Shariah law banned in Kansas. I read this article and was appalled by the reporting. The reporter says the law is unnecessary. Oklahoma passed a very similar law by the vote of the people, but Islamics took it to the Supreme Court and won.
So, Oklahoma now has a law that states court cannot rule according to laws outside the United States. Why is this necessary? The law singles out Islamics because of the archaic way that Sharia law treats women.
A man is allowed to beat his wife and children, and in Shariah law, a man has such a right. Look at how women are treated under Sharia law, so now, any law outside the United States is banned in Oklahoma. So Kansas may have to follow Oklahoma because Islamics are waiting to use our American court systems to push through their Shariah law as a religious preference.
I taught teenagers who were raised under Shariah law. They told me that in the case of divorce, a man need only say he wants a divorce and it is done. So I asked the young men what a woman has to do to get divorced, and they replied, "A woman? She has no rights."
Then they laughed at my stupidity for asking at which point I reminded them I was a woman and they shrank. I am still upset by their disrespect of women.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 77
I personally know women that were given a "Female Castration", as well as other forced genitalia mutilation within the last 50 years.
Are you claiming that because that was the custom where some people came from it should still be acceptable here in the US?
Or do you simply like to argue anything at any time?
1) Shariah law is not the law of Kansas nor of the U.S.
2) Our own laws allow execution (sad to say).
3) Since Shariah law applies to a host of situations and behaviors, this Kansas law would appear to say that no part of Kansas law can be the same as any part of the Shariah law. Thus if Shariah law is against murder, Kansas could have no law against murder. Obviously that is not what the Kansas Legislature meant but that appears to be what the law says. It also applies to all other non-U.S. laws which would include English Common law, the basis for most of our legal codes, and the laws of Ancient Rome and Greece. One could even extend the terminology to include the laws of the Catholic Church.
4) No state acknowledges the laws of any other state (or whatever) as having priority over its own laws except the federal laws. Therefore this was totally unnecessary. It is obviously done for political reasons and wasted the time and money of the state of Kansas.
Conclusion, this law is stupid.
Not to mention the people who wrote and passed it.
No they are not. They get paid by the stupid who elected them...
The fact is that Muslims in Britain and other areas of Europe are, or were - I have not really heard a lot of this going on lately, but that doesn't mean it is not - trying to incorporate or add pieces of Sharia law to local law.
It may be a stupid law in this incarnation but it is in sympathy with sincere and well-meaning people who do not want any part of radical Islam in our country or our laws. One immutable law for all dictated by some wacko supreme being is laughable here, but the same people that would attack it here, when it has something to do with a foreign minority jump to its defense.
Check this out for more info on the Anti-Sharia movement in Britain - www.onelawforall.org.uk
And the Judges claimed there was nothing to prohibit then from considering it.
Guess that would make the
necessity” more obvious for those that don’t/cant think!
No it hasn't George, but people like to scare each other into believing it has.
In California they can legally smoke pot under the law under certain conditions, today, in Michigan is illegal..
Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading, GW whose insider trading shut down a company was elected president. While all this was happening, the members of congress who decided on the laws and on deals that were legislated, were allowed to do insider trading legally...
And today the banks bet against their clients that the deals are going to go bad.
All this is legal, if you need solid evidence read JP Morgan Chase latest...
So George, are you really serous, or just making conversation?
There is a twist though. Te woman can be punished easier than the man for whatever the offense is, however the man can't take the law in his hands...
In addition, we do not tolerate any of the Sharia law customs that advocate honour killings or anything like that. At the end of the day any person residing in the UK be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or of any faith have to abide by the laws in my country that have been around for over 1,000 years
OneLawForAll.Org.UK -
We call on the UK government to recognise that Sharia and all religious laws are arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. Citizenship and human rights are non-negotiable.
As far as what vis says about religion, I think he's right. We shouldn't even need that because we're already protected by the 1st amendment. However, if we see how they've mangled that in the courts, it seems like there's almost what looks like a redundancy needed to uphold the law we already have. That's because we've had these quacky-wackers sitting on the Supreme Court for too long, interpreting the first amendment after a two too many martini lunch.
Uh, you mean like the equal rights amendment ?
How about the Mormons who marry young girls by the dozen, and that buys their way to sainthood?
I think that all the "specialist" in Sharia law, should at least read it before talking about it.
Maybe there were at times Muslims who went crazy in this country, and taking advantage of the general ignorance of the Americans, used Sharia as a shield, knowing that no one knew it, based on the American gullibility to religion...
I tell you what. No Muslim would like to be judged under Sharia Law for shoplifting though... They would love to use the English Common Law principles...
It took me all of 10 seconds to find one.
Now what?
I can't link to the article because it isn't mine and that's against TOS.
I don't think it was Gather Chuck, but I'm not sure who it WAS.
Joy, Obviously I don't. I'm not a big fan of redundant law. Makes for precedent confusion, if nothing else.
"'That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible abrogation,' the organization posted on its site."
The above from CBN news. in also read elsewhere a purported text where he said, "...if I were Muslim I would be highly insulted...". Or something like that. I did not look for the YouTube, nice it is a voice, according to the report, which might not even be him, or could be a barely audible if I were Muslim, like printed in the text. Either way, I don't care. the victim should have received justice, and the Judge blew it, IMHO, whatever his prejudice that caused it. Maybe he got a visit threatening his family, as those who have condemned the verdict are reported to have received.
*Hahaho*... No... *hehehehe*... it's... *gasp whoop* *Haw*... NOT... *Haw*
Stop Char, please. There's only so much of this parroting of flat untruth I can stand.
Hogwash... McConnell announced the day after the inauguration he had no greater job ahead of him than making Obama a one-term President. And EVERY nominee thereafter was hit with a hold, sometimes before anyone was nominated. Your "non-obstructionist" TEA-Twit Senators requested holds on justices for any judge in any federal court in their state. It had nothing to do with quality, philosophy, pro or con abortion, or anything else. It was just pure obstructionism.
But it's not all their fault. This isn't a law. It isn't even a Senate Rule. It's a "Courtesy" previously used primarily for horse-trading and for really outre' recommendations for judgeships. Now it's just used to obstruct a president, like they're using the threat of continuous filibuster.
Reid could end this by refusing to continue that shameful practice. He won't, because he fully intends to use it himself, if he winds up the minority leader. Unlike his TEA-Twit counterparts, he learns. Unfortunately he has no imagination. He'll just give back what he got.