CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[elektra]

Civil law covers contracts, wills, property etc. Family law falls under Civil Law.

If you want me to provide concise information, you need to ask concise questions, not rambling about all over the post.

Coyote, it is obvious you have zero understanding about what you post.
1st, we have been discussing the USA, not Canada, why do you link to a Canadian website? Was that first, in your learn as you go, google search? A ".bc.ca" is a canadian website!
2nd, even in Canada, according to your link, Family law is a separate category, it does not fall under Civil law.

It's interesting to hear talk of "zero understanding" from someone who has no idea that halal is part of Sharia and kosher is part of Halakah, and insists that dietary laws aren't Sharia.

The definition of civil law is the same in Canada as it is in the US since they derive from the same origins, and in the Canadian link family law is a subcategory of civil law.

Here's another one: Civil Law Definition, Examples, Cases, and Processes

Civil Law
Civil law is a body of rules that defines and protects the private rights of citizens, offers legal remedies that may be sought in a dispute, and covers areas of law such as contracts, torts, property and family law. Civil law is derived from the laws of ancient Rome which used doctrines to develop a code that determined how legal issues would be decided.​

3rd, you have no idea what is stated in your links, you either do not read them or you can not comprehend what is stated, which is most likely why you keep stating you can not understand my posts.
4th, I doubt you read anything else you cut/paste, hence you do not even know if your links make a point or are relevant.

I can't understand your posts because of their non-sequitor nature.

Clicklaw: What's the difference between civil, family and criminal law?

All civil matters fall into one of two categories: general civil law and family law.

From the link:

Family law generally involves issues that have to be decided when an intimate relationship breaks down, and can also involve child care matters. These are technically civil law issues as well but there are rules and court forms that are specific to family law​

To summarize - there are two main categories: Criminal Law and Civil Law. Contracts, Tortes, Property and Family Law are subsets of civil law.

Great, now you are simply a liar. I never stated that dietary laws are not Sharia, everything in the quote below, you made up.
There is not much of debate with someone who is lying (maybe it is your lack of intellect that prevents you from comprehending the written word).

It's interesting to hear talk of "zero understanding" from someone who has no idea that halal is part of Sharia and kosher is part of Halakah, and insists that dietary laws aren't Sharia.

You have zero understanding of Law, Sharia or ours. You have proven that amply, you can continue your vaguely veiled attack on my character, but is you who has failed to support your posts, and continues to run from comments that you made.

I think you are way over reacting.

This is the comment YOU made:

So...kosher should be illegal?

I don't think you know much about Jewish religious law or Sharia.

You seem to be confusing Kosher food with Halakha (Jewish religious law).

Kosher IS part of Halakha Jewish religious law. Just as Halal is part of Sharia along with a whole lot of other rules governing behavior, diet, and relations.[/QUOTE]
I am not over reacting. We are discussing laws, you and others began a discussion about Kosher food, ignoring the topic, and used that as a basis of an attack, as if that is a debate in favor of sharia law.

You wish to speak about law, religious laws, fine, it is your thread. You spoke of resolving Civil Matters privately among Moslems, what does the Kosher diet have to do with that? You seem to be confused, as to the difference between laws and dietary laws. You know the things one can find themselves in Court over.

Do you believe there are Kosher police who arrest Jews if they do not follow Kosher Laws? Is that part of the Judicial system? Do you believe people are settling disputes or matters, over Kosher food in Civil Courts. Or is it that people who break Kosher Laws find themselves in Criminal court that which you believe?

You have been ridiculous beyond words in the clean debate zone.

 

[elektra]

Kosher is part of halakah, Jewish religious law. Are you saying if Jews want to use religious law, like some muslims use sharia, to settle civil matters, they have no business being in the US?

Give us an example of one of these civil matters you speak of, I have asked you a dozen times if I asked once. Your previous cut/paste of google searches did not quote a civil matter. This is post #290, over a 150 posts since this one. Are you going to continue to run or can you not admit, you had no idea what your were speaking of.

I have given you examples and you might want to tone down your lingo a bit since we are in the CDZ ok?

Post #368 I quoted an article that listed banking and contractual matters among the civil items handled as well as divorce, marriage and inheritance.

How many times do I need to repeat it?

Maybe you should back off and debate, and not attribute things to me that I have not said. It is your OP, you are setting the tone, you can be as clever as you want, but facts are fact, I have not stated much that you keep insisting that I have.

 

[Coyote]

I am not over reacting. We are discussing laws, you and others began a discussion about Kosher food, ignoring the topic, and used that as a basis of an attack, as if that is a debate in favor of sharia law.

Not exactly. To be precise we were discussing the use of Sharia to resolve certain types of legal matters within US law.

In order to clarify what Sharia is, Halakah is brought in for comparison. No one is talking about "kosher food" but you. We are talking about kosher laws in Halakah and how they parallel halal laws in Sharia in order to help people like you understand that Sharia is not just criminal law, but a whole set of civil and family matters including laws regarding food preparation. When you talk about Sharia law, and dismiss all this it's pretty clear you aren't very knowledgeable on Sharia. When people say there should be no Sharia, then that would include everything - marriage, divorce, halal, etc etc.

You wish to speak about law, religious laws, fine, it is your thread. You spoke of resolving Civil Matters privately among Moslems, what does the Kosher diet have to do with that? You seem to be confused, as to the difference between laws and dietary laws. You know the things one can find themselves in Court over.

Not at all. Because you keep forgetting the other part of the discussion - Sharia religious laws of which dietary laws are a part of.

Do you believe there are Kosher police who arrest Jews if they do not follow Kosher Laws? Is that part of the Judicial system? Do you believe people are settling disputes or matters, over Kosher food in Civil Courts. Or is it that people who break Kosher Laws find themselves in Criminal court that which you believe?

Who enforces what is or isn't Kosher? Who enforces what is or isn't Halal? Who inspects the facilities for compliance? Where does a customer go to complain if he feels Kosher or Halal rules aren't being upheld in a Kosher or Halal deli? These are religious matters and it is where Sharia law and Halakah law play a part.

To be honest - I'm not at all clear what you are going on about.

 

[Coyote]

Kosher is part of halakah, Jewish religious law. Are you saying if Jews want to use religious law, like some muslims use sharia, to settle civil matters, they have no business being in the US?

Give us an example of one of these civil matters you speak of, I have asked you a dozen times if I asked once. Your previous cut/paste of google searches did not quote a civil matter. This is post #290, over a 150 posts since this one. Are you going to continue to run or can you not admit, you had no idea what your were speaking of.

I have given you examples and you might want to tone down your lingo a bit since we are in the CDZ ok?

Post #368 I quoted an article that listed banking and contractual matters among the civil items handled as well as divorce, marriage and inheritance.

How many times do I need to repeat it?

Maybe you should back off and debate, and not attribute things to me that I have not said. It is your OP, you are setting the tone, you can be as clever as you want, but facts are fact, I have not stated much that you keep insisting that I have.

I provided your quotes. I'm attempting to understand what you are discussing but it seems rather non-sequitor.

 

[elektra]

I am not over reacting. We are discussing laws, you and others began a discussion about Kosher food, ignoring the topic, and used that as a basis of an attack, as if that is a debate in favor of sharia law.

Not exactly. To be precise we were discussing the use of Sharia to resolve certain types of legal matters within US law.

In order to clarify what Sharia is, Halakah is brought in for comparison. No one is talking about "kosher food" but you. We are talking about kosher laws in Halakah and how they parallel halal laws in Sharia in order to help people like you understand that Sharia is not just criminal law, but a whole set of civil and family matters including laws regarding food preparation. When you talk about Sharia law, and dismiss all this it's pretty clear you aren't very knowledgeable on Sharia. When people say there should be no Sharia, then that would include everything - marriage, divorce, halal, etc etc.

You wish to speak about law, religious laws, fine, it is your thread. You spoke of resolving Civil Matters privately among Moslems, what does the Kosher diet have to do with that? You seem to be confused, as to the difference between laws and dietary laws. You know the things one can find themselves in Court over.

Not at all. Because you keep forgetting the other part of the discussion - Sharia religious laws of which dietary laws are a part of.

Do you believe there are Kosher police who arrest Jews if they do not follow Kosher Laws? Is that part of the Judicial system? Do you believe people are settling disputes or matters, over Kosher food in Civil Courts. Or is it that people who break Kosher Laws find themselves in Criminal court that which you believe?

Who enforces what is or isn't Kosher? Who enforces what is or isn't Halal? Who inspects the facilities for compliance? Where does a customer go to complain if he feels Kosher or Halal rules aren't being upheld in a Kosher or Halal deli? These are religious matters and it is where Sharia law and Halakah law play a part.

To be honest - I'm not at all clear what you are going on about.

Great, once again, we are discussing Sharia law to resolve certain types of legal matters, Great, once again, do you have a example of one of these legal matters? Post # 368 is not an example of the a legal matter.

kosher is part of halakah, Jewish religious law. Are you saying if Jews want to use religious law, like some muslims use sharia, to settle civil matters, they have no business being in the US?

I like how you include Kosher in this statement, Kosher is not used to settle civil matters. I asked for a specific example of how Muslims are using Sharia law to settle civil matters, you should include a Jewish sample as well. Why won't you do that? Post #368 does not explain how Moslems are using Sharia Law in the USA to settle civil matters. There must be one case you can cite?

Yea, sharia law includes what they can eat, as does Halakah, but neither of those are actually laws that are argued in courts, so it is pretty much not germane to the point you are trying to make.

 

[Coyote]

I am not over reacting. We are discussing laws, you and others began a discussion about Kosher food, ignoring the topic, and used that as a basis of an attack, as if that is a debate in favor of sharia law.

Not exactly. To be precise we were discussing the use of Sharia to resolve certain types of legal matters within US law.

In order to clarify what Sharia is, Halakah is brought in for comparison. No one is talking about "kosher food" but you. We are talking about kosher laws in Halakah and how they parallel halal laws in Sharia in order to help people like you understand that Sharia is not just criminal law, but a whole set of civil and family matters including laws regarding food preparation. When you talk about Sharia law, and dismiss all this it's pretty clear you aren't very knowledgeable on Sharia. When people say there should be no Sharia, then that would include everything - marriage, divorce, halal, etc etc.

You wish to speak about law, religious laws, fine, it is your thread. You spoke of resolving Civil Matters privately among Moslems, what does the Kosher diet have to do with that? You seem to be confused, as to the difference between laws and dietary laws. You know the things one can find themselves in Court over.

Not at all. Because you keep forgetting the other part of the discussion - Sharia religious laws of which dietary laws are a part of.

Do you believe there are Kosher police who arrest Jews if they do not follow Kosher Laws? Is that part of the Judicial system? Do you believe people are settling disputes or matters, over Kosher food in Civil Courts. Or is it that people who break Kosher Laws find themselves in Criminal court that which you believe?

Who enforces what is or isn't Kosher? Who enforces what is or isn't Halal? Who inspects the facilities for compliance? Where does a customer go to complain if he feels Kosher or Halal rules aren't being upheld in a Kosher or Halal deli? These are religious matters and it is where Sharia law and Halakah law play a part.

To be honest - I'm not at all clear what you are going on about.

Great, once again, we are discussing Sharia law to resolve certain types of legal matters, Great, once again, do you have a example of one of these legal matters? Post # 368 is not an example of the a legal matter.

Twice now, I've asked you if you are looking for specific cases and you've declined a direct answer. Is that what you want me to provide?

kosher is part of halakah, Jewish religious law. Are you saying if Jews want to use religious law, like some muslims use sharia, to settle civil matters, they have no business being in the US?

I like how you include Kosher in this statement, Kosher is not used to settle civil matters. I asked for a specific example of how Muslims are using Sharia law to settle civil matters, you should include a Jewish sample as well. Why won't you do that? Post #368 does not explain how Moslems are using Sharia Law in the USA to settle civil matters. There must be one case you can cite?

Yea, sharia law includes what they can eat, as does Halakah, but neither of those are actually laws that are argued in courts, so it is pretty much not germane to the point you are trying to make.

They are part of Sharia and when people say Sharia should be banned and adherents "have no business being in the US" that is part of it.

So you are looking for specific cases?

These are two examples of how it has been used in US courts - but they are not examples of specific cases where Sharia councils have arbitrated in civil matters.
The True Story of Sharia in American Courts

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. ​

 

[Coyote]

I am not over reacting. We are discussing laws, you and others began a discussion about Kosher food, ignoring the topic, and used that as a basis of an attack, as if that is a debate in favor of sharia law.

Not exactly. To be precise we were discussing the use of Sharia to resolve certain types of legal matters within US law.

In order to clarify what Sharia is, Halakah is brought in for comparison. No one is talking about "kosher food" but you. We are talking about kosher laws in Halakah and how they parallel halal laws in Sharia in order to help people like you understand that Sharia is not just criminal law, but a whole set of civil and family matters including laws regarding food preparation. When you talk about Sharia law, and dismiss all this it's pretty clear you aren't very knowledgeable on Sharia. When people say there should be no Sharia, then that would include everything - marriage, divorce, halal, etc etc.

You wish to speak about law, religious laws, fine, it is your thread. You spoke of resolving Civil Matters privately among Moslems, what does the Kosher diet have to do with that? You seem to be confused, as to the difference between laws and dietary laws. You know the things one can find themselves in Court over.

Not at all. Because you keep forgetting the other part of the discussion - Sharia religious laws of which dietary laws are a part of.

Do you believe there are Kosher police who arrest Jews if they do not follow Kosher Laws? Is that part of the Judicial system? Do you believe people are settling disputes or matters, over Kosher food in Civil Courts. Or is it that people who break Kosher Laws find themselves in Criminal court that which you believe?

Who enforces what is or isn't Kosher? Who enforces what is or isn't Halal? Who inspects the facilities for compliance? Where does a customer go to complain if he feels Kosher or Halal rules aren't being upheld in a Kosher or Halal deli? These are religious matters and it is where Sharia law and Halakah law play a part.

To be honest - I'm not at all clear what you are going on about.

Great, once again, we are discussing Sharia law to resolve certain types of legal matters, Great, once again, do you have a example of one of these legal matters? Post # 368 is not an example of the a legal matter.

kosher is part of halakah, Jewish religious law. Are you saying if Jews want to use religious law, like some muslims use sharia, to settle civil matters, they have no business being in the US?

I like how you include Kosher in this statement, Kosher is not used to settle civil matters. I asked for a specific example of how Muslims are using Sharia law to settle civil matters, you should include a Jewish sample as well. Why won't you do that? Post #368 does not explain how Moslems are using Sharia Law in the USA to settle civil matters. There must be one case you can cite?

Yea, sharia law includes what they can eat, as does Halakah, but neither of those are actually laws that are argued in courts, so it is pretty much not germane to the point you are trying to make.

They actually can be argued in court to the extent that there is a set of rules that governs what goes into making something kosher or halal, and if those rules aren't followed, it isn't kosher or halal.

 

[elektra]

They actually can be argued in court to the extent that there is a set of rules that governs what goes into making something kosher or halal, and if those rules aren't followed, it isn't kosher or halal.

Thanks for the explanation of Kosher, maybe the next time you can name your OP, "Kosher, the legal precedents and the Moslem man".

 

[Mudda]

So she has a First Amendment right to be brainwashed without anyone coming to her help? Ummm... no. That's not how it works. As for proving it, take any woman who agrees to be governed by sharia, there's your proof.

How would you reconcile our nation's core belief in freedom of religion with your views here?

Freedom of religion is not absolute. As an example, I can't just rape someone and claim to be free of prosecution because I declare myself a Muslim and there weren't 4 witnessed to the rape. So the complaining woman should be stoned to death for adultery.

Once again you move from what we are discussing- consensual behavior among adults that doesn't violate U.S. law to actions which are criminal actions.

Muslims have the same religious rights as every American has. Those rights include conducting themselves in private relationships as they see fit so long as they do not break American law.

And that includes living their lives by Sharia as long as they do not violate the law.

So basically you agree with me then, Muslims can only ever have partial constitutional freedom of religion.

This doesn’t make any sense – all religions, and those free from faith, enjoy the benefit of Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence, where any restriction on religious practice not entitled to Constitutional protections is applied consistently to all faiths, not just Muslims.

The mistake being made here is to incorrectly assume that in order for a Muslim to comprehensively practice his faith he must ‘violate’ secular law and engage in acts not entitled to Constitutional protections, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, a Muslim does not need to ‘commit rape’ in order to be in compliance with his religion’s doctrine and dogma – the notion is nothing but ignorant, bigoted idiocy.

You're the idiot, I never said that a Muslim had to commit rape to be in compliance with Islam, you made that up. Got anything relevant?

 

[Mudda]

I simply disagree, sharia law is totally unfair to women and should be disallowed everywhere possible. As for the other religions, go start a thread, you keep trying to derail this one. Who do I report YOU to? .

As for this "It also can go against existing laws", you must be nuts.

You simply disagree with the First Amendment? Oh, well, then.

So you'd let Muslim women be stoned to death in the US for some bullshit reason?

No- no one is suggesting that- as we have said over and over-religious law is not allowed to violate U.S. laws.

If Muslim men or women choose to follow aspects of Sharia law between themselves that does not violate U.S. law, then doing so is their religious right.

So a Muslim woman can agree to be stoned to death? Umm... No. Not even close.

Since I already addressed that when you decided to bring that in before- are you now just trolling?

If Muslim men or women choose to follow aspects of Sharia law between themselves that does not violate U.S. law, then doing so is their religious right.[

What part about not breaking U.S. law is problematic for you to understand?

Muslims are allowed to obey laws in non-sharia countries, but they must want sharia, and work towards it, if they want to be a good muslim. So you're still fucked.

 

[Mudda]

Sharia violates US laws in too many ways to enumerate right here.

How does a divorce violate existing laws?
How does a Sharia-compliant contract violate existing laws?

. But sharia is like a knife fight, you're either all in or all out, and if you're all in, it's going to be bloody, that's guaranteed.

According to who?

Remember so far all you have cited is yourself.

And so far your knowledge of Sharia has been far from convincing.

Are you really a sharia lover? That's truly pathetic.

Are you really trying to troll in the CDZ?

Quote me where I espouse my love for Sharia- or quite the crap in the CDZ.

I no more 'love Sharia law' than you love kicking puppies to death.

I hate dogs, I'd kick every puppy to death if I could.

 

[Mudda]

So she has a First Amendment right to be brainwashed without anyone coming to her help? Ummm... no. That's not how it works. As for proving it, take any woman who agrees to be governed by sharia, there's your proof.

How would you reconcile our nation's core belief in freedom of religion with your views here?

Freedom of religion is not absolute. As an example, I can't just rape someone and claim to be free of prosecution because I declare myself a Muslim and there weren't 4 witnessed to the rape. So the complaining woman should be stoned to death for adultery.

Once again you move from what we are discussing- consensual behavior among adults that doesn't violate U.S. law to actions which are criminal actions.

Muslims have the same religious rights as every American has. Those rights include conducting themselves in private relationships as they see fit so long as they do not break American law.

And that includes living their lives by Sharia as long as they do not violate the law.

So basically you agree with me then, Muslims can only ever have partial constitutional freedom of religion.

So basically you agree with me that all Americans are protected by the same First Amendment rights, and that Muslims and Christians have the exact same freedom of religion.

Nobody has true freedom of religion, that's a myth. There are all kinds of laws that don't let the religious do what they want. So their First Amendment right doesn't even really exist in the first place.

 

[Mudda]

Sharia violates US laws in too many ways to enumerate right here.

Sharia is an entire code of rules for living, civil matters along with a penal code. In that sense it's no different than Halakah, or Catholic religious law used in arbritration. What you and others seem to miss is that not all Muslims follow the entire package, just like not all Jews follow the entire package - what is followed is what is line with US law, or whatever the law of the country is. In any western country that allows religious arbritration - it applies ONLY to civil matters - not criminal. Divorce, marriage, contracts - and it's voluntary. It also can go against existing laws. It's a reasonable avenue for religious people who want to resolve things within their faith.

I simply disagree, sharia law is totally unfair to women and should be disallowed everywhere possible. As for the other religions, go start a thread, you keep trying to derail this one. Who do I report YOU to? .

As for this "It also can go against existing laws", you must be nuts.

You simply disagree with the First Amendment? Oh, well, then.

So you'd let Muslim women be stoned to death in the US for some bullshit reason?

No one would. None of this applies to criminal law mor does it overide secular law. If it did, we'd be in a shitload of trouble because the Bible extorts us to stone adulterers and the Halakah punishment for adulters is also stoning. None of that of course is legal in this country nor do most religious people in this country desire it.

So in other words, the First Amendment right to freedom of religion doesn't really exist, does it? So stop leaning on it for your arguments please.

 

[Mudda]

And to bring them into this OP, as a point to be made, is simply ridiculous.

Ridiculous to you- since you have made it clear that when you say that Americans can't follow 'foreign religious law' what you really mean is you want to prevent American Muslims from practising Sharia law in private, between themselves, when it does not violate U.S. law.

You are okay with every other religion doing so.

I did not state that, you made it up,
.

Quoting you:
Yes, I have a problem with Moslem Men living by Sharia Law in their private life.

There can be only one law in the USA, that of the Constitution.

When we pointed out that many Americans live their lives following religious law, including Kosher laws- you indicated that was okay- because "The Constitution was based upon the Bible"

Yes- you do have a problem.

Again, no, that is not what I stated.

So you do not have an example of Moslem Men resolving civil matters with Sharia Law?

How about telling us an example other than food how Moslems live by Sharia law.

Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.

Islamic law, or sharia, is the code of religious belief and conduct that governs many aspects of Muslim life. It covers a broad range of areas, including crime and punishment; marriage, divorce and inheritance; banking and contractual relations; and diet and attire. Some elements of sharia, especially concerning worship and other religious practices, are clearly outlined in the Quran, the Islamic holy book, while other questions are settled according to different clerics’ interpretations of general sharia principles.


The purpose of sharia is to allow Muslims to live their earthly lives according to Allah’s wishes, according to Sheik Abdool Rahman Khan, an expert on sharia law and chairman of the Shariah Council of the Islamic Circle of North America, a Muslim education and advocacy group in New York City: “We believe that if we do not do things properly in this world, then we will have consequences in the hereafter.”


Disputes Between Individuals


Sharia sometimes plays an important role in helping Muslims resolve disputes, particularly domestic ones. Indeed, the most common disputes involving sharia, at least in the United States, probably concern issues surrounding the dissolution of a marriage, such as asset allocation or child custody, says Lee Ann Bambach, an attorney who is completing a Ph.D. in religious studies at Emory University in Atlanta. Inheritance and contract dispute cases also occasionally come up, she says.


In many Muslim countries, marital and other disputes often come before sharia courts, where a judge sometimes renders a decision after hearing only from the two parties involved, without other evidence or witnesses. In the United States, there are no sharia courts operating at this time, Bambach and other experts say. However, a number of Muslim imams offer voluntary dispute-resolution services to American Muslims based on principles of Islamic religious law.


For example, Imam Talal Eid runs the Islamic Institute of Boston, an organization that handles religious divorces, inheritance disputes and child-custody cases for Muslims across the United States. Most of his cases center on divorces, often involving women trying to obtain an Islamic divorce from an uncooperative husband. “I investigate, and if the wife’s claims are legitimate, I will talk to the husband and try to convince him. If the husband continues to refuse to grant a [religious] divorce, I grant her one,” he says. Eid does not call his institute a sharia court, but he does liken its work to that of a Jewish beit din, or rabbinical court (see below).


According to Bambach, many U.S. Muslims take marital and other problems to local imams and ask them to use sharia principles to resolve the disputes. But because there is no single credentialing organization or centralized hierarchy for American imams, there also are no standard procedures for dispute resolution, she says.


Abed Awad, an attorney in Hasbrouck Heights, N.J., who is an expert on sharia, says the ground rules for dispute resolution are often set by the imam and other participants in an ad hoc manner at the beginning of each case. “These things tend to spring up as the need arises,” he says.


According to Khan, at the Islamic Circle of North America the resolution of each case also must be in line with secular American law and procedure. For instance, he says, “I let people know that I cannot issue a [religious] divorce decree unless a court has given them a [civil] divorce document first.”


Eid follows the same procedure. “Today you have to mix modern and Islamic law,” he says.
​

How Muslim men live by Sharia depends very much on their culture.

Shariah Law: The Five Things Every Non-Muslim (and Muslim) Should Know

"In the United States, there are no sharia courts operating at this time,"

And let's keep it that way.

"“I let people know that I cannot issue a [religious] divorce decree unless a court has given them a [civil] divorce document first.”"

In other words, there is no freedom of religion when it comes to sharia.

 

[elektra]

Shariah Law: The Five Things Every Non-Muslim (and Muslim) Should Know
"In the United States, there are no sharia courts operating at this time,"

And let's keep it that way.

"“I let people know that I cannot issue a [religious] divorce decree unless a court has given them a [civil] divorce document first.”"

In other words, there is no freedom of religion when it comes to sharia.
It is very contradictory, the rhetoric surrounding Sharia Law. The advocates will not give examples of how Sharia is applied, other than vague references with a link to a website which is again, not to explicit.

We are told, Sharia is no different then a Kosher diet, or Christians getting Married in a Church, yet the people making these statements do not show us the laws of Marriage under Sharia or all the other things that Sharia applies to.

We must accept a 100% of Sharia law we are told.

Shariah Law: The Five Things Every Non-Muslim (and Muslim) Should Know

if Shariah was banned, then American Muslims could not marry, inherit, write wills or choose to divorce per Islam’s guidelines.

Sharia law replaces our laws on marriage and divorce, child custody, alimony, child support and visitation rights.
Sharia law replaces our laws on inheritance and writing wills.

Sorry, but Sharia law should be banned. The argument that we all Kosher food is not an argument. People have the free will to choose what they eat, Muslims will continue to have that choice, we do not need to accept Sharia law so that they can eat what they choose to eat.[/QUOTE]

 

[elektra]

What is Sharia law and what are the affects of two completely different legal systems operating in the USA.

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

Ordinarily, allowing citizens voluntarily to utilize private arbitral bodies to resolve such disputes is not problematic. Indeed, under appropriate circumstances, it is even desirable. The problem, however, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere is that Muslim women and children may not be able to opt out of Shariah jurisprudence. They are thus subject to grave injustices by virtue of both the procedural and substantive Islamic law and have, as a practical matter, no choice within cultural norms but to acquiesce – effectively creating a second-class citizenry operating under a fundamentally unfair legal system.

 

[Syriusly]

I think that we can assume that Jesus spoke about what he thought it was important to teach his followers.

Why his followers feel like they should condemn homosexuals who are not Christians I do not know.

Never assume, God and His word is complicated, I might also add no Christian is going to take you serious on this

Yeah- I get that alot from faux Christians.

I have real Christian friends who take me seriously-and they actually know their bible.

It's obvious you don't know the Bible. Now stop trying to troll this is the CDZ.

Those of you glass houses shouldn't be trolling in the CDZ.

I'm not trolling and I'm weary of your elementary knowledge of the Bible and Paul. I said Paul was canonical, it's obvious you're not even paying attention, just spewing nonsense trying to impress me with things I know better. Have a good evening.

LOL.....since I didn't mention anything about Paul being 'canonical' you were obviously confused.

I quote the Bible- you quote yourself- not even attempting to paraphrase the Bible.

I knew of Jesus's instructions about divorce you clearly didn't.

You haven't impressed me yet with any knowledge of the bible.

 

[Syriusly]

Well you can believe whatever you want to believe. Jesus was a Jew- and the Old Testament was his holy book- which is why he refers to the 10 Commandments and other teachings.

I do think that Jesus commandment to "Love they neighbor as you love thyself" was a game changer- even more so when he commanded his followers to love their enemies too- because as Jesus pointed out- it is easy to love your neighbors- and much harder to love your enemies.

Wasn't that my point???

Neighbor is the same as enemy in this commandment.

Yet you feel it's not a game-changer.

Imagine if Muslims could learn to forgive instead of wanting to kill anyone who pisses them off. That would totally change Islam forever.

I said it is a game changer. I agree with you.

I know lots of Muslims- they forgive me regularly- not a one of them has gone around wanting to kill me.

Now if every Christian would actually live by Jesus's commandments- just imagine how much more peaceful the United States would be?

If liberals and Democrats could do the same it would increase peace in the US by at least 99%. Then they would stop calling us stupid, racists, or women haters.

And if only conservatives and Republicans could do that it would increase peace in the United States by at least 100%. Then they would stop calling minorities stupid and stop insulting women.

Well, the truth is....women and minorities aren't supposed to be treated any different from the rest of us.....but Democrat claim they should be,

Where do Democrats claim that women and minorities should be treated differently from 'the rest of us'- by which I assume you mean white men?

 

[Syriusly]

You simply disagree with the First Amendment? Oh, well, then.

So you'd let Muslim women be stoned to death in the US for some bullshit reason?

No- no one is suggesting that- as we have said over and over-religious law is not allowed to violate U.S. laws.

If Muslim men or women choose to follow aspects of Sharia law between themselves that does not violate U.S. law, then doing so is their religious right.

So a Muslim woman can agree to be stoned to death? Umm... No. Not even close.

Since I already addressed that when you decided to bring that in before- are you now just trolling?

If Muslim men or women choose to follow aspects of Sharia law between themselves that does not violate U.S. law, then doing so is their religious right.[

What part about not breaking U.S. law is problematic for you to understand?

Muslims are allowed to obey laws in non-sharia countries, but they must want sharia, and work towards it, if they want to be a good muslim. So you're still fucked.

Clean Debate Zone partner.

As I said

If Muslim men or women choose to follow aspects of Sharia law between themselves that does not violate U.S. law, then doing so is their religious right.[

What part about not breaking U.S. law is problematic for you to understand?

 

[Syriusly]

How would you reconcile our nation's core belief in freedom of religion with your views here?

Freedom of religion is not absolute. As an example, I can't just rape someone and claim to be free of prosecution because I declare myself a Muslim and there weren't 4 witnessed to the rape. So the complaining woman should be stoned to death for adultery.

Once again you move from what we are discussing- consensual behavior among adults that doesn't violate U.S. law to actions which are criminal actions.

Muslims have the same religious rights as every American has. Those rights include conducting themselves in private relationships as they see fit so long as they do not break American law.

And that includes living their lives by Sharia as long as they do not violate the law.

So basically you agree with me then, Muslims can only ever have partial constitutional freedom of religion.

So basically you agree with me that all Americans are protected by the same First Amendment rights, and that Muslims and Christians have the exact same freedom of religion.

Nobody has true freedom of religion, that's a myth. There are all kinds of laws that don't let the religious do what they want. So their First Amendment right doesn't even really exist in the first place.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. Even when you are wrong.