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

BoltNut said:

Where do people come up with things like this? Just like what we have been discussing,... history. Politicians have been saying and doing things that continually put lives and the rule of law at risk. In their efforts to appear "open minded", they say things that cause reactions. The events in Ferguson were horrific, it was bad enough that a young person lost his life for nothing, but to use it as a platform to perpetuate the viewpoint that it was entirely racially motivated, was virtually criminal. This was done by numerous "mouthpieces" in government including the Attorney General and, to a lesser degree, the President of the United States. Before any investigation was complete, before the deceased was even buried, there were calls for the prosecution of the police officer for murder.

Click to expand...

That does nothing to legitimize Sharia law as being equal to US law. That is paranoia.

No one, AND I MEAN NO ONE, has proposed a bill that would make Sharia law equal to US law. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No one is even proposing it.

I never said that anyone in government has "legitimized" Sharia.... yet. "Legitimizing" Sharia only takes someone in the Justice Department saying that Sharia is part of Muslim 'worship'. Once the connection is made, it is given legitimacy as part of a religion, and it's practice. Any effort on the part of society to "regulate" it, is an infringement on the free practice of the religion. It would then be Constitutionally protected.

Click to expand...

Any proof for this paranoia?

I realize that, today, no one is advocating for the free exercise of Sharia... except for those who want it to be practiced.

Click to expand...

It can't be freely practiced when it includes the violation of rights, such as stonings and false imprisonment. Again, you are inventing a fantasy world.

Forgive me for playing a bit of a "Devil's Advocate" here, but just because no one is saying Sharia should be freely practiced, doesn't mean that those who do want it to be practiced, won't do everything possible to force it on our society. Including using the Constitutional protections we all enjoy to get it done. Today's politicians are only the "useful idiots" they could use to accomplish it. It wouldn't be the first time the legal system has been used to accomplish a political agenda.

Click to expand...

You are doing more than playing Devil's Advocate. You are inventing a fantasy world, and pretending that it is real.

BoltNut said:

But what will our justice system do with someone who was following the "laws" of their religion that just happen to go against US law?

Click to expand...

Our justice system will send them to jail.

Any punishment handed down from the courts that "violate a person's right to their religion" would be met with protests and legal challenges that would be constant.

Click to expand...

I don't see how. People have the right to their religion, but they still have to follow the law. Few, if any, would protest for the right to chop someone's hands off. Legal challenges would be laughed out of court.

In any event, possible protests and potential legal challenges are not the basis for our country's rule of law.

How will our justice system deal with rulings that "infringe on their right to practice their religion"?

Click to expand...

Freedom of religion isn't an absolute when it infringes on others' rights to be secure in their persons. The First Amendment does not trump the Fourth.

Nobody has the right to those practices of a religion that are at serious odds with US law. Sure, some religious practices that might seem illegal at first blush are protected--Mohels are now shielded from child sexual abuse charges for using their mouths to stop the bleeding after a circumcision, for instance--but nobody gets to kill people or cut off hands or any of that kind of nonsense.

We are a Constitutional Republic. Governed by the Constitution and law. For our government to recognize Sharia and "legitimize" it in any degree, would create a situation where the authority of the Constitution and US law would be marginalized.

Click to expand...

That's ridiculous, given that all of your arguments fall flat for what might happen when Shari'a is in conflict with US law.

Loudmouth said:

That does nothing to legitimize Sharia law as being equal to US law. That is paranoia..

Click to expand...

Obviously, I was speaking of the events in Ferguson. A different issue, but one which could have ended up with charges filed by the Attorney General. Even though it was becoming apparent to investigators in Missouri that the officer acted within the law, the Attorney General was not satisfied. Giving legitimacy to the idea that the events were racially motivated. This encouraged those who tried to make it about "race" which only prolonged the riots and violence that ensued. This has less to do with Sharia, and more to do with falsely portraying events in order to perpetuate a political viewpoint.

Loudmouth said:

No one, AND I MEAN NO ONE, has proposed a bill that would make Sharia law equal to US law. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No one is even proposing it..

Click to expand...

Of course not. Nor would anyone do that, specifically. It would not need to be done that way. Recognizing Sharia as a vital part of Islam could do the same thing on the grounds of religious freedom.

Loudmouth said:

It can't be freely practiced when it includes the violation of rights, such as stonings and false imprisonment. Again, you are inventing a fantasy world..

Click to expand...

As things stand today, you are absolutely right. Stonings or any imprisonment cannot legally take place. Those who want to be able to enact Sharia here, would never try to initially have the right to carry out such punishments. They would claim that Sharia is far more to do with how Muslims interact with each other as it pertains to legal dealings like buying a home, entering into a contract or possibly codes of dress. None of these issues would be of concern to US law as long as no violations of contract law take place. Sharia can be seen as being no threat to anyone, as long as there are limits to how it is used. I imagine there has been numerous legal opinions written over the years on the subject. What I am presenting here is not so much fantasy, as it is a hypothetical.

We do have many in this country that dislike anyone who practices the Muslim faith. Anti Muslim attitudes are everywhere, we've all seen and heard it. Steps have been taken to protect innocent people from possible violent acts from those who hold such bias. Protections, when enacted by government, deal with how non-Muslims interact with Muslims. The intent is to protect from persecution. Would it not be possible for government to enact such a protection law that says in some manner that Sharia is a vital part of Islam? Based on this, could someone be put on trial for some non-violent violation of the law in which they claim that by complying with the government law, it would have violated their religion and thereby, their religious freedom?

Is this so out of the realm of possibility? Sure, it sounds a bit far fetched, but a good attorney can prove crazier things than this.

Loudmouth said:

You are doing more than playing Devil's Advocate. You are inventing a fantasy world, and pretending that it is real.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I can remember not too long ago, the idea of gay marriage was unthinkable. That abortion would never be legal, let alone Constitutionally protected. I'm not saying that these things should not have happened, I'm saying that there was a time when everyone would have thought they were impossible.

The country, and the world, are far different from what they were when I was a kid. In the last six years, we have seen a lot of changes that I would never thought could happen. I thought some of these changes were complete fantasy. They'd never happen. I was completely wrong. My hypothesis about all of this could be wrong too, I don't know. But I do see the possibility. I don't see it as a huge "leap" from where we are today. I also see some who appear to think it would be "okay" if Muslims could practice Sharia in our country. Many right here on these message boards see nothing at all wrong with Sharia.

SepiaAndDust said:

Our justice system will send them to jail.

Click to expand...

The way things are today, you are right.

SepiaAndDust said:

I don't see how. People have the right to their religion, but they still have to follow the law. Few, if any, would protest for the right to chop someone's hands off. Legal challenges would be laughed out of court.

Click to expand...

Again, you are correct as far as the law reads today. I also doubt if any would protest for the right to chop off hands, or stone someone or whatever other barbaric form of punishment they desire. Instead, it would be over the more subtle things like contracts or lending practices. Over time, this would change.

SepiaAndDust said:

In any event, possible protests and potential legal challenges are not the basis for our country's rule of law.

Click to expand...

Very true. However, these challenges can influence later decisions which could result in changes to the rule of law.

SepiaAndDust said:

Freedom of religion isn't an absolute when it infringes on others' rights to be secure in their persons. The First Amendment does not trump the Fourth.

Nobody has the right to those practices of a religion that are at serious odds with US law. Sure, some religious practices that might seem illegal at first blush are protected--Mohels are now shielded from child sexual abuse charges for using their mouths to stop the bleeding after a circumcision, for instance--but nobody gets to kill people or cut off hands or any of that kind of nonsense.

Click to expand...

I would agree. Protections under the Constitution do not apply to things like beheadings, etc. Other practices that, as you say, "might seem illegal at first blush are protected..." might apply here in this case. Not all of Sharia has to do with hacking off body parts. A lot of it doesn't have to do with punishment at all. Some might be perfectly acceptable. However, we cannot pick and choose which parts of Sharia are okay if we are willing to allow it to be practiced within our country. While our laws prohibit some things, the practicing Muslim doesn't necessarily see it the same way.

SepiaAndDust said:

That's ridiculous, given that all of your arguments fall flat for what might happen when Shari'a is in conflict with US law.

Click to expand...

My arguments would "fall flat" so long as the relationship between US law and Sharia, remain unchanged. So long as no legitimacy is given to the idea that Sharia is vital to the practice of Islamic worship.

cow451 said:

I went to a church a few years back that officially "booted out" a woman for adultery.

Click to expand...

I can do you one better. The first Baptist church I joined I got kicked out of for divorcing an abusive husband. Back just before Christmas I was asked to leave another Baptist church (that I had been heavily involved in for three years) because I posted a "very liberal, and offensive" meme on my FB page. The meme? A photo of Jesus and it referenced helping needy people.

Loudmouth said:

Can an imam stop a woman from getting a divorce from an abusing husband in the US? No.

Again, Sharia "law" does not supersede US law anywhere within the borders of the US. There are none of these "no go zones". They were invented by the right wing to stir up anger against muslims. You are being played.

Click to expand...

You're response isn't addressing the point I made tho...

I'm not being played by anyone, I realize that Sharia law doesn't supersede US law. My point was strictly pertaining to when/how people & authorities decide that a group's teachings are dangerous enough and "brainwashing" enough that they place liability on the leaders rather than the followers.

Can a Islamic leader stop a woman from getting a divorce? No
Can Charles Manson "make" a person kill another person? No...yet, that didn't stop authorities from taking action against him personally rather than placing the blame solely on the participants.

Same goes with the cult I made reference to in a previous post.

So again I ask...why does society have a double standard on this?

Why is it that the "brainwashed" explanation is accepted when it comes to fringe cults, but not when discussing a mainstream religion like Islam?

miniverchivi said:

You're response isn't addressing the point I made tho...

I'm not being played by anyone, I realize that Sharia law doesn't supersede US law. My point was strictly pertaining to when/how people & authorities decide that a group's teachings are dangerous enough and "brainwashing" enough that they place liability on the leaders rather than the followers.

Can a Islamic leader stop a woman from getting a divorce? No
Can Charles Manson "make" a person kill another person? No...yet, that didn't stop authorities from taking action against him personally rather than placing the blame solely on the participants.

Same goes with the cult I made reference to in a previous post.

So again I ask...why does society have a double standard on this?

Why is it that the "brainwashed" explanation is accepted when it comes to fringe cults, but not when discussing a mainstream religion like Islam?

Click to expand...

Mini, stop setting up extreme straw men and discuss what is being proposed. If the Islamic tribunal does something as bad as those cults did then the people responsible should be held accountable. The same thing goes for a Christian leader, Buddhist leader, Flat Earth leader, or any leader with influence enough to cause them to happen. However, until that happens, if a religion wants to set up a religious court and the members of that religion wants to follow the rulings of that court, as long as it doesnt supercede US law, then they should be able to.

miniverchivi said:

You're response isn't addressing the point I made tho...

I'm not being played by anyone, I realize that Sharia law doesn't supersede US law. My point was strictly pertaining to when/how people & authorities decide that a group's teachings are dangerous enough and "brainwashing" enough that they place liability on the leaders rather than the followers.

Can a Islamic leader stop a woman from getting a divorce? No
Can Charles Manson "make" a person kill another person? No...yet, that didn't stop authorities from taking action against him personally rather than placing the blame solely on the participants.

Same goes with the cult I made reference to in a previous post.

So again I ask...why does society have a double standard on this?

Why is it that the "brainwashed" explanation is accepted when it comes to fringe cults, but not when discussing a mainstream religion like Islam?

Click to expand...

There's nothing there to do with "brainwashing". If you're part of a criminal conspiracy--whether committing the act, planning the act, or covering up the act afterward--then you may be found jointly responsible for the whole act.

Manson attempted to argue that one of the Helter Skelter Girls was responsible for the conspiracy and murders, but the jury didn't believe him.


If a leader of Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, atheists, or the local Lions Club entered a conspiracy to maim or kill someone, then that leader could be found jointly responsible for the maiming or killing.

There's no double standard.

GenetoJean said:

Mini, stop setting up extreme straw men and discuss what is being proposed. If the Islamic tribunal does something as bad as those cults did then the people responsible should be held accountable. The same thing goes for a Christian leader, Buddhist leader, Flat Earth leader, or any leader with influence enough to cause them to happen. However, until that happens, if a religion wants to set up a religious court and the members of that religion wants to follow the rulings of that court, as long as it doesnt supercede US law, then they should be able to.

Click to expand...

It's not an extreme strawman IMO....

If a women is being treated like dirt, and she isn't going to the authorities to handle it via US law, there has to be something influencing her decision right?

If an Islamic tribunal is refusing to grant a divorce even if she's abused, and she's afraid to go to the authorities about it, there has to be something controlling that fear or decision right? Whether it be fear of retaliation or even a fear of being outcast from her community...either is still an example where her judgment is being clouded by a religious institution no different than a how a women might be in a cult.

SepiaAndDust said:

There's nothing there to do with "brainwashing". If you're part of a criminal conspiracy--whether committing the act, planning the act, or covering up the act afterward--then you may be found jointly responsible for the whole act.
If a leader of Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, atheists, or the local Lions Club entered a conspiracy to maim or kill someone, then that leader could be found jointly responsible for the maiming or killing.

There's no double standard.

Click to expand...

What are we defining as a conspiracy?

If Manson telling one of the girls "you should go kill these people" makes him part of a conspiracy when one of them commits the act, how is that different than when a Muslim leader teaches "Corporal discipline against your wife is acceptable" then one of their followers goes home and commits the act?

miniverchivi said:

What are we defining as a conspiracy?

If Manson telling one of the girls "you should go kill these people" makes him part of a conspiracy when one of them commits the act, how is that different than when a Muslim leader teaches "Corporal discipline against your wife is acceptable" then one of their followers goes home and commits the act?

Click to expand...

I don't know if there's a specific conspiracy to commit spanking, but there is no difference. If a criminal act occurs, and if you took part in the planning or execution of the act, then you may (depends on jurisdiction) be found jointly responsible for the whole act.

Teaching that men, in general, should physically discipline their wives is not the same as teaching that a certain man should physically discipline his wife, specifically.

The first could be a First Amendment (free speech) issue, or it could be incitement. The second is almost certainly a conspiracy to commit a criminal act.

miniverchivi said:

So again I ask...why does society have a double standard on this?

Click to expand...

Why do you think there's a double standard? Won't we have to wait until someone stones somebody to death after a sharia verdict?

(Although sharia courts were not involved, AFAIK, I assure you that the handful of honor killings that have occurred in the US have been dealt with as crimes.)

Or are the authorities (somehow) "taking action" with Christian ministries that foster spousal abuse?

["Feminism rejects the Biblical teaching that a wife is to OBEY her husband. I get many letters from people who have divorced, looking for sympathy. I won't sugarcoat the truth—divorce is a sin. Jesus endured the cross for us, because He loves us. Christ set the example for us to follow. I'm not saying that someone has a right to abuse us; I am saying that we will put up with someone if we love them"]

miniverchivi said:

Can a Islamic leader stop a woman from getting a divorce? No
Can Charles Manson "make" a person kill another person? No...yet, that didn't stop authorities from taking action against him personally rather than placing the blame solely on the participants.

Click to expand...

An imam telling a woman that she should not divorce her husband based on muslim theology is nothing close to murder. Why do you even compare the two?

So again I ask...why does society have a double standard on this?

Click to expand...

You haven't shown that they do have a double standard. Catholics have the same situation in the form of annulments. Catholics are told that it is sinful to divorce, but they can separate if the Catholic church gives them an annulment.

Why is it that the "brainwashed" explanation is accepted when it comes to fringe cults, but not when discussing a mainstream religion like Islam?

Click to expand...

The problem is that you use different "its". You are trying to compare divorce to murder. They are not the same thing.

Loudmouth said:

An imam telling a woman that she should not divorce her husband based on muslim theology is nothing close to murder. Why do you even compare the two?

You haven't shown that they do have a double standard. Catholics have the same situation in the form of annulments. Catholics are told that it is sinful to divorce, but they can separate if the Catholic church gives them an annulment.

The problem is that you use different "its". You are trying to compare divorce to murder. They are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

I'm not comparing divorce to murder, I'm trying to compare abuse to murder (perhaps I should've worded my post a little differently).

If a woman is being abused and a leader tells her that she can not get divorced otherwise she is cast out of the group, isn't that kind of indirectly condoning/encouraging the husbands behavior and possibly setting a poor example?

The double standard I'm referring to is how we treat the leaders who encourage bad behavior. If it's a leader of a "cult", society looks at them (leaders) as the responsible party when a follower commits a bad action and make the assumption that the person isn't in control of their own mind. However, when it's a "religion", we tend to not place any blame on the leaders and instead say "well, the person could've gotten out any time they wanted, there's nothing legally making them stay in the group".

Again, I'm not advocating any sort of intervention here...from a personal perspective, I place total blame on the followers...the whole "would you jump off the bridge?" saying applies in my opinion. However, society doesn't seem to have a consistent view when it comes to assessing the roles of the leaders & followers of groups when something bad happens.

When it's a mainstream religion and the person does something bad: "They could've gotten out any time they wanted, they were foolish to follow such a skewed teaching"

When it's a fringe cult: "The leader should be prosecuted, they had those poor people brainwashed"

essentialsaltes said:

Why do you think there's a double standard? Won't we have to wait until someone stones somebody to death after a sharia verdict?

(Although sharia courts were not involved, AFAIK, I assure you that the handful of honor killings that have occurred in the US have been dealt with as crimes.)

Or are the authorities (somehow) "taking action" with Christian ministries that foster spousal abuse?

["Feminism rejects the Biblical teaching that a wife is to OBEY her husband. I get many letters from people who have divorced, looking for sympathy. I won't sugarcoat the truth—divorce is a sin. Jesus endured the cross for us, because He loves us. Christ set the example for us to follow. I'm not saying that someone has a right to abuse us; I am saying that we will put up with someone if we love them"]

Click to expand...

That site reads like a parody from someone who really does not like women.

miniverchivi said:

I'm not comparing divorce to murder, I'm trying to compare abuse to murder (perhaps I should've worded my post a little differently).

Click to expand...

You haven't shown that there is abuse in the case of American muslim communities. Both christian and jewish communities have the same rules concerning divorce. Why aren't you going after them? Why the double standard?

If a woman is being abused and a leader tells her that she can not get divorced otherwise she is cast out of the group, isn't that kind of indirectly condoning/encouraging the husbands behavior and possibly setting a poor example?

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The imam can try to keep the marriage together while also counseling the husband not to abuse his wife.

The double standard I'm referring to is how we treat the leaders who encourage bad behavior. If it's a leader of a "cult", society looks at them (leaders) as the responsible party when a follower commits a bad action and make the assumption that the person isn't in control of their own mind. However, when it's a "religion", we tend to not place any blame on the leaders and instead say "well, the person could've gotten out any time they wanted, there's nothing legally making them stay in the group".

Click to expand...

Why don't you give us real world examples of american muslim communities that are openly abusing women and not facing any criminal charges from local police. Until you do, you can't claim that there is a double standard.

Loudmouth said:

You haven't shown that there is abuse in the case of American muslim communities. Both christian and jewish communities have the same rules concerning divorce. Why aren't you going after them? Why the double standard?

Click to expand...

If you'll noticed, I mentioned "mainstream religion vs. "cult" "

Mainstream religion includes the two you mentioned.

No, it isn't. The imam can try to keep the marriage together while also counseling the husband not to abuse his wife.

Click to expand...

Yes, the imam can do that...

But is that the approach that we see being taken in other countries that have started following this trend? The article referenced in the OP makes no mention of abuse counseling of any kind...only that she was told by them to keep up the facade of marriage for the sake of the children.

Why don't you give us real world examples of american muslim communities that are openly abusing women and not facing any criminal charges from local police. Until you do, you can't claim that there is a double standard.

Click to expand...

Again, people in this thread seem to be confusing what I'm saying...at no point did I make any accusation suggesting that American courts are prosecuting abusive husbands from one religion and not another. The double standard I'm referring to pertains to the liability placed on leaders of groups (for the actions of their followers) based on the mainstream status of the group.

miniverchivi said:

Yes, the imam can do that...

But is that the approach that we see being taken in other countries that have started following this trend? The article referenced in the OP makes no mention of abuse counseling of any kind...only that she was told by them to keep up the facade of marriage for the sake of the children.

Click to expand...

The same advice has been given to jewish and catholic women for centuries. Why the double standard?

Again, people in this thread seem to be confusing what I'm saying...at no point did I make any accusation suggesting that American courts are prosecuting abusive husbands from one religion and not another. The double standard I'm referring to pertains to the liability placed on leaders of groups (for the actions of their followers) based on the mainstream status of the group.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the actions you are describing are not actually happening.

Loudmouth said:

The same advice has been given to jewish and catholic women for centuries. Why the double standard?

Click to expand...

And my response would be the same...why haven't the leaders of those institutions been held to the same level of liability that a "cult" leader would be held to when bad behavior is encouraged?

The problem is that the actions you are describing are not actually happening.

Click to expand...

So was the story in the OP fake then?

The story was about a woman who was abused, and told that in order to remain in good standing she has to stay with the abuser...I realize that the leaders saying this wasn't an explicit command to the husbands "hey, go beat your wives!", however, I think we can stop tap dancing around it and just admit...when an abusive husband sees that the leaders are going to punish her before they punish him in abuse cases, it's pretty much silent consent from the leaders to the husband saying "you've done nothing wrong"

miniverchivi said:

And my response would be the same...why haven't the leaders of those institutions been held to the same level of liability that a "cult" leader would be held to when bad behavior is encouraged?

Click to expand...

Why do you want different rules for imams compared to priests and rabbis?

So was the story in the OP fake then?

The story was about a woman who was abused, and told that in order to remain in good standing she has to stay with the abuser...

Click to expand...

The catholic church has been giving this same advice for centuries.

The woman is free to heed the advice, or not.

I realize that the leaders saying this wasn't an explicit command to the husbands "hey, go beat your wives!", however, I think we can stop tap dancing around it and just admit...when an abusive husband sees that the leaders are going to punish her before they punish him in abuse cases, it's pretty much silent consent from the leaders to the husband saying "you've done nothing wrong"

Click to expand...

What will the husband think when the police are arresting him for abuse?