• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Muslim Activist Group Suing Oklahoma for banning Sharia/Islamic LAW

Yeah, it does. You asked how "Sharia law" would come up in probate, and this guy is suing over that very subject.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yeah, it does. You asked how "Sharia law" would come up in probate, and this guy is suing over that very subject.
Click to expand...

And I explained in there why I believe his claim to be frivolous. :shrug:

So, are you going to explain how I'm wrong about that or not? And are you going to explain how a court may apply Sharia law within contract law?
 
tacticalevildan said:
too bad that, legally speaking, this is about contract law and not religious law. The only way "sharia law" can be applied in the united states is via contracts to which all parties are voluntary participants and the contract itself does not violate the law of the land. You know, like any other contract.

i guess hate and fear are valid grounds upon which to ban otherwise legal contractual arrangements.

Aside from that, i wish the proponents of this luck with the article vi dispute which is surely coming.
Click to expand...

You have made it clear you have no damn clue what you are babbling about.

In case you are as confused about me as you are about reality. I am a Conservative not a a damn Liberal, I hate no man. It's Liberals who hate everyone who thinks for themselves.

For example I hate the CULT of Islam. I hate the Cult of Black Liberation Theology, Obama is into, because it's Anti-American, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Constitution, and Anti-White people.

You could not be more wrong.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
Well, out of my years of debating---about 4---I have never met a liberal who was against Sharia Law. I guess it's my lucky day.
Click to expand...

How many people have you meant that were for it? Or do you define liberal as anyone who disagrees with you?

I mean liberals in general
Click to expand...

Name one.

An example would be NPR firing Juan b/c he was "anxious" around Muslims; the point was whether or not he should have been fired but that any voice against Islam is offensive.
Click to expand...

That does not mean NPR is for Sharia. It merely means they disagreed with his somewhat xenophobic views. Seriously. 4 years of debating and that's your argument?

Constantly, I see liberal that defend Sharia/Islamic Law. There are two main sides of the point that is Sharia Law. The conservatives are always against it. What does that say of the other main side?
Click to expand...

Your best argument was that someone got fired over saying xenophobic things about Muslims, and not even saying anything about Sharia. Fail.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
And I explained in there why I believe his claim to be frivolous. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I read what you said, and you essentially said that if it's a valid will, then this amendment won't affect it.

If it's a valid will, and in it he asks that his possessions be divided according to "Sharia law," then this amendment, which explicitly states:

Section 1 said:
The Courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.
Click to expand...

. . . would explicitly prevent the court from considering the very standard he is asking it to consider.

Harshaw said:
And are you going to explain how a court may apply Sharia law within contract law?
Click to expand...

Party A enters into a contract with Party B to do a certain thing according to "Sharia law."

A dispute arises.

A suit is brought in civil court alleging a material breach of the contract.
 
Councilman said:
You have made it clear you have no damn clue what you are babbling about.

In case you are as confused about me as you are about reality. I am a Conservative not a a damn Liberal, I hate no man. It's Liberals who hate everyone who thinks for themselves.

For example I hate the CULT of Islam. I hate the Cult of Black Liberation Theology, Obama is into, because it's Anti-American, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Constitution, and Anti-White people.

You could not be more wrong.
Click to expand...

Hey, by all means, feel free to lie while you hate.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It's essentially the only way "Sharia law" is going to manifest in the United States -- two or more parties who have a conflict and agree to have it arbitrated according to "Sharia law," or advanced planning documents.

In other words, via contracts, planning documents and other similarly civil methods.
Click to expand...

The United States has a civil code. That is the only laws that should be followed in contractual matters. Which the Oklahoma law will enforce.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I read what you said, and you essentially said that if it's a valid will, then this amendment won't affect it.

If it's a valid will, and in it he asks that his possessions be divided according to "Sharia law," then this amendment, which explicitly states:



. . . would explicitly prevent the court from considering the very standard he is asking it to consider.



Party A enters into a contract with Party B to do a certain thing according to "Sharia law."

A dispute arises.

A suit is brought in civil court alleging a material breach of the contract.
Click to expand...

You do realize that arbitration doesn't require a court to apply Sharia law, right? All it considers is "have the parties agreed to this"? The basis for the agreement can be anything they so choose as long as the agreement meets the legal requirements to be valid.

As for enforcing the terms of an agreement, the only law analysis which enters into it is whether or not the document constitutes a valid contract. The terms of the agreement are entirely up to the parties. To the extent a court enforces anything, it's the terms of the agreement. That doesn't mean it's "law." It's simply the agreement. It no more makes the court apply "Sharia law" than enforcing a mortgage contract means that bank lending policy is "law."

What it WILL prevent is a situation where someone wants the court to ignore the law and decide a legal matter on the basis of Sharia -- as in, screw contract law altogether, the Koran says this is a binding agreement and we want the court to enforce it. That, I would think, would be opposed by anyone who purports to favor secular government.

So, if Sharia law says "this is a valid will," but actual probate law says it isn't, or if someone wants an intestate man's estate to be divvied according to Sharia law instead of long-standing probate law, then too bad, so sad -- Sharia loses. And that's the way it ought to be. Do you disagree?
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
Excellent job of mixing slander with your fear and hate.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of crap I'm talking about. Liberals defending Islam even though under Islamic rule women are oppressed.

See what I mean??
 
Harshaw said:
What it WILL prevent is a situation where someone wants the court to ignore the law and decide a legal matter on the basis of Sharia -- as in, screw contract law altogether, the Koran says this is a binding agreement and we want the court to enforce it. That, I would think, would be opposed by anyone who purports to favor secular government.
Click to expand...

It would also be illegal to begin with. This amendment was not required if that's all that was desired. The way this reads, courts won't be allowed to consider "Sharia law" period, whether the point of "Sharia law" in question contradicts the law of the land or not.

Harshaw said:
So, if Sharia law says "this is a valid will," but actual probate law says it isn't, or if someone wants an intestate man's estate to be divvied according to Sharia law instead of long-standing probate law, then too bad, so sad -- Sharia loses. And that's the way it ought to be. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Of course I agree, but if all that was desired was that "Sharia law" not be considered supreme above the law of the land, this amendment was not required.
 
Wake said:
This is the kind of crap I'm talking about. Liberals defending Islam even though under Islamic rule women are oppressed.

See what I mean??
Click to expand...

Please stop lying about me.


TED,
Not a liberal, and not defending the oppression of women, thanks.
 
Under Sharia law thieves get their hands cut off; I damn well actually witnessed that on YouTube.

What if in America once Sharia is supposedly brought in the liberal way, what happens if the thief doesn't want his hands cut off? There would be Sharia Law courts in America... how would those judged under those courts find refuge from such oppression? Would they easily be able to be tried under normal, humane American courts?

Furthermore, when can we start bringing in Buddhist courts? Mayhaps a Wiccan court as well?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It would also be illegal to begin with. This amendment was not required if that's all that was desired. The way this reads, courts won't be allowed to consider "Sharia law" period, whether the point of "Sharia law" in question contradicts the law of the land or not.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't ever have to if it's just arbitration. I already explained that.


Of course I agree, but if all that was desired was that "Sharia law" not be considered supreme above the law of the land, this amendment was not required.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out the NJ rape case where apparently THAT judge didn't quite get it.
 
Harshaw said:
It wouldn't ever have to if it's just arbitration. I already explained that.
Click to expand...

If that's true, what the hell is the point of the amendment (aside from Oklahomans pissing to mark their territory, that is)?

Harshaw said:
I already pointed out the NJ rape case where apparently THAT judge didn't quite get it.
Click to expand...

That's an example of a judge that needed to be removed from the bench, not an example of where it needed to be clarified that "Sharia law" is trumped by the law of the land.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If that's true, what the hell is the point of the amendment (aside from Oklahomans pissing to mark their territory, that is)?
Click to expand...

That's up to OK. The NJ case was specifically cited as a motivation -- not something they wanted any of their own judges to do. This is perfectly within the purview of any state, to define exactly what a court's jurisdiction is and what it may consider.



That's an example of a judge that needed to be removed from the bench, not an example of where it needed to be clarified that "Sharia law" is trumped by the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Well, that's funny, because such a clarification is exactly what the appeals court did. And apparently, this judge did in fact need it.

But the appeals court could have gone along with it, and then the NJ Supreme Court could have, too. It didn't happen, but it could have.

Now, in OK, there's no chance of it happening.
 
Harshaw said:
That's up to OK.[
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, if Oklahomans feel the need to piss to mark their territory, that's their business, just like it's perfectly reasonable to call them on their silliness.

Harshaw said:
The NJ case was specifically cited as a motivation -- not something they wanted any of their own judges to do. This is perfectly within the purview of any state, to define exactly what a court's jurisdiction is and what it may consider.
Click to expand...

Insofar as it is within the authority of the state to do so, yeah. That authority doesn't make such a specification reasonable by its nature.

Harshaw said:
Well, that's funny, because such a clarification is exactly what the appeals court did. And apparently, this judge did in fact need it.

But the appeals court could have gone along with it, and then the NJ Supreme Court could have, too. It didn't happen, but it could have.

Now, in OK, there's no chance of it happening.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely, any judge at any time could completely ignore common sense and go off the rails.

That's why there's an appeals process.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Please stop lying about me.


TED,
Not a liberal, and not defending the oppression of women, thanks.
Click to expand...

When you defend Islam in your mild way, you're essentially supporting the barbarizing of their women. Islam states that the woman is possesion to the male. Why do you think so many atrocities happen to women under Sharia from rape, being fully-covered in garb, beatings, and stonings? I have read instances where Islamic men killed their women who were trying to divorce them. You cannot disprove those facts.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You're absolutely right, if Oklahomans feel the need to piss to mark their territory, that's their business, just like it's perfectly reasonable to call them on their silliness.



Insofar as it is within the authority of the state to do so, yeah. That authority doesn't make such a specification reasonable by its nature.



Yes, absolutely, any judge at any time could completely ignore common sense and go off the rails.

That's why there's an appeals process.
Click to expand...

You're acting as though this is the first time anyone ever limited the jurisdiction of a court or what it may consider because a court went "off the rails." Happens quite a bit, actually. Jurisdictions are changed; rules of procedure are changed; standards of evidence are changed. These things are not always simply left to the appeals process. And the whole point of statutes in the first place is to define exactly what a court can and can't decide, and to overrule a court which the legislature or the people think has stepped out of line. This goes back a thousand years.

This is but one single example, in response to an actual incident.

Given that this will not affect contract law, arbitration, or probate, but it will prevent a judge from doing what the NJ judge did, what's your specific objection again? Or is this simply "oh noooz! It's ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!!"
 
Wake said:
When you defend Islam in your mild way, you're essentially supporting the barbarizing of their women.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

Wake said:
Islam states that the woman is possesion to the male. Why do you think so many atrocities happen to women under Sharia from rape, being fully-covered in garb, beatings, and stonings? I have read instances where Islamic men killed their women who were trying to divorce them. You cannot disprove those facts.
Click to expand...

I have never, not once, defended these sorts of abuses.

Please stop lying about me.
 
Harshaw said:
Given that this will not affect contract law, arbitration, or probate, but it will prevent a judge from doing what the NJ judge did, what's your specific objection again? Or is this simply "oh noooz! It's ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!!"
Click to expand...

If this amendment does not affect contract law, arbitration or probate, then it's completely asinine and yet another example of modern political correctness.

Once again, it proves that Muslims really are the new niggers.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, I'm not.



I have never, not once, defended these sorts of abuses.

Please stop lying about me.
Click to expand...

Do you defend Islam and all it entails or don't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom