Quote:The judge in reference is the Honorable Richard A. Nielsen, Circuit Court Judge in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida Civil Division.
The judges ruling states;
1. This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.
2. Under Ecclesiastical Islamic, pursuant to the Qur’an, Islamic brothers should try to resolve a dispute among themselves. When the brothers are unable to do so, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community for resolution. If that is not done or does not result in a resolution of the dispute, the dispute is to be presented to an Islamic judge for determination, and that is or can be A’lim.
3. The remainder of the hearing will be to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter.
In effect, due process in an American court is being denied and Sharia law is being imposed on an unwilling participant. Right here in Florida
Link
I'm sure most libs will dismiss the link, so here's the judge's ruling:
http://tool.donation-net.net/Images/Emai...Motion.pdf
....and I'm also sure the uber libs here still won't have a problem with it.
2nd link doesn't work.
But it sure makes those Okla lawmakers look dumn now, doesn't it?
(03-22-2011 08:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]2nd link doesn't work.
It's in the middle of the page of the first link where it says, "You can read the judge’s ruling here."
(03-22-2011 08:17 AM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2011 08:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]2nd link doesn't work.
It's in the middle of the page of the first link where it says, "You can read the judge’s ruling here."
Here's what I see
Quote:We are unable to complete your request...
We cannot determine your destination by the link you have used. This can be the result of outdated links, or of an email client truncating or improperly interpreting a link.
I wonder if this judge has any fathom what he is doing. Suppose, for example, it is found one brother stole from the other, and the punishment is the that the hand of the offending brother must be hacked off. The judge just negated the equal protection clause. He is derelict in his duty and oath of office.
(03-22-2011 08:34 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2011 08:17 AM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2011 08:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]2nd link doesn't work.
It's in the middle of the page of the first link where it says, "You can read the judge’s ruling here."
Here's what I see
I mean it's in the middle of this page:
http://www.redstate.com/tomtflorida/2011...o-florida/
I'd like to see more court documents to backup what the writer is saying; his bio suggests that he obviously has an agenda to push. There's more to the story than what he's telling us. I do wonder whether the court would proceed the same way under Jewish law. Nevertheless, I agree that this is quite troubling.
Edit -
I spoke with someone who's a bit more familiar with this case. He tells me that both parties in fact had an agreement that any dispute would be solved under Islamic law. Now one side might be trying to get out of it, but it's not as clear cut as the article suggests that the judge merely imposing it. Additionally, it is pointed out to me that the courts in Florida would apply Canon Law or Rabbinical Law if there was an agreement to use them. And lastly, the order pertains only to the rules of arbitration, not to the disposition of the case.
Shockingly enough, this article was misleading.
See:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civi...158818.ece
Essentially the parties had gone through an Islamic arbitrator as part of the private dispute. The court is now trying to figure out whether that arbitration was done correctly and whether it should be given credence. The Tampa Bay.com article is very clear that any trial will be decided by American law. It is far from unheard of for this to be done, whether it's Rabbinical Law, Canon Law, or the law of a foreign country that the parties have agreed to. The only "shocking" thing here is that it's Islamic law and not say, French law, where no one would have batted an eye if there was a reason for French law to be involved.
Quote:The judge said he would use Islamic law to decide only the legitimacy of arbitration.
"What law would we be applying (at) trial?" Thanasides asked.
"That trial would be civil law," the judge said. "Florida law."
I think I can now officially label Rebel a....................*********.
(03-22-2011 11:23 AM)cb4029 Wrote: [ -> ]I think I can now officially label Rebel a....................*********.
No, I just don't want Shar'ia law anywhere near the shores of America like it's already infesting the U.K. You may like it. I don't. You can move.
(03-22-2011 12:14 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2011 11:23 AM)cb4029 Wrote: [ -> ]I think I can now officially label Rebel a....................*********.
No, I just don't want Shar'ia law anywhere near the shores of America like it's already infesting the U.K. You may like it. I don't. You can move.
CB?...Ya think we need more damn laws in America? Imagine what happens if some of this nonsense becomes infused into the mess we already have?
This really isn't as bad as it sounds. It appears to be a dispute over how to handle funds from the sale of a piece of property containing a mosque.
In such disputes, courts regularly defer to canon law (church law). If this were a dispute between Presbyterians, the court would routinely defer to Presbyterian canons.
The one part that I find troubling is that apparently one side did not agree to sharia jurisdiction, and that was the issue before the court. I'd want to know more about specifics of that dispute before forming an opinion of just how problematic this is.
(03-22-2011 12:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]This really isn't as bad as it sounds. It appears to be a dispute over how to handle funds from the sale of a piece of property containing a mosque.
In such disputes, courts regularly defer to canon law (church law). If this were a dispute between Presbyterians, the court would routinely defer to Presbyterian canons.
The one part that I find troubling is that apparently one side did not agree to sharia jurisdiction, and that was the issue before the court. I'd want to know more about specifics of that dispute before forming an opinion of just how problematic this is.
Do you really want to set a precedent? Hey, I know, how about marital issues between two American Muslims. Would Shar'ia work?
Shar'ia is INCOMPATIBLE with the Constitution.
(03-22-2011 12:54 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2011 12:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]This really isn't as bad as it sounds. It appears to be a dispute over how to handle funds from the sale of a piece of property containing a mosque.
In such disputes, courts regularly defer to canon law (church law). If this were a dispute between Presbyterians, the court would routinely defer to Presbyterian canons.
The one part that I find troubling is that apparently one side did not agree to sharia jurisdiction, and that was the issue before the court. I'd want to know more about specifics of that dispute before forming an opinion of just how problematic this is.
Do you really want to set a precedent? Hey, I know, how about marital issues between two American Muslims. Would Shar'ia work?
Shar'ia is INCOMPATIBLE with the Constitution.
Within the narrow bounds of this dispute, the precedent is already there. We let Presbyterians do it, we let Jews do it, we let Roman Catholics do it, on issues of this nature, so there's nothing new about applying sharia here.
I agree that there is a slippery slope, and we need to watch it.
Applying it in this case does not mean that it applies to marital issues, any more than applying canon law to a Roman Catholic church dispute would mean that Roman Catholic canon law applies to abortion.
There is definitely an expansion risk that we need to guard against. But in this case, the applicable precedents would support applying sharia.
(03-22-2011 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2011 12:54 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2011 12:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]This really isn't as bad as it sounds. It appears to be a dispute over how to handle funds from the sale of a piece of property containing a mosque.
In such disputes, courts regularly defer to canon law (church law). If this were a dispute between Presbyterians, the court would routinely defer to Presbyterian canons.
The one part that I find troubling is that apparently one side did not agree to sharia jurisdiction, and that was the issue before the court. I'd want to know more about specifics of that dispute before forming an opinion of just how problematic this is.
Do you really want to set a precedent? Hey, I know, how about marital issues between two American Muslims. Would Shar'ia work?
Shar'ia is INCOMPATIBLE with the Constitution.
Within the narrow bounds of this dispute, the precedent is already there. We let Presbyterians do it, we let Jews do it, we let Roman Catholics do it, on issues of this nature, so there's nothing new about applying sharia here.
I agree that there is a slippery slope, and we need to watch it.
Applying it in this case does not mean that it applies to marital issues, any more than applying canon law to a Roman Catholic church dispute would mean that Roman Catholic canon law applies to abortion.
There is definitely an expansion risk that we need to guard against. But in this case, the applicable precedents would support applying sharia.
The camel's nose in the tent.
(03-22-2011 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Within the narrow bounds of this dispute, the precedent is already there. We let Presbyterians do it, we let Jews do it, we let Roman Catholics do it, on issues of this nature, so there's nothing new about applying sharia here.
I agree that there is a slippery slope, and we need to watch it.
Applying it in this case does not mean that it applies to marital issues, any more than applying canon law to a Roman Catholic church dispute would mean that Roman Catholic canon law applies to abortion.
There is definitely an expansion risk that we need to guard against. But in this case, the applicable precedents would support applying sharia.
If the judge stated, "you guys go back to your mosque and handle it the best way you see fit. If you still can't resolve it, then I'll rule on it based on the U.S. Constitution." I'd have had no problem. He had no business injecting our Shar'ia into our court system.
(03-22-2011 01:08 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]If the judge stated, "you guys go back to your mosque and handle it the best way you see fit. If you still can't resolve it, then I'll rule on it based on the U.S. Constitution." I'd have had no problem. He had no business injecting our Shar'ia into our court system.
It actually reads to me like that's pretty much what he did.
(03-22-2011 01:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2011 01:08 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]If the judge stated, "you guys go back to your mosque and handle it the best way you see fit. If you still can't resolve it, then I'll rule on it based on the U.S. Constitution." I'd have had no problem. He had no business injecting our Shar'ia into our court system.
It actually reads to me like that's pretty much what he did.
Should have never gotten to the courts and there damn sure shouldn't have been a case number assigned to it. If this is a private matter, fine. If you bring it to the courts, don't expect to use Shar'ia. We have a Constitution.
(03-22-2011 01:14 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2011 01:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2011 01:08 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]If the judge stated, "you guys go back to your mosque and handle it the best way you see fit. If you still can't resolve it, then I'll rule on it based on the U.S. Constitution." I'd have had no problem. He had no business injecting our Shar'ia into our court system.
It actually reads to me like that's pretty much what he did.
Should have never gotten to the courts and there damn sure shouldn't have been a case number assigned to it. If this is a private matter, fine. If you bring it to the courts, don't expect to use Shar'ia. We have a Constitution.
Yeah, that's really not how contractual choice of law clauses work. Like I said previously, you wouldn't be bitching if it was Canadian law or Japanese law that was at issue. It's only because it's the magical Sharia word that everyone got their panties in a wad, when it is, in actuality, a very narrow question about whether procedural rules were followed in the private arbitration and not some application to allow stoning of women.
Owl - It sounds like what really happened is that there was valid K with a choice of law clause. And then when it got to court, one party wanted to get out of that (probably because the arbitrator ruled against them), so they're trying to argue against the use of Sharia, because they know it's a political hot potato and the judge might agree to it to make the issue go away.
(03-22-2011 01:58 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, that's really not how contractual choice of law clauses work. Like I said previously, you wouldn't be bitching if it was Canadian law or Japanese law that was at issue. It's only because it's the magical Sharia word that everyone got their panties in a wad, when it is, in actuality, a very narrow question about whether procedural rules were followed in the private arbitration and not some application to allow stoning of women.
Why wouldn't I when I was the one that was totally against us entering the World Courts? I don't care if it's Shar'ia, which I DESPISE, Baptist, Canadian, Syrian, or Swahili. This is the United States. Once it gets to the court systems, our rule of law is the U.S. Constitution and the codes of law that are presently on the books. If they want Shar'ia, perhaps they should have stayed in the Middle East, SE Asia, or Africa.