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
Moronic Faggot said:
The civil system is different than the criminal system. The civil system is between individuals, not between the individual and society, and may be arbitrated by the government in the form of a civil suit, but may also be arbitrated by another person if both parties consent. The government has no right to intrude in this.

The "judges" you see on many of those shitty TV programs aren't actual judges, they're arbitrators. They do not deal with actual crimes, they deal with disputes between private individuals. If both parties consent it would be fascist to do anything else but allow them to be arbitrated by whoever the fuck they want to be arbitrated by. It's none of your fucking business, you nanny-stating islamophobic fuckwad.
Click to expand...
Civil codes are still based on legislated law, dipstick. From contract law to family law, there is a legislated law behind the civil code. In arbitration, the arbitrator still has to follow the law. They cannot arbitrarily ignore the law when handing down a decision, no matter what the parties agree to.

Should we allow Sharia law to be held superior to our own laws? That would break the Constitution in a half dozen places.

Grow a fucking brain, dickwad.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
Civil codes are still based on legislated law, dipstick. From contract law to family law, there is a legislated law behind the civil code. In arbitration, the arbitrator still has to follow the law. They cannot arbitrarily ignore the law when handing down a decision, no matter what the parties agree to.
Click to expand...

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

Should we allow Sharia law to be held superior to our own laws? That would break the Constitution in a half dozen places.
Click to expand...

Name one.

What's ironic is that Republicans are generally very supportive of arbitration especially when it leaves employees and consumers at a disadvantage.
 
Ice Dancer said:
We are talking about civil laws that recognize a woman's testimony as having only half the weight of the man. We are talking about custody issues where a woman will never be found to be fit to have custody should she wish a divorce...hell she may never even be allowed to divorce. SO NO, not insane, but rational...dork!
Click to expand...

Then you are talking about a hyperbolic straw man. Why would a woman that cannot get a divorce under sharia law agree to a divorce proceeding under sharia law?
 
AssHatZombie said:
I thought concerns about Sharia Law in the U.S. were an ignorant conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

You are a pea brained simpleton that does not understand what is being discussed. Any arbiter operates in a role subservient to the sovereign. You guys have claimed that sharia would become applicable to all. That would happen over my dead body.

What is being discussed here is what rules of conduct people wish to choose for themselves in guiding their lives or actions within a limited role.

Do you object to sports league's rules that allow them to fine players, managers, owners and others?

The Amish choose to live their lives free of many modern conveniences and in this country we tolerate them. That means we allow them to live as they choose not that we submit to their choice of lifestyle. If Muslims wish to live under sharia, they may do so as long as it involves no force on anyone else and does not violate US criminal laws.

And yurt is full of shit. Mormons, Jews, Catholics and any other crackpots are as free to live under their own "laws" (i.e., customs) as Muslims. The problem is that you morons DO NOT understand that that does not mean that the rest of us have to live under your religious laws just because you may be in the majority.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing to me that you people call yourselves American Patriots when you are so very ignorant of the common law and first amendment principles that make this country so great.
 
RStringfield said:
It's amazing to me that you people call yourselves American Patriots when you are so very ignorant of the common law and first amendment principles that make this country so great.
Click to expand...

Douchebag, it's stupid to tolerate intolerance. That's a good way to guarantee the eradication of tolerance over time. But that's what you Olam Ha Ba fascists want, ain't it?
 
RStringfield said:
You are a pea brained simpleton that does not understand what is being discussed. Any arbiter operates in a role subservient to the sovereign. You guys have claimed that sharia would become applicable to all. That would happen over my dead body.

What is being discussed here is what rules of conduct people wish to choose for themselves in guiding their lives or actions within a limited role.

Do you object to sports league's rules that allow them to fine players, managers, owners and others?

The Amish choose to live their lives free of many modern conveniences and in this country we tolerate them. That means we allow them to live as they choose not that we submit to their choice of lifestyle. If Muslims wish to live under sharia, they may do so as long as it involves no force on anyone else and does not violate US criminal laws.

And yurt is full of shit. Mormons, Jews, Catholics and any other crackpots are as free to live under their own "laws" (i.e., customs) as Muslims. The problem is that you morons DO NOT understand that that does not mean that the rest of us have to live under your religious laws just because you may be in the majority.
Click to expand...

We're all free to live under our own laws?

That's not how this naiton is. You must be thinking of some theocratic area in the middle east.
 
It really does seem like libertarians believe in the stupidest fucking shit around. They're the most masonic internationalist fascist, pretending government has no role in trade policy, well, except to enforce what corporations want. And now they think our legal system is a playdoh fun factory or some shit. Really anarchosyndicalist elitist miscreants they are.
 
It's so predictable that this is stringfield's position. Everything for the jihadists.

This is just proves all the abrahamic faiths are colluding to help implement the internationalist fascist new world order.

Read and understand Sabbateanism, the religion around transforming all the abrahamic faiths into one theocratic body.
 
RStringfield said:
Then you are talking about a hyperbolic straw man. Why would a woman that cannot get a divorce under sharia law agree to a divorce proceeding under sharia law?
Click to expand...

Because in the UK that is what the implimentation of shariah' law set forth.

Shariah' civil law dictates civil litigation. In family law it is stated that a woman's testimony is only weighted as half that of a man.

It is no straw man...it's what the civil codes of shariah' are. A woman would not need to agree if she is a muslim belonging to a particualr mosque dodo head...her belonging to said mosque would be her agreement. For a woman to refuse such submission would be social suicide....and possibly worse.

Sharia courts in England are unfair and discriminate against women. They should be banned ?
 
RStringfield said:
You are a pea brained simpleton that does not understand what is being discussed. Any arbiter operates in a role subservient to the sovereign. You guys have claimed that sharia would become applicable to all. That would happen over my dead body.

What is being discussed here is what rules of conduct people wish to choose for themselves in guiding their lives or actions within a limited role.

Do you object to sports league's rules that allow them to fine players, managers, owners and others?

The Amish choose to live their lives free of many modern conveniences and in this country we tolerate them. That means we allow them to live as they choose not that we submit to their choice of lifestyle. If Muslims wish to live under sharia, they may do so as long as it involves no force on anyone else and does not violate US criminal laws.

And yurt is full of shit. Mormons, Jews, Catholics and any other crackpots are as free to live under their own "laws" (i.e., customs) as Muslims. The problem is that you morons DO NOT understand that that does not mean that the rest of us have to live under your religious laws just because you may be in the majority.
Click to expand...

MY religious laws? im against theocracy.
 
FAGGOT OF DEBATE said:
The civil system is different than the criminal system. The civil system is between individuals, not between the individual and society, and may be arbitrated by the government in the form of a civil suit, but may also be arbitrated by another person if both parties consent. The government has no right to intrude in this.

The "judges" you see on many of those shitty TV programs aren't actual judges, they're arbitrators. They do not deal with actual crimes, they deal with disputes between private individuals. If both parties consent it would be fascist to do anything else but allow them to be arbitrated by whoever the fuck they want to be arbitrated by. It's none of your fucking business, you nanny-stating islamophobic fuckwad.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AssHatZombie said:
We're all free to live under our own laws?

That's not how this naiton is. You must be thinking of some theocratic area in the middle east.
Click to expand...

There is no point in even discussing the issue with you because you are fucking a complete babbling moron that does not understand what laws are or the basis and history of ours.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It really does seem like libertarians believe in the stupidest fucking shit around. They're the most masonic internationalist fascist, pretending government has no role in trade policy, well, except to enforce what corporations want. And now they think our legal system is a playdoh fun factory or some shit. Really anarchosyndicalist elitist miscreants they are.
Click to expand...

Certainly anarcho-syndicalists would be permitted under libertarian principles. If that is news then you are clearly a fucking moron.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Because in the UK that is what the implimentation of shariah' law set forth.

Shariah' civil law dictates civil litigation. In family law it is stated that a woman's testimony is only weighted as half that of a man.

It is no straw man...it's what the civil codes of shariah' are. A woman would not need to agree if she is a muslim belonging to a particualr mosque dodo head...her belonging to said mosque would be her agreement. For a woman to refuse such submission would be social suicide....and possibly worse.

Sharia courts in England are unfair and discriminate against women. They should be banned ?
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top