• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Sharia Law In Montana?

Mike

Well-known member
HELENA – Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed a bill that would have banned Sharia and other foreign laws from being used in Montana courts, saying Thursday that the measure would "upend our legal system and debase what we stand for as Montanans and Americans."

Montana was one of the 13 states considering legislation seeking to prevent the use of foreign law in state courts. While the bill's focus was not on Sharia law, some supporters specifically spoke out against the religious law used in some parts of the Islamic world.

Some Republicans sided with Democrats in opposing the measure but could not block it from going to the governor.

"There is absolutely no need for this bill," Bullock wrote in his veto message, adding that the proposal could add to the "nationwide surge in hate crimes."

The bill was one of five on which the governor took action Thursday, and the only to get a veto. Including that measure, the governor has vetoed five bills outright - with an additional 50 waiting on his desk for action.

Pause
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 0:00
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00
Fullscreen
00:00
Mute
Bullock said he was disturbed that the ban, if he had signed it, could have been seen as an "endorsement for anti-Muslim sentiments and activity."

Get news headlines sent daily to your inbox

Email
Sign Up!
"I don't see how affirming our Constitution does that. I disagree with him," said Sen. Keith Regier, a Kalispell Republican.

He and other backers argued that the measure aimed merely to declare support for U.S. and Montana law, which some Republican lawmakers say is under assault. They rejected contentions that the bill was anti-Islamic or xenophobic.

The governor saw it differently.

"It cannot be seriously denied that the bill is drawn from 'Sharia law bans' that have been tried in other states," Bullock wrote. "The intent of these bills is to target a particular religion and group of people for disfavored treatment."
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Bullock is a liberal and liberalism is a mental disease. Montanans are outraged over this.
So far, Montana is a Republican state with the exception of Butte, Anaconda, Helena(Union towns), Missoula and Bozeman, which are the larger cities (liberals moved in). That's who elected Bullock. I hope they are happy with their choice. :x
 

Mike

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer would look better is a Burka. :D :D

We told him a long time ago to get some for his grandaughter's while they're still cheap.
You know, same God and all. :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
I am not sure how uninformed on biblical scriptures a person would have to believe that Jesus is part of a trinity, one GOD, then accept he is just a profit, and not even a very revered one compared to a pedophile mohammad in a later book

if inspired word is that fallible, then I would believe none of it myself..

Jesus is believed to be a prophet,[3] who neither married nor had any children, and is reflected as a significant figure

Beyond that, what else is wrong with the same god theory is just trivial! If the koran is true, then Christians and Jews are wrong.

maybe this is just as significant of a disagreement of faith as one could get...

Most Islamic traditions, save for a few, categorically deny that Jesus physically died, either on a cross or another manner.

(Warning sarcasm alert) ya,... we all got it wrong,... and that is the same Christ we worship and praise... as just a significant figure, is no muhammad, I tell you, ,.. and really folks he didn't die,.. not really. (sarcasm)

sorry but as Christian that is a bit hard to get past... :?
 

Steve

Well-known member
and for those who say it does not happen,..

A New Jersey family court judge's decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife.

"Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."

In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] 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."

Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."


"Those who don't want the bill to pass say, 'there's really no need for it because why would a judge walk down that road of religion?'" Donnelly said.

"Clearly here, this judge did walk down that road. He may not have said 'Shariah law.' But I think it's indicative that, in trying to be respectful of religion, judges venture into a very slippery slope."


While the judge in the case did not specifically mention Islamic or Shariah law, Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.com, said he might as well have.

"This is a ruling that is strictly in line with Islamic law, which does indeed declare that a wife may not refuse her husband sex under virtually any circumstances," Spencer said. "The only legal framework that would not consider marital rape to be sexual assault is Shariah."


The alliance offers specific cases in state courts in which Sharia was considered:

"Joohi Q. Hosain [vs.] Anwar Malik, Sharia law of Pakistan, Maryland, 1996: Trial and appellate courts upheld foreign Sharia law and denied mother custody. She lost custody because going to custody hearing in Pakistan would have risked prison, torture or execution."

And "Laila Adeeb Sawaya Malak vs. Abdul, Shariah law of Lebanon/UAE, California, 1986: Appellate court upheld foreign Sharia law and denied mother custody, reversing trial court."

And among others, "Parveen Chaudry vs. M. Hanif Chaudry, M.D., Sharia law of Pakistan, New Jersey, 1978: Appellate court upheld foreign Shariah law, overturned trial court. Wife denied support and child support and division of property; prenuptial agreement signed by parents giving her only $1,500 from marriage upheld by appellate court."
these are just a few cases that started the outrage,.. but the fact is most just accept them and say nothing. there is no place for this type of law in a free society. Most cases hinge on contract law instead of divorce law in their decisions.. which would be fine, except to enforce foreign sharia compliant contracts of marriage they ignore US divorce and civil law..
 

Steve

Well-known member
What i find interesting is how liberals think,..

the bill said foreign law,.. and did no mention sharia law,.. yet,.. it was the only law he cited.. :???:

"There is absolutely no need for this bill," Bullock wrote in his veto message, adding that the proposal could add to the "nationwide surge in hate crimes."

Bullock said he was disturbed that the ban, if he had signed it, could have been seen as an "endorsement for anti-Muslim sentiments and activity."

yes,.. because he KNOWS the only law this would make a difference on is Sharia law.. so he concludes it is not needed..
 

Latest posts

Top