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

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Oh, wow. Ya got me. Wow. So damned clever. Mmmmmm, mmmmm, mmmm. Ain't Bee; them's some mighty fine biscuits.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Oh, wow. Ya got me. Wow. So damned clever. Mmmmmm, mmmmm, mmmm. Ain't Bee; them's some mighty fine biscuits.

Still not on topic. You're right though, there is no point beating this dead horse.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

16. Akileh v. Elchahal, 660 So. 2d 246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSN; ACSY

Akileh (wife), her father, and Elchahal (husband) agreed that, in return for Akileh’s hand in marriage, Elchahal would enter into an antenuptial agreement called a “sadaq.” Under the terms of the sadaq, Elchahal was to pay Akileh $50,001—$1 was paid immediately and the remaining $50,000 was deferred to an uncertain, later date. After the sadaq was signed, Akileh and Elchahal were married in December 1991. In 1993, Akileh filed for divorce after she contracted a venereal condition from Elchahal. The issue of whether Elchahal was liable to pay the remaining $50,000 to Akileh under the terms of the sadaq was to be decided at the couple’s divorce trial. Akileh testified it was her understanding that the wife forfeits her sadaq only if she cheats on her husband. Elchahal testified that he believed the sadaq is forfeited if the wife initiates the divorce. The trial court ruled that the sadaq was unenforceable because the parties had failed to agree on the sadaq’s essential terms. The trial court further stated that if the parties had agreed on the essential terms of the sadaq, then the court would essentially agree with Elchahal’s version of when the sadaq is forfeited and not order Elchahal to pay the deferred amount because the court would find that the purpose of the sadaq was to “protect the wife from an unwanted divorce.” Under the trial court’s ruling, Akileh would forfeit the deferred $50,000 because she initiated the divorce. The appellate court held that the sadaq was enforceable and the terms of the sadaq required Elchahal to pay the deferred portion to Akileh upon divorce. The appellate court ordered the trial court to enter judgment in Akileh’s favor.

17. Aleem v. Aleem, 404 Md. 404, 947 A.2d 489 (Md. 2008).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSN; ACSN

Husband and wife, both originally from Pakistan, were married in Pakistan in 1980. Shortly thereafter, the couple moved to Maryland where they resided 20 years prior to their divorce. The husband was in the United States on a diplomatic visa. The wife had obtained green card status. The wife initiated a divorce action in a Maryland court; and while the action was pending, the husband went to the Pakistani embassy and obtained an instantaneous divorce under Islamic law known as talaq. Talaq, under the law of Pakistan, would have resulted in the wife not acquiring any rights in the property accumulated by her husband during their marriage. Under Maryland law, she would have acquired marital property rights to assets titled in the husband’s name. The lower courts refused to recognize the talaq. The lower appellate court refused to recognize talaq as being contrary to Maryland public policy because of the extreme differences between Maryland and Pakistani law regarding marital property rights. The Maryland Supreme Court also refused to grant comity to the husband’s talaq because talaq violated Maryland’s public policy. Talaq violated gender equality promoted by Maryland’s constitution because talaq was available only the husband and not the wife. Moreover, talaq violated a wife’s due process rights because a wife could file for divorce in a Maryland court and the husband could obtain the instantaneous talaq before the wife had an opportunity to fully litigate the divorce filed by her in Maryland court. Talaq also would deprive the wife of the marital property rights that she held under Maryland law.

18. In re Marriage of Vryonis, 202 Cal. App. 3d 712 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSN

Fereshteh, a Shiite woman, performed what she believed to be a valid muta (or temporary Shiite marriage) ceremony between herself and Speros Vryonis, a member of the Greek Orthodox faith. For two and one-half years following the muta ceremony, the two never told friends that they were married, they lived at separate locations, they spent only a few nights together during any given month, Speros continued to date other women, and Fereshteh was aware that he was dating other women. After Speros told Fereshteh that he was going to marry another woman, she told others—for the first time—that she and Speros were married. After Speros married the other woman, Fereshteh filed for divorce. Fereshteh claimed that she had a good faith belief that she and Speros were married; and that her good faith belief in their alleged marriage entitled her to spousal support and property rights as a putative spouse under California law. The California Court of Appeals held that a person could not successfully claim that he or she is a putative spouse by virtue of having performed a muta ceremony because muta is insufficient to allow a person to form a good faith belief that he or she had entered into a legal California marriage.

19. In re Marriage of Donboli, No. 53861-6-I (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSN; ACSN

Husband and wife held dual American-Iranian citizenship and lived in America when they gave birth to a child in 2000. In late 2001 while the couple and their child were in Iran, the husband beat his wife so severely that she required a two-week stay in the hospital. Shortly after the altercation, husband served wife with divorce papers while both of them and their child were still in Iran. Husband also took the passports that belonged to his wife and child. With some degree of effort and assistance from a foreign embassy, wife obtained replacement passports for herself and the child in early 2002 and was able to return to the United States. In late March 2002, wife filed a petition for divorce and child custody in the state of Washington. Husband filed for custody in Iranian court; and in October 2002, the Iranian court awarded custody of the child to husband. In June 2003, a Washington family court declined to enforce the Iranian custody order. The appellate court also refused to enforce the Iranian custody order. The appellate court held that enforcing the Iranian custody order would violate Washington public policy because (a) the wife had no notice or opportunity to be heard at the Iranian custody hearing and (b) Iranian child custody law did not consider the best interests of the child when awarding custody as required by Washington law.

20. Farah v. Farah, 429 S.E.2d 626 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).

Shariah: Highly Relevant TCSY; ACSN

Ahmed Farah was a citizen of Algeria; Naima Mansur was a citizen of Pakistan; both were Muslims. Proxies of Ahmed and Naima met in London to conduct a ceremony that bound Ahmed and Naima as husband and wife according to Islamic law. The ceremony did not conform to the formalities required of marriages by English law. Following the ceremony in London, the couple went to Pakistan where Naima’s father held a “Rukhsati” reception for the couple. Following the reception, the couple returned to Virginia where they resided. They never had a civil marriage performed for them in the United States although they intended to do so. Less than one year after the proxy ceremony in London, the couple separated. Ahmed filed an action to have the marriage declared void; Naima filed a divorce action. Ahmed contended that he and Naima were not legally married because the London ceremony did not adhere to the formalities required by English law; and therefore, their marriage was void. Naima argued that the marriage was legal in Pakistan because the proxy ceremony in London was valid under Islamic law, the marriage was completed in Pakistan, and Pakistan recognizes valid Islamic marriages.

The trial court found that a valid marriage existed because the London proxy ceremony was valid under Islamic law and the law of Pakistan. The trial court reasoned that Virginia should grant comity and recognize the marriage because it was valid under the laws of a state—Pakistan. The appellate court reversed the trial court and held that the marriage was invalid. The validity of a marriage in Virginia, said the appellate court, is dependent on whether the marriage was valid in the place where the ceremony occurred; not whether the marriage was religiously valid under Islamic law.

--more--

Edited September 28, 2014 by ExExpat

[Curmudgeon 227]

So, back to the caerphilly that proved that you don't read what you post and that Sharia law is not encompassed in US law.

[Dan and Judy 614]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644058/Do-not-walk-dog-Muslims-not-like-dogs-Fury-poster-discovered-near-popular-London-park-warns-dog-walkers-stay-Islamic-areas.html 'Do not walk your dog here! Muslims do not like dogs': Fury after poster discovered near popular London park warns dog-walkers to stay out of 'Islamic areas'

• Sign sparked anger after being seen on railings of Bartlett Park, east London
• Notice advices pet owners not to walk dogs as it is an 'Islamic area now'
• MP Jim Fitzpatrick has written letter of complaint to Tower Hamlets mayor
• It is not yet known who put the sign up and police are investigating

By JUL

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644058/Do-not-walk-dog-Muslims-not-like-dogs-Fury-poster-discovered-near-popular-London-park-warns-dog-walkers-stay-Islamic-areas.html#ixzz3EeMsRjw5

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Frick and Frack. hahaha

[Curmudgeon 227]

...and if anyone is still in any doubt that this is a pointless thread

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Stand up. Salute the flag please.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Hey, Frick and Frack. By the way, the Lone Ranger and Tonto are protecting America. Damn, doncha hate it when that happens?

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Watch a fun multicultural movie. Paint Your Wagon

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A2625373011%2Ck%3APaint%20Your%20Wagon