Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Muneer Awad's opponents label him "a foreigner" trying to change Oklahoma's laws.
Awad, 27, a recent University of Georgia law school graduate born in Michigan, says he's standing up for the U.S. Constitution. "I'm trying to defend the First Amendment," says Awad, director of Oklahoma's chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

At issue is an amendment to Oklahoma's constitution passed overwhelmingly on Election Day that bars judges from considering Islamic or international law in Oklahoma state courts. Awad sued, and last week a federal judge temporarily blocked the law from taking effect while she determines whether it violates the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits establishment of a state religion.

Awad says the Oklahoma law would prohibit a judge from probating his will, written in compliance with Islamic principles, or adjudicating other domestic matters such as divorces and custody disputes involving Muslims.

Supporters of sharia bans, including Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, say Islamic law is creeping into U.S. courts.

Earlier this year, for example, an appeals court in New Jersey overturned a state court judge's refusal to issue a restraining order against a Muslim man who forced his wife to engage in sexual intercourse. The judge found that the man did not intend to rape his wife because he believed his religion permitted him to have sex with her whenever he desired.

Although Oklahoma's law is the first to come under court scrutiny, legislators in at least seven states, including Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah, have proposed similar laws, the National Conference of State Legislatures says.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... 9_ST_N.htm

In S.D. v. M.J.R., the plaintiff, a Moroccan Muslim woman, lived with her Moroccan Muslim husband in New Jersey. She was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband over the course of several weeks. While the plaintiff was being treated for her injuries at a hospital, a police detective interviewed her and took photographs of her injuries. Those photographs depicted injuries to plaintiff’s breasts, thighs and arm, bruised lips, eyes and right check. Further investigation established there were blood stains on the pillow and sheets of plaintiff’s bed.
The wife sought a permanent restraining order, and a New Jersey trial judge held a hearing in order to decide whether to issue the order. Evidence at trial established, among other things, that the husband told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” The police detective testified about her findings, and some of the photographs were entered into evidence.

The defendant’s Imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands and he refused to answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his sexual advances on his wife if she says “no.”

The trial judge found that most of the criminal acts were indeed proved, but nonetheless denied the permanent retraining order. This judge held that the defendant could not be held responsible for the violent sexual assaults of his wife because he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were “consistent with his [religious] practices.” In other words, the judge refused to issue the permanent restraining order because under Sharia law, this Muslim husband had a “right” to rape his wife.

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=42257

Discuss

The judge in NJ should be removed.

andy7171 wrote:The judge in NJ should be removed.

Agree. And maybe I'm being too simplistic, but there should be no issue here. Judges are sworn to uphold the law, correct? If Sharia Law is in conflict with civil law (like this case), then civil law should win out. If judge decides different, he should be removed for dereliction of duty. What am I missing?

I agree with judges that in the absence of US law look outside our boundaries to gain some context on a particular subject matter, but I defeinitely do not agree with the apparent use of religious or foreign law as precedential authority over a civil law.

Appaholic wrote:

andy7171 wrote:The judge in NJ should be removed.

Agree. And maybe I'm being too simplistic, but there should be no issue here. Judges are sworn to uphold the law, correct? If Sharia Law is in conflict with civil law (like this case), then civil law should win out. If judge decides different, he should be removed for dereliction of duty. What am I missing?

I think what he was trying to do (right or wrong) was support the fact that the husband had no intent to "rape" his wife seeing as he didn't think it was wrong based on Sharia law. With that being said, if you live in the US and you don't know that raping your wife is wrong, then I have no sympathy for you. You should be convicted regardless of what you knew to be the "law."

danefan wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Agree. And maybe I'm being too simplistic, but there should be no issue here. Judges are sworn to uphold the law, correct? If Sharia Law is in conflict with civil law (like this case), then civil law should win out. If judge decides different, he should be removed for dereliction of duty. What am I missing?

I think what he was trying to do (right or wrong) was support the fact that the husband had no intent to "rape" his wife seeing as he didn't think it was wrong based on Sharia law. With that being said, if you live in the US and you don't know that raping your wife is wrong, then I have no sympathy for you. You should be convicted regardless of what you knew to be the "law."

I think you are right & that would make sense....and I agree with your follow-up premise....if ignorance isn't good enough to get out of speeding ticket, it certainly should not work for excusing rape...

I guess the real question is....why would anyone ever risk jail to rape your wife? The 17-yr old hot neighbor daughter down the street? That's understandable, but your wife? C'mon, man....

Would this be Separation of Church and State deal? If they don't want the 10 Commandments in court houses, WTF is Sharia law doing in there?

Appaholic wrote:I guess the real question is....why would anyone ever risk jail to rape your wife? The 17-yr old hot neighbor daughter down the street? That's understandable, but your wife? C'mon, man....

If you are going to do it, make it memorable.

The issue here isn't about religious freedom or establishment of a state religion by refusing to consider Sharia law, but in deed just the opposite. If courts overturn civil and/or criminal state and/or federal law in favor of Sharia or any other religious law, they are in fact establishing Islam (in the case of Sharia law) as a religion superior to the state, thus a state religion.

As courts have overturned bigamy in the law/scripture/practice of other religions in favor of state laws that conflict with this practice, so should they overturn Sharia law in conflict with state or federal law.

This is about establishing Islamic law as superior to state law, not protecting the rights of practitioners of Islam.

LeadBolt wrote:The issue here isn't about religious freedom or establishment of a state religion by refusing to consider Sharia law, but in deed just the opposite. If courts overturn civil and/or criminal state and/or federal law in favor of Sharia or any other religious law, they are in fact establishing Islam (in the case of Sharia law) as a religion superior to the state, thus a state religion.

As courts have overturned bigamy in the law/scripture/practice of other religions in favor of state laws that conflict with this practice, so should they overturn Sharia law in conflict with state or federal law.

This is about establishing Islamic law as superior to state law, not protecting the rights of practitioners of Islam.

nailed it...

andy7171 wrote:The judge in NJ should be removed.

What is the difference between that and Christians using their "law" to imprison kids in gay re-education camps?

Both are wrong, and both should be illegal, but Christians get away with it.



FUCK em all. Religious doctrine has NO PLACE in our society.

dbackjon wrote:

andy7171 wrote:The judge in NJ should be removed.

What is the difference between that and Christians using their "law" to imprison kids in gay re-education camps?

Both are wrong, and both should be illegal, but Christians get away with it.



FUCK em all. Religious doctrine has NO PLACE in our society.

what in the hell?
What exactly is this re-education camp? And is the Government forcing this upon them?

dbackjon wrote:

andy7171 wrote:The judge in NJ should be removed.

What is the difference between that and Christians using their "law" to imprison kids in gay re-education camps?

Both are wrong, and both should be illegal, but Christians get away with it.



**** em all. Religious doctrine has NO PLACE in our society.

I'm not sure I know the context for this, but are you comparing a parent making their underage child do something that is perfectly legal (i.e. attend a camp) versus a person raping his adult wife against her will (probably redundant but to emphasize the point)?

I don't agree with hay re-education camps, but parents have a pretty unique monopoly on governing their kids lives and what they are taught, especially in the privacy of their own homes. Forcing an adult to have sex is a separate matter entirely.

andy7171 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

What is the difference between that and Christians using their "law" to imprison kids in gay re-education camps?

Both are wrong, and both should be illegal, but Christians get away with it.



FUCK em all. Religious doctrine has NO PLACE in our society.

what in the hell?
What exactly is this re-education camp? And is the Government forcing this upon them?

Reeduction camps are prison-like facilities run by Fundamentalists. Parents send the children that have either been suspected on being gay, or have come out as gay. These camps try to reeducate the kids into not being gay. Every bit as traumatic as rape.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

What is the difference between that and Christians using their "law" to imprison kids in gay re-education camps?

Both are wrong, and both should be illegal, but Christians get away with it.



**** em all. Religious doctrine has NO PLACE in our society.

I'm not sure I know the context for this, but are you comparing a parent making their underage child do something that is perfectly legal (i.e. attend a camp) versus a person raping his adult wife against her will (probably redundant but to emphasize the point)?

I don't agree with hay re-education camps, but parents have a pretty unique monopoly on governing their kids lives and what they are taught, especially in the privacy of their own homes. Forcing an adult to have sex is a separate matter entirely.

It is only LEGAL because it is Christians that are doing it. Doesn't make it right. It should be illegal. It is torture.

So you are ok with a parent beating a child? Electric shock?

In your world, I guess there is no such thing as child abuse, if done by a parent.

dbackjon wrote:

andy7171 wrote: what in the hell?
What exactly is this re-education camp? And is the Government forcing this upon them?

Reeduction camps are prison-like facilities run by Fundamentalists. Parents send the children that have either been suspected on being gay, or have come out as gay. These camps try to reeducate the kids into not being gay. Every bit as traumatic as rape.

Jon - I think reeducation camps are terrible and very emotionally harmful, but the above bolded is a bit of an overstatement, IMO.

Unless of course there's actual phsyical/sexual reeducation going on which isn't out of the realm of possibility I guess.

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I'm not sure I know the context for this, but are you comparing a parent making their underage child do something that is perfectly legal (i.e. attend a camp) versus a person raping his adult wife against her will (probably redundant but to emphasize the point)?

I don't agree with hay re-education camps, but parents have a pretty unique monopoly on governing their kids lives and what they are taught, especially in the privacy of their own homes. Forcing an adult to have sex is a separate matter entirely.

It is only LEGAL because it is Christians that are doing it. Doesn't make it right. It should be illegal. It is torture.

So you are ok with a parent beating a child? Electric shock?

In your world, I guess there is no such thing as child abuse, if done by a parent.

I've never heard of such camps. Unbelievable. What horrible parents woudl do something like this?

dback makes a good case.

Danefan - they do exist, plenty of them in the South. I know some guys that were forced to go to them.


And the methods that some use are queite frightening. Physical and extreme mental abuse.





Like I said, religion has no place in secular law.

andy7171 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

It is only LEGAL because it is Christians that are doing it. Doesn't make it right. It should be illegal. It is torture.

So you are ok with a parent beating a child? Electric shock?

In your world, I guess there is no such thing as child abuse, if done by a parent.

I've never heard of such camps. Unbelievable. What horrible parents woudl do something like this?

dback makes a good case.

The same type of parent that can not accept a gay child.
The type of parent that would rather have a dead kid than a gay kid.
The type of parent that kicks a kid out of the house when they come out.
The type of parent that disowns a kid when they come out
The type of parent that tries to beat the gay out of a kid.

There is a difference between sending a kid to an "educational," facility and enforced rape. A parent has the right to send their child to whatever educational facility/camp they see fit. If abuse is suspected, call the state on the camp and let them sort it out. This is an apples/oranges comparison.

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I'm not sure I know the context for this, but are you comparing a parent making their underage child do something that is perfectly legal (i.e. attend a camp) versus a person raping his adult wife against her will (probably redundant but to emphasize the point)?

I don't agree with hay re-education camps, but parents have a pretty unique monopoly on governing their kids lives and what they are taught, especially in the privacy of their own homes. Forcing an adult to have sex is a separate matter entirely.

It is only LEGAL because it is Christians that are doing it. Doesn't make it right. It should be illegal. It is torture.

So you are ok with a parent beating a child? Electric shock?

In your world, I guess there is no such thing as child abuse, if done by a parent.

No, in my world and our world, there is plenty of things that are child abuse. However, most of them tend to be physical in nature (i.e. beating, raping, malnutrition, endangerment, etc) or neglect. Emotional abuse, such as what you're alluding to, is always much harder to ascertain, measure, and act on. I've already said that parents shouldn't send their kids to these camps, but the legal issue of it is murky.

Where is the line drawn between a parent teaching their children their belief of right and wrong? Do you consider it torture for a parent to force a child to attend a church against their will? How about if a parent signs their kid up for a sport they don't want to play? Or if they send them to a sports camp for a sport they don't want to play or are bad at? Or they decide which school they want their child to attend? How about if they want to take their kid to go visit an elderley grandparent who is racist? Heck, what if the parents are racist? Is that abuse that should be illegal?

My only comment was saying that your comparison of an adult man raping his adult wife is the same as a parent sending his kid to a hay re-education camp as the same isn't really the same. There are differences between adults and kids, that's just reality.

dbackjon wrote: The type of parent that tries to beat the gay out of a kid.

I gotta be honest. I gave my son some money for the kindergarten book fair last week and he brought home a book called Purplicious. This was the first time I ever considered beating the gay out of my son, but I let it slide this time.

93henfan wrote:

dbackjon wrote: The type of parent that tries to beat the gay out of a kid.

I gotta be honest. I gave my son some money for the kindergarten book fair last week and he brought home a book called Purplicious. This was the first time I ever considered beating the gay out of my son, but I let it slide this time.

Maybe he's just a Prince fan?

danefan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
I gotta be honest. I gave my son some money for the kindergarten book fair last week and he brought home a book called Purplicious. This was the first time I ever considered beating the gay out of my son, but I let it slide this time.

Maybe he's just a Prince fan?

He might be, but what's gonna' happen if 93henfan's son comes home wearin' a Raspberry beret? Will he let that one slide??