Did Shariah Law Just Work Its Way Into a Florida Court?

The Blaze ^ | March 21, 2011 | Jonathon M. Seidl

[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 Qur’an.”

[OldDeckHand]

"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."

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.

[K-Stater]

Stop the "victory mosque" in New York and I'll take my hat off to you and believe anything you say.

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

[lentulusgracchus]

So how did we get from your paranoia about Sharia law taking over Florida to the mosque in New York?

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?"

[lentulusgracchus]

So how did we get from ....[groundless b.s. assertion snipped] ... Florida to the mosque in New York?

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.

Fair enough?

[ScottinVA]

You mean a US judge enforcing a choice of law and arbitration provisions in a private contract between two parties?

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.

[OldDeckHand]

"The court document specifically laid out the provisions based on Koranic law."

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.