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
C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this idea was proposed at another site and appears to be gaining some traction. though i believe this idea to be far left wackoism....i thought i would poll the idea here because we have a decent spread...far left and far right and those in between.....

the idea is....such a system would free up our overburdened legal system here in the US....and it would only be arbitration type justice, so, if you want, you can appeal that decision to a US court...the proposition was for civil, including family law issues.
 
Yurt said:
this idea was proposed at another site and appears to be gaining some traction. though i believe this idea to be far left wackoism....i thought i would poll the idea here because we have a decent spread...far left and far right and those in between.....

the idea is....such a system would free up our overburdened legal system here in the US....and it would only be arbitration type justice, so, if you want, you can appeal that decision to a US court...the proposition was for civil, including family law issues.
Click to expand...

a little outside the constitution, what

ARE YOU NUTS
 
They could go to an arbiter that decides matters based on sharia if both parties agree to it. But otherwise, no.
 
Yurt said:
this idea was proposed at another site and appears to be gaining some traction. though i believe this idea to be far left wackoism....i thought i would poll the idea here because we have a decent spread...far left and far right and those in between.....

the idea is....such a system would free up our overburdened legal system here in the US....and it would only be arbitration type justice, so, if you want, you can appeal that decision to a US court...the proposition was for civil, including family law issues.
Click to expand...

Depends. Would it be on a par with the Jewish system of Beth din?

A beth din is required or preferred for the following matters:

* Validation of religious bills of divorce (get, pl. gittin).
* Kosher certification of restaurants and food manufacturers (Hechsher).
* Examination of shochetim and the control of the shechita inspectors
* Conversions to Judaism with at least one member of the court being a rabbi who is an expert on the laws of conversion.
* Supervising the building and maintenance of a mikvah.
* Determination of "personal status" (i.e. whether someone is a Jew according to halakha).
* The authorization and supervision of mohelim.
* Questions relating to burial practices and mourning.

A beth din is sometimes used within the Orthodox Jewish community to resolve civil disputes, with the Shulkhan Arukh[2] calling for civil cases being resolved by religious instead of secular courts (arka'oth). Modern Western societies increasingly permit civil disputes to be resolved by private arbitration, enabling religious Jews to enter into agreements providing for arbitration by a particular beth din in the event of a dispute. By this device, the rules, procedures, and judgment of the beth din are accepted and can be enforced by secular courts in the same manner as those of a secular arbitration association. However, religious courts cannot decide such disputes without the prior agreement of both parties
 
our government should not recognize any other form of law other than what we have, arbitration or otherwise....it sets a bad precedent and will erode our laws...
 
Norman Paperman said:
Not no but hell no...
Click to expand...
Indeed, I was looking for that exact option in the poll.

We HAVE a courts system. It is put in place under specific powers outlines in the US and each state's Constitutions. We have neither the authority - nor need - for another system, especially one that is not authorized nor constrained by or constitutional structure.
 
Yurt said:
our government should not recognize any other form of law other than what we have, arbitration or otherwise....it sets a bad precedent and will erode our laws...
Click to expand...

If I agree to be arbitrated by a court with some specific form of rules, that's my business, not the governments. The government has no right to intrude on these private affairs.
 
Good Luck said:
Indeed, I was looking for that exact option in the poll.

We HAVE a courts system. It is put in place under specific powers outlines in the US and each state's Constitutions. We have neither the authority - nor need - for another system, especially one that is not authorized nor constrained by or constitutional structure.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
So yurt, would you agree that we should entirely the ability of two consenting individuals to agree to arbitration, and that the government should have complete and total control over private disputes between private individuals? Or do you that the government should intrude into matters that are none of its business and exclude arbitrators who have funny names, leaving the rest of the system intact?

The title of your thread is a blatant lie. This is not a matter of "Sharia law", this is a matter of private arbitration. And yet you specifically exclude the meat of the issue because it's just easier to attack from an islamophic perspective, and really besides islamophobia you don't have any bones with the arbitration system anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
our government should not recognize any other form of law other than what we have, arbitration or otherwise....it sets a bad precedent and will erode our laws...
Click to expand...

The stupid dorks in the UK are finding out just what stupid dorks they have been by allowing shariha's civil laws~~~

Recognizing any portion of shariah' law is definitley the nose of the camel under the proverbial tent!
 
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...

Absolutely.
 
Ice Dancer said:
The stupid dorks in the UK are finding out just what stupid dorks they have been by allowing shariha's civil laws~~~

Recognizing any portion of shariah' law is definitley the nose of the camel under the proverbial tent!
Click to expand...

We should not allow them the right to settle disputes between themselves outside of government courts? Are you insane?

Should we outlaw church marriages too?
 
Last edited:
FAGGOT OF DEBATE said:
So yurt, would you agree that we should entirely the ability of two consenting individuals to agree to arbitration, and that the government should have complete and total control over private disputes between private individuals? Or do you that the government should intrude into matters that are none of its business and exclude arbitrators who have funny names, leaving the rest of the system intact?

The title of your thread is a blatant lie. This is not a matter of "Sharia law", this is a matter of private arbitration. And yet you specifically exclude the meat of the issue because it's just easier to attack from an islamophic perspective, and really besides islamophobia you don't have any bones with the arbitration system anyway.
Click to expand...

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....
 
RStringfield said:
We should not allow them the right to settle disputes between themselves outside of government courts? Are you insane?

Should we outlaw church marriages too?
Click to expand...

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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top