CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[Mudda]

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.”"

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..]

No- what you said was that no foreign religious law should be allowed in the United States.

And we pointed out to you that Jewish law, including Kosher rules, and Catholic law operate in the United States- and we asked you whether you applied the same standards to any other religious law other than Sharia.

And you refuse to actually answer any question.

So- are you opposed to any religious law operating in the United States- including Islamic laws, Judaic laws and Catholic laws- or are you only opposed to Muslims in America using their religious laws?

Kosher, having a rabbi bless the food, is a long, long way from sharia anything. Stop being so naïve.

 

[Mudda]

Since they first have to follow secular laws before they do anything religiously...

So then there's nothing for you to worry about.

The women will still get seriously screwed in a lot of cases. We shouldn't be letting that happen, we're supposed to be a civilized country. I guess you don't care about that.

Women still get screwed in a lot of cases regardless of religion or lack of religion. We shouldn't be letting that happen.

But I guess you don't care about that.

With regards to the topic of the thread, you're the one throwing women to the sharia sharks, not me. I'm trying to convince you not to throw them overboard, they don't deserve that.

 

[Mudda]

Since they first have to follow secular laws before they do anything religiously...

So then there's nothing for you to worry about.

The women will still get seriously screwed in a lot of cases. We shouldn't be letting that happen, we're supposed to be a civilized country.

A civilized country whose constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Nowhere does it say "some religions."

Wake up, there is no freedom of religion, a lot of things aren't allowed. So stop using that as a smokescreen.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.”"

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..]

No- what you said was that no foreign religious law should be allowed in the United States.

And we pointed out to you that Jewish law, including Kosher rules, and Catholic law operate in the United States- and we asked you whether you applied the same standards to any other religious law other than Sharia.

And you refuse to actually answer any question.

So- are you opposed to any religious law operating in the United States- including Islamic laws, Judaic laws and Catholic laws- or are you only opposed to Muslims in America using their religious laws?

Kosher, having a rabbi bless the food, is a long, long way from sharia anything. Stop being so naïve.

Halal, as has already been established, is part of Sharia law. It's surprising that an expert on the subject wouldn't know that, but kindly feel free to share other aspects of your expertise, giving correct citations. Thank you.

 

[elektra]

Woman and girls have no rights under Sharia law.]

Yes they do. Just not the same rights.

Americans in the United States are protected by American law.

As your article notes:

Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis," the analysis says. "The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

"These laws are unnecessary and serve only to do two things: Single out Muslims as second-class citizens and undermine the Constitution," the article said. "If supporters of these measures genuinely wish to protect the Constitution, they would do well to trust the framers' respect for international law and religious freedom -- and not trade away our most precious values for political advantage."

Muslim girls are not allowed to marry outside their religion according to Sharia law.

Marriage to non-Muslims and Fornication in Islam

Why does Allah Almighty allow Muslim men to marry non Muslim women, but doesn't allow Muslim women to marry non Muslim men?

Note: Some of the writings of my article come from the foot notes of the Noble Quran that I have that was translated by Sheikh (Minister) Abdallah Yusuf Ali; may Allah Almighty rest his soul.


It is lawful by Allah Almighty for Muslim men to marry only Jewish or Christian women, but not lawful for Muslim women to marry non Muslim men of any faith. In this article we will see the wisdom behind it.

Let us look at Noble Verse 5:5 "This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good)."

Let us look at Noble Verse 2:221 "Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe: A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But God beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind: That they may celebrate His praise."

"O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye God, if ye have faith (indeed). (The Noble Quran, 5:57)"

"O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them: God knows best as to their Faith: if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent (on their dower), and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women: ask for what ye have spent on their dowers, and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent (on the dowers of women who come over to you). Such is the command of God: He judges (with justice) between you. And God is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. (The Noble Quran, 60:10)"

The reason why Allah Almighty didn't allow Muslim women to marry non Muslim men including the People of the Book, is because women especially in the Middle East 1400 years ago used to culturally follow their husbands' traditions/religions.

Arabs used to be idol worshipers, and they had different methods of idol worshiping depending on the tribe. When a woman marries a man from a tribe, then she is EXPECTED to follow his and his family's method of worship. So automatically, she would become part of them.

So when a Muslim woman marries a non Muslim man, she would be EXPECTED to follow his religion. This would also mean that the children that she will bring to life will also be non Muslims. So this is very serious in Islam.

That is why Allah Almighty prohibited for Muslim women to marry non Muslim men. As for Muslim men, from the non Muslim women, they are not allowed to marry any of them except from the People of the Book.

I as a Muslim am not allowed to marry a Hindu woman for instance according to the Laws of the Noble Quran. But I can however marry a Jewish woman for instance.

Islam is not exclusive. Social intercourse, including inter-marriage, is permitted with the People of the Book. A Muslim man may marry a woman from their ranks on the same terms as he would marry a Muslim woman, i.e., he must give her an economic and moral status, and must not be actuated merely by motives of lust or physical desire. A Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man, because her Muslim status would be affected: the wife ordinarily takes the nationality and status given by her husband's law (especially in the Middle Eastern culture among the Arab pagans 1400 years ago). A non-Muslim woman marrying a Muslim husband would be expected eventually to accept Islam. Any man or woman, of any race or faith, may, on accepting Islam, freely marry any Muslim woman or man, provided it be from motives of purity and chastity and not of lewdness. Muslim men are prohibited to marry pagan women. Only women from the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are ok to marry from.

 

[Arianrhod]

Since they first have to follow secular laws before they do anything religiously...

So then there's nothing for you to worry about.

The women will still get seriously screwed in a lot of cases. We shouldn't be letting that happen, we're supposed to be a civilized country.

A civilized country whose constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Nowhere does it say "some religions."

Wake up, there is no freedom of religion, a lot of things aren't allowed.

Granted, you're not allowed to stone your wife or perform animal sacrifices, but in what other respects do you feel your religion is being infringed upon in the U.S.?

 

[Mudda]

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 agree- we don't want religious laws in the United States replacing our criminal or civil systems- but if Jews or Muslims or Christians agree together to follow religious laws in contracts and other arrangements, it is no different than companies requiring employees to agree to binding arbitration instead of the courts for employment disputes.

Since they first have to follow secular laws before they do anything religiously, then not only do they not have full freedom of religion, but what you're saying is that they can pretend to hold a religious court afterwards. So their religious courts are only make believe. Like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Like I said- you can believe whatever you want to believe- even when you are wrong.

As long as you understand that you've only ever had partial freedom of religion, I'm ok with that.

 

[Mudda]

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.”"

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..]

No- what you said was that no foreign religious law should be allowed in the United States.

And we pointed out to you that Jewish law, including Kosher rules, and Catholic law operate in the United States- and we asked you whether you applied the same standards to any other religious law other than Sharia.

And you refuse to actually answer any question.

So- are you opposed to any religious law operating in the United States- including Islamic laws, Judaic laws and Catholic laws- or are you only opposed to Muslims in America using their religious laws?

Kosher, having a rabbi bless the food, is a long, long way from sharia anything. Stop being so naïve.

Halal, as has already been established, is part of Sharia law. It's surprising that an expert on the subject wouldn't know that, but kindly feel free to share other aspects of your expertise, giving correct citations. Thank you.

Halal is a barbaric way to kill an animal. Civilized people don't do this.

 

[Mudda]

Since they first have to follow secular laws before they do anything religiously...

So then there's nothing for you to worry about.

The women will still get seriously screwed in a lot of cases. We shouldn't be letting that happen, we're supposed to be a civilized country.

A civilized country whose constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Nowhere does it say "some religions."

Wake up, there is no freedom of religion, a lot of things aren't allowed.

Granted, you're not allowed to stone your wife or perform animal sacrifices, but in what other respects do you feel your religion is being infringed upon in the U.S.?

Halal is a form of animal sacrifice. That aside, weed is illegal for rastafarians, polygamy for Muslims and Mormons, Creationism, all the stuff sharia says... In fact, most cults and religions have a lot of stuff outlawed, making the term "freedom of religion" the wrong term to use, because nobody has it.

 

[elektra]

Woman and girls have no rights under Sharia law.]

Yes they do. Just not the same rights.

Americans in the United States are protected by American law.

As your article notes:

Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis," the analysis says. "The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

"These laws are unnecessary and serve only to do two things: Single out Muslims as second-class citizens and undermine the Constitution," the article said. "If supporters of these measures genuinely wish to protect the Constitution, they would do well to trust the framers' respect for international law and religious freedom -- and not trade away our most precious values for political advantage."

Cherry picking an article, let me point out what you ignore, to distort what the article is about. My article is critical and quotes an ACLU article, is that not relevant to point out. Of course it is, I will follow with the part you cut out of your cherry pick, that immediately follows the ACLU article being analyzed in my link.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Islamic law in U.S. courts

A piece written by Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, and Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Human Rights program, is highly critical of the state bans.

The piece appeared on the Religion News Service, and was posted on the Huffington Post website earlier this month.

"These laws are unnecessary and serve only to do two things: Single out Muslims as second-class citizens and undermine the Constitution," the article said. "If supporters of these measures genuinely wish to protect the Constitution, they would do well to trust the framers' respect for international law and religious freedom -- and not trade away our most precious values for political advantage.

The American Public Policy Alliance, on its website, rips into the ACLU-authored article.

"The article posits a series of disjointed, hypothetical misapplications of the legislative efforts to prevent Sharia from encroaching into our legal system," the website said. "Yet, the authors cite no actual examples of misapplications of laws already passed and in force, in Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona."

 

[Syriusly]

Sharia Law would undermine our Constitution, period.

If our government were replaced by a caliphate, yes. Not going to happen.

How do you protect the rights of muslim woman who do not appear in a U.S. Court for a divorce, but instead are divorced "in the privacy of their home" (as was stated in this thread).

If they are divorced in their home- they are not legally divorced in the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

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.”"

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..]

No- what you said was that no foreign religious law should be allowed in the United States.

And we pointed out to you that Jewish law, including Kosher rules, and Catholic law operate in the United States- and we asked you whether you applied the same standards to any other religious law other than Sharia.

And you refuse to actually answer any question.

So- are you opposed to any religious law operating in the United States- including Islamic laws, Judaic laws and Catholic laws- or are you only opposed to Muslims in America using their religious laws?

Kosher, having a rabbi bless the food, is a long, long way from sharia anything. Stop being so naïve.

Sigh- Kosher is not having a rabbi bless food- it is a whole series of rules and requirements.

Judaism 101: Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws

The mammals and birds that may be eaten must be slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law. (Deut. 12:21). We may not eat animals that died of natural causes (Deut. 14:21) or that were killed by other animals. In addition, the animal must have no disease or flaws in the organs at the time of slaughter. These restrictions do not apply to fish; only to the flocks and herds (Num. 11:22).

Ritual slaughter is known as shechitah, and the person who performs the slaughter is called a shochet, both from the Hebrew root Shin-Cheit-Teit. The method of slaughter is a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible.

Another advantage of shechitah is that it ensures rapid, complete draining of the blood, which is also necessary to render the meat kosher.

The shochet is not simply a butcher; he must be a pious man, well-trained in Jewish law, particularly as it relates to kashrut. In smaller, more remote communities, the rabbi and the shochet were often the same person.

 

[elektra]

The article I linked to is about states banning Sharia law and the efforts of the ACLU to undermine State Laws

Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Islamic law in U.S. courts

WASHINGTON, May 19 (UPI) -- Does Islamic law, Sharia, have a place in American courts? A lot of state legislatures don't think so, and there is a movement to ban its application in domestic courts, state and federal.

It's one of those national issues that for now is not before the U.S. Supreme Court, but almost inevitably will be before the justices somewhere down the line, even if just in the petition stage.

Sharia, based on the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, is often a consideration in family issue cases involving U.S. Muslims. But its precepts apply to all aspects of life, and its severest critics allege it is a factor in some acts of terror.

How widespread is the movement to ban Sharia and any foreign law from domestic courts?

Legislators in at least 32 of the 50 U.S. states introduced bills from 2010 to 2012 to limit consideration of foreign or religious laws in state court decisions, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports.

During those two years, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee enacted such bills.

 

[Syriusly]

Since they first have to follow secular laws before they do anything religiously...

So then there's nothing for you to worry about.

The women will still get seriously screwed in a lot of cases. We shouldn't be letting that happen, we're supposed to be a civilized country. I guess you don't care about that.

Women still get screwed in a lot of cases regardless of religion or lack of religion. We shouldn't be letting that happen.

But I guess you don't care about that.

With regards to the topic of the thread, you're the one throwing women to the sharia sharks, not me. I'm trying to convince you not to throw them overboard, they don't deserve that.

You are the one who wants to deny Muslim women their First Amendment rights.

I am the one who believes all women should be protected by both criminal and civil law, regardless of their religion.

 

[elektra]

If they are divorced in their home- they are not legally divorced in the United States.

And how will you ensure that Moslem Woman under these circumstances are protected by the constitution.

How will you protect the girls from forced marriages?

 

[Syriusly]

Woman and girls have no rights under Sharia law.]

Yes they do. Just not the same rights.

Americans in the United States are protected by American law.

As your article notes:

Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis," the analysis says. "The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

"These laws are unnecessary and serve only to do two things: Single out Muslims as second-class citizens and undermine the Constitution," the article said. "If supporters of these measures genuinely wish to protect the Constitution, they would do well to trust the framers' respect for international law and religious freedom -- and not trade away our most precious values for political advantage."

Muslim girls are not allowed to marry outside their religion according to Sharia law..

Jewish girls are not allowed to marry outside their religion according to Orthodox Judaic Law.

All branches of Orthodox Judaism follow the historic Jewish attitudes to intermarriage, and therefore refuse to accept that intermarriages would have any validity or legitimacy, and strictly forbid sexual intercourse with a member of a different faith.

Luckily in the United States, Muslim and Jewish girls can marry whoever they wish civilly- even if their religions will not accept those marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

If they are divorced in their home- they are not legally divorced in the United States.

And how will you ensure that Moslem Woman under these circumstances are protected by the constitution.

How will you protect the girls from forced marriages?

The same way we protect every other girl from forced marriages in the United States.

Islam is hardly the only culture that has a tradition of arranged marriages.

 

[Arianrhod]

So then there's nothing for you to worry about.

The women will still get seriously screwed in a lot of cases. We shouldn't be letting that happen, we're supposed to be a civilized country.

A civilized country whose constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Nowhere does it say "some religions."

Wake up, there is no freedom of religion, a lot of things aren't allowed.

Granted, you're not allowed to stone your wife or perform animal sacrifices, but in what other respects do you feel your religion is being infringed upon in the U.S.?

Halal is a form of animal sacrifice. That aside, weed is illegal for rastafarians, polygamy for Muslims and Mormons, Creationism, all the stuff sharia says... In fact, most cults and religions have a lot of stuff outlawed, making the term "freedom of religion" the wrong term to use, because nobody has it.

Halal is as much animal sacrifice as the last hamburger you ate.

Weed is legal in some states and will eventually be legalized nationally.

Are you advocating polygamy or simply annoyed that you can't practice it?

I have no idea what you mean by creationism being illegal.

As for "all the stuff Sharia says," it's too bad you can't be more specific than that.

 

[Syriusly]

The article I linked to is about states banning Sharia law and the efforts of the ACLU to undermine State Laws

Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Islamic law in U.S. courts

WASHINGTON, May 19 (UPI) -- Does Islamic law, Sharia, have a place in American courts? A lot of state legislatures don't think so, and there is a movement to ban its application in domestic courts, state and federal.

It's one of those national issues that for now is not before the U.S. Supreme Court, but almost inevitably will be before the justices somewhere down the line, even if just in the petition stage.

Sharia, based on the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, is often a consideration in family issue cases involving U.S. Muslims. But its precepts apply to all aspects of life, and its severest critics allege it is a factor in some acts of terror.

How widespread is the movement to ban Sharia and any foreign law from domestic courts?

Legislators in at least 32 of the 50 U.S. states introduced bills from 2010 to 2012 to limit consideration of foreign or religious laws in state court decisions, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports.

During those two years, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee enacted such bills.

From your citation

The article said the outlawed Oklahoma law and others like it contain "prohibitions on 'international law' and 'foreign law,' nonsensically conflating Sharia with foreign law. Other states, preferring not to wear their bigotry on their sleeves, don't mention Sharia law per se, instead referring only to bans on 'international law.' Their intent, however, is unmistakable."


The article said "these efforts are rooted in the baseless idea that U.S. Muslims wish to impose Islamic law on American courts. Proponents of these misguided measures, which have been introduced in 25 states so far, clearly seek to ride the recent wave of anti-Muslim bias in this country.


"Supporters would have us believe that these laws are designed to uphold the Constitution," the article said. "In reality, these measures distort the protections already provided by the Constitution in ways that harm the rights of individuals, faith communities and businesses.

 

[Syriusly]

Woman and girls have no rights under Sharia law.]

Yes they do. Just not the same rights.

Americans in the United States are protected by American law.

As your article notes:

Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis," the analysis says. "The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

"These laws are unnecessary and serve only to do two things: Single out Muslims as second-class citizens and undermine the Constitution," the article said. "If supporters of these measures genuinely wish to protect the Constitution, they would do well to trust the framers' respect for international law and religious freedom -- and not trade away our most precious values for political advantage."

Cherry picking an article, let me point out what you ignore, to distort what the article is about. My article is critical and quotes an ACLU article, is that not relevant to point out.

You cherry picked from your article- citing what you wanted, while specifically ignoring other parts of the article- because those parts disagreed with you.

As your article notes:

Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis," the analysis says. "The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

"These laws are unnecessary and serve only to do two things: Single out Muslims as second-class citizens and undermine the Constitution," the article said. "If supporters of these measures genuinely wish to protect the Constitution, they would do well to trust the framers' respect for international law and religious freedom -- and not trade away our most precious values for political advantage.