TexasCHLforum.com

JJVP wrote:This is the USA. We have laws in this country. If you want to live in this country, you have to abide by the laws of this country. What do you think would happen to you if you went to their country and did something that was perfectly legal in the US, but illegal in that country? Do you think they would just let you go because you are following the US law?

Who said anything about not abiding by the laws of a particular country? I certainly didn't.

What you don't seem to understand is that such things have been occurring in this very country since it's foundation. As was pointed out above, local Christian churches had jurisdiction to adjudicate civil matters for much of this country's history. The Catholic church still deals with some civil issues such as divorces and annulments. And Beit Dins have been judging religious and civil issues as well. If Christians, Catholics, and Jews can do so, then why not Muslims as well?

And again, criminal matters are a completely separate issue and naturally fall under the purview of the civil justice system.

DEB wrote:I agree with you Beiruty. But in order for a system like this to work, everyone would have to belong to a religious order. I don't see many Americans agreeing to or even belonging to a religious order that fully mandated civil law. I have read that in order for a Muslim to get divorced all the male has to do is state "I divorce you" three times in front of three witnesses? I don't know for sure as I am not a Muslim. But if true, a Texas gal would probably wait until you almost uttered the 3rd time when she would shoot you three times, or at least my wife would. I guess as long as everyone agreed...

Not necessarily. For those who do not belong to a religious order (or are too dishonorable to abide by the rules, laws, and statutes of the one they do belong to), there is still the civil court system that can adjudicate such issues.

RottenApple wrote:

psijac wrote:Utopia is built not found. Muslims move into Europe to escape the brutal regimes in the Middle east only to setup their own ridiculous sharia courts in host countries. Britons moving here would vote out gun laws I am afraid.

Just curious but what is the problem with Muslims having their own Sharia courts? Jews their own religious courts where divorces (aka - "gets") can take place, questions on religious issues, and even civil issues can be resolved. I don't know how the Sharia courts work, but the decisions handed down by a Beit Din (what a Jewish court is called) are voluntary. In civil matters it works much the way an arbitration service works in that all parties agree to be bound by the decision of the Beit Din. Assuming that the Sharia courts in the US and/or UK function in a similar way (which is my understanding), what's the problem?

BTW, obviously I am NOT talking about the Sharia courts in such countries as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Only those in the US and UK.

Alright here is a slippery slope. Should it be legal for a Muslim man to marry multiple wives but illegal for a non Muslim man to marry more than one woman?

In England it is legal for a Muslim man to marry many women in a ceremony called "Nikah". And each additional wife is considered a single parent and eligible for state welfare program. A Muslim man can marry as many women as he wants and the tax payers foot the bill for his children

I'm guessing there's a difference between Sahria law and Sharia courts. If 2 muslims from Dearborn, MI want to go to Sharia court to settle civil differences I'm fine with that but...when they tell me I have to "whatever" because of Sharia law, then things will get very interesting. Cause it ain't happening.

I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and ask why folk can't migrate back where they came from if things in their new surroundings don't suit them and/or the indigenous population does not welcome "improvements" from the newcomers?

RottenApple wrote:

psijac wrote:Utopia is built not found. Muslims move into Europe to escape the brutal regimes in the Middle east only to setup their own ridiculous sharia courts in host countries. Britons moving here would vote out gun laws I am afraid.

Just curious but what is the problem with Muslims having their own Sharia courts? Jews their own religious courts where divorces (aka - "gets") can take place, questions on religious issues, and even civil issues can be resolved. I don't know how the Sharia courts work, but the decisions handed down by a Beit Din (what a Jewish court is called) are voluntary. In civil matters it works much the way an arbitration service works in that all parties agree to be bound by the decision of the Beit Din. Assuming that the Sharia courts in the US and/or UK function in a similar way (which is my understanding), what's the problem?

BTW, obviously I am NOT talking about the Sharia courts in such countries as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Only those in the US and UK.

The potential problem is this: a parent may drag a minor child into a Sharia court, where that child's consitutional protections are no longer in play. I don't suppose I have a problem with people voluntarily entering into a religion based court. In that light, it is no different than agreeing to independent arbitration. But a religious court should NEVER be allowed to supplant the state courts unless all parties willingly agree to enter into that court and be bound by its rulings—just as with independet arbitration.

So if a Muslim or Jewish husband seeks a divorce from his wife in a Beit Din or Sharia court, he should not be able to force her into that court if she wants their divorce handled through the state's judicial system, nor should he be able to force her into religious court if she is refusing to grant him the divorce in the first place. In that case, he must pursue his "right" to divorce through the secular courts. If religious people can live with that, then I'm OK with their courts. But the minute they insist on anything different, then they are also insisting on their right to drag me, who is neither Jewish nor Muslim, into the sovereignty of a faith-based court which has no faith-based claim on me. I'm not having that for even one second.......and I am a very religious person.

Oldgringo wrote:I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and ask why folk can't migrate back where they came from if things in their new surroundings don't suit them and/or the indigenous population does not welcome "improvements" from the newcomers?

This.