Islamic Tribunals in Texas, Sharia law being used to oppress women

Using the Islamic Tribunal in this way is similar to using arbitration. You can agree to follow the advice of the arbitrator but you always have the option of using the government courts. If the Imam wouldn't speak for her or she lost her case she STILL has the option of going to court. She may loose standing in her community but she will not have violated any state laws.

KitKatMatt said:

That would be the government getting involved with religion, which is not allowed.

Religious groups and churches are allowed to discriminate all they want.

Click to expand...

That's not entirely true...maybe in Constitutional theory that how it was intended to be, but that's not how it typically plays out in modern day America.

Authorities have stepped in numerous times in cases of cults and religious extremism when they've deemed those organizations to be a safety risk to either the members, or the children of members.

For example, if a cult is fostering an environment which has the potential to cause harm to children, authorities have stepped in...now, whether that's right or wrong in a case where no actual harm has been done yet is a completely different topic of discussion.

Ultimately, it reflects a larger double standard by our government/society today.

The people who have absolutely no problem taking a shot a Christianity are the same people that say "well, we have to be tolerant" when it pertains to other religions...I don't know if it's a case where people think they're sticking up for the little guy or what...

Look no further than the SSM conversations.

When a Christian church wants to refuse to marry gay couples, the get the label of bigot, etc... Governments use crafty loopholes like the attempted Washington State & New Jersey bills that proposed that if a Church rents out its facilities to straight couples for a fee, then it must also rent its facilities out for a gay wedding as well (using the public accommodation argument).

However, you never seem to hear any scrutiny about mosques refusing to marry gay couples, you never really hear them labeled as bigots (even though the treatment of gays in predominant Muslim countries is far worse than what it is in predominant Christian countries).

It almost seems like when the topic is separation of church and state, if the religion being discussed is Islam, liberals temporarily take the same stance (on what it means) that republicans take when they discuss Christianity.

By that I mean:

Christianity = Separation is all about what they can't make society do
Islam = Separation is all about what society can't make them do.

As an Atheist, I'm not trying to play favorites here...however, I do think the outrage that some Christians have pertaining to the double standards is warranted.

miniverchivi said:

That's not entirely true...maybe in Constitutional theory that how it was intended to be, but that's not how it typically plays out in modern day America.

Authorities have stepped in numerous times in cases of cults and religious extremism when they've deemed those organizations to be a safety risk to either the members, or the children of members.

For example, if a cult is fostering an environment which has the potential to cause harm to children, authorities have stepped in...now, whether that's right or wrong in a case where no actual harm has been done yet is a completely different topic of discussion.

Click to expand...

Red hearing because the government can still step in if a child is in danger.

miniverchivi said:

Ultimately, it reflects a larger double standard by our government/society today.

The people who have absolutely no problem taking a shot a Christianity are the same people that say "well, we have to be tolerant" when it pertains to other religions...I don't know if it's a case where people think they're sticking up for the little guy or what...

Look no further than the SSM conversations.

When a Christian church wants to refuse to marry gay couples, the get the label of bigot, etc... Governments use crafty loopholes like the attempted Washington State & New Jersey bills that proposed that if a Church rents out its facilities to straight couples for a fee, then it must also rent its facilities out for a gay wedding as well (using the public accommodation argument).

However, you never seem to hear any scrutiny about mosques refusing to marry gay couples, you never really hear them labeled as bigots (even though the treatment of gays in predominant Muslim countries is far worse than what it is in predominant Christian countries).

It almost seems like when the topic is separation of church and state, if the religion being discussed is Islam, liberals temporarily take the same stance (on what it means) that republicans take when they discuss Christianity.

By that I mean:

Christianity = Separation is all about what they can't make society do
Islam = Separation is all about what society can't make them do.

As an Atheist, I'm not trying to play favorites here...however, I do think the outrage that some Christians have pertaining to the double standards is warranted.

Click to expand...

I dont think people understand liberal beliefs on this very well when they use this argument. First you would have to show where a halal bakery refused to make a wedding cake or that a Mosque that does rent buildings to the general public wont rent a building to same sex couples to prove your point. I have never heard this happen. I cant even find a Mosque that rents buildings to the general public period.

Bottom line is the Catholic Church wont grant religious divorces and liberals dont fight that at all.

Once you offer a service for profit, you are subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Are mosques renting space for profit to marry people? If so, yes, they can and should get in trouble for refusing to marry a gay couple.

If no, they are not touched by anti-discrimination laws, just like Christian churches.

GenetoJean said:

Red hearing because the government can still step in if a child is in danger.

Click to expand...

Soooo... If there's a group that's essentially advocating violence against women, a person involving a child with that group would be putting that child in some element of danger, correct?

If you do a google search for "children removed from cult", you'll find a ton of results on the subject. They often label fringe Christian groups as "cults" or "controversial sects" in order to justify their decision to move in and remove the children, however, you don't really hear too much of it happening when it pertains to Islam.

ObamaChristian said:

Now this is coming to Texas. Sharia judge El-badawi said this about the Islamic divorces his tribunal would be dealing with: “While participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He readily owned up to how sexist the process is: “The husband can request the divorce directly from the tribunal. The wife must go to an Imam who will request the divorce for her.”

Someone should have asked, what would happen when your sexist Imams decide to not request it.

'Voluntary' Sharia Tribunal in Texas: This Is How It Starts - Breitbart

When asked what he would do when Islamic law conflicted with American law, Sharia Judge El-badawi said: “WE FOLLOW SHARIA LAW.”

“While a husband is not required to go through official channels to gain a divorce — being able to achieve this merely by uttering the word ‘talaq’ — Islamic law requires that the wife must persuade the judges to grant her a dissolution.”

In the UK, when this was happening we saw a women who

After being beaten repeatedly by her husband — who had also threatened to kill her — Jameela turned to her local Sharia council in a desperate bid for a way out of her marriage…In an airless room in the bowels of the mosque, Jameela is asked to explain why she wants a divorce. She replies that her husband spends most of his time with his second wife — Islamic law allows men to have up to four wives — but complains he is abusive whenever he returns to her home.

Her request for a divorce was denied. “For the sake of the children, you must keep up the facade of cordial relations,” the Sharia judge told her. “The worst thing that can happen to a child is to see the father and mother quarreling.”

Great, now the Muslims in America want to do the same crap.

Click to expand...

This many pages and our Reformed friends haven't bothered to take a swipe at Papist annulment tribunals?

For shame!

miniverchivi said:

Soooo... If there's a group that's essentially advocating violence against women, a person involving a child with that group would be putting that child in some element of danger, correct?

If you do a google search for "children removed from cult", you'll find a ton of results on the subject. They often label fringe Christian groups as "cults" or "controversial sects" in order to justify their decision to move in and remove the children, however, you don't really hear too much of it happening when it pertains to Islam.

Click to expand...

There are probably more Christian cults in America than Islamic cults because there are more Christians than Muslims here...

Also, I disagree with all answers of this poll. This poll sucks.

It's not really a big deal. The people must voluntarily submit to this council and if they do not like their judgment then they can take it to a real court. It is only a problem if they refuse to accept US law. Their community may have a certain way they like to handle problems but as long as it does not interfere with the law of the land then this would be protected under freedom of religion.

miniverchivi said:

That's not entirely true...maybe in Constitutional theory that how it was intended to be, but that's not how it typically plays out in modern day America.

Authorities have stepped in numerous times in cases of cults and religious extremism when they've deemed those organizations to be a safety risk to either the members, or the children of members.

Click to expand...

Women heeding the decision of the counsel of imams is not a safety risk.

You might as well say that we should shut down christian churches because they tell their members to not use swear words. This is a clear violation of their freedom of speech, is it not?

ObamaChristian said:

Her request for a divorce was denied. “For the sake of the children, you must keep up the facade of cordial relations,” the Sharia judge told her. “The worst thing that can happen to a child is to see the father and mother quarreling.”

Great, now the Muslims in America want to do the same crap.

Click to expand...

It is not that different than "traditional" attitudes that play out-still- in domestic courts, at least in Southern ruarl areas.

That said, it has no place in the US. Remember, there are laws in the US about domestic violence that supercede religious covenants. Illegal activities cannot be waived.

Loudmouth said:

None of the Amish or Sharia laws are legally binding. A woman can still get a legal divorce even if Sharia law says that she can not.

Click to expand...

Very true. In the legal sense, yes.

Loudmouth said:

Can she be stoned to death? No. Can she be imprisoned by the imams? No. There are absolutely zero legal ramifications for violating Sharia law in the US.

Click to expand...

Under Amish "law" the worst punishment one can receive is "shunning". Under Sharia, well, there are far worse penalties, but as you say, none of them are "legally binding" so long as the person charged leaves the "community". US law would not recognize a penalty of "stoning", obviously. If she leaves the community, she could not be imprisoned by anyone. Does that mean that the penalty could not be handed down from the tribunal? No. Could the sentence be carried out? Not legally. To say that there are "zero ramifications for violating Sharia Law in the US" is true in the legal sense, but it does not stop the issuing of the sentence from the Imam.

Loudmouth said:

No, he could not. The women could go to the police and attain a restraining order that would legally bar the husband from even coming close to her. If the husband threatens her, she could involve the police and have him arrested for domestic violence. I know of no state in the US that allows a husband or a religious leader from stopping a women from getting a divorce.

Click to expand...

Yes, the woman could get restraining orders or whatever else she would deem necessary by the US legal system. Does Sharia "recognize" the authority of the US court system? No. This is where there is a difference between the Amish and Sharia. No State would allow anyone to stand in the way of a woman who wishes to divorce. No State would allow a man to abuse or harm their wife for any reason, religious or not. Sharia law would not supersede State or Federal law. That is the legal point of view. Since Sharia does not recognize US or State law as superior to Sharia, this goes beyond speaking in strictly legal terms. So, would our laws protect the woman from being stoned by her husband or members of the "community"? No.

I'm 'splitting hairs' here, I realize. Allowing Sharia to be practiced freely will carry with it some unique problems. These are problems that our society will need to address at some point. Sharia here in the US, opens "doors" that we have, up to this point, not had to deal with in any great degree. It's not like anything we have dealt with in that the ones who choose to employ Sharia, are willing to go to great lengths to enforce it and protect it's authority. Once the "toothpaste is out of the tube", it's difficult to get it back. To allow Sharia as it is practiced in places like France or the UK, goes against Constitutional law. We cannot have areas where law enforcement has no authority, or is prohibited from entering. "No go zones", as some refer to them, cannot be allowed here. Respecting Religion and the freedom to practice it, is protected. But so is the authority of our laws. It's going to get interesting when Sharia is openly practiced in our country.

BoltNut said:

Under Amish "law" the worst punishment one can receive is "shunning". Under Sharia, well, there are far worse penalties, but as you say, none of hem are "legally binding" so long as the person charged leaves the "community".

Click to expand...

A women can not be legally stoned to death even if she stays in the community. Sharia law does not nullify US law anywhere within the borders of the US.

Yes, the woman could get restraining orders or whatever else she would deem necessary by the US legal system. Does Sharia "recognize" the authority of the US court system? No.

Click to expand...

They have no choice. If they are arrested for violating a restraining order they will face charges just like anyone else.

Since Sharia does not recognize US or State law as superior to Sharia, this goes beyond speaking in strictly legal terms.

Click to expand...

Does christianity bend to the rule of US law? If US law says that gays can get married, is christianity forced to accept gay marriage as being in line with christian theology?

So, would our laws protect the woman from being stoned by her husband or members of the "community"? No.

Click to expand...

Yes, they would protect women from being stoned. Why wouldn't they? Why would anyone think that US law protects religiously based murderers?

GenetoJean said:

I cant even find a Mosque that rents buildings to the general public period.

Click to expand...

Although my memory is fuzzy on it, I believe there is one near me that does. I recall there being controversy about the Mosque buying up nearby buildings, kicking out tenants that had been there for years (one in particular was a pizza shop), and only renting to members of the mosque; which was possibly illegal because they were getting certain tax exemptions based on renting to low income public.

Loudmouth said:

A women can not be legally stoned to death even if she stays in the community. Sharia law does not nullify US law anywhere within the borders of the US.?

Click to expand...

No one can be "legally stoned" anywhere in the us, period. I know that.

Loudmouth said:

They have no choice. If they are arrested for violating a restraining order they will face charges just like anyone else.?

Click to expand...

Yes, violating a legal action from the court is punishable. Again, in the legal sense, you are 100% correct.

Loudmouth said:

Does christianity bend to the rule of US law? If US law says that gays can get married, is christianity forced to accept gay marriage as being in line with christian theology??

Click to expand...

As in the case we are discussing now, there are issues that will need to be ironed out. We are still in the situation where religious freedom, and free speech, and Gay rights are getting sorted out as to how they relate to each other. The courts are still dealing with the issues that come from how these issues effect each other. Christian "theology" has little to do with this since Christian theology recognizes the authority of government and law enforcement. One's theology varies depending on which "Christian" you talk to. Not so much with Sharia.?

Loudmouth said:

Yes, they would protect women from being stoned. Why wouldn't they? Why would anyone think that US law protects religiously based murderers?

Click to expand...

The law "protects" people from being stoned as far as it is possible to "protect". Our laws to not sanction religious murder. I am saying that up to now, we have not had instances where a religion commonly assigns a violent penalty to it's members, and non-members for that matter. Islam and Sharia are not like anything we have had to deal with in our country in the past. Giving it a foot hold anywhere in the US would create situations where those who practice it, would feel the need to enforce it no matter what the legal system here has to say about it.

I am not saying that this is a reason to prohibit Sharia, I'm saying that it's a sort of paradox. We are a country that loves freedom, but Sharia is the opposite. The two cannot co-exist in practice. I don't know what is going to result from actions like these, but you can bet that it will be like opening Pandora's box.

It's a very interesting topic and one that will carry with it, very unique effects.

Loudmouth said:

Women heeding the decision of the counsel of imams is not a safety risk.

You might as well say that we should shut down christian churches because they tell their members to not use swear words. This is a clear violation of their freedom of speech, is it not?

Click to expand...

While both scenarios involve a person consenting to a counsel's ruling on a matter, one involves physical safety and the other does not. Nobody's ever had to the go to the emergency room for being told not to swear...however, women & children have had to go as the result of abusive behavior from a male head of household.

I'm not saying it right for the government to step in and shut down the religious leaders who happen to condone this behavior...at the end of the day, it's the man's choice on whether or not he follows that poor advice and actually "physically disciplines" his wife. If someone follows stupid advice, that's on them...not on the person who gave them that advice because the man has the choice to ignore that advice if he really wants to.

However, I just finished up watching a documentary called "I escaped a cult", and one of the stories was pertaining to what was called an "extreme Christian cult", in which parents were encouraged by the church leadership to physically discipline their children (harshly), and warrants were put out for the church leaders even though those leaders didn't personally hit the kids (they just encouraged the parents to with the thread of being kicked out of the group if they didn't comply with the orders).

I'm not saying that scenario was right either, I think the parents should be the ones who got punished since it was their bad decision making.

...I just want to see some consistency in the way authorities handle these sorts of things. It shouldn't be two sets of rules based on the fact that it seems to be more politically correct to attack Christianity than Islam these days.

Loudmouth said:

She could have filed for divorce in court and then legally remarried if she so chose.

Click to expand...

The point was that some of the things people fear from Sharia courts already happen in Rabbinical courts (and I believe someone mentioned needing an annulment from the Catholic Church to divorce). Although I would submit that most people don't know Rabbinical courts exist.

stellalunaCW said:

The point was that some of the things people fear from Sharia courts already happen in Rabbinical courts (and I believe someone mentioned needing an annulment from the Catholic Church to divorce). Although I would submit that most people don't know Rabbinical courts exist.

Click to expand...

Going to a Rabbinical court is like going to arbitration legally speaking right? You choose those courts and basically get a settlement out of court that then becomes legally binding by getting the agreed to ruling in writing which if not obeyed, can be brought to the courts for satisfaction. I don't see any problem with that unless the out of court "court" rules that violence or disregard for any other laws is ok.

It's a sad case but how often do we try to get women awayfrom their abusive husbands and they just won't go? She has the choice to find another Mosque or move where there is one. She is making the choice to go by these people's rules

How is this any different than church discipline? Unless Sharia Law violates civil law what they do through their Imans is no different that what many fundamentalist churches do in the form of "church discipline".