Posted on 03/23/2011 6:51:37 PM PDT by tobyhill
A Florida judge is defending his controversial decision to apply Islamic law instead of state or federal statutes in determining whether an arbitration award was correct, the St. Petersburg Times reports.
The case in question involves former trustees of a local Tampa mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, who are suing because they claim they were unfairly removed as trustees.
Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen said that the two parties can seek guidance from the Koran to resolve their dispute, according to MyFoxOrlando.com.
Nielsen said that based on testimony, "under ecclesiastical law," and pursuant to the Koran, "Islamic brothers should attempt to resolve a dispute among themselves."
"If Islamic brothers are unable to do so, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of Islamic brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community for resolution," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I hear what you are saying, but any contract that is not consistant with the law in that State, or violates any US Federal LAW would be null and void. We can make contracts, but they do not supercede US LAW!
Why can’t we use American law to overturn his decision and remove him from the bench.
DumbA** Judge.
Once it gets used/incorporated, then it becomes precedent — and can be applied to future cases/courts.
Idiot Judge — or maybe that was the intent.
*
Correct. But in that case, the court appoints an arbitrator and the two parties are responsible for his/her fees; and then they have to come back to court once an agreement is made.
The key issue is the lawsuit filed. It has to be ajudicated in accordance with state and local laws. It cannot be disposed of using Sharia Law because the petitioner sought relief from the courts; not from the religious establishment.
Now the only other way, and this is not mentioned in the article, is that the judge could have dismissed the case on the basis of the petitioner withdrawing the suit when they came to realize they could settle outside using Sharia law.
At that point, it’s a non-issue. Unless of course, someone is beheaded. I think it comes back to court under a whole new set of laws. :-)
The dispute arises on the claim that one of the parties was unfairly removed as trustee(s).
You are assuming there is a state or federal law that would apply in this instance to determine any unfairness. I don’t think so; but if so, it is likely that would have been brought to the judge’s attention.
My sense from the poorly written article is that they have not yet had a hearing before the arbitrator. If that is true and the award is contrary to some state or federal law, then the disappointed party can be expected to appeal with a “void as against public policy” type of argument as one of their complaints.
In my opinion, the key issue before the court was whether the parties were bound by an enforceable arbitration agreement (and I will add here given the tone of the thread, that did not have an unlawful purpose). Once so determined by the judge, he honored that agreement.
You can have the last word.
Excuse me, they did have an arbitration hearing and an award was rendered. It was in the first paragraph and I missed it.
So my last sentence in #26 brings us to where the parties are, the losing party took it to the judge and he found no basis for overturning the award.
Someone on another thread (I wish I could remember who so I could give them proper credit) made the analogy to a dispute over a Bridge Tournament Prize. This is no different from the judge saying “You agreed to the official rules of bridge when you entered into and played the tournament. Therefore, the rules of bridge dictate who won.”
Tournament bridge players are a rough crowd. One little improper movement or word and some of those attractive ladies will stand up and threaten to kick your a$$. {;^)
I see your point.
I was looking at it from a Christian perspective: i.e., a lawsuit should have never been filed because the case should have gone to the greater muslim community when the dispute couldn’t be settled between the two parties: just as the agreement states.
The judge ruled correctly. I guess.
In my option it’s grounds to have his honor committed to a mental hospital.
As I’ve observed before, it’s just like professional wrestling. We have several “angles” going at once, each with its own “heels.” We have the islamic “angle,” the Hispanic “angle,” the Black militant “angle,” and the homosexual “angle.” Logically, these groups cannot co-exist together and yet there is nary a peep of disharmony in the heels’ dressing room.
“If they wanted to use Islamic law to settle the dispute, they should have never taken to a US court, they should have taken it to one of their religious leaders.”
Exactly, Judge Nielson should have told them to go away as this is a CIVIL court, not an Islamist court.
“The judge did not apply shariah law, the parties themselves applied it.”
But Judge Nielson said: “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.”
In a secular court, this is wrong. They should settle it themselves.
Your quote is correct, and the parties may have already settled it themselves. The court has decided it will determine whether they did or not pursuant to “Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.”, and that appears to be appropriate under the law. And here, esquirette was right on the money.
Rather than relying on a reporter’s version of the version of other reporters, here is the judge’s written opinion:
http://www.fljud13.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Gou70XZCgII%3d&tabid=667&mid=1031
The opinion comes from an emergency hearing, that was requested prior to trial, which is limited to the issue of whether an arbitrator’s award is to be enforced. The hearing does not concern any facts in the underlying lawsuit which may include other complaints. The hearing is not yet concluded and defendant is yet to present its case - which may explain some of the confusing language in the news reports.
The question for the court (in my words) is, “Does religious law or state law apply to enforceability of an arbitration award such as in this instance?”
The court cites FLA case law which hold a trial court could not intervene in an internal church governance dispute. One of the FLA cases also cites the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S Constitution.
It appears the court had no option other than to conclude “as to the question of enforceability of the arbitrator’s award the case [not the lawsuit, the hearing] should proceed under ecclesiastical Islamic law.”
The opinion states the court will require further testimony at the next hearing to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter.
Defendants can be expected to argue the resolution procedures were flawed and plan to call 5-7 witnesses. Even if they offer good evidence, IMO at best it would appear the court would likely order them to restart arbitration.
Note to self: “Don’t argue with someone named “esquirette” until you have all the facts.
(Blush) It is all based upon the assumption that this is a religion, which is the ultimate problem.
Islam is also a political struture. Wouldn’t it be great if the court refused to entertain the matter citing the political question doctrine? (I know, dream on.)
To be fair, the judge has clarified his position and says that if it comes to trial, he will be using common law to settle the matter, not sharia law. But the question he is being asked should never have been, they want to know if sharia law was followed properly in the divvying of funds. Not exactly his area of expertise but he will attempt to answer the question anyway.
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.