The Roots of "Sharia" Hysteria

reply to post by Curiousisall


what you missed is the fact a us judge sworn to up hold the law of this countrys constitution yeilded to the laws of this land for a man who practices sharia law .

the only rule of law is the us constitution and he should have never done it.



you want to think this is junk then so be it.

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Thanks for The Bronze Age viewpoint!
What would "christians" do without somebody persecuting them?
Get a life maybe?

In about ten years or so, ask that question again, maybe I won't have to answer it for you. Seeing how the Islamics live in the 7th century it isn't hard to understand their quest to have the whole world. It's in their book.

It's also in the Talmud that non-Jews are goyim; literally "cattle". But when folks start frothing at the mouth that all of the Jews are out to enslave us, we generally (and rightly) regard them as racist idiots at best and mentally ill and/or malicious monsters at worst.

You really think you'd still be able to post this tripe on the net if a billion Muslims really cared whether you did or not?

One issue I have with the frequent use of the (admittedly horrifying) case of the New Jersey judge's ruling is that people using that as an example of the U.S. justice system making a decision based on Sharia law seem to have forgotten just how recent our own culture's recognition of the fact that spousal rape is rape is.

Remnants of the "marital rape exemption" still exist in many states' laws, even though all 50 states now criminalize spousal rape. Plea bargains can also lead to more lenient sentencing.

Source

Some info from that article: the first state to abolish the exemption for rape within marriage from its rape statute was Nebraska, in 1976. Many states continue to have separate statutes to cover rape within marriage:

Currently all 50 states criminalize spousal rape, but remnants of the marital rape exemption are still present in many states' laws. Most states, like California, for example, define spousal rape as a separate offense than stranger rape.

I don't know what the specifics of the law in New Jersey are, or the specifics of the case. And I am immensely relieved that the original decision was overturned on appeal.

But I think that before we point to one case involving a Muslim couple as evidence that Sharia law is insidiously influencing our courts, we need to recognize that it's not that long that our own law has been any better.

Had people not pointed out that the legality of spousal rape was rooted in religious law, spousal rape would still be legal. Those people were accused of suppressing religious freedom then, as they are now. Decrying the influence of babaric religious law in a free society is the same, whether it be oppressive majority Christian law or oppressive minority Muslim law. It shouldn't be any less politically correct to speak out concerning a possible influence of Sharia law than speaking out against any possible influence by Focus on the Family.

reply to post by 23refugee


My point had nothing to do with political correctness, and certainly nothing to do with not decrying the effect of oppressive religious beliefs on the court system.

It had to do with what seems to me a prevalent mindset that this is just a problem with Islam, when the reality is much broader and uglier.

I suspect that if one had access to and knew how to look through legal databases, similar cases to the one in New Jersey could be found with couples who were Christian, Jewish, and various other faiths/nonfaiths. All those cases would deserve to be decried.

Originally posted by 23refugee
Stop moving the goalposts. You began by insisting that Sharia law had nothing to do with the judgement cited. Now you're saying that judges let Abrahamic law influence cases.

You have no idea the joy I get from seeing you get a star for that. I never said any such thing. You even quoted my post and still managed to completely misconstrue what I actually wrote? In fact, I said something more akin to the exact opposite of what you claim I just said. I do not even know how to respond since this does not even apply to what I actually wrote.

Are you attempting to highlight a double standard? A double standard that can only exist if the judge were influenced by Sharia law in the original case cited. Has your stance changed from it didn't happen to it did, one time, but it's okay, cause everyone else does it?

My stance has not changed at all. Do I need to write it out again for you or do you think you can give reading another shot?

reply to post by americandingbat

All those cases would deserve to be decried.

Yes they would and very good point. One I also stated, but not to the depth that you did and yet, since this thread has become much broader in discussion scope at present, very glad that you brought it up in further detail, again.

reply to post by 23refugee

My post about the coffee party was meant for another one of my threads. I'm still trying to figure out how it happened, I must have been trying to do too many posts at once.

Anyway, I deleted that post and I apologize for what appeared to be a huge digression from the topic.

Peace upon you,

Hi, I notice you guys discuss syaria among non-Muslim without referring to a Muslim, am I correct ?.I'm a muslim and I would like to point out a few things that might worth looking regarding the marriage case.

From my point of view, there are signs of lack of knowledge in the couple, especially the women.

Fact
Firstly, their marriage is based on Islam marriage and later registered with secular government/court. Thus, as a Muslim, both should refer to syaria law before a secular law approached.
----------------------------------------------
It might be weird, but this is because they are muslims, thus they should know better, that their marriage is hold by a qadhi/judge, witnessed and approved by no less than 4 muslims and have lots more strict requirements before it even acknowledged by Islam that they are married. Without these, its a sin to live/ehem together. Just like christian have priest so do muslim have qadhi (more structured/specific).

The big question remain: Why on earth they want to refer to secular law first bypassing the syaria law that the bond/deal was made ? In Christian theres no law/rules regarding these I think (correct me if i'm wrong), but in Islam, we do, because marriage a lawful deal for us.
This is why I assume its the wife lack of knowledge in syariah law.

In syaria, she can ask to be divorced, ask to divorced by force/qadhi power and in certain sect, can even divorce her husband. This case is to be dealt within syaria law then registered with secular law as a normal divorce.

Regarding a husband rape against wife, please ask any knowledgeable Muslim, and she or he will have a baffled look. This is because "it is a husband right to come to his wife in allowable condition".
If she doesnt like it/him, ask for a divorce!.
or ask to be divorced with qadhi power - fasakh/faskh
or divorce her husband - taqliq.
So you see, it is the women lack or knowledge about her right that lead to this situation. And do you notice, secular law still honoured ?
In a dual law system, they both will be pointed to syaria court and dealt there first becaue both are muslim. Then if any party not satisfied with syaria law, he/she can proceed to secular law for final. Notice secular law still uphold ?

For those who posted negative response to Islam way of life, please familiar yourself with the subject / "enemy" first before raising a sentiment. It will save your reputations in the long term.

Please embrace Islam with question instead of accusations. Peace upon you.

Faskh

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

what you missed is the fact a us judge sworn to up hold the law of this countrys constitution yeilded to the laws of this land for a man who practices sharia law .

What I am missing is how you write the things you do in such a serious tone. Whether or not the man believes in Sharia law has nothing to do with it. The judge made his poor decision by considering the abusers personal religious beliefs which were apparently based on some personal interpretation of his religion. The judge made a bad call but the judge did not yield to Sharia Law any more than if the man were a Satanist the judge would be subscribing to some anti-Christian law.

the only rule of law is the us constitution and he should have never done it.

What year of school are you in? You claim to be from the US but in the US there are several thousand laws on the federal and local level. The constitution is not the rule of law in the US.

No, judges should not be letting religious beliefs influence anything. No judge should ever protect an abuser for any reason. Who is moving the goal posts? The claim I responded to was that US judges consider Sharia law in defenses - PLURAL. Now I have 3 examples from the same case where the judge never even mentioned Sharia law. So the goal post went from "Sharia Law is invading US courts" to "This one time, at band camp, this one judge made this bad decision, and he mentioned considering personal religious beliefs."

The goal posts are moving allright. I asked where and when Sharia Law was being argued as a defense MORE THAN ONCE in US courts as was claimed. I see a handful of people tripping over themselves to push this one flimsy piece of "evidence." My question remains the same but somehow the claim keeps changing. Tell me all about my moving goal posts.

you want to think this is junk then so be it.

You want to think Sharia Law is coming to the US then so be it.

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by 23refugee

 

I suspect that if one had access to and knew how to look through legal databases, similar cases to the one in New Jersey could be found with couples who were Christian, Jewish, and various other faiths/nonfaiths. All those cases would deserve to be decried.

Yes, it is a women's issue that has been around for many years. For a long time courts denied the possibility of spousal rape because, as they saw it, nothing that happens between married couples can be considered illegal. I think (hope) that idea is on its way out in our legal system, but as you say, vestiges do remain. I believe the issue is being revisited along with a new awareness of spousal abuse overall as a significant social problem.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

Used as a defense for what? Can you please be specific? Insanity is used as a defence but I am pretty sure there is no threat of grand sweeping implemented insanity.

edit on 24-9-2010 by Curiousisall because: (no reason given)

I beg to disagree. Plenty of hysterics here on ATS.

Apart from that the whole Sharia panic is simply about tax-paying people who happen to be moslems wishing to petition for their religion (which is a world religion) to be acknowledged as seriously as Xtianity. I do not wish to live in a country where Sharia law is practiced. If I did I would have gone to Saudi Arabia or some other moslem country.

It is all part of the general stirring=up of the mentally challenged and may be used to Attack Obama.

Right -wing dirty tricks!

reply to post by americandingbat


I don't disagree with your overall point, but isn't "what seems to me a prevalent mindset that this is just a problem with Islam, when the reality is much broader and uglier" political correctness?
In my case, I do have a bigger problem with Islam.
Am I required to ignore the even uglier reality of Sharia law concerning homosexuality?

reply to post by Curiousisall


actually these posts are just words on a website what ever emotion you put on them is your own transference.

i guess you dont have any problems with rape because thats the way it sounds.

and you know what does school have anything to do with anything at all on this site. and you really want to go there i have been out of school for more than 20 years i have been to college as well i have my phds and double doctorates in real life real heartache and real adversity..

real life is the best teacher that any school and college will ever be.

as to my status as an american which i clearly am my family has been in this country for over 250 years my family is of european descent i am uniquely american.

as to that judges decision that woman could have been raped and agian and agian and murdered it should not have ever happened.

in this persons opinion you need to take a step back and stop expecting everyone to do everything the way you want them to simple fact they dont have to do anything at all.

reply to post by RainCloud


Thank you for your detailed explanation as to how Sharia law applies to Muslim marriages. I understand much more now.

I would like to ask you, though, how difficult is it for a woman who asks for a divorce under Sharia law? Is she socially outcast? Because she is complaining about something that, according to religious law, is perfectly acceptable for married people is she even listened to?

It is true that under Christianity and Christian law women have also suffered many things from their husbands that we do not accept now.

As americandingbat has said, this is as much a women's issue as it is a religious one.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

actually these posts are just words on a website what ever emotion you put on them is your own transference.

Serious tone as opposed to sarcastic, joking, or purposely saying things you know are insane for whateve reason. It had nothing to do with emotion but for some reason I expected that to be understood.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
I just wanted you to back up your claim.

She did back up her claim. Your in denial.

reply to post by Curiousisall



insanity is dependent upon the observer ones mans sanity is irrelevant for the simple fact we live in and insane world that most people think is sane

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Curiousisall
I just wanted you to back up your claim.

She did back up her claim. Your in denial.

Uh, no.

Even if I wanted to stretch my imagination enough to agree this was one example of what she claimed it was, it still just one example, right? The claim was plural. That claim was that this happens. Sorry but I do not believe this happens and I am still waiting for proof or even evidence that it does. So even if I wanted to accept this stretch, that does not back up the claim.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

insanity is dependent upon the observer ones mans sanity is irrelevant for the simple fact we live in and insane world that most people think is sane

Actually insanity has very specific identifiers and not really open to interpretation in anywhere close to the broad sense that you think it is. Certain very specific, well established criteria needs to be established before someone can be declared insnane. Aside from that...huh?