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

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


  • Total voters
    27
Yes: Cypress 1 - 4.00%

NO: Beefy, bravo, Crashk, Damn Yankee, Damocles, Dixie, egordon0315, FAGGOT OF DEBATE, Good Luck, Ice Dancer, Jarod, Liberty, MOe, Norman Paperman, Rar Im a Dinosaur!, SmarterThanYou, Socrtease, Threedee, usaloyal2theend, USFREEDOM911, WinterBorn, Yurt, ZappasGuitar 23 - 92.00%

Who does it look like is "right" and who does it look like is "wrong" here? I think it's pretty fucking clear, without any reasonable dispute!



Allah Akbar!!!, you infidel mother effer!
 
Yes, they can. It does not matter whether you agree with the rules of evidence or not. If the parties to the dispute agree to be bound by the courts resolution of the dispute then they are forming a new contract and there is absolutely no reason why your bigoted religious biases should nullify their right to contract.
No, they cannot. You yourself admit a contract has to be enforceable under law. No one can enforce a contract in which one party agrees to forgo their civil rights. No one can enforce a contract which violates our civil laws - which include procedural law in settling civil disputes. No religion has the right to enforce their religious views on civil matters outside the particular church of that religion. Period. Your claims are absolutely wrong. Period. You are an idiot thinking otherwise. Period.

And calling the desire to follow our own Constitution and civil laws "bigoted religious bias" just shows how desperate you are getting in defending a position that is plain assed moronic. I have no desire for the Catholic Church to be allowed their separate court to decide civil disputes either. It has nothing to do with which religion is asking. (actually the Catholic church has more sense than to ask in the first place.) The answer is: religious doctrine has no place in our civil laws, no matter what the individuals agree to. Period.
 
No, they cannot. You yourself admit a contract has to be enforceable under law. No one can enforce a contract in which one party agrees to forgo their civil rights.

And you cannot "forgo your civil rights" by voluntarily giving up property or making a bad business deal. Your position is just ignorant nonsense and a collection of tortured non sequiturs.
 
Yes Cypress
1 4.00%

No Beefy, bravo, Crashk, Damn Yankee, Damocles, Dixie, egordon0315, FAGGOT OF DEBATE, Good Luck, Ice Dancer, Jarod, Liberty, MOe, Norman Paperman, Rar Im a Dinosaur!, SmarterThanYou, Socrtease, Threedee, usaloyal2theend, USFREEDOM911, WinterBorn, Yurt, ZappasGuitar
23 92.00%

My most grand "other" explanation RStringfield
1 4.00%

Who does it look like is "right" and who does it look like is "wrong" here? I think it's pretty fucking clear, without any reasonable dispute. The position you and Prissy are taking is contrary to what 92% of the rest of us think. And you want to lecture us about how we are wrong? ...Back away from the crack pipe slowly, Stringy!!

Yes, that proves it. Many of the people that said no, have indicated agreement with my position.
 
Sorry for the long post.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
>
> Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a
> complete, total, 100% system of life.
>
> Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military
> components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other
> components.
>
> Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to
> agitate for their religious privileges.
>
> When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree
> to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the
> other components tend to creep in as well.
>
> Here's how it works:
>
> As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given
> country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving
> minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
>
> United States -- Muslim 0.6%
> Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
> Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
> China -- Muslim 1.8%
> Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
> Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
>
> At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and
> disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among
> street gangs. This is happening in:
>
> Denmark -- Muslim 2%
> Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
> United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
> Spain -- Muslim 4%
> Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
>
> From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their
> percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the
> introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing
> food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on
> supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats
> for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
>
> France -- Muslim 8%
> Philippines -- 5%
> Sweden -- Muslim 5%
> Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
> The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
> Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
>
> At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to
> rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The
> ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
>
> When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase
> lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are
> already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results
> in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed
> cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly
> in Muslim sections in:
>
> Guyana -- Muslim 10%
> India -- Muslim 13.4%
> Israel -- Muslim 16%
> Kenya -- Muslim 10%
> Russia -- Muslim 15%
>
> After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia
> formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
> churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
>
> Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
>
> At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and
> ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
>
> Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
> Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
> Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
>
> From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all
> other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic
> cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax
> placed on infidels, such as in:
>
> Albania -- Muslim 70%
> Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
> Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
> Sudan -- Muslim 70%
>
> After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run
> ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the
> infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in
> some ways is on-going in:
>
> Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
> Egypt -- Muslim 90%
> Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
> Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
> Iran -- Muslim 98%
> Iraq -- Muslim 97%
> Jordan -- Muslim 92%
> Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
> Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
> Palestine -- Muslim 99%
> Syria -- Muslim 90%
> Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
> Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
> United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
>
> 100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of
> Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the
> Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
>
> Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
> Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
> Somalia -- Muslim 100%
> Yemen -- Muslim 100%
>
> Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most
> radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by
> killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
>
> 'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me
> against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against
> my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the
> world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
>
> It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100%
> Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in
> ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by
> Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are
> no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In
> such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The
> children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with
> an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of
> certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the
> national average would indicate.
>
> Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their
> birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus,
> Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the
> world's population by the end of this century.
>
> Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The
> wolves will be herding the sheep!
>
> Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this
> make you feel safer already?
>
> Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as
> Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
>
> DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who
> was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member
> of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
>
> NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a
> devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.
>
> Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?
> Doesn't this make you feel safer already??
>
> That should make the US homeland much safer, huh!!
>
> Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 9 years
> ago?
>
> Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood?
>
> Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to
> finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking
> out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This
> question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
> The following is his reply:
>
> Theologically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of
> Arabia
>
> Religiously no Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except
> Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
>
> Scripturally - no Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and
> the Quran.
>
> Geographically - no Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in
> prayer five times a day.
>
> Socially - no Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends
> with Christians or Jews.
>
> Politically - no Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders),
> who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great
> Satan.
>
> Domestically - no Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and
> scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
>
> Intellectually - no Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since
> it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
>
> Philosophically - no Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow
> freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.
> Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
>
> Spiritually - no Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the
> Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
> Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent
> names.
>
>
> Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
>
> Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.

- - -
> They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans.
> Call it what you wish, it's still the truth.

> You had better believe it.

>The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our
> future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
 
And you cannot "forgo your civil rights" by voluntarily giving up property or making a bad business deal. Your position is just ignorant nonsense and a collection of tortured non sequiturs.


Help! Someone help me! I'm a poor non-sequiter being held captive and tortured! I can't take it any more! Please make him stop!

SHUT UP AND GET BACK IN YOUR TORTURE CHAMBER!
...Sorry about that, now where were we?

Oh yes, Stringly's inane examples... Making bad deals or voluntarily giving up your property, are rights you civilly have. Changing the system of justice to conform to your religious edicts, is not a civil right.

Yes, that proves it. Many of the people that said no, have indicated agreement with my position.

No, it proves that you and Prissy are idiots, and not just garden variety idiots, but really special kind of idiots. Look at some of the names on the "No" list man! Zappa, Sochead, WATERHEAD! You and Prissy surpass all of them in stupidity here, it's a pretty stunning revelation. I can see Prissy being that stupid, but I always thought you had some level of neuron activity going on inside your cranium. ...I guess I was wrong! *gasp*
 
:blah:
Oh yes, Stringly's inane examples... Making bad deals or voluntarily giving up your property, are rights you civilly have. Changing the system of justice to conform to your religious edicts, is not a civil right.

It's not a change to the system of justice. Two people are voluntarily agreeing to settle their non criminal disputes. If they do not wish to settle it that way they are not forced to do so. They can go through US courts or settle without any court or arbiter at all.

Look at some of the names on the "No" list man! Zappa, Sochead, WATERHEAD! You and Prissy surpass all of them in stupidity here, it's a pretty stunning revelation. I can see Prissy being that stupid, but I always thought you had some level of neuron activity going on inside your cranium. ...I guess I was wrong! *gasp*

Again, dummy, go back and look through the thread. Many of them have agreed with my comments.

You are pretending the position is more radical than it is. These courts would be rarely used. Mostly for business deals. They would probably almost never be used for divorce.

Why would a woman submit to that? I can imagine a small number will due to a strict fundamentalist faith.

There are other small groups of American women who voluntarily accept a subservient role due to faith. Faith makes people do stupid shit. It is not the business of the government to interfere with that.

There is some possibility of coercion but no more than exist in other nutball religions. That can be countered through appeals.
 
Last edited:
It's not a change to the system of justice. Two people are voluntarily agreeing to settle their non criminal disputes. If they do not wish to settle it that way they are not forced to do so. They can go through US courts or settle without any court or arbiter at all.



Again, dummy, go back and look through the thread. Many of them have agreed with my comments.

You are pretending the position is more radical than it is. These courts would be rarely used. Mostly for business deals. They would probably almost never be used for divorce.

Why would a woman submit to that? I can imagine a small number will due to a strict fundamentalist faith.

There are other small groups of American women who voluntarily accept a subservient role due to faith. Faith makes me do stupid shit. It is not the business of the government to interfere with that.

There is some possibility of coercion but no more than exist in other nutball religions. That can be countered through appeals.
religious laws are not relevant to our legal system in any way. It will remain that way.
 
Back
Top