Oklahoma and Sharia

[trenchfoot]

The United States is a Signatory to International Law, Yes. But - like all nations - within it's borders the law of the land is United States law. Regarding Extradition and other duties of said treaty: We honor the treaty we signed, and always have. If/when we receive a request for extradition though the appropriate embassy, then we act upon it.

Here are the procedures: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm

Regarding the supposed misconception of International Law: That *IS* the problem here: There are politicians in the United States who are saying that International Law should be considered/used in United States courts.


What this referendum was (poorly) written to combat is the notion that other entitys' laws should be the basis for Judgment in Oklahoma's Courts. It is not a referendum rejecting International/Sharia law in such places where those laws are applicable. For example: An Oklahoma citizen residing in places ruled by Sharia law, such as Iran, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Egypt, etc... is subject to those laws while living there. If (S)He gets in trouble and arrested in Egypt, then Egyptian authorities have jurisdiction and that individual gets tried in Egypt under Egyptian law. This is common sense, right?

Well: What has happened here is an Immigrant successfully used a defense in a United States court that his actions were legal under Sharia when he broke United States Law. ..and the court bought the story (overturned on appeal). So he broke the law in the United States, and then claimed he wasn't subject because he followed Sharia.


Another example: A California Resident gets caught in Bahrain with Marijuana. This California resident has a prescription, so this would be legal in California. But he is NOT in California, is he? Do we expect the Bahraini Police to let him go because pot is legal in California? The answer is NO: Drugs are punishable by DEATH in Bahrain, and therefore this US Citizen may be executed in Bahrain under Bahraini law. The US Embassy can ask the Bahraini courts nicely to let him go, or cut a deal like a certain amount of prison time or pay whatever fine and never come back. But if the Bahraini courts decide to kill our marijuana posessing friend, then he is going to die. And it's perfectly legal for them to do that because that is the law in their country.


If Bahrain had a situation like the one under discussion here: Then because Pot is legal in California with a prescription, then our California resident would be allowed to say "I have a Prescription" in a Bahraini court, and the Bahrainis would have to let him go.


That is absolutely ridiculous.

Well written post. :thumbsup:

 

[RightIsWrong]

You can read the actual text of the State Question here

The funny part of this whole faux-rage induced issue is that, under the wording of the proposed amendment, it doesn't change a single thing that is already part of the process.

. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from
considering or using Sharia Law.

The fact that they used their bigotry and fear to specifically identify a religion is just a circus side show.

Also, as Mursilis correctly stated, if there is a contractual agreement to settle a dispute in a specific manner, it is legal in the U.S. Why do you think that so many companies force you to sign documentation that states that you will settle all disputes via binding arbitration (for you) instead of using the court systems (even though they reserve the right to sue you if they don't like the arbitration ruling)?

Because they can gain a lot of leverage that they would not normally have under the court system. The biggest is that they will usually put in their clause that they get to pick the arbitrator...how convenient.

If two people agree to settle any disagreements via arbitration using Sharia law as the basis, I doubt that there is much that could be done about it unless it was in gross violation of state or federal law.

 

[HomerJS]

If a muslim goes to a mosque and prays and supports the Imam that tells certain tools to commit terrorist acts, is that muslim a terrorist? If that muslim eventually learns of this, yet keeps his mouth shut and continues his life status quo, whether its because he morally supports the jihadi cause but is too pussy to do it himself, or is morally opposed, but too pussy to do anything against it, what is he?

If a voter attends a rally for a candidate for the US Senate and that candidate supports second amendment remedies (shooting people).......[sic]

 

[RightIsWrong]

Want to show us that parallel Baptist court system?

Oh, you pulled that bolded part out of your butt, didn't you? Show us where there was a law enacted, or a serious attempt to ban the teaching of evolution in schools and substitute Creationism. I don't mean one nutjob who sometime in the last twenty years has effectively been laughed out, because I'm sure someone has tried to make Martians illegal aliens.

Go for it.

While they didn't try to ban evolution teaching, the state of Arkansas passed a law that was later shot down that any school that taught evolution had to give equal teaching time to creationism "science".

http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2243

That was only in the early 80s.

The Louisiana version of the same mandate didn't get struck down by the SCOTUS until 86:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513/

Of course there was the couple years between 2004-2009 where no less than 10 states that attempted to pass "academic freedom" bills that would attempt to accomplish the same thing that the two previously stricken laws did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Freedom_bills

Amazingly, the only state that it was successful in was.....LOUISIANA! Will they never learn?

I do have to give props to Alabama though. They certainly gave it the most effort, trying to get it passed 5 different years of that 6 year span.

Is that enough for you or will you move the goalposts?

 

[cganesh75]

i guess i didnt make my stand clear. i dont care for sharia law.. not that i support it or anything. but my point was to merely saying why only sharia law was banned and not other religion's laws.. why single out 1 religion? there are bad elements in every religion..

 

[Scotteq]

i guess i didnt make my stand clear. i dont care for sharia law.. not that i support it or anything. but my point was to merely saying why only sharia law was banned and not other religion's laws.. why single out 1 religion? there are bad elements in every religion..

Exactly: This is why the Referendum (as written) is bad. It singles out one Religion's laws. It should be written as a blanket "actual US Laws Only" policy, and then applied equally to all.

 

[JS80]

i guess i didnt make my stand clear. i dont care for sharia law.. not that i support it or anything. but my point was to merely saying why only sharia law was banned and not other religion's laws.. why single out 1 religion? there are bad elements in every religion..

Because Islam is the only religion in which the religion is government and government is religion. It's "not applicable" to other religions.

Regardless, this is a stupid unnecessary law all around.

 

[werepossum]

The funny part of this whole faux-rage induced issue is that, under the wording of the proposed amendment, it doesn't change a single thing that is already part of the process.



The fact that they used their bigotry and fear to specifically identify a religion is just a circus side show.

Also, as Mursilis correctly stated, if there is a contractual agreement to settle a dispute in a specific manner, it is legal in the U.S. Why do you think that so many companies force you to sign documentation that states that you will settle all disputes via binding arbitration (for you) instead of using the court systems (even though they reserve the right to sue you if they don't like the arbitration ruling)?

Because they can gain a lot of leverage that they would not normally have under the court system. The biggest is that they will usually put in their clause that they get to pick the arbitrator...how convenient.

If two people agree to settle any disagreements via arbitration using Sharia law as the basis, I doubt that there is much that could be done about it unless it was in gross violation of state or federal law.

Again, this law was specifically written because Sharia law is creeping into our arbitration system and Muslims (especially women) are being pressured to accept Sharia law arbitration. The family court in New Jersey WAS using Sharia law, excusing the man's serial raping of his wife on the grounds that under his Muslim faith (i.e. Sharia law) he was perfectly within his rights to take her against her wishes. Since these kind of cases are often sent to "family court" rather than circuit or criminal court, this is a legitimate issue. The only failing in my opinion was that the framers specifically called out ONLY Sharia law, which makes it a hot button issue with progressives at the least. Had they specified a much broader range of prohibited bases, for instance, all foreign and all religious law, then the law would have drawn much less fire from progressives and stood a much better chance of not being halted and struck down.

 

[JS80]

Again, this law was specifically written because Sharia law is creeping into our arbitration system and Muslims (especially women) are being pressured to accept Sharia law arbitration. The family court in New Jersey WAS using Sharia law, excusing the man's serial raping of his wife on the grounds that under his Muslim faith (i.e. Sharia law) he was perfectly within his rights to take her against her wishes. Since these kind of cases are often sent to "family court" rather than circuit or criminal court, this is a legitimate issue. The only failing in my opinion was that the framers specifically called out ONLY Sharia law, which makes it a hot button issue with progressives at the least. Had they specified a much broader range of prohibited bases, for instance, all foreign and all religious law, then the law would have drawn much less fire from progressives and stood a much better chance of not being halted and struck down.

While I do not agree with this particular legislation, I do think there should be something to protect women against Sharia Law. May be something as simple as the woman has the option to reneg on an agreement and make all Sharia decisions null and avoid retroactively. The problem is that these are the type of women who will never "come out" and will just live as a victim until their death. It's a shitty situation all around.

But I'm not surprised the left is out defending the muslims and turning a blind eye to victimized women.

 

[routan]

If a muslim goes to a mosque and prays and supports the Imam that tells certain tools to commit terrorist acts, is that muslim a terrorist? If that muslim eventually learns of this, yet keeps his mouth shut and continues his life status quo, whether its because he morally supports the jihadi cause but is too pussy to do it himself, or is morally opposed, but too pussy to do anything against it, what is he?

hi. an uber hypothetical scenario. however, in such a scenario, i can agree that the person who follows the "imam" is a tool, and a terrorist. and if he keeps his mouth shut, either he supports the cause or is a coward.

but whats the point of this? we have similar tools in our society.

 

[routan]

I would like to avoid a repeat of 1K post thread where nothing got accomplished. You never answered these questions then and I have a feeling you are not going to answer them now...

hi. If you have your own concerns about Sharia law, please ask. My opinions about a subject was not what I opened up for discussion.

 

[Scotteq]

hi. If you have your own concerns about Sharia law, please ask. My opinions about a subject was not what I opened up for discussion.

Then make your own thread, please.

 

[JS80]

hi. an uber hypothetical scenario. however, in such a scenario, i can agree that the person who follows the "imam" is a tool, and a terrorist. and if he keeps his mouth shut, either he supports the cause or is a coward.

but whats the point of this? we have similar tools in our society.

It's not hypothetical at all. This is the problem with Islam. There are many law abiding muslim citizens in the US that do not participate in terrorism yet they go about their religious lives with blinders on or worst case provide moral and indirect financial support.

My point was when some lefty jackass asks "do you think all muslims are terrorists" it's impossible to answer yes/no trollbait question.

 

[jackstar7]

I'll answer. Of course not.

But which one's are? I'd really like an answer to this. I want to know how I can tell.

I've got a solution for you. Ask all people to voluntarily get a tattoo (probably on the face, so it can't be hidden easily, like between the eyes) that clearly indicates that they are not a terrorist. Like a gold star or triangle, or some other comforting and benign symbol. Anyone who refuses will obviously be a terrorist and you can deal with those people accordingly.

You're welcome.

 

[routan]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30737274&postcount=75

hi. As before, nothing in your post relate to your concerns about aspects of Sharia Law. I requested from members to inform me why the reasons behind opposing Sharia Law and what they dislike about it. This is not wholly in reference to the referendum in Oklahoma.

With respect to the incident you cite where an individual used the basis of Sharia Law as his defense, let me clarify that it is actually PART OF SHARIA LAW which OBLIGATES Muslims to follow the law of the land they reside in.

With respect to International Law, if the United States is signatory, I am not sure how Oklahoma can reject the usage of it. Not only in terms of extraditions, but things like patents, and a host of other things can be affected. If the United States is signatory, I would assume the courts should use it. This is akin to a NPT signatory country, and a state decides to be part of that law, and tests nuclear devices. Two opposite views cannot hold in the same country's courts.

 

[routan]

It's not hypothetical at all. This is the problem with Islam. There are many law abiding muslim citizens in the US that do not participate in terrorism yet they go about their religious lives with blinders on or worst case provide moral and indirect financial support.

My point was when some lefty jackass asks "do you think all muslims are terrorists" it's impossible to answer yes/no trollbait question.

hi. I am not sure what you would like law abiding Muslim citizens in the US to do. Have all the law abiding Christians in the country held demonstrations at the priests who were abusing children? How about all the law abiding Americans that were sold the Iraq War on false pretenses? Have you held any demonstrations why after a trillion+ dollars and 4000 of our soldiers death, we have no tangible gain on the War on Terror?

Why am I and other fellow Muslims held to this false accountability? I didnt do anything wrong, and just because some retard did, I and other law abiding Muslim Americans will not be held responsible.

 

[routan]

Then make your own thread, please.

hi. thank you for your advice. I will take it under advisement.

 

[Scotteq]

hi. As before, nothing in your post relate to your concerns about aspects of Sharia Law. I requested from members to inform me why the reasons behind opposing Sharia Law and what they dislike about it. This is not wholly in reference to the referendum in Oklahoma.

With respect to the incident you cite where an individual used the basis of Sharia Law as his defense, let me clarify that it is actually PART OF SHARIA LAW which OBLIGATES Muslims to follow the law of the land they reside in.

With respect to International Law, if the United States is signatory, I am not sure how Oklahoma can reject the usage of it. Not only in terms of extraditions, but things like patents, and a host of other things can be affected. If the United States is signatory, I would assume the courts should use it. This is akin to a NPT signatory country, and a state decides to be part of that law, and tests nuclear devices. Two opposite views cannot hold in the same country's courts.

I already answered your question - So please make the effort to actually read my posts before you make asinine assumptions that we're rejecting International Law. It's not like I didn't like to you the actual procedures, or anything. Petitions under International Law are handled exactly as they have been in the past.


The point is that Sharia is NOT the law of the United States. Therefore Sharia is NOT a legitimate argument in a US Court of Law. This is exactly the same as Sharia being the Law in Egypt and therefore US Law is not a valid argument when in Egypt.

With respect to the incident you cite where an individual used the basis of Sharia Law as his defense, let me clarify that it is actually PART OF SHARIA LAW which OBLIGATES Muslims to follow the law of the land they reside in.

Then please explain to me why US Courts should have to consider Sharia when Sharia itself dictates it's adherents follow the laws of the land they reside in?


Take your time: I'm sure whatever bullshit you pull out will be amusing, at the very least.

 

[routan]

While I do not agree with this particular legislation, I do think there should be something to protect women against Sharia Law. May be something as simple as the woman has the option to reneg on an agreement and make all Sharia decisions null and avoid retroactively. The problem is that these are the type of women who will never "come out" and will just live as a victim until their death. It's a shitty situation all around.

But I'm not surprised the left is out defending the muslims and turning a blind eye to victimized women.

hi. Can you please elaborate on why you think women need protection against Sharia Law?

 

[Scotteq]

hi. Can you please elaborate on why you think women need protection against Sharia Law?

...because it was entered and argued in a US Court of Law that it was acceptable under Sharia for a Muslim husband to serially rape his wife.

Serially raping your wife is illegal in the United States. Yet it's argued to be acceptable under Sharia. Under United States Law, the wife is fully entitled to protections.


If it is indeed the Law under Sharia that Muslim Husbands may serially rape their wives, then clearly - according to the Laws Of The United States - Muslim Women need Protection from Sharia.

 

[spacejamz]

hi. If you have your own concerns about Sharia law, please ask. My opinions about a subject was not what I opened up for discussion.

Why would I ask you new questions if you still have not answered the ones from the previous thread which I have quoted here and you still continue to ignore them....

Why won't you answer them? If you just acknowledge that you will not answer them, I will stop bringing them up.

Actually, I am done dealing with you here...You pretend to be some innocent naive poster here who hopes to persuade those with Islamaphobia to see your truth but in reality, you sidestep and/or ignore direct questions being posed to you here which just makes the issue even worse.

 

[routan]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30737731&postcount=93

hi. Actually I did read your post. Please scroll back a couple of pages. You replied to my post where I requested members who oppose Sharia Law to please point out why they oppose it - in general - and not specifically to this referendum.

You have not raised a single issue to that point.

As to the point raised about International Law, you stated that when request for extradition is raised, then we act on it. Then how is International Law actually not considered in Oklahoma courts? I dont follow. Its one or the other. It simply cannot be both.

And as to your last point, I never suggested that US Courts have to consider Sharia Law at all. If I did, please point out where I did suggest anything of that sort. Infact, I just suggested the exact opposite and dont believe any reason exists that Sharia Law should be considered by the US Courts.

Hence, before you jump to conclusions, please try to converse in a reasonable and rational manner. I am not here to argue with you or anyone else. I have and am continuing to try to inform other members from the perspective of who you think is an enemy of the USA. I, nor other Muslims are here to kill you or take over the States or be a mode of a clash. I am as American as you are (well, not really, coz I wasnt born here - but hopefully you get the point I am making).

 

[spacejamz]

hi. Can you please elaborate on why you think women need protection against Sharia Law?

Are you effin' serious???? That woman in the NJ case was raped repeatedly and yet her husband claims this is okay under Sharia law.

In THIS country, that is a CRIMINAL ACT with serious consequences and yet you wonder where the crime is here...and yet you wonder why we do want anything to do with this outdated religion here.

 

[routan]

Why would I ask you new questions if you still have not answered the ones from the previous thread which I have quoted here and you still continue to ignore them....

Why won't you answer them? If you just acknowledge that you will not answer them, I will stop bringing them up.

Actually, I am done dealing with you here...You pretend to be some innocent naive poster here who hopes to persuade those with Islamaphobia to see your truth but in reality, you sidestep and/or ignore direct questions being posed to you here which just makes the issue even worse.

hi. i wont answer them because they are not your questions. i wont answer them because they are asking about my opinion. i wont answer them because i did not ask for questions related to my opinion. and i specially wont answer them because they come from someone who i think is an idiot.

at least you agreed that you are one of the Islamophobes here, so there is definitely no point in attempting a reasonable discussion with you.

 

[routan]

...because it was entered and argued in a US Court of Law that it was acceptable under Sharia for a Muslim husband to serially rape his wife.

Serially raping your wife is illegal in the United States. Yet it's argued to be acceptable under Sharia. Under United States Law, the wife is fully entitled to protections.


If it is indeed the Law under Sharia that Muslim Husbands may serially rape their wives, then clearly - according to the Laws Of The United States - Muslim Women need Protection from Sharia.

hi. there is absolutely no where in the Quran or the Sunnah where you are permitted to "rape" your wife. please dont post videos of stupid "imams" from YouTube who say its okay. we all know the status of "imams" in the Muslim world. heck, the fact that I as a Muslim am ridiculing them should be enough said.

so first, the "Sharia" defense is a joke. the judge who accepted this defense is a bigger joke.

hoping this matter is cleared... are there other reasons why you think women need protection from Sharia Law?