CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[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.

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.

Halal methods of killing animals are essentially the same as Kosher methods

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.

 

[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.

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.

We've already established that Freedom of Religion is a fake statement, and that there is no such thing. Stop using it as a smokescreen to help deny women their rights, like inheritance, even if it's not illegal to give the women nothing as sharia does.

 

[Mudda]

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.

I'm a vegetarian.

Creationism isn't allowed to be taught in schools like a lot of religionites would want.

 

[Arianrhod]

Creationism isn't allowed to be taught in schools like a lot of religionites would want.

In public schools, you mean. There's no restriction on it in religious schools.

 

[elektra]

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.

We are not talking about Islam, we are talking about you advocating that Sharia Law can be practiced in the privacy of Moslem's homes. Under those circumstances there is no protection of Women or Children.

There is no place in the USA for Sharia Law, it undermines the protections guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

[elektra]

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.

Why do you cherry pick the "citation", the article shows the ACLU's opposition to banning Sharia law, you should at least quote that portion that states this is the ACLU's opinion, I have included the rebuttal to the ACLU's position.

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.

"A discriminatory and wholly unfounded idea is taking root in state legislatures across the country: attempts to pass laws that would explicitly and unnecessarily ban state courts from applying or even considering Islamic, or Sharia, law," the article said.

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.

"Rather than strengthen the Constitution, these measures violate religious freedom and undermine the independence of our courts. Laws like the Oklahoma amendment ignore the fact that there are instances -- such as in the execution of a will, or a dispute over religious property -- that require civil courts to consult religious law. Our existing legal system is well-equipped to determine when courts may properly reference religious law, and also when doing so would cross the line. Banning the consideration of a particular faith's laws entirely is not only discriminatory, but also impractical. ...

"Want to get married in Aruba? Couples who are married outside the U.S. could come home to find that a state court could not recognize marriages conducted under Aruban law," the article said. "Want to adopt a child from abroad? If you thought the adoption process was difficult now, think about what would happen if state courts were unable to consider foreign and international law. ...

"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."

 

[Coyote]

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".

Maybe next time you can go into a thread with a better understanding of what Sharia really is when you call for eliminating it.

 

[Coyote]

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.

No rights are unrestricted, that doesn't mean they are non existent.

 

[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..

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.

Un-Luckily, their fathers and family prevent Muslim Girls from choosing who they marry. Woman do not have rights under Sharia Law, not in marriage, not in divorce, Sharia Law can not be allowed in the USA. Period, despite your opinion that it is no different than Kosher food rules.

 

[Arianrhod]

Woman do not have rights under Sharia Law, not in marriage, not in divorce, Sharia Law can not be allowed in the USA.

So after you destroy Muslim Americans' religious rights, will you do the same for Orthodox Jews? What other religions are next on your list? Or will you just repeal the First Amendment?

 

[elektra]

Maybe next time you can go into a thread with a better understanding of what Sharia really is when you call for eliminating it.

I understand more than you, in speaking of law and matters in court, when I ask for you to support your comments with an example, you went off on some tangent about Kosher food and since then, been denigrating me personally, versus supporting the contention that you made.

But it is your thread, I guess you can play any game you like, to avoid actually debating the wrong-headed ideas you post.

 

[elektra]

Woman do not have rights under Sharia Law, not in marriage, not in divorce, Sharia Law can not be allowed in the USA.

So after you destroy Muslim Americans' religious rights, will you do the same for Orthodox Jews? What other religions are next on your list? Or will you just repeal the First Amendment?

Why do you hate the Constitution? Why do you want to destroy the rights of Americans that are protected by the constitution.

 

[Arianrhod]

Woman do not have rights under Sharia Law, not in marriage, not in divorce, Sharia Law can not be allowed in the USA.

So after you destroy Muslim Americans' religious rights, will you do the same for Orthodox Jews? What other religions are next on your list? Or will you just repeal the First Amendment?

Why do you hate the Constitution? Why do you want to destroy the rights of Americans that are protected by the constitution.

Are you saying the First Amendment destroys the Constitution?

 

[Coyote]

Sharia Law would undermine our Constitution, period. How do we police law being administered in mosques? How do we ensue the rights of Women and Children who are being ruled by Sharia Law in the USA?

There is only one governing document in the USA, the Constitution, everything else must be rejected or banned.

It is what makes as an exceptional country.

You do realize, if "everything else" must be rejected that would mean no religious marriages for example.

How do we police religious law in synagogues? Halakah calls for stoning or burning adulterers and disobedient children as does biblical law. Who is protecting those children and women?

The thing you completely miss is no one is being "ruled" by Sharia or halakah or any other religious law. They are using religious law for certain civil matters and arbritration. None of which can overrule US law and in many cases must be ratified by a secular court to have the force of law.

 

[elektra]

The thing you completely miss is no one is being "ruled" by Sharia or halakah or any other religious law. .

This is your opinion, which ignores my post that linked to study that offers evidence, otherwise. Further you are advocating that people be allowed to practice Sharia Law in private.

 

[elektra]

You do realize, if "everything else" must be rejected that would mean no religious marriages for example.
.

Why?

 

[elektra]

Are you saying the First Amendment destroys the Constitution?

Are you saying you are against the Constitution, I do not understand why you want Sharia law in the USA.

 

[Coyote]

The thing you completely miss is no one is being "ruled" by Sharia or halakah or any other religious law. .

This is your opinion, which ignores my post that linked to study that offers evidence, otherwise. Further you are advocating that people be allowed to practice Sharia Law in private.

They already do, every time the eat halal, pray, or utilize Sharia compliant business contracts.

 

[elektra]

How do we police religious law in synagogues? Halakah calls for stoning or burning adulterers and disobedient children as does biblical law. Who is protecting those children and women?
.

Give one example of Jews burning children to death in the USA, or Israel for that matter.

You really must get extreme and use your imagination to avoid your posts and comments.

You still do not have one example to give, of Muslims resolving civil matters under sharia law in the privacy of their homes?

 

[elektra]

The thing you completely miss is no one is being "ruled" by Sharia or halakah or any other religious law.

They already do, every time the eat halal, pray, or utilize Sharia compliant business contracts.

Now you have contradicted what you just posted, "The thing you completely miss is no one is being "ruled" by Sharia".

Why won't you simply debate your ideas?

Please forgive my poor quoting of multiple posts, I combined them into one.