USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
This is from August 10, 2016.
Muslims Demand Sharia Trial In Minnesota Court, Judge Has One Thing To Say
After two Muslims, a woman and her brother-in-law, had a dispute over a large sum of money, they decided to battle out their heated case in a Minnesota court. However, as soon as the Muslim man demanded that they are tried in accordance with Sharia law to respect their faith, the judge had just one thing to say.
Sudanese cab driver Nadir Ibrahim Ombabi, 57, was heading to Edina to pick up his fare when he was involved in a 7-car pileup on Interstate 494, according to the Star Tribune. Northstar Taxi employer Gamal Eshmawy described Ombabi as “a very, very good driver,” but regardless of his skill on the road, the accident was unavoidable. Ombabi was killed after the driver behind him struck his cab at a high speed.
Narriman Sirag Elsayed Khalil, also a Sudan native, was devastated by the sudden loss of her husband. However, she never expected that her grief would be met with a lawsuit from none other than her brother-in-law.
The Washington Post reports that Hosameldin Ibrahim Imbabi, Ombabi’s brother, was outraged that the wife would be receiving a settlement of $183,000 for a recent wrongful-death claim filed by the deceased’s estate. Instead, Imbabi believes that his late brother’s wife should only get 25 percent and he should receive 58.3 percent, which he claims will be distributed among his siblings with the remaining 16.7 percent going to his mother’s estate.
In his argument, he explained that he, not the wife, deserves a larger portion of the money because the Quran states that males are to receive “twice the share of the female” since the Islamic prophet Muhammad taught that women are worth half that of a man. Imbabi demanded that the court adheres to Quran 4:11, coinciding with Islam’s incredibly misogynistic requirement for divvying up inheritances and debts.
Fortunately, the judge immediately struck down Imbabi’s demand, citing that the U.S. operates under our Constitution and will not be ruled by a foreign law. “American courts apply American law, rather than one rule for Muslims, one rule for Christians, one rule for Jews, and so on,” the Washington Post reiterates.
American courts apply American law, including when an American law principle calls on American courts to enforce a foreign judgment, to apply foreign law or to follow terms in a contract or a will that deliberately track foreign or religious law. But there has to be an American law principle calling for such application of foreign law. And in this case, there was no such principle.
Minnesota law states that recovery after death is for the “exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse” or next of kin. Sadly, the U.S. is approaching a time when this law will have to be revised to specify which spouse since Muslims are religiously allowed up to four.
Of course, the U.S. is so tolerant and benevolent that our freedoms are often used against us. American law sometimes allows for the implementation of foreign legal applications, including religious rules. In special cases like contracts, U.S. courts may adhere to a foreign legislation. In this case, if Ombabi would’ve specified that he wants any of his provisions split in accordance with Sharia after his death, the court might have allowed it.
This is the fault in our system. We are so accommodating that we sometimes allow ideologies, practices, and even legalities that contradict or seek to undo our own. We encounter a catch 22 when we try to tolerate an intolerant culture, one that has the religious motivation to push until we have given everything we possibly can.
Imbabi, an immigrant to the freest nation on earth, felt comfortable enough to demand a Christian-majority country bow to his ideology’s law over our own Constitution. This proves two things — we are a progressive nation that strives to include all walks of life and beliefs and Muslims are not as persecuted as they claim to be.
Imagine if a religious minority did this in a Muslim-majority country. Imagine if they requested another law that contradicts Sharia. The results could be deadly not only for the protester but for his relatives and anyone who supports them as well.
We have come too far in escaping religious persecution enacted by a tyrannical government to trade it for an even more persecutory tyrannical government. We must oppose Sharia law not because we are intolerant but because if we do not, it will destroy all others.
Muslims Demand Sharia Trial In Minnesota Court, Judge Has One Thing To Say
After two Muslims, a woman and her brother-in-law, had a dispute over a large sum of money, they decided to battle out their heated case in a Minnesota court. However, as soon as the Muslim man demanded that they are tried in accordance with Sharia law to respect their faith, the judge had just one thing to say.
Sudanese cab driver Nadir Ibrahim Ombabi, 57, was heading to Edina to pick up his fare when he was involved in a 7-car pileup on Interstate 494, according to the Star Tribune. Northstar Taxi employer Gamal Eshmawy described Ombabi as “a very, very good driver,” but regardless of his skill on the road, the accident was unavoidable. Ombabi was killed after the driver behind him struck his cab at a high speed.
Narriman Sirag Elsayed Khalil, also a Sudan native, was devastated by the sudden loss of her husband. However, she never expected that her grief would be met with a lawsuit from none other than her brother-in-law.
The Washington Post reports that Hosameldin Ibrahim Imbabi, Ombabi’s brother, was outraged that the wife would be receiving a settlement of $183,000 for a recent wrongful-death claim filed by the deceased’s estate. Instead, Imbabi believes that his late brother’s wife should only get 25 percent and he should receive 58.3 percent, which he claims will be distributed among his siblings with the remaining 16.7 percent going to his mother’s estate.
In his argument, he explained that he, not the wife, deserves a larger portion of the money because the Quran states that males are to receive “twice the share of the female” since the Islamic prophet Muhammad taught that women are worth half that of a man. Imbabi demanded that the court adheres to Quran 4:11, coinciding with Islam’s incredibly misogynistic requirement for divvying up inheritances and debts.
Fortunately, the judge immediately struck down Imbabi’s demand, citing that the U.S. operates under our Constitution and will not be ruled by a foreign law. “American courts apply American law, rather than one rule for Muslims, one rule for Christians, one rule for Jews, and so on,” the Washington Post reiterates.
American courts apply American law, including when an American law principle calls on American courts to enforce a foreign judgment, to apply foreign law or to follow terms in a contract or a will that deliberately track foreign or religious law. But there has to be an American law principle calling for such application of foreign law. And in this case, there was no such principle.
Minnesota law states that recovery after death is for the “exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse” or next of kin. Sadly, the U.S. is approaching a time when this law will have to be revised to specify which spouse since Muslims are religiously allowed up to four.
Of course, the U.S. is so tolerant and benevolent that our freedoms are often used against us. American law sometimes allows for the implementation of foreign legal applications, including religious rules. In special cases like contracts, U.S. courts may adhere to a foreign legislation. In this case, if Ombabi would’ve specified that he wants any of his provisions split in accordance with Sharia after his death, the court might have allowed it.
This is the fault in our system. We are so accommodating that we sometimes allow ideologies, practices, and even legalities that contradict or seek to undo our own. We encounter a catch 22 when we try to tolerate an intolerant culture, one that has the religious motivation to push until we have given everything we possibly can.
Imbabi, an immigrant to the freest nation on earth, felt comfortable enough to demand a Christian-majority country bow to his ideology’s law over our own Constitution. This proves two things — we are a progressive nation that strives to include all walks of life and beliefs and Muslims are not as persecuted as they claim to be.
Imagine if a religious minority did this in a Muslim-majority country. Imagine if they requested another law that contradicts Sharia. The results could be deadly not only for the protester but for his relatives and anyone who supports them as well.
We have come too far in escaping religious persecution enacted by a tyrannical government to trade it for an even more persecutory tyrannical government. We must oppose Sharia law not because we are intolerant but because if we do not, it will destroy all others.
