a general question i was wondering about US citizens rights in other countries

diavon said:
Ofcourse we are assuming that all women rightfully deserve custody. I have little sympathy for some American women and how they conduct themselves. So if it was between a hard working decent muslim man and some slutty American woman, the custody should ideally go to the father, whatever the adjudicating forum.

And there is always going to some bias in favor of the local resident. Infact that is why we have diversity jurisdiction in Federal Courts - to avoid state courts favoring their own residents. Thus, an Iranian court will likely favor the Iranian father or mother whereas an American court may be biased to towards the American (especially white) parent. In my interaction with most American people, I have noticed that while they respect other cultures, they firmly believe that the American way of life is superior to all. And this plays a huge role in adjudicating matters involving inter-cultural issues. So I would not be surprised that an American court would favor the American parent. For instance, most Americans are terrified at the thought of children growing up having to wear a hijab. Now looking at it from an Islamic point of view, there is nothing wrong with it. Many Muslims women I have talked to actually *like* wearing hijab and do it by choice. But modern American women believe that it is mediavel and for them showing cleavage is the way to go.

So yeah, be careful in deciding who to marry. Many Arab men tend to pretty suave. They have that whole tall-dark-handsome thing going for them. You'll see them in clubs, their beards trimmed or non-existent, drinking alcohol, chatting merrily with women. But that is usually not the real picture. They tend to change after marriage. Most will just become more religious and focus on the family and work. Not that I blame them. American culture has nothing to offer but getting drunk. But some become radical - going to training camps in Afgahnistan etc. So be careful before you marry a Muslim.
Click to expand...

Woaw .... looks like someone its hurt by "American Culture".:D
 
im trying not to laugh at the :

"So if it was between a hard working decent muslim man and some slutty American woman, the custody should ideally go to the father,"

and the :

"American culture has nothing to offer but getting drunk. But some become radical - going to training camps in Afgahnistan etc. So be careful before you marry a Muslim"

not to mention i had to laugh at : "Woaw .... looks like someone its hurt by "American Culture" along with the "And yet you're applying to become a citizen here. Interesting.
*roll eyes here*"

that was toOOO much man it was heck funy!!!!!!! but the question i asked is serious and sad ..the mothers the one who has the child in her stomach 9 months then labor then stays up all night and day taking care of her baby and the man has the right to take the baby away?? how is this justice?? explain it to me?? why should the man always win?? what does he do? give a sperm and goes all free without having to go through child birth., while the poor lady has to get fat get heartburn..barfs..and more! plz tell me why does law always favor men when it comes to certain things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aabbcc11 said:
Shariah law -- great for all, except women and children.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but are you qualified to make this statement?

I've studied Shariah law and the problem is not the law, but rather how it is practiced. Lets not put down an entire religion because some choose to twist it for their own gain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bobsmyth said:
This leads to the question "What countries practice and enforce part of Shariah law that only allows males legal custody of children"
Click to expand...

Islam does not give males greater preference or power, so the question above is flawed. You should be asking why some Islamic countries use cultural preference or rather label cultural preference as Islamic law. It is the Arab culture that gives men a greater standing - not the religion they "practice".
 
You are right, I don't know much about the laws. It must be glorious law and religion when a raped woman gets stoned for adultery or when honor killings and fgm are commonly used to punish innocent women.

When injustice is carried out in the name of religion and people just stay quiet that is the worst part.
 
aabbcc11 said:
You are right, I don't know much about the laws. It must be glorious law and religion when a raped woman gets stoned for adultery or when honor killings and fgm are commonly used to punish innocent women.

When injustice is carried out in the name of religion and people just stay quiet that is the worst part.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to justify this with a response when I clearly stated that it isn't the religion but rather the people that are creating the laws as they see fit. Everything you mention above isn't allowed. In fact, what is honor killing? It certainly isn't part of the religion.

Who should rebel against the injustice? If the men are getting all the benefit as the superiors in their culture, why would they say anything? It is sad, but it is what it is. And unfortunately the culture is set up so that women can't amount to much so they can't make much noise.

I think you should separate the religion from the behaviors of those claiming to be following it, and you should certainly not be so rude.
 
LolaLi said:
I'm not going to justify this with a response when I clearly stated that it isn't the religion but rather the people that are creating the laws as they see fit. Everything you mention above isn't allowed. In fact, what is honor killing? It certainly isn't part of the religion.
Click to expand...
The poster wrote about injustices committed in the name of religion. That's not the same as the unjust acts being part of the religion. Throughout history numerous atrocities have been committed with religion as the motivation, but those deeds were not part of the religion itself.
 
Lo,
Perhaps you should sit this one out? If you choose to stay ignorant about the injustices carried out in other countries fine by me. We were talking about law not religion. While am not an expert I know enough to know the difference between those two.



You wrote about Islamic law and society while not even knowing what honor killings are?
 
aabbcc11 said:
Lo,
Perhaps you should sit this one out? If you choose to stay ignorant about the injustices carried out in other countries fine by me. We were talking about law not religion. While am not an expert I know enough to know the difference between those two.



You wrote about Islamic law and society while not even knowing what honor killings are?
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out that they aren't part of the Islamic law - that they are created by the society or rather the country. I do know what they are. I'm not ignorant about anything - I know exactly what is going on. I am just telling you that you see things for what they are rather than using a large paint brush that condemns a religion which isn't responsible for what is happening. If a society hides behind Islam or any other religion while committing atrocities - it isn't the religion that is flawed but that particular society. So may be you should either read up on the religion or take your advice and sit it out.

I do not condone any of or much of what passes for Islamic law as it stands today in most of the countries, because it isn't practiced properly. Therefore, it isn't Islamic law. The Islamic Law is derived directly from the teachings in the religion - so you cannot separate the two. That is the point. If practiced correctly it should reflect the religion not be something contrary to its teachings. So I am sorry, but you don't know the difference between the two because ideally - there should be no difference. Which is my point.

If you want to keep beating on a dead horse so be it. Obviously I'm the "ignorant" one.
 
Unfortunately, throughout history, people do take laws and use them to their advantage. That's the nature of people. Men have been favoured EVERYWHERE, not just in Muslim countries. The Bible, Hindu scriptures, many tribal customs. Women have really been taken advantage since the beginning. It's unfortunate, really, and I don't care if it's in culture, or in religion or some creature from another planet suggested it- the world has to start treating women better. Did I not stick to the OP? Oh well...
 
Dv 2010

Dear Iranian & non-Iranian friends !:cool:

I am one of the selectee in DV DIVERSITY 2010 & I am going to take part in DV Lottery interview then get Green card & Social Security Number (SSN) after successfully passing the interview.

Because I am studying at university and I am engaged in a project so it takes time to be graduated & bring project to the end.

I need about 18 months to be in Iran to complete the project & university education. It is evident that I will settle permanently in U.S. after above mentioned 18 months.

In order to complete my engaged project and attain university degree which is currently running and will immediately will be complete with in above mentioned 18 months.

Within those 18 months, I have to arrive to U.S. for a short time (i.e. a day within every 6 months) and immediately come back to my origin country to follow & complete studies and project.

My main question is that will my Green card be valid after passing those 18 months and every other things goes well as Department of Homeland & Security (D.H.S) regulations?

How long will it takes to start considering my U.S. citizenship after fore mentioned 18 months?

At the end, i want to people that won 2010 to come here and be on touch.

Best regards,
 
Why is that there is not even a single female President in US 234 years of history?

Even Islamic countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh) have Women prime ministers. India and Sri Lanka had women prime ministers.

Now which country/people are against women?
 
dnbev1 said:
Why is that there is not even a single female President in US 234 years of history?

Even Islamic countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh) have Women prime ministers. India and Sri Lanka had women prime ministers.

Now which country/people are against women?
Click to expand...

Up until the 1960s, the accepted norm was for the man to be the breadwinner and for the woman to be the homemaker. Since then, women have made great strides in the U.S.

Then again, there haven't been any Jewish/Muslim/Rastafarian/Scientologist/etc. presidents either. ;)
 
Well, if you are an American Citizen and your child is also an American Citizen, I believe that US government will intervene in the event of abduction of a child. Similiar case was found in Bangladesh where the father brought the girl home without getting the agreement from his ex-wife. The wife did get the girl back and Bangladesh Government did co-operate with their police force to get the girl back safely. So it depends on the country but as a US Citizen the consulate will definitely get involved ( UNLESS you are a dual citizen)

Regarding those who think that Fathers have more rights when it comes to children as per Islamic Law,, I am not sure which "Islam" they are referring to because there are no such thing mentioned in the Quran. Perhaps it is the "Fox News" version of the Islam people are referring to. Rarely do peple think of Malaysia, Morrocco, Bangladesh, Maldives, when they think of a Muslim country,, they automatically think that all the Muslims are Saudis or Arabs ( they are only 20% of Muslim population).

And yes, only the Asian countries had most of their Female Prime Ministers/Presidents than even US or other European countries...and happens to be that Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh were all muslim nations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top