Posted on 03/21/2011 1:28:26 PM PDT by opentalk
A judge in Tampa, Florida is creating a buzz with a ruling some say shows that shariah law is creeping into the U.S. One look at the alleged ruling shows it is suspicious. But is it really an example of shariah “comin’ to America?”
According to a document on the website Jihad Watch, Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Nielsen ordered earlier this month that a civil dispute between current and former leaders of a local mosque over who controls funds awarded during a 2008 eminent domain proceeding be decided under “Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.” Below is a copy of the relevant section:
...The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Here we go... precedent is set.
This is no different than any other arbitration agreement, which is a contract between two parties.
They agreed to arbitrate under Sharia Law. That's their right.
One of the parties evidently changed their mind, which isn't their right.
Don't sign contracts you don't want to honor.
When the question of ownership or liability regards fine points of religious law, judges will tell the parties to seek internal arbitration.
This is the opposite of introducing shariah law.
There was a time when this forum was more about sober analysis than hysterical sensationalism. Thanks for the nostalgia.
You mean a US judge enforcing a choice of law and arbitration provisions in a private contract between two parties? If yes, that precedent had been established for decades, even centuries before this motion to enforce was granted.
If you're referring to another kind of precedent, then no. No other precedent has been established.
I just think the judge was lazy here. He didn’t want to deal with it. Is Shariah law coming? Not yet. As long as we have an appeals process and this stuff is challenged, these lower courts can’t invent law. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong.) We could also legislate Shariah law out of our courts as well.
So he told them to work it out per their original agreement. GOOD. A contract is a contract, correct?
Those who blow this out of proportion give ammunition to the other side.
There is nothing in this decision which supports the above interpreted title.
You're going to legislate choice of law provisions out of private contracts between two private parties? That would be powerfully stupid, and would act as a unneeded barrier to international trade.
This is what happens when laypeople try to interpret judicial decisions involving straightforward contract law cases.
Thank you for explaining this. I’m not very knowledgeable of law, but I’m not a hysteric either.
I didn’t understand exactly what was happening here until someone else explained it. I’m not doing anything. No need to act indignant. I can admit when I’m wrong.
Rulings such as this...that throw disputes between religious parties, over property, back to the religious parties, are exactly why Church congregations, who’ve bought, paid for, maintained, sometimes for centuries...their buildings, are having them taken away—due to dubious “trust” agreements forced upon them by their larger denomination.
In this way, larger more funded groups (such as say the Episcopal Church) are BLACKMAILING congregations and pastors from leaving—with a very real threat of taking their property away—at force of law, unless they knuckle under to the denomination’s way.
Hundreds if not thousands of congregations in various mainline religious denominations have lost their land, very unjustly....due to this ‘deference’ practice.
Equal justice under law includes ALL persons, religious groups are not. Just as the idea of “sanctuary” for illegal criminals in certain churches is wrong, so is this...that religious groups are not under the same kinds of law that govern everyone else.
Not surprising. America has had a deathwish ever since they welcomed Muslims into the country.
They’ll get their wish.
Sorry, this is just the 6th or 7th time this story (from several sources) has been posted. And always it's the same; Reflexive posting from people who think our courts are being taken over by Imams, or whatnot.
American courts have been recognizing the arbitration decision of religious-based arbiters for decades and decades, with absolutely no ill-effect to American jurisprudence.
If you don't want to be in Islamic arbitration, don't do business with the muzzies.
Right. The practical reality of business to day is that if you "do business" with someone, you're going to be signing some kind of agreement - a purchase agreement, or a longer more detailed contractual agreement.
Fine by me if the Sharia ruling is that each side gets to cut off the hand of the other......
Are you saying that anyone who does business with Moslems who've immigrated to the U.S., subjects himself to Sharia law?
Then things are just as bad as the "hysterics" say they are -- Moslem imnmigrants are purposively bringing their Prophet with them, and the choice of submit or die to everyone in America.
Care to rephrase that, if you got it a little bit wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.