Tennessee Republicans introduce bill making it illegal to be Muslim

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The problem is when people, especially those running our country and enforcing the laws, don't understand the difference!

What's really a problem is that they either don't know or respect our Constitution in their quest to garner votes from emotionally abused and deceived constituents.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

LOL...you sure don't show it now do ya. You think some of us haven't done our share of travelling and don't know the score of what those sh*t holes are like, or how they treat women compared to here in the US ? Your playing to the wrong crowd.

I doubt that you've done much traveling. If you had, you'd have a more well-rounded view of the world rather than spewing stereotypes left and right. It's easy to fool dummies, but I've got your number, and it's zero.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I doubt that you've done much traveling. If you had, you'd have a more well-rounded view of the world rather than spewing stereotypes left and right. It's easy to fool dummies, but I've got your number, and it's zero.

Lots of travelling here and one thing I learned is never to walk with blinders on. Now why don't you cut the ####### or better yet tell these people on here what this country would be like if it were run by Muslims. Tell them the truth for once.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Lots of travelling here and one thing I learned is never to walk with blinders on. Now why don't you cut the ####### or better yet tell these people on here what this country would be like if it were run by Muslims. Tell them the truth for once.

I don't believe you. You haven't traveled much at all. You're not at all curious about the world and quite monolithic in your views of other cultures. I don't see that in sophisticated world travelers, but it's all over you like stink on sh!t.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Yes, they do. It's often insinuated that Sharia demands violence against women, so DV is part of the argument.

And for some Sharia is precisely that, very degrading of and supportive of violence and 3rd class treatment of women.

The talibans flavor is not your flavor of Sharia is it? Of course not.

But to the OP DV isn't relevant. The Constitution is quite clear on the right to freely worship and this proposed law clearly fails miserably on that basis alone.

Sharia, like Islam itself is not universal, although all worship requires some type of Sharia, Sharia differs widely from place to place, Muslim to Muslim.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

And for some Sharia is precisely that, very degrading of and supportive of violence and 3rd class treatment of women.

The talibans flavor is not your flavor of Sharia is it? Of course not.

But to the OP DV isn't relevant. The Constitution is quite clear on the right to freely worship and this proposed law clearly fails miserably on that basis alone.

Sharia, like Islam itself is not universal, although all worship requires some type of Sharia, Sharia differs widely from place to place, Muslim to Muslim.

It is quite fashionable to claim that Sharia is whatever someone wants it to be, but that's another myth. The confusion seems to come from the misconception that Sharis is the final product of deduction. It's not. It is a source of law, interpreted by humans drawing on precedent, local custom, and other considerations to achieve a legal result. That is a nutshell desciption of the process of developing fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, which does vary somewhat between legal schools.

Whatever opinion a Muslim may have about religious practice is not Sharia. One can decide to eat pork, not perform wudu before prayer or to forgo prayers all together, but the belief that any of this is correct is not Sharia. It's incorrect to think that Sharia is whatever anyone thinks it is. Each Muslim has the free will to determine their own practice or lack of it, but the law may not be in line with their choice.

[mawilson 2,133]

They are not contradictory with American laws, hence why they are perfectly legal.

A Muslim woman is forced to marry against her will and is abused by her husband.

She runs away; her husband takes his case to the local Sharia court and the

mullah in charge gives the Sharia verdict that the husband must cut his

wife's nose and ears. The husband carries out the sentence with the help of

his brother.

Far-fetched? This is exactly what happened to this woman.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

A Muslim woman is forced to marry against her will and is abused by her husband.

She runs away; her husband takes his case to the local Sharia court and the

mullah in charge gives the Sharia verdict that the husband must cut his

wife's nose and ears. The husband carries out the sentence with the help of

his brother.

Far-fetched? This is exactly what happened to this woman.

She knows about cases like this and many more yet she lies on here. I wouldn't be such a ####### bite on here if it weren't for her continuous lying. She thinks we supposed to be oblivious to the truth.

[sandinista! 1,816]

Aside from that incident being in complete and total violation of shariah law, from the forced marriage onward, this would not be the realm of shariah courts in the US. It would be an option for people to use for establishing inheritances, enforcing marriage contract stipulations like mahrs, or deciding child custody/support matters. Dragging the Taliban red herring in here stinks.

[mawilson 2,133]

Aside from that incident being in complete and total violation of shariah law, from the forced marriage onward, this would not be the realm of shariah courts in the US. It would be an option for people to use for establishing inheritances, enforcing marriage contract stipulations like mahrs, or deciding child custody/support matters. Dragging the Taliban red herring in here stinks.

Ah the old "they are not really Muslims they just think they are" chestnut.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

this would not be the realm of shariah courts in the US. It would be an option for people to use for establishing inheritances, enforcing marriage contract stipulations like mahrs, or deciding child custody/support matters.

Umm...that is already within the realm of state courts. Any such judgement be would moot and academic.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Peikko 1,575]

A Muslim woman is forced to marry against her will and is abused by her husband.

She runs away; her husband takes his case to the local Sharia court and the

mullah in charge gives the Sharia verdict that the husband must cut his

wife's nose and ears. The husband carries out the sentence with the help of

his brother.

Far-fetched? This is exactly what happened to this woman.

I did not say these things did not happen, I said they were not part of the muslim religion and neither they are. That such things happen in poor, rural regions of the world comes as no surprise to me, that you as an educated person should believe that this is justifiable by muslim tenets is.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[sandinista! 1,816]

Umm...that is already within the realm of state courts. Any such judgement be would moot and academic.

Umm, there have been past cases where Islamic marriage contracts re. mahr have been ruled unenforceable because the state courts did not understand them. This woman was denied her right to her mahr by the state court. There are also other considerations that are decided differently re

custody and inheritance, just as it is in Jewish bet din courts. The Jews participating in those courts don't find

them moot or academic. But they are also completely and

totally optional, and anyone who wishes can ignore the rulings established there and take it to state court.

[mawilson 2,133]

Umm, there have been past cases where Islamic marriage contracts re. mahr have been ruled unenforceable because the state courts did not understand them. This woman was denied her right to her mahr by the state court. There are also other considerations that are decided differently re

custody and inheritance, just as it is in Jewish bet din courts. The Jews participating in those courts don't find

them moot or academic. But they are also completely and

totally optional, and anyone who wishes can ignore the rulings established there and take it to state court.

What's the point of having a court whose decisions are not legally enforceable?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I did not say these things did not happen, I said they were not part of the muslim religion and neither they are. That such things happen in poor, rural regions of the world comes as no surprise to me, that you as an educated person should believe that this is justifiable by muslim tenets is.

Poor and rural regions eh ? First off what MENA regions are not considered either poor and/or rural in your opinion ? Can it be one or the other ? What's the ground rules here ?

http://news.lawreader.com/?p=457

"Pakistans Islamic Sharia law requires female victim of rape to have four male witnesses, or she faces prosecution for adultery.

One woman is raped every two hours and one gang-raped every eight hours, according to Pakistans independent Human Rights Commission. But under the ordinance introduced in 1979 by the dictator General Zia ul-Haq as part of an Islamisation campaign, rape cases have to be dealt with in sharia courts. Victims need four male witnesses to the crime — or face prosecution for adultery.

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/justice-virtually-impossible-for-rape-victims-under-sharia-law/

"Justice virtually impossible for rape victims under sharia law"

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/beating.htm

Domestic violence in Islam: The Quran on beating wives