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
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.

The only one with drool on his lip is you dork.

WE ALREADY have binding laws in this country that are fair and equitable. We do not allow churches or other organized groups to impose contrary proceedings that are legally binding to the laws we ALREADY have!

I am a US citizen who is bound by and under submission of the laws of this land. Again you empty headed doof, we are not talking about religious doctrins that carry no actual "legal" status, but of introducing a contrary set of religious laws into our judicial system that we would recognize as legally binding.

That is not all that is being advanced! What is being advanced is an agreement to allow them to impose mysoginist legal decisions!
 
The only one with drool on his lip is you dork.

WE ALREADY have binding laws in this country that are fair and equitable. We do not allow churches or other organized groups to impose contrary proceedings that are legally binding to the laws we ALREADY have!

Again, you are wrong.

I am a US citizen who is bound by and under submission of the laws of this land.

You are bound by the criminal laws of the US. You can settle your civil disputes, how ever you want.

Again you empty headed doof, we are not talking about religious doctrins that carry no actual "legal" status, but of introducing a contrary set of religious laws into our judicial system that we would recognize as legally binding.

That is not all that is being advanced! What is being advanced is an agreement to allow them to impose misogynist legal decisions!

We are talking contracts and civil disputes here. If you agree to follow the laws of a church as part of a contract then you are bound by them. For instance, the church can fire a Priest that fails to administer rites as prescribed by the religion.

It is all voluntary and one is free to adhere to it or not.
 
You guys are stupid. That's all there is to it. You are arguing that someone cannot solve their non-criminal disputes with others outside of government courts. That is not the case in our nation and should never be the case just because a bunch of bigoted fools don't understand the legal system under which they live.
 
Again, you are wrong.

You are bound by the criminal laws of the US. You can settle your civil disputes, how ever you want.

We are talking contracts and civil disputes here. If you agree to follow the laws of a church as part of a contract then you are bound by them. For instance, the church can fire a Priest that fails to administer rites as prescribed by the religion.

It is all voluntary and one is free to adhere to it or not.

I am not wrong...you always have drool on your lip.

I am bound to civil courts to legally settle disputes. I cannot take the law into my own hands...fucking dork!

I am not "free to adhere to it". If I am found liable in a civil proceeding I don't just get to ignore it.
 
I am not wrong...you always have drool on your lip.

I am bound to civil courts to legally settle disputes. I cannot take the law into my own hands...fucking dork!

You are wrong. You are not bound to government courts to settle disputes.

I am not "free to adhere to it". If I am found liable in a civil proceeding I don't just get to ignore it

Straw man. No one said you were free to ignore the ruling of a civil court operated by the government.
 
Devastating New Report on Sharia Law in Britain
By Guest * Published: June 17, 2010
This is a cross-post from One Law For All


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new report by One Law for All has found Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals to be in violation of UK law, public policy and human rights (see report here).

The report is being launched to coincide with a 20 June 2010 rally on the issue of Sharia law.

Based on an 8 March 2010 Seminar on Sharia Law, research, interviews, and One Law for All case files, the report has identified a number of problem areas:

Sharia law’s civil code is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. With the rise in the acceptance of Sharia courts, discrimination is being further institutionalised with some UK law firms additionally offering clients advice on Sharia law and the use of collaborative law.

Sharia law is practiced in Britain primarily by Sharia Councils and Muslims Arbitration Tribunals. Both operate on religious principles and are harmful to women although Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are wrongly regarded as being of more concern because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act 1996, making their rulings binding in law.

Sharia Councils, on the other hand, claim to mediate on family issues but in practice often this differs little from arbitration: they frequently ask those appearing before them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions; they call themselves courts, and the presiding imams, judges. Their decisions are then imposed and regarded as having the weight of legal judgements.
There is neither control over the appointment of “judges” in Sharia Councils or Tribunals nor an independent mechanism for monitoring them. Clients often do not have access to legal advice and representation. The proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements, nor any real right of appeal.

Sharia law cannot be compared to secular legal systems because it is considered sacred law that cannot be challenged. There is no scope to look at the interests of the individuals involved, as required by UK family law.
These legal processes ignore both common law and due process, far less Human Rights, and provide little protection and safety for women in violent situations.

There is a general assumption that those who attend Sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged in a British court. Many of the principles of Sharia law are contrary to British law and public policy, and would in theory therefore be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, however, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions, and may lack knowledge of English and their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia court can give rise to threats and intimidation, or at best being ostracised.

According to Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the One Law for All Campaign and an author of the report, “The existence of a parallel legal system that is denying a large section of the British population their fundamental human rights is scandalous. Our findings show that it is essential to abolish all religious courts in the UK. Their very existence and legitimisation puts pressure on vulnerable women not to assert their civil rights in a British court. As long as Sharia Councils and Tribunals are allowed to continue to make rulings on issues of family law, women will be pressured into accepting decisions which are prejudicial to them and their children.”

The report recommends that Sharia courts be closed on the grounds that they work against rather than for equality, and are incompatible with human rights. Recommendations include:

1.initiating a Human Rights challenge to Muslim Arbitration Tribunals and/or Sharia Councils

2.amending the Arbitration Act under which the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals operate in a similar way to which the Canadian equivalent of the Arbitration Act was amended in 2005 to exclude religious arbitration

3.launching a major and nationwide helpline and information campaign to inform people of their rights under British law

4.proposing legislation under the EU Citizens Rights Initiative to address the issue EU-wide, and

5.strengthening secularism and the separation of religion from the state, the judicial system and education, in order to more fully protect citizenship rights.

The full report can be downloaded here.
 
You are wrong. You are not bound to government courts to settle disputes.

Straw man. No one said you were free to ignore the ruling of a civil court operated by the government.

OK you hair splitting dweeb!

I AM bound to any civil proceeding. I do not have to iniate one...

The point (not the one on top of your head) is that we ALREADY have laws and rules to civil proceedings that are fair and equitable.
 
OK you hair splitting dweeb!

I AM bound to any civil proceeding. I do not have to iniate one...

The point (not the one on top of your head) is that we ALREADY have laws and rules to civil proceedings that are fair and equitable.

And the point that you continue to ignore, is you do not have to settle your civil disputes under a government court.
 
Again, what is ironic is Republicans were just supporting a process that silenced a woman from seeking relief after being raped and locked up by military contractor because she signed an arbitration agreement.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=21957

The objection was: "Instead of protecting women, the poorly drafted Franken amendment would have had the broad effect nullifying current contracts. This would mean thousands of American employees would not be paid for duties they performed..."

You are such an intellectually dishonest hack~~~
 
Again, what is ironic is Republicans were just supporting a process that silenced a woman from seeking relief after being raped and locked up by military contractor because she signed an arbitration agreement.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=21957

I just want to point out that I support making sure that people that "agree" to arbitration actually agree to arbitration. That is, I would probably support Feingold's bill that would prohibit pre-dispute arbitration agreements where one party is at a severe bargaining disadvantage from being enforced.

A similar principle should probably apply in marriages. That is, even if a woman agrees to be bound by a religious court prior to marriage, she probably should not be bound by that unless she chooses to at the time of divorce. At that point it is her choice and these religious bigots are doing nothing but using it as cover. Do you object to pre-nups?
 
The objection was: "Instead of protecting women, the poorly drafted Franken amendment would have had the broad effect nullifying current contracts. This would mean thousands of American employees would not be paid for duties they performed..."

You are such an intellectually dishonest hack~~~

Bull-fucking-shit! Franken's amendment passed and did not lead to that. Republicans have consistently supported arbitration. They should. But it appears they only do so if it disadvantages employees and/or consumers.
 
They already have the same right. They can take a matter up in our civil courts or not. What they cannot do is to have their own legally binding set of civil laws that contradict the laws we have.

You are just running in circles. You say one thing and then immediately contradict it.

Again, you are not forced to settle your disputes through a government court. You can settle them based on whatever you like and the settlement may be legally binding.
 
Last edited:
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.
LOL So now I don't know the Constitution or the English language. Why do you hate women so much Dick?
 
Bull-fucking-shit! Franken's amendment passed and did not lead to that. Republicans have consistently supported arbitration. They should. But it appears they only do so if it disadvantages employees and/or consumers.

Franken's amendment passed and it has yet to be seen what will come of it!

Arbitration of family law is matter for OUR courts!
 
You are just running in circles. You say one thing and then immediately contradict it.

Again, you are not forced to settle your disputes through a government court. You can settle them based on whatever you like and the settlement may be legally binding.

The only one running in circles is you. We already have civil laws that are equitable. We do not need to introduce unjust, and therefore unconstitutional, religious laws into the mix where families and individuals can be prejudiced against.

The Uk have already experienced the unjust and contrariness sharia' civil law and why in the fuck would we want to follow suit???

Oh yeah 'cause a dunder-headed idjit thinks it makes sense to~~~zzzzzzzzz
 
Back
Top