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.
Thats right, second reading of your post, you are correct.
Arbitration is considered to be legally binding. This is presented as non binding dispute resolution, which fills an intermediate area between mediation and arbitration.
Oh, to add, there’s actually something called an “arbitral tribunal”.
So the key term here is still “non binding dispute resolution”, with terms like tribunal or arbitration being contrasted based largely on semantics and preferences.
Regarding the part about Sharia always superceding TX law. That’s flat out wrong and opens them up to prosecution. They are certainly welcome to challenge it, all the way up to the Supreme Court. They may win on some lower level things (under the 1st Amendment) but certainly not on things like divorce, domestic abuse or honor killings.
Judge Bars Oklahoma From Implementing Anti-Sharia Law
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/oklahoma-anti-sharia-law_n_3770021.html
Sharia can be used as a form of contract law, within the confines set by civil and criminal law. It cannot replace or circumvent local, state or Federal law.
The situation you cite in Dearborn is substantially different than in Texas. The Dearborn example entails the wholesale replacement of civil and criminal law. TX is the use of Sharia in the context of contract law.
Now having said that, there’s no way I’d ever, personally, sign anything (contracts, etc) that made me subject to Sharia. Nor would I encourage anyone else to do so. But if two or more parties want to use the portions of it that are legally permissable (under local, state and Federal law) as the basis for contracts and dispute resolution? Thats their business, not mine.
The Oklahoma law was incredibly broad and absolutist: no Sharia at any time under any circumstances.
It was clearly a violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, and it was appropriately struck down.
That doesn’t greenlight the full imposition of Sharia. It means that use of aspects of it, so long as permissable under local state Federal law, is ok. Local, state and Federal law is still supreme.
Oh, one more thing, National Report is a fake, satirical news site. My bad for not checking that as a source before replying on the Dearborn story.
Wait until heads start floating down the Trinity River.
Hello marriage by the hour, mooseslime style.
I still say it’s long past time for the wives to start adding the extra special herbs to abusive husbands’ spice tea.
Just like the courts would never say two men or two women can marry or that the courts would say it’s okay to murder your unborn child.
You have way more trust in our judicial system than I do.
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.