[E. Pluribus Unum]

BS.

The parties freely entered into a contract specifying Sharia law for arbitration of disagreements, which they had every right to do.

Evidently one of the parties changed their minds, which they are not free to do.

LESSON: Don't sign a contract that you do not intend to honor.

[pogo101]

Exactly. The judge only is referring to Sharia law to the extent that the parties themselves validly contracted (under standard contract principles) to do. It’s not meaningfully different than the judge’s referring to The Rules Of Bridge to resolve a lawsuit over who won a bridge-tournament prize.

[Stepan12]

This is sick! Stoning, amputaton, beating of one's wife and other such garbage is antithetical to our constitution and basic human decency for that matter.

That judge should be impeached for allowing such an enemy ideology to make inroads into our legal system.

Maybe a Nazi sicko could set up a minature Dachau and some other sicko (sado masochist type) would offer to be the concentration camp inmate? The possibilities for such irrationality are endless.

[Roos_Girl]

Ping to comments 2 & 4 :)

I like my idea better, just throw it out of court and let them figure it out themselves, since sharia was such a good idea to begin with.

[RnMomof7]

Actually i believe that the “mosque” did not agree and wants it held to constitutional standards