Posted on 03/21/2015 9:30:48 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Excerpted from Mad World News: The first Islamic Sharia Court in the U.S. just got some very bad news, and Muslims are not happy.
In a close 5-4 vote, the city of Irving ruled to back the Texas state bill banning foreign law from the state. It basically would slam the door in their faces, preventing them from spreading Sharia throughout the country. Now they are accusing the city council of unfairly being targeted.
All four of the “voluntary” court’s lawyers were unlicensed in the state of Texas, a third degree felony. Mayor Beth Van Duyne received several phone calls on the matter. It seems that the Islamic Tribunal not only was unlicensed, but they failed to notify the city of their illegal court being operated in city limits. She promised to get to the bottom of it, and she did.
By their own website’s admission, if U.S. law conflicts with Sharia law, “we follow Sharia law.” It also openly admitted separate rules for men and women in their proceedings, discriminating and humiliating women which is against the U.S. Constitution. The Islamic Tribunal also openly declared that they hope will “set a precedence that will be emulated and duplicated throughout the country.”
The more the mayor looked into it, the more it was apparent that they were attempting to establish a foothold using her city. She made a public Facebook post stating that she would back the new Texas law. She states that it was apparent that Zia Sheikh, imam at the Islamic Center of Irving, and the other Imams were “bypassing American courts” to make rulings under Sharia. Sheikh demanded an apology and wanted her Facebook post removed, which stated she would “fight with every fiber of my being” if the group was violating basic rights.
heikh says he just “asked her to clarify a statement … which seemed very Islamophobic.”
“She flat-out refused,” he said. “She said, ‘My statement wasn’t inflammatory in any way, shape or form.’” (Dallas Morning News)
Her office then asked for them to support the American Laws for American Courts bill and to abide by the Constitution. Sheikh instead flew off the handle.
“We don’t care about the bill,” Sheikh said. “It’s not going to affect us in any way, shape or form. The bottom line is the foundation of this bill is anti-Islamic.” (Dallas Morning News)
The meeting was filled by Muslims from the Council for American-Islamic Relations, a known terrorist organization. They even tried to paint the vote as Islamaphobia and bigotry.
“This continues efforts by elected officials who seek to score points with their voting base by demonizing Muslims,” Alia Salem, who directs the North Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the City Council before Thursday’s vote. She said it had a choice between “diversity” and “hatred, fear and bigotry.” (Dallas Morning News)
The state bill doesn’t even mention Muslims or Islam. It states no specific foreign law. Keep reading
Let’s do a joint venture and invest in a burka factory. :)
We can get in on the ground floor.
The more I learn about Islam the more I am convinced that the USA should not and does not need to recognize it as a religion and give it the protections of a religion.
It is a political ideology, a particularly nasty one at that, cloaked in a thin veneer of religion.
I can’t believe there were any votes at all against this city law change to coincide with state law. When the muslims multiply, and they will, they will take over these city councils and make sharia law the law of the town.
I see no option other than to deport all muslims. How can we know which ones are the ‘good kind’ or the sharia law kind?
“Let’s do a joint venture and invest in a burka factory. :)”
“We can get in on the ground floor.”
How about if we sue each other in the Muslim fake court?
And do y’all agree that the foundation of the US laws were on judeo-christian principles?
“and frankly I think it’s got more style”
Absolutely. :)
A fallacy within a system that has existed for at least 800 years, based on principles older by millennia, known as common law to this day.
One of the principles of common law is that no agreement (contract) is valid if entered into by means of direct or indirect threat or coercion.
So whatever the illiterate sandmaggot caravan robber came up with doesn't mean squat in any American court.
There is no greater form of coercion than "convert or die!"
I strongly suggest that in the future, any muslim sheiks who tend to get hysterical in an American court be passed through a metal and explosives detector before all future public meetings.
The operative word in your sentence is "we."
"We" don't honor sharia law, and I don't propose we do. I propose we ignore it, much as we ignore Russian and Chinese and Yassa and Klingon law.
Some ignorant/foolish people in this country might want us to give legal standing to these other systems of law, but we can just continue to ignore them. If they want sharia law to be the law of the land, they'll have to get laws passed accordingly. Actually, I don't think it could be done without quite a few constitutional amendments.
Getting those passed and ratified seems pretty unlikely, so I think I'll be able to sleep tonite. Speaking of which, have a lovely evening!
Do we need lawyers...or is all decided by the “judge”?
Actually, assuming that the article is correct, they have broken Federal and state laws with this, in three ways:
1) there’s a requirement under the law to notify the government that such a court exists and is operating.
2) there’s a requirement under the law that representatives (”lawyers”) be licensed by the government
3) there’s a requirement under the law that the court operates in a non-discriminatory manner.
Again, if the article is true then laws have been broken, one of which (licensing of the representatives) is a felony. The state needs to step in, shut the courts down and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
I don’t see how this new law really acts to strengthen the protections already in place. What would be helpful, I think, is a law strengthening the ability of the state to conduct oversight of such tribunals (regardless of whether they are Islamic, or Judaic or Trekkie ...) to ensure that those involved in them understand the voluntary nature of them, their rights under federal/state/local law (which is supreme), and avenues for seeking federal/state/local redress if appropriate.
I asked that a long time ago and got no answer.
Good luck.
Trying to sign off here, but I’ll take one more crack at it.
My caveat about arbitration was based on my (possibly incorrect) understanding that if I sign a binding arbitration agreement, I’m generally stuck with the results. I can challenge the ruling in court, but I’ll probably lose unless I can prove force or fraud.
A binding arbitration agreement from a sharia court would not be binding because it was arbitrated in a sharia “court” but because it met the particular state’s requirements for a legal binding arbitration agreement. Which just goes to demonstrate that it’s the state’s laws that are being enforced, not the shari “court’s” laws.
As it most certainly should be.
If I was coerced into signing that arbitration agreement, I could void it if I could prove the coercion. Whether the coercion was Islamic in nature would be simply irrelevant.
Trying to sign off here, but I’ll take one more crack at it.
My caveat about arbitration was based on my (possibly incorrect) understanding that if I sign a binding arbitration agreement, I’m generally stuck with the results. I can challenge the ruling in court, but I’ll probably lose unless I can prove force or fraud.
A binding arbitration agreement from a sharia court would not be binding because it was arbitrated in a sharia “court” but because it met the particular state’s requirements for a legal binding arbitration agreement. Which just goes to demonstrate that it’s the state’s laws that are being enforced, not the shari “court’s” laws.
As it most certainly should be.
If I was coerced into signing that arbitration agreement, I could void it if I could prove the coercion. Whether the coercion was Islamic in nature would be simply irrelevant.
Yup. Also on customary Anglo-Saxon law developed over centuries into the common law. And all of it heavily influenced by Roman law.
I worry about ignoring things of this nature...but hey..that’s just me.
You are a very polite debater. I appreciate that.
I agree..it’s time to turn in. :)
I have had some slight association as an expert witness in mediation hearings, usually as a preliminary step to arbitration or trial.
My limited understanding is that in Florida they have pretty strict regulations for mediation and arbitration.
If they have something similar in Texas, then prosecute them when they break those laws.
I’m not sure about #1. I suspect it would depend on how the law defined “a court.”
I suspect #2 varies by state and by whether the meeting is considered a legal proceeding. If it’s not legal in any sense, why would licensed attorneys be required?
As for #3, if it’s not legally classified as a court, why can’t it discriminate?
To: berdie“Just because it is voluntary, if it breaks US law...they lose in the courts.”It does not break any US laws.99 posted on Sun Mar 22 2015 01:01:35 GMT-0500 (CDT) by Oliviaforever[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Oliviaforever wrote in post #99 above that the tribunals didn’t break any US laws.
But Tanknetter brought out four ways that they are breaking the us law.
One, the one about unlicensed lawyers, is the very one that the mayor is checking.
Breitbart article above has the part about the unlicensed lawyers.
Pinging you since I mentioned your post 99 in my post to tanknetter and oliviaforever
They want to take it a step further by their own admission, and have their Sharia court supersede US law where the two conflict.
That's not mediation, it's a jurisdictional challenge to the United States, and and a US court will not support it.
if successful the muslims would demand Jails/beheadings/amputations to help with the implementation of the criminal part of sharia.
Next they will insist non-muslims be judged under sharia. Then a rapist would choose a sharia court and the victim would be punished not the rapist
“Sharia is not exactly the same as other religious courts, because of the special characteristics of Islam, but it’s close enough.”
No, it isn’t “close enough”. Sharia allows honor killing and the killing of so-called apostates, who are people who’ve changed their faith from Islam to something else. These involve only Muslims but are unacceptable.
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.