Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. Across the 50 cases there were 16 foreign countries from which Shariah-based legal conventions or decisions were brought to bear upon the case. Well hell, let’s just change the name of the country to Saudi America.
This post was last modified on April 25, 2021
View Comments (22)
Court: Oklahoma can't enforce Sharia law ban
http://news.yahoo.com/court-oklahoma-cant-enforce-sharia-law-ban-011240179.html
NOW they have legal precedent.
And an ex-soldier turned traitor is caught headed towards Somaliland. Maybe he'll get the full 15 yrs.
I'm disgusted, I think he should have to take a dirt nap.
Great record for events under under obama's regime.
Great so when can I start a stoning club and drag out my local democratic legislators for a taste of justice dessert style?
If people would put down the P.C. manual and take a closer look, they would see that islam is not a religion. It's a theocracy, a political movement that uses religion to mask their agenda of control. It is an intolerant movement that hates women and the men seem to like lot of quality time together or with their favorite little boy or kid goat.
If they want to abide by Sharia law, they need to return to where it is practiced. This country still has a Constitution (at the moment). The laws of this nation are founded on Judo/Christian principles not muslim.
They came here to the United States, accept our legal system and stop trying to change it to the laws where you came from. Come on NAGs now is the time to speak up before the next honor killing happens.
They are emboldened after ruining the country that delivered the Magna Carta to its people.
EDL shall give them pause
I hope you're right, alien. The book "Londonistan" was not written without reason.
http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
Well, the link in the link is to a 635 page report, and no, I haven't read it yet. Couple points in advance: first of ll, ANY two parties are allowed to make any sort of private contract, as long as such contract does not otherwise violate US/state law: it can't be for an activity itself illegal (despite what we've learned from "The Godfather," all those "contracts" were absolutely unenforceable at law ;-} ; it cannot contain "unconscienable" terms (some term which is just ridiculously out of line, one side to the other- usually involves a severe non-performance clause); or contracts of adhesion, which is little-used but essentially a loophole to those 500 page contracts written under a microscope (to name only a few.)
All to the point: a couple of headknockers can contract with each other all day long under various sharia terms, and as long as the terms are otherwise legal, the agreement will be upheld by the courts, and rightly so. If this is what these folks are driving at by alleging "creeping sharia," really, go back to sleep. This is the law doing what it ought.
Second- let's be careful about casting the first stone when it comes to religious matters. Baptists, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox (probably several others, including Jewish sects too) do not allow female clergy (although with the Baptists it's probably just stubbornness rather than doctrine.) There are synagogues where men and women sit apart too, just as in most mosques. If we start interfering in legitimate religious affairs of the Mohammedans, that may open the ACLU floodgates to other places we really do NOT want to see.
So unless people are being stoned (that's "being stoned" not "getting stoned") or mutilated or otherwise treated contrary to the Anglo-American common law -- let's live and let live.
But come down like the wrath of God for any transgressions, of course.
PD:
"State Senator Anthony Sykes, one of the measure's sponsors, called the decision an attempt "to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of, by and for the judges, or of, by and for the people."
Opponents also say it could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims because they incorporate by reference specific elements of Islamic prophetic traditions."
@ PsychoDad,
You probably mean well but your opinion in this matter is just plain wrong and very dangerous from a protection of freedom and upholding the constitution perspective. The women and children going to court to be protected by the US Constitution from Sharia were abandoned by the courts that are sworn to uphold the very freedoms they were seeking and not afforded to them under Sharia Law.
To your comment "Live and Let Live". "Omar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, made his intent clear in a July 4, 1998 San Ramon Valley Herald article: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.”
We may want to live and let live but this is not the case on the other side of the aisle and it takes two to tango. Rest assurred, the Omar's of the world mean what they say and act upon what they believe and say and the courts are a very good place to start in order to weaken the fabric of the US Constitution.
http://actforamerica.org/index.php/component/content/article/26-welcome-to-act-for-america/99-home
Well, that isn't what PD is driving at.
Drawing from Judaism, I could put terms in a loan that every X years, given that it is a jubilee year, the loan becomes null and void. If offer & acceptance occur, and the thing is done right, it would hold up in court. Mind you, I'd have a hell of a time getting most banks to agree to it -- but if I did find an idiot banker, maybe I could. Most likely, I'd get thrown out on my ass, though.
I could also put in terms about how in the case of default, the borrower has to run around in a clown suit, with live fish in his pants. You can do whatever you want with a contract. It doesn't have to make any sense.
There are lots of problems, and limits to what can be enforced, though, and an undue reliance upon Sharia over English Common law would create contracts that are illegal on the face of it. One key is that they should *never* use the term "sharia" in the contract -- as certain members of an unnamed religion of hate would get the wrong idea.
Your point re not stating *Sharia* is acknowledged. In this regard, are you suggesting that all contracts of any form between parties where one is a Muslim must include a section that establishes the specific jurisdiction that the contract is written under? Is it now insufficient to leave the jurisdiction question open ended for a contract written in the US? Are you further suggesting that the terms of Sharia settlements as it would apply in say Qatar, is applicable for US citizens, legal residents etc and takes precedence over US law if they are Muslim and seeking redress in a US court?
To fully address what you said. If they spelled out the sharia crap in the contract, if you accept it, you abide by it. Much like the clown suit and live fish bit I mentioned earlier.
There is no such thing as a default sharia jurisprudence just because one of the parties is a muslim (except in the minds of certain judges who are in no way, shape, or form qualified to make legal decisions.)
If a judge tried to pull the sharia bit on me just because the other party is a muslim, then I would immediately plan on making my appeal -- there was no such clause in making the contract, and pretending that it is there after the fact is making a material change to the contract -- giving me every right to terminate the contract and seek redress due to their abuse of the legal system.
Lawfare should be prevented -- it is actually a matter of State -- not that the imbecile in the oval office "gets" that. He's probably planning on another ipod for the queen at this very moment.
A considerably worse idea is that of Sharia compliant finance. One of the key terms in SCF is that the bank agrees to not do business with Israel. That is not only racist, it is also an illegal contract -- just like a lender agreeing never to lend to blacks, hispanics, wiccans or whatever. The banks that advertise this are begging for a lawsuit to expose them for the scum that they are.
That would actually be a good windmill for the ACLU to go tilting after. [crickets]
No. You are free to accept or not accept a contract. If someone would push a contract at me and want me to sign it with a clause about sharia jurisprudence in it, I'd make it brown and hand it back.
However, if two members of a religion of hate agreed to abide by it, then it is a contract -- unless they ask for something illegal -- for example, a marriage between a twelve-year-old and an already married pervert. You cannot contract for something illegal.
They have the "Give an inch take a mile" down to a science. I'm always wary about making concessions to these people.
The true believers, like the ayatolah ruhollah khomeini et al, will not accept a live and let live deal. The world caliphate is the goal as prescribed in the koran. Our Constitutional freedoms run in direct conflict of their goals. We like to think they would do the get along dance, as had been happening for a few centuries right up until 1979.
We've been kept in the dark about the goals of the muhammadenesiasts. There exists a possible link between the one world goal of the hard line mussies and the global occupation elitists. That is conspiracy extraordinaire, so I won't suggest that's what is happening anymore than I just did.
And it's here that we run into the problem that Islam is not a religion; it's a religion, government and social structure all in one. That makes it different than Baptists, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.
"Live and let live" is a chicken-soup-for-the-soul sort of feel-good chestnut that makes anyone who says it feel like Mr. or Mrs. Reasonable. Sadly, it's just can't function in reality. A nation needs a culture.
Good point, their is no separation of church and state in an Islamist run country, the Koran (or Qur'an) has the final say.
BTW, PsychoDad, I don't mean to slam you. You're a nice PsychoDad and I like you. It's just late and I got no sleep and I'm a bit on the cranky side. (More than usual.)
I also like Psychodad.
Judicial treason. I don't care if ANYTHING in Sharia is compatible with American justice, it has no business being part of any court's preponderance of the law.