'Anti-Sharia' law is back

[KRAIT]

@KRAIT and KS...you can't lose sight of the most important factor here. The US constitution does provide for any law being void if it is in conflict with the constitution of that country. Therefore raising unconstitutional aspects of Shariah holds no weight. My concern is limited to those aspects of Shariah which are in line with the constitution of the USA.

Every law can be brought against Sharia. If the person go against Sharia and ask State to interfere, then state has to over rule the Sharia Law, so what's the point of Sharia Law.

 

[scrumpy]

With respect, the example you are using holds no weight. The obligation to pay maintenance is tried and tested in the US courts. If a Muslim raises Shariah for example in that case then clearly the courts can disregard that on the basis that his or her refusal to pay maintenance is unconstitutional. My concern is for example a Muslim dying and requiring that his or her estate be divided according to Shariah in his/her last Will. If anybody disputes that and the matter heads to a family court for decision, will the judge now be obliged to disregard Shariah (and the deceased's last wishes) even tho there is no harm to the State, no constitutional violation and indeed a grave injustice to the deceased and the beneficiaries according to Shariah ??

I believe if the person has left a will behind then the wishes in the will will have to be honoured. However if some provisions of the will go against secular law and the aggrieved party objects, then the will may be declared void and secular laws will apply. Disputes with relation to legality of the will seems to be very common.

 

[KRAIT]

Only Muslims can be judged according to Islamic law.Non-Muslims are have the right to, and entitled, to be judged based on whichever laws they choose to follow. They can choose to be judged based on shari'ah though (R.Davis being an example).Plus, most Islamic nations don't even implement Shari'ah code for courts. It's mostly for reference in family cases.

So Muslims want their own law for solving disputes in a secular country ?

What if the one of the parties involved is Non-Muslim ?

Why Muslims want their own law at first place ? Why they want different treatment from state ?

 

[scrumpy]

Every law can be brought against Sharia. If the person go against Sharia and ask State to interfere, then state has to over rule the Sharia Law, so what's the point of Sharia Law.

If it is a matter like divorce where no children are involved and both parties are willing to be bound by Sharia laws, then what is the problem?

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Every law can be brought against Sharia. If the person go against Sharia and ask State to interfere, then state has to over rule the Sharia Law, so what's the point of Sharia Law.

I'm not Muslim so I cant really answer your question pertaining to the point of Shariah. However, it is irrefutable that Shariah plays just an important role in the average Muslim's life as the unwritten rules of Hinduism does in the average Hindu's life (abstaining from meat or beef etc). If the Shariah rules are not against the constitution of a secular nation such as the USA (example being the law of succession after death), then why should the state pass a blanket ban on it? Minus a good answer, I am inclined to agree with the earlier protest of Islamaphobia by one of the members here

 

[Contrarian]

Only Muslims can be judged according to Islamic law.

Non-Muslims are have the right to, and entitled, to be judged based on whichever laws they choose to follow. They can choose to be judged based on shari'ah though (R.Davis being an example).

Plus, most Islamic nations don't even implement Shari'ah code for courts. It's mostly for reference in family cases.

Muslims can be judged by Islamic Law in Islamic States. They can do anything they please in those states.

In other States Muslims have to live by the Civil Code that is universal and equal for everyone - Muslim or non Muslim.

Muslims or Jews cannot be allowed to have separate Marriage separate laws governing marriage and inheritance. That would be going against Secularism.

 

[Sugarcane]

First of All US is not secular state - immigrants should have thought about it before going there, Second not all so-called Sharia Law are as per Quran.

 

[Contrarian]

@KRAIT @Contrarian Time to take inspiration and pass the darned uniform civil code in our own nation for once and for all- rendering all personal laws based on religion null and void. Any idea how deep this issue has been buried by all the Political parties so as to not damage their poll chances?

The Americans got it right and they've got as cumbersome process as any in the world when it comes to passing laws and yet we're sitting on our hands and doing nothing..

That is unlikely to happen till Muslims achieve 100% literacy and demand it. No political party can implement it.

 

[Voxx]

If it is a matter like divorce where no children are involved and both parties are willing to be bound by Sharia laws, then what is the problem?

law dosen't change because some in particular situation some particular people wants to apply some particular religious law which are not humanitarian .

 

[scrumpy]

In the same vein religious based personal laws in India are a joke. A Christian was not allowed to divorce with just mutual consent and instead there had to be accusations of adultery/insanity/cruelty. This seems to have changed recently.

Christian Law of Divorce in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KRAIT]

If it is a matter like divorce where no children are involved and both parties are willing to be bound by Sharia laws, then what is the problem?

For that you don't even need Sharia. There is a concept called prenuptial agreement. One can have that before marriage. This solves the problem.

If the parties involved are OK with it, what will you say if a person says he is ready to take blood money, and the culprit is ready to pay it. Should we let go that murderer free ?

Here comes the problem.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

First of All US is not secular state - immigrants should have thought about it before going there, Second not all so-called Sharia Law are as per Quran.

Sorry but the USA is a secular state. The Muslims living in the USA are entitled just as any other American citizen is, to challenge the constitutional validity of any law which infringes on their right to practice their religion freely if such practice is not unconstitutional. The USA has one of the best constitutions in the world. It guarantees civic liberties. Something which neither Pakistan nor Iran does. Given a chance, I would rather bat for the constitution of the USA

 

[Voxx]

First of All US is not secular state - immigrants should have thought about it before going there, Second not all so-called Sharia Law are as per Quran.

which state/country is secular today according to you(as a member of anti-secular community) ?

 

[PlanetWarrior]

For that you don't even need Sharia. There is a concept called prenuptial agreement. One can have that before marriage. This solves the problem.

If the parties involved are OK with it, what will you say if a person says he is ready to take blood money, and the culprit is ready to pay it. Should we let go that murderer free ?

Here comes the problem.

Good point. What if the pre-nup agrees to distribution according to Sharia? Now the problem arises. According to this Bill, the pre-nup can be disregarded by a court in a divorce or other family court matter ?

 

[scrumpy]

law dosen't change because some in particular situation some particular people wants to apply some particular religious law which are not humanitarian .

Sharia law here doesn't trump secular laws of the land. They are simply a means of arbitration. If arbitration is allowed under secular laws, then the parties could use whatever logic they can think of the arbitrate. This can include Sharia in my opinion. This arbitrage will have to happen within the bounds defined by secular law.