So what happens if the son of a Muslim doesnt want to join the Muslim faith? You going to allow honor killings? What about female castration?
We have a legal system in the USA and we do not need another one.
What about a system of checks and balances?
Hate speech reported to moderator.Rape Islam.
Fixed so it's acceptable.
Terrible.
Apparent you were bred the wrong way.
But supporters said a New Jersey case, in which a judge refused to grant a restraining order against a Muslim man whose wife accused him of raping her repeatedly, made it necessary for Oklahoma to take action to keep Islamic law from being imposed there.
The New Jersey decision, in which the family court judge found the husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties, was overruled by an appellate court.
Fixed.Fuck Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, Buddahism, Hinduism, Sihkism and the rest of that mythical bullshit
Fixed.
Go ahead and believe in that shit, that's your right and I support you having that right, just don't try to make others adhere to your religious tenets.
You can make a point without resorting to offensive comments. A few billion people believe in what you call "mythical" beliefs. You are free not to, but to insult someone else's beliefs is pathetic.
With over 54k posts, I would imagine you could at the minimum observe some form of decorum.
I don't care if I insult 5 billion people. Bring it hocus pocus fairy believers. I'd rather be his-tu-wa than be among psychopaths. i'll give you my address.
Let me preface this by saying up until now I was the furthest away from extremist right-wing anti-muslim feelings but now I'm thinking "wtf is going on here??" You don't write documents and wills in compliance with muslim law, you write them in accordance with US LAW.
While Spidey is pretty loony. On this one you need to read more. He is right for once.
Whether his criminal intent or lack of came from his beliefs in Muhammad, Jesus, Flying spaghetti monster, XE-NU, Roman Polanski, etc. they should should have been irrelevant to the case, rape is rape and no means no.
hi. please go ahead and insult where it is allowed. I am pretty sure hate speech is not allowed on this forum.
why do i need your address again?
Fuck Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, Buddahism, Hinduism, Sihkism and the rest of that mythical bullshit
Fixed.
Go ahead and believe in that shit, that's your right and I support you having that right, just don't try to make others adhere to your religious tenets.
The debate on adoption of sharia law is much more advanced in Europe, where parallel systems of courts have been established in liberal Western countries.
Don't think it can't happen here or anywhere else where multiculturalism is acceptable. Just consider how many in this forum see nothing wrong with having an alternate and authoritarian governance and judicial system established here, all in the name of multiculturalism.
Most sharia courts came about in response to the demands of immigrant communities that did not want to be assimilated into the culture of the countries they now reside in. Even in the US, you see that the vast majority of those who call for sharia are not born in the US but in places where sharia is the law of the land.
Various countries in Europe that have experimented with these alternative legal systems are having serious doubts now. Especially as the most simple and mundane implementations have grown into full-fledged replacements for Western jurisprudence. This is especially egregious in cases where basic human rights are challenged - sharia is very often diametrically different that the traditional liberal views found in Western civilization.
I am going to post a Wall O' Text here. Sorry for that, but the story in the UK is one that bears consideration here, where we are now facing just the early effort for Islamification.
The UK, and other countries in Europe, are much farther along the path of allowing sharia and seem willing to keep going farther in the name of multiculturalism. The story is a cautionary one worth reading in full, IMHO. It really can happen here, just as it has in Europe.
Blah blah blah, scary foreign women in burkas, blah blah foreign 'doctor' blah blah Fear blah. OMG no magazines. Fear. Divorce. Muslims. Fear. Foreigners.
Sharia. Fear. Fatwa. Fear. Foreigners. Fear.
......snip........
In Britain, sharia courts are permitted to rule only in civil cases, such as divorce and financial disputes. Until last year, these rulings depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. But now, due to a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996, they are enforceable by county and high courts.
Sharia courts are classified in the same way as arbitration tribunals - with rulings binding in law provided both parties in the dispute agree to give them the power to rule on their case.
However, a Muslim couple must still be divorced in the British courts for it to recognised under British law. The same provision in the Arbitration Act applies to Jewish Beth Din courts, which resolve similar civil cases.
....snip.....
Blah blah blah, scary foreign women in burkas, blah blah foreign 'doctor' blah blah Fear blah. OMG no magazines. Fear. Divorce. Muslims. Fear. Foreigners. Beards . Fear
Sharia. Fear. Fatwa. Fear. Foreigners. Fear.
Try to forgive PJIBBERJABBER. He's hopelessly addicted to his incomprehensible Wall-of-Text posts and quotes.Bolded the only bit of your (extended) fear mongering thats relevant.
You're right that it being Muslim views was irrelevant, what was relevant was that he thought he was acting within his rights.
What you show you are not getting is the idea of 'criminal intent'.
However in this case, while he may not have had 'crimina intent' and the judge may have considered that relevant, the appeals court disagreed, and he is guilty.
The point is, the judge's error seems to be bases on a non-Muslim issue, despite the hype.
Hypesters say 'Sharia Law takes precedence over US law!', implying 'those evil Muslims are overthrowing our legal system, we're under attack!'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,474629,00.htmlJohann Hari , columnist for The Independent, says multiculturalism is divisive, patronising, oppressive and often implicitly racist. In particular, it leads to a shameful betrayal of women's rights. The multicultural ethos sometimes colludes with oppressive ideas within minority communities, especially ideas concerning women and gay people. In these circumstances, respecting diversity can lead to the toleration of reactionary cultural traditions. Multiculturalism tends to treat minority communities as one homogeneous mass; based on the dominant elites and values within those communities. It often neglects dissenting voices within minorities. This is wrong. Individual rights should always trump community rights. Instead of multiculturalism's often one-sided focus on difference, promoting shared humanitarian values and equal citizenship are much more effective ways to secure justice and empowerment for minority peoples, argues Mr Hari.
German Justice Failures
Paving the Way for a Muslim Parallel Society
A recent ruling in Germany by a judge who cited the Koran underscores the dilemma the country faces in reconciling Western values with a growing immigrant population. A disturbing number of rulings are helping to create a parallel Muslim world in Germany that is welcoming to Islamic fundamentalists.
She didn't know it, nor did she even expect it. She had good intentions. Perhaps it was a mistake. In fact, it was most certainly a mistake. The best thing to do would be to wipe the slate clean.
Last week, in the middle of the storm, Christa Datz-Winter, a judge on Frankfurt's family court, was speechless. But Bernhard Olp, a spokesman for the city's municipal court, was quick to jump in. Olp reported that the judge had been under emotional stress stemming from a murder that had been committed in her office 10 years ago, and that she was now planning to take a break to recuperate. He also mentioned that she was "outraged" -- not about herself or her scandalous ruling, but over the reactions the case has triggered.
The reactions were so fierce that one could have been forgiven for mistakenly thinking that Germany's Muslims had won the headscarf dispute and the controversy over the Mohammed cartoons in a single day and, in one fell swoop, had taken a substantial bite out of the legal foundations of Western civilization.
The ensuing media furor came from both sides of the political spectrum. The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung ran a story on the case titled: "In the Name of the People: Beating Allowed," while the right-wing tabloid Bild called it "An Outrageous Case!" The same unanimity across party lines prevailed in the political realm. "Unbearable," was conservative Bavarian Interior Minister Günther Beckstein's ruling, while Lale Akgün, a member of parliament of Turkish origin and the Social Democratic Party's representative on Islamic issues, commented that the Frankfurt judge's ruling was "worse than some backyard decision by an Islamist imam." Even the deputy head of the Green Party's parliamentary group, Hans-Christian Ströbele, noted that a German judge is obligated to uphold German law.
The original purpose of the case was not to carry the clash of cultures into the courtroom. Instead, the case brought before Frankfurt's family court was that of a 26-year-old German woman of Moroccan origin who was terrified of her violent Moroccan husband, a man who had continued to threaten her despite having been ordered to stay away by the authorities. He had beaten his wife and he had allegedly threatened to kill her.
But German law requires a one-year separation before a divorce can be completed -- and exceptions for an expedited process are only granted in extreme situations. When the woman's attorney, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, filed a petition for an expedited divorce, Judge Christa Datz-Winter suddenly became inflexible. According to the judge, there was no evidence of "an unreasonable hardship" that would make it necessary to dissolve the marriage immediately. Instead, the judge argued, the woman should have "expected" that her husband, who had grown up in a country influenced by Islamic tradition, would exercise the "right to use corporal punishment" his religion grants him.
The judge even went so far as to quote the Koran in the grounds for her decision. In Sura 4, verse 34, she wrote, the Koran contains "both the husband's right to use corporal punishment against a disobedient wife and the establishment of the husband's superiority over the wife."
A disturbing pattern of rulings
Put plainly, the judge argued that a woman who marries a Muslim should know what she's getting herself into. In Germany, no less. Leading German feminist Alice Schwarzer argued that this was tantamount to a "softening of our legal system" that is "by no means a coincidence." Germany's only minister of integration at the state level, Armin Laschet, a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) from the state of North Rhine Westphalia, sees the Frankfurt ruling as the "last link, for the time being, in a chain of horrific rulings handed down by German courts" -- rulings in which, for example, so-called honor killings have been treated as manslaughter and not murder.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/08/oklahoma.islamic.law/index.html
"Judge blocks Oklahoma's ban on Islamic law"
Let me preface this by saying up until now I was the furthest away from extremist right-wing anti-muslim feelings but now I'm thinking "wtf is going on here??" You don't write documents and wills in compliance with muslim law, you write them in accordance with US LAW.
The part on the German judge in your post isn't about Muslims imposing Sharia onto society. It's seems that it's more about a German judge's bigotry punishing a Muslim and using Sharia as a twisted form of justification for her suffering.
It's not the result of the failure of multiculturalism. It's the result of bigots fearing multiculturalism.
Umm, its the fault of the husband who was beating her? :\
Why?
The article only states an allegation. But even if true, the judge's bizarre application of the law is not the fault of the husband. It's the judge's fault. The husband's possible actions are a different matter and he is responsible for that.
The husband is responsible for his actions. The judge is responsible for her actions.
The part on the German judge in your post isn't about Muslims imposing Sharia onto society. It's seems that it's more about a German judge's bigotry punishing a Muslim and using Sharia as a twisted form of justification for her suffering.
It's not the result of the failure of multiculturalism. It's the result of bigots fearing multiculturalism.
Unless you can present evidence to the contrary the judge was trying not to offend the religion and culture of the husband and it cost her dearlyIn January, the judge turned down the wifes request for a speedy divorce, saying her husbands behavior did not constitute unreasonable hardship because they are both Moroccan. In this cultural background, she wrote, it is not unusual that the husband uses physical punishment against the wife.
Becker-Rojczyk filed a request to remove the judge from the case, contending that she had not been neutral.
In a statement defending her ruling, Datz-Winter noted that she had ordered the man to move out and put a restraining order on him. But she also cited the verse in the Quran that speaks of a husbands prerogatives in disciplining his wife. And she suggested that the wifes Western lifestyle would give her husband grounds to claim his honor had been compromised.
