A fallacy within a system that has existed for at least 800 years, based on principles older by millennia, known as common law to this day.
One of the principles of common law is that no agreement (contract) is valid if entered into by means of direct or indirect threat or coercion.
So whatever the illiterate sandmaggot caravan robber came up with doesn't mean squat in any American court.
There is no greater form of coercion than "convert or die!"
I strongly suggest that in the future, any muslim sheiks who tend to get hysterical in an American court be passed through a metal and explosives detector before all future public meetings.
Trying to sign off here, but I’ll take one more crack at it.
My caveat about arbitration was based on my (possibly incorrect) understanding that if I sign a binding arbitration agreement, I’m generally stuck with the results. I can challenge the ruling in court, but I’ll probably lose unless I can prove force or fraud.
A binding arbitration agreement from a sharia court would not be binding because it was arbitrated in a sharia “court” but because it met the particular state’s requirements for a legal binding arbitration agreement. Which just goes to demonstrate that it’s the state’s laws that are being enforced, not the shari “court’s” laws.
As it most certainly should be.
If I was coerced into signing that arbitration agreement, I could void it if I could prove the coercion. Whether the coercion was Islamic in nature would be simply irrelevant.
Trying to sign off here, but I’ll take one more crack at it.
My caveat about arbitration was based on my (possibly incorrect) understanding that if I sign a binding arbitration agreement, I’m generally stuck with the results. I can challenge the ruling in court, but I’ll probably lose unless I can prove force or fraud.
A binding arbitration agreement from a sharia court would not be binding because it was arbitrated in a sharia “court” but because it met the particular state’s requirements for a legal binding arbitration agreement. Which just goes to demonstrate that it’s the state’s laws that are being enforced, not the shari “court’s” laws.
As it most certainly should be.
If I was coerced into signing that arbitration agreement, I could void it if I could prove the coercion. Whether the coercion was Islamic in nature would be simply irrelevant.
If I remember correctly, no one forced any moslem to move to the USA. Since they did so through their own volition, they have no right to insist on cultural or legal changes to our country. By the way where are the feminist organizations complaining about discrimination against females under Sharia?