Should muslims be allowed a sharia legal court system in the US?

[Timshel]

Dick, the moron here is you. Dick.

Right, like you know anything about libertarian views on syndicalist. You guys don't even understand the laws/principles you have lived under your entire life. You are a barely literate, brain damaged old fool.

 

[WinterBorn]

WTF are you talking about? A woman's agreement to be a part of a certain mosque is not agreement? Her church would reject her if she fails to follow their code and that is something the state should stop them from doing? Should we demand that Christians treat women as equals? How about homosexuals? And what do you think your link demonstrates?

This whole thing demonstrates just how ignorant social conservatives are concerning the principles of religious freedom.

RS, the difference is whether or not we allow people to violate criminal laws because of their religious laws.

Do you think we should?

 

[Timshel]

Arbitration, if agreed to by both parties, is fine for settling minor disagreements.

But when the punishment is mutilation or death, the issue becomes much different.

No one is allowed to decide whether a person is mutilated, except that person (when of age). There is no allowance for cultural differences here.

And no individual is allowed to murder someone, regardless of their religious beliefs. The gov't use of capital punishment aside, the intentional taking of human life (with the exception of self-defense) is absolutely against the law and should remain so.

Not only no, but hell no.

Of course not. No one is advocating that they be able to violate our laws. They are allowed to live by their own customs, so long as they do not initiate force against others. That is all.

For instance, the Catholics are free to say those married outside the church or in a manner that violates church LAW are not married. They are free to believe whatever they like about those that marry outside the church. They are not free to force anyone to abide by their laws. Muslims would not be either.

 

[Good Luck]

This is all in error. What law are they supposed to follow? There is not one uniform collection of civil laws. Many times contracts cross jurisdictions. The right to contract includes the right to choose how disputes under the contract will be settled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_in_the_United_States_of_America#Criticism

And once again, the arbitrator CANNOT violate the law in arbitrating the dispute. When disputes cross jurisdictions then superior law applies to sort out any discrepancies between the two jurisdictions. Civil codes do not exist in vacuum. You take a dispute to court, the court will apply the LAW to the case. If you think otherwise you are totally ignorant of how civil law works. Muslims can choose religious officials to resolve their disputes if they want, but unless the dispute is entirely within Islam, the arbitrator must use U.S. law, not Sharia law, to settle the matter. Thus the question should we allow SHARIA courts system cannot be allowed because Sharia law conflicts with U.S. civil codes in many areas, including rights of women, rights of assembly, etc. etc. etc.

Name one.

Article III section 2, 1st, and 14th amendments to start with.

What's ironic is that Republicans are generally very supportive of arbitration especially when it leaves employees and consumers at a disadvantage.

LOL And what does your perception of republican views of arbitration have to do with anything, beside indicating you are out of anything remotely resembling a valid argument?

 

[Timshel]

RS, the difference is whether or not we allow people to violate criminal laws because of their religious laws.

Do you think we should?

I clearly stated and repeated that they would not be permitted to do any such thing. They should be treated just like all other religions.

 

[Canceled2]

WTF are you talking about? A woman's agreement to be a part of a certain mosque is not agreement? Her church would reject her if she fails to follow their code and that is something the state should stop them from doing? Should we demand that Christians treat women as equals? How about homosexuals? And what do you think your link demonstrates?

This whole thing demonstrates just how ignorant social conservatives are concerning the principles of religious freedom.

You don't know WTF YOU are talking about. "Their code"? Under the laws of the US all people should be treated as equals. There is no imposition to anyones religious "codes" as all are subject to the laws of the land. To introduce shariah' civil law into any social justice system is fucking retarded and begs for injustices...as the link I provided shows.

Family law under shariah' law is especially egregious towards women. In the US no church can legally grant custody, alimony, child support, or legal divorce. If shariah' law were allowed to have authority in the US women would be unfairly represented within their faith communities. NEVER should that be allowed!

You speak of this as if no harm no foul because it is their decision to submit to this. What your dick-headed idiocy can't seem to wrap its overly stoned brain around isthe fact that women in the muslim faith community are trained from the time they are born that they are less then equal to men...we, the US, should not be supporting that in any way shape or form! WE ALREADY have laws!

 

[Timshel]

The problem is that Christians have so often implemented their fucking absurd religious laws in the US that they don't understand that no one desires that they accept the laws of others. They think that any change in our SECULAR laws amounts to imposing those laws on the religious. It is not.

For instance, Muslims, Christians and Jews are all free to be a bunch of fucking hat filled morons and reject homosexuals. They are not free to punish homosexuals for failure to comply with their religious laws.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

the thread title is a question you moron. hence not a lie.

it is about sharia law because that is what is being asked to be accepted. there is also jewish orthodox arbitration in NY, which i don't wholly support. the problem is simple, if this is just a contract issue, i don't care, you can have a goat preside over the outcome. but....it is the family law issue, an undue influence issue arises and the issue of legal recognition by our judicial system that i have a problem with.

family law and undue influence go hand in hand imo....when you have a tight knit religious community, what if your decision to not engage in the local religious so called "legal" system causes you to be ostracized? that exists and that is a reality and that is why i don't think there can really be two "consenting" people.

i do find it funny how you're now protecting sharia law, when you rant on about christians.....if this was about mormons wanting their own court, you would break your keyboard in anger over such a move....

I do not think that Muslims should get their own court. I think that anyone in the US should be able to use an arbitrator that will judge things according to a specific system if the other party also agrees.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You don't know WTF YOU are talking about. "Their code"? Under the laws of the US all people should be treated as equals. There is no imposition to anyones religious "codes" as all are subject to the laws of the land. To introduce shariah' civil law into any social justice system is fucking retarded and begs for injustices...as the link I provided shows.

Family law under shariah' law is especially egregious towards women. In the US no church can legally grant custody, alimony, child support, or legal divorce. If shariah' law were allowed to have authority in the US women would be unfairly represented within their faith communities. NEVER should that be allowed!

You speak of this as if no harm no foul because it is their decision to submit to this. What your dick-headed idiocy can't seem to wrap its overly stoned brain around isthe fact that women in the muslim faith community are trained from the time they are born that they are less then equal to men...we, the US, should not be supporting that in any way shape or form! WE ALREADY have laws!

If I want to hire an arbitrator who I know will treat me less equally than someone else, that is my business, not yours.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The problem is that Christians have so often implemented their fucking absurd religious laws in the US that they don't understand that no one desires that they accept the laws of others. They think that any change in our SECULAR laws amounts to imposing those laws on the religious. It is not.

For instance, Muslims, Christians and Jews are all free to be a bunch of fucking hat filled morons and reject homosexuals. They are not free to punish homosexuals for failure to comply with their religious laws.

wtf? where did this rant come from?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I do not think that Muslims should get their own court. I think that anyone in the US should be able to use an arbitrator that will judge things according to a specific system if the other party also agrees.

i stand by comments regarding undue influence in family law matters

 

[Canceled2]

If I want to hire an arbitrator who I know will treat me less equally than someone else, that is my business, not yours.

Yes, it is my business. Right now we, the US, don't recognize any such injustice and it is my business as a citizen to make sure we do not.

This is not equal to excommunication for failure to submit to church polity. These are legally binding decisions that impose an unfair bias against women.

 

[Good Luck]

Of course not. No one is advocating that they be able to violate our laws. They are allowed to live by their own customs, so long as they do not initiate force against others. That is all.

For instance, the Catholics are free to say those married outside the church or in a manner that violates church LAW are not married. They are free to believe whatever they like about those that marry outside the church. They are not free to force anyone to abide by their laws. Muslims would not be either.

Your examples are without merit. The Catholic church's views on marriage within the church has zero legal standing, nor do they claim it has legal standing. The Church does not even claim a couple not married in the church are "not married". If the couple is legally married, they are accepted as legally married by the Church. The only thing the Church says about legal marriage outside the Church is the couple cannot receive any sacraments unless their marriage is also blessed by the Church. Likewise, a couple who divorces cannot receive sacraments until/unless the Church annuls the marriage. But this is in no way even remotely related to arbitrating civil disputes according to Church doctrine. The ability to receive the sacraments is purely religious question purely within the Church and has NOTHING to do with civil disputes of any kind, nor does the Church presume in any way to have that authority.

You say Muslims would not be allowed to violate U.S. law, but how then could they possibly apply Sharia law to civil disputes? We are not talking internal religious matters here, we're talking about them applying their religious to CIVIL cases which involve OUR civil laws. It's a huge difference, and that is where the resounding "HELL NO!" comes from.

 

[Timshel]

You don't know WTF YOU are talking about. "Their code"? Under the laws of the US all people should be treated as equals. There is no imposition to anyones religious "codes" as all are subject to the laws of the land. To introduce shariah' civil law into any social justice system is fucking retarded and begs for injustices...as the link I provided shows.

Family law under shariah' law is especially egregious towards women. In the US no church can legally grant custody, alimony, child support, or legal divorce. If shariah' law were allowed to have authority in the US women would be unfairly represented within their faith communities. NEVER should that be allowed!

So women should not be allowed to practice religions with misogynistic views? That amounts to saying women should not be free to practice religion.

The point was that they were free to settle disputes as they choose so long as all parties to the dispute consent. Children are not able to consent. So the state would still have some say in any custody matter, but there is no reason not to follow the FREELY chosen wishes and customs of the parent so long as the child is not endangered.

You speak of this as if no harm no foul because it is their decision to submit to this. What your dick-headed idiocy can't seem to wrap its overly stoned brain around isthe fact that women in the muslim faith community are trained from the time they are born that they are less then equal to men...we, the US, should not be supporting that in any way shape or form! WE ALREADY have laws!

Are you completely ignorant of the anti-liberal tendencies of this nations dominant religion and its subjugation of women and other minorities?

You are talking as if this is something new and strange when it is old hat. We have plenty of weird fundamentalist in this nation already.

 

[Timshel]

Your examples are without merit. The Catholic church's views on marriage within the church has zero legal standing, nor do they claim it has legal standing. The Church does not even claim a couple not married in the church are "not married". If the couple is legally married, they are accepted as married by the Church. The only thing the Church says about legal marriage outside the Church is the couple cannot receive any sacraments unless their marriage is also blessed by the Church. Likewise, a couple who divorces cannot receive sacraments until/unless the Church annuls the marriage. But this is in no way even remotely related to arbitrating civil disputes according to Church doctrine. The ability to receive the sacraments is purely religious question purely within the Church and has NOTHING to do with civil disputes of any kind, nor does the Church presume in any way to have that authority.

You say Muslims would not be allowed to violate U.S. law, but how then could they possibly apply Sharia law to civil disputes? We are not talking internal religious matters here, we're talking about them applying their religious to CIVIL cases which involve OUR civil laws. It's a huge difference, and that is where the resounding "HELL NO!" comes from.

It's not a huge difference. You are arguing a straw man.

 

[Canceled2]

So women should not be allowed to practice religions with misogynistic views? That amounts to saying women should not be free to practice religion.

The point was that they were free to settle disputes as they choose so long as all parties to the dispute consent. Children are not able to consent. So the state would still have some say in any custody matter, but there is no reason not to follow the FREELY chosen wishes and customs of the parent so long as the child is not endangered.

Are you completely ignorant of the anti-liberal tendencies of this nations dominant religion and its subjugation of women and other minorities?

You are talking as if this is something new and strange when it is old hat. We have plenty of weird fundamentalist in this nation already.

Are you always so stiff necked stupid? The question posed is not "should misogynistic views be allowed"? It is should shariah' civil law be allowed. Obviously since we allow muslim's to practice their faith we already allow misogynistic views!

Now you are rewriting shariah' law to make it palatable to you??? You are such a fucking shill!

We do not have a seperate set of civil laws for any fucking religion or any fucking fundementalist in this country dork! Church polity is not "legally" binding to any court in our land! That would not be the case with shariah' law!

 

[Good Luck]

It's not a huge difference. You are arguing a straw man.

LOL Come back when you know what the fuck a strawman argument is.

Yes, it is a huge difference. Civil laws and religious doctrine are two entirely different things. You cannot use the latter to arbitrate the former. If Muslims want to allow their religious leaders to arbitrate a dispute, that is their choice. But the religious leaders can NOT apply Sharia law to civil disputes.

 

[Timshel]

If a woman consents to the ruling of a sharia court in settling matters concerning communal property then how is that different than if he she had agreed without the court. That is, she does not need a court or even faith to agree to a less than equitable dissolution of communal property. You guys are arguing over something that can and does happen now because it comes from a religion that you wish to discriminate against.

 

[Timshel]

Are you always so stiff necked stupid? The question posed is not "should misogynistic views be allowed"? It is should shariah' civil law be allowed. Obviously since we allow muslim's to practice their faith we already allow misogynistic views!

Now you are rewriting shariah' law to make it palatable to you??? You are such a fucking shill!

We do not have a seperate set of civil laws for any fucking religion or any fucking fundementalist in this country dork! Church polity is not "legally" binding to any court in our land! That would not be the case with shariah' law!

You are such a fucking imbecile.

It is binding. If a woman agrees that she should not get squat from the dissolution of a marriage then the state is most fucking definitely obligated to accept the settlement. You are just a fucking moron that is being blinded by your religious and cultural bigotry from the matters of fact involved.

All that is being advocated is that they be allowed to practice their misogynistic views. The women cannot be forced into it anymore than they should be forced to practice the misogynistic views of Christianity.

 

[Timshel]

LOL Come back when you know what the fuck a strawman argument is.

I know what it is. You are arguing against an argument you created.

Yes, it is a huge difference. Civil laws and religious doctrine are two entirely different things. You cannot use the latter to arbitrate the former.

Yes you can. I don't know where you are getting your incorrect information. But parties to a contract are allowed to settle disputes based on whatever thing they want. That includes two people in a marriage contract.

You can't force someone to accept religious rulings (funny the Christian extremists think they should be allowed to do just that).

If Muslims want to allow their religious leaders to arbitrate a dispute, that is their choice. But the religious leaders can NOT apply Sharia law to civil disputes.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? You say they can use their religious leaders to arbitrate a dispute and then say they cannot. Which is it?

Apparently, you do not know what a civil dispute is. It is a disagreement between parties that does not involve a crime.