Anti-Islam ads on NYC buses. Whose side are you on?

[Osomir]

So are you saying that Holocaust denier are on the right path? Many would disagree with you.

try again------holocaust deniers are very much like you-----
in the faces of the victims they SPIT and say "PROVE IT"

now you spit in the faces of the south Sudanese kids lying dead in the dust

You dont know anything about south sudan.

oh----I forgot----you read INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY 101 and are a strong advocate of the BEAUTY of------the Islamic approach to the matter of ORPHANS OF WAR

Unlike you, i actually assist those orphans of war and track their plight daily.

no you don't-----those who were claimed by muslims under the DHIMMI ORPHAN law are not available to you unless
they were freed by ransom

Your comeback doesnt make any sense. South sudan isnt a muslim majority country. Nor is the current fighting there along religious lines. Want to try again?

 

[irosie91]

try again------holocaust deniers are very much like you-----
in the faces of the victims they SPIT and say "PROVE IT"

now you spit in the faces of the south Sudanese kids lying dead in the dust

You dont know anything about south sudan.

oh----I forgot----you read INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY 101 and are a strong advocate of the BEAUTY of------the Islamic approach to the matter of ORPHANS OF WAR

Unlike you, i actually assist those orphans of war and track their plight daily.

no you don't-----those who were claimed by muslims under the DHIMMI ORPHAN law are not available to you unless
they were freed by ransom

Your comeback doesnt make any sense. South sudan isnt a muslim majority country. Nor is the current fighting there along religious lines. Want to try again?

I am referring to those kids who were confiscated in the past-------but you knew that.------you are just playing idiot

 

[Osomir]

You dont know anything about south sudan.

oh----I forgot----you read INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY 101 and are a strong advocate of the BEAUTY of------the Islamic approach to the matter of ORPHANS OF WAR

Unlike you, i actually assist those orphans of war and track their plight daily.

no you don't-----those who were claimed by muslims under the DHIMMI ORPHAN law are not available to you unless
they were freed by ransom

Your comeback doesnt make any sense. South sudan isnt a muslim majority country. Nor is the current fighting there along religious lines. Want to try again?

I am referring to those kids who were confiscated in the past-------but you knew that.------you are just playing idiot

I dont think you know much about them either.

 

[irosie91]

oh----I forgot----you read INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY 101 and are a strong advocate of the BEAUTY of------the Islamic approach to the matter of ORPHANS OF WAR

Unlike you, i actually assist those orphans of war and track their plight daily.

no you don't-----those who were claimed by muslims under the DHIMMI ORPHAN law are not available to you unless
they were freed by ransom

Your comeback doesnt make any sense. South sudan isnt a muslim majority country. Nor is the current fighting there along religious lines. Want to try again?

I am referring to those kids who were confiscated in the past-------but you knew that.------you are just playing idiot

I dont think you know much about them either.

what makes you say that? It is an issue not entirely
unrelated to my own family

 

[protectionist]

You are showing yourself to be a complete ignorant fool to keep saying that. You might as well be saying "those who claim that gay liberation groups are calling for legalization of same-sex marriage". Well, Gee, Who woulda ever thought ?

When you tell me how many examples you want, I'll give you some, even though the question is so ludicrous, it doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response.

So are you saying that Holocaust denier are on the right path? Many would disagree with you.

try again------holocaust deniers are very much like you-----
in the faces of the victims they SPIT and say "PROVE IT"

now you spit in the faces of the south Sudanese kids lying dead in the dust

So now asking a member to support his claim is "spitting in the faces of south Sudanese kids"?

You get odder by the post Rosie.

You're not asking anybody to support anything. You know exactly what's going on, and nobody is scammed by your silly spin.

I've been asking you, multiple times to support your claim that American Muslims want sharia and hadith to be the law.

Yeah. And THAT is the silly spin you are trying to all of us with. You must think we're all pretty stupid here, is that it ? First of all, your idiot question didn't even deserve the dignity of a response, since we all see every day on the news, how Muslims are trying to impose Islam on us. Every time somebody is attacked by Muslims that has happened. You got a list of those in Post # 406. Every time someone is fired from a job for not acquiesing to Islamists. (Post # 397) All the various court battles these jihad fascists have put us through, (and which taxpayers had to pay for). You got those in Post # 397. also. All the various Muslim impositions of them making their own rules (just another word for "laws")
Yeah. You asked multiple times. And "multiple times" you got answered. So stop trying to bullshit us by pretending you dumb question hasn't been answered. Here's my question for you.

Would you Now please ?

 

[irosie91]

for the record-----there is (according to a breaking news TV report) a current homeland security alert for the nation-----
ISIS OPERATIVES IN THE US ARE BEING URGED TO
KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS (isis operatives obviously means any idiot in the USA -----CALIPHATE HAPPY<<
do not underestimate the issue)

 

[protectionist]

If terrorist-supporting Islamist groups like C.A.I.R. are allowed to issue their Da'wahs on public transportation, I would think those who oppose their agenda should be able to as well.

Of course. You support Geller and her genocidal ambitions.

If a government wants to learn how to manage growing Islamic problems, take some advice from Ottoman army officer Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Atatürk abolished Islam by putting a complete ban on Islamic materials, demolishing mosques, and removing any traces of Islam in his country to get rid of the evil. Those who tried to revolt were put in their place, or basically killed….


It is time for the UK to stop wasting their military abroad, but bring them to patrol their own streets and begin to remove Muslims. And it is vital time to plan and arrange deportation programs – and even arrange new deportation programs for practicing Muslims born in England to be deported to their parent’s country of origin.​

The only genocidal variable in this equation are the Islamic Imperialist swine. Islam is the largest most violent hate group on the planet and the Koran and Hadiths are no different than Mein Kampf and fail the clear and probable danger test on every point and can justly be banned without violating the 1st amendment. Muslims have no place whatsoever in the West they are anathema to liberal democracy and a free society.

As to the OP if the Muslim pigs are allowed to lie about Israel and the Jews then people should be allowed to tell the truth about Muslims which is what these ads do.

Correct. The ads (whether in subways or buses) are a positive public service, and Pamela Geller and the AFDI should be commended for providing them. The American public needs MUCH more education about Islamization, not less. Just the pitiful results of of the Islamization Quiz I've been giving here, is testament to that.

Since it is the standard MO of jihadists to attack with violence, lawsuits, boycotts, or smear campaigns, there is a great reluctance of media to brodacast Islamization. Hence, it gets broadcasted quite rarely, and hence again, the public doesn't get the news of it. These ads fill in that huge gap.

 

[protectionist]

Center for Security Policy Press launched a collection of monographs called the Civilization Jihad Reader Series with the publication of an update to an earlier and highly influential study concerning the insinuation of Islam’s supremacist shariah legal code into the U.S. judiciary. Entitled Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, this inaugural booklet documents 146 cases in 32 states in which a party to litigation attempted to have the matter resolved by applying shariah, rather than the statutes of the state in question.

The Center first raised an alarm about the penetration of American jurisprudence by one of the most anti-constitutional of such foreign legal codes with its 2011 report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed.

SHARIAH IN AMERICAN COURTS The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY PRESS

This study identifies a total of 146 cases involving Shariah from 32 different states and federal courts: 9 cases were found in New Jersey; 9 in Texas; 9 in New York; 8 cases were found in California; 8 in Ohio; 7 in Connecticut; 7 in Virginia; 6 in Florida; 5 in Michigan; 4 in Massachusetts; 4 in Washington; 4 in Iowa; 3 in Maryland; 3 in Nebraska; 3 in North Carolina; 2 in Georgia; 2 in Louisiana; 2 in Delaware; 2 in Illinois; 2 in Maine; 2 in New Hampshire; 2 in South Carolina; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. 33 cases were found from federal courts.

The 146 cases can be classified into fifteen categories (cases sometimes fell within more than one category): 7 cases deal with criminal law; 20 cases deal with civil law; 9 cases deal with commercial law; 14 cases deal with family law generally; 23 cases deal with child custody; 67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters; 25 cases dealt with comity; 15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens; 4 cases dealt with choice of law; 1 case involved forum selection; 3 cases involved arbitration and 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse. In addition, the cases were also assessed as to whether or not the ultimate decision of the court was in accordance with Shariah at both the trial court and appellate court levels: At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

Across the 146 cases there were 21 foreign countries from which Shariah— based legal conventions or decisions were brought to bear upon the case. Some cases made reference to more than one country while others involved Shariah without reference to a specific foreign country. Among the cases that referenced Shariah in a foreign country: 10 were from Pakistan; 8 were from Iran; 7 were from Egypt; 6 were from Jordan; 5 from Lebanon; 4 from Turkey; 3 from Saudi Arabia; 2 each were from India, Indonesia, Iraq and Nigeria; and 1 each was from Afghanistan, Algeria, Gaza [sic], Israel, Kenya; Morocco, the Philippines, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In summary, of the 146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy. This alarming success ratio of Shariah submitting American law in our state courts provides ample evidence of the increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization. This effort, and the intent of those organizations taking part in it, are described in greater detail in Appendix A and B, while Appendix C provides the reader hope for a mechanism to counter it. Finally, It should also be noted that the cases in this survey dealing with prisoner cases and asylum cases are illustrative only; there are literally too many such cases to include in this study. Indeed a whole separate volume could be produced dealing just with each of these issues.

Center for Security Policy Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Shariah_in_American_Courts1.pdf

Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System Civilization Jihad Reader Series Volume 1 Center for Security Policy 9780692345559 Amazon.com Books

Almost all of those cases were using sharia in civil disputes or cases involving dealings with other countries. None of this shows that American Muslims are calling for Sharia and Hadith to be the law of the land.

For example - here's a look at the actual cases:

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts The Nation

As an attorney, consultant or expert witness, I have handled more than 100 cases involving components of Sharia. In a case I tried in 2002, Odatalla v. Odatalla, a New Jersey couple had signed an Islamic marriage contract consistent with their cultural traditions. When the wife filed for divorce, she asked the court to enforce the mahr, or dowry provision, in her contract, which called for the husband’s payment of $10,000 upon the dissolution of their marriage. Superior Court Judge John Selser found the marriage contract valid under New Jersey law, concluding, “Clearly, this court can enforce a contract which is not in contravention of established law or public policy.”​

In a 2003 case involving Exxon Mobil and a Saudi oil company, the parties had agreed as part of a commercial transaction that Saudi law would govern any potential disputes. After the Saudi company sued its former business partner, Exxon Mobil, the Delaware Superior Court heard testimony on Saudi law, which applies traditional Sharia, and the judge instructed the jury to base its decision accordingly. The jury returned a $400 million–plus verdict in favor of Exxon Mobil and against the Saudi firm.


Finally, in a more recent case I was involved in, a state judge declined to recognize a Syrian court order that would have transferred the custody of a child to her father because of the mother’s remarriage. The judge reasoned that remarriage alone is not sufficient to transfer custody. Far from deferring to judgments from foreign countries, US courts regularly refuse to recognize such orders due to the constitutional and due-process implications.​

A few more sources:

Column The sharia myth sweeps America - USATODAY.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-foreign-law-that-incorporates-religious-law/

What you are looking at is the use of sharia in very limited ways, just like any international laws might be used because sharia is the law in certain countries. None of this shows evidence that American Muslims are pushing for this and that is what I am asking you for - evidence that American Muslims, as a group, are pushing for sharia and hadith to be the law of the land. You are flinging a lot of mud in an attempt to obscure the fact that you can not answer this.

I thought so. I answer your question sincerely, and you come back with biased bullshit invalidation cards, that I've seen 1000 times. I see no point in talking to you. And the 146 cases involved (AS I SAID ALREADY) contained cases of domestic violence, criminal cases, like the infamous New Jersey rape/wife beating case. There are thousands more cases that didn't go to court and are just Muslims imposing Sharia law on American like the Muslim cab drivers who wouldn't pick up people with alcoholic beverages, the ones who wouldn't pick up blind people with a dog, the Muslim-owned company Rising Star, who fired an employee (Lina Morales) for bringing a BLT sandwich to work, the Muslims who got airports and universities to install foot-washing basins at great expense, etc. etc etc etc.

The majority of the cases did not involve domestic violence OR criminal cases. There was only one that involved domestic violence, where the judge ruled wrongly and was overturned as was appropriate.

Drivers refusing to pick up people with alcoholic bevereges or service dogs are not "imposing sharia law" they are acting on their own religious beliefs and no different than Christians refusing to provide services to gays or dispense birth control. Whether it flies or not depends on the law.

None of this shows that Muslims in America are trying to make Sharia and Hadith The Law - you just have personal cases of religious belief.

Hey dumbass! What the fuck do you think you're doing, responding to a post that I haven't even finished posting yet ? It's only about 50% done. TAKE NOTE; DON'T EVER RESPOND TO A POST OF MINE UNTIL 24 HOURS HAS PASSED. ALLOW FOR EDITING.

I will not read your Post # 398 which purports to be a response to my 397, which irt cannot be, since my # 397 is still being written. Dumbshit.

Post # 397 will not be finished until sometime tomorrow (Sunday, May 10)

Lol thats not how forums work.

It is NOW.

 

[protectionist]

They don't have "facts" - they have conspiracy theory and cherry picked bits of data that becomes evident once they start displaying their sources. Kind of like those who claim Muslims in America are calling for sharia and hadith to be the law.

You are showing yourself to be a complete ignorant fool to keep saying that. You might as well be saying "those who claim that gay liberation groups are calling for legalization of same-sex marriage". Well, Gee, Who woulda ever thought ?

When you tell me how many examples you want, I'll give you some, even though the question is so ludicrous, it doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response.

Tell us all again about how the dinka are the largest ethnic group in Sudan and about how the janjaweed are waging jihad against non muslims in darfur.

I've already educated you enough in this thread. I'm not being paid to be your tutor. If you read the books I suggested for you, et al (instead of pretending to have read them), you wouldn't need to be asking me for information >>

The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America ---- by Andrew McCarthy

American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us ----- by Steven Emerson

Because They Hate ---- by Brigitte Gabriel

They Must Be Stopped ------ by Brigitte Gabriel

Hating America ------ by John Gibson

Stop the Islamization of America ----- by Pamela Geller

Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Secret Saudi-U.S. Connection ------ by Gerald Posner

Stealth Jihad ----- by Robert Spencer

The Brotherhood: America's Next Great Enemy ------ by Erik Stakelbeck

Outrage ----- by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Infiltration ------ by Paul Sperry

The 9/11 Commission Report

The Truth About Muhammad ------ by Robert Spencer

In Mortal Danger ------- by Tom Tancredo

State of Emergency ----- by Pat Buchanan

Muslim Mafia ----- by P.David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry

Your books arent accurate.

This reminds me of someone throwing mud to see if anything sticks. I doubt any of those books have much to say on Sudanese ethnic groups

You, just like Osimir, don't have the qualification to doubt, or assume, or think anything about those books, because you are just another airhead Islamapologist, who hasn't read them. If you were given a quiz on those books, you'd flunk it badly.

As for Sudanese ethnic groups, some of them do cover that, but who cares ? The TOPIC of this thread isn't that. So stick to the topic, Ms moderator.

 

[protectionist]

Please show me that Muslims in the US call for sharia and hadith as "law".

Center for Security Policy Press launched a collection of monographs called the Civilization Jihad Reader Series with the publication of an update to an earlier and highly influential study concerning the insinuation of Islam’s supremacist shariah legal code into the U.S. judiciary. Entitled Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, this inaugural booklet documents 146 cases in 32 states in which a party to litigation attempted to have the matter resolved by applying shariah, rather than the statutes of the state in question.

The Center first raised an alarm about the penetration of American jurisprudence by one of the most anti-constitutional of such foreign legal codes with its 2011 report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed.

SHARIAH IN AMERICAN COURTS The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY PRESS

This study identifies a total of 146 cases involving Shariah from 32 different states and federal courts: 9 cases were found in New Jersey; 9 in Texas; 9 in New York; 8 cases were found in California; 8 in Ohio; 7 in Connecticut; 7 in Virginia; 6 in Florida; 5 in Michigan; 4 in Massachusetts; 4 in Washington; 4 in Iowa; 3 in Maryland; 3 in Nebraska; 3 in North Carolina; 2 in Georgia; 2 in Louisiana; 2 in Delaware; 2 in Illinois; 2 in Maine; 2 in New Hampshire; 2 in South Carolina; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. 33 cases were found from federal courts.

The 146 cases can be classified into fifteen categories (cases sometimes fell within more than one category): 7 cases deal with criminal law; 20 cases deal with civil law; 9 cases deal with commercial law; 14 cases deal with family law generally; 23 cases deal with child custody; 67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters; 25 cases dealt with comity; 15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens; 4 cases dealt with choice of law; 1 case involved forum selection; 3 cases involved arbitration and 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse. In addition, the cases were also assessed as to whether or not the ultimate decision of the court was in accordance with Shariah at both the trial court and appellate court levels: At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

Across the 146 cases there were 21 foreign countries from which Shariah— based legal conventions or decisions were brought to bear upon the case. Some cases made reference to more than one country while others involved Shariah without reference to a specific foreign country. Among the cases that referenced Shariah in a foreign country: 10 were from Pakistan; 8 were from Iran; 7 were from Egypt; 6 were from Jordan; 5 from Lebanon; 4 from Turkey; 3 from Saudi Arabia; 2 each were from India, Indonesia, Iraq and Nigeria; and 1 each was from Afghanistan, Algeria, Gaza [sic], Israel, Kenya; Morocco, the Philippines, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In summary, of the 146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy. This alarming success ratio of Shariah submitting American law in our state courts provides ample evidence of the increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization. This effort, and the intent of those organizations taking part in it, are described in greater detail in Appendix A and B, while Appendix C provides the reader hope for a mechanism to counter it. Finally, It should also be noted that the cases in this survey dealing with prisoner cases and asylum cases are illustrative only; there are literally too many such cases to include in this study. Indeed a whole separate volume could be produced dealing just with each of these issues.

Center for Security Policy Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Shariah_in_American_Courts1.pdf

Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System Civilization Jihad Reader Series Volume 1 Center for Security Policy 9780692345559 Amazon.com Books

Almost all of those cases were using sharia in civil disputes or cases involving dealings with other countries. None of this shows that American Muslims are calling for Sharia and Hadith to be the law of the land.

For example - here's a look at the actual cases:

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts The Nation

As an attorney, consultant or expert witness, I have handled more than 100 cases involving components of Sharia. In a case I tried in 2002, Odatalla v. Odatalla, a New Jersey couple had signed an Islamic marriage contract consistent with their cultural traditions. When the wife filed for divorce, she asked the court to enforce the mahr, or dowry provision, in her contract, which called for the husband’s payment of $10,000 upon the dissolution of their marriage. Superior Court Judge John Selser found the marriage contract valid under New Jersey law, concluding, “Clearly, this court can enforce a contract which is not in contravention of established law or public policy.”​

In a 2003 case involving Exxon Mobil and a Saudi oil company, the parties had agreed as part of a commercial transaction that Saudi law would govern any potential disputes. After the Saudi company sued its former business partner, Exxon Mobil, the Delaware Superior Court heard testimony on Saudi law, which applies traditional Sharia, and the judge instructed the jury to base its decision accordingly. The jury returned a $400 million–plus verdict in favor of Exxon Mobil and against the Saudi firm.


Finally, in a more recent case I was involved in, a state judge declined to recognize a Syrian court order that would have transferred the custody of a child to her father because of the mother’s remarriage. The judge reasoned that remarriage alone is not sufficient to transfer custody. Far from deferring to judgments from foreign countries, US courts regularly refuse to recognize such orders due to the constitutional and due-process implications.​

A few more sources:

Column The sharia myth sweeps America - USATODAY.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-foreign-law-that-incorporates-religious-law/

What you are looking at is the use of sharia in very limited ways, just like any international laws might be used because sharia is the law in certain countries. None of this shows evidence that American Muslims are pushing for this and that is what I am asking you for - evidence that American Muslims, as a group, are pushing for sharia and hadith to be the law of the land. You are flinging a lot of mud in an attempt to obscure the fact that you can not answer this.

Your are so stupid that you are not even realizing that your answer to my post, in which you are trying to refute me, is actually instead, CONFIRMING exactly what I've been saying.

example: In your example of Odatalla v. Odatalla, Muslims pushed their Islamic law into the US (New Jersey). And instead of the judge throwing the whole stupid thing out the window, the bonehead (just like judge Joseph Charles, also in NJ), accepted it as valid. A clear cut example of Muslims calling for Sharia as law, and worse yet, actually getting it given to them by a moron judge. In the New Jersey rape/wife beating case, when the Muslim husband called for Sharia to be the point of reference for the case, dum dum Judge Charles went along with it, and gave the guy what he wanted. A denial of the wife's request for a restraining order. So the poor wife had to endure about a year more of this monster Muslim rapist.wife-beater, until the case went to the appeal court, and a court of 3 judges took about 5 minutes to overrule it. Last I heard, the guy was finally arrested on rape and battery charges, but it was another of the many cases of, as you asked, Muslims calling for Sharia as law, which they do all the time, every day, in all 50 states.

Laughably, your 3rd example (the Syrian court), has the American judge overruling the Syrain court and not allowing the Sharia ruling, which thereby contradicts your 1st 2 examples. But pertaining to your dopey question, all 3 confirm my point that Muslims are coming into US courts and talking and pushing their Sharia law. It shouldn't be there AT ALL. Get it ?

As soon as they mention Sharia, or anything akin to it, that should be dismissed, and the trial proceed 100% under American law. But they don't always, confirming my answer to you.

Your dumb question is like asking "what evidence do you have that fish can swim. ?" Posters like you really shouldn't be in a forum like this. One of the necessary qualifications for posting, should be something you obviously lack > HONESTY.

 

[protectionist]

for the record-----there is (according to a breaking news TV report) a current homeland security alert for the nation-----
ISIS OPERATIVES IN THE US ARE BEING URGED TO
KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS (isis operatives obviously means any idiot in the USA -----CALIPHATE HAPPY<<
do not underestimate the issue)

This is breaking news ? ISIS and al Qaeda offshoots have been urging jihadists in the US to attack Americans for years now, and they have already done so. The Garland, TX failed attack is only the latest. Here's a few of the others >>


FORT HOOD, TX

Plot to attack U.S. Capitol

The Beheading in Oklahoma - Muslim nutjob Alton Nolen

Jihad Attacks in New Jersey and Seattle

• 
  
  
  • Victims' families: Brendan Tevlin's murder like going through 9/11 all over again (VIDEO)
  • Brendan Tevlin's murder evidence that 'domestic terrorism is already here,' says radio host (AUDIO)
  • National security expert on N.J. teen's alleged killer: He could be charged as a terrorist
  • Accused killer says Livingston teen's murder was 'vengeance' against U.S.
  • Livingston teen's alleged killer charged with fourth murder in Washington

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog.../blog_id/56337

Port Bolivar, TX Muslim Commits Koran Murder

A Muslim man shoots his lesbian daughter and her lover to death (3/6/2014), and leaves a copy of the Quran open to a page condemning homosexuality.
https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com...homosexuality/

Hatchet-wielding Muslim radical who attacked rookie New York cops, 'spent months visiting jihadist websites, and stalked officers for hours.

TORONTO – A slickly produced video released on Sunday Dec. 6, 2014, urged Muslims to launch indiscriminate attacks against Canadians, similar to those carried out in October in Ottawa and Montreal.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1713363/pu...-on-canadians/

Apr 15, 2013:Three people killed, hundreds injured in Boston Marathon bombing
In addition, a University police officer was shot and killed while sitting in his car by the same Muslim jihad dirtbags who set off the bomb at the marathon.

Boston Marathon bombings - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In Ashtabula, OH, A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah - (3/24/2013)

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/0...easter-sunday/

In Buena Vista, NJ A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants. (2/7/2013)http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/muslim-ac...stians-in-u-s/

 

[protectionist]

Internal US terrorist plots since 9/11 (this is an incomplete list > It omits the July 2002 LAX shooting attack and the 2002 Beltway Sniper shooting which killed 19 people) What liberal media has been omitting from their broadcasts.

1. Richard Reid (the Shoe Bomber)—December 2001

2. Jose Padilla—May 20023. LackawannaSix—September 2002

4. Uzair and Saifullah Paracha—March 2003

5. Iyman Faris—May 2003

6. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali—June 2003

7. Virginia Jihad Network—June 2003

8. Nuradin M. Abdi—November 2003

9. Dhiren Barot—August 2004

10. James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj—August 2004

11. Yassin Aref and Mohammad Hossain—August 2004

12. Hamid Hayat—June 2005

13. Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson, Hammad Riaz Samana, and Kevin James—August 2005

14. Michael C. Reynolds—December 2005

15. Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi, and Zand Wassim Mazloum—February 2006

16. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar—March 2006

17. Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee—April 2006

18. Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augustine—June 2006

19. Assem Hammoud—July 2006

20. Liquid Explosives Plot—August 2006

21. Derrick Shareef—December 2006

22. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—March 200723. Fort DixPlot—May 200724. JFK AirportPlot—June 2007

25. Hassan Abujihaad—March 2008

26. Christopher Paul—June 2008

27. Bryant Neal Vinas—November 2008

28. Synagogue Terror Plot—May 200929. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad—June 2009

30. Raleigh Jihad Group—July 2009

31. Najibullah Zazi—September 2009

32. Maher Husein Smadi—September 2009

33. Michael Finton—September 2009

34. Tarek Mehanna and Ahmad Abousamra—October 2009

35. Major Nidal Malik Hasan—November 2009

36. The Christmas Day (Underwear) Bomber—December 2009

37. Raja Lahrasib Khan—March 2010

38. Faisal Shahzad (Times Square bomber) —May 2010

39. Paul G. Rockwood Jr. and Nadia Piroska Maria Rockwood—July 2010

40. Farooque Ahmed—October 2010

41. Air Cargo Bomb Plot—October 2010

42. Mohamed Osman Mohamud—November 2010

43. Antonio Martinez—December 2010

44. Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari—February 2011

45. Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh—May 2011

46. Yonathan Melaku—June 2011

47. Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif and Walli Mujahidh—June 2011

48. Ulugbek Kodirov—July 2011

49. Emerson Winfield Begolly—August 2011

50. Rezwan Ferdaus—September 201151. Iranian Terror Plot—October 201152. Jose Pimentel—November 2011

53. Sami Osmakac—January 2012

54. Amine El Khalifi—February 2012

55. AQAP Plane Bomb Plot—May 2012

56. Adel Daoud—September 2012

57. Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis—October 2012.

58. Qazi Brothers’ Plot—November 2012

59. Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev—April 2013

60. Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser—April 2013

 

[Osomir]

You are showing yourself to be a complete ignorant fool to keep saying that. You might as well be saying "those who claim that gay liberation groups are calling for legalization of same-sex marriage". Well, Gee, Who woulda ever thought ?

When you tell me how many examples you want, I'll give you some, even though the question is so ludicrous, it doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response.

Tell us all again about how the dinka are the largest ethnic group in Sudan and about how the janjaweed are waging jihad against non muslims in darfur.

I've already educated you enough in this thread. I'm not being paid to be your tutor. If you read the books I suggested for you, et al (instead of pretending to have read them), you wouldn't need to be asking me for information >>

The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America ---- by Andrew McCarthy

American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us ----- by Steven Emerson

Because They Hate ---- by Brigitte Gabriel

They Must Be Stopped ------ by Brigitte Gabriel

Hating America ------ by John Gibson

Stop the Islamization of America ----- by Pamela Geller

Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Secret Saudi-U.S. Connection ------ by Gerald Posner

Stealth Jihad ----- by Robert Spencer

The Brotherhood: America's Next Great Enemy ------ by Erik Stakelbeck

Outrage ----- by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Infiltration ------ by Paul Sperry

The 9/11 Commission Report

The Truth About Muhammad ------ by Robert Spencer

In Mortal Danger ------- by Tom Tancredo

State of Emergency ----- by Pat Buchanan

Muslim Mafia ----- by P.David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry

Your books arent accurate.

This reminds me of someone throwing mud to see if anything sticks. I doubt any of those books have much to say on Sudanese ethnic groups

You, just like Osimir, don't have the qualification to doubt, or assume, or think anything about those books, because you are just another airhead Islamapologist, who hasn't read them. If you were given a quiz on those books, you'd flunk it badly.

As for Sudanese ethnic groups, some of them do cover that, but who cares ? The TOPIC of this thread isn't that. So stick to the topic, Ms moderator.

The simple fact is that you have been staking your authority on these books and then proceeded to cite inaccurate information from them.

 

[irosie91]

Excuse me----call it a HEIGHTENED ALERT. really----it was announced on TV-----something about lots and lots of
social media chit chat

 

[protectionist]

Center for Security Policy Press launched a collection of monographs called the Civilization Jihad Reader Series with the publication of an update to an earlier and highly influential study concerning the insinuation of Islam’s supremacist shariah legal code into the U.S. judiciary. Entitled Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, this inaugural booklet documents 146 cases in 32 states in which a party to litigation attempted to have the matter resolved by applying shariah, rather than the statutes of the state in question.

The Center first raised an alarm about the penetration of American jurisprudence by one of the most anti-constitutional of such foreign legal codes with its 2011 report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed.

SHARIAH IN AMERICAN COURTS The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY PRESS

This study identifies a total of 146 cases involving Shariah from 32 different states and federal courts: 9 cases were found in New Jersey; 9 in Texas; 9 in New York; 8 cases were found in California; 8 in Ohio; 7 in Connecticut; 7 in Virginia; 6 in Florida; 5 in Michigan; 4 in Massachusetts; 4 in Washington; 4 in Iowa; 3 in Maryland; 3 in Nebraska; 3 in North Carolina; 2 in Georgia; 2 in Louisiana; 2 in Delaware; 2 in Illinois; 2 in Maine; 2 in New Hampshire; 2 in South Carolina; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. 33 cases were found from federal courts.

The 146 cases can be classified into fifteen categories (cases sometimes fell within more than one category): 7 cases deal with criminal law; 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse.; 9 cases deal with commercial law; 14 cases deal with family law generally; 23 cases deal with child custody; 67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters; 25 cases dealt with comity; 15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens; 4 cases dealt with choice of law; 1 case involved forum selection; 3 cases involved arbitration and 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse. In addition, the cases were also assessed as to whether or not the ultimate decision of the court was in accordance with Shariah at both the trial court and appellate court levels: At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

Across the 146 cases there were 21 foreign countries from which Shariah— based legal conventions or decisions were brought to bear upon the case. Some cases made reference to more than one country while others involved Shariah without reference to a specific foreign country. Among the cases that referenced Shariah in a foreign country: 10 were from Pakistan; 8 were from Iran; 7 were from Egypt; 6 were from Jordan; 5 from Lebanon; 4 from Turkey; 3 from Saudi Arabia; 2 each were from India, Indonesia, Iraq and Nigeria; and 1 each was from Afghanistan, Algeria, Gaza [sic], Israel, Kenya; Morocco, the Philippines, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In summary, of the 146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy. This alarming success ratio of Shariah submitting American law in our state courts provides ample evidence of the increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization. This effort, and the intent of those organizations taking part in it, are described in greater detail in Appendix A and B, while Appendix C provides the reader hope for a mechanism to counter it. Finally, It should also be noted that the cases in this survey dealing with prisoner cases and asylum cases are illustrative only; there are literally too many such cases to include in this study. Indeed a whole separate volume could be produced dealing just with each of these issues.

Center for Security Policy Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Shariah_in_American_Courts1.pdf

Shariah in American Courts The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System Civilization Jihad Reader Series Volume 1 Center for Security Policy 9780692345559 Amazon.com Books

Almost all of those cases were using sharia in civil disputes or cases involving dealings with other countries. None of this shows that American Muslims are calling for Sharia and Hadith to be the law of the land.

For example - here's a look at the actual cases:

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts The Nation

As an attorney, consultant or expert witness, I have handled more than 100 cases involving components of Sharia. In a case I tried in 2002, Odatalla v. Odatalla, a New Jersey couple had signed an Islamic marriage contract consistent with their cultural traditions. When the wife filed for divorce, she asked the court to enforce the mahr, or dowry provision, in her contract, which called for the husband’s payment of $10,000 upon the dissolution of their marriage. Superior Court Judge John Selser found the marriage contract valid under New Jersey law, concluding, “Clearly, this court can enforce a contract which is not in contravention of established law or public policy.”​

In a 2003 case involving Exxon Mobil and a Saudi oil company, the parties had agreed as part of a commercial transaction that Saudi law would govern any potential disputes. After the Saudi company sued its former business partner, Exxon Mobil, the Delaware Superior Court heard testimony on Saudi law, which applies traditional Sharia, and the judge instructed the jury to base its decision accordingly. The jury returned a $400 million–plus verdict in favor of Exxon Mobil and against the Saudi firm.


Finally, in a more recent case I was involved in, a state judge declined to recognize a Syrian court order that would have transferred the custody of a child to her father because of the mother’s remarriage. The judge reasoned that remarriage alone is not sufficient to transfer custody. Far from deferring to judgments from foreign countries, US courts regularly refuse to recognize such orders due to the constitutional and due-process implications.​

A few more sources:

Column The sharia myth sweeps America - USATODAY.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-foreign-law-that-incorporates-religious-law/

What you are looking at is the use of sharia in very limited ways, just like any international laws might be used because sharia is the law in certain countries. None of this shows evidence that American Muslims are pushing for this and that is what I am asking you for - evidence that American Muslims, as a group, are pushing for sharia and hadith to be the law of the land. You are flinging a lot of mud in an attempt to obscure the fact that you can not answer this.

I thought so. I answer your question sincerely, and you come back with biased bullshit invalidation cards, that I've seen 1000 times. I see no point in talking to you. And the 146 cases involved (AS I SAID ALREADY) contained cases of domestic violence, criminal cases, like the infamous New Jersey rape/wife beating case. There are thousands more cases that didn't go to court and are just Muslims imposing Sharia law on American like the Muslim cab drivers who wouldn't pick up people with alcoholic beverages, the ones who wouldn't pick up blind people with a dog, the Muslim-owned company Rising Star, who fired an employee (Lina Morales) for bringing a BLT sandwich to work, the Muslims who got airports and universities to install foot-washing basins at great expense, etc. etc etc etc.

The majority of the cases did not involve domestic violence OR criminal cases. There was only one that involved domestic violence, where the judge ruled wrongly and was overturned as was appropriate.

Drivers refusing to pick up people with alcoholic bevereges or service dogs are not "imposing sharia law" they are acting on their own religious beliefs and no different than Christians refusing to provide services to gays or dispense birth control. Whether it flies or not depends on the law.

None of this shows that Muslims in America are trying to make Sharia and Hadith The Law - you just have personal cases of religious belief.

Of course they're imposing Sharia law, you dumbshit. Or maybe you just nuts. Is there a doctor in the house ?

Nah. Just asking for a straight answer using reputable sources. All you've provided is lawsuits for religious accommodation (and I can provide you as many from Christians and Jews asking for the same). Then the use of Sharia in certain court cases which I've already shown you to be specific to civil matters and cases involving international entities or contracts other than the one domestic violence one that was reversed. Individuals using sharia in civil matters is not the same as people pushing to have sharia and hadith be the law of the land as you are claiming.

Amazing how you keep on lying (convincing me all the more that you're a dirty, taqiiya-infested Muslim Islamist). SO you want to just ignore what I say as if I neer say it, right ? OK then I'll just say it AGAIN (and AGAIN)

NO! I did not just show civil cases, and cases involving international entities or contracts. And NO, I did NOT include only one case of domestic violence. Here AGAIN is what I did say > QUOTED directly from my Post #
"7 cases deal with criminal law; 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse." And of the 146 cases in the study as I said, only "20 cases deal with civil law;"

Here AGAIN are the rest >> The 146 cases can be classified into fifteen categories (cases sometimes fell within more than one category): 7 cases deal with criminal law; 20 cases deal with civil law; 9 cases deal with commercial law; 14 cases deal with family law generally; 23 cases deal with child custody; 67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters; 25 cases dealt with comity; 15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens; 4 cases dealt with choice of law; 1 case involved forum selection; 3 cases involved arbitration and 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse. In addition, the cases were also assessed as to whether or not the ultimate decision of the court was in accordance with Shariah at both the trial court and appellate court levels: At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

 

[Coyote]

Your are so stupid that you are not even realizing that your answer to my post, in which you are trying to refute me, is actually instead, CONFIRMING exactly what I've been saying.

Example: In your example of Odatalla v. Odatalla, Muslims pushed their Islamic law into the US (New Jersey). And instead of the judge throwing the whole stupid thing out the window, the bonehead (just like judge Joseph Charles, also in NJ), accepted it as valid. A clear cut example of Muslims calling for Sharia as law, and worse yet, actually getting it given to them by a moron judge. In the New Jersey rape/wife beating case, when the Muslim husband called for Sharia to be the point of reference for the case, dum dum Judge Charles went along with it, and gave the guy what he wanted. A denial of the wife's request for a restraining order. So the poor wife had to endure about a year more of this monster Muslim rapist.wife-beater, until the case went to the appeal court, and a court of 3 judges took about 5 minutes to overrule it. Last I heard, the guy was finally arrested on rape and battery charges, but it was another of the many cases of, as you asked, Muslims calling for Sharia as law, which they do all the time, every day, in all 50 states.

Do you even know what Odatalla v. Odatalla is really about? No. It is not an example of Muslims calling for Sharia as law (which I'm assuming here that your claim that Muslims are calling for Sharia and hadith to the law means law of land). This actual case involves a contract, called a mahr. The mahr seems to be the Muslim equivalent of a Pre-Nup agreement for couples who choose to have a religious ceremony. The case is whether the agreement can be enforced (like a pre-nuptial agreement). If you have objections to this, then why don't you have objections to other religious contracts in civil matters?

In the New Jersey wife beating case - if it's the one I'm thinking of, the judge made the wrong decision and it was overturned. Are you trying to imply that judges have never made bad decisions before PARTICULARLY in cases of domestic violence? In that particular case - the guy was an immigrant with foreign customs and was trying to use that as a defense. Fortunately it was finally over turned.

"Muslims calling for Sharia as law, which they do all the time, every day, in all 50 states" - you have three cases and probably a handful of others that are marginal. Sharia IS used in some instances. So is JEWISH law. So is CATHOLIC law. When people choose to use religious law in civil manners - it's their right to choose as long as it doesn't supercede American law an it only applies to civil not criminal and there is a long history of this.

Laughably, your 3rd example (the Syrian court), has the American judge overruling the Syrain court and not allowing the Sharia ruling, which thereby contradicts your 1st 2 examples. But pertaining to your dopey question, all 3 confirm my point that Muslims are coming into US courts and talking and pushing their Sharia law. It shouldn't be there AT ALL. Get it ?

Exactly. The point here is Syria uses Sharia in it's legal system. If you are going to rule on something like contracts, child custody, marriage and divorce - you have to look at the foreign laws that applied to it at the time in order to make a just ruling. It doesn't mean the judge will rule in accordance.

As soon as they mention Sharia, or anything akin to it, that should be dismissed, and the trial proceed 100% under American law. But they don't always, confirming my answer to you.

That would be stupid. How would you rule on the provisions of a marriage contract made in another nation? How would on cases involving multi-national companies and contracts such as the Exxon case? Many Muslim nations incorporate some form of Sharia in part's of it's legal system - sometimes just for civil matters, sometimes for it's criminal code. It varies according to nation. In cases that span nations you HAVE to take into account other laws. It's pig ignorant to assume you just rule on American Law alone.

Your dumb question is like asking "what evidence do you have that fish can swim. ?" Posters like you really shouldn't be in a forum like this. One of the necessary qualifications for posting, should be something you obviously lack > HONESTY.

Posters like you have no concept of "honesty" or "facts" thus you devolve into idiocy like this to overcome your insecurities Mr. I-read-25-books-in-14-years. You make a claim that implies Muslims in America as a group want Sharia and Hadith to be the law (of the land) but provide evidence in only a handful of cases where Sharia is considered in civil matters.

Where is the movement of American Muslims calling for Sharia and Hadith to be the law of the land?

 

[protectionist]

Tell us all again about how the dinka are the largest ethnic group in Sudan and about how the janjaweed are waging jihad against non muslims in darfur.

I've already educated you enough in this thread. I'm not being paid to be your tutor. If you read the books I suggested for you, et al (instead of pretending to have read them), you wouldn't need to be asking me for information >>

The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America ---- by Andrew McCarthy

American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us ----- by Steven Emerson

Because They Hate ---- by Brigitte Gabriel

They Must Be Stopped ------ by Brigitte Gabriel

Hating America ------ by John Gibson

Stop the Islamization of America ----- by Pamela Geller

Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Secret Saudi-U.S. Connection ------ by Gerald Posner

Stealth Jihad ----- by Robert Spencer

The Brotherhood: America's Next Great Enemy ------ by Erik Stakelbeck

Outrage ----- by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Infiltration ------ by Paul Sperry

The 9/11 Commission Report

The Truth About Muhammad ------ by Robert Spencer

In Mortal Danger ------- by Tom Tancredo

State of Emergency ----- by Pat Buchanan

Muslim Mafia ----- by P.David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry

Your books arent accurate.

This reminds me of someone throwing mud to see if anything sticks. I doubt any of those books have much to say on Sudanese ethnic groups

You, just like Osimir, don't have the qualification to doubt, or assume, or think anything about those books, because you are just another airhead Islamapologist, who hasn't read them. If you were given a quiz on those books, you'd flunk it badly.

As for Sudanese ethnic groups, some of them do cover that, but who cares ? The TOPIC of this thread isn't that. So stick to the topic, Ms moderator.

The simple fact is that you have been staking your authority on these books and then proceeded to cite inaccurate information from them.

INVALIDATION is hard-wired into Isalmapologists.

AGAIN. You never read the books, and thus are unqualified to comment on them. You are just using the out-of-date liberal, Islamapologist Invalidation card. I showed you hadn't read They Must Be Stopped when you failed to answer the question correctly about Kevin James. His name was not in the index of that book, so you didn't know there was a write-up on him on page 168. You jumped headfirst into that trap.

 

[protectionist]

Your are so stupid that you are not even realizing that your answer to my post, in which you are trying to refute me, is actually instead, CONFIRMING exactly what I've been saying.

Example: In your example of Odatalla v. Odatalla, Muslims pushed their Islamic law into the US (New Jersey). And instead of the judge throwing the whole stupid thing out the window, the bonehead (just like judge Joseph Charles, also in NJ), accepted it as valid. A clear cut example of Muslims calling for Sharia as law, and worse yet, actually getting it given to them by a moron judge. In the New Jersey rape/wife beating case, when the Muslim husband called for Sharia to be the point of reference for the case, dum dum Judge Charles went along with it, and gave the guy what he wanted. A denial of the wife's request for a restraining order. So the poor wife had to endure about a year more of this monster Muslim rapist.wife-beater, until the case went to the appeal court, and a court of 3 judges took about 5 minutes to overrule it. Last I heard, the guy was finally arrested on rape and battery charges, but it was another of the many cases of, as you asked, Muslims calling for Sharia as law, which they do all the time, every day, in all 50 states.

Do you even know what Odatalla v. Odatalla is really about? No. It is not an example of Muslims calling for Sharia as law (which I'm assuming here that your claim that Muslims are calling for Sharia and hadith to the law means law of land). This actual case involves a contract, called a mahr.

In the New Jersey wife beating case - if it's the one I'm thinking of, the judge made the wrong decision and it was overturned. Are you trying to imply that judges have never made bad decisions before PARTICULARLY in cases of domestic violence? In that particular case - the guy was an immigrant with foreign customs and was trying to use that as a defense. Fortunately it was finally over turned.

"Muslims calling for Sharia as law, which they do all the time, every day, in all 50 states" - you have three cases and probably a handful of others that are marginal. Sharia IS used in some instances. So is JEWISH law. So is CATHOLIC law. When people choose to use religious law in civil manners - it's their right to choose as long as it doesn't supercede American law an it only applies to civil not criminal and there is a long history of this.

Laughably, your 3rd example (the Syrian court), has the American judge overruling the Syrain court and not allowing the Sharia ruling, which thereby contradicts your 1st 2 examples. But pertaining to your dopey question, all 3 confirm my point that Muslims are coming into US courts and talking and pushing their Sharia law. It shouldn't be there AT ALL. Get it ?

Exactly. The point here is Syria uses Sharia in it's legal system. If you are going to rule on something like contracts, child custody, marriage and divorce - you have to look at the foreign laws that applied to it at the time in order to make a just ruling. It doesn't mean the judge will rule in accordance.

As soon as they mention Sharia, or anything akin to it, that should be dismissed, and the trial proceed 100% under American law. But they don't always, confirming my answer to you.

That would be stupid. How would you rule on the provisions of a marriage contract made in another nation? How would on cases involving multi-national companies and contracts such as the Exxon case? Many Muslim nations incorporate some form of Sharia in part's of it's legal system - sometimes just for civil matters, sometimes for it's criminal code. It varies according to nation. In cases that span nations you HAVE to take into account other laws. It's pig ignorant to assume you just rule on American Law alone.

Your dumb question is like asking "what evidence do you have that fish can swim. ?" Posters like you really shouldn't be in a forum like this. One of the necessary qualifications for posting, should be something you obviously lack > HONESTY.

Posters like you have no concept of "honesty" or "facts" thus you devolve into idiocy like this to overcome your insecurities Mr. I-read-25-books-in-14-years. You make a claim that implies Muslims in America as a group want Sharia and Hadith to be the law (of the land) but provide evidence in only a handful of cases where Sharia is considered in civil matters.

Where is the movement of American Muslims calling for Sharia and Hadith to be the law of the land?

HA HA HA!! As the Rock of WWE fame would say >> IT DOESN'T MATTER what kind of law the Muslims are calling for US courts to handle. As I said before, which you pretend to miss, your question didn't specify what kind of Sharia law Muslims might be calling for. They call for all kinds of Sharia law to be a part of the US court system. I just listed them all in Post # 435, from the Center for Security Policy study, which you laughably try to use the classic liberal INVALIDATION card on (like we haven't seen that before right ?

)

I'll tell you what, little MS TAQIYYA. You keep asking your lying question, and I will keep answering it, and I don;t give a crap if you ask it from now until the year 2050. That;s how long I will repeat my answers, as long as you ludicrously keep asking your deceitful question. You wanna play that game ? OK I'll play that game with you.

You keep on lying, and I'll keep on curing it with the TRUTH. In the meantime, the readers can read the books, and find out how totally full of shit you are.

And you still aren't getting this. IT DOESN'T MATTER what kind of Islamic law is being introduced into US courtrooms. NO ISLAMIC LAW has any right to be in any American courtroom. Islamic law is 100% unconstitutional (Article 6 Section 2-the Supremacy clause) 7 100% ILLEGAL (US codes 2384 & 2385). And what another stupid question you ask when you asked this idiot question >> "The mahr seems to be the Muslim equivalent of a Pre-Nup agreement for couples who choose to have a religious ceremony. The case is whether the agreement can be enforced (like a pre-nuptial agreement). If you have objections to this, then why don't you have objections to other religious contracts in civil matters?"

I don't have objections to other religious contracts in civil matters if/whenever they are not Muslim. Don't you get it ? Muslim is supremacy. The other religions you allude to, are not.
As such, EVERYTHING about Islam is the enemy of the USA, as it is supremacist, and, by its own definitions (Koran, Muslim Brotherhood's Explanatory Memorandum, statements from Muslim leaders, etc, etc) it clearly document this.

In sum >> THERE IS NO PLACE FOR ISLAM IN THE UNITED STATES. ABSOLUTELY NONE.

 

[Coyote]

Amazing how you keep on lying (convincing me all the more that you're a dirty, taqiiya-infested Muslim Islamist). SO you want to just ignore what I say as if I neer say it, right ? OK then I'll just say it AGAIN (and AGAIN)

That's all you can come up with?

NO! I did not just show civil cases, and cases involving international entities or contracts. And NO, I did NOT include only one case of domestic violence. Here AGAIN is what I did say > QUOTED directly from my Post #
"7 cases deal with criminal law; 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse." And of the 146 cases in the study as I said, only "20 cases deal with civil law;"

Here AGAIN are the rest >> The 146 cases can be classified into fifteen categories (cases sometimes fell within more than one category): 7 cases deal with criminal law; 20 cases deal with civil law; 9 cases deal with commercial law; 14 cases deal with family law generally; 23 cases deal with child custody; 67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters; 25 cases dealt with comity; 15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens; 4 cases dealt with choice of law; 1 case involved forum selection; 3 cases involved arbitration and 8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse. In addition, the cases were also assessed as to whether or not the ultimate decision of the court was in accordance with Shariah at both the trial court and appellate court levels: At the trial court level: 22 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 15 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. At the appellate court level: 23 decisions found that the application of Shariah was at odds with the state’s public policy; 12 found Shariah to be applicable in the case at bar; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

7 cases deal with criminal law;
20 cases deal with civil law;
9 cases deal with commercial law;
14 cases deal with family law generally;
23 cases deal with child custody;
67 cases deal with divorce of some sort or related matters;
25 cases dealt with comity;
15 cases dealt with forum non conveniens;
4 cases dealt with choice of law;
1 case involved forum selection;
3 cases involved arbitration and
8 cases involved domestic violence/abuse.

Family law, child custody, divorce, and arbitration fall under civil law.
Cormity seems to deal with reciprical international law.
forum non conveniens and forum selection seem to be the same.
Business law is usually civil (not criminal) and deals with contracts etc.
I could be wrong and someone who is a lawyer might correct this.

I just skimmed one of your sources that claims Sharia was used in a decision. And looked at a few of the cases. For example hosain v malik was about comity and child custody laws - Sharia doesn't enter into our courts deliberations. The couple were Pakistani, the wife fled with her daughter to the US. The Pakistani court ruled in favor of the husband for child custody. The issue is whether comity applies and what is in the child's best interest. It's very much like the ruling made on the Cuban child some years ago.

If many of the cases you reference are like this, then I question the credability of your source.

 

[Coyote]

You do realize that big bold colorful type face just makes you look goofy?