In Six Minutes, an Atheist Tears Apart the Way Liberals Defend Muslim Atrocities ‘In the Name of Multiculturalism’

[LibCampFireClub 635]

6. Karson v. Soleimani, Nos. B216360, B219698 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSN

Kioumars Ardakani, a life-long resident of Iran, was estranged from his second wife, Soleimani, when he died in Iran without leaving a will. Karson was Ardakani’s daughter from a previous marriage and was Soleimani’s stepdaughter. Karson was a Muslim and both Ardakani and Soleimani were of the Bahai faith. Ardakani’s estate included three parcels of real property in Iran. Karson filed suit in a California court alleging that Soleimani, Soleimani’s attorney in Iran, and other family members who lived in Iran defrauded Karson out of her interest in her father’s estate. Soleimani filed a motion to dismiss Karson’s suit on the basis that Iran was a more convenient forum to try the case than was California. The trial court found that Iran was a more suitable forum to hear Karson’s suit and granted Soleimani’s motion to dismiss. The California appellate court reversed the trial court and ordered Karson’s suit be heard in California. The appellate court held that Iran was not an appropriate forum because Iranian law did not protect the parties’ due process rights and discriminated against women and religious minorities such as the Bahai.

7. Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, Massabni, and Zouheil, 143 Ariz. 460, 694 P.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1984).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSN

After obtaining a judgment against Defendants Bertha and Fadlo Massabni and Pierre Zouheil, Plaintiff Nationwide brought an action to garnish a promissory note for monies owed to Defendant Zouheil. Mr. Zouheil claimed that the promissory note was community property belonging to him and his wife (both Syrian Christians); and therefore not subject to garnishment by Nationwide. Nationwide contended that the promissory note was the separate property of only Mr. Zouheil and subject to garnishment. The trial court, following Nationwide’s suggestion, applied Moroccan Islamic law to determine the nature of the promissory note as separate or community property despite the fact that the Zouheils were neither Muslims nor Moroccan citizens. In reviewing the trial court’s decision, the Arizona appellate court applied Syrian Christian law and determined that the promissory note was Defendant Zouheil’s separate property. The application of Syrian Christian law, which does not allow couples to acquire community property simply by virtue of the existence of their marriage, directly conflicted with Arizona law which starts with the presumption that all property acquired by either spouse during marriage is community property.

8. In re Custody of R., minor child, No. 21565-9-II (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSN

Mr. Noordin and Ms. Abdulla had a child, R., out of wedlock, but were later married in Malaysia. Neither Mr. Noordin nor Ms. Abdulla were citizens of the United States. While the couple was residing in the Philippines, Ms. Abdulla filed for an annulment in Philippine civil court; and Mr. Noordin was granted talaq, or Islamic divorce, and given custody of R. by a Sharia court in the Philippines. Subsequently, the Philippine civil court ruled that the Sharia court lacked jurisdiction, granted custody of R. to Ms. Abdulla, and allowed her to take R. out of the country. Ms. Abdulla took R. to the United States without notifying Mr. Noordin. Mr. Noordin later moved to the United States, filed an action in Washington state court, requested that the Sharia court’s ruling be enforced, and asked the court to give him custody of R. The trial court showed little patience in working through the issue of whether the Sharia court had jurisdiction to decide who should be R.’s custodian, enforced the Sharia court’s ruling, and gave Mr. Noordin custody of R. The Washington appellate court reversed the trial court and ordered the trial court to determine whether the Sharia court had jurisdiction to determine R.’s custodian. The Washington appellate court also stated that if the Sharia court had jurisdiction to determine R.’s custodian, Ms. Abdulla could challenge the Sharia court’s order by proving that the Sharia court’s proceedings violated Washington public policy or that the foreign court did not consider the best interests of the child when it awarded custody.

9. Tazziz v. Tazziz, No. 88-P-941 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSNI

Ismail Tazziz (father) and Pamela Tazziz (mother) lived together as husband and wife in East Jerusalem for 22 years. The father was a Jordanian citizen with an Israeli ID card; and the mother was a dual citizen of Jordan and the United States and had an Israeli ID card. The couple had several minor children. All of the couple’s minor children were United States citizens by virtue of being born abroad to an American mother. The mother took three of the couple’s minor children to Massachusetts without the father’s consent and filed suit in Massachusetts for custody of the minor children. Two months after the mother filed for custody in Massachusetts, the father filed for custody in an Israeli Sharia court. The Massachusetts trial court dismissed the mother’s complaint without considering the best interests of the children. The trial court appeared to not realize that it had discretion to hear the mother’s suit for custody. The appellate court sent the mother’s case back to the trial court and instructed the trial court to consider a variety of factors in order to protect the children’s interests and to evaluate whether the Sharia court would consider the best interests of the children when awarding custody.

10. Rhodes v. ITT Sheraton Corp., 9 Mass. L. Rptr. 355 (Mass. 1999).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSN; ACSNA

Plaintiff Rhodes, a non-Muslim woman, was on vacation at a Sheraton resort in Jeddah, Saudia Arabia, and suffered severe spinal injuries after she dove into the resort’s lagoon and hit her head on a coral structure. Plaintiff filed her suit in a Maryland court for her injuries. Defendant ITT Sheraton requested that the Maryland court dismiss Plaintiff’s suit, under a mechanism called forum non conveniens, because Saudi Arabia represented a more convenient forum in which to try the suit. The Massachusetts court refused to dismiss Plaintiff’s suit and deemed Saudi Arabia an inadequate forum because, among other deficiencies, Saudi law, which is the application of Sharia as the law of the land, exhibits a systemic bias against women and non-Muslims.

--more--

Edited September 28, 2014 by ExExpat

[Curmudgeon 227]

If your only response is to caerphilly then there is nothing more to be said. There is no liberal ideology that allows for the OP premise. That's all the response that this thread requires.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

11. Abd Alla v. Mourssi, 680 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSY

Abd Alla and Mourssi entered into a partnership agreement. Included in the terms of the partnership agreement was a clause whereby both parties agreed to submit any disputes arising out of the partnership agreement to Islamic arbitration. A dispute arose between the two parties and the disagreement was submitted to an Islamic arbitration committee. Following the arbitration committee’s ruling on the dispute, Abd Alla asked a district court to confirm the arbitration decision. Abd Allah also argued that Mourssi had not timely contested the arbitration committee’s decision. Mourssi alleged that the arbitration decision should be vacated because, Mourssi alleged, the committee exceeded its authority and the arbitration award was obtained by corruption, fraud, and undue means. The trial court confirmed the Islamic arbitration committee’s decision. The Minnesota appellate court held that district court properly confirmed the arbitration committee’s ruling. The Minnesota appellate court said that Mourssi did not contest the arbitration committee’s ruling in the timeframe required by Minnesota law. Moreover, the appellate court stated that Mourssi did not establish that the arbitration ruling was obtained as a result of fraud or other undue means which would have allowed Mourssi, under Minnesota law, to vacate the arbitration committee’s decision.

12. El-Farra v. Sayyed, et al., 226 S.W.3d 792 (Ark. 2006).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSN; ACSN

The Islamic Center of Little Rock (Center) hired El-Farra to serve as the Center’s imam in January 2001. On May 15, 2003 and May 30, 2003, person responsible for the Center’s governance sent El-Farra disciplinary letters advising El-Farra that his sermons were inaccurate and inappropriate. Additionally, the disciplinary letters accused El-Farra of creating disunity and other misconduct that was contrary to Islamic law. In July 2003, El-Farra was fired and paid sixty days salary as required by the terms of his contract with the Center. El-Farra sued for breach of contract, defamation, and tortious interference with a contract. The trial court ruled the First Amendment prohibited the courts from hearing El-Farra’s claims and dismissed the suit. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the trial court’s dismissal of El-Farra’s suit was proper on First Amendment grounds because the claims made by El-Farra could not have been decided by neutral principles of law, but instead would have required the court to determine the propriety of El-Farra’s termination by inquiring into Islamic law.

13. In re Marriage of Malak, 182 Cal. App. 3d 1018 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSN; ACSY

Laila (wife) and Abdul (husband) Malak, both Lebanese nationals, were married in 1970. Laila and Abdul moved to the UAE in 1976 to escape Lebanon’s civil war. In July 1982, Laila moved to California and took the couple’s two children with her without Abdul’s consent. Laila filed for divorce and custody of the couple’s two children in California court in September 1982. Abdul obtained a preliminary order from a Lebanese Sharia court awarding him custody of the couple’s two children on February 8, 1983. Laila was personally served with the order on May 26, 1983. Laila was required to respond to the Sharia court within 15 days of being personally served if she wanted to oppose the Sharia court’s preliminary order. She failed to file an opposition within 15 days; and the Sharia court’s preliminary custody order became final on June 30, 1983. Abdul filed the Sharia court’s final order and requested that the California courts enforce the order. The trial court refused to enforce the Sharia court’s order, in part, because the trial court did not believe that the children’s best interests were considered by the Lebanese Sharia court.

The California appellate court ordered that the Sharia court’s custody orders be enforced and that Abdul be given custody of the two children. The California appellate court appeared to defer to the Sharia court’s analysis of what was in the children’s best interests rather than make an independent assessment of the best interests of the children. For example, the California appellate court did not comment on or challenge the Sharia court’s finding that the couple’s children had many friends in Lebanon despite the fact that the children had spent all or almost all of their lives outside of Lebanon in the UAE or America. The Sharia court’s analysis emphasized that Abdul, the children’s father, was a Muslim and that Lebanon, Abdul’s then place of residence, would allow them to receive an Islamic education.

14. In re Marriage of Shaban, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 863 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSN; ACSN

Ahmad (husband) and Sherifa (wife) were married in Egypt in 1974; moved to the United States in the early 1980s; and filed for divorce in 1998. Ahmad argued that a document signed by him and Sharifa’s father, as her proxy, constituted the parties’ pre-marital agreement to have Islamic law govern any property settlement following a divorce. The document recited that the marriage had been concluded in accordance with Islamic law and that the two parties were aware of the legal implications of the marriage. The trial court found the document was not a prenuptial agreement, but instead was a marriage certificate. The trial court applied California law to the division of property. The appellate court recognized that the document was vague about the material terms to which the husband and wife were allegedly agreeing, that there are multiple schools of Islamic legal thought that could govern the agreement, and that no particular school of Islamic legal thought was selected by the parties. The appellate court held that the pre-marital document did not provide sufficient information about the parties’ agreement to constitute a valid pre-marital agreement. As a result of the appellate court’s holding, California law was applied to the property division and the wife took an interest in the marital property. The wife would have accumulated no interest in these assets under Islamic law since property acquired by a spouse during marriage remains that spouse’s separate property.

15. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. v. Mobil Yanu Petrochem. Co., Inc. and Exxon Chem. Arabia, Inc., 866 A. 2d (Del. 2005).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSY

Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) entered into two joint venture agreements— one with Mobil and the other with Exxon. Both joint venture contracts provided that the parties’ only source of profits would be from the operations of the joint ventures. The contracts further provided that the parties would pass-through costs to the joint venture entities—without mark-up—for any technologies that were purchased from a third party and then sublicensed to the joint ventures. However, in the year 2000, ExxonMobile discovered that SABIC had procured technology from Union Carbide, sublicensed the technology to both joint venture entities, and overcharged both joint ventures for the technology that SABIC had sub-licensed to the joint ventures. Exxon and Mobile sued SABIC alleging that the overcharges were a breach of the joint venture agreements and a violation of the Saudi law against usurpation (ghasb). After consulting with five experts on Saudi Arabian law to determine how the law of usurpation (ghasb) would be applied in Saudi Arabia, the trial court applied Saudi law and found SABIC liable for usurpation and breach of the joint venture agreements. The trial court awarded $416 million to Exxon and Mobile on their usurpation claim, $324 million of which were “enhanced” damages. On appeal, SABIC argued that the trial court failed to properly study and understand Saudi law; and thus, erroneously instructed the jury on the Saudi law of usurpation (ghasb). The appellate court noted that the trial court engaged in a meticulous effort to understand Islamic law as it would have been applied in Saudi Arabia and that the trial court properly considered expert testimony regarding the law of usurpation (ghasb) as it would have been applied in Saudi Arabia. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment against SABIC.

--more--

[sandinista! 1,816]

As an American Muslim I would be opposed to any suggestion that Sharia replace our American legal system for American Muslims or any other Americans, and I would be the first to fight any such possibility.

However, the inclusion of Sharia arbitration or alternative dispute resolution that might be utilized by Muslims who so choose after signing a binding arbitration agreement (signed by both parties in a dispute), or that might file an amicus brief with the court is not an alarming new idea. In fact, it is an existing option for religious communities. Any decision rendered by a tribunal or a panel of mediators is subject to appeal to the courts and must be consistent with American law and our Constitution.

This is how the law already exists. The various anti-Sharia bills are based on the idea that they would prohibit certain provisions of foreign laws including Sharia law from being considered by a court if they do not afford the same liberties, rights and privileges guaranteed by the US Constitution. That is already the case. The existing laws of the U.S. and the Constitution of the U.S. are already the final arbiter.

Unless Mr. Spencer and others who find this option so distasteful are also opposed to Halakha courts, then it would seem that this shows a streak of Islamophobia.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/islamic_sharia_and_jewish_halakha_arbitration_courts/ Edited September 28, 2014 by sandinista!

[Curmudgeon 227]

You don't ever read what you are posting. What a waste of time. Carry on, you are invalidating your own statements but don't even seem to realize it. That is pretty funny

[LibCampFireClub 635]

In the midst of the war on Islamic Terror, watch out for yourself and your family. Be vigilant. It's not a matter of IF, but WHEN!

Al Qaeda Leader’s Chilling Warning to the West: ‘The Battle’ Will Be ‘Transported to the Hearts of Your Own Homes’

Sep. 28, 2014 4:36pm Dave Urbanski

BEIRUT (TheBlaze/AP) — The leader of Al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate vowed Sunday that his group would “use all possible means” to fight back against airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition and warned that the conflict would reach Western countries joining the alliance.

In a 25-minute audio recording, Nusra Front leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani warned Western countries against taking part in the alliance in words that echoed those of the late founder of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.

“This is what will cause the battle to be transported to the hearts of your own homes; because Muslims will not stand idly by and watch Muslims be bombed and killed in their countries while you are safe on your countries,” he said. “The price of war will not be paid by your leaders alone. You will pay the biggest price.”

He also portrayed the U.S.-led coalition as a “Crusader alliance” against Sunni Muslims and vowed to fight back.

“We will use all that we have to defend the people of Syria…from the Crusader alliance,” al-Golani said. “And we will use all possible means to achieve this end.” He offered no details.

The recording appeared genuine and corresponded with Associated Press reporting.

--more--

Edited September 28, 2014 by ExExpat

[Curmudgeon 227]

That's what they want us to believe. Why are you pandering to terrorist propaganda? You in league with the terrorists or something?

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Be nice to him. He's rendering a service to himself.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Be nice to him. He's rendering a service to himself.

Not really on topic is it?

How do you suppose terrorists in the middle east are going to get into your living room? I don't believe for one moment that there are hordes of them secreted in secret locations on US soil, nor do they have intercontinental weapons, so how is this going to come about? Scaremongering is not useful and it isn't particularly patriotic, but seemingly you don't know that?

[Dan and Judy 614]

Top 20 Cases of Sharia Law in American Courts

In the interest of time let's look at the top two

1. S.D. v. M.J.R., 2 A.3d 412 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSN

S.D. (wife) and M.J.R. (husband) were both Muslims and citizens of Morocco and both resided in New Jersey. After only three months of marriage, husband began physically abusing wife. The physical abuse administered by husband injured wife’s entire body including her breasts and pubic area. Additionally, husband forced himself on wife and had non-consensual sex with her on multiple occasions. Husband stated to wife that Islam allowed him to have sex

with her at any time he wished.

Wife asked the trial court to grant a restraining order against husband shortly after he verbally divorced her in front of their imam. The trial court refused to issue a final restraining order against husband finding that, although husband had harassed and assaulted wife, husband believed it was his religious right to have non-consensual sex with his wife and that belief precluded any criminal intent on the part of husband. The New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial court and ordered that the trial court enter a final restraining order against husband.

The New Jersey appellate court stated that the trial court erroneously allowed the husband’s religious beliefs to excuse him from New Jersey’s criminal code and that husband knowingly engaged in non-consensual sex with wife.

The appellate court didn't give weight to Sharia law.

2. Hosain v. Malik, 671 A. 2d 988 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSY

Hosain (wife) and Malik (husband) lived in Pakistan as a married couple for approximately eight years before Hosain fled to the United States with the couple’s daughter. Malik filed for custody of their daughter in a Pakistani court. Hosain did not appear before the Pakistani court because she would have been arrested in Pakistan for adultery because she lived with a man after she fled to the United States. The Pakistani court granted custody to Malik. Malik requested that American courts recognize and enforce the Pakistani custody order via a mechanism known as comity. A Maryland trial court granted comity to the Pakistani custody order. On appeal, the Maryland appellate court affirmed the trial court and granted comity to the Pakistani custody order holding that the Pakistani court considered the best interests of the child in granting custody to Malik. However, the minority opinion disagreed that the Pakistani court considered the child’s best interest and instead focused on factors outside of the “best interests of the child” analysis. These other factors included that the child would live in an “un-Islamic” society if it were allowed to remain with Hosain in the United States.

They were married and divorced in Pakistan. The Pakistani courts decision should stand.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Dan and Judy

[LibCampFireClub 635]

The world hasn't changed much since the autotrophs began to drool; with one major exception. There are a lot more of us now than there was then. Look around, examine with your own senses and come to your own conclusions. It's always been that way. Some see signs in a cloud, some see only a cloud. There are a lot more signs in today's world. I do NOT subscribe to a world of fear. America is the home of the brave. If you're happy with the way it is, then good. You live it, you enjoy it. But, if you see things that make you wonder, bring concern to your heart and mind, listen carefully. Not every voice is a friendly one in the wilderness.

[Curmudgeon 227]

The world hasn't changed much since the autotrophs began to drool; with one major exception. There are a lot more of us now than there was then. Look around, examine with your own senses and come to your own conclusions. It's always been that way. Some see signs in a cloud, some see only a cloud. There are a lot more signs in today's world. I do NOT subscribe to a world of fear. America is the home of the brave. If you're happy with the way it is, then good. You live it, you enjoy it. But, if you see things that make you wonder, bring concern to your heart and mind, listen carefully. Not every voice is a friendly one in the wilderness.

That has zero relevance to anything that has been posted. If it is some personal religion, it's a pretty wacky one.

[Dan and Judy 614]

That has zero relevance to anything that has been posted.

yeah let's get back to Muslim bashing.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Wouldn't it be nice if the evil and angry would just smile once and a while. For now, we can only offer a tissue to wipe the drool from their chins.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Wouldn't it be nice if the evil and angry would just smile once and a while. For now, we can only offer a tissue to wipe the drool from their chins.

Zero relevance to the topic once again. Are you fed up with the topic you posted now it's been proven to be a crock?