Posted on 03/21/2015 9:30:48 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Excerpted from Mad World News: The first Islamic Sharia Court in the U.S. just got some very bad news, and Muslims are not happy.
In a close 5-4 vote, the city of Irving ruled to back the Texas state bill banning foreign law from the state. It basically would slam the door in their faces, preventing them from spreading Sharia throughout the country. Now they are accusing the city council of unfairly being targeted.
All four of the “voluntary” court’s lawyers were unlicensed in the state of Texas, a third degree felony. Mayor Beth Van Duyne received several phone calls on the matter. It seems that the Islamic Tribunal not only was unlicensed, but they failed to notify the city of their illegal court being operated in city limits. She promised to get to the bottom of it, and she did.
By their own website’s admission, if U.S. law conflicts with Sharia law, “we follow Sharia law.” It also openly admitted separate rules for men and women in their proceedings, discriminating and humiliating women which is against the U.S. Constitution. The Islamic Tribunal also openly declared that they hope will “set a precedence that will be emulated and duplicated throughout the country.”
The more the mayor looked into it, the more it was apparent that they were attempting to establish a foothold using her city. She made a public Facebook post stating that she would back the new Texas law. She states that it was apparent that Zia Sheikh, imam at the Islamic Center of Irving, and the other Imams were “bypassing American courts” to make rulings under Sharia. Sheikh demanded an apology and wanted her Facebook post removed, which stated she would “fight with every fiber of my being” if the group was violating basic rights.
heikh says he just “asked her to clarify a statement … which seemed very Islamophobic.”
“She flat-out refused,” he said. “She said, ‘My statement wasn’t inflammatory in any way, shape or form.’” (Dallas Morning News)
Her office then asked for them to support the American Laws for American Courts bill and to abide by the Constitution. Sheikh instead flew off the handle.
“We don’t care about the bill,” Sheikh said. “It’s not going to affect us in any way, shape or form. The bottom line is the foundation of this bill is anti-Islamic.” (Dallas Morning News)
The meeting was filled by Muslims from the Council for American-Islamic Relations, a known terrorist organization. They even tried to paint the vote as Islamaphobia and bigotry.
“This continues efforts by elected officials who seek to score points with their voting base by demonizing Muslims,” Alia Salem, who directs the North Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the City Council before Thursday’s vote. She said it had a choice between “diversity” and “hatred, fear and bigotry.” (Dallas Morning News)
The state bill doesn’t even mention Muslims or Islam. It states no specific foreign law. Keep reading
The Irving Muslims did not set-up any criminal courts.
The DA has the responsibility to prosecute anyone who violates state law.
“You can NOT have your muslim courts here. What part of “NOT” do you not understand. No.”
Please explain the difference between two parties agreeing to go a Civil Mediation Council or their Muslim mediation group?
“Let me clarify something for you. Read carefully. An independence group here in Texas did the exact same thing and set up their “own” court and sent a summons to a judge and some other officials. They were summarily arrested and fingerprinted by the FBI.”
The Texas group was sending out summons and attempting to prosecute American citizens for crimes that the Pretend Texas government had made illegal.
The group in Irving has not criminally prosecuted anyone.
If it's true then her grammar is terrible. "I am a Iranian by birth???" "...and of my Muslim faith???"
“They want to take it a step further by their own admission, and have their Sharia court supersede US law where the two conflict.”
The Star Trek Club can say that United Federation of Planets law superceeds US law, but I don’t think they should be arrested.
“That’s not mediation, it’s a jurisdictional challenge to the United States, and and a US court will not support it.”
Please cite the part of the US Constitution that empowers the Federal Government the power to prohibit two parties from seeking mediation or arbitration and forces them to seek resolution in a civil court.
It appears that the Republic of Texas was attempting to criminally prosecute.
They can compel through social pressure.
Now that Islam buddy Goodhair is gone repair is beginning. Under him sharia got a foothold in Texas, establishing strongholds in Houston, Irving and Austin. The Islamists even succeeded in passing some laws including “Texas Halal.” Their admitted strategy to start small, such as worth did laws, with total sharia as the end goal, and Perry was their stooge. I wonder how he benefited from such an arrangement.
And if they refused, Muslims might stop patronizing their business. The law actually compels people less than social pressure.
If your boss is Sharia and your neighbors are then you will show up to the court. We dont need separate courts for anything.
I am questioning why if something has been written in terms of Sharia law that such law guides, impacts or has anything to do with US Constitution and laws under that Constitution and/or in US courts. My action as to disputes between people using Sharia law would be to tell the parties to frame the dispute in/under US law(s) or go pound sand to work out a resolution. I understand more about the old tale of ‘the camel having it’s nose under tent flap’ as to Muslims encroaching into the US foundations of US law(s).
The point is the declared intent. Once they say they intend to supercede the authority of the US courts, they deny their Sharia court as a mediation service, and confirm that they are challenging US court jurisdiction. Mediation services are subject to conditions set up by US law - period. It is not the same as you and me agreeing to let our friend Joe decide our dispute. These people are setting up an entire court system. So calling what they do “mediation” is simply not true.
You are correct.
And when one is not allowed free will, one is not free to accept or reject arbitration. Under sharia law, women have no rights and no freedom, therefore they are not freely entering into arbitration.
If they think “demoralizing” Muslims gains support from voters wait till they see what “dematerializing” does!
I must say it's surfacing rather late. If Valerie Jarrett had been a Mooselimb pro-Iranian firebrand as a 21-year-old Stanford junior in 1977, just as the anti-Shah movement was gearing up, I think the fact would have surfaced long before 2015. Fellow students would have remembered.
It's true she was born in Iran in 1956, not long after the CIA and MI6 famously engineered a coup against Prime Minister Mosaddegh in favor of the Shah. Her parents were Chicagoans. Her father, an ex-military pathologist, was working at an Iranian hospital as part of an American aid program. The family moved to London when Val was five and back to Chicago in 1963.
So, to say she is of Iranian background is simply false. And her parents were Catholic. So, if she's Muslim, she's a convert. More likely, her pro-Islamic sentiments reflect her leftism. Leftards favor Islam because Muslims stand against the Western tradition. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as they say.
“They can compel through social pressure.”
There is no law in Texas that prohibits social pressure.
Follow texas and u s laws or go away
Catholics have never stated any intention to use Canon Law to bring back the Inquisition or anything of the sort.
I realize this is the intention of quite a few Muslims. Just as quite a few blacks want a race war with whites, and some Mexicans want to re-annex the SW to Mexico. Lots of radicals want American to be a Communist state, and there are no doubt neo-Nazis and white supremacists out there with their own sick ideas. There are radical feminists who hate all men. Radical enviros want to return most of the US to wilderness and reduce the population by 90%.
So what?
Our system can prevent any of them from getting control and putting their plans into action.
What do you propose? That we criminalize thoughts and beliefs, or even words? Haven’t we already settled whether we’re going to do that?
If and when these Muslim “courts” violate the law, land on them like a ton of bricks. Till then, ignore them.
Oliviaforever,
I didn’t get a reply from you to my question:
“And do y’all agree that the foundation of the US laws were on judeo-christian principles?”
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.