Posted on 01/29/2015 3:15:15 AM PST by Reverend Saltine
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.