« Generation Gap | Main | Wizbang Comment Feed »

NH gives Sharia law a pass

As more and more nations (most recently Canada) flirt with giving Islamic Sharia law legal standing, allowing Muslims to ignore the established legal systems and settle their grievances through Muslim courts (which, among other notable practices, require any rape charge to be witnessed by two Muslim men, or the woman is often charged with adultery or fornication -- which has a death penalty), I spotted an encouraging bit of news in this morning's paper.

It seems that a couple from Lebanon -- Samer and Sonia Ramadan -- came to New Hampshire, and while here they decided they didn't want to be married any more. Under Sharia law, all a husband has to do is say to the wife "Woman, I divorce you" three times. (Apparently the "turn around twice and do the hokey-pokey" requirement has gone by the wayside.) He then jetted back to Lebanon to sign some papers -- apparently the wife has nothing to say in this matter.

Sonia disagreed with this approach. Apparently she thought that she ought to have some say in how HER marriage -- and, as well, HER children and HER marital assets were to be disposed of. So she filed for divorce in a New Hampshire civil court. Samer refused to recognize the hearing, so it proceeded without him. He appealed, and it went all the way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The court looked carefully at it, and decided that since the Ramadans were in New Hampshire, they had to follow New Hampshire law. Sonia's divorce was granted and acknowledged superior to Samer's, and she was awarded the children, child support, alimony, and property.

Even more deliciously ironic, the Court's ruling was handed down last Tuesday, a little Valentine's Day present for the lady from the Granite State.

In most cases, New Hampshire recognizes weddings, divorces, and other civil arrangements conducted by other nations. But that tends to presume a certain commonality, a set of shared values and beliefs.

In this case, though, our jurists looked at how Islamic law treats women, and said New Hampshire would have no truck with that sort of thing. No more than we would accept someone bringing slaves into the state, and demanding we acknowledge their rights to own another human being.

Sorry you didn't care for living in a civilized nation, Samer. Feel free to stay away.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NH gives Sharia law a pass:

» The Bitch Girls linked with Nice To Know

Comments (44)

You can <a href="http://www... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

You can watch the arguments (scroll to Jan. 11) in the Supreme Court. I only watched the first few minutes, but it looked like the husband's counsel was getting his butt handed to him trying to argue that the case was all about lack of respect for Islam.

Boston Globe article

Concord Monitor article

In this case, thou... (Below threshold)
kbiel:
In this case, though, our jurists looked at how Islamic law treats women, and said New Hampshire would have no truck with that sort of thing.

Are you sure about that or could it be that he tried to divorce under Islamic tradition while in the state of New Hampshire that made it invalid? I would guess that if the divorce had happened before they moved to the U.S. that it would then have been recognized as valid. But because the husband and wife were residing in the U.S. at the time, New Hampshire and U.S. law superceded any tradition.

I'd like someone to verify ... (Below threshold)

I'd like someone to verify that even Lebanese law accepts Shari'a divorce. I thought the Lebanese legal system had moved away from that, but maybe not.

But it's also interesting to watch how the US gov't handles the matter of polygamous marriages which, while legal in some countries, are not in the US, of course. When a multiply-married visitor wishes to travel to the US, he has to choose which wife will be the wife for the duration of the visit. I suppose they could take turns...

"Sorry you didn't ca... (Below threshold)


"Sorry you didn't care for living in a civilized nation, Samer. Feel free to stay away."

By writing such comments, are you trying to say that the country he comes from is un-civilized? That people there are barbarians? That people in America are "superior" and "civilized" as compared to his Muslim home country?
Remember just because people follow their own culture and traditions that doesn't mean they are un-civilized.


In New Hampshire it does, M... (Below threshold)
Robert:

In New Hampshire it does, Muslim.

The court looked careful... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

The court looked carefully at it, and decided that since the Ramadans were in New Hampshire, they had to follow New Hampshire law.

WOW! What a concept! Maybe some of the justices on the US Supreme Court could take a lesson here.

Hmmmm.Rem... (Below threshold)
Cannibal in New Guinea:

Hmmmm.

Remember just because people follow their own culture and traditions that doesn't mean they are un-civilized.

Preach it brother!

Muslim, you assume that all... (Below threshold)

Muslim, you assume that all cultures are equal in value. Which is quite ironic, really, given the fact that Muslims apparantly don't feel that way. All one has to do is look at the Mohammad cartoon controversy to see that they believe Islamic culture is superior to Western culture.

Hi Jay,I'm a Musli... (Below threshold)

Hi Jay,

I'm a Muslim and I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. Islamic law was developed and canonized in pre-modern and patriarchal society in which women had few, if any, rights. That, of course, doesn't make Islamic civilizations unique in that respect. However, I believe Muslims should stop clinging to centuries-old misogynistic traditions that have no place in a modern, rights-based world.

>

Civility is a socially constructed concept. It's not a natural phenomena. There are no universal standards for what constitutes civility. There are only local and contingent standards. By the standards of New Hampshire, Samer's conduct was certainly uncivilized. I happen to endorse those standards would therefore label Samer's conduct uncivilized, barbaric, shameful, pathetic, disgusting, and utterly reprehensible.

-- Aporia

Sorry, that should read, "I... (Below threshold)

Sorry, that should read, "It's not a natural phenomeNON."

Remember just beca... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:
Remember just because people follow their own culture and traditions that doesn't mean they are un-civilized.

Well, when the traditions of said culture are inherintly uncivilized, how would you suggest it should be refered as?

There may be ways in which Muslim cultures are superior to the USA's, but the treatment of women ain't one of them.

To Mr. Burgess:In Lebanon,f... (Below threshold)
libnani:

To Mr. Burgess:In Lebanon,followers of each faith or even sect follow their own laws for such matters as marriage,divorce,inheritance,custody,etc.However,
since there are four main sects,there are four
different laws namely those of Sunni Moslems,Shiite Moslems,Marnoite Christians,and Roman Orthodoxs
Christians.

Aporia: "Civility is a soci... (Below threshold)
jdavenport:

Aporia: "Civility is a socially constructed concept. It's not a natural phenomena. There are no universal standards for what constitutes civility."

Incorrect, Aporia. Civility is a natural emergent phenomena, and there is a one SPECIFIC and UNVARYING standard for what constitutes civility: Attempting to follow the local rules of civility.

So the guy brings his famil... (Below threshold)
Whitehall:

So the guy brings his family to the US, claims the right to divorce her, and dumps the resulting social and financial burdens on the US and the state of Hew Hampshire.

Glad to see that a US court recognizes the mischief any other ruling would have caused. Or perhaps they just happened to read the applicable state law as written by the elected representatives for cases within the state.

I just watched the entire c... (Below threshold)
Matt:

I just watched the entire court proceeding (thanks, JohnAnnArbor). For the first time in my life, I feel utterly sorry for a lawyer. Something along the lines of someone handing you a turd and telling you it's a Baby Ruth.

Something tells me that Mrs. Ramadan has a slightly better view of America at this point.

Thanks, Libnani, for cleari... (Below threshold)

Thanks, Libnani, for clearing that up.

"Incorrect, Aporia. Civilit... (Below threshold)

"Incorrect, Aporia. Civility is a natural emergent phenomena, and there is a one SPECIFIC and UNVARYING standard for what constitutes civility: Attempting to follow the local rules of civility."

I think you're confusing two things. One is the particular ethical code that constitutes the civility of a particular, historically contingent community. The other is a universalist claim according to which it is a moral duty to follow the respective ethical codes of each local community. The first, I believe, is self-evident. It's a fairly common social constructionist argument. As far as I can see, any contrary point of view carries the burden of proof. The second, however, is far from self-evident.

To speak of "one SPECIFIC and UNVARYING standard for what constitutes civility" would only have rational merit if you were speaking in institutional terms. If, however, you are speaking of a standard that stands independently of the contingencies of all institutions, languages, places, times, circumstances, etc., then I'd say that you're dabbling in metaphysics and that such an argument could not possibly be supported on rational, philosophical, or empirical grounds.

If you believe you can produce a successful argument to the contrary, I'd be delighted to see it. You'd have succeeded where 300 years of modern philosophy have failed.

In any case, this seems like it's going a bit off topic and I'd hate to bore everyone else. If you'd like to continue this thread by email, you're welcome to contact me at [email protected] I'm also happy to continue posting on here.

"By writing such comments, ... (Below threshold)
iPod QA Guy:

"By writing such comments, are you trying to say that the country he comes from is un-civilized? That people there are barbarians? That people in America are "superior" and "civilized" as compared to his Muslim home country?"

Umm... Yes, as a matter of fact. It seems particularly OBVIOUS, in fact, that Jay Tea meant EXACTLY that, and the facts of the case bear out his analysis quite clearly.

Thanks, "Muslim Unity", for demonstrating your remarkably weak grasp of the obvious. Your prize is in the mail.

Actual civilizations, for o... (Below threshold)

Actual civilizations, for one thing, don't prescribe the death penalty for victimless crimes like blasphemy.

Civilized societies try to ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Civilized societies try to strongly discourage their barbaric members from acting as such.

Through laws, open disapproval, and shunning.

Aporia , Let break address ... (Below threshold)
jdavenport:

Aporia , Let break address each part of your original graph:

Aporia: Civility is a socially constructed concept.

I agree.

Aporia : It's not a natural phenomena.

Fish and whales both have wide flattened tails. They arrived at them independently. We recognize the similarities, even though are are not exactly the same. Both structures emerged through natural processes, in the same sense that civility emerges from natural processes, and in the same sense we can recognize their shared utility.

Civility is as natural as all emergent phenomena. It is a means for the collective to carry information with less burden. When the current civility shape carries more burden than its collectively calculated value, then it is discarded for a new civility. Regardless, at any point, the definition of acting civil is that one attempts to follow the current local rules of civility.

Aporia: There are no universal standards for what constitutes civility.

Let me state it again.

Culture A has rules of civility of shape A. When members of A act in shape-manner A, they are being civil.
Culture B has rules of civility of shape B. When members of B act in shape-manner B, they are being civil.

What observation can we make about civility from this? We can say that the definition of acting civil is to follow the local rules of civility. Is this a tautological statement? For sure. So why are you arguing with it?

Aporia : There are only local and contingent standards.

And it therefore follows that to act civilly is BY DEFINITION to follow those rules. Which is what I stated.

300 years of philosophy have not failed, only your ability to wield it.


Regards.

Hmmm.Summary: Whe... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Summary: When in Rome ...

"Fish and whales both have ... (Below threshold)
Aporia:

"Fish and whales both have wide flattened tails. They arrived at them independently. We recognize the similarities, even though are are not exactly the same. Both structures emerged through natural processes, in the same sense that civility emerges from natural processes, and in the same sense we can recognize their shared utility."

I'm not sure what you've been reading, but civility, ethical codes, morality, etc. do not result from the same biological process of evolution through natural selection as do the physical structures of the various species of fish and whales. If you believe biolinguists like, say, Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker, Lyle Jenkins, etc., then at best, you can make an argument that human beings have an innate moral faculty that's part of our biology. In that case, you'd have to distinguish between the moral faculty and the actual moral content, the two of which are not the same. However, it is entirely unclear how "civility emerges from natural processes" akin to the emergence of the anatomical structures of the various species of fish and whales. That's an extraordinary argument that requires evidence. Again, you're invited to furnish that evidence.

"Civility is as natural as all emergent phenomena. It is a means for the collective to carry information with less burden. When the current civility shape carries more burden than its collectively calculated value, then it is discarded for a new civility. Regardless, at any point, the definition of acting civil is that one attempts to follow the current local rules of civility."

Again, I have no idea what you've been reading. I'm not sure that everyone (or anyone, for that matter) would agree with your curious statement that "civility" is "a means for the collective to carry information with less burden." You seem to ascribe a pragmatic logic to civility, whereas it's entirely unclear that civility is intrinsically driven by such a logic or that "[w]hen the current civility shape carries more burden than its collectively calculated value, then it is discarded for a new civility." According to who? In what work or works of anthropology (or some other relevant field) is such a bizarre argument made and actually supported by empirical evidence? Again, what you offer is just an argument without any rational or empirical foundation. And, once again, you're more than welcome to provide that foundation.

"What observation can we make about civility from this? We can say that the definition of acting civil is to follow the local rules of civility. Is this a tautological statement? For sure. So why are you arguing with it?"

Again, bear in mind your previous argument, one no less curious than others you've made so far:

"Civility is a natural emergent phenomena, and there is a one SPECIFIC and UNVARYING standard for what constitutes civility: Attempting to follow the local rules of civility."

If your argument is something to the effect that, for merely practical purposes, when in Rome, do as the Romans do, then you'd be making a thoroughly uninteresting and unenlightening point. It's also a point with which many people would seriously disagree.

If, however, your argument is that we have a moral duty to follow local standards of ethics and civility, a duty that transcends the contingencies of language, time, place, and circumstance, then I'd again say that you're dabbling in metaphysics and that such an argument could not possibly be supported on rational, philosophical, or empirical grounds.

Or perhaps you were just terribly unclear in making an utterly trivial and uninteresting point, namely, my previous point that there are only local standards of civility. In which case, why bother tortuously making a point I've already made and in terms much more confusing and obscure than mine?

Whether your argument is tautological, semantic, or metaphysical, it doesn't seem to have any discernible moral or intellectual value.

It is very sad to read such... (Below threshold)

It is very sad to read such racist comments over here. I have read people write things like "Nuke Palestine" and "Destroy Islam" . All cultures are unique and should be respected.
I respect your culture. Even though it is so different from mine. You'll should learn to do the same.
Killing in self-defense and to protect ourselves is not wrong. But killing innocent people for oil and money is wrong. Telling people to destroy the entire "Muslim Community" is wrong and barbaric.
It is very clear who really are the wild savage barbarians and who are the lovers of peace.

Yes Muslim Unity, I can see... (Below threshold)

Yes Muslim Unity, I can see the civility in killing over a 2X3 cartoon in remote Danish newspaper. That certainly is one heck of a "religion of peace" ya got there.

"It is very clear who reall... (Below threshold)
JimK:

"It is very clear who really are the wild savage barbarians and who are the lovers of peace. "

Really? Do you really truly believe that or are you trying to play cutesy and score verbal jousting points? The actions of your fellow Muslim brothers over the last few weeks put the lie to your words.

Hey, MU, where's your respe... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Hey, MU, where's your respect for OUR culture, that says if WE want to publish a cartoon in OUR newspaper in OUR nation, that's no business of yours?

And what race is being maligned? I thought Islam was open to people of all races, and was for everyone? If Islam is not identified with one race, how can criticizing it be racist?

The "telling people to destroy" comment I have no problem with. Start with those destroying embassies across the Middle East, churches and businesses in Nigeria, and Buddha statues in Afghanistan. No, forget that last one. We Westerners took care of that one for you.

Yes, killing to protect yourself is allowed. Care to tell us how a non-Muslim cartoonist in non-Muslim Denmark has threatened the lives or well-being of anyone? And if you say "insulting your faith," then the Buddhists and Christians of the world have as much right to avenge themselves on all Muslims everywhere for the above offenses -- far greater than a few silly cartoons.

You speak fairly pretty words, MU, but they are drowned out by the deeds of those who so stalwartly defend. And when deeds and words conflict, it is the actions that speak loudest.

J.

'It seems that a couple fro... (Below threshold)
LJD:

'It seems that a couple from Lebanon -- Samer and Sonia Ramadan -- came to New Hampshire'

I thought Lebanon WAS in New Hampshire...

This Country was founded on... (Below threshold)
Jack Burton:

This Country was founded on freedom of speech and freedom of religion, among others. There is no clause that gives muslims special treatment because their religion has extra protections or special circumstances. In a perfect world, you either adhere to these tennants or you get lost.

Now, thanks to muslim apologist groups like CAIR who stand at the ready to scream racism at the very mention of terrorism and islam in the same sentance, we are changing our way of life.

It's hard to tell if we're afraid of the racist label or cowards, or both. But what I do know is a segment of our population has taken the first steps to appeasing these people and their often barbaric way of life. Sorry folks, but our way of life is better, and much of what we see and hear from the muslim world is uncivilized.

The good news is that Europe is much farther down the path to destruction than we are and will serve as a shining example of where cowardice and appeasement will get you with these people. Lord knows they've done it before. Today it's a cartoon, what will be tomorrow - and what will be the reaction?

Sooner or later, even the most liberal muslim apologists are going to start and take note of the savagery that takes place on a daily basis for things as trivial as a cartoon. Spare me the outrage, I don't believe in islam and am not beholden to their belief system. I could care less about mohammed, and certainly am not the least bit interested in their thoughts on publishing his likeness. I can't think of a more shining example of exactly why it's time for us to dig in our heels and let the muslim world know that your people are more than welcome here, but under no circumstances will you be given special consideration for anything and you will adhere to every facet of our rule of law, period. If you want honor killings, female servants, girl genital mutilation, public executions, etc. etc. etc. plan on staying in whatever stone age middle easter territory you currently reside in.

I will never give us my way of life and will never cave to these people. In time, more people are going to feel this way courtesey of story after story of what muslim is really about. Ultimately, there's going to be a fight, bloodless or not, and we're going to win. The US is often slow to react to crisis, but eventually we do and will react.


I have to wonder how counti... (Below threshold)
Steve:

I have to wonder how counties like Canada and others who won't extricate criminals to countries with the death penalty are going to respond to an honor killing or the demand of a death penalty according to Sharia law. Hmmmm, will be interesting to watch the convoluted twisting in the winds.

Oooops silly me, should hav... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Oooops silly me, should have been extridite not extricate!

Salam 'alaykum Muslim Unity... (Below threshold)

Salam 'alaykum Muslim Unity,

"It is very clear who really are the wild savage barbarians and who are the lovers of peace."

Look at these pictures for yourself and tell me who the "wild savage barbarians" are:

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/capt.llp12102031635.britain_prophet_drawings_llp121.0.jpg

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/r1365134527.jpg

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/capt.llp12202031827.britain_france_europe_llp122.0.jpg

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/capt.llp12502031855.britain_denmark_europe_llp125.jpg

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/capt.llp12602031854.britain_denmark_europe_llp126.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/r399679231.jpg

* http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6807/2047/1600/r1363645636.jpg

It's a fairly standard Muslim complaint that the entire Islamic world is unfairly vilified for the crimes of a relative handful of extremists. So, why are you now vilifying the entire civilization of the West? Why be a bloody hypocrite? If you have problems with specific people and specific policies, then address those specific people and policies ONLY. Don't reduce an entire civilization to idiotic caricatures like "wild savage barbarians." Otherwise, you rob yourself of any right to complain when others indiscriminately accuse all Muslims of being extremists, terrorists, fundamentalists, fanatics, etc.

Grow up.

A handful of extremists? T... (Below threshold)

A handful of extremists? Tens of thousands of people rioting and murdering because of a drawing is not called 'a handful'. At least in the non-sharia term of the word I guess...

"A handful of extremists? T... (Below threshold)
Aporia:

"A handful of extremists? Tens of thousands of people rioting and murdering because of a drawing is not called 'a handful'. At least in the non-sharia term of the word I guess..."

My remark concerned a standard Muslim complaint to the effect that the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are unfairly labelled as terrorists because of the actions of a relative handful of terrorists.

A few additional remarks that shouldn't even be necessary: First, that complaint long precedes the cartoon controversy. Second, the term "handful" was employed with qualification: I spoke of a RELATIVE handful. Surely the concept of "relative" is within your mental grasp. Third, the point of reproducing the standard complaint was not to make a factual point, but rather to illustrate the hypocrisy of Muslims indiscriminately stereotyping an entire civilization when that's precisely what excites their indignation: caricatures and stereotypes made about their own civilization.

Perhaps your own sense of indignation has gone to your head and clouded your judgment? Or maybe it's just too early in the morning...

It is very clear who rea... (Below threshold)

It is very clear who really are the wild savage barbarians and who are the lovers of peace. - Muslim Unity

From his own blog:

here are the people I would love to see killed wiped out beaten to death crushed alive burnt alive chopped into tiny pieces fed to live hungry lions:
George Bush
This guy is definitely a "Modern Day Hitler" and a War Monger. He has united the entire World against America. He will soon be visiting India and Pakistan in March. I assure you there will be millions people protesting against him. I just wish one of them gets rid of him. We could all celebrate.

And this
Afghanistan has already declared a fatwa of 100 kilograms of gold for killing the cartoonists. Until the Danish Government doesn't apologize this will not stop.
The UN and Kofi Ananan have also urged newspapers in the E.U. not to publish such sick cartoons. If things go the way they are going, violence and riots will spread to Europe.
This will be a global disaster.
STOP IT NOW! LET US LIVE IN PEACE TOGETHER!

Yes, live in peace dhimmis, or we will bring violence to you whenever you disagree with us!

And lest you think MU loves the west, and just wishes to come to an understanding

It has become clear now. This isn't only about 'so-called' freedom of speech. It's a war against Islam. France has printed the cartoons once more. This only proves their evil goals and aims. It seems they have not yet learnt a lesson from the past riots. What freedom are the French talking about? Girls are not allowed to wear the Hijab in schools? What type of freedom is this. Muslims need to fight for their rights in Europe and the West. Muslims living in Europe need to be respected and not treated as terrorists.

Iran has decided to hold a contest on the Holocaust in order to challenge the West's biased perceptions of freedom of speech. If the West can do it, so can we. I am sure now each and every Western country will pretend to be upset over the cartoons, even though it was they who caused the holocaust. Iran has also cut of trade with Denmark. This will cost Denmark more that $ 250 million. All countries should follow the same example. Iran is a country which needs to be emulated by everybody.
The Muslim World should put economic sanctions on not only Denmark but the entire West who is plotting against our holy religion. We should stop buying anything from them. This will cause them to loose billions of dollars. They have always depended on exploiting us, we need this to stop. We should encourage trade between countries in Asia like China, India and Japan. They are also culturally more advanced than the West Once this is done, we will be able to teach them how to respect other's and live in peace.

Join and support the movement my dear brothers and sisters. Declare Economic Sanctions on the entire West. Do not trade or buy anything from them. We must bring an end to the era of colonization and bullying done by the West.
emph mine


I'll end with another quote from Muslim Unity:
It is very sad to read such racist comments over here

That was my reaction to reading his own blog.

Memo to "Muslim Unity":... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

Memo to "Muslim Unity":

You can dish it out but you can't take it. WAAAAH!

Poor widdle baby has his fweelings hurt. WAAAAAH!

Aporia, I never made any st... (Below threshold)
jdavenport:

Aporia, I never made any statements about morality, nor is there a reasonable way to infer it from my post.

My statement was about civility, and it was intentionally a tautology.

Why? Because its a great way to poke holes in logic systems with a high degree of internal inconsistency... and I guessed, apparently correctly, that you were a bearer of such a system.

I guessed at your status through this internally inconsistent graph from your original post:

Aporia: "Civility is a socially constructed concept. It's not a natural phenomena. There are no universal standards for what constitutes civility. There are only local and contingent standards"

That is internally inconsistent. I have verified this inconsistency by parroting back half of your conjecture, and watching you disagree with it.

Aporia: [Why make an] "utterly trivial and uninteresting point, namely, my previous point that there are only local standards of civility."

Because your point was wrong. There is a universal standard of civility. It is local. By definition.

You are the one that cannot handle the handle the math, not me. Go read some game theory.

Aporia: "it doesn't seem to have any discernible moral or intellectual value."

It has a probative value for deconstructing false logic systems. Personally, I think thats pretty important. I'm sure you disagree, since rationality is no doubt not even detectable. Or thats where you will end up, when you're on the losing end of an argument.

Regards. ;-)

This is becoming a bit tedi... (Below threshold)
Aporia:

This is becoming a bit tedious. Your remarks are increasingly losing their intelligibility and, worse, descending into polemics, which I find just plain uninteresting.

I don't think it's possible to make this any more clear. I first stated that civility is socially constructed and that it's not a natural phenomenon. You first disagreed, insisting that "[c]ivility is a natural emergent phenomena." You then quoted me only to agree with me. That's inconsistent. Either civility is socially constructed or it is a natural phenomenon - it cannot be both. You've committed yourself at two different points to both arguments. That's inconsistent and, hence, untenable.

You then introduced an incredibly bizarre analogy to fish and whales. I argued in response that the social construction of civility cannot be compared to the anatomical structures of fish and whales. I confess, I found your analogy more than just a tad bit silly, but I nonetheless invited you to make a convincing case to the contrary. You haven't done that.

You then made an equally bizarre argument, namely, that "civility" is "a means for the collective to carry information with less burden." You seemed to ascribe a pragmatic logic to civility. I argued in response that it is entirely unclear that civility should intrinsically be driven by such a logic. You further stated that "[w]hen the current civility shape carries more burden than its collectively calculated value, then it is discarded for a new civility." These are unbelievable empirical claims without any actual, believable empirical evidence. I invited you to furnish that evidence. Again, you haven't done that.

Leaving the above points unaddressed, you've instead manage to cling to yet another bizarre argument, namely, that "[t]here is a universal standard of civility. It is local. By definition."

This is an unintelligible argument. If you are merely arguing that there are only local standards of civility, then I would agree with you. However, to say that the "universal standard of civility" is the local standard is incoherent. Your only response has been to appeal to the "definition" of civility.

Very well, then, there's a shockingly simple way to resolve this point, that is, if you're genuinely interested in resolving it. To what standard of reference are you appealing? In what specialized reference text is your bizarre "definition" of civility given? Surely not the dictionary, because no such bizarre definitions are to be found. Then to what reference text could you possibly appeal to support your unintelligible "definition" of civility? Once again, you're invited to furnish that reference text and make your case at least a little more persuasive. Thus far, I'm sorry to say, it's been anything but.

As I see it, you have two options. You could actually answer my questions or you can ignore them again. As far as I can see, there's not much of an "argument" for me to lose as I'm merely asking for evidence for unbelievable and incoherent arguments. Should you choose to ignore my questions yet again, then I'd have little choice but to conclude that you're more interested in polemics than a genuine inquiry into the nature of civility. And, if that's the case, I'm afraid you'll have to find somebody else to indulge you.

Needless to say, your above talk of "deconstructing false logic systems" seems terribly out of place.

Leaving the above poi... (Below threshold)
JGrams:

Leaving the above points unaddressed, you've instead manage to cling to yet another bizarre argument, namely, that "[t]here is a universal standard of civility. It is local. By definition."


This is an unintelligible argument.


Try "viciously circular" -- both the argument and the definition.

Minor correction: Ontario c... (Below threshold)

Minor correction: Ontario considered the idea of allowing sharia law in some cases back in 2004, but has since firmly rejected the idea. The meme of Canadian multi-cultis brainlessly offering their nation's throat to the scimitar is still out there, though. Even The Guardian ran a correction earlier this week, for the same error.

Muslim UnityI never ... (Below threshold)
BOAZ_David:

Muslim Unity
I never thought I'd hear a Muslim denouncing the atrocities perpetrated by Mohammed your so called prophet, but you have done it publically. Well done !

His mass execution of the Banu Qurayza males (who had surrendered) and the enslavement of the women and children would have to rank right beside the events of Srebreniza, except that the Serbs did not enslave the women and children. They did rape a few, but then, so did the soldiers of Mohammed so.. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

I hope you never ever condemn the Serbs for 'dealing' with the Muslim males just as MOhammed dealt with the Banu Qurayza.

Maybe the Serbs DELIBERATELY took a page from Mohammeds book so to speak and just emulated his glorious example ?

Its there for all to see in the pages of both Islamic and non Islamic history but the most said about the Banu Qurayza is from Islamic sources.


I find myself amazed that anyone who has the ability to read and question would follow such a man as Mohammed. I can never say you are following God, because the information about 'how' to follow God (in Islam) came from a war criminal, genocidal maniac and multiple sexual predator in my opinion. Sure he had some political skills.. one of the best was the ability to suddenly come up with 'convenient' "revelations" to 'fit' the circumstances, like when his wives were bugging him... aah..DING..REVELATION COMING.. "Don't you know I can divorce you all and replace you" etc etc.. (sura 33)

You mention respecting others faiths ? How can anyone respect such things ?

Dear Sir,I took th... (Below threshold)
Samer Ramadan:

Dear Sir,

I took this case to the end to prove a very important point. When it comes to religious freedoms in the US, Muslims seems to be excluded from this basic freedom, or so the NH Supreme Court now states. What did the forefathers of the constitution of the USA mean when they thought to separate "Church" from "State" did they mean "Church" as in Christianity or did they mean "Religion".

Both the NH District Court and the Supreme Court suggested that when it comes to the religion of Islam, they feel free to interfere as much as they like, just because they are ignorant of Islam does not mean they can interfere with it. Does this mean that the US constitution was based on pure discrimination, or was it created to protect against such discrimination? I am still trying to understand my legal options to bring my case in front of the US Supreme Court - as the NH law is in violation of Islam's core religion.

If US States were to interfere with religious rights, then what are Muslims left to do? Must a Muslim be forced to obey the NH court and disobey God? Can a man be subject to obey Man's Law in conflict of God's Law? Are we now saying that when it comes to laws, Human-Made laws (by the "Created") Trump that of the "Creator"? Where is the world going to?

Now that a court has taken away form me my basic religious rights under the US federal constitution, I wonder what the courts in the future will do to other faiths or to Christianity for that matter. I state that the NH Family law while it may feel binding to Christianity and Judaism for they lack family law within the core of their religion, it cannot be binding to Muslims where in Islam, family law is in its core. The USA, based on its constitution of freedom of religion must not override Islamic law for Muslims - because this is definitely interfering with Freedom to Practice one's own religion if you are a Muslim.

What keeps me away now from USA is discrimination not civility. I will be writing a book on Court cases involving Muslims in the USA and the injustice is huge.

I am happy to answer whatever your readers have in terms of questions in this forum.

I understood that by immigrating to the USA, I am to follow laws that do not interfere with my religious rights, not to give-up my religious beliefs - one should never be forced to do so under the pretense of civility.

Samer Ramadan

[email protected] Tel: +961 3 18 33 60

Dear Sirs - expanded -- </p... (Below threshold)
samer ramadan:

Dear Sirs - expanded --

I took this case to the end to prove a very important point. When it comes to religious freedoms in the US, Muslims seem to be excluded from this basic freedom, or so the NH Supreme Court now states. What did the forefathers of the constitution of the USA mean when they thought to separate "Church" from "State" did they mean "Church" as in Christianity or did they mean "Religion".

Both the NH District Court and the NH Supreme Court suggested that when it comes to the religion of Islam, they feel free to interfere as much as they like, just because they are ignorant of Islam does not mean they can interfere with it. Does this mean that the US constitution was based on pure discrimination, or was it created to protect against such discrimination? I am still trying to understand my legal options to bring my case in front of the US First Circuit Court of Appeals, who knows, this case may still go all the way to the US Supreme Court - as the NH family law is in violation of Islam's core religion for Muslims, therefore it is in violation of the US constitution. I could not even find a single non-discriminating lawyer to represent my case, I was stunned to see how my own council chickened out when questioned by the NH supreme court judge about the appeal on cause of discrimination against Judge Fishman, the council retreated and handed my case to the other side.

If US States were to interfere with religious rights, then what are Muslims left to do? Must a Muslim be forced to obey the NH court and disobey God? Can a man be subject to obey Man's Law in conflict of God's Law? Are we now saying that when it comes to laws, Human-Made laws (by the "Created") Trump that of the "Creator"? Where is the world going to?

Now that a state court has taken away form me my basic religious rights under the US federal constitution, I wonder what the courts in the future will do to other faiths or to Christianity for that matter. I state that the NH Family law while it may be argued that it is binding when it comes to Christianity and Judaism for those religions lack family law within their core, it cannot be binding to Muslims where in Islam, family law is in its core. The USA, based on its constitution of freedom of religion must not override Islamic law for Muslims - because this is definitely interfering with the freedom to practice one's own religion if you are a Muslim.

On the walls of the US supreme court there exists a statue of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) holding the Qur'An, as per the document of the Supreme Court this was done to honor him. Ironically, the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) strictly stated that to honor him is to never picture him or make a statue of him in any way to avoid idolatry, just one example to show the ignorance of the US justice system.

Before I applied for US citizenship, I studied the US Constitution and passed citizenship competencies, nowhere in there it states that in order to become a US citizen, I must denounce my religion and give-up my religious rights, in fact it states the opposite, that I must defend the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America which includes freedom of religion.

The oath of allegiance is as follows: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

As Muslims, we are duty bound to follow our lives strictly according to Shari'ah. Whatever Shari'ah allows us to do, we will abide by that and whatever Shari'ah has restricted us from, we will refrain from it. Hence, we are not allowed to obey anybody if it is resulting in the disobedience of the Creator, Allah. Our Prophet Mohammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, 'There is no obedience for the creation by disobeying the Creator.' (Mirqaat vol.7 pg.217; Imdadiyyah).

It seems most appropriate for a Muslim to take this oath with the intention that Shari'ah and Islam will always be his yardstick and that he will never sacrifice any of the teachings of his/her religion.

To move to New Hampshire, I could not be made to pledge allegiance to the State of NH and take an oath that trumps the US constitution. Should one have to study all aspects of NH law to be a resident and pass a residency Oath? Are we saying that depending on the State we live in, we may be expected to forego our basic constitutional rights? I am glad that at least the courts in the State of NY respect Islamic Shari'A laws when it comes to Islamic marriage contracts, NY seems to protect its residents' Constitutional Rights, however, it is unfortunate that I resided in NH, obviously a state that does not give a damn about one's constitutional religious rights unless that religion is not Islam.

Allow me to state the First Amendment of the United States Constitution Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is obvious to me that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights includes the freedom to practice "religion" and it is obvious that it did not restrict this right to Christianity or Judaism, therefore the freedom to practice Islam is a basic right for Muslims in the United States of America. Therefore any law that prohibits the freedom to exercise such right is unconstitutional. The fact that state law makers are ignorant of Islam does not give them the right to trample on the freedoms of practicing Muslims.

I would urge any honest non-prejudice legal council, one who still believes in the values of our US constitution to email me and point me in the right direction, I hope I am not alone in my fight for justice.

Samer Ramadan

[email protected]


Fedup with those men who wa... (Below threshold)
fedup:

Fedup with those men who want to use the best of both laws to their own benefits. Pick and choose, either islamic law or american law. U lived so many years agreeing to obey all american laws in every aspect of your life, except for the divorce. Well guess what? America lets you practive your islamic religion the way you want, as long as you don't force your religion on others, that's what freedom of religion means? by leaving kids and not supporting them financially, that means you are leaving them for the american system to support them, mean while , they are the responsibility of the father whether they are in the islamic law or the american law.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy