Sharia Law in the USA!

[Bill Mattocks]

I thought I'd post this before Big Don or Bilichak could.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/2...apply-islamic-law-tampa-case/?test=latestnews

Florida Judge Defends Decision to Apply Islamic Law in Tampa Case


Published March 23, 2011
| FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/2...n-apply-islamic-law-tampa-case/#ixzz1HTRCtE47
​

The problem is that it isn't a big deal, and the judge is right to do as he did. The judge is entirely correct; he's enforcing a private contract where each party has agreed to binding third-party arbitration using the Koran (Sharia Law) as their guide. Civil law, not criminal law. Both parties agreed to be bound by it, no one was coerced or forced to obey a religious legal system with which they did not agree.

This is also true of Jewish law, often used in civil disputes between Jewish people who agree to be bound by it. Myself as a Catholic had to go through the Catholic legal system to obtain an annulment from my previous marriage before I could be married in the Catholic Church - what the state had to say meant nothing to my situation according to the RCC. However, it was binding only on me and only because I agreed to it.

So this is no big deal.

But...sigh...it will be made into one.

http://www.redcounty.com/content/ou...ers-islamic-sharia-law-be-used-settle-dispute

 

[Twin Fist]

if both agree to it, then i guess it is no big deal, but the idea of sharia being given legal recognition in an american court of law gives me a wiggins

 

[Bill Mattocks]

if both agree to it, then i guess it is no big deal, but the idea of sharia being given legal recognition in an american court of law gives me a wiggins

It's just a word. As noted in the article, if a married couple have a prenuptial agreement, that is essentially their own private law - it can say anything they both agree to and which is otherwise legal (they can't agree that if they get divorced, one has the right to kill the other, for example). This has been going on for eons; it's essentially contract law. It's just that we've gone all freaky about the word 'Sharia'. In Catholic terms, it's 'Canon' law. It's enforced all the time; ever hear anyone losing it or claiming America is over because of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

Jewish marriage contracts (Talmudic Law) have been enforced in New York and other states with strong Hasidic or Orthodox Jewish populations forever. Again, it's essentially private contract law - the fact that it is religious in basis isn't important to the judge in the case; only the fact that it's a valid contract and can be enforced, which both parties knowingly agreed to.

"Sharia Law" brings a lot of things to mind that might give one the shudders. But that's essentially our problem, and one we should probably consider getting over. It's not essentially different from other forms of tort law.

 

[K831]

I thought I'd post this before Big Don or Bilichak could.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/2...apply-islamic-law-tampa-case/?test=latestnews



The problem is that it isn't a big deal, and the judge is right to do as he did. The judge is entirely correct; he's enforcing a private contract where each party has agreed to binding third-party arbitration using the Koran (Sharia Law) as their guide. Civil law, not criminal law. Both parties agreed to be bound by it, no one was coerced or forced to obey a religious legal system with which they did not agree.

This is also true of Jewish law, often used in civil disputes between Jewish people who agree to be bound by it. Myself as a Catholic had to go through the Catholic legal system to obtain an annulment from my previous marriage before I could be married in the Catholic Church - what the state had to say meant nothing to my situation according to the RCC. However, it was binding only on me and only because I agreed to it.

So this is no big deal.

But...sigh...it will be made into one.

http://www.redcounty.com/content/ou...ers-islamic-sharia-law-be-used-settle-dispute

I think you miss the point as to why it may be made into one. I have no problem with what you explained above. The problem, is that its no big deal if it is Islam, or Buddhism etc... but the same courts and the same media who support the above... tend to vilify any Christians in the same situation. It's the double standard that is the problem.

I have some very good friends who are Muslim. It is amazing what their kids can get away with in school... A kid who mentions Jesus or wears a Christian T-shirt.... no such luck.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think you miss the point as to why it may be made into one. I have no problem with what you explained above. The problem, is that its no big deal if it is Islam, or Buddhism etc... but the same courts and the same media who support the above... tend to vilify any Christians in the same situation. It's the double standard that is the problem.

I have some very good friends who are Muslim. It is amazing what their kids can get away with in school... A kid who mentions Jesus or wears a Christian T-shirt.... no such luck.

If you're referring to PC behavior, which tends to tolerate 'minority' religious expression whilst decrying 'majority' religious expression, I can't deny it. But that's not a court system, that's people being hypocritical a-holes. If you think courts don't support private contract law when it involves contracts based on Christian principles or actual religious law such as Talmudic or Canon law, you'd have to show me an example, because I don't think that's the case.

 

[K-man]

Because it is an arbitration matter it is basically an agreement presented for the court to ratify. What would be interesting is if you had a decision based on Sharia that was challenged at a later stage, outside of Sharia.

We have precedent in Australia with indigenous communities. Basically our courts have to decide if the potential tribal punishment provides the best outcome, or does the case need to be tried in a conventional court.

As for Sharia law in Australia. We have communities trying to have Sharia recognised as an alternate system and IMHO, this just can be allowed. :asian:

 

[Twin Fist]

"Sharia Law" brings a lot of things to mind that might give one the shudders. But that's essentially our problem, and one we should probably consider getting over. It's not essentially different from other forms of tort law.

Most other tort laws dont have section explaining why it is ok to stone rape victims to death.

Unless I missed something....

 

[Bruno@MT]

if both agree to it, then i guess it is no big deal, but the idea of sharia being given legal recognition in an american court of law gives me a wiggins

It will only be legal as long as the terms don't violate federal and state laws.
While all parties agree to be bound by sharia law, noone will ever be allowed to cut off someone's hand, pluck out an eye or perform a stoning or public flogging.

So in this case it is really only applying the sharia law as a code of conduct which cannot go against state law.

 

[CanuckMA]

It will only be legal as long as the terms don't violate federal and state laws.
While all parties agree to be bound by sharia law, noone will ever be allowed to cut off someone's hand, pluck out an eye or perform a stoning or public flogging.

So in this case it is really only applying the sharia law as a code of conduct which cannot go against state law.

And that is the way Halacha (Jewish Law) is applied. It is never used in criminal matters.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Most other tort laws dont have section explaining why it is ok to stone rape victims to death.

Unless I missed something....

Like many religions, different versions exist for different communities and individual believers. Most Muslims believe that Sharia is the law of Allah, just as most Christians believe that the Bible contains the law of God (10 Commandments, Mosaic Law, etc). What differs is interpretation and application. While some Islamic countries will still stone a woman to death for committing adultery or execute a blasphemer, other countries do not.

And in any case, there was never any question of Sharia law being applied in that manner in a US court of law.

So if you're criticizing Sharia law as Sharia law, go right ahead, I can't disagree with you. If you're suggesting that US courts will now permit stoning to death, uh, no.

 

[Twin Fist]

I think sharia is a curse on the world, and should be abolished.

and the term slippery slope, which i admitt i usually dont buy into, comes to mind in this case.

 

[Nomad]

Most other tort laws dont have section explaining why it is ok to stone rape victims to death.

Unless I missed something....

Well, stoning is right there as an acceptable punishment in the old testament. So are at least some activities which would be considered rape by today's interpretations. Last time I checked, even though they're right there in the bible, it's no acceptable defense in a court of law.

Please explain how it's different?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think sharia is a curse on the world, and should be abolished.

I think you need to be more clear about what 'Sharia Law' you mean.

In simplest terms, Sharia Law covers a lot of territory. It includes requirements that are binding on observant Muslims in such matters as diet (halal) and prayer. I presume you would not want to abolish that particular 'curse', since to be fair, you'd have to abolish Christian and Jewish as well as other religions' rules about such things.

I suspect you mean the more controversial aspects of Sharia, including stoning adulterers to death. I agree that such things are horrifying and should be abolished. They are already illegal in the USA. I don't know how to abolish them in countries that don't follow US law.

and the term slippery slope, which i admitt i usually dont buy into, comes to mind in this case.

I don't think the case in question goes any farther than previous cases of arbitration involving religious law (Christian, Jewish, etc). So I don't see a slippery slope here. There's nothing new here but the fact that it's Islamic; it's not an expansion of what was previously permitted. What do you perceive it leading to?

 

[Twin Fist]

Nomad, you MIGHT have a point IF some judge said "we will settle this case by Old Testament Law"

or

you might have a point if anyone anywhere was still living according to old testament law

or

you might have a case of there were literally millions living under old testament law

since none of these things are currently true, THAT is how it is different.

got that?

Well, stoning is right there as an acceptable punishment in the old testament. So are at least some activities which would be considered rape by today's interpretations. Last time I checked, even though they're right there in the bible, it's no acceptable defense in a court of law.

Please explain how it's different?

 

[Twin Fist]

There's nothing new here but the fact that it's Islamic; it's not an expansion of what was previously permitted. What do you perceive it leading to?

its like a tat, the first couple are painful and scary, after that, it is EASY to do more

get my drift?

 

[Touch Of Death]

its like a tat, the first couple are painful and scary, after that, it is EASY to do more

get my drift?

The snowball effect is a fallacy.
Sean

 

[Twin Fist]

no, it actually isnt

and everyone knows it, you are just being ornery

 

[Touch Of Death]

no, it actually isnt

and everyone knows it, you are just being ornery

This where you are wrong. I took logic in college. You must not have.

 

[Twin Fist]

yes, while you were in college, i was in the military serving our nation.

I am not 100% sure, but i think i got the better end of that stick.

 

[Touch Of Death]

yes, while you were in college, i was in the military serving our nation.

I am not 100% sure, but i think i got the better end of that stick.

I did that too. So I guess I'm doubly blessed. Logic and military bragging rights... You lose again.:mst: I gots the whole stick.
Sean