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/