Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Shariah Law Just Work Its Way Into a Florida Court?
The Blaze ^ | March 21, 2011 | Jonathon M. Seidl

Posted on 03/21/2011 1:28:26 PM PDT by opentalk

A judge in Tampa, Florida is creating a buzz with a ruling some say shows that shariah law is creeping into the U.S. One look at the alleged ruling shows it is suspicious. But is it really an example of shariah “comin’ to America?”

According to a document on the website Jihad Watch, Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Nielsen ordered earlier this month that a civil dispute between current and former leaders of a local mosque over who controls funds awarded during a 2008 eminent domain proceeding be decided under “Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.” Below is a copy of the relevant section:

...The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.”

(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crushislam; islam; sharia; shariahlaw; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

1 posted on 03/21/2011 1:28:28 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Here is a previous discussion on this topic.
2 posted on 03/21/2011 1:31:02 PM PDT by Keith in Iowa (FR Class of 1998 | TV News is an oxymoron. | MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Here we go... precedent is set.


3 posted on 03/21/2011 1:32:38 PM PDT by ScottinVA (Libya is NOT our fight. Think LONG TERM!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
No.

This is no different than any other arbitration agreement, which is a contract between two parties.

They agreed to arbitrate under Sharia Law. That's their right.

One of the parties evidently changed their mind, which isn't their right.

Don't sign contracts you don't want to honor.

4 posted on 03/21/2011 1:39:12 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
This happens with Christian and Jewish disputes as well.

When the question of ownership or liability regards fine points of religious law, judges will tell the parties to seek internal arbitration.

This is the opposite of introducing shariah law.

5 posted on 03/21/2011 1:41:00 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

There was a time when this forum was more about sober analysis than hysterical sensationalism. Thanks for the nostalgia.


6 posted on 03/21/2011 1:42:40 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
"Here we go... precedent is set."

You mean a US judge enforcing a choice of law and arbitration provisions in a private contract between two parties? If yes, that precedent had been established for decades, even centuries before this motion to enforce was granted.

If you're referring to another kind of precedent, then no. No other precedent has been established.

7 posted on 03/21/2011 1:43:32 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

I just think the judge was lazy here. He didn’t want to deal with it. Is Shariah law coming? Not yet. As long as we have an appeals process and this stuff is challenged, these lower courts can’t invent law. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong.) We could also legislate Shariah law out of our courts as well.


8 posted on 03/21/2011 1:43:34 PM PDT by lmr (God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

So he told them to work it out per their original agreement. GOOD. A contract is a contract, correct?


9 posted on 03/21/2011 1:44:02 PM PDT by in the wind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Those who blow this out of proportion give ammunition to the other side.

There is nothing in this decision which supports the above interpreted title.


10 posted on 03/21/2011 1:46:01 PM PDT by Bayard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lmr
"We could also legislate Shariah law out of our courts as well."

You're going to legislate choice of law provisions out of private contracts between two private parties? That would be powerfully stupid, and would act as a unneeded barrier to international trade.

This is what happens when laypeople try to interpret judicial decisions involving straightforward contract law cases.

11 posted on 03/21/2011 1:46:38 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Thank you for explaining this. I’m not very knowledgeable of law, but I’m not a hysteric either.


12 posted on 03/21/2011 1:46:46 PM PDT by lmr (God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I didn’t understand exactly what was happening here until someone else explained it. I’m not doing anything. No need to act indignant. I can admit when I’m wrong.


13 posted on 03/21/2011 1:49:05 PM PDT by lmr (God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Rulings such as this...that throw disputes between religious parties, over property, back to the religious parties, are exactly why Church congregations, who’ve bought, paid for, maintained, sometimes for centuries...their buildings, are having them taken away—due to dubious “trust” agreements forced upon them by their larger denomination.

In this way, larger more funded groups (such as say the Episcopal Church) are BLACKMAILING congregations and pastors from leaving—with a very real threat of taking their property away—at force of law, unless they knuckle under to the denomination’s way.

Hundreds if not thousands of congregations in various mainline religious denominations have lost their land, very unjustly....due to this ‘deference’ practice.

Equal justice under law includes ALL persons, religious groups are not. Just as the idea of “sanctuary” for illegal criminals in certain churches is wrong, so is this...that religious groups are not under the same kinds of law that govern everyone else.


14 posted on 03/21/2011 1:49:34 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Not surprising. America has had a deathwish ever since they welcomed Muslims into the country.

They’ll get their wish.


15 posted on 03/21/2011 1:49:56 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lmr
"No need to act indignant."

Sorry, this is just the 6th or 7th time this story (from several sources) has been posted. And always it's the same; Reflexive posting from people who think our courts are being taken over by Imams, or whatnot.

American courts have been recognizing the arbitration decision of religious-based arbiters for decades and decades, with absolutely no ill-effect to American jurisprudence.

If you don't want to be in Islamic arbitration, don't do business with the muzzies.

16 posted on 03/21/2011 1:55:06 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
If you don't want to be in Islamic arbitration, don't do business with the muzzies.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but for Islamic Arbitration to take place, wouldn't both parties have to be Muslim or at least sign a contract agreeing to that type of arbitration? The simple act of 'doing business' wouldn't bind anyone to that kind of arbitration, would it? Sorry, but that's how you made it sound.
17 posted on 03/21/2011 2:07:02 PM PDT by lmr (God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lmr
"The simple act of 'doing business' wouldn't bind anyone to that kind of arbitration, would it? Sorry, but that's how you made it sound."

Right. The practical reality of business to day is that if you "do business" with someone, you're going to be signing some kind of agreement - a purchase agreement, or a longer more detailed contractual agreement.

18 posted on 03/21/2011 2:12:27 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Fine by me if the Sharia ruling is that each side gets to cut off the hand of the other......


19 posted on 03/21/2011 2:21:33 PM PDT by HardStarboard (I'm sure George and Dick had quiet smiles while watching the election results!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
If you don't want to be in Islamic arbitration, don't do business with the muzzies.

Are you saying that anyone who does business with Moslems who've immigrated to the U.S., subjects himself to Sharia law?

Then things are just as bad as the "hysterics" say they are -- Moslem imnmigrants are purposively bringing their Prophet with them, and the choice of submit or die to everyone in America.

Care to rephrase that, if you got it a little bit wrong?

20 posted on 03/21/2011 2:31:48 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson