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: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


I hope I understood your question.


Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Does the prosecution say screw you, you tried to kill someone and lock him up?


The short answer is that Sharia law doesn't matter. The state would prosecute or not based on US secular law.

*Read Open_minded Skeptic's posts in this thread.


Sharia Law would be used in conjunction with US law, where it does not violate it. Sharia law is not used INSTEAD of US secular law.

edit on 1/11/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


The entire point of the amendment was to make sure United State laws were followed in every case.

The entire topic of the conversation contradicts your post...



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


I hope I understood your question.


Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Does the prosecution say screw you, you tried to kill someone and lock him up?


The short answer is that Sharia law doesn't matter. The state would prosecute or not based on US secular law.

*Read Open_minded Skeptic's posts in this thread.





Sharia Law would be used in conjunction with US law, where it does not violate it. Sharia law is not used INSTEAD of US secular law.

edit on 1/11/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)






And what about rape, kidnapping, bodily mutilation... You are opening pandora's box...



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Sharia Law would be used in conjunction with US law, where it does not violate it. Sharia law is not used INSTEAD of US secular law.


Thanks BH

I remember this particular issue when researching Amish law.

I just couldn't remember how it was worded.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
And what about rape, kidnapping, bodily mutilation...


Those are ALL against Us Law. They would not be allowed.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
There is no "conjunction with." This is nonsense, meant as a wedge to drive open your legislature.

If the Vatican were doing this, these champions of this would be howling bloody madness at the moon about it.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Ok, I issue a question...

If two islamics are in a criminal trial for attempted homicide, and the state says they will prosecute no matter if the victim wants to press charges or not....


I don't think Sharia law would cover this type crime.



And you'd be wrong.


I don't think so.

I research a lot of stuff. This is a subject I've researched before - - I just don't remember the details.

I think murder and/or attempted murder would fall under US law.


Until there was enough precedent to change it.

If you're legislature needs new laws, they should be negotiated in the legislature.

Not on the table of a religious scholar.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
And what about rape, kidnapping, bodily mutilation...


Those are ALL against Us Law. They would not be allowed.


SO WHY NOT FOLLOW USA LAW IN EVERYTHING THEN?!?!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
And what about rape, kidnapping, bodily mutilation...


Those are ALL against Us Law. They would not be allowed.


SO WHY NOT FOLLOW USA LAW IN EVERYTHING THEN?!?!



Hopping cats, how many times does it need to be said? That is exactly what happens. US Secular law trumps any religous law. Period. Done. Finis.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
And what about rape, kidnapping, bodily mutilation...


Those are ALL against Us Law. They would not be allowed.


SO WHY NOT FOLLOW USA LAW IN EVERYTHING THEN?!?!



Hopping cats, how many times does it need to be said? That is exactly what happens. US Secular law trumps any religous law. Period. Done. Finis.


I believe we are agreeing in different words.

Suffice to say I don't want any religion, Christian, Islamic or other, in my courts.

Stick to the established law and be done with it.

The state was simply trying to make it official and now the courts block it, and say religion and culture should be allowed.

THIS is where I have a problem...



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
If the Vatican were doing this, these champions of this would be howling bloody madness at the moon about it.


Actually, it's closer to true to say that, had Oklahoma passed the exact same law, except substituting "Vatican" for "Sharia", you'd be seeing much the same kind of posts here from those of us who do not support such unconstitutional legislation.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
SO WHY NOT FOLLOW USA LAW IN EVERYTHING THEN?!?!


They DO.
Anyone in the US has to follow US law. As I said earlier, some people want ADDITIONAL religious laws to apply to them because it's part of practicing their religion. It's religious freedom. It doesn't hurt anyone.

You guys think Sharia law in the US will result in beheadings, kidnappings, child rape and homicide because that's what you've been told by the Islamaphobic fear mongers. Don't believe everything you hear.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
SO WHY NOT FOLLOW USA LAW IN EVERYTHING THEN?!?!


They DO.
Anyone in the US has to follow US law. As I said earlier, some people want ADDITIONAL religious laws to apply to them because it's part of practicing their religion. It's religious freedom. It doesn't hurt anyone.

You guys think Sharia law in the US will result in beheadings, kidnappings, child rape and homicide because that's what you've been told by the Islamaphobic fear mongers. Don't believe everything you hear.


We are already subject to legal penis mutilations (snip!)... So what is to stop a new religious law taking hold?

Again, this is walking a very very slippery slope....



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Civil laws used on the civil level introduce precedent. International Islamic Law gets used at the Federal level to set precendent. Precedent then is used to impact legislative and judicial decisions on legislated and common law.

What I just said is: These people are lying to you.


You want to follow a religious law? Apply it to yourself.
edit on 2012/1/11 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Suffice to say I don't want any religion, Christian, Islamic or other, in my courts.


I'm right with ya there, at least as far as any case in which I am concerned goes. However, harking back to BH's example of the woodchipper and sheep, since that kind of arrangement is not prohibited in US law (I'm pretty sure), I don't have any problem with somebody else applying that kind of language or philosophy to their applicable court cases.



The state was simply trying to make it official and now the courts block it, and say religion and culture should be allowed.

THIS is where I have a problem...


Yeah, that is where the problem is... the state trying to restrict that en-masse for one specific religion. Had the state said NO religous factors of any kind they would be on better ground legally.

For us to support this court decision does not by any means we agree with the tenets of Sharia (or any other religous) law. From what little I know if it, it is no system I will live under. And I am not at all worried about the legal system here changing such that religous laws ever will take over. If I am worried about it, I'm more worried about the extremist Christians right here in the US.

However, one of the basic pieces of what makes the US system work is respect for other people's freedoms, whether we agree with what they do or not. Barring of course invasion of our personal selves.

Do I support the right of a Muslim to beat his wife, as has been claimed to be allowed under Sharia? No. Without regard to any law, I don't hold with that behavior, period. And I expect any US court to agree. Although US courts don't have a very good record regarding wife beating even by good white Christians.


Do I support the right of BH's woodchippers to settle their private contract according to Sharia law? Yes, absolutely.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded SkepticDo I support the right of BH's woodchippers to settle their private contract according to Sharia law? Yes, absolutely.


If your contract violates the law, or human rights then it is an unacceptable breech of regulatory framework.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Open_Minded SkepticDo I support the right of BH's woodchippers to settle their private contract according to Sharia law? Yes, absolutely.


If your contract violates the law, or human rights then it is an unacceptable breech of regulatory framework.


Agreed. How exactly does an agreement between two people to settle a breach of contract by exchange of 20 sheep a violation of law or human rights?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Open_Minded SkepticDo I support the right of BH's woodchippers to settle their private contract according to Sharia law? Yes, absolutely.


If your contract violates the law, or human rights then it is an unacceptable breech of regulatory framework.


Agreed. How exactly does an agreement between two people to settle a breach of contract by exchange of 20 sheep a violation of law or human rights?


If it hits the court system, then it'll be negotiated there as per normal contract law.

Which means that someone could end up giving away their 20 sheep, and still end up in the wrong in court and get a bigger penalty. So they get hit twice.

I'm okay with that. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see several high profile cases of this exact phenomena.

edit on 2012/1/11 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
This was posted yestarday..search function..

abovetopsecret.com



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Would you be in favor of a state voting to USE Sharia law? What if Michigan voted and 60% of them voted to use Sharia Law instead of Christian Law...


This county had better NOT be using Christian law any more than Sharia law. Both are forbidden by the US Constitution. This is a SECULAR nation.

This court made the right decision... Also, note that the decision is that the petitioner has the right to challenge the OK law...


What are you talking about? Of course we have laws based on Christian law. Haven't you ever heard of the term "Blue Laws"? These are the laws that say you can't do something on Sunday that you can do on any other day of the week. Like buy alcohol and stuff like that. Also Adam and Steve not being able to get married is another law based on religion. Another one is abortion.
edit on 11-1-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join