Skip to comments.Did Shariah Law Just Work Its Way Into a Florida Court?
Posted on 03/21/2011 1:28:26 PM PDT by opentalk
A judge in Tampa, Florida is creating a buzz with a ruling some say shows that shariah law is creeping into the U.S. One look at the alleged ruling shows it is suspicious. But is it really an example of shariah comin to America?
According to a document on the website Jihad Watch, Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Nielsen ordered earlier this month that a civil dispute between current and former leaders of a local mosque over who controls funds awarded during a 2008 eminent domain proceeding be decided under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law. Below is a copy of the relevant section:
...The judge recently ruled This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law, (sharia law), pursuant to the Quran.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Here we go... precedent is set.
This is no different than any other arbitration agreement, which is a contract between two parties.
They agreed to arbitrate under Sharia Law. That's their right.
One of the parties evidently changed their mind, which isn't their right.
Don't sign contracts you don't want to honor.
When the question of ownership or liability regards fine points of religious law, judges will tell the parties to seek internal arbitration.
This is the opposite of introducing shariah law.
There was a time when this forum was more about sober analysis than hysterical sensationalism. Thanks for the nostalgia.
You mean a US judge enforcing a choice of law and arbitration provisions in a private contract between two parties? If yes, that precedent had been established for decades, even centuries before this motion to enforce was granted.
If you're referring to another kind of precedent, then no. No other precedent has been established.
I just think the judge was lazy here. He didn’t want to deal with it. Is Shariah law coming? Not yet. As long as we have an appeals process and this stuff is challenged, these lower courts can’t invent law. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong.) We could also legislate Shariah law out of our courts as well.
So he told them to work it out per their original agreement. GOOD. A contract is a contract, correct?
Those who blow this out of proportion give ammunition to the other side.
There is nothing in this decision which supports the above interpreted title.
You're going to legislate choice of law provisions out of private contracts between two private parties? That would be powerfully stupid, and would act as a unneeded barrier to international trade.
This is what happens when laypeople try to interpret judicial decisions involving straightforward contract law cases.
Thank you for explaining this. I’m not very knowledgeable of law, but I’m not a hysteric either.
I didn’t understand exactly what was happening here until someone else explained it. I’m not doing anything. No need to act indignant. I can admit when I’m wrong.
Rulings such as this...that throw disputes between religious parties, over property, back to the religious parties, are exactly why Church congregations, who’ve bought, paid for, maintained, sometimes for centuries...their buildings, are having them taken away—due to dubious “trust” agreements forced upon them by their larger denomination.
In this way, larger more funded groups (such as say the Episcopal Church) are BLACKMAILING congregations and pastors from leaving—with a very real threat of taking their property away—at force of law, unless they knuckle under to the denomination’s way.
Hundreds if not thousands of congregations in various mainline religious denominations have lost their land, very unjustly....due to this ‘deference’ practice.
Equal justice under law includes ALL persons, religious groups are not. Just as the idea of “sanctuary” for illegal criminals in certain churches is wrong, so is this...that religious groups are not under the same kinds of law that govern everyone else.
Not surprising. America has had a deathwish ever since they welcomed Muslims into the country.
They’ll get their wish.
Sorry, this is just the 6th or 7th time this story (from several sources) has been posted. And always it's the same; Reflexive posting from people who think our courts are being taken over by Imams, or whatnot.
American courts have been recognizing the arbitration decision of religious-based arbiters for decades and decades, with absolutely no ill-effect to American jurisprudence.
If you don't want to be in Islamic arbitration, don't do business with the muzzies.
Right. The practical reality of business to day is that if you "do business" with someone, you're going to be signing some kind of agreement - a purchase agreement, or a longer more detailed contractual agreement.
Fine by me if the Sharia ruling is that each side gets to cut off the hand of the other......
Are you saying that anyone who does business with Moslems who've immigrated to the U.S., subjects himself to Sharia law?
Then things are just as bad as the "hysterics" say they are -- Moslem imnmigrants are purposively bringing their Prophet with them, and the choice of submit or die to everyone in America.
Care to rephrase that, if you got it a little bit wrong?
Asked and answered. See above.
So .... can a Catholic arbitrator from the Holy Office of the Inquisition order a losing party in arbitration to the stake?
So you are saying that Moslem businessmen can bind non-Moslems to Sharia just by waving a lot of money at them, and getting them to sign an agreement with Sharia in the boilerplate. "It's our standard contract ..... you submit or die."
For most people no. But if you're the losing litigant, then yes, I'm sure he could.
Asked, yes. Care to try again?
No. I have no interesting in appeasing argumentative pricks.
Please clarify how a Catholic arbitrator from the Holy Office could send a party in arbitration to an auto da fe under ecclesiastical law. I'm all ears.
See post #26. Rinse, repeat.
I'll accept your apology right after you prove your point.
Answer the question, please.
If you listen very, very closely, you might be able to hear me ignoring an obnoxious douche-bag. Just one guess who that douche-bag might be.
Considering that the story said it was "...a civil dispute between current and former leaders of a local mosque..." then I'd say it's a safe bet that both parties are Muslim.
Your string of insults are proving nothing except that you are , as you say, an obnoxious prick.
I asked you to prove your uncongenial point, which is that Moslems can immigrate here across 4000 mile and change the rules for everybody and make us kiss their ass. You started talking about pricks and douche-bags. What's up with that?
Yeah, that was Step One.
Guess what Step Two is?
Why don't you tell us?
I was responding to something general said by someone, not the article itself. In other words, please follow that conversation if you really want to know what we were talking about before pointing out the obvious as if I missed that. Thank you.
This would be a cooperative venture binding on all observant Moslems, to do as much business as possible with kufir parties (that would be us) with codicils about arbitration, that they get to pick the arbitrator. Who will be a mufti, operating under Sharia.
"Try it, you'll like it!"
And so on.
They've already embroiled Mayor Bloomberg of New York in Abu Dhabi real-estate deals, and guess what? He's totally on the hook now, working furiously for them to help the jihadis roll the outraged opposition and get their 9/11 "victory mosque" (actually a rabat) built in New York where it will cast its shadow on the ruins of the WTC.
What odds, that Bloomie's Arab deals have Sharia arbitration clauses? He's flacking for them on "Sharia-compliant finance", too. Or is that Grover Norquist? Or both of them?
And I'll bet you lay awake at night worrying about it.
Muslims aren't "changing the rules" for everyone. They're exercising their same contractual rights that anyone else is entitled to in this country. And, those rights are to include a choice of law and/or private arbitration clauses in private contracts.
If you don't want to do business with people who demand that Sharia law is used in private binding arbitration, then don't do business with those people. That would be just like people who don't wish to do business with Hasidic Jews who demand similar private arbitration contract clauses using Jewish Law rather than Sharia Law
People who are running around with their hair on fire screaming "Sharia law is creeping into American courts", are (at best) uniformed with some basic, fundamental principles of American contract law.
"Your string of insults are proving nothing except that you are , as you say, an obnoxious prick."
No, my "string of insults" are in-kind responses to an argumentative ass.
Stop the "victory mosque" in New York and I'll take my hat off to you and believe anything you say.
Meanwhile, they're getting their victory mosque, to go with their victory trophy in Shanksville.
Now explain why refusing to do business with people in an open forum (i.e. of business) doesn't expose you to civil liabilities for "antisemitism" or "hydrophobia" or some other b.s. charge, under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
You don't have the right to "refuse service to anyone" any more.
And there he is, your customer, with a copy of the Sunna in his hand, all ready to do Sharia-compliant business with you. You're going to refuse, just because he's black/gay/Moslem/Jewish? You'll pay his lawyer damages, then.
Tell me that won't happen.
And stop being so obnoxious.
Yes, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that you can't refuse service to someone based on race or religion. That is NOT the same thing as being obligated to contract with someone who demands a private arbitration clause be placed in a business contract.
"And there he is, your customer, with a copy of the Sunna in his hand, all ready to do Sharia-compliant business with you."
Everyday in America, cars dealers refuse offers on new and used cars from blacks, Latinos, Jews, Muzzies and any other protected class you can think of. Believe me, they're not getting sued because they've refused those sales offers. The Civil Rights Act didn't foreclose businessmen from conducting business to include the negotiation of contracts, and the right to refuse those contracts.
So how did we get from your paranoia about Sharia law taking over Florida to the mosque in New York? Just wondering.
Meanwhile, they're getting their victory mosque, to go with their victory trophy in Shanksville.
You forgot their victory mosque in the Pentagon. Link
You must be one of these young guys with no memory, no experience, no historical perspective, and therefore no fear of the effectiveness of malevolent salami-slicing tactics.
Known to liberals as "change". (Translation: "Our last successful campaign.")
Good luck working for the homosexual Islamic Chinese Communists. They don't like you, but don't let that bother you. "What are they going to do, kill us all?"
I just made you an offer to stop talking about something you're obviously desensitized to already (they're winning), which means talking further about a point you've already given up on will just be tedious to you, if in turn you'll do something concrete to help the cause, by helping stop that New York obscenity.
The court document specifically laid out the provisions based on Koranic law. My concern is.. will the next step be similar decisions to settle domestic disputes? I'm looking at this from the "camel's-nose-in-the-tent" context.
No, the motion to enforce specifically laid out the enforcement provisions established by the private arbiter, per the terms of the contract that stipulated all contract disputes be resolved by private arbitration.
Everyday, judges in America enforce private arbitration awards that were based on "law other than US". If you're doing contractual business with a large, German firm - BMW for instance - I promise you that there will be elements of that contract that stipulate German law, not American law be applied. And, from contract disputes growing from those contracts, US judges have enforced not only private arbitration awards based on German law, but they've actually litigated in the courts these German provisions because private arbitration isn't always stipulated. Does that mean German law is "the camel and his curious nose"? No, of course it isn't.
"My concern is.. will the next step be similar decisions to settle domestic disputes?"
Well, if by "domestic dispute" you mean divorce, then that is entirely possible. If the married couple have signed a pre or post nuptial agreement that stipulates some Koranic law apply, then that Koranic law will (perhaps) at least partially apply.
Mega-rich people who have prenuptial agreements will often include a choice of law clause that stipulates a specific state's law will apply in their divorce proceeding, irrespective of where that divorce is actually litigated. For example, people who were married in NYC, but divorced in California could have their California divorce litigated by a California judge who (following the terms of the prenup) is applying Florida law (FL is a popular state to choose). Does that mean California law is being "infected" by FL law? No, of course not.
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.