Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kalam--
Tea Party reductionists equate Shariah Law with Islamic extremism. Can you explain how Shariah Law works for moderate to liberal Muslims and Sufis?
It can be difficult to explain. Do you mean Shari'ah as it's observed by individuals or as it would be used to provide the framework for an Islamic society?
You're aware that Madinah is and was an actual place, correct?A theory from CE 622?
Isn't that like communism: it is a great way of life, if we just didn't need the dictators in charge to enforce it?
There have been few examples of properly implemented Shari'ah since the Rashidun in the 7th century. I'll tell you what: withdraw completely from the Middle East and quit propping up the corrupt regimes that are currently in power there. We'll then be able to establish Shari'ah and you can decide for yourself whether you like it or not!Seriously, you are proclaiming Shari'ah to be great; give us a place that it "works", and the people are happy to live there.
So your answer is: there is no place that shari'ah is used today that is a good place to live?
But......IF (we will blame you for all our shortcomings) we could do it the way we wanted to do it, it would be great.
Sounds like the liberals or the communists, or the socialists, same qualifier, same results.
Kalam--
Tea Party reductionists equate Shariah Law with Islamic extremism. Can you explain how Shariah Law works for moderate to liberal Muslims and Sufis?
It can be difficult to explain. Do you mean Shari'ah as it's observed by individuals or as it would be used to provide the framework for an Islamic society?
Good question. I'm not sure. I guess what I'm aware of is people hear about some of the more extreme penalties--like stoning and whipping--as part of Shari'ah Law in Islamic countries and Americans fear that coming into our socieity with American Muslims.
Is that any clearer?
Lest you think that this will not become a problem in the United States, think again. Shariah is already starting to appear in our courts, especially in the area of family law:
* You probably didn't know that there is something called the "Texas Islamic Court." It decides cases according to Shariah and its rulings sometimes end up in actual state court:
* The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing conviction in US history (United States versus Holy Land Foundation), runs arbitrations here in the US according to Shariah:
* There have been dozens of instances in which Shariah has been invoked in US courts, mostly unsuccessfully, but not always. Here are two of the most infamous cases, brought to our attention by Stephen Gele of Lawyers Against Shariah:
* In S.D. v. M.J.R. in the state of New Jersey, a New Jersey judge saw no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife - not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Fortunately, an appellate court overturned this atrocious decision, and a Shariah ruling by a U.S. court was not allowed to stand.
* In a Maryland case, Hosain v. Malik, 108 Md.App. 284, 671 A.2d 988 (Md.1996), a Maryland Court granted comity and enforced a Pakistani custody order turning a child brought to the US by the mother over to the father. The Maryland Court held that: the burden was on the mother to prove the Pakistani court did not apply law in "substantial conformity with Maryland law" by a preponderance of the evidence; the case was "not about whether Pakistani religion, culture, or legal system is personally offensive to us or whether we share all of the same values, mores and customs, but rather whether the Pakistani courts applied a rule of law, evidence,or procedure so contradictory to Maryland public policy as to undermine the confidence in the trial"; the best interest of the child should not be "determined based on Maryland law, i.e., American cultures and mores," but rather "by applying relevant Pakistani customs, culture and mores";"a Pakistani court could only determine the best interest of a Pakistani child by an analysis utilizing the customs, culture, religion, and mores of ... Pakistan"; "in the Pakistani culture, the well being of the child and the child's proper development is thought to be facilitated by adherence to Islamic teachings"; the Pakistani order was not the result of "a trial by fire, trial by ordeal, or a system rooted in superstition, or witchcraft"; the "longstanding doctrine [of Hazanit1] of one of the world's oldest and largest religions practiced by hundreds of millions of people around the world and in this country, as applied as one factor in the best interest of the child test, is [not] repugnant to Maryland public policy"; and, the granting of the order by the Pakistani Court without representation for the mother was not repugnant to Maryland public policy because although she may have been arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the custody proceedings and have been subject to "public whipping or death by stoning," such punishments were "extremely unlikely."
State lawmakers across America are starting to take action to prevent the US from ending up like Western Europe, a victim of Creeping Shariah.
Some of you may have heard of the upcoming ballot initiative in Oklahoma to outlaw Shariah law. This initiative will appear on the ballot there in November.
Most people do not realize, however, that, along with Tennessee, Louisiana already took the lead in preventing Shariah from creeping into our legal system with a new law which has been nicknamed "American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts."
Some of the punishments can seem harsh to non-Muslims, I'm sure. There is a debate over whether or not stoning is still a valid punishment for adultery. Regardless, punishments for adultery would be meted out very rarely since a conviction requires either confessions from the involved parties (not offered under duress) or extensive witness testimony. The harshest punishments, I think, are stoning for rapists and multiple amputation or crucifixion for certain particularly heinous criminals. Exile or mere imprisonment can be substituted for those last two punishments at the judge's discretion, however.
One of the most common misconceptions is that stoning can be used as a penalty for any sort of sexual misconduct. This is not true according to any legitimate reading of scripture. It also isn't true that women are supposed to be subjected to harsher penalties - penalties do not differ between the two genders except when anatomical differences must be accounted for.
It should be noted that non-Muslims are given communal autonomy and can live according to their own laws within reason. I have not spent enough time examining how legal proceedings are supposed to play out when crimes involve people from different religious backgrounds.
Americans shouldn't have to worry about Shari'ah. As Muslims, our focus now should be establishing rule of law and a just society in the Muslim world. Muslims in the West shouldn't be trying to supplant their countries' existing systems of law unless they're being persecuted; Shari'ah can never be a viable system if it's imposed on an unwilling population.
Lest you think that this will not become a problem in the United States, think again. Shariah is already starting to appear in our courts, especially in the area of family law:
* You probably didn't know that there is something called the "Texas Islamic Court." It decides cases according to Shariah and its rulings sometimes end up in actual state court:
* The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing conviction in US history (United States versus Holy Land Foundation), runs arbitrations here in the US according to Shariah:
* There have been dozens of instances in which Shariah has been invoked in US courts, mostly unsuccessfully, but not always. Here are two of the most infamous cases, brought to our attention by Stephen Gele of Lawyers Against Shariah:
* In S.D. v. M.J.R. in the state of New Jersey, a New Jersey judge saw no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife - not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Fortunately, an appellate court overturned this atrocious decision, and a Shariah ruling by a U.S. court was not allowed to stand.
* In a Maryland case, Hosain v. Malik, 108 Md.App. 284, 671 A.2d 988 (Md.1996), a Maryland Court granted comity and enforced a Pakistani custody order turning a child brought to the US by the mother over to the father. The Maryland Court held that: the burden was on the mother to prove the Pakistani court did not apply law in "substantial conformity with Maryland law" by a preponderance of the evidence; the case was "not about whether Pakistani religion, culture, or legal system is personally offensive to us or whether we share all of the same values, mores and customs, but rather whether the Pakistani courts applied a rule of law, evidence,or procedure so contradictory to Maryland public policy as to undermine the confidence in the trial"; the best interest of the child should not be "determined based on Maryland law, i.e., American cultures and mores," but rather "by applying relevant Pakistani customs, culture and mores";"a Pakistani court could only determine the best interest of a Pakistani child by an analysis utilizing the customs, culture, religion, and mores of ... Pakistan"; "in the Pakistani culture, the well being of the child and the child's proper development is thought to be facilitated by adherence to Islamic teachings"; the Pakistani order was not the result of "a trial by fire, trial by ordeal, or a system rooted in superstition, or witchcraft"; the "longstanding doctrine [of Hazanit1] of one of the world's oldest and largest religions practiced by hundreds of millions of people around the world and in this country, as applied as one factor in the best interest of the child test, is [not] repugnant to Maryland public policy"; and, the granting of the order by the Pakistani Court without representation for the mother was not repugnant to Maryland public policy because although she may have been arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the custody proceedings and have been subject to "public whipping or death by stoning," such punishments were "extremely unlikely."
Center For Security Policy
State lawmakers across America are starting to take action to prevent the US from ending up like Western Europe, a victim of Creeping Shariah.
Some of you may have heard of the upcoming ballot initiative in Oklahoma to outlaw Shariah law. This initiative will appear on the ballot there in November.
Most people do not realize, however, that, along with Tennessee, Louisiana already took the lead in preventing Shariah from creeping into our legal system with a new law which has been nicknamed "American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts."
Sharia law is the antithesis to the assimilation of peaceful law abiding Muslims in this country. Once again the liberal elite believe they know what's best for a significant part of the population who are joyous to have escaped the hell holes in the Middle East.
Yep. The so called "Texas Islamic Court" is nothing but an arbitrator.Sharia law is the antithesis to the assimilation of peaceful law abiding Muslims in this country. Once again the liberal elite believe they know what's best for a significant part of the population who are joyous to have escaped the hell holes in the Middle East.
Wake me up when it becomes compulsory and for non-Muslims or anything even close to that.
Until then this is just you spreading the Muslin hate.
Oh - ok. It will only affect Muslims. They're not "real Americans" anyway.Protecting the rights of American Muslims, esp. the women, in this country is not hate. I would say it's the other way around.
Who's the bigot?
Oh - ok. It will only affect Muslims. They're not "real Americans" anyway.
Who's the bigot?
You, obviously.
You have been told over and over again that these courts exist today in this country for other religions yet I haven't heard a peep or a thread started by you about it. You have been told over and over again that these "courts" are only used it both parties agree to have their dispute heard by that court and that they are only for civil disputes. In other words if you don't want to be in "Sharia Court" you don't have to be there. Period. Despite all this you persist with this "Oooga booga the Muslins are out to get you" bullshit.
Oh - ok. It will only affect Muslims. They're not "real Americans" anyway.
Who's the bigot?
You, obviously.
You have been told over and over again that these courts exist today in this country for other religions yet I haven't heard a peep or a thread started by you about it. You have been told over and over again that these "courts" are only used it both parties agree to have their dispute heard by that court and that they are only for civil disputes. In other words if you don't want to be in "Sharia Court" you don't have to be there. Period. Despite all this you persist with this "Oooga booga the Muslins are out to get you" bullshit.
Obviously you have not read this whole thread. I knew nothing of beth din until I started this thread, and I have yet to see anyone show that they deal with domestic violence or other women's issues. If they do, they should be abolished.
What you call "oooga booga", I call facts.
Modern socialism is worse than Nazism or Stalinism. First it steals all your money to make 'everyone equal', next it steals your soul and makes your life the total property of the state, last it takes away your nations identity destroying the pre-existing uniting culture and language (tower of babel).You're aware that Madinah is and was an actual place, correct?
There have been few examples of properly implemented Shari'ah since the Rashidun in the 7th century. I'll tell you what: withdraw completely from the Middle East and quit propping up the corrupt regimes that are currently in power there. We'll then be able to establish Shari'ah and you can decide for yourself whether you like it or not!
So your answer is: there is no place that shari'ah is used today that is a good place to live?
But......IF (we will blame you for all our shortcomings) we could do it the way we wanted to do it, it would be great.
Sounds like the liberals or the communists, or the socialists, same qualifier, same results.
Nope. The type of society I'm describing has actually existed and was able to sustain itself for quite a long period of time. The same can't be said for communism.
If "muslims don't do that in America", why are there more reports about "honor killings" .... in America?
there certainly aren't any that are sanctioned by any court or tribunal, and certainly none that are do not fall under the fuil force of our criminal justice system.... nor would any such "honor killings" escape that force if muslim clerics were allowed to adjudicate civil issues between muslims who voluntarily agreed to allow those clerics to adjudicate their cases.
Your original 'statement' said nothing about 'sanctioned'. You implied because muslims are in this country, they would join the culture. Apparently, that is not so.
Perhaps. However - what about child marriages? Marital rape? Unfair divorce settlements? To say that these women are adults who agree to go to a Sharia court instead of the police or a lawyer, is very, very naive. Many immigrant women who barely speak English are ignorant of their rights here in America. In some countries, they don't even let them go to school.
