Consider it a gift from me to you.

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Oklahoma to Vote on Islamic Law Ban
[SIZE="1[COLOR="Red"]"]...except Sharia has never been used in the state[/COLOR][/SIZE]By Matt Cantor, Newser Staff
Posted Oct 29, 2010 7:14 AM CDT

Link: Oklahoma Set to Vote on Islamic Law Ban

(Newser) – Next Tuesday, the people of Oklahoma will have their say on a measure to ban Islamic law from being used in the state—even though it never has been, the Los Angeles Times reports. In the US as a whole, only a few cases have even alluded to Sharia law. “Oklahoma does not have that problem yet," says Rep. Rex Duncan, who authored the measure. "But why wait until it's in the courts?" He adds that his intention is not to target Muslims, but to single out "activist judges.... That's all I'm picking on."


In a July poll, 49% of voters supported the measure, 24% opposed it, and 27% were undecided. Now, a group that opposes radical Islam is advertising in support of the measure. “The threat,” said a spokesman, “is that Sharia law will be accommodated alongside Western law.” But “there's no threat of Sharia law coming to Oklahoma and America, period," says a rep for an Oklahoma City Muslim group. "It's just a scare tactic."
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Oklahoma to Vote on Islamic Law Ban
[SIZE="1[COLOR="Red"]"]...except Sharia has never been used in the state[/COLOR][/SIZE]By Matt Cantor, Newser Staff
Posted Oct 29, 2010 7:14 AM CDT

Link: Oklahoma Set to Vote on Islamic Law Ban

Is it paranoia or is it justified, that is indeed the question. :confused:

Personally, in my humble opinion, justified - We are expected to follow the laws of any Countries that we would visit - so why not the other way around.
When in Rome ...... and all that
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Seems appropriate as this was sent to me yesterday. Nothing wrong with being a little proactive. As to whether it is all factual, I have no idea.
While everyone is focusing on Arizona's new law, look what Oklahoma has been doing.



An update from Oklahoma :

Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! HB 1330

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. SB 1102

Guess what....... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas, Montana and Utah as the only states to do so. More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia,Mississippi, Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the criminals (and Obamaites).


Guess what........... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver's license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English. Really simple.

By the way, Obama does not like any of this.

Guess what....who cares... Oklahoma is doing it anyway
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Is it paranoia or is it justified, that is indeed the question. :confused:

It's a true form of paranoia.

Many just don't get the idea or concepts while others who are feeding the flame of hate use it to their advantage, been happening for a long time.

We as a country can't control what people do within our borders and bring to justice those who do voilate our laws while when we are overseas, many think that American form of Justice is their right and expect others to change - a bit ignorant. This ignorance manifests itself into things like this, where they see what has happened in other countries, believe the propaganda and then think it will happen here.

Our system of law is based on our consitution, which means that it can't change by the whim of one or many but takes a huge effort to change it, because it would need replacing. When we consider the real issue, the real fight and examine the players, we don't find ourselves with a number of Muslims demanding anything but a number of people of all sorts falling for the BS that has been spread around based on hate.

There are 5 to 7 million Muslims living within the borders of this country, a good percentage right where you are at or going to be (Hamtramck and Dearborn) and we don't even approach the issues we have had like in London, Paris and Berlin, let alone having a demand for changes to our country.

You're from England where they use some aspects of Sharia in some proceedings in courts but it is not a replacement nor it is a final ruling because it does not sit within the confines of English law. BUT to many here, it is somewhat of a sign England is gone and lost.

Turkey, A Muslim country, does not allow Sharia to be used, outlawed the political party that was supporting it.

Paranoia, it really is.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
You're from England where they use some aspects of Sharia in some proceedings in courts but it is not a replacement nor it is a final ruling because it does not sit within the confines of English law.

Just curious, why is that?
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Just curious, why is that?

I found this article from the Times newspaper in England - hopefully it will explain everything



Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courtsAbul Taher ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Just curious, why is that?

what part of why?

the part that they use it like we use the world court decisions?

like we use UN resolutions?

like we use other countries' laws and court decisions?

IS IT LIKE when we use Mexican laws to obfuscate our own?

They didn't seem to say, "OK we are going to use this form of law over our own" but rather in the same manner we have been using outside decisions and laws in our own cases depending on the issues with each case as it pops up. We also do this for Asian cultures by the way, using religious advice to the court to render a decision or in some situations throw out a case.

For example, I can justify the same issues written about to those of Native American tribal laws. There are the numerous cases where tribal members commit a crime off reservation but then end up within a tribal court and had a punishment that was aligned with their culture. One such case about ten years ago was two tribal members raped and assaulted a 15 year old girl on her way from school. They were caught, they admitted to doing the crime but the case was turned over to a tribal council of their tribe and tried under their laws. Their punishment should have been jail time but ended up with 30 days of community service and something weird. It was absolutely wrong but the court felt it was the right thing to do, circumventing our laws, stepping on the victim's right to see justice and more importantly telling the citizens of this country that their laws are above ours.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
what part of why?

the part that they use it like we use the world court decisions?

like we use UN resolutions?

like we use other countries' laws and court decisions?

IS IT LIKE when we use Mexican laws to obfuscate our own?

They didn't seem to say, "OK we are going to use this form of law over our own" but rather in the same manner we have been using outside decisions and laws in our own cases depending on the issues with each case as it pops up. We also do this for Asian cultures by the way, using religious advice to the court to render a decision or in some situations throw out a case.

For example, I can justify the same issues written about to those of Native American tribal laws. There are the numerous cases where tribal members commit a crime off reservation but then end up within a tribal court and had a punishment that was aligned with their culture. One such case about ten years ago was two tribal members raped and assaulted a 15 year old girl on her way from school. They were caught, they admitted to doing the crime but the case was turned over to a tribal council of their tribe and tried under their laws. Their punishment should have been jail time but ended up with 30 days of community service and something weird. It was absolutely wrong but the court felt it was the right thing to do, circumventing our laws, stepping on the victim's right to see justice and more importantly telling the citizens of this country that their laws are above ours.

I merely asked why, Greg. I was only wondering how something like this comes about....that's all. :rolleyes:
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I know Diva, I am bored this morning waiting for time go by so I can get out of here and go to lunch and typing to help my arthritis in my hands a bit.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
This is a hot button issue nationwide....let alone right here in our very own soapbox. Witness knows that and, IMHO, LOVES to stir the pot! It's almost as though he is intentionally trying to divide us......hmmmm.....wonder where he would have learned that tactic? :rolleyes:
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Solves a problem before it becomes a problem. It might never become a problem but nobody knows that for certain. Good for Oklahoma. They have the right idea in a lot of instances.

How do you know when you are right? The ACLU says you are wrong.
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Greg not sure why you are always so fast to poohoo the majority of peoples feelings here in the U.S. You claim it is people feeding the flame of fear. I am sure there were those saying the same when talk of separation of church and state first sprung up. They never could happen here this is the United States.

We already have judges here who claim international law should be considered in our rulings. Two of those judges sit on our supreme court. I see nothing wrong with being cautious with faced with the facts placed before us.
 
Last edited:

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Go on, nothing to see here folks, nothing to see her, go on move along.......thank you........

Bad judge - and America prevails once again!!!

link: New Jersey Judge Accepts Sharia Law as Man’s Defense in Spousal Rape Case; Appellate Court Rules that the Judge is “Mistaken” « Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog

The appellate court reversed, writing (among other things):
Defendant’s conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Go on, nothing to see here folks, nothing to see her, go on move along.......thank you........

Bad judge - and America prevails once again!!!

link: New Jersey Judge Accepts Sharia Law as Man’s Defense in Spousal Rape Case; Appellate Court Rules that the Judge is “Mistaken” « Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog

The appellate court reversed, writing (among other things):

I would say there is very much to see here. The fact remains it had to be overturned because sharia was used by a judge to start with. It shows despite what some may say It has been cited and could be in the future. Bad judges are a concern and they exist in every state in our land.
 
Top