Posted on 03/23/2011 7:27:18 AM PDT by JEC
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/florida-judge-defends-decision-apply-islamic-law-tampa-case/?test=latestnews
Just another nail in the coffin of the USA.
Impeach.
No religion can be allowed to trump law of the land. Otherwise we will have to allow stonings for being female etc.............
Give to Caesar what is Ceasar’s...........
The American people need remedies against judges. It has to become possible to sue them.
Of course he defends it. What kind of fool would make a decision like that and not defend it.
That doesn’t make it right though.
The judge should be fired.
And those guys will not defend Christianity! Something is very wrong in this country!
Insanity
Florida judges are elected to office. Vote his ass out of office.
Not the first jerkwad to try and shove sharia down our throats as a legal precedent...
Maybe I’m missing something that’s not in the article, but I don’t see the problem. This was a case about whether trustees should have been removed from leadership in a mosque and all parties had an arbitration agreement that would use an iman to solve disputes. This is not superceding state law, it is applying state law which allows disputes to be settled in this manner.
If this were a Christian church, I would hope the courts would rule in a similar fashion.
It’s gonna get a lot cheaper to get unmarried if all you have to say is “There is no god but god and muhammed is his prophet”
then turn around and say “I divorce thee” X 3
Oh and by the way, the bank must cancel the interest on my mortgage- not allowed
We either have all sharia for all religions or none sharia, who decides how to cherry pick which legal system if we go to multiples
And yet you’re not even allowed to have the ten commandments on the lawn of a courthouse.
He actually explains his decision, he does it well, and there is nothing here to be complaining about.
Two parties made an agreement, and the judge is deciding the dispute based on the terms of that agreement.
Private individuals are still allowed in this country to make contracts, and to have the government enforce those contracts.
As the article explained, this is little different from a prenuptual agreement which legally dictates different terms for a marriage than would otherwise apply under state law. In a divorce with a prenuptual agreement, the judge must rule if the prenuptual agreement itself is legal; if so, the divorce can proceed under those terms, rather than state law.
In this case, the judge looked at the private contract between the two parties, and determined that the contract was legal, and is now going to settle the dispute using the terms of that contract, in which the two parties agreed to use islamic principles to settle their disputes.
In my opinion, people’s dislike of Islam is clouding their judgement regarding the rights of individuals to enter into binding contracts — to be sure, the government has been infringing on those rights to an enormous degree, and it doesn’t help us to fall on the wrong side of that issue.
We do; its called a rope
Hate to break it to you, but this has been going on for a very long time. The courts have routinely used religious laws when deciding property and leadership disputes in religious organizations. These courts have even allowed such laws to trump state land and property rules. The prime example of this is in the Episcopal Church. According to the courts, TEC’s Dennis Canon trumps a deed and property title held by an incorporated parish since the 17th century.
Seems to me that US contract law is being applied here. Two parties contractually agree to ground rules and, providing that the application of those ground rules does not violate State and Federal statutes, they live by their agreement. Whether that is Sharia Law, Talmudic Law, the statutes of Outer Mongolia, or Don Corleone’s mediation service, what’s the diff?
This has been done to death on other threads. This is a civil matter. Two parties agreed to abide by the decision under Sharia law as interpreted by an abitrator acceptable to both. The arbitrator made his ruling. The losing side took the matter to civil court. The judge has said that both sides agreed to abide by Sharia law in the beginning and the losing side can’t change the rules now. The moral of the story is don’t agree to conditions you have no plans on keeping to.
Please, let’s not let a little common sense get in the way of their lynch mob. Keep your informed opinions to yourself. Thanks.
The REAL problem is that it sets a precedent...and our legal system is all about precedent. Now, another lawyer can show that Sharia has been used to settle THIS case....so why not use it on his...and so it grows....
The concern is justified.
If this is a simple matter of contract law that happens to coincide with the tenets of Sharia, then no one should be alarmed. If exceptions are being made that are unique to this case, then it’s a different matter.
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.