Posted on 03/23/2011 6:51:37 PM PDT by tobyhill
A Florida judge is defending his controversial decision to apply Islamic law instead of state or federal statutes in determining whether an arbitration award was correct, the St. Petersburg Times reports.
The case in question involves former trustees of a local Tampa mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, who are suing because they claim they were unfairly removed as trustees.
Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen said that the two parties can seek guidance from the Koran to resolve their dispute, according to MyFoxOrlando.com.
Nielsen said that based on testimony, "under ecclesiastical law," and pursuant to the Koran, "Islamic brothers should attempt to resolve a dispute among themselves."
"If Islamic brothers are unable to do so, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of Islamic brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community for resolution," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Isn’t this grounds for impeachment?
Maybe the judge got so wrapped up in the case that he forgot what country he was in ....
And then again under Islamic Law you can just agree to disagree and then decapitate each other.
Please.
If they wanted to use Islamic law to settle the dispute, they should have never taken to a US court, they should have taken it to one of their religious leaders.
The judge in this case is simply applying the same principle to the Mohammedans that US Courts have used for years in dealing with Christian Churches.
There is long standing recognition of ecclesiastical autonomy in dealing with internal church matters. For example, the Roman Catholic church has its own legal system, complete with Canon Law and Canon Lawyers.
On the other hand, if someone were to argue that Mohammedanism is not a bona fide religion, but rather a murderous, cultic, death worshiping socio/political movement, which should not be afforded protection of US Law under any premise, then I’d say you had more of a solid case.
But, given the assumption that they have religious standing, this judge’s ruling was absolutely correct.
That is, actually the law. When a religious group appears in court, the law is to look to their internal ‘contract’ first. This is not creeping sharia here. And this is coming from me, a major islamophobe.
“Isn’t this grounds for impeachment?”
I would think so, but until we elect enough patriot legislators to impeach goat-butt-sniffing traitors, I’d guess this decision will stand.
I’m still amazed by how our chicken gizzard legislators refuse to remove black-robed commies. If we had a patriot history, kids would read how 10,000 judges had been hanged for treason since our founding.
The person who "lost" the arbitration was apparently a "Sore Loserman" and tried to bring a suit in civil court to overturn the prior arbitration decision, and the judge rightly told him to take a hike.
This is nothing new, and is not creeping Sharia. This is simply a doctrine that allows courts to take a pass on getting involved in religious matters. It’s good that everyone is on the lookout, but this doesn’t seem to be a departure from our legal tradition.
He is enforcing the terms of a contract between consenting parties, in this case a Board of Directors.
The fact that one faction of the parties changed their minds doesn't change the contract.
Don't enter into a contract you don't intend to honor.
‘If they wanted to use Islamic law to settle the dispute, they should have never taken to a US court, they should have taken it to one of their religious leaders”
Exactly! Obviously, the parties were unable to settle their problem according to their religious beliefs; therefore they took it to US courts. Is this judge saying that he is has no jurisdiction and therefore they should use Sharia law? Or does his reliance on Sharia seem to give the court’s imprimatur on the use of Sharia Law?.
Let’s contrast a similar legal issue with Christian churches. For example: The Episcopal church is taking to court (over who owns the church property) those congregations who want to disassociate themselves from the diocese because of fundamental and doctrinal issues. Has any court told these churches to solve their issues using biblical procedure? Or are they suggesting that “biblical” principles be used to determine the outcome?
‘If they wanted to use Islamic law to settle the dispute, they should have never taken to a US court, they should have taken it to one of their religious leaders”
Exactly! Obviously, the parties were unable to settle their problem according to their religious beliefs; therefore they took it to US courts. Is this judge saying that he is has no jurisdiction and therefore they should use Sharia law? Or does his reliance on Sharia seem to give the court’s imprimatur on the use of Sharia Law?.
Let’s contrast a similar legal issue with Christian churches. For example: The Episcopal church is taking to court (over who owns the church property) those congregations who want to disassociate themselves from the diocese because of fundamental and doctrinal issues. Has any court told these churches to solve their issues using biblical procedure? Or are they suggesting that “biblical” principles be used to determine the outcome?
Islamic law instead of state or federal statutes in determining whether an “arbitration” award was correct,........................... Isn’t arbitration non judicial? Decided by a panel of uninterested parties? Sounds fishy.
You’re a bunch of stupid, ignorant racists and I’ll do whatever I want.
Now pay your taxes - I need a raise. :)
-judge’s defense
You are correct, of course. The Fox headline is incorrect and unnecessarily provocative.
The judge did not apply shariah law, the parties themselves applied it.
The judge was not defending his decision, he was merely explaining it.
The decision is not controversial or even a close call; there is nothing to defend.
The fallacy in all this is the presumption that this farce is a religion. I agree completely with shibumi, and the comment deserves to be made again:
On the other hand, if someone were to argue that Mohammedanism is not a bona fide religion, but rather a murderous, cultic, death worshiping socio/political movement, which should not be afforded protection of US Law under any premise, then I’d say you had more of a solid case.
But, given the assumption that they have religious standing, this judge’s ruling was absolutely correct.
You will see from my posting history that I have been unbending in my opinion that islam is a false religion and have no doubt that shariah law is incompatible with our U.S. Constitution, to say nothing of our culture.
But I can reach the result we are discussing without the necessity of acknowledging that islam is a religion.
Suppose you and I have a written agreement to submit any controversy to a jointly approved arbitrator and the agreement further provides the arbitrator will decide the dispute in accordance with the regulations of the American Contract Bridge League.
Suppose further, based on those regulations that the arbitrator finds in your favor and I take it to a judge (and such appeal is allowed by state law). Can there be any doubt as to what the result should be?
Not if one thinks of this as a contract dispute and, of course, an enforceable arbitration agreement is a contract. Now, if court had determined the parties did not have an enforceable contract it would have looked elsewhere for guidance.
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.