Reality Check: Can laws from other countries be implemented into our Society? Sharia Law?
Sharia Law is a Muslim law and you would think it is a set of rules that our constitution over rules. The questions that arise as we see more Muslims and other nationalities/religio-political ideologies enter into the US is: Do they have a right to practice their Laws under the US Constitution? Does our Constitution have to abide by those who fail to assimilate? What authority does our Constitution give when it comes to other ideologies pertaining to laws?
Insider Info: In my studies I chose to take an Islamic Civilization course in college. I will be using some information out of my college book and it it searchable and available for purchase on-line. I highly recommend you pick it up and read what they Actually Believe.
What is Religio-Political?
Of or pertaining to both religion and politics.
Is Islam a religio-political system?
1.) In Islam, unlike Christianity, there is no tradition of a separation of church and state, of religious organization as contrasted with political organization. At least, this is the oft-repeated statement contrasting the two religions. There will be occasion to suggest important modifications to this assertion, but let it serve as a point of departure.
One simple reason for this difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam knows no “church” in the sense of a corporate body whose leadership is clearly defined, hierarchical, and distinct from the state. The organizational arrangement of Muslim religious specialists, or ulama,¹ makes an institutional...
2.) Islam emphasizes the religious importance of man’s deeds in this world. Islam decidedly does not turn its back on mundane matters. Islam, moreover, grew up in early political success. Thereafter, the overwhelming majority of the world’s Muslims usually lived free of political threat from non-Muslims—until modern times. Muslims cling to the ideal of the early umma, which, unlike the early Christian Church, was a this-worldly religio-political community par excellence.
What is an Umma?
It is a synonym for ummat al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Community), and it is commonly used to mean the collective community of Islamic peoples. In the Quran the ummah typically refers to a single group that shares common religious beliefs, specifically those that are the objects of a divine plan of salvation. In the context of Pan-Islamism and politics, the word Ummah can be used to mean the concept of a Commonwealth of the Believers
What are Sharia Courts?
Sharia courts are a class of officials or religious police charged with the supervision and enforcement of public morals. The office of muhtasib (ombudsman) originally referred to a market inspector who was to regulate business transactions and practices in the market places.
Sharia Law later became the law of family court: handling religious endowments, divorce, marriages, and inheritance. Grievance court became the court of public law.
What are Grievance Courts?
Grievance courts focus on public laws. Criminal, taxation, and commercial.
Courts of Law
Application of Sharia was the task of the courts and their judges qadis. Judges are not independent but appointed by the government and paid for by the caliph.
What is a caliph?
A caliphate is an Islamic state. It's led by a caliph, who is a political and religious leader who is a successor (caliph) to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. His power and authority is absolute.
When the organisation known as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) announced at the end of June 2014 that it was seeking to restore the Islamic caliphate, with its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as caliph, it set off a wave of debate both among jihadists and western analysts.
Can the Sharia Laws be legally implemented in the United States?
Beginning in 2010, legislators in half of the U.S. states proposed and in two states adopteed series of bills or state constitutional amendments designed to restrict the use of international law and foreign laws by state (and sometimes federal) courts. This Insight will summarize the trend in adopting legislation hostile to international law and foreign laws and briefly discuss its causes and consequences.
The Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment and Awad v. Ziriax
Some of the proposed state constitutional amendments have proved popular. The Missouri joint resolution has 105 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. The Oklahoma amendment was actually approved by a comfortable margin. On May 25, 2010, the Oklahoma House of Representatives adopted joint resolution 1056 to amend the state constitution. The resolution, presented to Oklahoma voters as State Question 755, was approved by 70% of the voters.
The amendment was not immediately certified to the state supreme court because a resident of Oklahoma challenged it, inter alia,as contrary to the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause generally prohibits arbitrary government discrimination against any religion.  The federal district court for the Western District of Oklahoma, which interpreted the reference to âSharia lawâ to apply to religious beliefs rather than a system of law, found that the plaintiff had made a âstrong showing of a substantial likelihood of successâ in proving that the amendment unconstitutionally stigmatized Muslims. For now, the Oklahoma State Board of Elections is pursuing an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Measures Prohibiting Consideration of International Law
Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, treaties to which the United States is a party are the âsupreme Law of the Land.â Any state law or constitutional provision barring courts from enforcing international treaty law would likely run afoul of the Supremacy Clause. Those state bills and joint resolutions prohibiting courts from considering or enforcing international law would be void.
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly incorporate customary international law into federal law. However, the Supreme Court declared in The Paquete Habana (1900) that customary international law âis part of our law.â More recently, in the context of suits against foreign citizens for serious human rights violations, the Court reaffirmed that at least some customary international law rules, if sufficiently well defined and widely accepted, are enforceable in U.S. courts as federal law.  To the extent that the state bills and constitutions would forbid courts to enforce the ânarrow classâ of customary international law directly enforceable under Supreme Court precedent, they too would violate the Constitution.
Measures Prohibiting Consideration of Foreign Law
Whether excluding foreign law from state courts would violate the federal Constitution is a more complex question. Those bills subordinating foreign laws to fundamental state and federal constitutional rights, such as the adopted Louisiana Act No. 886, would have minimal effects in most states if reasonably interpreted. However, bills and proposed state constitutional amendments forbidding judges to look to precepts of and to enforce foreign laws could conflict with a broad range of federal laws and policies. They would also require state courts to abandon the practice of citing to foundational English cases and would preclude enforcement in state courts of federal laws that require recognition or enforcement of foreign judicial or arbitral decisions.
Several of the bills and proposed constitutional amendments, such as bills introduced in Arizona and Texas, and the Oklahoma Save Our State Resolution, could be interpreted to deny state government officials and courts the power to recognize foreign juristic persons, as well as marriages or child adoptions originating on foreign soil. Most would also nullify state laws that rely on recognition of foreign laws and court judgments.
Some bills, including the New Jersey, Florida, and Iowa bills, would require conflicts of law to be decided in favor of the forum state, or the case dismissed, whenever the law suit or arbitration would threaten a personâs state or federal constitutional rights. Others would do the same regardless of whether a constitutional right is threatened.
Finally, the Arizona bill would nullify the choice of a foreign law or foreign forum in an agreement between private parties, and nearly all of the bills and proposed constitutional amendments would do the same when the choice of law or forum is perceived to threaten state or federal constitutional rights. Unless interpreted very narrowly, such limitations could not only foil the reasonable expectations of the parties in many cases, but defeat their clearly expressed intentions. It is unclear what desirable policies these provisions would serve.
Sharia is an Islamic penal code, based on religious beliefs that dictate prayers, diet and fasting. Punishments include chopping off the hands of thieves, stoning adulterers, and killing those who deny Allah.
If enacted, House Bill 4499 would “limit the application and enforcement by a court, arbitrator, or administrative body of foreign laws that would impair constitutional rights; to provide for modification or voiding of certain contractual provisions or agreements that would result in a violation of constitutional rights; and to require a court, arbitrator, or administrative body to take certain actions to prevent violation of constitutional rights,” and would apply “only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the 16 application of the foreign law.” [Read more].
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) announced today that the City of Dearborn, its Mayor, John B. O’Reilly, its Chief of Police, Ronald Haddad, 17 City police officers, and two executives of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce were named as defendants in a ninety-six page federal civil rights lawsuit filed in the Federal District Court in Detroit this morning.
The lawsuit, brought by TMLC and co-counsel and Sharia law expert, David Yerushalmi, stems from two separate police actions at the June 2010 Dearborn, Michigan Annual International Arab Festival.
Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel, commented, “Muslims dominate the political and law enforcement process in Dearborn. It seems that police were more interested in placating the Mayor and Muslims than obeying our Constitution. Sharia law makes it a crime to preach the Gospel to Muslims. This is a classic example of stealth Jihad being waged right here in America. And it should be a wake-up call for all patriotic Americans.”
Sharia Compliance Loans
Somali entrepreneurs in the neighborhood have transformed an abandoned machinery warehouse into this bustling indoor bazaar. Karmel Square is one of several commercial districts they've revived in recent years with support from an unexpected ally: the city.
Since 2006, Minneapolis has loaned more than $1 million to Muslim business owners through a program that complies with sharia law, which prohibits Muslims from paying or earning interest in a financial transaction. The program, which is operated in partnership with the African Development Center, makes Minneapolis the only city in the country to offer Islamic financing at a time when states are trying to ban sharia from the courts. "Minneapolis is a very welcoming city," says Kristin Guild, the city's business development manager. "Because [Somali immigrants] wear headscarves, they are visible as entrepreneurs and people see that they are setting up businesses in our town and creating jobs."
The Effects of Sharia Guidelines in a Non Sharia Country
The city of Pitt Meadows is removing signs posted in one of its off-leash dog parks asking owners to keep their canines away from Muslim people.
A number of flyers were recently posted in Hoffman Park asking dog owners to keep their pets leashed.
"Many Muslims live in this area and dogs are considered filthy in Islam. Please keep your dogs on a leash and away from the Muslims who live in this community," the flyers read.
Study to make one wise. Understand when there is a difference and why that difference is in existence. The United States is a Land of Laws and Liberties as designed by our forefathers. When we make adjustments for others who come here "Looking for the American Dream" Then they need to be Law Abiding and assimilate. They chose to come here, we didn't choose to bring our Laws to them and we didn't say "change them to your ideology".