Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Is she legally (US law) prevented from getting remarried, or is it purely a religious/cultural thing? If she were to apply for a marriage license, would it be withheld because the church doesn't think she is divorced?

Ouze wrote:This really should have been 2 different threads.

indeed.

Sharia is referred to specifically twice.

Not sure why that should be so specific when it was not considered necessary to specify other religious law, such as Jewish.

It makes it look kind of like a deliberate slap at muslims. A bit like the Swiss law banning minarets for being tall while allowing other tall buildings.

I am sure that was not the intention.

d-usa wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Is she legally (US law) prevented from getting remarried, or is it purely a religious/cultural thing? If she were to apply for a marriage license, would it be withheld because the church doesn't think she is divorced?

technically if Shariua law were implied then under the precepts of Sharia law she wouldn't be divorced legally unless following its precepts. Or put it another way, if following Catholic law, she couldn't get divorced, well, ever.

d-usa wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Is she legally (US law) prevented from getting remarried, or is it purely a religious/cultural thing? If she were to apply for a marriage license, would it be withheld because the church doesn't think she is divorced?

No, she is not legally prevented from getting remarried.

Also, reading the law, the part preventing the use of foreign law where it incorporates Sharia law is a problem.

Kilkrazy wrote:Sharia is referred to specifically twice.

Not sure why that should be so specific when it was not considered necessary to specify other religious law, such as Jewish.

It makes it look kind of like a deliberate slap at muslims. A bit like the Swiss law banning minarets for being tall while allowing other tall buildings.

I am sure that was not the intention.

It is the intention, if you look at the supporting material for the ballot. Thats the twitchy part. If the actual ballot law didn't get speciific like that, it should (in my opinon which means there of course can be no dispute) have been fine.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Is she legally (US law) prevented from getting remarried, or is it purely a religious/cultural thing? If she were to apply for a marriage license, would it be withheld because the church doesn't think she is divorced?

No, she is not legally prevented from getting remarried.

Also, reading the law, the part preventing the use of foreign law where it incorporates Sharia law is a problem.

If she is legally divorced and legally able to get remarried, then I think at that point the civil court has done it's job. Anything after that is between her, her (according to religiou still husband) and her church/mosque/whatever.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Does not being "religiously divorced" have any impact on her legal and civil affairs?

She is precluded from getting remarried by her church. If she wanted to get married again then she would either need to get the ex-husband to consent or abandon her faith (with which she may have strong ties).

Is she legally (US law) prevented from getting remarried, or is it purely a religious/cultural thing? If she were to apply for a marriage license, would it be withheld because the church doesn't think she is divorced?

No, she is not legally prevented from getting remarried.

Also, reading the law, the part preventing the use of foreign law where it incorporates Sharia law is a problem.

That depends doesn't biccat. If the courts in fact use Sharia law in some future notation then they could in fact limit divorce.

d-usa wrote:If she is legally divorced and legally able to get remarried, then I think at that point the civil court has done it's job. Anything after that is between her, her (according to religiou still husband) and her church/mosque/whatever.

So then you would agree that the court has no business using the precepts of religious law. Then, aside from the perceived anti-Muslim bigotry, what is your objection to this law?

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:The actual full text of the actual law (and not just the question on the ballot) can be found here.

Thanks D. The proposed bill is twitchy in a few sections (aka poorly written) but not seeing how its particularly unconstitutional. Yes Sharia law is noted, but its under the penumbra of other law sources not permitted.

if that is indeed the crux of it, then it could be rewritten simply to include only the first part aka US/state constitutions and appropriate stare decisis only then it would have been fine.

There is a push by the original author of the law to get it rewritten, but it has not gained much traction. Quick story on that here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:If she is legally divorced and legally able to get remarried, then I think at that point the civil court has done it's job. Anything after that is between her, her (according to religiou still husband) and her church/mosque/whatever.

So then you would agree that the court has no business using the precepts of religious law. Then, aside from the perceived anti-Muslim bigotry, what is your objection to this law?

What if there is a case that has no clear cut codified US law, but could be ruled based on international/cultural/religious laws?

What if there is a case where both parties to the suit (as in divorce) want to have their religion/culture taken into consideration? This would probably fall more into arbitration, but still.

d-usa wrote:If she wanted to get married again then she would .. abandon her faith

Too bad under sharia this means she should be killed.
A rational person cannot logically defend sharia if he actually knows what it entails, unless you are afraid of being labelled a "bigot" which seems to get thrown around a lot on here. Being critical of something is a good thing if you have facts to back up your arguement.

Same as Jewish law, small story in a certain book where lots of people were pissed because some Jesus fellow wouldn't let them stone somebody.

Which of course is totally irrelevant to this story because this law was about saying that a court could not take Sharia into consideration when deciding if stoning a woman would be an acceptable outcome in a civil proceeding even though there is no legal basis for stoning in existing US law.

Most forms of Sharia set out weather a woman can marry again as part of the divorce settlement.

As for death penalties; I do not think that this would be handed out by a Sharia court in a western democracy. It would probably be a figurative death where the woman is "excommunicated".

VanHammer wrote:
Too bad under sharia this means she should be killed.
A rational person cannot logically defend sharia if he actually knows what it entails, unless you are afraid of being labelled a "bigot" which seems to get thrown around a lot on here. Being critical of something is a good thing if you have facts to back up your arguement.

An excellent post.

KK banned me for a week for pointing out that Islam is inherently prejudiced towards women.

It is. I could prove it in a court of law and provide hundreds of examples as to why, and there are literally millions of left leaning individuals that agree with me.

In the same vein, being critical of sharia law is logical. If we have any regard at all for fairness and equality it must be resisted as aggressively as possible.

Speaking of fairness and logic, I now look forward to the adult behavior of being banned from a website by a middle aged man for the crime of disagreeing with him.

mattyrm wrote:

VanHammer wrote:
Too bad under sharia this means she should be killed.
A rational person cannot logically defend sharia if he actually knows what it entails, unless you are afraid of being labelled a "bigot" which seems to get thrown around a lot on here. Being critical of something is a good thing if you have facts to back up your arguement.

An excellent post.

KK banned me for a week for pointing out that Islam is inherently prejudiced towards women.

It is. I could prove it in a court of law and provide hundreds of examples as to why, and there are literally millions of left leaning individuals that agree with me.

In the same vein, being critical of sharia law is logical. If we have any regard at all for fairness and equality it must be resisted as aggressively as possible.

Speaking of fairness and logic, I now look forward to the adult behavior of being banned from a website by a middle aged man for the crime of disagreeing with him.

I'd ban you, but I don't want to be killed with a roll of toilet paper. Frazzled knows not to tug on Superman's cape.

It's 7am and i drank 3 bottles of wine and 5 pints of beer yesterday mate..

Your mom could beat me up.

mattyrm wrote:It's 7am and i drank 3 bottles of wine and 5 pints of beer yesterday mate..

Your mom could beat me up.

Dude mom would kick the crap out of a Kodiak bear...and then eat it. Not many women can boast of running over their husband...twice.

You can tell the truth, we both know by yesterday you mean "in the last hour"

As disturbing as this is, I think this thread is responsible for all my google ads to be trying to direct me to "singlemuslims.com"...

What the hell google ads?!

mattyrm wrote:

VanHammer wrote:
Too bad under sharia this means she should be killed.
A rational person cannot logically defend sharia if he actually knows what it entails, unless you are afraid of being labelled a "bigot" which seems to get thrown around a lot on here. Being critical of something is a good thing if you have facts to back up your arguement.

An excellent post.

KK banned me for a week for pointing out that Islam is inherently prejudiced towards women.

It is. I could prove it in a court of law and provide hundreds of examples as to why, and there are literally millions of left leaning individuals that agree with me.

In the same vein, being critical of sharia law is logical. If we have any regard at all for fairness and equality it must be resisted as aggressively as possible.

Speaking of fairness and logic, I now look forward to the adult behavior of being banned from a website by a middle aged man for the crime of disagreeing with him.

You were suspended for pointing out that Islam is prejudiced against women without bothering to mention that so is Judaism, Christianity, and western and Japanese society (etc.)

In other words for making discriminatory comments biased against one particular religion.

d-usa wrote:Because unless we pass a law that says "courts in Oklahoma cannot use Shiria law", the courts in Oklahoma are going to ignore the Constitution and traditional laws already on the books and rule that a woman should be stoned to death for being unchaste...

I was speaking about Sharia in a more general sense than whatever happened in Oklahoma, and I was using an extreme example of why I have an issue with that system of law.

I can only imagine that you knew that, though, and are just trying to be cute here.

Can anyone point to any examples of a US civil or criminal court actually adjudicating based on Sharia law rather than state/federal law?

From following it when it was first up for discussion, it was because "some state in the US set up a separate Shiria Court apart from 'real' courts".

Which it turned out that these "sharia courts" were pretty much simple Arbitration courts. Which means that both parties involved voluntarily went there and decided to settle their case in this manner.

d-usa wrote:From following it when it was first up for discussion, it was because "some state in the US set up a separate Shiria Court apart from 'real' courts".

Which it turned out that these "sharia courts" were pretty much simple Arbitration courts. Which means that both parties involved voluntarily went there and decided to settle their case in this manner.

Well. the voluntary nature of the participants can always be in dispute, but yea thats the only thing I've seen so far.

In the UK we have Jewish and Sharia courts which can perform "voluntary" arbitration.

The agreement is embodied in a contract.

The validity of the contract is tested by a real British court, and British law denies or enforces it as necessary.

The only real case example of this is a co-worker of mine who ended up getting divorced the "sharia" way, and the arbitration found heavily in favor of his ex wife. He is a doctor working two jobs now to pay for her and his kids. (And now, I don't know the details other than him telling me that "Islam thinks that what I did was wrong and I am paying for it")

Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK we have Jewish and Sharia courts which can perform "voluntary" arbitration.

The agreement is embodied in a contract.

The validity of the contract is tested by a real British court, and British law denies or enforces it as necessary.

I'm ok with that.

Seaward wrote:Can anyone point to any examples of a US civil or criminal court actually adjudicating based on Sharia law rather than state/federal law?

Nationwide Resources v. Massabni, 694 P.2d 290 (Ct. Ap. Az 1984) - determining whether property acquired belonged to the husband separately or jointly to the husband and wife.

Ivaldi v. Ivaldi, 672 A.2d 1226 (N.J. Superior Ct. 1996) - Court defers to the determination of a Moroccan court (applying Islamic law) as to child custody.

In Re Aramco Services Co., No. 01-­‐09-­‐00624-­‐CV. (Ct. App. Texas 2010) - Court enforcing an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration under Saudi (Sharia) law.

Contracts, child custody, and marriage dissolution are going to be the only areas where you see decisions referring to Islamic law.

biccat wrote:In Re Aramco Services Co., No. 01-­‐09-­‐00624-­‐CV. (Ct. App. Texas 2010) - Court enforcing an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration under Saudi (Sharia) law.

Contracts, child custody, and marriage dissolution are going to be the only areas where you see decisions referring to Islamic law.

I think that case is what started the whole "Save our State" bill in Oklahoma. A lot of "They have Muslim Courts! Everybody Panic!" when that happened.

That and a divorce case from New Jersey or something like that I want to say. It's been a few years now since it was all over the news here.

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

As to the Ten Commandments, they have their background in religious text but they were the code of law of a people in ancient times and one of the first codes of law to exist. The Ten Commandments are closer to the Code of Hammurabi in context of history, yet we don't impose the laws of the Ten Commandments upon a group of people similar to the draconian views of the Code of Hammurabi. Sharia Law is similar to the Ten Commandments, but when you seek to enforce those laws you are then imposing them on all people.

Sharia Law is against the US Constitution, it restrains the rights of individuals and would conflict with the law of the United States or the state.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK we have Jewish and Sharia courts which can perform "voluntary" arbitration.

The agreement is embodied in a contract.

The validity of the contract is tested by a real British court, and British law denies or enforces it as necessary.

I'm ok with that.

Yeah but Frazz, you shouldn't be.

It sounds fine on the surface, no harm can be done if it's all voluntary right?

Im a big follower of Maryam Namazi and the One law for all campaign, and some of the stories I have read on her website are truly disturbing. Make no bones about it, there is very little choice in the matter for a great many vulnerable women.
That's alien to tough blokes like us.