Jihad Watch
What was that Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacist groups were saying about how it was utterly fanciful that Sharia would ever be used to judge cases in American courts?
Few of the comments regarding this action:
Author Profile Page Lou Bator | March 18, 2011 1:38 PM | Reply
Whoa! Is this legal?
Author Profile Page ala sux | March 18, 2011 1:43 PM | Reply
Canada came close to allowing CAIR-canada and Dr.Sheem Khan to enshrine Shariah Law on our soil.
Bu tthe victim of Shariah law that fled to canada for safety had come forward to denouce it. CAIR fought tooth and nail to demonize the females that came forward with great fear for their lives from the islamists allowed to set-up in canada.
CAIR still wants to label Honopur-Killings as Domestic-Violence to blame all males and all faiths. But Canada didn't have this issue in the Pre-CAIR/Shariah Law days and this means it is really rich for CAIR to push Shariah law and claim it doesn't enbale violence against females.
But tell that to Muhammad who was a misogynistic/pedophile
and mass murderer that inspires the islamists to become Suicide-bombers.
Author Profile Page BT | March 18, 2011 1:43 PM | Reply
Yea, So?
Civil mediation with agreement between parties as to who the mediator will be.
Sounds cool to me.
If it crosses over into how criminal cases are handled, another story.
Author Profile Page descendantofacrusader | March 18, 2011 1:47 PM | Reply
Nothing to see here,folks - let's move along now.
Author Profile Page Infidel Task Force replied to comment from BT | March 18, 2011 1:47 PM | Reply
don't say that BT....thats how they get a foothold. Thats how it gets started.
We have to stay focused and keep in mind that America has ONE law for ALL people of both genders.
We do not favor another race, creed or color. Nor do we favor another religion over the will of the majority.
One law...One people. ALL the time
Author Profile Page duh_swami replied to comment from BT | March 18, 2011 1:53 PM | Reply
If it crosses over into how criminal cases are handled, another story.
And what assurances do we have that it won't do that?
You let the camel stick his nose in the tent, and guess what...Sharia law has NO place in America, that's zero for those who don't know what NO means...NO sharia...This judge and Judge Vickie of Oklahoma should be relieved of their duties...
Author Profile Page TheSSBlock | March 18, 2011 1:56 PM | Reply
This isn't the imposition of Islamic Law per se. Arbitration agreements (contracts) between parties are regularly taken to Civil Courts for enforcement in cases of dispute. Parties who agree to arbitrate have willingly chosen a method of dispute resolution outside of the court system. Arbitrators do not have to follow state or federal laws in making their decisions - or any recognized law at all.
Although not truly unlimited, if two parties agree to arbitrate their disputes, for all intents and purposes, they can bind themselves to an outcome under almost any system of law, of any religion, or any procedure. Unless a party can show fraud, duress, or coercion, an arbitration agreement functions like any contract which a court must uphold so long as it is clear, unambiguous, and freely negotiated. Consequently, a party may also have a cause of action in questioning the neutrality of the arbitrator or if no meaningful procedure was followed to guarantee a just result.
Upholding Islamic law agreed upon through arbitration is not really a problem. A problem would arise however, if, absent any agreement, the court attempted to invoke Islamic law on its own initiative, which of course it is not permitted to do.
Author Profile Page Sheikh Hasan bin Sobah | March 18, 2011 1:56 PM | Reply
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 ro determinate, and that is or can an A’lim.
----------
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the foregoing does not resolve the matter then the brothers are free to kill one another as is the wont of Muslims worldwide, according to tradition. They may do so as they see fit though preference is to be given THE “Prophet’s” favorite method of smiting at the neck.
Call the next case!
Author Profile Page Wri7913 replied to comment from BT | March 18, 2011 1:57 PM | Reply
If both parties wanted the case handled by Sharia Law, they could have chose to do so without knowledge of the US Courts. In such cases, we would have no say in the matter and as descendantofacrusader said "Nothing to see here,folks - let's move along now."
This is not what happened.
The current owners of the Mosque wanted the trial settled by Florida Secular Law. The former owners of the Mosque wanted the matter settled by Islamic Law. The Judge basically gave a big middle finger to the current owners and said the matter would have to be settled by Islamic Law.
This is putting the foot in the door to more Sharia law cases. I would be willing to bet money this case will be used as a precedent for future cases where one party wants to use Sharia Law for settling legal or possibly criminal matters.
I'm very upset this happening in my home area. This is also the same court where Sami Al Arian was tried and convicted for helping Palestinian Jihad group.
Author Profile Page Wellington | March 18, 2011 1:59 PM | Reply
Almost certainly legal. And certainly ominous because Sharia is not just another legal system just as Islam is not just another religion. What really ticks me off is that the Islamic world is so damn dysfunctional and wretched and now, due to the broad-based affluence, equality under the law, extraordinary mobility and real freedom that Western societies have created, something the Islamic world has never done and will never do because Islam is incompatible with liberty and other core Western values, Muslims in large numbers in the West are now parasitically taking advantage of achievements that their deeply backward world could never attain. Sickening. Islam is the ultimate parasite and ingrate.
Author Profile Page TheSSBlock replied to comment from Wri7913 | March 18, 2011 2:15 PM | Reply
I am going to hazard a guess that there is a contract involved here. If there was no contract, there would be no basis for arbitration. Moreover, according to the order, arbitration has already been concluded. The order is enforcing the award.
If the owners wanted to dispute settled by Florida Law:
1) They would not have signed a contract to arbitrate pursuant to Islamic law.
2) They would not have went through the process of arbitration.
In a strict sense, this dispute is settled by secular Florida law - the law which recognizes that freely negotiated contracts between parties must be enforced.
Do I think Sharia law is appropriate? No.
Would I enter into an arbitration agreement implicating Sharia law as the method of resolving disputes? No.
Nonetheless, if the parties did, it really only seems to be a case of a party that had a case resolved against their interests and then attempted to shirk on their contractual obligations.
Author Profile Page Medina | March 18, 2011 2:27 PM | Reply
Since when is it the duty of any U.S. Court to "proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law, pursuant to the Qur'an?"
How can a judge who swore an oath to the U.S. Constitution enforce the Qur'an in a circuit court?
Robert, can SOIA file an amicus brief on behalf of Americans?
Author Profile Page miriam rove replied to comment from Wri7913 | March 18, 2011 2:28 PM | Reply
agreed
Author Profile Page pdxnag | March 18, 2011 2:29 PM | Reply
I cannot seem to find any factual "findings" within this document nor can I find any reference to any specific statutory provision -- to which such facts would apply -- which grant the judge authority to enter the order. It appears as though the judge lacked authority to enter the order, or at a minimum failed to note from where the claim of judicial authority derived. Just wearing a robe is not sufficient.
It would be nice to see the companion documents, if any.
"Islamic brothers"
"greater community of brothers"
Oh Brother! Such nonsense has no business being uttered in a legal document. The parties prepare proposed orders for judicial signature. It is entirely possible that this judge never read it, nor even court staff. This would not be surprising.
I suppose that this could give James O'Keefe some ideas about how to punk the court system; no worse than it was purposely punked here in this case.
Is the any "Islamic judge" who, by reason of their Islamic training alone, are recognized and approved as an official arbitrator? I think not.
Author Profile Page The SSBlock replied to comment from Medina | March 18, 2011 2:32 PM | Reply
The Court is not proceeding under Islamic Law. The "case" - the dispute between the parties - is proceeding under Islamic Law because that is how the parties agreed to resolve their dispute.
The Court is merely following law which is nearly uniform in all States - that freely negotiated contracts are binding.
Comments: You do understand this is how the Islamists defeat us from within. Stop this now or the USA as we know it ceases to exist-wake up America!!
No comments:
Post a Comment