You are under a misunderstanding, Rabbinic Laws do not superseded any laws of the land.
Muslim sharia have pressed for their decisions to carry legal force in the national law. In contrast, no similar pressure has been exerted by the rabbinical courts. A fundamental principal in democracies is that e******y before the law must refer to all citizens, and take care to maintain the wall of separation between church and state. By contrast, sharia law has been used to justify breaches or defiance of national, secular law. Jewish rabbinical courts are limited to the very small number of Jews who resort to them, not to the whole Jewish population.
Both parties going to the rabbinical courts attend voluntarily and both must accept its judgments in order for them to be binding. The rabbinical courts have no coercive power over the Jewish community as a whole whereas sharia law is imposed on the entire Muslim population. Furthermore, sharia law appears inflexible when compared with rabbinical law which is constantly changing. The different branches of Judaism, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, have their own rabbinical authorities and therefore issue pluralistic, different interpretations of halakhah. Moreover, the procedures, rules, schedules, and requirements, used in rabbinical courts fluctuate at different times and in various places.
Although Rabbinical courts and sharia courts are based on religion, that is where the similarities end. Jewish law, though the law of the Jewish people, does not dictate the political life of Jews, nor does it seek to be incorporated into the national secular law. Indeed, interpretation of halakhah, decided by argument and v**e, differs in Beth Dins.
The Beth Din is concerned only with civil cases. Above all, there is for the most part, if not complete, g****r e******y in its proceedings, contrary to the patriarchal nature of sharia courts and sharia law which discriminates against women and places them in an inferior position.
A fundamental principle in democracies is that e******y before the law must refer to all citizens. The rabbinical courts do not seek to be in disharmony with national law. By contrast sharia law has been used, on the basis of religious principle to justify breaches or defiance of national, secular law, the question of polygamy being a notorious example.
Where one’s religious conduct harms others, government must interfere to protect the public good, and constitute our “public policies”. You will never hear a Jew say, “If we are practicing Jew, we are above the law of the land.” However, Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas CAIR branch he brazenly said: “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.”
A few states have taken a stand, here is a list of states who have modified their constitutions banning sharia law:
Alabama (two bills)
Arkansas
Florida (two bills)
Indiana (two bills)
Iowa
Kentucky
Mississippi (four bills)
Missouri (two bills)
North Carolina
Oklahoma (seven bills)
South Carolina (two bills)
Texas (six bills)
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming (two bills)
Do not try to use a people who are h**ed by muslims as your stepping stone to brining a foreign law to replace American judicial system... As Americans, we are quite content to abide by the laws laid down by our government.
MarvinSussman wrote:
You are laboring under a misappledumpling. Sharia law, as practiced here, is family law, dealing with divorce, inheritance, etc. Similar laws for orthodox Jews, thousands of years in practice, have been recognized in many states. All those submitting to sharia law expressly request that US courts accept the verdict of the sharia court.
Look at the bill of rights in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law etc." Your law is illegal.
Calm down. You will get a stroke.