined by the Koran. Applying Sharia Law now just means a return to that era.

Which shows me that you have never laid eyes on one or have never bothered to read it.

But it is nice to see that some are confident in passing an opinion without knowing what they are talking about....

[F3SS]

Mr right wing, what the hell are you talking about? Did you just say my country was founded on the principals of the Koran? )

[lightly]

I must be missing something here? If applying sharia law in one's private or public affairs results in a legal violation of U.S. law ( or state or county laws, or township or parish or city or village ordinances for that matter ), the violator would be subject to arrest.

I see no need for special mini laws.

[ninjadude]

Mr right wing, what the hell are you talking about? Did you just say my country was founded on the principals of the Koran? )

Believe it or not. It's possible. Interesting reading below..

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-quran-may-have-reinforced-thomas-jeffersons-commitment-to-religous-freedom/

[+and-then]

I must be missing something here? If applying sharia law in one's private or public affairs results in a legal violation of U.S. law ( or state or county laws, or township or parish or city or village ordinances for that matter ), the violator would be subject to arrest.

I see no need for special mini laws.

In Europe the Sharia has slowly entered into some acceptability among areas which became popular among Muslim immigrants. Eager to show how accepting of diversity they were, the locals allowed Muslims to use Sharia on a limited basis. I wouldn't have a problem with it either if it were reciprocated as a courtesy. But the Muslims slowly expected more and more latitude. Now I understand there are all Sharia courts in some of these areas. I think the law in KS and coming to other States is just a statement in pre empting such expectations in the US. It has that effect also.. witness CAIR's reaction to it already. If it were simply a waste of time and effort on the part of KS then why would Hussein Ibish the large and in charge mouth piece for CAIR be upset? They can only insinuate their barbarity slowly and under the radar and they know it. It's why they get so p***y when someone calls them out like Brownback has... I say GOOD ON HIM!!

[F3SS]

Believe it or not. It's possible. Interesting reading below..

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-quran-may-have-reinforced-thomas-jeffersons-commitment-to-religous-freedom/

I doubt it. I read the whole thing and all it concludes is that there is no supporting evidence that Jefferson or our founding fathers based any law or american principles by the koran. Really the only thing this says is that Jefferson believed in freedom of religion, read the Koran and the blogger made a stupid eye catching headline from two things that are indirectly related. The headline should've read: Thomas Jefferson was committed to religious freedom and even read the Koran once.

[Stellar]

Eager to show how accepting of diversity they were, the locals allowed Muslims to use Sharia on a limited basis.

Can you give a specific example?

[FLOMBIE]

In Europe the Sharia has slowly entered into some acceptability among areas which became popular among Muslim immigrants. Eager to show how accepting of diversity they were, the locals allowed Muslims to use Sharia on a limited basis. I wouldn't have a problem with it either if it were reciprocated as a courtesy. But the Muslims slowly expected more and more latitude. Now I understand there are all Sharia courts in some of these areas.(...)

That is not true, you can't say it like that. I live in a city with about 300.000 Muslims, yet there is no Sharia, or even a Sharia court. How many countries have that again? Right, only one country.

[Farmer77]

That is not true, you can't say it like that. I live in a city with about 300.000 Muslims, yet there is no Sharia, or even a Sharia court. How many countries have that again? Right, only one country.

Reality check: Its only officially one country but certainly not for lack of effort on Islam's part.

[FLOMBIE]

Reality check? I see no problem in demanding something in a democracy. That's how it works. You can oppose it, that is you're right as well.

[Michelle]

That is not true, you can't say it like that. I live in a city with about 300.000 Muslims, yet there is no Sharia, or even a Sharia court. How many countries have that again? Right, only one country.

I think he is referring to stories like this from BBC.

Growing use of Sharia by UK Muslims

Growing demand

An estimated 85 Sharia councils could be operating in Britain, according to a 2009 report by the think tank Civitas.

Several bodies like the Islamic Sharia Council have seen a large increase in their cases in the past five years.

''Our cases have easily more than tripled over the past three to five years," says Sheikh al-Haddad.

''On average, every month we can deal with anything from 200 to 300 cases. A few years ago it was just a small fraction of that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

Edited May 30, 2012 by Michelle

[Leonardo]

I think he is referring to stories like this from BBC.

Growing use of Sharia by UK Muslims

Growing demand

An estimated 85 Sharia councils could be operating in Britain, according to a 2009 report by the think tank Civitas.

Several bodies like the Islamic Sharia Council have seen a large increase in their cases in the past five years.

''Our cases have easily more than tripled over the past three to five years," says Sheikh al-Haddad.

''On average, every month we can deal with anything from 200 to 300 cases. A few years ago it was just a small fraction of that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

Sharia councils are there to allow the customs of the Muslims who follow Sharia to be used in situations not requiring any legal proceedings - such as family disputes, etc. They have no official legal standing/authority and are not replacements for the legal system operated by the State in the UK.

They are similar, in a watered-down way, to the use of traditional laws by the Native American populations in the USA. Although the Native Americans have the right (so I believe) to actually enforce those traditions as law on Reservation lands.

[Michelle]

Concerns such as these have led crossbench peer Baroness Cox to introduce a bill before the House of Lords, aimed at introducing regulation of Sharia organisations in the UK.

The bill has received its first reading and is expected to get a second reading later this year.

But for groups like IKWRO the bill does not go far enough.''We think there shouldn't be any religious law practising in Britain - all Sharia bodies should be banned. That is the only way we can ensure equality of justice for all women," argues Diana Nammi.

So they are trying to introduce a bill, outlawing any religious law, to eliminate this practice because they aren't practicing law? I know currently they are only on civil matters, but divorce isn't just a civil matter...it is actually a legal one. Which incidently can be a costly one for Muslim men under Brit or US law.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Michelle

[Farmer77]

Reality check? I see no problem in demanding something in a democracy. That's how it works. You can oppose it, that is you're right as well.

The problem is in how they demand it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

Give em an inch and they'll take a mile knife to your throat

[Leonardo]

Concerns such as these have led crossbench peer Baroness Cox to introduce a bill before the House of Lords, aimed at introducing regulation of Sharia organisations in the UK.

The bill has received its first reading and is expected to get a second reading later this year.

But for groups like IKWRO the bill does not go far enough.''We think there shouldn't be any religious law practising in Britain - all Sharia bodies should be banned. That is the only way we can ensure equality of justice for all women," argues Diana Nammi.

So they are trying to introduce a bill, outlawing any religious law, to eliminate this practice because they aren't practicing law? I know currently they are only on civil matters, but divorce isn't just a civil matter...it is actually a legal one.

Not when both parties agree on the 'rules' by which the joint assets are reappointed. For sure, the divorce contract is legal and binding, but within that the separating partners may use any set of 'rules' to agree on the disbursement of their joint holdings.

Now, I am not saying there may be some Sharia Councils overstepping their authority - but that is a matter for a regulatory body to deal with and does not require the creation of new laws.

[Michelle]

Not when both parties agree on the 'rules' by which the joint assets are reappointed. For sure, the divorce contract is legal and binding, but within that the separating partners may use any set of 'rules' to agree on the disbursement of their joint holdings.

Now, I am not saying there may be some Sharia Councils overstepping their authority - but that is a matter for a regulatory body to deal with and does not require the creation of new laws.

I don't think religion should have any bearing under a court of law...period. What hoops they have to jump through with their church is of no concern to me, but in the legal system it has no place.

[Leonardo]

I don't think religion should have any bearing under a court of law...period. What hoops they have to jump through with their church is of no concern to me, but in the legal system it has no place.

Religion doesn't have any bearing in a court of law, except for the fact that religious rights and freedoms are allowed as part of someone's personal liberty. The instance you have posted of Baroness Cox introducing a Bill to bring about regulation of these Sharia councils should minimise the issue without recourse to adding new laws onto the books such as the one introduced by the Arizona Governor.

And the statement by Diana Nammi presupposes all women are of the same mind as her. Unfortunately for her, they are not. For sure, women should have choices, and should be made aware of those choices, but it is entirely wrong to enforce any particular choice on women for the purpose of granting them "freedom".

Edited May 30, 2012 by Leonardo

[Michelle]

Muslim men have a definite advantage under Sharia law of which they don't have under secular laws. If Muslim women are not informed of their legal rights under secular laws, of the country they reside in, it leaves them very little options, especially when under pressure from being alienated from what little family they may have in said country. If they so choose to follow Sharia, it will be afforded to them under the laws already set up, within their traditions, without officially allowing Sharia laws. That is their choice...but there will be no undue influence by a person that they consider an authority.

I have too many immigrant friends, that are or were ignorant of their rights when they came here, for me to agree with this. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.