The case will be settled through sharia law even if the parties can't agree.
Posted on 03/19/2011 9:15:41 AM PDT by tutstar
Well, remember this is a binding arbitration case. The judge isn't reviewing the decision of the arbiter (hence the words "binding arbitration"), he's reviewing whether or not the contract itself is enforceable. He found that it was indeed enforceable. In this regard, the FL Circuit judge doesn't need to understand anything about Sharia law, just like he wouldn't need to understand anything about German law, if it was a case about binding German arbitration.
They will have court precedent that Sharia trumps constitution.
Not too pathetic of a concern imo.
Okay, and then we hang him?
OT but the judges in the rocket docket foreclosure court haven’t even bothered to look at many of the documents.
What a jackass. Send him to Saudi Arabia or Iran on a 1 way ticket.
No Keith, that is NOT how American contract law works. Please, review the terms "binding arbitration", "choice of law" . Heck, I'll help you out. Here are some links...
The case will be settled through sharia law even if the parties can't agree.
It is sickening, but, are you surprised?
Got it, I think. Let me try a question. If the contract in question did require a penalty of hand removal then that part would not be enforceable I assume. So whatever the question of what part was enforceable in this case probably had to meet some test to determine if such a provision was legal in the US?
If you want to agree to live under sharia law or contracts, you’re free to do that.
I will NOT submit.
OK, I'm guessing you are not an attorney, right?
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a practicing attorney, and have been for over 25-years.
The "precedent" to the extent that there is one here, has NOTHING to do with sharia law and everything to do with contract law and specifically the principles of "choice of law" and "binding arbitration".
There are precedents going back hundreds of years for "choice of law". Binding arbitration isn't quite as old, but I believe there are precedential cases from the 19th century, and the US is signatory to several international treaties from the 20th Century that control how we apply binding arbitration in international business cases.
That provision sounds very close to Christian biblical principles for resolving a dispute.
1 Corinthians 6
Lawsuits Among Believers
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Islam is a religion. Sharia Law operates under the umbrella of islam. Are you sure that you are logged in on the right forum?
Yes, that's right. Someone asked a similar question just above.
It's similar to the "first born" hypothetical that's discussed in law school - as in, would a contract that stipulates you give up your "first born" as a condition of the contract be enforceable? No, of course it wouldn't, because children are not property under US law, they're people.
This is why prenuptial agreements may contain custody or child support provisions, but those provisions must be reviewed and approved by a domestic court judge before execution.
“How on earth do you come up with that comment?”
I have trouble dignifying their criminal enterprise as a religion. Maybe it’s just me.
That should be a no-brainer, but one never knows with the U.S. Supreme Court (where I believe this case will go if higher Florida courts don't reverse this decision).
If I and the person with whom I am disputing something, decide to abide by the Law of Wicca, and we both agree to accept the decision of teh Holy Virgin of the Holy Oak Trtee, who is to tell us “NO”?
Ok, there is the possibility that LAZ ‘hits’ the virgin, and that may be an issue, but otherwise, people can agree to just about whatever they want.
Your response makes no sense.
Islam is a Religion Cult.
Sharia is the Law of that Religious cult.
Part of the first part agrees to let party of second part marry 3 daughters of the first part by order of Mullah Ali Ali N Free. There by, Tampa ,Hillsborough, Florida judge that is Coooool!
“Your response makes no sense.
Islam is a Religion Cult.
Sharia is the Law of that Religious cult.”
This guy gets it...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2691384/replies?c=3
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.