This is a standard arbitration court, like rabbinical court or even the Chamber of Commerce’ arbitration panel. It decides contractual disputes (including family law matters), both parties have to agree in advance that they will accept it, and it cannot conflict with US law.
Contracts are voluntary agreements by which the parties agree to be bound and arbitration courts merely decide between the parties’ two conflicting interpretations of a contract (which could be a business deal but could also include something like a marriage settlement). There’s nothing unusual or even ominous about this.
Don't confuse matters with facts.
I used to wonder how Hitler came so easily to power.
All that time wasted on wondering, and all I had to do was wait 60 years and watch it first hand. Cool.
Exactly. People see the word Islam and flip out.
I’m thinking Liz is a big-government type who doesn’t think individuals should have the right to make private contracts and have their own religious beliefs written into those contracts as a method of adjudication. She thinks government should enforce her will on those people, and that people who disagree are actually liberals.
Beware the “conservatives” who want to take away religious liberty because they “know better”.
Maybe next she’ll go after the Kosher laws.
The essential concept here is "voluntary". An "agreement" where one or more of the parties was compelled to sign because of duress or undue influence can be invalidated.
In Islam, rejecting the jurisdiction of a Sharia court where one is available makes one an apostate. Apostates are marked for death in Islamic communities. At minimum, they are shunned.
No Muslim woman, especially one living in a heavily Muslim community, can be considered able to freely consent to Sharia jurisdiction because of the strong elements of duress present.