Mr. Oriola, I appreciate the civility of your reply, but I don't understand how what you say relates to the question of whether the decision in the case was based on Maryland law rather than "Shariah law."

The original post alleges that "In the case of Joohi Hosain of Maryland, the court shockingly abandoned American standards, in making their ruling. The court ruling stated that the best interests of the child should be determined not by American law, but by applying Pakistani customs and an adherence to Islamic standards."

But this is false. The court applied Maryland law, which recognizes the civil decisions of other sovereign states and nations (like Pakistan) re marriage and child custody unless there it is clear that the foreign court "arrived at its decision by applying a law (whether substantive, evidentiary, or procedural) so contrary to Maryland public policy as to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial."

You may believe that the Maryland court was wrong when it did not find that the foreign court "arrived at its decision by applying a law (whether substantive, evidentiary, or procedural) so contrary to Maryland public policy as to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial." If so you should make that case.

The Maryland court did not "adhere to Islamic standards." It looked at the Pakistani civil proceedings, at which the wife did not present any evidence, and the Maryland court was unable to find that the Pakistani civil court applied law contrary to Maryland public policy.

It is true that the burden of proof is difficult for a woman in Ms. Husain's position. She has to show that the Pakistani court' was wrong in its procedural treatment of her failure to present evidence, and she has to show that it was so wrong that it violated Maryland public policy. Proving something was wrong with the workings of a foreign court is enormously difficult - though you may be convinced, it takes actual evidence - but that is the Maryland law.

You may think the Maryland law should be changed, but for an American state court to just presume, without proof, that a foreign nation is violating the state's public policy would cause great problems.

In any case, the decision of the Maryland court was not an abandonment of American standards or an adherence to Islamic standards. It was an application of the long-standing deference to foreign civil courts in these matters unless it can be proved by the plaintiff that the foreign court violated public policy.

If you want to be clearer about the issue, it might be helpful to talk about whether Pakistani courts explicitly and consciously follow some version of Shariah law in a way which should be found to violate Maryland public policy. Aren't there laws and procedures in Pakistan which are at least somewhat independent of Shariah law? And is it clear to you that in this case the Pakistani court did something (whether by following a repugnant precept of Shariah law or otherwise) which should have been in violation of Maryland public policy?

Thank God the Christian religion has "Kufar Dawg" to represent it, eh?

Threats and ad hominem attacks, and, of course, religious bigotry, seem to be routine on this site. Who is supposed to be the keeper in this zoo?

Attacking the religion of every Muslim is un-American. It is stupid to attribute to "Islam" as the religion of every Muslim the evil intent of those who practice terrorism under the name of Islam. This is like Muslims attributing to "Christianity" the vicious motives of some "Christians."

So what's your plan? Do we round up all Muslims and deport them unless they sign a loyalty oath? You are a Nazi.

Characterizing Islam today by looking at the history of Islam is like characterizing "Christianity" today by looking at the history of Christianity. Conquest by war, the persecution of Jews, murder of apostates. Crazies today in Islam seem to outnumber crazies in Christianity, but people like you and your cohorts seem to be working hard to catch up there. You seem to yearn for holy war.

Condemnation of "Islam" is condemnation of the religion of the Muslims who want to live in peace as well as condemnation of the religion of those who are violent. It is called religious bigotry, and it is despicable to spew hatred towards those you acknowledge want to live in peace, who vastly outnumber those who seek violence. Which do you seek?

Your figures are wrong. They built a 12,000 square foot building (that would be about 120 feet by 100 feet if a rectangle), including a prayer hall to hold about 500 people, with hopes to eventually build a gym and a pool. Your figure of 15,000 cars for the parking lot sounds like the imaginings of mental illness. There are reportedly about 250-300 families who regularly use the mosque. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/us/islamic-cent.... There has not been the slightest report of any attempt to dominate anybody.

When Christian congregations build "mega-churches," does that convince you they have a secret plan for domination? You are showing signs of severe clinical paranoia.

Are you making it known to them in a public way that you want to live in peace with them? You seem to be doing quite the opposite.

I don't know who YOSHIRO SAGAMORI is,but he is wrong. Who are you or he to make such a (ridiculous) unsupported statement and then declare it must be true unless someone disproves it? If I say that "jacob" is a bigot, and I dare anyone to disprove it, does that make it so?

Bell is not "remotely suggesting that there might be something wrong with their religion." He is condemning Islam as evil. But how receptive would you be to people who took it upon themselves to criticize your religion? If people want to reform the way their religion is practiced, they have to do it themselves, and usually in small groups of co-practitioners that know each other well.

What Bell is doing is classic religious bigotry, driven by fear and ego. He isn't trying to make helpful criticisms of how Islam might be practiced, and you know it.