Steamdevolopment
VIP
Liberalism and secularism is incompatible with Islam.
In your view, but not in mine.
I believe in a system with individual rights an some religious rules on a few select areas.
Liberalism and secularism is incompatible with Islam.
In your view, but not in mine.
I believe in a system with individual rights an some religious rules on a few select areas.
In your view, but not in mine.
I believe in a system with individual rights an some religious rules on a few select areas.
"fell in love with an arab girl I got so attached, but her father don't accept me only cuz I am blaaaaack"
Can I ask in which selected areas you deem religious rule appropriate?
Marriage, seperation, funeral something like the Israeli model.
But ONLY if both parties consent or have consented to it.
If you require consent from all parties to enforce religious rulings, why even have those laws in place? Might as well go full on secular innit
To allow religious freak a freedom they wouldn't give us filthy liberal muslims and in return showing our positions superiority
But you're not granting them freedom to rule themselves if they can't enforce their own rulings
Sugartits, have you ever considered becoming a makeup artist or hairdresser? Xx
They can't enforce their own rulings on others without consent. It is a necessary limitation to avoid a Sharia state the likes of Saudi Arabia.
No, I pay people to do that.
So you don't want Islamic ruling at all. Why even bring it up
Flagging both sides that's that shit ion like (nahhh)
No, I do not want a fat sheikh with no concept besides what he was indoctrinated to believe to decide for me or anyone else without consent.
??? So you basically don't want ANY religious law. Why not just say that instead of saying particular areas.
If you need consent to enforce a law, it isn't a law. It's a request at best.
No, that is how an agreement is made. A law allows for agreements or dispension from the overall secular law but with specific criteria.
Even basic contracting laws require consent or "meeting of the minds" and thus it would be the same principle.
Once agreed to it will have the force of law and is legally binding.
Alright, a little scenario to stress test your 'law'. Say a man and a woman agree to enter an islamically lawful marriage. They agree on a 50k mehr, he pays 10k up front, turns out they're not built for each other and divorce a month later. If he refuses to pay the remaining mehr, will you, as the government take action to enforce this? Even if he retrospectively rescinds concent? And what if she unilaterally decides to leave after a month without going through the proper procedure? What if they mutual divorce and change their mind etc.
Bisinka,
Is the Nacaasnimo going this far?
They are wearing Huuluuf Huuluuf pants with braids and tattoos with verses from the Quran.
They have 313k Neefs subscribed this.
:siilaanyolaugh: Islamic Leftism is on the rise.
On mehr:
Regarding the 50K, she is entitled to it per the agreement unless precedent is established that denies her that. Most of this is basic 101 under contracting law and she would be entitled to compensation usually and the doctrine of Estoppel.
On divorce:
It will depend on the agreement but then they would have to through the respective divorce proceeding under the islamic law of their preference.
The government will force the agreed content but if she or he leaves without following the divorce process then it will have no bearing on the legal ramification as is the same under secular law.
The same goes for changing their minds after the marriage agreement has come into force.
Bolded --What?? The 'enforced content' in this particular case would be that she does not get to unilaterally end the union (which you imply will be enforced). After that it just becomes a convoluted mess. Are you saying the marriage cannot be ended without going through an Islamic court?
Marriage cannot legally end without going through the proper divorce proceedings.
What is "proper" will be determined by the underlining law and agreements.
Right. But you do realise that in this case the divorce can be overruled. Meaning the woman (and possibly the man) is prohibited from entering another marriage. Are you going to allowed this to be enforced? Or is retrospective conscent suddenly accepted?