Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian
Guess i am just here to spoon feed people when all it takes is a 1 second google search.
If you are going to make a claim, it's
your responsibility to back it up with a source. It's not everybody elses responsibility to go
searching google blindly guessing which incident you were refering to. Take that as a note the next time you post, link it with a source. Not
everybody is going to blindly believe what you say either.
oneminutelawyer.com...
Heres another
shariahinamericancourts.com...
According to Politifact, an impartial source:
A brief filed in federal court in support of the Oklahoma amendment did not assert that Sharia law had been used in Oklahoma courts. Instead, it
listed one example from New Jersey.
This brings us to Cain’s mention of New Jersey during the June 13 debate. In 2009, state Superior Court Judge Joseph Charles denied a woman a
restraining order after she reported her husband repeatedly beat and sexually assaulted her. She and her husband are Muslim.
Charles asked their imam during the injunction hearing how Islamic law applies to sexual behavior. The imam testified that a wife must comply with her
husband’s sexual demands, but a husband was forbidden to approach his wife "like any animal."
Charles said he denied the restraining order in part because the husband’s "desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that
was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited," according to the decision.
The New Jersey appeals court ruled July 23, 2010, that Charles was wrong. His decision contradicted U.S. and state Supreme Court precedent on
conflicts between criminal law and religion, the ruling said.
www.politifact.com...
In the end, the courts in New Jersey took the right actions in accordance with the constitution and law, to protect the rights of this woman. If
anything this case demonstrated a fault with the decision of a judge that required rectifying, it happens. In addition to this, the court case you
referenced did not demonstrate at any time an attempt by muslims to inject sharia law into the courts decision. The religious rules and beliefs of
islam, of the husband, were merely considered as a circumstance to his actions (however wrong we may feel he was, doing what he did to his own wife).
Refering back to the Oklahoma law:
Voters did pass an amendment to the state (Oklahoma) constitution that would prevent the use of Sharia law in state courts, but supporters
found no instance where "Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law,"
www.politifact.com...
The core basis of this Oklahoma law laid with this assumption that muslims are trying to influence the decisions of the courts around this country,
and that the courts are considering sharia law as legitimate law in their rulings, which is completely false, and delusional to say the least. Neither
have the Oklahoma advocates behind this law demonstrated why exactly it's needed in their State? Considering that constitutional law already protects
individual Americans, in particular women, from the core beliefs of sharia law, considering that muslims don't even make a dot among the population
demographics, are you really to lead believe that there are legitimate reasons for this law? Other than to score political points? Other than to
fearmonger?
Sharia law is a religious law, a religious rule, contrary to what we value here, contrary to what the American contsitution establishes as law. There
is no need to create another state law that in part only serves to target a particular group. It does nothing but waste tax payer money, and fulfull
the political and social agendas of certain individuals.
