I really didn't think Shariah law was an issue in the U.S. yet but it seems I was mistaken as the states are addressing Shariah issues now:

States Take Preemptive Strike Against Shariah Law:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....gainst-shariah


What are the ways in which this will affect the U.S.?

This is my favorite bit: "210 people like The New American Magazine"

I dont see why the amendment was necessary - in the first cited case (for example) the ruling which the article claimed was partially based on Sharia law was overturned on appeal. I dont really know much about your laws, but doesnt that mean you were already dealing with it?

Just what we need: more solutions in need of a problem.

Well it cost the taxpayers more money because it took 2 trials to resolve it.

What do you mean?

Nobody seriously thinks Sharia law can happen in the US, it just doesnt have the right legal setup to allow it. The ban on none existent Sharia courts is just a racist smokescreen. It simply cant happen without a constitutional amendment.

Fwiw we have Sharia courts here in the UK since 2008. We also have Beth Din courts and have done for over a century.

My view is summed up as if the parties of a legal dispute want to settle it in a religious court who am i to argue.

You wouldn't care because you're not concerned but if there are mixed parties with mixed jurisdiction(s) then things get complicated.

If a Muslim is married to an American or 2 Muslims have a baby which becomes an American citizen then deciding which rules apply is more complex.

The relationship between secular (civil) and religious law is not an issue unique to Islam. Jews also have religious courts that, pending the agreement of the concerned parties, can make binding rules on civil matters of divorce and business. The Catholic Church also has a legal code that is binding on its members. For example, since it conflicts with canon law, the Catholic Church will not view a divorce granted by a civil court as legitimate.

If you are interested, here is an article with some more on this subject.

It doesn't get more complex. Does it get complex when one person in a suit wants to go on Divorce Court, the TV show, and the other declines? Does the state allow cases deciding the fate of children to be decided by Judge Judy?

Countries near to Saudi Arabia 1300 years ago thought the same.

One knows unofficial Sharia courts exist, so I think it is good to have official rulings on the issue. It makes it easier to handle for people affected and police.

There is no jurisdiction issue. It's decided by normal courts as always, unless both sides agree to go elsewhere.

And why do you write that last paragraph as if "Muslim" and "American" can't mean the same person? When you say "American," do you really just mean, "non-Muslim American?"

You can't make assumptions about a legal system in a foreign country then just draw a parallel and apply it to the U.S. legal system.

I'm sure the U.S. states will each do a comparative law study but its not a simple copy and paste. Each state is its own entity and state and federal systems have jurisdictions over different areas of the law. The family law in one state can be very different from another state. For instance they have community property law in California because they inherited it culturally from Spanish influences since Spain settled Mexico and the West but very few states have a community property system. So you do have to examine the underlying system before you superimpose anything. What will work in France might not work in the U.S. system in all cases and scenarios.

I was saying above that people have different statuses that affect which type of law they would fall under: Shariah or U.S. law. You could have be a citizen or a tourist or a visa holder and they are all different statuses and the other people involved in the issue can hold various statuses.

There is just a lot of variation and blanket statements ignore practical realities.

Confusing.

"S.D. v. M.J.R. in the state of New Jersey, a New Jersey judge saw no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs"

If I am a follower of the Jainist Digambaras, I should be able to walk around naked then. Go to the movies...the bank.... no clothes.

No. Because that would go against Christianity's version of Shariah law.

It is decided case by case and requires consent. Furthermore all Sharia cases are handled with communication of "normal" legal groups, such as police.

There is no such thing as mixed parties with mixed jurisdictions. If both agree to go to a Sharia court they go there, if not then they dont. I am white English and atheist, if i married a white English Christian and we decided to get divorced there is nothing stopping us both from choosing to divorce under Sharia law. It is all dont via voluntary consent.

As for the 2 Muslims and a baby the baby is irrelevant, children do not decide legal decisions now.

The idea of the courts is to decide civil disagreements in law, business disputes, divorce, death estates and so on.

If a country is truly aiming to be free then i dont see how optional legal courts consistent with the religious beliefs of the two parties is a bad thing. If the parties dont agree then it goes via the normal state courts, if they do then the Sharia or Beth Din courts decide.

So are you saying that the First Amendment needs to be removed so that judges dont use the free exercise clause to dismiss cases involving religious people?

Im not entirely sure what this post is meant to mean. Its not like you dont see Christians claiming that there is no such thing as marital rape.

Or maybe you are just saying the system should hire better judges so they wouldnt make mistakes like in the case you refer to?

Please point to where i said anything of the sort.

Jump to conclusions much?

Your comprehension skills are really not working here.

Did I even indicate a stance pro or con here?

Dang! Think of the money I could save though. All the money I spend at Kohls on clothes could go to the church.

So your post wasnt attempting to add anything to the thread? Awesome work, pat on the back.

Thread about Sharia law. You post a case where a religious person was deemed to have no committed marital rape due to first amendment. What possible way am i meant to read your post other than to assume either New Jersey picks crappy judges or the First Amendment needs rewriting or removing entirely?

Yes...that's true.

I try to "add to the thread" by offering pats on the back but some troll already beat me to that.

So you are saying that the Sharia law has no place in the US and the judges are racists?

Errrrrr....Im in favour of voluntary Sharia law in the UK (where i live).

Seems we are debating past each other missing each others points.

Your stance usually is something along the lines of "I don't have an opinion but anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot", so it's generally hard to tell.

That ruling was overturned on appeal, so I wouldnt put to much trust in it if I were you. This is also why I think this is a big non-issue - the courts are already dealing with it as far as I can see. What's the problem? Why the need for legislation? Admittedly I don't know much about US law, but it seems to me that what's happening (through judicial process) is that mutual arbitration or voluntary adherence to some religiously approved legal code is allowed, provided it doesnt contradict the overarching US legal code. Isn't that a good thing?

Where was I doing that?

Does anything here add to the discussion in any way?

I think you misunderstand how this works. It's not that being Muslim makes your case fall to a Sharia court. It's that if both parties agree not to go through a state court, they can go to Sharia court if they want (presumably because both are Muslim). It's not like US courts lose jurisdiction or anything.

And still, you made the mistake of saying 'American' or 'Muslim,' implying that one is not the other. It's just an indicator of the subtle racism in your post (as in, you don't view Muslim Americans as real Americans).