It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

READ!: Courts can be tried under Islamic law? US Courts say yes...

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I am under the understanding that a lot of these people believe this also means a Muslim can commit a crime against you and then request to be tried in Sharia court or some such thing. Americans are VERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY uninformed about Islam. Our last administration was famous for its not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia thing...oh way no it isn't. Because most people in this country had no idea why that mattered either.

I am also an athiest and there are lots of great reasons to hate on all religions. I hate the bs fearmongery stuff. It is as bad as Jews have horns and Catholics eat babies. Different time, different people.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Kafternin
 


Isn't it interesting that the non-religious among us 1.) Understand what Sharia Law in the US is and 2). have no fear of it?

That makes some kind of statement, I'm sure.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kafternin

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


Do these NOOBS not understand seperation of church and state?

IDOTA GAVRONE ESTUPIDA!!!


OK, educate me, please. I would like to understand what you see and how it applies.
Thank you!


Okay how about this?

but the sixth article of the U.S Consitution and the 'establishment clause of the Constitution's 1st Amendment already forbids the government from establishing a preference for one religion. Official government endorsement of sharia law, is thus already prohibited.


Above in this thread posted by another poster. I guess you missed that...well there it is look it up.6th article of the constitution...read it.
I also have to say if they wish to impliment this law it's going to be a revolt of us women and we will wait till we are PMSing to strike!!!!

Just try to Effing make me a GODDAMN lesser person...or wear a GODDAMN veil and hood.. They will see a revolution that would make the American revolution look like downright PEACE!!!!

edit on 11-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: to add



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Okay how about this?

but the sixth article of the U.S Consitution and the 'establishment clause of the Constitution's 1st Amendment already forbids the government from establishing a preference for one religion. Official government endorsement of sharia law, is thus already prohibited.


Above in this thread posted by another poster. I guess you missed that...well there it is look it up.6th article of the constitution...read it.
I also have to say if they wish to impliment this law it's going to be a revolt of us women and we will wait till we are PMSing to strike!!!!

Just try to Effing make me a GODDAMN lesser person...or wear a GODDAMN veil and hood.. They will see a revolution that would make the American revolution look like downright PEACE!!!!

edit on 11-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: to add


Do you honestly believe this?
Is your reply satire?
I am not sure how anyone can have that much wrong without really trying. I want to be sure before I respond.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Well, I may be one of those who do not understand what this is all about.

Why would our Courts be involved in anyone's religious laws?
This idea is highly irritating. We already have enough injustice in our legal system. That lady holding the balance with the blindfold must also be a brain damaged, deaf mute.

Ok, so far I do get that a Muslim cannot have a non-muslim beheaded.
hmmmm, that's for now.

But will OUR Court pass sentence of beheading on the offending Muslim?
Or the stoning to death of a Muslim adultress?

Yes, we do have laws that came about due to religious influence and are devoid of common sense.
We did make some headway with the legalization of abortion. Now for the rest of them;
Marriage and those illegal drugs have been politisized and are not strictly religious.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


You wont just be forced to wear a full burqa, FOX news will be replaced by Al jahzeera all bacon products removed the stores, alcohol will be banned and you will be required to fast for Rammadam, if you fail to comply you will be stonned to death. Allah Akbar.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Also theFirst Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

US CONSTITUTION
Religion has no place in courts.
And I want to add if they ever enforce Sharia Law I would not hesitate to shed blood in the streets. Just opening this up to the courts opens it up to go beyond...slippery slope, IMO!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I can see where this is going, honor killings, beheading's and being able to stone one to death will be legal, so says SCOTUS so let them have their right to due such things, as long as it is on their own kind. and they can not be prosecuted for such actions in our court.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 
we all know SCOTUS does not go by what they are sworn to up hold , but stride in every way to tear it apart and tear it down to where it is nothing more than @$$ wipe, this is one more action saying the SCOTUS is above the law , for they make the law, as they see fit, next will be public beheadings and cutting off hands for the act of theft, I do not put blame one that holds law true, as they deem it to be to them, but one that bends as they see fit, more merciful is a quick death than a life in a cage. cut ones hand off, less likely to steal, stoning someone is now being replaced by hangings, beheading... well the french did a good job of that.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
But will OUR Court pass sentence of beheading on the offending Muslim?
Or the stoning to death of a Muslim adultress?


Until and unless such sentences are passed into SECULAR US LAW, then no. If we ever get to the point where these kinds of sentences ARE put into secular US law, then we have way worse problems to deal with.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
I also have to say if they wish to impliment this law ...


WHAT law?




Just try to Effing make me a GODDAMN lesser person...or wear a GODDAMN veil and hood.. They will see a revolution that would make the American revolution look like downright PEACE!!!!


See? This is what people think Sharia Law is!
You're killing me here!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
what law?? good question it is this law that says what crime gets what punishment from stoning to beheading to having ones hand cut off www.cfr.org... from the link

Islam: Governing Under Sharia
(aka shariah, shari'a)
and this should make it clear as day as to why they SCOTUS would let this be

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West. "There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily,"
did you read it or just gave it the once over??? you may have missed it, if so then here it is

"There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily,"
or courts for that matter, does the meaning "see the writing on the wall" mean anything?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Why would our Courts be involved in anyone's religious laws?


Here's an example of where Sharia Law may be used in the US.

Two Muslim men enter a legal contract to buy a wood chipper together. In addition to the legal contract, they wish to ADD some of their religious laws to the deal. So, they put that IN the contract under the watchful eye of the Muslim lawyer. Let's say the Muslim edict reads, "If either party shall break this contract, they will pay the price of 20 sheep to the family of the other party."

Everyone signs, everyone's happy!

Two months later, one of the parties decides not to make his payment or otherwise breaks the deal. The other party takes him to court... The contract they both signed contains religious language that THEY requested be put in there. The US court now can (and really should) honor the contract. The guy who broke the contract owes 20 sheep!

That's how Sharia Law works in the US.


Scared, yet?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Okay how about this?

but the sixth article of the U.S Consitution and the 'establishment clause of the Constitution's 1st Amendment already forbids the government from establishing a preference for one religion. Official government endorsement of sharia law, is thus already prohibited.


Where is the official government endorsing Sharia law?
You mean to tell me because they have not yet and I doubt ever will ban Teddybear law they endorse that too?
What a quandary that leaves us in.


Above in this thread posted by another poster. I guess you missed that...well there it is look it up.6th article of the constitution...read it.


Oh so you have no idea but you know someone else wrote something and you agree with their conclusion. Well that is a great reason to be afraid of something imaginary to you.


I also have to say if they wish to impliment this law it's going to be a revolt of us women and we will wait till we are PMSing to strike!!!!


Why is that? Are you running rampant through Amish communities yet? Any idea what their laws against women are like? Where is the outrage? Oh, let me guess no Amish person ever came and tried to implement their religious laws on you did they? Yeah, none of my muslim friends ever tried to blow me up for being and infidel either.


Just try to Effing make me a GODDAMN lesser person...or wear a GODDAMN veil and hood.. They will see a revolution that would make the American revolution look like downright PEACE!!!!

edit on 11-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: to add



What are you talking about? Seriously what the hell are you talking about?
Where in Sharia Law is a women or "lesser person?" ordered to wear a veil and hood?
Where in Sharia Law is a non consenting non-muslim required to acknowledge Sharia Law?

This is so stupid.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
so what law?? could the next be step be a public beheading in Tulsa? or a stoning? could be but not likely for we in the west are so hated for not knowing or wanting to know, I for one do not condemn them nor approve of there acts but accept them as they see things.... just as we in the US see things, in the long run we all might be wrong or we both might be right www.cfr.org... from the link

Controversy: Punishment and Equality under Sharia

Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge's discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (ie., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses--flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution--get a significant amount of media attention when they occur. These sentences are not often prescribed, however. "In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments," says Ali Mazrui of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies in a Voice of America interview. These punishments remain on the books in some countries but lesser penalties are often considered sufficient.
just as we say death , does not mean death , it could be life or in some cases pardoned. [I for one would like to ones punished for theft loses their hand., but then this comes from being a victim. stiff fine and jail time just do not seem to teach them anything but how to be a better thief.] so end my rant
edit on 11-1-2012 by bekod because: added link



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If I'm a Muslim wife and my husband and I are having an issue, we can go to the court to settle it. Remember, some people are VERY tied to their religion and believe that it is the governing authority. Why shouldn't they have access to it?

It's not like courts are going to use Sharia Law unless the participants ASK them to. That's how it works.


We've already had this in America for many years with the Amish and some Jewish sects.

Its no big deal.


edit on 11-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Great example!
Not that it will do any good...

And to allay the fearful - If, instead of a payment of livestock, the men wanted to insert Sharia law language that in case of non-payment the guilty party is to be be-headed, then the watchful Muslim lawyer, if worth their salt, will strongly recommend against that, because beheading is contrary to secular US law. Payment of livestock as a penalty for contract breach is not.

And if said Muslim lawyer was no good and such language did get in, then the court would, again assuming competence, throw out that provision of beheading, because that is against US secular law.

This whole frenzy is due to the inability to understand the concept of intelligent mixing... As BH pointed out in that excellent example, SOME aspects of Sharia law are in full accordance with US secular law, so there is no conflict.

In those cases where Sharia - or any other religious - law conflicts with US secular law, then US secular law holds precedence.

So. Once again, in small words:

Break contract, pay with sheep. OK, allowed in US secular law, upheld by court, enforceable.
Break contract, chop head. Not OK, not allowed in US secular law, struck down by court, not (legally) enforceable.

It's not really that hard to understand.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Exactly. It is time to create a religious movement that allows us to do whatever we want, as long as what we are doing causes no injury to another.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
And how does Puke Gingrich call marriage sacred? When it is done the third time, or after two rounds of infidelity? Any one who would have sex, let alone marry Newt Gingrich, is too lazy or stupid to wank.


edit on 11-1-2012 by lostviking because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Hence why I say people who vote emotionally, rather than rationally should not be allowed to vote.

But the Majority should still rule when it comes to voting.

And we should also do our darnest as citizens to stop voting on laws that go against common sense. Dictating morals, so to speak.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join