from the sunday times .
september 14, 2008 .
revealed: ukas first official sharia courts .
But doesn't submission to arbitration have to be voluntary? Without voluntary submission, a Muslim can appeal to the state court system instead.
And the problem is that it could come unraveled with a grievance over the outcome. These things can be disclaimed and revert to the REAL legal system.
Better get a release on anything that is decided. And once again, there you are, back to the REAL legal system.
Mustang
from the sunday times .
september 14, 2008 .
revealed: ukas first official sharia courts .
Marriage and Divorce are traditonally handled by the local government (for the License, at least in Marriage). If the License (& Registration, thereof) is handled at the Hall of Records, then anybody can perform the ceremony: JP, Judge, Minister. So, that is pretty redundant and toothless: who needs an imitation cOURT.
Divorces are pretty nasty business and should require a more professional appraoch; the same can be said for business matters.
Something that is an unadvertsied feature of the USA is that people here complain, "kick the tires" and generally misbehave from the point of view of many foreign countries. Many people coming to the USA are unprepared for this. Relative to the highly structered societies of a lot of other countries, we are freewheeling radicals. WE NEED TO KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
I do know of instances where we have tried to export this and gotten into trouble with foreign Laws. That's OK, too. If a traveler is dumb enough to impose his mores on the next guy, its caveat emptor.
Mustang
we have seen many times over the years where jurys make their judgements based on emotions and not on the rule of law or the facts.
-the menendez brothers after killing their parents were found not guilty by the jury.
being asked why they decided the case that way the reason given was "those boys are so handsome and now they don't even have a mother.
i would, as long as there is a way to rotate these people from one jurisdiction to another quite frequently
Gives new meaning to "Change of Venue": move the Jury, not the Trial Real Change of Venue comes along very seldom, but I suppose this could be an option. Mustang
we have seen many times over the years where jurys make their judgements based on emotions and not on the rule of law or the facts.
-the menendez brothers after killing their parents were found not guilty by the jury.
being asked why they decided the case that way the reason given was "those boys are so handsome and now they don't even have a mother.
Grand Juries are selected for long terms and are compensated. I was interviewed by a Sherrif when the neighbor across the street applied.
Mustang
from the sunday times .
september 14, 2008 .
revealed: ukas first official sharia courts .
If it comes here, I still say fight it on Constitutional grounds. I'm already researching ways to make that happen.
Mustang
from the sunday times .
september 14, 2008 .
revealed: ukas first official sharia courts .
BTS:
Exactly. I am currently involved in Bankruptcy Court (that's Federal) as a Creditor (Involuntary case). There are some Middle Eastern types involved here. Numbers being thrown about are for the larger part of 10 M$'s. There is no way some mumbo-jumbo cleric will get the say-so here.
It's really a farce. If it is within their own community and they agree to it, I suppose that it is little more than arbitration. But if it steps outside those bounds, they won't get any consensus and are stuck with the "Law of the Land". The important thing is that Secular Law should never mix with Church Law.
I'm also involved in a Small Claims Court (in another country); there is no way I would let that be decided by a cleric.
From what I've neard of the edcuation that these guys are given, it is rote memorization of 10,000 chants. That's not good enough for my day in court or my divorce. And forget about them getting near my money.
Mustang
This is for the
from the sunday times .
september 14, 2008 .
revealed: ukas first official sharia courts .
The Hutterite decision & others were mentioned on this forum back about page 1000 or so. The Secular Courts do not want to go there and let Religious Courts alone to deal with AFFAIRS WITHIN THE CHURCH. But the minute it goes outside the Church, it will be a Constitutional issue.
Supreme Court, here we come. Unlike most countires, the US set up a partial or wholly religious governmental operation to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Islam wants RELIGION to have a heavy say in the Law of the land; that is a fundamental contradiction in the philosophies. I don't see the USA changing the rules for the sensibilities of those who only this 3rd century are appearing.
Mustang
from the sunday times .
september 14, 2008 .
revealed: ukas first official sharia courts .
BetterDaze:
You are INCORRECT. Or perhaps I need to rephrase:
I am not speaking of Religious Tribunals under Church Law. I do have the precedents that WTS uses (re: the Hutterites). These precedents are how they defuse lawsuits over DF'ing. In that fashion you are correct.
But I am not talking about the CHURCH LAW tribunals allowed WITHIN a church by US SECULAR LAW.
(SECULAR LAW may be viewed as "law of the land" for this purpose.)
I am talking about real SECULAR LAW, w/ citations and municipal, state or federal court authority. Viewing that, sHARIA lAW cannot be allowed to become an authoritative vehicle: read the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
Mustang
this is an excerpt from an email i got from a friend.. what do you think is worse, muslim or pentacostal?????????
did you see obama on one of those sunday talk shows when he slipped and said "they" are attacking my muslim faith???????
me thinks me better stick to my european (england) southern roots.... did anybody else see this tv interview?
Fair to good; my insurance company is making the doctors rich this month
Charlie Rose had two commentators on that are always in the thick of the political conventions; one of them mentioned that this was the first time he had ever seen OUTRIGHT LIES fielded in the political hot & heavy. Usually some sort of "plausible denial" is used. But this time, McCain's group just threw a "bald faced lie" over the fence. I don't have the details on that one, but Charlie's programs could be backtracked.
Speaking of that, both Obama and Hillary have been on Charlie's show. Hillary stuck her foot in her mouth, past the knee on there about 4 years ago.
Mustang
this is an excerpt from an email i got from a friend.. what do you think is worse, muslim or pentacostal?????????
did you see obama on one of those sunday talk shows when he slipped and said "they" are attacking my muslim faith???????
me thinks me better stick to my european (england) southern roots.... did anybody else see this tv interview?
No problem, LDH: looking for the explanation. If that's it, it's buried in the details of all that ranting and I missed it. Cheers
Mustang
