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
It is a voluntary court, with no power to compel attendance or compliance.
It is no different than a moot court or civil mediation.
This is very simple. Ahmed and Abdul have a business dispute. This “court” would allow them to take their dispute before the “judges” who would rule on the case according to sharia.
The court would have no way whatsoever to enforce its rulings other than public opinion in the Muslim community, and it would have zero force of law in this country.
It is roughly the same as if a group of Trekkies agreed to settle their disputes using Klingon law. Any party who did not want to would just refuse to accept the ruling. End of story.
Islam ... the religion of demons.
They could certainly try to enforce their ruling with gangs, but doing so would be criminal acts. Just as the Mafia Commission made rulings. They weren’t legal, but they had effective means of enforcement. I suspect the larger street gangs have a “court” system. Certainly some of the outlaw bikers do.
>Feathers, tar, rail...you know the rest.<
.
Nah. Just deport them.
They have no intention to ever assimilate and they can possibly serve as ISIS support group.
Thanks.
“is roughly the same as if a group of Trekkies agreed to settle their disputes using Klingon law. Any party who did not want to would just refuse to accept the ruling. End of story.”
Good summery.
It is a pretend court, but the City of Irving is going to get its hand slapped by a real court.
Canon law professionals provide mediation and arbitration services. Not very different from what this court would provide, in practice if not in theory.
http://www.canonlawprofessionals.com/mediation.html
What side are Hillary and Huma on?
It will start that way, but over time it will transmogrify into its own separate legal system, just like “illegal immigrants” eventually became “immigrants.”
“If US law conflicts with Sharia...we follow Sharia”
Perhaps I am reading this wrong or over reacting.
Of course there is canon law with different religions.
But do they say they will over ride existing law? aren’t their courts mainly moral or spiritual decisions?
It will start that way, but over time it will transmogrify into its own separate legal system, just like “illegal immigrants” eventually became “immigrants.”
It will start that way, but over time it will transmogrify into its own separate legal system, just like “illegal immigrants” eventually became “immigrants.”
Thanks for post. I mistakenly thought that Jarrett was raised by Communist parents before the Shah was disposed & had no religious beliefs.
You got that right. Seems like some one needs some lessons about us Americans don’t tolerate discrimination. This sounds like a Texas hanging offense.
If a marginal group wants to settle disputes using its own customs, why should that bother the rest of us? If it’s a criminal case, it goes to regular courts. It it’s a dispute between a Muslim and an infidel, it goes to regular courts. If it’s a dispute between Muslims where one of the Muslims refuses to accept the ruling, it goes to regular courts.
IOW, it’s a pretend court. Why should we care if people like to play dress up courts?
What a ridiculous assertion!
I've not seen them challenge the legitimacy of the War on Drugs, or the underlying "interpretation" of the Commerce Clause that [purportedly] allows it.
I've not seen them do actual work on securing the border. (Remember the Gov. Perry's calling up
the national guard? [As I said at the time, it was an obvious for display purposes only
'mission'.])
I also don't recall Texans standing up against the Fed over Waco, but that was before I was interested in politics on any level at all.
Texas: All talk and no action — the Republican Party of the States.
You evidently didn’t actually read my three replies to your three replies.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3270662/posts#comment
In light of the above article, what does sharia say about rape?
Need 4 witnesses & the victim (the girl )can be charged with a crime.
Not my kind of “voluntary tribunal”.
Not what we want in operation here.
There would only be civil cases where all parties have agreed to go to this court.
No different from mediation.
If they wish, two parties can agree to have a civil dispute decided by the man in the Mickey Mouse costume at Disneyworld .
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.