Sharia Law on Hold... for Now.

Just thought of something interesting.

Let’s assume for a second that some guy named Sam 1 meets up with some girl on the internet named Susy 1 and they decide they are going to meet to have sex. They both agree that they really like it rough and nasty and preferably in public and agree to meet up. Problem is some other girl named Susy 2 just agreed to meet with her online quilting friend also named Sam 2 at the same restaurant at the same time.

Sam 1 and Susy 2 meet up by accident and are shocked to see each other to say the least, but they start their date and all is going well. At this point in the date, Sam 1 remembers that it is time to take Susy 1 to the bathroom for some rough sex, but Susy 2 does not like it, in fact she cries the whole time. At one point she says “STOP”. Sam 1 remembers that it’s all part of the plan and doesn’t stop. Susy 2 sues Sam 1 for rape.

Now, is Sam 1 guilty of rape according to the law?

Unfortunately, no. There was no criminal intent, he simply assumed that what he was doing was what they agreed upon. In fact, rape has nothing to do with whether you like it or not, it has to do with whether or not one person can make it clear to the other that they don’t want sex. If you can prove that someone like Sam 1 believes whole heartedly that what he’s doing is normal, it’s legal…

In the case of the muslim man, his lawyer was able to prove that he operates under different cultural norms regarding sex. If the woman never directly said “I don’t want this”, then he would get off in a lot of courts.

it’s not really comparable

rough sex between consenting adults is entirely legal whereas treating your wife as a private property is not.
you can always call that “Sharia Law” or “my own cultural norms”, it’s properly called (sex) slavery.

now, if Sam1 mistakenly kidnap Susie2 and kept her in a dungeon during 20 years, imposing her the hardcore BDSM relationship Susie1 wanted, it would be a better analogy.

but after all these years, Sam1 would probably be found guilty in a lot of courts.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
… Why are Americans losing there minds?
[/quote]

“There” minds? Is this satirical? [/quote]

Ha haha ha ha ha![/quote]

Someone got it.

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Just thought of something interesting.

Let’s assume for a second that some guy named Sam 1 meets up with some girl on the internet named Susy 1 and they decide they are going to meet to have sex. They both agree that they really like it rough and nasty and preferably in public and agree to meet up. Problem is some other girl named Susy 2 just agreed to meet with her online quilting friend also named Sam 2 at the same restaurant at the same time.

Sam 1 and Susy 2 meet up by accident and are shocked to see each other to say the least, but they start their date and all is going well. At this point in the date, Sam 1 remembers that it is time to take Susy 1 to the bathroom for some rough sex, but Susy 2 does not like it, in fact she cries the whole time. At one point she says “STOP”. Sam 1 remembers that it’s all part of the plan and doesn’t stop. Susy 2 sues Sam 1 for rape.

Now, is Sam 1 guilty of rape according to the law?

Unfortunately, no. There was no criminal intent, he simply assumed that what he was doing was what they agreed upon. In fact, rape has nothing to do with whether you like it or not, it has to do with whether or not one person can make it clear to the other that they don’t want sex. If you can prove that someone like Sam 1 believes whole heartedly that what he’s doing is normal, it’s legal…

In the case of the muslim man, his lawyer was able to prove that he operates under different cultural norms regarding sex. If the woman never directly said “I don’t want this”, then he would get off in a lot of courts.

[/quote]

Interesting scenario. In an ideal world you would hope that Suzy 1 and Sam 1 had at least traded pictures of each other or something so this kind of mistaken identity wouldn’t happen.

[quote]kamui wrote:
the more i learn about the US legal system the less i understand it.
the more i learn about it, the more i feel that it may not be well equiped to face some of the biggest issues of the 21st century.

when i first posted in this topic, i was pretty sure that this sharia law thing was just another symptom of american schizo-paranoia.
now, it seems that it’s not the case. and i’m… flabbergasted.

in France, we have an “hardcore” version of secularism and the separation of Church and State, and this story would be absolutely inconceivable.
in our legal system, we are not banning the Sharia law, we are actually banning the Burqa.

it seems that your country will someday have to choose between being an explicitly Christian state, or becoming a “real” secular state.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, but France banning an article of clothing is not going to do a damn thing. What does France hope to accomplish by stopping women from wearing burqas? It doesn’t change the “cultural norms” by which those women live. You have to change the thinking, not the clothing.

[quote]
I’m sorry, but France banning an article of clothing is not going to do a damn thing. What does France hope to accomplish by stopping women from wearing burqas? It doesn’t change the “cultural norms” by which those women live. You have to change the thinking, not the clothing. [/quote]

I never said it will accomplish anything nor implied that i actually approved it. just used it as an example of the fact that we don’t have to protect our legal system against the intrusion of foreign religious laws.

now, if you really want to discuss the burqan ban itself :
the burqa is not an “article of clothing”. it’s a prison made of clothes and a wearable political/social provocation.

In banning it, France actually hope to … ban it. nothing more, nothing less.

it’s not about changing cultural norms, it’s about enforcing the law and protecting public order.
the same reasonning already apply for the opposite case (full nudity in the street). and we won’t make an exception for Yanonami Immigrants.

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
I’m sorry, but France banning an article of clothing is not going to do a damn thing. What does France hope to accomplish by stopping women from wearing burqas? It doesn’t change the “cultural norms” by which those women live. You have to change the thinking, not the clothing. [/quote]

I never said it will accomplish anything nor implied that i actually approved it. just used it as an example of the fact that we don’t have to protect our legal system against the intrusion of foreign religious laws.

now, if you really want to discuss the burqan ban itself :
the burqa is not an “article of clothing”. it’s a prison made of clothes and a wearable political/social provocation.

In banning it, France actually hope to … ban it. nothing more, nothing less.

it’s not about changing cultural norms, it’s about enforcing the law and protecting public order.
the same reasonning already apply for the opposite case (full nudity in the street). and we won’t make an exception for Yanonami Immigrants. [/quote]

You now literally have a fashion police!

Congrats!

I also like how you go about “freeing” those women from their “prisons” by telling them what to wear and throwing them into real prisoms if they refuse to do that.

Could you ban orange speedos next?

I find them offensive.

sorry guys, i had no intent to derail this topic, and won’t post about the burqa ban anymore here.

if you really want to mock our “fashion police” and/or explain me how you will free the muslims women of the world you are welcome to do it here : French Senate Approves Burqa Ban - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
I’m sorry, but France banning an article of clothing is not going to do a damn thing. What does France hope to accomplish by stopping women from wearing burqas? It doesn’t change the “cultural norms” by which those women live. You have to change the thinking, not the clothing. [/quote]

I never said it will accomplish anything nor implied that i actually approved it. just used it as an example of the fact that we don’t have to protect our legal system against the intrusion of foreign religious laws.

now, if you really want to discuss the burqan ban itself :
the burqa is not an “article of clothing”. it’s a prison made of clothes and a wearable political/social provocation.

In banning it, France actually hope to … ban it. nothing more, nothing less.

it’s not about changing cultural norms, it’s about enforcing the law and protecting public order.
the same reasonning already apply for the opposite case (full nudity in the street). and we won’t make an exception for Yanonami Immigrants. [/quote]

It’s only a provocation if you allow it to be. You cannot equate full nudity to wearing a burga. You are forcing women to do something they don’t want to do. Some women prefer wearing burqas, it’s all they’ve ever known. Now they are forced to stay indoors, not leaving their houses, because the French are scared of anything non-French.

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
I’m sorry, but France banning an article of clothing is not going to do a damn thing. What does France hope to accomplish by stopping women from wearing burqas? It doesn’t change the “cultural norms” by which those women live. You have to change the thinking, not the clothing. [/quote]

I never said it will accomplish anything nor implied that i actually approved it. just used it as an example of the fact that we don’t have to protect our legal system against the intrusion of foreign religious laws.

now, if you really want to discuss the burqan ban itself :
the burqa is not an “article of clothing”. it’s a prison made of clothes and a wearable political/social provocation.

In banning it, France actually hope to … ban it. nothing more, nothing less.

it’s not about changing cultural norms, it’s about enforcing the law and protecting public order.
the same reasonning already apply for the opposite case (full nudity in the street). and we won’t make an exception for Yanonami Immigrants. [/quote]

It’s only a provocation if you allow it to be. You cannot equate full nudity to wearing a burga. You are forcing women to do something they don’t want to do. Some women prefer wearing burqas, it’s all they’ve ever known. Now they are forced to stay indoors, not leaving their houses, because the French are scared of anything non-French.[/quote]

But the French will not see them and believe the problem to be solved.

US politicians have no monopoly on pointless grandstanding.

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Now, is Sam 1 guilty of rape according to the law?

Unfortunately, no. [/quote]

There was a case like this.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
You are an absurd little man with irrational fears of Muslims and it shows in a big way. [/quote]

Awww…

Schlenny called me names. I’m SO hurt! What shall I do?

What an insightful, mature person he is!

And he clearly knows me so well!

Hey Schlenny, maybe you can help me with all that deep, penetrating, profound insight you have about me. Pleeeaassse?!?!?

How is it that I managed to fall in love with and live for 8 years with a Shiite Muslim woman? How is it that I developed friendships with Muslim guys from UAE, Bahrain (do you even know where that is?), Morocco, and “Palestine?”

Oh, I know! I must have been soooo brave to move past my irrational fears and cease being so absurd!

Go fuck yourself, sonny boy.

But first go back and take look at what I’ve actually posted in this thread, as opposed to what those voices in your vacuous head tell you.

I’m done talking to you, jack-ass. [/quote]

My apologies for offending you, but you just responded to a one liner with a tirade. Sorry for grouping you in with the Islamophobia group, I have read some of your criticisms of the religion and upon rereading a few of them it seems like you may be objecting strongly to the destructive practice of Islam and not all muslim individuals.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/08/shariah-banned-courts/#content

I cannot believe this appeal was upheld!! where is the ACLU…where is our leader right now…oh yeah…he’s in traveling to India and Indonesia… kissing their ass.

[/quote]

Damn good thread, Rock! The American people may be waking up to the invasion of this evil menace to western culture.

If Obama is not a Muslim, he sure seems to love them a lot. Remember when he wouldn’t denounce ‘jihad’ a few days ago?

Wake up, America!!!

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Allowing religious laws to permeate the laws of the land is a very dangerous slippery slope. [/quote]

Thank you. Examples across Europe show what happens. They will be demanding Sharia law as their population grows. It’s a simple fact. Islam is a political movement and ideology for society and laws. Much more than just a religion[/quote]

I agree. The amendment did not go far enough - it should have included Canon Law, Hebrew Law, Buddhist Law (if there is one) and whatever other religious code might be out there.

As an aside, the amendment’s ban on using international law is problematic. “International law” doesn’t mean “let’s look at what they do in Iran or some other country.” International law is a system designed to govern conduct among nations, albeit with no means of enforcement. It is accepted as being part of U.S. law. Then again, any dispute involving international law would most likely be brought in a federal, rather than a state, court, so I guess it doesn’t matter.[/quote]

It should ban the influence of all laws except those enacted by the legislatures at the federal, state and local levels.
At the current time, Sha’ria is the only one anybody has tried to have influence the law of the land.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
All of this is blown way out of proportion.

In the cases where Sharia is alowed to be part of a contract in Europe it is about private settlements of contratct violations.

You can agree to any set of rules when it comes to private contracts, including laws of other nations, UN trade law or you can simply ake up some rules.

Doesnt change that they still go to jail if they rape, pillage or murder.[/quote]

Case in point…

[/quote]

Thats just nonsense.

Private arbitration of conflicts is a must in some cases and practically every law system I know of has an “ordre publique” clause to prevent outcomes that are alien to a set of laws.

Why would it matter to anyone if two Muslim businessmen decide to draw up their contracts on the basis of shari-a?

Also, England also has similar Jewish courts and I can imagine the headlines if they tried to close those.
[/quote]

Allowing religious laws to permeate the laws of the land is a very dangerous slippery slope. As an atheist, I am surprised you would tolerate religious laws at any level of government. As a theist, I am dead set against it. [/quote]

I do not care what set of rules people agree to.

It is their private thing.

Also, if you abolished all laws with a religious origin you would have little left, as afar as real laws go.

[/quote]

People can agree to what ever they want to, but laws are enacted an all people, not just muslims or christians or athiests. If a sharia law enters the books everybody is bound by it, not just muslims, there in lies the slippery slope. If to people agree on something and have an appointed arbitrator, I don’t care, but if those ‘rules’ become laws at any level, that’s a big problem.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
My apologies for offending you, but you just responded to a one liner with a tirade. Sorry for grouping you in with the Islamophobia group, I have read some of your criticisms of the religion and upon rereading a few of them it seems like you may be objecting strongly to the destructive practice of Islam and not all muslim individuals.

[/quote]

You’re not even old enough to legally drink, but you’re so damned sure that you’ve got everything figured out that you jump to slanderous conclusions.

(Since that’s just a “one liner,” I know it won’t bother you much.)

Re-read your own “one liner” to me, and then ask yourself if you deserve the respect one man usually shows another, son.

I think you’re just a little too used to being the biggest kid in the room for your own good.

Apology (tentatively) accepted.

Oh, and if you don’t like what I wrote here?

Tough shit.[/quote]

Fair enough, but answer me this:

How does a case that simply shows how difficult it is to convict someone of criminal intent turn into Fox news and the OP claiming that Sharia law is now being allowed in America? I mean the very title of this thread is so indicative of fear that it literally astounds me. Why are people petrified of Sharia law penetrating our Justice system when we have so many barriers in place to keep the two separate?

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
My apologies for offending you, but you just responded to a one liner with a tirade. Sorry for grouping you in with the Islamophobia group, I have read some of your criticisms of the religion and upon rereading a few of them it seems like you may be objecting strongly to the destructive practice of Islam and not all muslim individuals.

[/quote]

You’re not even old enough to legally drink, but you’re so damned sure that you’ve got everything figured out that you jump to slanderous conclusions.

(Since that’s just a “one liner,” I know it won’t bother you much.)

Re-read your own “one liner” to me, and then ask yourself if you deserve the respect one man usually shows another, son.

I think you’re just a little too used to being the biggest kid in the room for your own good.

Apology (tentatively) accepted.

Oh, and if you don’t like what I wrote here?

Tough shit.[/quote]

Fair enough, but answer me this:

How does a case that simply shows how difficult it is to convict someone of criminal intent turn into Fox news and the OP claiming that Sharia law is now being allowed in America? I mean the very title of this thread is so indicative of fear that it literally astounds me. Why are people petrified of Sharia law penetrating our Justice system when we have so many barriers in place to keep the two separate?[/quote]

Muslims are the new Communists. We need to have an all-encompassing “evil” to focus on and since the Cold War is over and 9/11 happened, Islam and Muslims are it.

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
My apologies for offending you, but you just responded to a one liner with a tirade. Sorry for grouping you in with the Islamophobia group, I have read some of your criticisms of the religion and upon rereading a few of them it seems like you may be objecting strongly to the destructive practice of Islam and not all muslim individuals.

[/quote]

You’re not even old enough to legally drink, but you’re so damned sure that you’ve got everything figured out that you jump to slanderous conclusions.

(Since that’s just a “one liner,” I know it won’t bother you much.)

Re-read your own “one liner” to me, and then ask yourself if you deserve the respect one man usually shows another, son.

I think you’re just a little too used to being the biggest kid in the room for your own good.

Apology (tentatively) accepted.

Oh, and if you don’t like what I wrote here?

Tough shit.[/quote]

Fair enough, but answer me this:

How does a case that simply shows how difficult it is to convict someone of criminal intent turn into Fox news and the OP claiming that Sharia law is now being allowed in America? I mean the very title of this thread is so indicative of fear that it literally astounds me. Why are people petrified of Sharia law penetrating our Justice system when we have so many barriers in place to keep the two separate?[/quote]

It does not say that. It says the injunction barring it is placed on hold, meaning it has enough merit to be considered, therefore already penetrating said barriers.
Here’s how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States – Muslim 0…6%
Australia – Muslim 1.5%
Canada – Muslim 1.9%
China – Muslim 1.8%
Italy – Muslim 1.5%
Norway – Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:

Denmark – Muslim 2%
Germany – Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom – Muslim 2.7%
Spain – Muslim 4%
Thailand – Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves – along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France – Muslim 8%
Philippines – 5%
Sweden – Muslim 5%
Switzerland – Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands – Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago – Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana – Muslim 10%
India – Muslim 13.4%
Israel – Muslim 16%
Kenya – Muslim 10%
Russia – Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia – Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia – Muslim 40%
Chad – Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon – Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania – Muslim 70%
Malaysia – Muslim 60.4%
Qatar – Muslim 77.5%
Sudan – Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh – Muslim 83%
Egypt – Muslim 90%
Gaza – Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia – Muslim 86.1%
Iran – Muslim 98%
Iraq – Muslim 97%
Jordan – Muslim 92%
Morocco – Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan – Muslim 97%
Palestine – Muslim 99%
Syria – Muslim 90%
Tajikistan – Muslim 90%
Turkey – Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates – Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ – the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan – Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia – Muslim 100%
Somalia – Muslim 100%
Yemen – Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. – Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today’s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat