You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Sharia law banned: Oklahoma to become the first U.S. state to veto use of Islamic code
2010-11-03
Oklahoma is set to become the first state in America to outlaw Sharia law.

Voters were expected to rule it illegal for judges to rely on the Islamic code when ruling on cases following a state-wide ballot.

Proponents of the ban said it was a ‘preemptive strike’ to stop Oklahoma suffering the same fate as European countries such as Britain, where Sharia is routinely used in Muslim communities.

Posted by:tipper

#16  Oh yes....and kudos to the rabbi in Manhattan!
Posted by: Black Charlie Chinemble5313   2010-11-03 20:11  

#15  I don't mean to criticize other peoples way of life. This is just rather shocking to me to hear about. I am really concerned about the fact that it sounds like nothing is going to be able to be done about sharia law unless a body happens to show up!
Posted by: Black Charlie Chinemble5313   2010-11-03 19:51  

#14  But from what I'm reading, the pressure is so intense that this is an unusual case and going to secular authorities is very rare.

Agreed. Rarer than in more normal communities, where standing up to testify is already rare. I don't like it, either. But our ancestors came here because they didn't like the pressure to remain whatever they were over there. These people can do the same, and all they have to do is leave Brooklyn. Yes, it's risky and uncomfortable and all that, but this is still a free country, and it's easier than moving to a new continent. In fact, that's what the young man who testified did -- he left the community, but not Judaism. Voluntary means accepting the difficulties of doing what one thinks is necessary, and doing it anyway.

What isn't mentioned in the article is that these communities lose members at a fairly constant rate, just like the Amish, exactly because they won't put up with that crap.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-11-03 19:28  

#13  I understand, trailing wife, that this article is about what happened in this one instance. But from what I'm reading, the pressure is so intense that this is an unusual case and going to secular authorities is very rare.

I guess the mistake of the Catholics was just that the hierarchy didn't enforce enough pressure on the victims to stay shut up.

I honestly don't believe it's okay for people to have no access to our legal system due to communal pressure. And this system can't possibly be considered voluntary even for arbitration or mediation...it doesn't sound voluntary at all. Shopkeepers won't even do business with them for crying out loud.
Posted by: Black Charlie Chinemble5313   2010-11-03 19:20  

#12  Sadly, as of 2010, major institutions in the US are observing Sharia restrictions

Don't forget major international banks offering Sharia-compliant instruments.

Separately, Black Charlie Chinemble5313, the entire point of the article you link is that secular law overrides the Bet Din, and that is acknowledged by the Jewish community where the abuse happened, even if they don't like it at all. The perpetrator was convicted once somebody stood up to accuse him, and the rabbi who encouraged the victim has found a congenial congregation to accept him, even if it is in the next borough.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-11-03 18:49  

#11  And how is it okay that we let Catholic priests go to prison and get killed in prison for their offenses and other people are not subject to our laws? I think it's bizarre.
Posted by: Black Charlie Chinemble5313   2010-11-03 16:20  

#10  Okay, I didn't know what these religious courts were. Now that I do, I still think they're not okay. How can you allow this and not allow sharia? No wonder Britain has a terrible problem on its hands.

Every Orthodox Jewish community has religious tribunals, composed of three, or sometimes four rabbis. These rabbinical courts, called “Bet Din,” Hebrew for “House of Judgment,” are intended to settle every disagreement within the community and only rarely choose to report cases to secular judicial authorities. “It’s a matter of protecting the community,” explained Yaakov Schonberg. “By handling problems yourself, you prevent the others from knowing about those problems and from using them against you.” Breaking the rule and reaching out to secular authorities when there is a problem within the community, according to Schonberg, will get you excommunicated more often than not. Excommunication means that someone will not be allowed in any synagogue of the community, his/her children won’t be accepted in any yeshiva, and shopkeepers will refuse to do business with that person. “The pressure on the family is huge!” added Yaakov Schonberg.
/
The plaintiff’s father said he had also been under pressure during the month before the Lebovits’ trial began. “As soon as the date of the trial was officially announced, I received calls from everywhere, even from Israel!” He said people were calling to ask him to drop the case and go to a religious tribunal instead. “But you have to understand, rabbinical courts used to mean something,” Yaakov Schonberg said. “They used to have real authority and real moral superiority in the community. Now it has become a business, a way to make money!” Schonberg explained how thirty years ago, there used to be only one Bet Din in Borough Park and another one in Williamsburg, and how now, there were dozens in each neighborhood. “Now, it’s usually three young rabbis who know very little, fresh from rabbinical school, and they call themselves rabbinical court!” he said, gesticulating vigorously. He paused and added: “They don’t have to be approved by anyone, there is no election, no nomination, no validation whatsoever. They just open an office, put a sign that says “Bet Din,”… and charge each plaintiff $100 an hour!”
/
Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg, who has for over ten years been strongly encouraging victims to bring sexual offenders before a secular court, said he was now considered an outcast in Brooklyn. He was excommunicated two years ago after he launched a hotline to “teach victims and their relatives how to react when they are confronted with a sexual abuse situation.” “Today, there isn’t one synagogue in this borough that will accept me, even the most liberal ones,” Rosenberg said. “Such pressure has been made on every rabbi in Brooklyn that now I have to go pray in Manhattan, and even there, my rabbi received several calls from leaders in Williamsburg asking him not to let me in anymore. But he answered ‘No one rules in my synagogue but me!”

http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=4&id=34721
Posted by: Black Charlie Chinemble5313   2010-11-03 15:52  

#9  I think a lot of people are misreading this.

The referendum only refers to the deliberations and decisions of government judges. If people use arbitration or mediation, whether it is religious or non religious, that seems to be as permissible as it was before the referendum.
Posted by: lord garth   2010-11-03 12:17  

#8  
For a long time, for example, Jews have been allowed to have their own religious courts, to settle disputes between Jews in an *consensual* manner. It is almost never an issue to the rest of the public.


It must not be an issue because most people probably have no idea it's going on. I think this is a mistake if it's happening. There should be only one legal system in this country, applicable to everyone. If certain people object and don't like it, they need to remove themselves to the countries that do allow those religious courts. I really believe that. This is America, the same law applies to everyone here or we're just asking for trouble.
Posted by: Black Charlie Chinemble5313   2010-11-03 11:14  

#7  Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

Having to make an explicit law like this suggests that separation of church and state is a relative thing.
Posted by: gorb   2010-11-03 11:00  

#6  The Sharia issue is not about whether Muslim communities should be allowed to adjudicate their internal affairs according to their traditions.

It is about whether non-Muslims in the West should be subjected to Sharia restrictions of their civil and human rights.

That is the official demand of the OIC, including liberated Afghanistan, liberated Iraq, NATO ally Turkey, moderate Jordan etc.

Sadly, as of 2010, major institutions in the US are observing Sharia restrictions (Yale, Comedy Central, nearly all of the MSM), and the American and NATO political establishment resorted to open intimidation and harassment to coerce an American citizen into 'voluntarily' waiving his constitutional rights and paying obeisance to Islam and Sharia.

Whatever the direct legal implication of the Oklahoma vote may be, the political message is clear: Defiance in the face of creeping Rushdie rules.

The big question is this: Will this vote trigger an international crisis, and how will the political class in the US and other Western countries react?

Posted by: Omaing White7048   2010-11-03 10:15  

#5  Other areas of ignorance include the traditional Islamic response to: adultery, blasphemy, apostacy, dissing the Prophet, opposing a jihad, etc., which is always & everywhere: the death penalty.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2010-11-03 09:56  

#4  Sharia law courts tend to set up a dual legal system wherever they are. They are subversive in nature in that they intend to supplant the existing legal system by stealth. I would think there is considerable opposition in the U.S. to Sharia law courts.
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-11-03 09:54  

#3  there is no way Sharia Law courts can be tolerated in the US, where coercion would not be a factor. Yes. It is pitiful that the electorate is so profoundly ignorant of its own interest.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2010-11-03 09:53  

#2  There's a legal problem. While you can ban State judges from considering international law in their decisions, you have to also ban "religious" law, not just Sharia law, from their decisions.

But the real issue is not what State judges do, but what religious people do "on their own dime", as it were. For a long time, for example, Jews have been allowed to have their own religious courts, to settle disputes between Jews in an *consensual* manner. It is almost never an issue to the rest of the public.

But when Muslims demand the same right, to have *consensual* courts with Sharia Law, just for them, they are invariably *not* consensual, but coercive, and even threatening. To not use such a court once it is established, or to reject its decision means at a minimum being ostracized by their community, more likely to be menaced with, or physically attacked, or even killed.

Unfortunately, our legal system is as of yet incapable of distinguishing the difference between religious court systems. In short, there is no way Sharia Law courts can be tolerated in the US, where coercion would not be a factor. Even if they had to conduct their courts under the watchful eyes of non-Muslims, they would still engage in coercion outside of the court.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-11-03 09:01  

#1  An amendment to the constitution of a US state should be a bigger issue by far than an unfashionable bitter clinger's publicity stunt involving the burning of korans.

Will Obama, Clinton, Gates, Petraeus, Rasmussen et al promptly condemn this vote and apologize to the Afghan people and muslims in general?

If they won't then moderate Afghans might be driven into the arms of the extremists.

/sarc
Posted by: Omaing White7048   2010-11-03 08:39  

00:00