Are we at war with Islam?

[x-factor]

The arbitration thing doesn't bother me. Its a perfectly legal means of settling disputes out of court and lots of religious groups in the US do it. Two people are entitled to mutually consent to outside arbitration by whatever criteria suits them. If they want a sharia court to dissolve their failed marriages or personal property disputes, they can be my guest.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by x-factor

The arbitration thing doesn't bother me. Its a perfectly legal means of settling disputes out of court and lots of religious groups in the US do it. Two people are entitled to mutually consent to outside arbitration by whatever criteria suits them. If they want a sharia court to dissolve their failed marriages or personal property disputes, they can be my guest.

So you see women consenting to sharia courts, where they are chattel and are disposable property, when they could go to state courts and be entitled to an equal share?

And you think they will consent to do this freely?

TR

[x-factor]

I think more often than not they won't consent. In which case the case goes to the civil court system like anyone else.

I think if they're being coerced by their families to consent to arbitration that they do not believe is fair, then there are any number of women's support groups (to include legal support) they can go to to overcome the coercion.

Failing that, the woman can call on agents of the government (police, family services, etc.) to uphold her rights.

If they're being coerced and cannot summon the courage to break the cycle of abuse through any of the means I've mentioned (or the numerous others that I haven't) then my deepest sympathy goes out to them, but I don't think its a legal issue at that point.

[x-factor]

Also, on a more theological note.

If the Sharia court is worth its salt, the woman should get a pretty good divorce settlement as the Koran proscribes alimony, child support, shared custody, etc. The thing is that as practiced in the Arab world all the tribal misogyny gets in the way.

Thats not to say that I'm going to sign up for Sharia arbitration. Just that its possible for it to work in a perfectly equitable manner, just like religious court arbitration does for Orthodox Jews, the Amish, etc.

065.001 - 065.002
O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately), their prescribed periods: And fear Allah your Lord: and turn them not out of their houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open lewdness, those are limits set by Allah: and any who transgresses the limits of Allah, does verily wrong his (own) soul: thou knowest not if perchance Allah will bring about thereafter some new situation.

Thus when they fulfil their term appointed, either take them back on equitable terms or part with them on equitable terms; and take for witness two persons from among you, endued with justice, and establish the evidence (as) before Allah. Such is the admonition given to him who believes in Allah and the Last Day. And for those who fear Allah, He (ever) prepares a way out,

065.006
Let the women live (in 'iddat) in the same style as ye live, according to your means: Annoy them not, so as to restrict them. And if they carry (life in their wombs), then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden: and if they suckle your (offspring), give them their recompense: and take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable. And if ye find yourselves in difficulties, let another woman suckle (the child) on the (father's) behalf.

[dennisw]

The arbitration thing doesn't bother me. Its a perfectly legal means of settling disputes out of court and lots of religious groups in the US do it.

Although I have heard of many folks solving their differences or avoiding litigation through arbitration, I've never knew it was tied to religious groups. What is your research source on this?

I think if they're being coerced by their families to consent to arbitration that they do not believe is fair, then there are any number of women's support groups (to include legal support) they can go to to overcome the coercion.

It will mean very little if the coercion comes in the form of an honor killing. It seems another barrier to their becoming truly Americanized, and if they're not interested in becoming Americanized, they should go back to the third World S*** hole they came from and they can help themselves to big hunk of Islamic BS.

Your quoting of the Koran is rich. I love an optimist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Koran prohibit Muslims from killing each other? What about the woman who was raped and then stoned to death in Pakistan? What's the Koran have to say about that? I don't remember the Imans jumping in the stop them from killing her. This is the U.S. Unless it's a dispute about camels, we don't need a Sharia Court to solve anything.

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by dennisw

Although I have heard of many folks solving their differences or avoiding litigation through arbitration, I've never knew it was tied to religious groups. What is your research source on this?

Excerpted from an article in the Columbia Law Review:
Religious tribunals in the United States regularly adjudicate cases in the same manner as conventional arbitrations. Both federal and state courts enforce religious tribunal decisions under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or under state statutes modeled on the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), thereby transforming the decisions into binding legal judgments. In light of that result, the FAA and UAA provide a statutory standard of review that ensures that a minimum level of due process has been followed.

Like I said, Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and other groups do it all the time.

It will mean very little if the coercion comes in the form of an honor killing.

Death threats as coercion is not unique to Islamic divorces. Besides, thats a criminal issue and out of bounds for the policy we're discussing.

Your quoting of the Koran is rich. I love an optimist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Koran prohibit Muslims from killing each other? What about the woman who was raped and then stoned to death in Pakistan? What's the Koran have to say about that? I don't remember the Imans jumping in the stop them from killing her. This is the U.S. Unless it's a dispute about camels, we don't need a Sharia Court to solve anything.

That Muslims don't always practice the ideal version Islam should not come as a shock any more than the existence of hypocrite Christians. However, there do exist well-meaning law-abiding Muslims in this world. Especially here in America where so many Muslims come to practice their faith free of the ethnic/tribal/cultural garbage of the Arab world.

There's a valid case for outlawing religious arbitrations, but if you want to make that case you better be prepared to enforce it equally across all religions.

[swpa19]

Like I said in my initial post: "Little by Little".....It starts with a Sharia court to settle disputes unique to Muslims. Then how far does it go. Should there be seperate courts set up to arbitrate each individual religion and ethnic group? Who pays the bills. I believe there is a court system in place in this country. AGAIN. If a person coming into this country cannot accept the rules and regulations in place they should perhaps go where their lifestyles and laws are accepted. Like their country of origin. Just an ole guys .02 worth

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by x-factor

Two people are entitled to mutually consent to outside arbitration by whatever criteria suits them. If they want a sharia court to dissolve their failed marriages or personal property disputes, they can be my guest.

Un-huh! So when is the law of the land not the law? Gang initiations and drive bys are legitimate in the eyes of those who are fighting for their turf? Duels are legitimate among believers? Satanic rituals with sacrifices are legitimate? The killing of a female because she has shamed the family is legitimate in some cultures residing in this country. Mutual consent between two people within the same sub-culture or within the bounds of tribal law are all okay regardless of the recognized law of the land? The law of the land is also there to protect those of us who become part of the unintended consequences of the actions of others. Where do the rest of us, who adhere to the law of the land, figure into your equation when the burden of sub-cultures decide not to be part of the system but an irritating boil on the backside of society needing to be lanced?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by x-factor

Excerpted from an article in the Columbia Law Review:
Religious tribunals in the United States regularly adjudicate cases in the same manner as conventional arbitrations. Both federal and state courts enforce religious tribunal decisions under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or under state statutes modeled on the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), thereby transforming the decisions into binding legal judgments. In light of that result, the FAA and UAA provide a statutory standard of review that ensures that a minimum level of due process has been followed.

Like I said, Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and other groups do it all the time.



Death threats as coercion is not unique to Islamic divorces. Besides, thats a criminal issue and out of bounds for the policy we're discussing.



That Muslims don't always practice the ideal version Islam should not come as a shock any more than the existence of hypocrite Christians. However, there do exist well-meaning law-abiding Muslims in this world. Especially here in America where so many Muslims come to practice their faith free of the ethnic/tribal/cultural garbage of the Arab world.

There's a valid case for outlawing religious arbitrations, but if you want to make that case you better be prepared to enforce it equally across all religions.

Hey, how did that work out for the Branch Davidians, or Warren Jeffs?

TR

[Razor]

Originally Posted by x-factor

The arbitration thing doesn't bother me. Its a perfectly legal means of settling disputes out of court and lots of religious groups in the US do it. Two people are entitled to mutually consent to outside arbitration by whatever criteria suits them. If they want a sharia court to dissolve their failed marriages or personal property disputes, they can be my guest.

Finally! Since this is all ok now, I'm going to challenge my annoying neighbor to a pistol duel. If I stop posting after tomorrow, I lost.

[x-factor]

This is not a slippery slope case where we're giving in to an invading culture. This is not a means of legitimating criminal acts. Arbitration is already the law of the land and has been for a long time. There is a track record of citizens that employ that option, in special cases under the law, perfectly responsibly. Is Orthodox Jewish culture destroying America? No. Are the Amish? No.

There's no reason to believe that Muslims won't be the same way. As with the Jewish community, probably only a very small percentage will choose the arbitration option anyway because, as in any religion, there's only a small percentage who in a free environment will choose to be that devout. You're making a slippery slope argument without any precedent.

We're talking about giving two consenting adults the ability to take responsibility for and solve their own civil disputes in away that is mutually agreeable and all under the law. How is any of that un-American? Personal responsibility. Government non-interference. Religious freedom. Neighborhood policing. The rule of law exists to protect all these things.

A couple people have brought up honor killings. How many women are going to consent to an honor killing? None. And even if they did, the arbitration wouldn't be ratified by the court because its outside the scope of US civil law (not to mention criminal). Allowing arbitration doesn't cede any supremacy to a separate law and it does not in anyway provide cover for criminal activity.

Take the religion out of it for a sec. Lets say my neighbor and I have a dispute over a business deal. I'm not satisfied with a service, he claims to have fulfilled his part of the contract. We're at an impasse. We decide that we're more comfortable having a mutual friend that we both consider wise and fair work out the problem between us rather than go through the impersonal and expensive civil court system. The friend decides under court oversight and ratifies his decision as legally binding. What is wrong with this? No one objects when the Orthodox Jews or the Amish do it. Why does it become wrong just because the two consenting parties are using Islam as their criteria for "wise and fair"?

Its actually the same as all the judge shows on TV (the People's Court, etc). In those cases, people agree to drop their civil suits and submit to binding arbitration by the TV show. Is the People's Court tearing down the American legal structure?

TR - The Branch Davidians weren't using the consensual arbitration of a civil dispute under the law. They were engaged in multiple serious criminal acts and trying to hide them by living in a compound outside the law. Thats completely past what we're talking about. Koresh didn't file for arbitration so that he could rape kids. If a Muslim sub-community should start to act in such a manner, then they're outside the boundaries of the law and the government will act accordingly.

[swpa19]

OH !

where we're giving in to an invading culture

Giving in? Facilitating foot washing stations at airports. Granting preferential treatment at Grocery Stores and to Cab Drivers. Allocating special times for prayers in schools. Naw were not giving in.

[x-factor]

How do any of those things harm another citizen?

Don't we push China to show the same kind of deference to its Christian minority?

[sg1987]

Originally Posted by x-factor

There's no reason to believe that Muslims won't be the same way. As with the Jewish community, probably only a very small percentage will choose the arbitration option anyway because, as in any religion, there's only a small percentage who in a free environment will choose to be that devout. You're making a slippery slope argument without any precedent.

.

Forgive my ignorance, but just where are all those Jewish and Amish terrorists hitting us?

I say they can take they culture and shove it!!! (From a non-multicultural point of view!!)

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by x-factor

TR - The Branch Davidians weren't using the consensual arbitration of a civil dispute under the law. They were engaged in multiple serious criminal acts and trying to hide them by living in a compound outside the law. Thats completely past what we're talking about. Koresh didn't file for arbitration so that he could rape kids. If a Muslim sub-community should start to act in such a manner, then they're outside the boundaries of the law and the government will act accordingly.

Where did you get your facts?

TR