Posted on 03/21/2015 9:30:48 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
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.