Skip to comments.Debate Brings Up Sharia Law Concerns
Posted on 06/15/2011 1:15:49 AM PDT by Robert Drobot
"....Many conservatives have warned that there are already signs of Sharia seeping into America's ideals.
Last November a federal judge blocked a voter-approved ban on Sharia law in Oklahoma. Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange ruled that restricting the use of Sharia law was unfair to Muslims.
Also in March, Florida Circuit Court Judge Richard Nielsen said he would use Islamic law to decide a case between several men and the mosque where they worked...."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
I’m not educated in all the legalese, but I do know that some here have made the point that there are situations where Sharia has been recommended in certain matters by the courts which does not stray away from precedent or law. I can’t explain exactly how that is so, but I am certain there are some Freeper Lawyers out there that can do that better than I can. As a matter of fact, it was pointed out to me in an earlier thread. I’m still looking for it.
All of this hubbub about Sharia seems to be fear-mongering at this point.
Sharia law is unconstitutional because it is based on or actually is a religious law. Do we need our Catholic judges to use Canon Law for Catholic plaintifs? No way.
All of this hubbub about Sharia seems to be fear-mongering at this point.
I am no legal scholar, but from a layman view. One law for all the land. Equal protection under the law.
Introducing another form of law for immigrants I do not think will strengthen society, but weaken the rule of law.
I thought we were supposed to be protected FROM religion?
Isn’t that the Liberal line...?
I sincerely doubt the aim here is to implement barbarism as you have suggested. We aren’t going to have public stonings, slavery or ‘death for apostates’ because of these rulings, nor is any of this ‘picking and choosing’ parts to allow in to the constitutional law system. As I was led to believe by legal scholars here on Free Republic who can explain this better than I, none of this was out of line with established law and precedent, but this still doesn’t stop the ‘mandatory female circumcision for your daughter’ types out there from spreading their fear or from suggesting that I would be defending such practices by not buying in to their reasoning.
"How I hate the US Constitution.
Screw John Jay. Screw America. We are soooooo cool."
It is permitted to use any law you want in the abitration of certain matters, often things such as contracts (as long as ultimately, it does not violate US law - for example, you couldn’t enter into a contract to sell yourself or anybody else into slavery). Jewish law is sometimes permitted for the resolution of certain matters in the Orthodox Jewish community, for example.
However, the judge does not decide it on the basis of Jewish law; the arbitrator (often a rabbi or Jewish legal scholar) is responsible for working out the agreement, and the courts simply have to make sure that it’s not contrary to US law.
In theory, this could be done in some Muslim legal situations: for example, arbitration of a contract entered into between two Muslims.
But it’s a very limited area, because the reality is that Islamic law is that of a fully developed theocracy where the religious law and the civil law are one and the same and where it covers all aspects of life and is even meant to have legal effect on non-Muslims living within the area where it is practiced. While Jewish law might have ended up this way, because of external circumstances and its internal dynamic, it didn’t, and the development of our institutions in our civil law owes much to Jewish scholars as they thought about this issue.
Aside from the fact that Jewish law no longer orders the stoning of adulterers, etc., it is also nowhere near as comprehensive and does not violate fundamental human rights as does Islamic law in many areas.
Sharia is a competing and conflicting legal system with respect to US law, and except for the very narrow area of arbitration of agreements and certain property disputes, should not be accepted in our courts and certainly should not be decided by our judges. Furthermore, its application in Islamic immigrant communities should be strictly forbidden, because it conflicts with US law and with the Constitution and violates constitutionally protected natural human rights.
Didn’t Romney say essentially “that will never happen” in the recent debate?
You have been around too long to have “been lead to believe by legal scholars” anything. ???
America is at war with islam.
islam declared war on America @15 years ago.
Why would we allow an emenies law to be a part of our land?
I heartily agree,Sir. When we allow judges to decide if Shariah /Islamic Law ought apply to Muslims it sends a message that they are subject to some other law than the rest of us. Just like that (now retired) Reprobate Judge Walker who said the people of California could be disenfranchised because an anti-Christian homosexual Judge was oriented to believe his
chosen group was not subjected to the same law as the rest of us.The Courts ought not consider any law contrary to our Constitution as valid.
I don’t remember, but I do clearly remember Cain getting hammered by Liberals for saying essentially the same thing. Heck, my most vivid remembrance from the debate is when he said that American law should rule in our courts, NOT Sharia law. He was ahead of the curve, and this is part of the reason I support him.
This is America. We have American law here. When you come to the United States you are under the jurisdiction of the American legal system. That is your new law. You leave Sharia behind if you are Muslim. There is no place for any other legal procedure in this country. Its not fear mongering its reality that the Muslims are trying to install their religous legal system in our country so that they can circumvent the American justice system. It cannot be allowed.
GOP run Congresses and State Legislatures have done exactly zero to defend their own power and authority. If they won't defend themselves, they sure as heck aren't going to defend me and my rights. So, at some point they will lose my vote and other votes. The GOP elected officials are creating conditions for a third party and potentially their own extinction as a political party.
After the scoflaws of the Florida Supreme Court tried to steal the election for Gore, the GOP had huge majorities, but they did not impeach the usurpers.
In Wisconsin right now as of yesterday, that county magistrate, who tried to overturn the union rights law was just slapped down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Impeach her now and bill her for the legal expenses that the State Legislature had to spend to defend their law. Impeach her.
Impeach that Federal Judge who overturned Arizona's immigration law. Impeach the Federal Judge who overturned Oklahoma's shariah banning iniative and the marriage constitutional amendment in California. IMPEACH THEM NOW.
For pete's sake, elected GOP, you were elected to defend our Republic and you're not doing your job. You will be replaced with someone who will.
Primary the spineless GOP. We can't wait any longer.
“When we allow judges to decide if Shariah /Islamic Law ought apply to Muslims “
What if the Muslims don’t want Sharia Law to apply to them. It’s always interesting to see Muslim students on campus playing soccer or cricket(if Pakastani) in the afternoon. At some point, they stop and several of them begin the ritual prayers while the rest stand around looking annoyed. It’s always a minority of students who pray.
Seems to me that applying Sharia law would be the state establishing a religion. Where are you, ACLU?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.