Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Islam Caliphate on the range? The Shariah precedent in American courts

Discussion in 'Interfaith Dialogues' started by spnadmin, Nov 7, 2010.

  1. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    Judging by how Oklahoma voted in the recent election, one might conclude that despite its tiny Muslim population, Oklahoma was on the verge of becoming an Islamic caliphate in Middle America. The reality is of course far different. Oklahoma State Question 755, which passed, asked voters whether state courts should be forbidden "from considering or using Sharia Law." Similar legislation is being considered in Tennessee, and Louisiana recently became the first state to pass several bills banning international law from its courts. Although the Louisiana bills didn't mention shariah explicitly, they were apparently motivated at least in part by a similar distaste for Muslims and their religious law, and a desire to "protect" constitutional law. These constitutional law protectors appear, however, to be a little fuzzy on what constitutional law actually means, how it allows for various forms of religious arbitration and what the state can and cannot do to regulate religious freedoms.

    In the discussion and debate surrounding Question 755, supporters in search of an example where the bogeyman shariah was permitted inside American courtrooms kept pointing to a New Jersey case where the court denied a restraining order to a woman who was sexually assaulted by her then-husband. The judge ruled that the husband did not have a "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" her as the husband was merely under the impression that he was exercising his prerogative as a husband under Islamic law. What's rarely reported, however, is that the decision was promptly overturned on appeal because the application of shariah, or the "cultural defense," conflicted with civil law.

    This example is noteworthy not just because the decision was overturned because it got the law wrong, or that it is the only one of its kind, but because it is an atypical example of how shariah has made an appearance in American courtrooms. The typical cases are far from frightening. For example, arbitration under shariah law is permitted in the U.S., just like arbitration according to Christian principles or Jewish religious tradition is permitted, or according to any other set of rules two contracting parties may agree to. Indeed, prominent Christian groups like PromiseKeepers have long required Christian arbitration clauses in their contracts with vendors.

    The crucial feature of any kind of arbitration is that an arbitrator, whether religious or not, has no ability to enforce the arbitral decision; only state or federal courts have that power. In deciding whether to enforce arbitral awards, civil courts first review whether the parties agreed to take part in the arbitration of their own free will. Courts also review the arbitral decision to ensure that arbitrators are neutral, and that the resulting arbitral decisions are neither grossly unfair nor undermine public policy. There are thus already an array of carefully crafted safeguards in place to protect individuals.

    Despite the long-standing opportunity to enforce religious arbitral awards in American courts, Sharia arbitration is still very rare in comparison to other sorts of arbitration. And oddly enough for those who believe Sharia discriminates against women, in the case of divorce proceedings, some women turn to shariah arbitration to enforce rights that are not granted by civil law but are provided under shariah. Muslim women are guaranteed a mahr (dowry given to the wife as part of the Islamic marriage contract), which becomes due and payable in the event of a divorce if it has not been paid during or at the time of the marriage. Women getting a divorce sometimes choose to arbitrate under shariah law in order to enforce the payment of the mahr. The outcome of these cases has varied depending on state law. For example, a California court would not enforce a mahr because it violated state law regarding "profiteering from divorce." However, a court in New York enforced a mahr because it conformed to state statutory requirements. As these cases show, for decades state courts have been policing shariah arbitral awards for compliance with public policy.

    A civil court's involvement with religious matters is, however, limited to cases where it can enforce civil law without deciding questions of religious doctrine or requiring individuals to conform to religious law. For example, in a New Jersey case that involved the regulation of kosher foods in keeping with principles of Orthodox Judaism, local government officials had implemented regulations to monitor merchants and ensure that they would keep kosher according to a particular school of Judaism. The state court held the system to be unconstitutional because government would take on an impermissible role of setting standards that were based on religious, not civil, law.

    Although the court declined to use the civil law to enforce religious standards, it did suggest a constitutionally appropriate way to prevent kosher fraud by requiring "those who advertise food products as 'kosher' to disclose the basis on which use of that characterization rests." Such regulations would be permissible because the courts could enforce a civil contract between two parties without deciding on any questions of religious doctrine or requiring an individual to conform to a religious law. The rule in the kosher case applies equally to shariah: civil courts cannot decide religious questions.

    The role of civil courts in determining matters that individuals choose to regulate according to religious law is an intricate one that the courts have already clearly answered. But are these finer issues of the religion-state relationship of any significance to the backers of anti-shariah measures like State Question 755? Or is the effort a combination of both political advantage-seeking and fear of Muslims -- not to mention just pure silliness? Sadly, the notion of shariah, or Islam, "taking over" America in a manner somewhat akin to the Seed Pods from The Return of the Body Snatchers seems to be infecting segments of the national political discourse, despite its inherent absurdity.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/asma-uddin/caliphate-on-the-range_b_778207.html
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Range Rovers Blogs Oct 16, 2015
    SciTech Strange Blue World: Alien Planet's True Color Revealed, a First Breaking News Jul 12, 2013
    My Purchase of the 1994 Blue Range Rover LSE Business, Lifestyle & Leisure Nov 27, 2012
    Orange New to Sikhism Aug 9, 2012
    Truth Stranger Than Fiction! Interfaith Dialogues May 26, 2012

  3. lionsingh

    lionsingh
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    67
    "civil courts cannot decide religious questions"

    Then there is no hope.

    You be silly and I will be real !!icecreammunda
     
  4. lionsingh

    lionsingh
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    67
    Sharia is BACKWARD...Type in Sharia-Justice...it is an oxymoron..

    http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-sharia-is-evil-abomination-these.html


    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/f...ning-order-blocking-oklahomas-sharia-ban.html

    Federal judge schedules hearing today on restraining order blocking Oklahoma's Sharia ban


    It's interesting to note how quickly the Islamic supremacists have gone after this measure, while others dismiss it as unnecessary. If it were unnecessary, why go to the trouble to block it? If Muslims have no plans to bring the political and supremacist aspects of Sharia to the U.S., which would be the first time in history they have come to a country and not brought Sharia with them, then why bother opposing this measure at all? In fact, they should favor it. And the claim that this measure singles out Islam ignores -- not surprisingly -- the ways in which Islam is a political and social system in a way that Judaism and Christianity are not. It is interesting to note that in other contexts, Islamic supremacists proudly invoke that difference as evidence of the superiority of Islam over the other Religions of the Book. But in this instance, it is politically expedient for them to forget about all that.
    "Hearing set on international, Islamic law ban," from the Associated Press, November 8 (thanks to Logan's Warning):
    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A federal judge has scheduled a hearing on a temporary restraining order to block a measure to prohibit state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.... Among other things, the lawsuit alleges the ballot measure transforms Oklahoma's Constitution into "an enduring condemnation" of Islam by singling it out for special restrictions.


    GET REAL !!!
     
  5. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200

    lionsingh ji

    Ask yourself this question. Why do you think that the starter article is an expression of my opinion, or any individual's opinion rather than a news article written by a journalist?
     

Share This Page