Posted on 01/29/2015 3:15:15 AM PST by Reverend Saltine
The new Sharia tribunal in Texas is all “voluntary,” you see, so there is absolutely nothing for you Infidels to be worried about. The only catch is that we have seen how those “voluntary” tribunals worked out in Britain.
“‘Voluntary’ Sharia Tribunal in Texas: This Is How It Starts,” by Pamela Geller, Breitbart, January 28, 2015:
Breitbart Texas confirmed Tuesday that “an Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law” is indeed operating in Texas. But not to worry: an attorney for the tribunal assures us that participation is “voluntary,” and one of the Sharia judges, Dr. Taher El-badawi, says it’s devoted only to “non-binding dispute resolution.”
This is how it starts. This is how it started in the United Kingdom. When Sharia courts were instituted there, Muslim and non-Muslim officials alike all assured the British public and the world that they would be voluntary, restricted to matters involving non-criminal matters, and subject to the British courts. Any areas in which British law and Sharia law conflicted would be referred not to the Sharia courts, but to the British courts.
That is not how it worked out. The Telegraph reported in August 2011 that “there are growing concerns” that the Sharia courts “are creating a parallel legal system — and one that is developing completely unchecked.” The Independent stated in April 2012 “some Sharia law bodies have been misrepresented by the media as being transparent, voluntary and operating in accordance with human rights and equality legislation. This is not the case. Many Sharia law bodies rule on a range of disputes from domestic violence to child residence all of which should be dealt with by UK courts of law.” Instead, “they operate within a misogynist and patriarchal framework which is incompatible with UK legislation.”
And in July 2013, the BBC (of all places) announced a video expose of the Sharia courts:
A BBC Panorama Documentary goes undercover in one of the 85 sharia courts operating as a parallel legal system in the UK, uncovering the extensive abuse of women, refusal to grant divorces, charging of the woman but not the man for divorce proceedings, and even the taking away of the woman’s children, and rulings contrary to British law.
Now this is coming to Texas. Sharia judge El-badawi said this about the Islamic divorces his tribunal would be dealing with: “While participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He readily owned up to how sexist the process is: “The husband can request the divorce directly from the tribunal. The wife must go to an Imam who will request the divorce for her.”
Even worse, the UK’s Telegraph reported this about the Sharia courts in its August 2011 report:
After being beaten repeatedly by her husband — who had also threatened to kill her — Jameela turned to her local Sharia council in a desperate bid for a way out of her marriage…In an airless room in the bowels of the mosque, Jameela is asked to explain why she wants a divorce. She replies that her husband spends most of his time with his second wife — Islamic law allows men to have up to four wives — but complains he is abusive whenever he returns to her home.
Her request for a divorce was denied. “For the sake of the children, you must keep up the facade of cordial relations,” the Sharia judge told her. “The worst thing that can happen to a child is to see the father and mother quarreling.”
The Telegraph article adds ominously: “While a husband is not required to go through official channels to gain a divorce — being able to achieve this merely by uttering the word ‘talaq’ — Islamic law requires that the wife must persuade the judges to grant her a dissolution.” El-badawi sounds as if he is planning to set up the same system in Texas.
Will the Texas Sharia court also turns a blind eye to spousal abuse, like the British Sharia court that heard Jameela’s case, in accord with this Qur’anic directive? “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.” (Qur’an 4:34)
You think that couldn’t happen in Texas? When asked what he would do when Islamic law conflicted with American law, El-badawi said: “We follow Sharia law.”
The dehumanization and diminishment of women is universal in the Muslim world. Muslim women can’t go against what their husbands and Sharia judges decide, no matter how many times the Sharia courts insist that they’re “voluntary.” Above all, they can’t go against what Islam says.
These Sharia courts are vicious, misogynistic, and brutal. The host countries have no clue what goes on in these “tribunals.” They should be banned in Western nations. Instead, they’re coming to Texas – and probably soon to your state as well.
As I have pointed out before, there is no way to prevent “Sharia tribunals” or “Sharia courts” from providing binding settlements for disputes between Muslims in any jurisdiction that permits litigants to agree on an non-judicial arbitrator for binding arbitration. I believe Texas is such a jurisdiction.
In any such jurisdiction, it is hardly surprising for pious Muslims to wish their disputes to be settled by imams (who will organize themselves into a Sharia court), pious Jews (at least pious Orthodox Jews) to wish their disputes be settled by a a rabbinic court, and perhaps even for pious Christians in traditions that maintain a notion of apostolic succession to wish their disputes be settled by their local bishop.
So long as settlements obtained by binding arbitration can be appealed to the courts and the courts on appeal judge the matters according to American law with only as much deference to the religious law of the arbiters as is appropriate for courts to show to contracts — contracts cannot trump either statutory or constitutional rights — there is nothing obnoxious about this.
What would be obnoxious would be Sharia courts with their own enforcement mechanisms provided by Muslim mobs or paramilitaries. Should such ever arise, they should be treated as criminal enterprises under RICO and stamped out.
OK, I see the point. You’re right; legal matters are legal matters and left to our legal system.
Thanks.
You’d have to aim at the thighs to get around the body armor.
Once the camel’s nose is under the tent....
A camel killed two people in-—i think it was Texas-— the other day
Again: they can take Sharia back where it came from and Stay there with it, anybody who wants it. They’re free to do that.
I can’t believe Greg Abbott is allowing this.
If that is your analysis, then you must campaign against all laws that permit litigants to select non-judicial binding arbiters. A prohibition on selecting clergy as binding arbiters while allowing others, or on binding arbiters applying religious law when this is the desire of both litigants will not pass First Amendment scrutiny.
That rather depends on what rifle and what round you are using.
Hey Onyx,
Just wanted to say hello and let you know I am thinking about you and praying for you. Hope you are feeling better.
Love,
Sara
They should not be permitted to violate American law nor aid and abet those who violate American law. Domestic violence must be reported to the real police.
Sweet, beautiful you, SaraJohnson!
Thank you so much, from my heart.
Yes, today I am feeling a little better and I’m going to actually do some errands! 72 degree weather has a lot to do with my improved mood. Praise God. I have to get out of the house and into the sun. God bless and keep dearest you.
With all due respect, you people from Texas can just STFU now. I don’t need to hear how bad a$$ and how “we don’t put up with (insert whatever here) blah, blah, blah....
Can’t argue with that.
So when can the Mormons, the Catholics, and the Scientology cult all setup their own parallel legal systems..?
Texas has a bad Islamist problem—growing mosques in Irving, Houston, presence of sleeper cells, training grounds, and other things. They’ve got their foot in the door under Perry with Texas halal laws. He embraced them. Most Texans I’ve talked to about this are in denial.
Hmph.
Texans, or not?
True that there’s undoubtedly a creeping/camels nose aspect to this, but Reader_David is absolutely correct in his analysis and argument: parties to a contract have every right in this country to agree on (within the confines if the law) the mechanism to be used to resolve disputes under that contract.
Since Islam is a legitimate religion, the law must apply equally to it as it would to (as Reader_David points out) Rabinical courts, etc.
I completely agree that this presents a connundrum, since in other countries the introduction of Sharia for civil dispute resolution has functioned as a gateway to more expansive implementations of it. But unless/until that happens here there’s really not much recourse.
Oh? An insane blood cult that thrives on non-voluntary human sacrifice to an insane blood god is “legitimate”?????
Bring back Chac Mool and the Aztecs; nothing like a good old fashioned heart-ripping-out ceremony.
Do they do arbitration? Not exactly:
Breitbart Texas spoke with one of the “judges,” Dr. Taher El-badawi. He said the tribunal operates under Sharia law as a form of “non-binding dispute resolution.” El-badawi said their organization is “a tribunal, not arbitration.” A tribunal is defined by Meriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a court or forum of justice.” The four Islamic attorneys call themselves “judges” not “arbitrators.”
El-badawi said the tribunal follows Sharia law to resolve civil disputes in family and business matters.
What happens when there is a conflict between sharia law and Texas law? They go with sharia.
http://rightwingnews.com/immigration/sharia-law-texas/
Under US law, yes, Islam is considered a legitimate religion. Therefore entitled to the same protections under the 1st and 14th Amendments, as interpreted through judicial precedent.
However those Amendments don’t permit things like human sacrifice. At the point where followers of Islam start practicing such (or things like domestic abuse of women) they can be dealt with as individuals and Sharia can’t apply as a defense.
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.