Thanks for your responses, and here’s a bit on both sides of the issue:
“Now it’s not unusual for a dispute to arise within a religious institution and for a court to order a mediation or arbitration, in order to resolve this without the court having to render its own judgment.
But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge”
more http://www.redstate.com/tomtflorida/2011/03/20/sharia-law-has-come-to-florida/
“But SOME (emphasis mine) commenters over at Jihad Watch don’t think this is a blatant example of creeping shariah. For example, commenter TheSSBlock explains that those involved in the case are simply asking the judge to be an arbitrator (something Tillison’s post recognizes), and that isn’t cause for alarm:”
more http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-shariah-law-just-work-its-way-into-a-florida-court/
You can find same info. at both links, but I used two links to more clearly divide both sides of the issue.
Despite what others (who may have overstayed Friday's Happy Hour) say about the matter:
- The court is not compelling either party to submit to shariah law. If it confirms the award it is merely acknowledging the parties had a preexisting enforceable obligation to submit.
- The court has not ordered arbitration. It may, however, if it finds the parties are bound to church regulated arbitration and the earlier arbitration was conducted improperly.
- No party is asking the judge to arbitrate. Clearly, plaintiffs make no such request. They argue “we have had arbitration, it’s a done deal, please enforce the arbitrator’s award” – which also favorably resolves its underlying lawsuit.
Defendants are not asking for arbitration. When the hearing reconvenes, defendants can be expected to argue “arbitration was not required in this instance but any arbitration that may have occurred was conducted in a manner that violated ‘church’ rules”.
Defendants likely prefer litigation based on civil law for two reasons, first they have already lost in one arbitration proceeding and secondly, arbitration tends to hasten the day they may have to write a big check.
If BofT will indulge me, I will refine his #40.
The court is being asked to confirm that “…sharia law was followed properly in the arbitration process that calculated the divvying of funds.” “…he will attempt to answer the question by requesting and considering the testimony of church officials on the subject.”