CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[Coyote]

There are a lot of conflicting claims made about the American Muslim community, and a lot of it, in my opinion, follows a conspiracy theory type logic - particularly those involving some groups hidden agenda to take over America/the world etc and destroy the Constitution. Often there is little solid evidence to support it, just fear-mongering and a certain intellectual lazyness that refuses to look at complex issues for what they are: complex.

The most disturbing of these views is the claim that a majority of American Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land (overruling the Constitution) and that subsequently, American Muslims represent a "fifth column", an attitude similar to attitudes towards Japanese Americans during WW2. This attitude culminates in expressions such as Muslims can't be patriotic Americans, Muslims will socially explode once they reach a "critical mass" and start demanding Sharia, etc.

The points I'd like to look at are:
What do Muslims in AMERICA want?
Are they any different than other religious groups in America?
What does this say about Muslim immigration in America vs other countries?

Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.

And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.

This situation is very different in European countries.

If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.

So; US doing "relatively" good...

But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

 

[Asclepias]

There are a lot of conflicting claims made about the American Muslim community, and a lot of it, in my opinion, follows a conspiracy theory type logic - particularly those involving some groups hidden agenda to take over America/the world etc and destroy the Constitution. Often there is little solid evidence to support it, just fear-mongering and a certain intellectual lazyness that refuses to look at complex issues for what they are: complex.

The most disturbing of these views is the claim that a majority of American Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land (overruling the Constitution) and that subsequently, American Muslims represent a "fifth column", an attitude similar to attitudes towards Japanese Americans during WW2. This attitude culminates in expressions such as Muslims can't be patriotic Americans, Muslims will socially explode once they reach a "critical mass" and start demanding Sharia, etc.

The points I'd like to look at are:
What do Muslims in AMERICA want?
Are they any different than other religious groups in America?
What does this say about Muslim immigration in America vs other countries?

Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.

And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.

This situation is very different in European countries.

If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.

So; US doing "relatively" good...

But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...

I've been living next door to a Muslim family for the past decade and they seem to be pretty normal people to me.

 

[Coyote]

From: Judaism 101: Divorce

Judaism recognized the concept of "no-fault" divorce thousands of years ago. Judaism has always accepted divorce as a fact of life, albeit an unfortunate one. Judaism generally maintains that it is better for a couple to divorce than to remain together in a state of constant bitterness and strife.


Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her.


This does not mean that Judaism takes divorce lightly. Many aspects of Jewish law discourage divorce. The procedural details involved in arranging a divorce are complex and exacting. Except in certain cases of misconduct by the wife, a man who divorces his wife is required to pay her substantial sums of money, as specified in the ketubah (marriage contract). In addition, Jewish law prohibits a man from remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man. Kohanim cannot marry divorcees at all. ​

​

By drawing these comparisons between various Religious codes you are actually hurting the proposition that there is nothing especially "weird or unusual" going in Islam.. Because the DIFFERENCE IS --- The Sharia Law gets incorporated in the fabric of daily life in Arab cultures.. Where is it given co-authority with whatever tyrannical forms of civil governments exist. Whereas in Western culture and places where both Judaism and Islam are practiced -- NONE of this matters a whit.

I disagree with your analysis of drawing comparisons. The comparison is valid, and this is why I think it is. Part of the argument against Sharia specifically, is that it is somehow UNIQUELY EVIL, that it's criminal codes are uniquely barbaric, and that because it is within the text of the religion, it is "unchangeable" (unlike other religions). This is stated over and over and it denies Islam the potential to evolve beyond a medievil interpretation. Almost the same rules exist in Halakah yet Judaism for the most part has moved into a modern view of it with exception of the ultra religious where it is incorporated into their daily fabric.

There is not a single Western culture where a Jewish man is prohibited from re-marrying his ex-wife or REQUIRES him to divorce him for sexual transgressions. However -- the similar Sharia practice is ENSHRINED in many many places. Likewise the Jewish wife is NOT obligated in any secular Western culture to culture to obtain a RELIGIOUS divorce before remarrying. IN FACT -- in the ONLY Jewish nation in the world -- Israel -- I DOUBT this is a REQUIREMENT. (could be wrong).

I'm not sure about that - or I'm misunderstanding you. In any secular Western culture - NO ONE is required to obtain a religious divorce before remarrying. That applies equally to Muslims, Jews, etc. However - within their own communities, that isn't necessarily the case - both Jews, Muslims (and Catholics) need a religious divorce if they are devout.

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

In Orthodox Judaism, a woman cannot obtain a divorce – and therefore cannot remarry – without her husband’s consent. Sometimes, in order to obtain money or attempt to stop a divorce, a husband will refuse to grant his wife a get, no matter how broken the marriage may be. In such cases, a beit din cannot divorce the couple. But both Perlman and Weissmann say that to sway an obstinate husband, rabbis may issue rulings calling on the community to exert social pressure on the man by, for example, barring him from the synagogue or protesting outside his home or workplace until he relents.​

They can get divorced without it, but then they risk being ostracized from their community or family and unable to remarry within their community.

In Israel (again, if I am understanding it correctly), marriage and divorce are religous, governed by the doctrine of each of it's religious groups. For Jews, Israel's political system, despite being democratic, is still a religious system and marriage and divorce reside solely with religious authorities:

Jewish marriage and divorce in Israel is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which defines a person's Jewish status strictly according to halakha. The rabbinate's standards and interpretations in these matters are generally used by the Israeli Interior Ministry in registering marriages and divorces.

Halakhic and biblical restrictions on marriage are applied in Israel. So, for example, a kohen may not marry a convert to Judaism. Similarly, children of adulterous and incestuous unions are restricted as to whom they can marry.

Up to 1999, any marriage council had the option to send a person to a Judaism test (Hebrew). A governing document[11] that defined rules of marriage had been finally concluded in 2001. Contrary to guidelines, some councils didn't fulfill the guideline; several petitions had been sent to the high court.[12] A research showed that 93.5% of people sent to Judaism test had been from the former Soviet Union and 83% of them succeeded and 10% left the process. In 2010 a final ruling defined that all immigrants after 1990 must go over a Judaism test.[citation needed]

However, Israel does recognise civil or religious marriages entered into outside Israel. It is usual for couples who may not or choose not to marry in Israel to travel overseas to marry.[13] One out of every ten Israelis who married in 2000 did so abroad mainly because they could not marry in Israel. 2,230 couples who married abroad consisted of two Israeli partners, and another 3,660 couples consisted of an Israeli and a non-Israeli partner.[13]

The issue of civil marriages is a major issue for secular Jews and members of non-Orthodox streams of Judaism, who are required to meet the Orthodox standards to be able to marry in Israel.[14] There is a debate over whether civil marriages would divide the Jewish people in Israel by increasing interfaith marriages and marriages that do not meet halakhic requirements, and over the character of the Jewish state.​

Divorce is similarly complicated and dictated by religious rules: Israel divorce law traps women in marriages that died long ago

Under the court's interpretation of Jewish religious law, a husband's, or wife's, consent is necessary to end a marriage. As has been the case for centuries, a Jewish divorce is not final in Israel until men deliver handwritten divorce decrees into the cupped hands of the women, who then must hold the paper aloft. A rabbi tears the document, called a get, into pieces, which are then filed for record-keeping.

The rabbis can order a reluctant spouse, usually a man, to grant the divorce, and Israel's parliament is considering a bill to expand the court's power to apply pressure. But if a spouse refuses to undertake the religious rite, the court says, it doesn't have the power to dissolve the marriage.

Rabbis have upheld the need for consent even in cases where a man has abused his wife, disappeared, lied about his sexuality or molested their children.​

There is no such thing as a secular marriage or divorce in any of Israel's religious communities.

Both Halakah and Sharia are extremely important to observant Jews and Muslims in America. Does the fact that they wish to follow their rules, within the context of modern society and the country's prevailing legal system (which many of them do) mean they have no "business being in America" as one poster claimed?

In America -- this is matter between individuals and their RELIGIOUS authority. NEVER a matter of law. And the difference is I've never been aware of a Jewish movement to FORCE secular authorities to recognize their religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes. And while this is RARE in America for Muslims, it's been kicked out there as a proposal on a few occasions.. No different than the consequences of a ex-communication from the Catholic church for instance.

I agree with what I bolded.

Specifically though - when has there been ANY movement to force secular authorities to recognize Islamic religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes in the US? I haven't heard of any.

Really don't NEED to become a religious scholar to see where the REAL PROBLEM exists. THIS ---- is the center of the storm in America about sharia law.....

Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It

(RNS) North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday (July 24) approved a bill to prohibit judges from considering “foreign laws” in their decisions, but nearly everyone agrees that “foreign laws” really means Shariah, or Islamic law.

North Carolina now joins six other states — Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee — to pass a “foreign laws” bill. A similar bill passed in Missouri, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it, citing threats to international adoptions.

The bills all cite “foreign laws” because two federal courts have ruled that singling out Shariah — as Oklahoma voters originally did in 2010 — is unconstitutional.

In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.

Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.

In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.

Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.

Some Islamic scholars argue that true Islamic belief cannot be coerced by the state, and therefore belief in Shariah should only come from the individual and not be codified by the state.

So what's really happening in these threads is that folks you call "right-wingers" are actually taking the side of KEEPING govt in America secular. So hit them up on hypocrisy -- but don't try to tell them the ISSUE does not exist because "all religions" do it..

And BTW -- why is it that only "some" Islamic scholars argue for separation of state and religion?

But THOSE SAME RIGHT WINGERS (and keep in mind, I'm using this term scornfully because folks are using "leftwingers" in the same derogatory scornful manner) - are not REALLY interested in keeping America secular because they are the same one's who are typically supporting pro-religious "freedom" bills geared towards Christians. They are interested in keeping America Islam-free, not secular.


Lastly....is it only "some"....or, is this too, a reflection of culture?

That's why I'm amazed at the tone of this debate. I'm not a winger. But I suggest there's ample hypocrisy on BOTH sides. One side calling folks bigots for CARING if the USA remains a secular nation, while they should be JOINING in that cause. And t'other side whining about codifying religious law when THEY often cite the "christian values" of this nation should be enshrined into law.

THAT IS the debate. Has NOTHING to do with even CARING what the content of these religious codes are. They are implemented NO WHERE IN WORLD ---- except for Islam as part of Civil code. It's a CIVIL LAW debate.

As far as Jewish divorce law goes.. Folks need to deal with their OWN religious authorities. A family might "disown" you over a religious violation. This is NONE of my concern. It BECOMES my concern if they consider an "honor killing" to enforce it..

...I tend to agree. But I think for the most part (at least in the US) - people dealing with religious councels are dealing with their own religious authorities. The sticky point seems to be ... where does it cross the line? That's why it seems to me a just way to handle it would be to make any legally binding resolutions subject to ratification by a secular court.

You're the religious scholar.. You think a County Judge ought to be "ratifying" something that is contrary to Civil Code? Not gonna happen in America likely. Now HOW all those "religious courts" operate and IF they operate as actual LEGAL mediators is another issue.

Like I said -- NONE of my biz unless some deprivation of a RECOGNIZED civil right appears. And a religious court denying the right to re-marry doesn't show a burden of abuse. Since the Civil authority is not the one denying the marriage. IF the religious court CAUSES financial or physical harm --- they need to be shut down.

flac...you're winding up as I'm winding down...are you chugging caffiene? I'm going to have to turn to mindless snarking soon, so that means out of the CDZ

 

[flacaltenn]

There are a lot of conflicting claims made about the American Muslim community, and a lot of it, in my opinion, follows a conspiracy theory type logic - particularly those involving some groups hidden agenda to take over America/the world etc and destroy the Constitution. Often there is little solid evidence to support it, just fear-mongering and a certain intellectual lazyness that refuses to look at complex issues for what they are: complex.

The most disturbing of these views is the claim that a majority of American Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land (overruling the Constitution) and that subsequently, American Muslims represent a "fifth column", an attitude similar to attitudes towards Japanese Americans during WW2. This attitude culminates in expressions such as Muslims can't be patriotic Americans, Muslims will socially explode once they reach a "critical mass" and start demanding Sharia, etc.

The points I'd like to look at are:
What do Muslims in AMERICA want?
Are they any different than other religious groups in America?
What does this say about Muslim immigration in America vs other countries?

Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.

And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.

This situation is very different in European countries.

If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.

So; US doing "relatively" good...

But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

 

[Asclepias]

There are a lot of conflicting claims made about the American Muslim community, and a lot of it, in my opinion, follows a conspiracy theory type logic - particularly those involving some groups hidden agenda to take over America/the world etc and destroy the Constitution. Often there is little solid evidence to support it, just fear-mongering and a certain intellectual lazyness that refuses to look at complex issues for what they are: complex.

The most disturbing of these views is the claim that a majority of American Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land (overruling the Constitution) and that subsequently, American Muslims represent a "fifth column", an attitude similar to attitudes towards Japanese Americans during WW2. This attitude culminates in expressions such as Muslims can't be patriotic Americans, Muslims will socially explode once they reach a "critical mass" and start demanding Sharia, etc.

The points I'd like to look at are:
What do Muslims in AMERICA want?
Are they any different than other religious groups in America?
What does this say about Muslim immigration in America vs other countries?

Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.

And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.

This situation is very different in European countries.

If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.

So; US doing "relatively" good...

But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

If you look at the history of ghettos they are not created by ethnic culture. You cant force people to take on your beliefs and abandon their culture. Thats a personal choice.

 

[Syriusly]

Does not help to deny the issue exists in America. The "RWNJ" are not making up in total. There ARE little wars going on all over country. And it FEEDS perception of "What Muslims Want" in a very bad way.

It simply needs to resolved. Don't NEED to delve into Talmud or Haditha..

Muslims are ANGRY at Texas Mayor After She Stops "Sharia Court"... Here Is Her EPIC Response! - The Political Insider

This radical group of Muslims is not pleased with the Mayor of Irving, Texas after she put the end to America’s first “Sharia Court.” Mayor Beth Van Duyne has accused mosque leaders of creating separate laws for Muslims, which is why the city voted to stop these supposedly “voluntary” tribunals from operating..”

Sharia court in Irving, Texas? Negative
Lee Ann Bambach, who wrote a dissertation titled "Faith-Based Arbitration by Muslims in an American Context," told us by phone she considers the Dallas-rooted Islamic Tribunal an alternative dispute resolution service--not a court working outside the bounds of U.S. law. "They’re not trying to establish anything that’s going to take jurisdiction away from the state or federal courts," Bambach said. Similarly, she said, Christians and orthodox Jews sometimes adopt dispute resolution processes. Broadly, Bambach said, there is nothing in the U.S. she’d call a Sharia court. "I’d call them dispute resolution services," she said.

Not many services like the Islamic Tribunal otherwise exist in the U.S., Bambach said by email, with most alternative dispute resolution done informally in mosque settings. "I am aware of no such tribunals/services that seek to enforce any aspect of sharia criminal law," Bambach said.

We ultimately found this claim FALSE.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

The Islamic Tribunal, a panel of Dallas-area imams, offers to mediate disputes between Muslims for a fee.

Catholic dioceses and Jewish synagogues have run similar tribunals for centuries. But the Muslim version is portrayed on websites as the country’s first “Shariah court.”

Van Duyne later told The Dallas Morning News she based her comments on the Islamic Tribunal’s website, which referenced religious courts in Islamic history and called the imams “judges,” but clearly advertised itself as “a mediation and nonbinding arbitration firm.”


So what exactly is threatening about a mediation and nonbinding arbitration firm?

 

[flacaltenn]

I flubbed that a bit.. Most states CREDENTIAL mediators, not regulate them. But again a mere mediation process is not SUPPOSED to have force of law unless reviewed in an Court.


I took a road trip today. I get so jazzed driving with the tunes cranked up and the coffee on the dash. So yeah..

 

[Coyote]

There are a lot of conflicting claims made about the American Muslim community, and a lot of it, in my opinion, follows a conspiracy theory type logic - particularly those involving some groups hidden agenda to take over America/the world etc and destroy the Constitution. Often there is little solid evidence to support it, just fear-mongering and a certain intellectual lazyness that refuses to look at complex issues for what they are: complex.

The most disturbing of these views is the claim that a majority of American Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land (overruling the Constitution) and that subsequently, American Muslims represent a "fifth column", an attitude similar to attitudes towards Japanese Americans during WW2. This attitude culminates in expressions such as Muslims can't be patriotic Americans, Muslims will socially explode once they reach a "critical mass" and start demanding Sharia, etc.

The points I'd like to look at are:
What do Muslims in AMERICA want?
Are they any different than other religious groups in America?
What does this say about Muslim immigration in America vs other countries?

Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.

And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.

This situation is very different in European countries.

If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.

So; US doing "relatively" good...

But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

Nah....I'm not buying it.

1. They were NON BINDING mediation - something many groups religious and secular do for their constituency.

2. From the article: Catholic dioceses and Jewish synagogues have run similar tribunals for centuries. But the Muslim version is portrayed on websites as the country’s first “Shariah court.”

They were uniquely singled out and when that happens, you have to honestly ask why? If family and financial mediation services create "ghettos, isolation and other cultural problems" then where the heck are all the Catholic and Jewish ghettos? (and .... what ghetto will I end up in for paying for debt counseling? )

 

[Coyote]

There are a lot of conflicting claims made about the American Muslim community, and a lot of it, in my opinion, follows a conspiracy theory type logic - particularly those involving some groups hidden agenda to take over America/the world etc and destroy the Constitution. Often there is little solid evidence to support it, just fear-mongering and a certain intellectual lazyness that refuses to look at complex issues for what they are: complex.

The most disturbing of these views is the claim that a majority of American Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land (overruling the Constitution) and that subsequently, American Muslims represent a "fifth column", an attitude similar to attitudes towards Japanese Americans during WW2. This attitude culminates in expressions such as Muslims can't be patriotic Americans, Muslims will socially explode once they reach a "critical mass" and start demanding Sharia, etc.

The points I'd like to look at are:
What do Muslims in AMERICA want?
Are they any different than other religious groups in America?
What does this say about Muslim immigration in America vs other countries?

Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.

And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.

This situation is very different in European countries.

If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.

So; US doing "relatively" good...

But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

Nah....I'm not buying it.

1. They were NON BINDING mediation - something many groups religious and secular do for their constituency.

2. From the article: Catholic dioceses and Jewish synagogues have run similar tribunals for centuries. But the Muslim version is portrayed on websites as the country’s first “Shariah court.”

They were uniquely singled out and when that happens, you have to honestly ask why? If family and financial mediation services create "ghettos, isolation and other cultural problems" then where the heck are all the Catholic and Jewish ghettos? (and .... what ghetto will I end up in for paying for debt counseling? )

 

[Coyote]

I flubbed that a bit.. Most states CREDENTIAL mediators, not regulate them. But again a mere mediation process is not SUPPOSED to have force of law unless reviewed in an Court.


I took a road trip today. I get so jazzed driving with the tunes cranked up and the coffee on the dash. So yeah..

That I agree with, and perhaps that is the solution to any potential problems.

You are SOOOOO jazzed dude!

 

[flacaltenn]

Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.

And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.

This situation is very different in European countries.

If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.

So; US doing "relatively" good...

But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

If you look at the history of ghettos they are not created by ethnic culture. You cant force people to take on your beliefs and abandon their culture. Thats a personal choice.

Discussion here is about isolation in terms of liberty, justice and law. The cultures practicing Islam come from places where ALL of that is rolled into the culture. The power and authority of those cultures stem from religious law. CONTINUING that practice in a Western culture is gonna lead to huge conflicts with actual Civil law and liberties.

 

[Asclepias]

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

If you look at the history of ghettos they are not created by ethnic culture. You cant force people to take on your beliefs and abandon their culture. Thats a personal choice.

Discussion here is about isolation in terms of liberty, justice and law. The cultures practicing Islam come from places where ALL of that is rolled into the culture. The power and authority of those cultures stem from religious law. CONTINUING that practice in a Western culture is gonna lead to huge conflicts with actual Civil law and liberties.

Doesnt cause any issues where I live.

 

[Syriusly]

There are a lot of conflicting claims made about the American Muslim community, and a lot of it, in my opinion, follows a conspiracy theory type logic - particularly those involving some groups hidden agenda to take over America/the world etc and destroy the Constitution. Often there is little solid evidence to support it, just fear-mongering and a certain intellectual lazyness that refuses to look at complex issues for what they are: complex.

The most disturbing of these views is the claim that a majority of American Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land (overruling the Constitution) and that subsequently, American Muslims represent a "fifth column", an attitude similar to attitudes towards Japanese Americans during WW2. This attitude culminates in expressions such as Muslims can't be patriotic Americans, Muslims will socially explode once they reach a "critical mass" and start demanding Sharia, etc.

The points I'd like to look at are:
What do Muslims in AMERICA want?
Are they any different than other religious groups in America?
What does this say about Muslim immigration in America vs other countries?

Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.

And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.

This situation is very different in European countries.

If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.

So; US doing "relatively" good...

But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

Jewish courts and Catholic courts didn't lead to 'ghettos' in the United States. Nor do Christian arbitration and mediation services

Peacemaker Ministries is a non-profit, non-denominational ministry whose mission is to equip and assist Christians and their churches to respond to conflict biblically. We provide conflict coaching, mediation and arbitration services to help resolve lawsuits, family conflicts, business disputes, and church divisions. Our training services include seminars, conflict coaching training, mediation training, advanced mediation and arbitration training for conciliators and church leaders working within their churches, as well as training for individuals conducting more formal and complex proceedings.


Similar mediation centers provide such services to Jews:
The dayanim who sit on cases include leading authorities on Jewish law, as well as lawyers and businessmen who are familiar with secular law and contemporary commercial practices. When appropriate, the Beth Din will either include expert professionals on an arbitration panel, or consult them as expert witnesses. Cases are decided under Jewish law, through the prism of contemporary commercial practice and secular law.

Prior to having a case heard by the Beth Din, litigants are required to enter into a binding arbitration agreement. The Beth Din conducts its proceedings in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of secular arbitration law, so that the rulings of the Beth Din are legally binding and enforceable in the secular court system.


So what is so threatening about non-binding arbitration and mediation services?

 

[flacaltenn]

Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.

And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.

This situation is very different in European countries.

If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.

So; US doing "relatively" good...

But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

Nah....I'm not buying it.

1. They were NON BINDING mediation - something many groups religious and secular do for their constituency.

2. From the article: Catholic dioceses and Jewish synagogues have run similar tribunals for centuries. But the Muslim version is portrayed on websites as the country’s first “Shariah court.”

They were uniquely singled out and when that happens, you have to honestly ask why? If family and financial mediation services create "ghettos, isolation and other cultural problems" then where the heck are all the Catholic and Jewish ghettos? (and .... what ghetto will I end up in for paying for debt counseling? )

THere is virtually NO catholic or jewish religious law "councils" in America that are solving issues in conflict with CIVIL law and the liberties of Americans. Name a few for me. Name ONE that has ever attempted to enforce a "religious ruling:" in conflict with American law.

When you "rely" on religious mediation in a Shariah proceeding --- how are you even assured that BOTH PARTIES are willing participants? You OK with a religious council HAULING IN mediation participants against their will? THESE are the types of issues that need to be looked at. .

So if that Mayor in Texas could find a single female that was UNWILLINGLY hauled into a religious council -- would that upset you?

 

[flacaltenn]

Muslims in the US are in fact pretty diverse.

And there is a good reason for that; because it is mostly the people who were running away from the oppression in muslim countries were coming to this country, as a last resort. The majority of the muslims in the USA are those people. Iranians for instance, they despise mullah more than anybody else could.

This situation is very different in European countries.

If you compare the voting results of the American muslims, and European muslims in their home country elections, you will see this difference very clearly.

So; US doing "relatively" good...

But;
Diversity brings any type of everything.
Some mosques in this country scare even some of the muslims of this country...

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

Jewish courts and Catholic courts didn't lead to 'ghettos' in the United States. Nor do Christian arbitration and mediation services

Peacemaker Ministries is a non-profit, non-denominational ministry whose mission is to equip and assist Christians and their churches to respond to conflict biblically. We provide conflict coaching, mediation and arbitration services to help resolve lawsuits, family conflicts, business disputes, and church divisions. Our training services include seminars, conflict coaching training, mediation training, advanced mediation and arbitration training for conciliators and church leaders working within their churches, as well as training for individuals conducting more formal and complex proceedings.


Similar mediation centers provide such services to Jews:
The dayanim who sit on cases include leading authorities on Jewish law, as well as lawyers and businessmen who are familiar with secular law and contemporary commercial practices. When appropriate, the Beth Din will either include expert professionals on an arbitration panel, or consult them as expert witnesses. Cases are decided under Jewish law, through the prism of contemporary commercial practice and secular law.

Prior to having a case heard by the Beth Din, litigants are required to enter into a binding arbitration agreement. The Beth Din conducts its proceedings in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of secular arbitration law, so that the rulings of the Beth Din are legally binding and enforceable in the secular court system.


So what is so threatening about non-binding arbitration and mediation services?

Perfect example. In both cases, the mediation is done WITH CONSIDERATION of Civil law. As it says for the Beth Din --- ''through the prism of contemporary commercial practice and SECULAR law".. I also want some assurance that PARTICIPATION is not coerced in any way.

Get the Sharia counsels to include THAT kind of language and we can all let this go and focus on Trump/Hilliary.

Great post.. .

 

[Syriusly]

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

If you look at the history of ghettos they are not created by ethnic culture. You cant force people to take on your beliefs and abandon their culture. Thats a personal choice.

Discussion here is about isolation in terms of liberty, justice and law. The cultures practicing Islam come from places where ALL of that is rolled into the culture. The power and authority of those cultures stem from religious law. CONTINUING that practice in a Western culture is gonna lead to huge conflicts with actual Civil law and liberties.

The discussion here is about what American Muslims want.

Some want mediation services like those used by Jews and Catholics and Christians.

Most don't.

As long as those practices do not violate U.S. law, then Americans are free- and should be free to practice their religion as they see fit. And that includes working within their religion to resolve disputes.

Polling and Analysis

April 8, 2013
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. 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.1 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.

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.”

 

[Coyote]

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

Nah....I'm not buying it.

1. They were NON BINDING mediation - something many groups religious and secular do for their constituency.

2. From the article: Catholic dioceses and Jewish synagogues have run similar tribunals for centuries. But the Muslim version is portrayed on websites as the country’s first “Shariah court.”

They were uniquely singled out and when that happens, you have to honestly ask why? If family and financial mediation services create "ghettos, isolation and other cultural problems" then where the heck are all the Catholic and Jewish ghettos? (and .... what ghetto will I end up in for paying for debt counseling? )

THere is virtually NO catholic or jewish religious law "councils" in America that are solving issues in conflict with CIVIL law and the liberties of Americans. Name a few for me. Name ONE that has ever attempted to enforce a "religious ruling:" in conflict with American law.

Has ANY Islamic "council" in solved issues in conflict with civil law and liberties or attempted to enforce a "religious ruling" in conflict with American law?

When you "rely" on religious mediation in a Shariah proceeding --- how are you even assured that BOTH PARTIES are willing participants? You OK with a religious council HAULING IN mediation participants against their will? THESE are the types of issues that need to be looked at. .

You can't be assured of that in ANY religious arbitration if you come right down to it. They all claim to be voluntary. So...again...why are Islamic groups being uniquely singled out here?

So if that Mayor in Texas could find a single female that was UNWILLINGLY hauled into a religious council -- would that upset you?

Sure. But then I would wonder if that Mayor bothered to check with the Catholic groups and the Jewish groups to find out if they were all 100% willing. What do you think the answer would be?

 

[Syriusly]

[You OK with a religious council HAULING IN mediation participants against their will? THESE are the types of issues that need to be looked at. .

No- I am not okay with any arbitration or mediation service hauling in anyone against their will.

That would be a criminal violation known as kidnapping- and should be punished accordingly- regardless of whether the 'council' is Catholic, Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

How often is that happening here in the United States? Give me some numbers.

 

[Syriusly]

It's a bit more than that though - Muslims immigrants in our country as well as Canada and I think Australia, are by and large employed, educated, and fully integrated. In many European countries Muslim immigrants suffer high rates of poverty and unemployment, tend to be "ghettoized" in insular communities. There are a lot of reasons for that from the immigrant's home culture (which means more than the religion) to the host country's own culture and inability or unwillingness to fully integrate foreigners. I think it's important to look at those regions - even if it's just towns or provinces where it's successful and learn from that.

I agree. But if you read that read that quote about Holland by the Muslim woman -- these permissive liberal EURO governments make the situation MUCH WORSE by turning a blind eye to the "ghettoized" enforcement of religious authority. That's the difference between a mayor in Texas that shuts that shit down and a Mayor in Germany that admonishes Western woman to dress appropriately in consideration of the Muslim community.

There IS a legitimate issue and gripes. It's NOT a religious war. And it does not require even KNOWING what these religious laws call for -- for most part.. It IS a separation of powers issue. Something that the LEFT SHOULD be on board with -- but they are blinded by the fact that the Right-Wingers call it a problem -- thus is must not exist.

Such is my life. Standing in the middle of 2 hot-headed mobs. Taking "FlaC" from both sides.

Disagree about that mayor in Texas. She shut nothing down. There was nothing FOR her to shut down - imo, that particular example is Islamophobia.
Irving City Council backs state bill Muslims say targets them

You realize flac....you're going to get hit by a tomato eventually

damn...it's 1am....

Nuh Uh.. Says right in that article that the Immans were offering to be mediators in family and financial law. This is a REGULATED practice. And even if the verdicts are non-binding wrt to Amer. Civil Law -- some leftist will come along and suggest that these mediations "be ratified" by a Civil Court ...

There is always the issue of ENFORCING any mediated solution. And if the Mosque goes too far in that area -- TRUE civil rights are bound to be violated. Especially if they "control" the bulk of the family...

When these "mediators" are "solving" all family and financial law problems for ANY community -- it's gonna CAUSE ghettos and isolation and other CULTURAL problems. We need to insist that any LARGE immigration be handled with the INTENTION to completely integrate them into society.. The USA does not need more ghettos.

Jewish courts and Catholic courts didn't lead to 'ghettos' in the United States. Nor do Christian arbitration and mediation services

Peacemaker Ministries is a non-profit, non-denominational ministry whose mission is to equip and assist Christians and their churches to respond to conflict biblically. We provide conflict coaching, mediation and arbitration services to help resolve lawsuits, family conflicts, business disputes, and church divisions. Our training services include seminars, conflict coaching training, mediation training, advanced mediation and arbitration training for conciliators and church leaders working within their churches, as well as training for individuals conducting more formal and complex proceedings.


Similar mediation centers provide such services to Jews:
The dayanim who sit on cases include leading authorities on Jewish law, as well as lawyers and businessmen who are familiar with secular law and contemporary commercial practices. When appropriate, the Beth Din will either include expert professionals on an arbitration panel, or consult them as expert witnesses. Cases are decided under Jewish law, through the prism of contemporary commercial practice and secular law.

Prior to having a case heard by the Beth Din, litigants are required to enter into a binding arbitration agreement. The Beth Din conducts its proceedings in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of secular arbitration law, so that the rulings of the Beth Din are legally binding and enforceable in the secular court system.


So what is so threatening about non-binding arbitration and mediation services?

Perfect example. In both cases, the mediation is done WITH CONSIDERATION of Civil law. As it says for the Beth Din --- ''through the prism of contemporary commercial practice and SECULAR law".. I also want some assurance that PARTICIPATION is not coerced in any way.

Get the Sharia counsels to include THAT kind of language and we can all let this go and focus on Trump/Hilliary.

Great post.. .

The truth is out there
Islamic Tribunal Confirmed in Texas

Conflicting problems within American Muslim society may range from personal and family matters such as marriage and divorce, as well as disputes among community members and those in positions of leadership. The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers. Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment.

It is with this issue that Muslims here in America are obligated to find a way to solve conflicts and disputes according to the principles of Islamic Law and its legal heritage of fairness and justice in a manner that is reasonable and cost effective. These proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law of the land; local, state and federal within the United States. Through effective mediation and arbitration, decisions can be made that are stipulated in the Shari'ah and adhering to the binding, ethical and legal code that exists within this country with the final approval of the relevant courts and judges.

The Islamic Tribunal seeks support and guidance from consultants and counselors to its attorneys to ensure that local, state and federal law are strictly conformed to and decisions that originate from the Tribunal are in accordance with said laws

IT’s decisions have to be fair, just and conforming to legal proceedings at the local, state and federal level and recognized as such by the courts. This may be incrementally developed by educating ourselves and also the legal professionals in the country, so understandably it may naturally take time to find its way to be commonly accepted…

 

[alpine]

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

If secular law overwrites the sharia law, I dont see any concerns at that point...

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts