Islamic Court Says Men Can Legally Beat Wives and Children | Sharia Law

[FrankRep]

Islamic Court Says Men Can Legally Beat Wives and Children (http://en.terra.com/latin-in-america/news/islamic_court_says_men_can_legally_beat_wives_and_ children/hof12155)


Terra News
Oct 18, 2010‎


According to the United Arab Emirates' highest court, a man can beat his wife and children as long as he leaves no marks. This decision was made after a case of a father beating both his wife and daughter.

United Arab Emirates cited Shariah law as the basis for their judgment. Under Shariah law, or Islamic law, a man can beat his wife and children as long as he first tries to discipline them by admonishing them and then by abstaining from sexual relations with his wife. The case leading to this conclusion is not unusual.

Abu Dhabi's The National newspaper reported that the father had slapped his wife and kicked and slapped his daughter. The daughter was allegedly bruised on the hand and knee and his wife's lip and teeth were injured.

The court ruled that the injuries showed that the man went beyond the boundaries allowed by Shariah law and was found guilty. He was fined 500 United Arab Emirate dirhams or $136. He has since appealed the case twice.

What do you think of this ruling? What can these women do to protect themselves?


SOURCE:
http://en.terra.com/latin-in-america/news/islamic_court_says_men_can_legally_beat_wives_and_ children/hof12155

[FrankRep]

Oklahoma says NO!


States Take Preemptive Strike Against Shariah Law (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4342-states-take-preemptive-strike-against-shariah)

Wary of the increasing influence of Shariah law and its international adherents, lawmakers in several states are taking preemptive measures to protect their jurisprudence and infrastructure from what they see as the frightening ascendancy of a pernicious dogma. by Joe Wolverton II

Oklahoma Bans Sharia Law from Courts; CAIR Files Suit (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5097-oklahoma-bans-sharia-law-from-courts-cair-files-suit)

CAIR is filing suit against a measure in Oklahoma which would prevent Sharia law from being used in the state's courts. By James Heiser

Judge Draws Ire in Suspending Oklahoma Sharia Ban (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5146-judge-draws-ire-in-suspending-oklahoma-sharia-ban)

Two days after Oklahomans voted in the mid-terms to ban Islamic, or Sharia, law from state courtrooms, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said it would file suit. by Kelly Holt

[Zippyjuan]

Sharia law is not and has never been a part of courts in Oklahoma. Just more M&M fear from the right wing conservatives who want to keep people afraid of Mexicans and Muslims (the M&Ms). "They are going to take over the country!" The fear is being used as a political tool. White christians need to hide their wives and children!

[FrankRep]

Sharia law is not and has never been a part of courts in Oklahoma.

This is not true (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4342-states-take-preemptive-strike-against-shariah) in all parts of America:


Specific instances of the references to Shariah law in the briefs of defendants are listed in an article written by Christopher Holton, the vice-president of the Washington, D.C. think tank, Center for Security Policy:


* S.D. v. M.J.R. in the state of New Jersey, a New Jersey judge saw no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

Fortunately, an appellate court overturned this atrocious decision, and a Shariah ruling by a U.S. court was not allowed to stand.


* In a Maryland case, Hosain v. Malik, 108 Md.App. 284, 671 A.2d 988 (Md.1996), a Maryland Court granted comity and enforced a Pakistani custody order turning a child brought to the US by the mother over to the father. The Maryland Court held that: the burden was on the mother to prove the Pakistani court did not apply law in “substantial conformity with Maryland law” by a preponderance of the evidence; the case was “not about whether Pakistani religion, culture, or legal system is personally offensive to us or whether we share all of the same values, mores and customs, but rather whether the Pakistani courts applied a rule of law, evidence, or procedure so contradictory to Maryland public policy as to undermine the confidence in the trial”; the best interest of the child should not be “determined based on Maryland law, i.e., American cultures and mores,” but rather “by applying relevant Pakistani customs, culture and mores”; “a Pakistani court could only determine the best interest of a Pakistani child by an analysis utilizing the customs, culture, religion, and mores of … Pakistan”; “in the Pakistani culture, the well being of the child and the child’s proper development is thought to be facilitated by adherence to Islamic teachings”; the Pakistani order was not the result of “a trial by fire, trial by ordeal, or a system rooted in superstition, or witchcraft”; the “longstanding doctrine [of Hazanit1] of one of the world’s oldest and largest religions practiced by hundreds of millions of people around the world and in this country, as applied as one factor in the best interest of the child test, is [not] repugnant to Maryland public policy”; and, the granting of the order by the Pakistani Court without representation for the mother was not repugnant to Maryland public policy because although she may have been arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the custody proceedings and have been subject to “public whipping or death by stoning,” such punishments were “extremely unlikely.”

Louisiana residents may be interested in knowing that similar cases have arisen in the Bayou State, including a child custody case with fortunately a very different outcome from that in Maryland (again, thanks to Stephen Gele):


* In Amin v. Bakhaty, 01-1967 (La.10/16/01), 798 So.2d 75, the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to enforce an Egyptian custody order stating that: The only other forum that could possibly determine custody would be Egypt. However, the Egyptian Court is not compelled to consider the minor child’s best interest. [The father] would have the absolute right to guardianship, as well as the right to physical custody. This Court believes that a parent’s interest in a relationship with his or her child is a basic human right. Egypt follows Islamic family law, which structures some of the rights between family members based solely on gender. Under the Egyptian concept of “guardianship,” the father has the absolute right to the guardianship and the physical custody of the minor child. [The father]‘s affidavit when he petitioned for a civil warrant confirmed this structure in Islamic law, stating that by operation of Egyptian law, both the temporary guardianship and physical custody of [the child] rested exclusively with him. The unique circumstances of this case required more consideration for the best interest of this child than for the extension of comity toward the Egyptian/Islamic legal system.

Louisiana Act 714 obviates such scenarios from recurring (at least within the jurisdiction of the Bayou State). Relevant language from the measure reveals the purpose of the law:


The legislature finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.

[revolutionary8]

According to the United Arab Emirates' highest court, a man can beat his wife and children as long as he leaves no marks.

perhaps now, when kids get sent to the principals office to get a paddlin', the principal won't be thrown in Gitmo?

yes, I know, that was bad, and NO, I do not have any children, nor plan on having any FEDS. :D


I am not sure I understand how letting people handle their own domestic issues is a problem?

[oyarde]

perhaps now, when kids get sent to the principals office to get a paddlin', the principal won't be thrown in Gitmo?

yes, I know, that was bad, and NO, I do not have any children, nor plan on having any FEDS. :D


I am not sure I understand how letting people handle their own domestic issues is a problem?

Domestic issues that encourage violence against women ? Does not smell like Liberty to me .

[BlackTerrel]

Sharia law is not and has never been a part of courts in Oklahoma. Just more M&M fear from the right wing conservatives who want to keep people afraid of Mexicans and Muslims (the M&Ms). "They are going to take over the country!" The fear is being used as a political tool. White christians need to hide their wives and children!

While I agree that Sharia law is not a threat to the people of Oklahoma I'd rather have the people of Oklahoma decide that rather than one judge.

Right now this one judge overturns a vote by 70% of Oklahomans - that's kind of BS.

[dannno]

How do you beat somebody without leaving marks :confused:

I'm pretty sure that even in the US you show your beating marks to the judge.

[nate895]

Just remember the rule of thumb, and it's all good!


Sharia law is not and has never been a part of courts in Oklahoma. Just more M&M fear from the right wing conservatives who want to keep people afraid of Mexicans and Muslims (the M&Ms). "They are going to take over the country!" The fear is being used as a political tool. White christians need to hide their wives and children!

So, we shouldn't ban murder until after it happens at least once?

I swear, there might be a bunch of decent arguments for or against something, but most people will always pick the worst.

[jmdrake]

How do you beat somebody without leaving marks :confused:

I'm pretty sure that even in the US you show your beating marks to the judge.

From what I hear rubber hoses don't leave marks. But you can always waterboard. The "all father" Dubya has now admitted he personally gave the ok for water boarding. But we're supposed to be distracted by what's going on in some "ayrab" country that our government is propping up (military wise) anyway.

[jmdrake]

Just remember the rule of thumb, and it's all good!



So, we shouldn't ban murder until after it happens at least once?

I swear, there might be a bunch of decent arguments for or against something, but most people will always pick the worst.

Well Mosaic law allowed for stoning your son if he was incorrigible. But I don't think a law banning the old testament being applied would be well received. Anyway, it's redundant. The 1st amendment applies to the states through the 14th amendment (despite what some people would like to claim) and that bars any government establishment of religion. Yeah some stupid judge factored in a husband's religious viewpoint. (And it was just a few decades ago when this country had no prohibition against marital rape). But it wasn't allowed to stand because it couldn't stand.

[Zippyjuan]

Is it your arguement that the government should pass laws against everything which MIGHT happen? I thought the idea was smaller and less obtrusive- not larger government.

To me, the whole issue is about Muslims and Islam- you do not see this issue being raised about any other religion or country or people. That is the biggest problem I have with it.

[revolutionary8]

Is it your arguement that the government should pass laws against everything which MIGHT happen? I thought the idea was smaller and less obtrusive- not larger government.

To me, the whole issue is about Muslims and Islam- you do not see this issue being raised about any other religion or country or people. That is the biggest problem I have with it.

Zippy, the "anti-truther" and downright DEGRADER of critical and independent thought and I agree. THAT might leave a mark. :cool:

[revolutionary8]

just remember the rule of thumb, and it's all good!



So, we shouldn't ban murder until after it happens at least once?




ummmmm,
fucking no!!!!
Stop fucking trying to skewer the issue= murder is against the law= pre-crime is not!!!



Here you go Plato-
tell me,
what "assurances" do you have that 'pre-meditated' murder will (or will NOT) occur? If so, their punishment?????????????
fucking FUCK that I am here saying this SHIT!!
BAN PRE MEDITATED MURDER?? LMAO!! PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK!!!

PS, sorry NATE, nothing personal!!!

[nate895]

Is it your arguement that the government should pass laws against everything which MIGHT happen? I thought the idea was smaller and less obtrusive- not larger government.

This is basically a weak slippery slope argument. Banning sharia law doesn't necessarily mean states should pass laws against everything bad that might happen (as if we could conceive of every act which should be illegal), but that when it does somewhere in the world, or at least the relevant culture, then it isn't an argument to basically say "it needs to happen here first."

Edit: The question ought to be: Have we conceived of it happening?

[revolutionary8]

This is basically a weak slippery slope argument. Banning sharia law doesn't necessarily mean states should pass laws against everything bad that might happen (as if we could conceive of every act which should be illegal), but that when it does somewhere in the world, or at least the relevant culture, then it isn't an argument to basically say "it needs to happen here first."

Edit: The question ought to be: Have we conceived of it happening?

YES, "we" should let the "sharia's" decide for "us'.
is this a fucking JOKE?
LET THE GOD DAMN SHARIA'S DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE.

tell me nate, do you disagree w/ that?

[nate895]

YES, "we" should let the "sharia's" decide for "us'.
is this a fucking JOKE?
LET THE GOD DAMN SHARIA'S DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.

tell me nate, do you disagree w/ that?

That is not what this law is saying. It bans courts of law from using it, not for two people to go to the Islamic authorities and ask for a dispute to be settled via sharia.

[Depressed Liberator]

Why has there been so much anti-Islam bullshit propaganda on RPF lately?

Actually, I think it's mostly just FrankRep.

[revolutionary8]

That is not what this law is saying. It bans courts of law from using it, not for two people to go to the Islamic authorities and ask for a dispute to be settled via sharia.

you are clouding the issue, talking about SHIT that doesn't matter.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IS "BANNED" ACCORDING TO YOUR RELIGION, IT MATTERS WHAT THE US CONSTITUTION READS.

blah blah blah

This might sound EXTRA ORDINARLY UN PEEECEEE, but here goes,
I REFUSE to "push one" for sharia law.

[FrankRep]

Why has there been so much anti-Islam bullshit propaganda on RPF lately?

I'm criticizing Sharia Law and these articles aren't propaganda.

[nate895]

Why has there been so much anti-Islam bullshit propaganda on RPF lately?

Actually, I think it's mostly just FrankRep.

Of course, anti-Christian propaganda is acceptable. We only forbid the criticism of foreign religions.

[revolutionary8]

Why has there been so much anti-Islam bullshit propaganda on RPF lately?

Actually, I think it's mostly just FrankRep.

stfu you have NO IDEA what you are talking about, he just happens to be one of the SMARTEST that DARES to challenge the MSM, SO IT IS NO F'IN SURPRISE THAT YOU F'IN TRY TO WORK HIM.
so FUCK OFF.

[angelatc]

Why has there been so much anti-Islam bullshit propaganda on RPF lately?

Actually, I think it's mostly just FrankRep.

Yes, it is. He posts the same articles over and over. It's like the whole right wing just figured out what the Middle East is all about and they want to fix it. Unfortunately, we already know how that works out.

Liberty has to come from within.

[FrankRep]

Yes, it is. He posts the same articles over and over. It's like the whole right wing just figured out what the Middle East is all about and they want to fix it. Unfortunately, we already know how that works out.

I'm criticizing Sharia Law, but I don't support the wars in the middle east.
I just get tired of seeing "Liberty" people defending Sharia Law.

[revolutionary8]

Yes, it is. He posts the same articles over and over. It's like the whole right wing just figured out what the Middle East is all about and they want to fix it. Unfortunately, we already know how that works out.

Liberty has to come from within.

Interesting that you say that angela.
Thanks.

[revolutionary8]

I'm criticizing Sharia Law, but I don't support the wars in the middle east.
I just get tired of seeing "Liberty" people defending Sharia Law.

how is it that "we" are "defending Sharia Law", Frank???
in all honesty, I know next to NOTHING about "sharia law", especially how it applies here in the states.
Perhaps you will treat those of us "out of the know" to kowledge....

[Rael]

How do you beat somebody without leaving marks :confused:

I'm pretty sure that even in the US you show your beating marks to the judge.

Beat them with phone books.

And follow up by leaving a lit charcoal grill in their trailer :D

[oyarde]

I'm criticizing Sharia Law, but I don't support the wars in the middle east.
I just get tired of seeing "Liberty" people defending Sharia Law.

They probably are not aware of the violence ... I would not worry about it too much . If it was understood most would not defend it .

[BlackTerrel]

Is it your arguement that the government should pass laws against everything which MIGHT happen? I thought the idea was smaller and less obtrusive- not larger government.

I think most on this thread are missing the point.

1. Yes it is an unnecessary law and if I lived in Oklahoma I would have voted against it.

BUT

2. 70% of Oklahomans voted for it.

3. One judge overturns their vote.

Isn't it the belief of the posters on this forum that the people should have the power, not the judges - and one single judge at that?

[BlackTerrel]

Of course, anti-Christian propaganda is acceptable. We only forbid the criticism of foreign religions.

Yep. Bashing Christianity is cool and hip.

[BlackTerrel]

Yes, it is. He posts the same articles over and over. It's like the whole right wing just figured out what the Middle East is all about and they want to fix it. Unfortunately, we already know how that works out.

Liberty has to come from within.

I'm more anti-judge who overturns the will of 70% of the people who voted.

Why are so few people on here concerned that votes are basically meaningless now if one judge disagrees.