U.S. Shari'a watch

[Haggis@wk]

Pennsylvania Shari’a watch

Muslims in West Philadelphia are seething over plans to relocate a liquor store closer to the University of Pennsylvania—because there’s also a mosque nearby.

College junior Artina Sheikh, vice president of the Penn Muslim Student Association, also spoke out against the possible relocation.
“The MSA is extremely concerned over this issue and objects to this establishment because of the moral implications of permitting wider distribution of alcohol to society at large,” she said.

Get that? They’re concerned that someone not of their religion might be corrupted. How thoughtful

Slippery slope folks, slippery slope

[Shapley]

We have laws in many municipalities that prohibit granting liquour licenses to facilities within a set distance of a school or church, so this really isn't that big of an issue, unless the facility in question is outside that boundary. Baptists, Mormons, etc. also oppose the establishment of liquour facilities in close proximity to their churches.

We Catholics, on the other hand, aren't hampered by those restrictions....

[bignaf]

nor we Jews. in fact, in a week we're having our drinking holiday! (one of them )

[Trumpetmaster]

I'm tired of this crap........
I understand the need for certain laws.... but this is dumb... IMHO.....

[Haggis@wk]

Please don't get me wrong, I have no problems with any group opposed to {insert favorite personal sin} using all the resources available to resist the encroachment of whatever purveys that sin.

I AM strongly opposed at any attempt to impose religious beliefs on me (where they don't already exist, don't get me started on "Blue Laws"!!)

And yes, I recognize that I will go thirsty in Utah when my scotch runs out. Once again I am a stong supporter of states rights and if the voters of the State of PA wants to restrict the sale of liquor (it's already hard enough to find a state store now!) Then I will honor their wish and move.

I'll even concede that on reflection that there is a possibility this is no more significant than any other church objecting to a liquor store nearby.

But this doesn't sound like that.

[Haggis@wk]

At “The American Muslim,” Issa Smith describes the plan to establish shari’a law in the United States—and yes, he is talking about shari’a for everyone:
Native American Courts: Precedent for an Islamic arbitral system. This is an attempt to use our own democratic institutions to subvert themselves and institute a Dark Ages legal code, first for themselves, but in the long run for the entire country.

Although the Muslim community in North America is vastly different from the Indian community, I feel that in developing a plan for the implementation of Muslim family law, we can in some ways imitate the paradigm of the tribal court system and its supporting network. In particular, I recommend that as a first step, supporting organizations dealing with Islamic family law be established immediately. A professional association of Muslims in the law field (of whatever specialty) is a must. A law school students’ support group should be formed, and Muslim youth should be encouraged to enter this field.

A second step would be to establish institutes in the U.S. which can supplement legal education with courses in Islamic family law. At the same time, pressure should be put on law schools to include courses in Shariah taught by Muslims. An idea suggested in several quarters and being developed by the American Muslim Council, is the moot court where students and legal experts can act out Muslim family court scenarios. ...
The process of implementing Muslim family law will not be accomplished overnight. Changes of their type take place very slowly in American society, and our community is far from being prepared for this task.

I commend the continental council of Masajid for organizing this conference, and bringing together so many workers and thinkers. I pray to Allah the real decisions are made here that can be implemented by those ready to work. However, I strongly urge that consideration be given to political realities and the sensitivities of the American public.

Such a radical change in American law—allowing Muslims to take control over their family law issues - must be initiated from the indigenous Muslim community here in the United States. To have it seem that this initiative is originating from overseas or from organizations financed overseas, would create a very negative impression that would likely destroy this effort.

If you are not paranoid, you are NOT paying attention.

[bignaf]

their hoping for control over their own family law issues.
I think that's fair.

allowing Muslims to take control over their family law issues

[barfle]

I can hardly wait to see Jerry Falwell's law school grads going toe to toe with them.

While I root for casualties.

[Haggis@wk]

their hoping for control over their own family law issues.
I think that's fair.

allowing Muslims to take control over their family law issues

Really? Would you care to elaborate? Should they be allowed to decide how many wives each man can have? marry minors to adults? Those are just some of the "family law issues" that the Koran entitles them to now.

[barfle]

Should they be allowed to decide how many wives each man can have?

I think everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves how many wives (or husbands, for that matter) a man can have. But then I don't think the government has any business telling people who can and who cannot call themselves "family." They may serve a function of certifying it, but that's all.

[bignaf]

The Koran entitles them to that; it doesn't require them to do that. the courts they are talking about are people who go to regular law school, learn the law of the land, and in addition study shari'a. in that way, they can judge laws of marriage and divorce according to shari'a within what's allowed by the law of the land.

[Serenity]

Should they be allowed to decide how many wives each man can have?

I think everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves how many wives (or husbands, for that matter) a man can have. But then I don't think the government has any business telling people who can and who cannot call themselves "family." They may serve a function of certifying it, but that's all.

"...how many wives (or husbands...) a man can have." i just want to expand that comment to include "how many husbands (or wives) a woman can have".

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I don't think the Koran allows polyandry. Just one of the differentials of entitlement it mandates for us ladies.

[Haggis@wk]

The Koran entitles them to that; it doesn't require them to do that. the courts they are talking about are people who go to regular law school, learn the law of the land, and in addition study shari'a. in that way, they can judge laws of marriage and divorce according to shari'a within what's allowed by the law of the land.

Tell me, exactly, where I can find a set of those annotated codified Shari'a law books those clever law students will be studying?

Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? Nigeria?

Oh, I forgot. There is no codified set of Shari'a because in every country where it is practised, the interpretation is based on the opinion of the individual religious cleric. There are no international standards, there are no safeguards.

Canada's been struggling with a limited Shari'a since 1991 where some family law issues are handled by Islamic clerics. Their decision, based on whatever criteria they chose is unrefutable, there is no appeal and there is no redress for perceived inequity.

My comments about polegamy might have been flipant but there are serious consequences to implementing even Shari'a family laws. For one, it routinely disinherits widows from receiving her husband's estate. It goes to the oldest male child or possibly to the husband's brothers if he died without male children. And as mentioned above, there is no appeal to the decisions rendered by the cleric; challenge them and you will be labeled blasphemer.

I assume that you are okay with two sets of family laws for different groups of Americans? One that provides due process and appropriate redress before a court of law or one that is decided by a coupla Saudi Arabian clerics paid to preach in America's mosques by the Saudi Government?

Besides, you feel comfortable use the definition "family law"? Is adultry a criminal or civil matter e.g. "family law"? I've seldom seen it in a criminal court.

You can get stoned to death for that is some countries under Shari'a you know.

according to shari'a within what's allowed by the law of the land.

Shari'a doesn't recognize any other set of rules or laws. Shari'a IS the supreme law and trumps all others including the Constitution.

[bignaf]

if someone opts in to that set of laws for a particular area of life, I think it's not outrageous for them to ask for it.
stoning people is a criminal act in US, so that would not fit in my description of sharia that I think the people you quoted are requesting.
if the people opt into a set of family laws that passes the inheritance to the eldest male, I think it is not outrageous for them to ask that it be allowed for them.

[Haggis@wk]

Big,
You missed the point; actually you missed two points

1.there is no set of family laws Shari ‘a is what a cleric deems and little more than that. You keep alluding to a set of laws that simple does not exist except in broad terms and those are mostly (to the majority of us) barbaric.

2. To the "parishioners" of Shari ‘a there are no temporal laws that someone can petition to if they feel they have been aggrieved. That is so antithetical to the American form of govt. that I can't even believe someone would advocate just that.

As for "opting in" what if your parents want to opt in and you don't? Just as parents who don't believe in abortion can't force their minor daughter to carry a baby to full term should the Islamic parents marry a 9 y.o. to an uncle if it would not (in a U.S. court of law) be deemed to be in the best interest of the child?

if the people opt into a set of family laws that passes the inheritance to the eldest male, I think it is not outrageous for them to ask that it be allowed for them.

Well, they could do that now with a pre-nup, why complicate matters with a new set of Islamic rules that can change depending on some cleric’s interpretation? As an aside I suspect that even with a pre-nup a lot of American Muslim women might "opt out" of a pre-nup that totally disenfranchises them from their future earnings and wealth.

If all they want to do are impose those interpretations then all they have to do is go to a lawyer and enter into a contact. Contract law is very specific and, unlike Shari' a, is codified and protected from personal bias. Almost anything you want to impose on your little religious community can be structured via contract.

That is not the point of trying to impose Shari' a on American Muslims, the point is to establish federal recognition that a religion has rules that supercede established civil law. If we did give some kind or Federal imprimatur to the establishment of Shari ‘a that would be a de facto recognition of one religion over all others which is why, under today’s Constitution anyway, the Govt. will not give in to the attempts to do so.

[bignaf]

I ignored those points, because I felt they were irrelevant to my main point. my objective was getting you and the readers of your post to see more rationally what the problem is. I think your last post is much more in that direction. in your original post you said

"Issa Smith describes the plan to establish shari’a law in the United States—and yes, he is talking about shari’a for everyone [...]This is an attempt to use our own democratic institutions to subvert themselves and institute a Dark Ages legal code, first for themselves, but in the long run for the entire country.

that language gives the impression that Muslims are taking over the country law, forcing all Americans to not drink wine and marry their minor daughters to some sheiks. I think I successfully pointed out that this is not borne out by the source you cite. OK, their aspirations may not fit entirely with our constitution, but such is the case with many other propositions. those propositions, while they spark arguments, usually do not provoke hysterical "shari'a watches" and "their taking over" from educated people such as yourself. nor should this slightly unconstitutional aberration.

[Haggis@wk]

OK, their aspirations may not fit entirely with our constitution....

nor should this slightly unconstitutional aberration.

All meaningful debate is anchored by common standards that both debaters accept. Your statement above demonstrates that you and I do not share a standard that will lead to any useful conclusions.

[bignaf]

I think you're mistaking my intent. I'm not saying unconstitutional things are fine. I'm saying that your language regarding this problem was inflammatory and demagogic.

[Marye]

Canada's been struggling with a limited Shari'a since 1991 where some family law issues are handled by Islamic clerics. Their decision, based on whatever criteria they chose is unrefutable, there is no appeal and there is no redress for perceived inequity.

No struggle:

http://www.nosharia.com/Press%20Release%20Ontario%20pass%20new%20law%20family%20legal%20arbitration.htm