Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals prefers Shariah and violence.

brewmama · Jul 27, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
Well, ten years ago, I didn't personally know any women who were in that situation. Now I know three.

I understand that that's hardly a scientific method, but it shows that it exists.

They were raped repeatedly over and over and over by the same person?

TLK Valentine · Jul 27, 2015

brewmama said:
They were raped repeatedly over and over and over by the same person?

Yes. One by her husband. Good luck getting the police to take charges of spousal rape seriously...

Avid · Jul 27, 2015

Hank77 said:
Here's an example that I believe is more representative of what Sharia courts are like.

The Jews have always had the 'Beth Din'. If a Jewish woman wants a divorce she must go through the 'Beth Din' which follows the Law of Moses. If she doesn't and just goes through the secular civil courts she will be excommunicated from their fellowship, also is the husband if he does not live up to his agreements made in the divorce agreement. The 'Beth Din' sets the agreements for spousal and child support, etc. and it is binding within their laws of their faith.
It is the same for business disagreements, etc.

Actually it is quite scriptural for Christians, too. Within the church disagreements are suppose to be settled by the elders in the church, not in secular civil courts.

Very simply, if a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim wishes to settle a civil suit in a different court (Judge Judy example) they may do that, but it does not supplant the constitutionally established court system. If a Muslim rapes or kills another Muslim (or anyone else for that matter,) that would not be applicable, since that is considered a crime against the state. The courts are set up to handle, State of Texas versus Muslim Rapist. That is not something that would be proper to turn over to a Shariah court, regardless of how much they'd like to.

If these people wish to replace our law with Shariah Law, they should make haste to leave, and settle in a nation that does that already.

Arcangl86 · Jul 27, 2015

Avid said:
Very simply, if a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim wishes to settle a civil suit in a different court (Judge Judy example) they may do that, but it does not supplant the constitutionally established court system. If a Muslim rapes or kills another Muslim (or anyone else for that matter,) that would not be applicable, since that is considered a crime against the state. The courts are set up to handle, State of Texas versus Muslim Rapist. That is not something that would be proper to turn over to a Shariah court, regardless of how much they'd like to.

If these people wish to replace our law with Shariah Law, they should make haste to leave, and settle in a nation that does that already.

The problem is, we do not know what these people wish. The question was phrased as all or nothing, and that might have effected the answers. It's very possible that a lot of the people who wish they can be governed by Shariah meant only in the area of private law. We don't know because of how the question was worded.

Avid · Jul 27, 2015

Arcangl86 said:
The problem is, we do not know what these people wish. The question was phrased as all or nothing, and that might have effected the answers. It's very possible that a lot of the people who wish they can be governed by Shariah meant only in the area of private law. We don't know because of how the question was worded.

I'll try again. It is up to them to have certain cases tried in their courts, like some people opt to have their cases tried by Judge Judy. They are not required to go to Judge Judy, but they get money for appearing there, and that frees up other small claims courts, saving taxpayers money. There are judges who do divorce settlements on TV, and that type of case is in an area of civil law that is open to that type of arbitration as well. Certain civil cases are much too complicated for such a venue, so they may NOT be open for such an option.

If a lawyer is needed or even allowed (not so in small claims court,) the cases are too complex, and not open to this type of arbitration. If you and some other person have a case where all litigants agree to whatever Uncle Joe decides (or whatever Preacher Bob, Rabbi Avi, or other person decides) it may be open to these different options.

Areas where the state is represented, and lawyers are allowed, do not pose a good case for this avenue of justice, because the constitutional law of the state or nation may be circumvented. It should not be allowed! We do not need to arbitrarily turn over the execution of our constitutional republic to these foreign laws, most especially when we established this nation to get away from that type of system.

Arcangl86 · Jul 27, 2015

Avid said:
I'll try again. It is up to them to have certain cases tried in their courts, like some people opt to have their cases tried by Judge Judy. They are not required to go to Judge Judy, but they get money for appearing there, and that frees up other small claims courts, saving taxpayers money. There are judges who do divorce settlements on TV, and that type of case is an area of civil law that is open to that type of arbitration as well. Certain civil cases are much too complicated for such a venue, so they may NOT be open for such an option.

If a lawyer is needed or even allowed (not so in small claims court,) the cases are too complex, and not open to this type of arbitration. If you and some other person have a case where all litigants agree to whatever Uncle Joe decides (or whatever Preacher Bob, Rabbi Avi, or other person decides) it may be open to these different options.

Areas where the state is represented, and lawyers are allowed, do not pose a good case for this avenue of justice, because the constitutional law of the state or nation may be circumvented. It should not be allowed! We do not need to arbitrarily turn over the execution of our constitutional republic to these foreign laws, most especially when we established to get away from that type of system.

And what does this have to do with my comment? And lawyers are actually allowed at arbitration, depending on the particular terms of the arbitration contract of course. But I was not talking about allowing Shariah in anything but private law, which can then be enforced by the courts if need be.

Avid · Jul 27, 2015

Arcangl86 said:
And what does this have to do with my comment? And lawyers are actually allowed at arbitration, depending on the particular terms of the arbitration contract of course. But I was not talking about allowing Shariah in anything but private law, which can then be enforced by the courts if need be.

Lawyers are not typically allowed in small claims court. The arbitration is usually handled solely by the Judge. Judge Judy had a case where one of the people there had come to help his friend from a lawyer standpoint, and she sent him out. Those types of cases are simple enough for that, but I disagree with anyone who would turn over ALL of any area of law to an outside entity.

It matters not what the Muslims want concerning Shariah. What is available to them now is all that should be available, or they should live elsewhere. This nation was established to END that type of influence in our government, lawmaking, law enforcing, and law applying!

Armoured · Jul 27, 2015

Avid said:
. It should not be allowed!

Why not? We already allow other forms of mutually agreed arbitration to be used? Including other religious courts, such as Jewish ones. Why should Muslims be any different?

Other than because of the boogeyman word "sharia", obviously.

Arcangl86 · Jul 27, 2015

Avid said:
It matters not what the Muslims want concerning Shariah. What is available to them now is all that should be available, or they should live elsewhere. This nation was established to END that type of influence in our government, lawmaking, law enforcing, and law applying!

And people have a lot of discretion in matters such as contract law and wills and trusts. There would be no conflict with the Constitution if these decisions were shaped by Shariah.

GoldenBoy89 · Jul 27, 2015

KarateCowboy said:
It blows my mind to see people actually comparing the two here. It's like "25% of group A supports killing people who disagree with them" and "Well yeah, but look at group B! 50% of group B thinks drug abuse is bad!". You're comparing violence against people to opposing aberrosexual behaviors.

Wrong. The comparison is legislation based on religious beliefs. It is a perfect comparison. The only difference is the specific religious belief in question.

GoldenBoy89 · Jul 27, 2015

KarateCowboy said:
It's hard to find any numbers for that. The proportion is miniscule.

Or there's more Christian liars than some would like to admit.

Avid · Jul 27, 2015

Arcangl86 said:
And people have a lot of discretion in matters such as contract law and wills and trusts. There would be no conflict with the Constitution if these decisions were shaped by Shariah.

Actually, there would be. As soon as this gets beyond what was agreed by those Muslims, an American judge would be deciding such a dispute. He would need to be studied up on Shariah, or he may not understand what is proper or acceptable according to the contract. That is NOT acceptable.

If there is a group of people who wish to handle a certain element of their business without involving the American civil courts, that may be alright, but these things invariably have an aspect that is not properly suited for that kind of thing, or another party is somehow involved that has not "signed-on" to this alternate lifestyle. As soon as ANYTHING that is not covered totally by that system comes up, it is thrown into the American court system, and the rules are not the same as what Shariah may dictate.

Armoured · Jul 27, 2015

Avid said:
Actually, there would be. As soon as this gets beyond what was agreed by those Muslims, an American judge would be deciding such a dispute. He would need to be studied up on Shariah, or he may not understand what is proper or acceptable according to the contract. That is NOT acceptable.

If there is a group of people who wish to handle a certain element of their business without involving the American civil courts, that may be alright, but these things invariably have an aspect that is not properly suited for that kind of thing, or another party is somehow involved that has not "signed-on" to this alternate lifestyle. As soon as ANYTHING that is not covered totally by that system comes up, it is thrown into the American court system, and the rules are not the same as what Shariah may dictate.

So again, why do we allow other religious people to have their own arbitration, if it's so wrong for Muslims?

Avid · Jul 27, 2015

Concerning how a simple case presented in small claims court can become something else very quickly, early in the days these Real Court shows, Judge Wapner of the People's Court recognized this happening. A small claim (back then was limited to $3000) was for doctor and hospital bills caused when the defendant punched the plaintiff during a baseball game. The defendant had been acting badly, the umpire ejected him from the game, and when he was walking away, someone said something bad to him, which he assumed (wrongly) was the umpire. The fellow turned and charged the umpire, punching him, and doing serious damage, including a broken jaw. Judge Wapner saw this was clearly a case of "Assault and Battery," and was amazed that it was not being decided in a criminal court.

Even something as simple and straight-forward as a contract dispute needs a standard of law that is not based in different codes of law. We cannot be allowing something so open-ended as this in our legal system. Litigants agreeing to arbitration is tricky enough, as shown above. This shows that even something expected to be cut-and-dried like a small claim can easily become something completely different depending on circumstances.

cow451 · Jul 28, 2015

brewmama said:
So you agree that there are such things as no go zones. And in Europe they most likely do pertain to Muslims.

Only if you use such a vague definition as to have no real meaning.

brewmama · Jul 29, 2015

cow451 said:
Only if you use such a vague definition as to have no real meaning.

Maybe no meaning for you. I'm not about to go into them though.

Avid · Jul 29, 2015

It seems people are confused about how Muslims are different from Jews, Christians and others. Two major things come to mind. Initially, their access to arbitration is not different. They would like it to be, and that is where they are different in that aspect. As an extension, they intend to replace our laws with theirs, and I have not heard or seen any such move, nor intent, from Jewish or Christian people who would utilize separate means of arbitration.

Next, there is a stated goal and intent of Muslims to take over the world, destroy Israel and destroy the USA. Another thing that is not a determined goal of the other groups mentioned.

TLK Valentine · Jul 29, 2015

Avid said:
It seems people are confused about how Muslims are different from Jews, Christians and others. Two major things come to mind. Initially, their access to arbitration is not different. They would like it to be, and that is where they are different in that aspect. As an extension, they intend to replace our laws with theirs, and I have not heard or seen any such move, nor intent, from Jewish or Christian people who would utilize separate means of arbitration.

Plenty of Christians -- on this forum and elsewhere -- share similar goals.

Next, there is a stated goal and intent of Muslims to take over the world, destroy Israel and destroy the USA. Another thing that is not a determined goal of the other groups mentioned.

There is a stated goal and intent of Christians to convert the world, destroy Islam, and side with Israel regardless of whom they choose to destroy. Again, eerily similar...

ebia · Jul 29, 2015

Avid said:
It seems people are confused about how Muslims are different from Jews, Christians and others. Two major things come to mind. Initially, their access to arbitration is not different. They would like it to be,

In what way?

and that is where they are different in that aspect. As an extension, they intend to replace our laws with theirs,

Do "they"? Who is "they"?

Next, there is a stated goal and intent of Muslims to take over the world, destroy Israel and destroy the USA. Another thing that is not a determined goal of the other groups mentioned.

Most Muslims don't intend to destroy Israel or the USA.
Christians intend to convert the world.

Armoured · Jul 29, 2015

Avid said:
It seems people are confused about how Muslims are different from Jews, Christians and others. Two major things come to mind. Initially, their access to arbitration is not different. They would like it to be, and that is where they are different in that aspect. As an extension, they intend to replace our laws with theirs, and I have not heard or seen any such move, nor intent, from Jewish or Christian people who would utilize separate means of arbitration.

Next, there is a stated goal and intent of Muslims to take over the world, destroy Israel and destroy the USA. Another thing that is not a determined goal of the other groups mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Din_of_America

Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals prefers Shariah and violence.

Senior Veteran

I've already read the books you want burned.

A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...

Newbie

A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...

Newbie

A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...

So is America great again yet?

Newbie

We're Still Here

We're Still Here

A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...

So is America great again yet?

A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...

Standing with Ukraine.

Senior Veteran

A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...

I've already read the books you want burned.

Senior Contributor

So is America great again yet?

Similar threads