Kansas Governor, Sam Brownback, Signs Anti-Sharia Bill

[Sideline]

Most American Muslims/Arabs are well integrated and don't represent a threat to America at all.

How many Muslims are there in Kansas, anyway ?

You speak for most muslims in America, yet you then ask how many are in Kansas? Did you skip Kansas when you were doing your USA wide survey? No need to answer, I know what you mean. Just joking with you.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

In times of recession and strife, it appeases the masses to make a group, different from your own, out to be a threat.

[California Joe]

Jesus H...This is like passing a law in 2012 outlawing Native Americans from scalping settlers. A solution looking for a problem.

[Mein Teil]

Exactly what I was expecting from you. A blog interpreting, demonizing and linking two completely unrelated points. Muslims in Dearborn an CAIR. But hey nothing beats fearmongering. Btw your source should drop honor killings from his Sharia Induced crime list. There is no such thing as honor killings in the classical Muslim doxa.

I thought you would appreciate anything CAIR had to say. I mean they are quite close to your favorite be all, solve all, world answer for everything oganization. CAIR is practiically blowing the UN...or is it the other way around? What's wrong with CAIR?

Didn't like the blog,

OK:

The Center for Security Policy’s report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.
The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases.

You can download all 50 cases here: http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

Others:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...cle1158818.ece
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-10/j...?_s=PM:JUSTICE

Jesus H...This is like passing a law in 2012 outlawing Native Americans from scalping settlers. A solution looking for a problem.

Who says it's only for the protection of non muslims?

[Sideline]

In times of recession and strife, it appeases the masses to make a group, different from your own, out to be a threat.

@ Ngati -Good point, happens all over the world.
.................................................................................
@ no one----Since no muslims want Sharia in the USA, now or in the future (as some posts imply), then it seems they lose nothing by this law. Muslims in the U.S. don't want Sharia, and now in Kansas they can't have it. So win-win?

[KoTeMoRe]

I thought you would appreciate anything CAIR had to say. I mean they are quite close to your favorite be all, solve all, world answer for everything oganization. CAIR is practiically blowing the UN...or is it the other way around? What's wrong with CAIR?

Didn't like the blog,

OK:

You can download all 50 cases here: http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

Others:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...cle1158818.ece
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-10/j...?_s=PM:JUSTICE



Who says it's only for the protection of non muslims?

Have you read actually the cases and have a palatable knowledge of Niqa and General Wakf law?
Let's start with the first case.

S.D. v. M.J.

, 2 A.3d 412 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010)

1.Where in the Quran can you find a specific mention that a mistreated woman has to offer herself to her husband?
2.Furthermore physical marks on the plaintiff's body immediately nullify the claim of legality from the man.
This is Shariah as well.
3.Nowhere does it say Shariah granted this man a right. He actually divorced from her. There is, as far as Shariah is concerned, nothing to support these allegations by the husband.

Let us see the second example.

Hosain v. Malik

, 671 A. 2d 988 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996)

.

Now this has to be the worst legal description one has ever done to me.

1. The woman leaves her husband with their kid (one could consider that as rapt) for the US.
2. She failed to compare in court.
3. She rendered herself guilty of adultery, as far as your own source indicates.
4. We do not know what documentation did this woman had once in the US (was she legal, illegal). Therefore we do not know if the US law was applicable and could override the Pakistani law.

Overall I will have a thorough look at your source, but if in the two first cases I can immediately find jurisdictionnal, legal and interpretative issues, well allow me then to tell you that this, as far as I can read, does not concern Shariah. But common sense.

[Mein Teil]

Have you read actually the cases and have a palatable knowledge of Niqa and General Wakf law?
Let's start with the first case.

1.Where in the Quran can you find a specific mention that a mistreated woman has to offer herself to her husband?
2.Furthermore physical marks on the plaintiff's body immediately nullify the claim of legality from the man.
This is Shariah as well.
3.Nowhere does it say Shariah granted this man a right. He actually divorced from her. There is, as far as Shariah is concerned, nothing to support these allegations by the husband.

Let us see the second example.
.

Now this has to be the worst legal description one has ever done to me.

1. The woman leaves her husband with their kid (one could consider that as rapt) for the US.
2. She failed to compare in court.
3. She rendered herself guilty of adultery, as far as your own source indicates.
4. We do not know what documentation did this woman had once in the US (was she legal, illegal). Therefore we do not know if the US law was applicable and could override the Pakistani law.

Overall I will have a thorough look at your source, but if in the two first cases I can immediately find jurisdictionnal, legal and interpretative issues, well allow me then to tell you that this, as far as I can read, does not concern Shariah. But common sense.
[/FONT]

The point is about applying sharia law in a US court, not whether or not common sense was applied or whether sharia law is fair or not. Are you saying that because sharia disagrees with the man in this case then it's cool? What about when this isn't the case?

[KoTeMoRe]

The point is about applying sharia law in a US court, not whether or not common sense was applied or whether sharia law is fair or not. Are you saying that because sharia disagrees with the man in this case then it's cool? What about when this isn't the case?

Nope I am analyzing your claim (by proxy) that Shariah is actually in inhumane and contradicts US law.

Now in your two first cases, we find that the study is based not on formal Islamic law, but on claims by muslim defendants who are absolutely in contradiction with their own faith and jurisdictionnal misconceptions (as well as the general shady look of your "study").

[Mein Teil]

Nope I am analyzing your claim (by proxy) that Shariah is actually in inhumane and contradicts US law.

(by proxy)? Screw you! Seems if you can't change the rules of the game you just change the game.
I didn't say that was my opinion or imply it simlpy because that was said in that blog. My position is that it's not US law and has no ****ing place in our courts! Military Law (UCMJ) makes a lot of common sense too and isn't inhumane INMO, but we don't use it in civillian court for a reason.

[KoTeMoRe]

(by proxy)? Screw you! Seems if you can't change the rules of the game you just change the game.
I didn't say that was my opinion or imply it simlpy because that was said in that blog. My position is that it's not US law and has no ****ing place in our courts! Military Law (UCMJ) makes a lot of common sense too and isn't inhumane INMO, but we don't use it in civillian court for a reason.

You provided a "study" which claimed Shariah was dangerous and contradicting the US law. However the analysis of the two initial cases shows the study is actually unconclusive at best.

Now it is no US law? Well that is a completely different issue, in both cases, the individuals were not US-born citizen. In the second case the defendant was guilty of a crime in a foreign country, trying to evade the law. The problem is bound to be case screened. Barring Shariah might actually negatively interact with the First Amendment on family law (names given to children), inheritance dispositions eclusively supported by Shariah etc.

A general ban as already blocked in Oklahoma. While your opinion is basically yours to keep, imposing a view on a minority generally might actually backfire.

On a side note:

http://www.bethdin.org/index.asp

[Mein Teil]

If I'm caught breaking the law in Iran with they apply US law because I'm not a citizen of Iran? Will they even case screen anything? No, that only happens in liberal western countries that are easily hoodwinked by intolerant hypocritical bastards from somewhere else!

And BTW, it's not imposing a view on a minority if the law was here before they were. If they want Sharia they should move where it's practiced and not here.

Are there any parts of Islamic law that you would deem unacceptable in the US? What about this:

Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "The blood of a Muslim may not be legally spilt other than in one of three [instances]: the married person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community." (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim) http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-t...rspective.html

Are you OK with all of that as long as the accused is not a US citizen? Is it fair and if so to whom?

[KoTeMoRe]

If I'm caught breaking the law in Iran with they apply US law because I'm not a citizen of Iran? Will they even case screen anything? No, that only happens in liberal western countries that are easily hoodwinked by intolerant hypocritical bastards from somewhere else!

And BTW, it's not imposing a view on a minority if the law was here before they were. If they want Sharia they should move where it's practiced and not here.

If I'm caught breaking the law in Iran with they apply US law because I'm not a citizen of Iran? Will they even case screen anything? And BTW, it's not imposing a view on a minority if the law was here before they were. If they want Sharia they should move where it's practiced and not here.

Urgh, well let me repeat the issue. You are willing to ban Shariah as a whole. I am telling you, that in vertue of the leeway the rabinic courts get in the US, Shariah courts should be open with the respective limitations due to their statute. IE contractual, family, etc law. So you cannot by essence ban Shariah as a specific law.

However the example of breaking the law was one of a punishable offence in both sides of the fence. The woman had abducted her child and had abandoned her household. In an US court, the father would have had custody anyway. So I was telling you that the case was beyond Shariah.

Now as for Iran, typical. They will apply Iranian law (which in most cases would actually benefit you anyway in the rapt/abduction case), but that has no bearing with Hosain V. Malik, for that you would have to flee the US while wanted for a crime and end up in Iran. I note your effort to twist every word. I would give you a D for the effort.

Are you OK with all of that as long as the accused is not a US citizen? Is it fair and if so to whom?

Do you know the elements of proof for case 1? Or case 2? The applicabbles for case 3.

I would like to note that Apostasy, is clearly behind the times but as much you would like to bait me, I would like you to translate this.

lâ ikrâha fî-d-dîn

Aside from that...well thank you for showing your inner islamophobia.

[Mein Teil]

Urgh, well let me repeat the issue. You are willing to ban Shariah as a whole. I am telling you, that in vertue of the leeway the rabinic courts get in the US, Shariah courts should be open with the respective limitations due to their statute. IE contractual, family, etc law. So you cannot by essence ban Shariah as a specific law.

However the example of breaking the law was one of a punishable offence in both sides of the fence. The woman had abducted her child and had abandoned her household. In an US court, the father would have had custody anyway. So I was telling you that the case was beyond Shariah.

Now as for Iran, typical. They will apply Iranian law (which in most cases would actually benefit you anyway in the rapt/abduction case), but that has no bearing with Hosain V. Malik, for that you would have to flee the US while wanted for a crime and end up in Iran. I note your effort to twist every word. I would give you a D for the effort.

So we'll have the law of the land and we'll have Sharia courts too .

Only the Islamic Court can carry out the punishments (hudood) set out by the Shariah. (See: Shaami 6/104, Darul Ma’rifa) http://ya-mujeeb.com/index.php/shara...-on-this-issue

What happened to sepparation of church and state? Or does that only apply to Christian and Jews when it comes to US government? Islam get's to have it both ways?

[KoTeMoRe]

Separation of church and state? Who actually has spoken of Islamic Courts to be legally admitted to hand over penal sentences? We are speaking of Islamic courts in which they will not infringe the US constitution. Just like Rabinic courts.

It seems to me that you have a serious grudge with Islam while being (as far as I understand) Christian and supporter of Israel. It bothers me to see you lingering so much, especially when you have in your possesion the means to put an end to your misery.

Oh btw: remember this.

Lâ ikrâha fî-d-dîn.

[Mein Teil]

Separation of church and state? Who actually has spoken of Islamic Courts to be legally admitted to hand over penal sentences? We are speaking of Islamic courts in which they will not infringe the US constitution. Just like Rabinic courts.

It seems to me that you have a serious grudge with Islam while being (as far as I understand) Christian and supporter of Israel. It bothers me to see you lingering so much, especially when you have in your possesion the means to put an end to your misery.

Oh btw: remember this.

How can you separate the two when the Koran dictates the punishment? Islamic courts that do not infringe on the constitution...hmm? Are you serious?

I have no grudge with Islam, if I was in an Islamic country I would follow their laws and expect to be punished by them if I didn't. Well you know something? I don't. I live in a Judeo Christian based society and if I have any grudge at all it's against pandering liberals like yourself.

I have no need to defend myself to you either, I've risked my life to defend muslims right to live as they wish and I'm proud of that with no regrets.

Oh, btw, remember this: Te borbe kao devojčica, dobra noć.