reply to post by hellobruce
If Muslim law has no bearing on US law regarding wives, then just ask Betty Mahmoody who became a citizen of Iran when she married her Iranian
husband. The American Consulate in Iran stated that she was now Iranian.
Not likely, considering that there hasn't been any US Embassy or Consulate in Iran since 1979.
This was just before the Iranian Revolution.
And if you don't believe about how they perceive their Sharia law, then why don't you just ask them. It's happening all over the world, even in
I know Muslims in Canada that are doing this, bringing one wife over, leaving three behind. And I worked with Muslim men who told me this also. It's
not like I am making this statement in ignorance. I know two men from Pakistan who did tell me to my face that their wives in Pakistan had no choice
when it came to the men coming here to get new wives, who would then be citizens of Pakistan under Sharia law.
And there are girls in England and Europe being kidnapped by Muslim men who then tell the girls parents that the girls are now Muslim, now citizens of
the countries the men are from, and the parent are powerless. It's happening. No matter how much you like to pretend that it isn't, it is.
When I worked with these men, they came to work with women they called their wives. I asked them how they could have a wife here and a wife there,
they told me simply, that's what Islam says they can do. It does not matter to them what any country's law says, when it comes to Sharia, that's more
legal to them.
And since Iran was under Sharia during the Ayatollah's regime, he kind of set the laws regarding women from other countries married to men from Iran.
And since the Ayatollah was in power after 1979, then it made the citizenship laws fully divested under Sharia.
You have to understand, that under Sharia, it doesn't matter where the woman is from, when she marries a Muslim man and converts, it makes her a
citizen of where he is from. These are the laws in those countries, now whether or not you disagree that it doesn't matter to US law, the US law does
recognize marriages abroad and that they recognize the prevailing laws of the country where the marriage took place.
As Barack Sr. was indeed married here to Stanley, he was also married at the same time in Kenya. But Stanley sought for a divorce, now how could she
get a divorce on a non-legal marriage in the first place? Bigamist marriages are annulled because they were never legal. But Stanley's wasn't
annulled, it was a divorce. So how is it she had to get a divorce instead of an annulment, unless the marriage was legal in Kenya?
If the marriage was recognized as legal in Kenya, then the United States law should have held its position on the legality of marriage abroad. And if
they were married in Hawaii, then why have to get a divorce on a non-legal, non-binding marriage? As he was a bigmaist, he should have gone to jail
for it, but he didn't go to jail, so it makes me question, how legal was the marriage viewed as?
And if there had been a divorce instead of an annulment, then it kind of indicates to me that it was legal in Kenya and the United States. She didn't
seek the divorce in Kenya, but in Hawaii. The divorce documents do not even say he was already married. Hmm, interesting.
As he was a bigamist according to US laws, her marriage was null and void. So why then go through a divorce and not an annulment?
Kenya law in 1961 regarding marriage and divorce
With the promulgation of the East African Order in council of 1897 – Indian and British Acts were introduced in Kenya and the customary systems
were to apply the common law of England in the East African Protectorate. T he order in council had very little application to the natives. Cases
between the natives were to be settled in the native courts and the commissioner gave the courts regulations. The 1897 Act provided that matters
affecting the penal status of the non Islamic natives be resolved by the law of the tribe in so far as the law would be applicable and to the
Mohammedan natives, Islamic law would apply.
Therefore, under Islamic law, as Obama Sr. was a Muslim, it did apply to him.
Here is the current set of laws
Current stat e of the law in Kenya (i) Marriage and Divorce Due to the historical factors explained above, family law in Kenya is regulated under
four different legal regimes, namely: African customary laws of the various cultural groups; Hindu Marriage and Divorce Act (chapter 157), based on
Hindu law and governing adherents of the Hindu faith; Mohammedan Marriage and Divorce Act (chapter 156), based on Islamic law and governing adherents
of the Islamic faith; Marriage act (chapter 150) and the African Christian Marriage and Divorce Act (chapter 151), governing people who choose to
marry under the formal law, regardless of their cultural or religious background.
2. Establishment of Islamic society It is necessary for the accomplishment of the ends of Islamic Shari`ah that such means be available that may
fulfill such ends. This would be possible only after the Islamic society comes before other nations as an ideal example and they be convinced that
Islam alone is the true religion in which human relations are established in the best manner. To achieve this end Islam adopts many means. Out of
those means nikah is also one such mean.
So yes, they were legally married according to Kenyan law, but not US law, as he was a bigamist here. He was availing himself of Kenyan Islamic law,
here in the US.
edit on 10/30/2013 by WarminIndy because: Terrible Dyslexic day, forgive misspellings I just caught.