Florida circuit court judge allows case to proceed under Islamic law

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

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...

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.

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.

agreed

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.

//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//

You cannot find any legal authority for a judge to enforce a contract?

Ecclesiastical, that is.

Parties to an arbitration agreement are free to select the arbitrator. They are also free to negotiate the scope of the arbitrators power, such as what he can award in damages, what he may consider, etc.

It is difficult to believe that the owners wanted a SECULAR arbitrator to decide issues to be resolved under ISLAMIC LAW.
That just does not seem to add up.

TheSSBlock,

So this is just "a contract[,]", just as would be a contract to become a slave? Statutes declare many kinds of contractual provisions void, as either criminal or merely unenforceable.

If the parties fully resolved their disputes, voluntarily, by any peaceable metric then there would be no need for the court to act as a tie-breaker for unresolved differences. If the dispute was about real property then the result could be reduced to a simple quitclaim of one party's interests and there would be no need to even hint about "Islamic" this or that. And such quitclaim would not involve the court, just a simple recording of the same. (If it was extract at gunpoint then that would certainly render such agreement not merely unenforceable, but criminal.)

The sole purpose of invoking the power of the court is compulsion. When two Islamic protagonists enter court and demand that the court apply Islamic law, because it is what they -- between them, in their private agreement -- have agreed to, this becomes a proverbial Islamic-tail wagging a secular-dog. A secular court can simply strike out all Islamic nonsense from any agreement and see if there remains enough chaff left over from which an agreement might possibly be construed as a binding contract.

Suppose the Saudi's sponsor a student, on the condition that the student never renounce Islam or call the Saudi Royal family a bunch of ordinary thugs, would it be per se enforceable in a secular court provided that they also agreed to have disputes settled by an Islamic judge applying Islamic law in "arbitration"?

BT wrote:

Yea, So?
Civil mediation with agreement between parties as to who the mediator will be.
Wri7913 wrote, responding to BT:

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.
.............................

Thanks for noting this vital point, Wri.

Here's the account from Act! for America:

The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly.

The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.

http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/email-archives/2282-judge-orders-muslims-to-follow-sharia-law

This is *an American judge* enforcing Shari'ah law *on a party that does not want to be judged by such law*.

If this isn't the definition of the imposition of Shari'ah, I don't know what is.

SS you are not getting it quite right. Even if the parties agree to a arbitrator under Shariah it cannot be something that undermines our judiciary process especially if it pertains to breaking laws, or ownership of property, treatment of children, or multiple wives. There was a case against Mormons years ago whereby the Mormons felt compulsion for their own rights, but the Federal courts for instance denied multiple wives. This is because the greater good of society must prevail because even back then they know societal family units would get way out of hand as they are in England, Netherlands, and Germany. Islam might get away with this in the ME but look how poor and backwards they are. We must stop the insanity of Sharia, it just doesn't fit. So it is in fact a big deal and thus we can't move on.

[QUOTE]"Parties who agree to arbitrate have willingly chosen a method of dispute resolution outside of the court system."[/QUOTE]

It does not appear that both parties did "agree" or "willingly" choose...

"and it's constitutionally and legally useless to make the case that Islam is really not a religion; I really wish well intentioned folks would stop making this going-to-nowhere argument"

Islam is a country called dar-al-islam... the quran is the constitution, muslims are the citizens.. blah blah blah.
muslims are disallowed from being anything but muslim, therefore not American, therefore not protected by the real Constitution...

You and I both know that millions will have to be affected by muslim evil for this reality to sink in...

But it is reality.. your dissuasion is not a morale booster..

When is the fatwa on this matter going to be issued by The Honourable Mufti Richard A Neilsen ?

Wellington, tell me how I can go about obtaining the status of being a religion. I don't currently have alot of adherents, but those I have so far feel a strong belief in this religion I have put together. Do I start with my local Town Council? I guess there are forms to fill out along with a nominal fee, and then I receive a certificate of bestowal of official religion status. Or maybe I don't need to do anything except maybe convince some newspaper to publish a human interest story extolling the mysterious wonders of Bhobbyism. Is Wellingtonism currently a valid religion? There's probably no provable miracles, but ...

Let L. Ron Hubbard be your guide, Bhobby.

No, I think you're wrong, grungyoldvan. The Constitution, not just judicial precedents, protects Islam as it does Marxism, Nazism, Satanism and a whole host of other pathetic and malevolent ideologies, be they secular or spiritual. What the Constitution does not necessarily protect, however, is acting upon the beliefs of such ideologies. As an example, if you're enough of a loser to be a Satanist, you have the right to be this kind of fool in America, but if your belief requires a human sacrifice once a year, sorry, that's not protected. Ditto for the Muslim who wants to beat his wife pursuant to the 4:34 Koranic directive or who wants to kill someone for depicting Mohammed in a dress.

You see, belief is protected by the Constitution of the United States of America more than any other constitution or polity has ever protected belief. Arguing that Islam is not a religion or that it's a lie or anything along these lines will take you to Nowhereville in American courts of law. That's why Islam must be exposed for what it is by bits and pieces and shamed into oblivion.

//A secular court can simply strike out all Islamic nonsense from any agreement and see if there remains enough chaff left over from which an agreement might possibly be construed as a binding contract.//

The point of a contract is to effectuate the INTENT of the parties as held at the moment in time that they executed the contract. It is not within the Court's power to strike out parts of a contract in a bid to formulate an agreement to which the parties agree. The point of the Court's intervention is to ENFORCE the contract AS IT STANDS, not to create a DIFFERENT contract the Court feels is fair. Unless there is a showing of coercion, fraud, or duress in the making of a contract, or that the terms of the contract necessitate the commission of a crime or other unlawful measure, the Court must enforce the contract.

Aside from issues of intent, contract analysis also depends upon variables such as contract ambiguity, issues of mutual mistake, misunderstanding, frustration of purpose, and the validity of certain provisions. A party is absolutely free to demonstrate the presence of any of these factors. If that party does, the contract is unenforceable, or void. From the facts before us, it does not appear that the contract contained any terms that are illegal, or was so ambiguous in form that no reasonable person could ascertain the scope of their duties and obligations.

//Suppose the Saudi's sponsor a student, on the condition that the student never renounce Islam or call the Saudi Royal family a bunch of ordinary thugs, would it be per se enforceable in a secular court provided that they also agreed to have disputes settled by an Islamic judge applying Islamic law in "arbitration"?//

Usually even such conditions would be enforceable, assuming you could obtain a waiver of sovereign immunity and haul the Saudi's into an American court in case of a dispute (unlikely). The conditioning of the receipt of money can be premised upon many variables, so long as they are not illegal, or strikingly against public policy.

There are many contracts which require parties, in exchange for the receipt of PRIVATE money to complete certain tasks or ensure the existence of certain conditions. Take a look at any scholarships or grants offered by religious institutions in the United States and you will find a great number of them condition the receipt of that money upon being a member of a church, or a practicing member of the faith. There are also grants which require people to be of a certain race in order to qualify. As long as the contracts were willingly entered into, it is not the place of the Court to alter them.

That being said, nobody is obliged, in a physical sense, to be bound by the terms of any contract. Along with the freedom to contract, courts recognize that people also have the freedom to BREAK contracts. However, if a party chooses to break a contract, they must pay DAMAGES. The Court isn't going to force people to work, or to continue to be active members of a faith, or to do anything else if that party no longer feels it is in their interest to do so. But since that party has promised (contracted) in a legal way to undertake certain obligations, their failure to make good on their promise becomes the basis of a damages award.

//If the parties fully resolved their disputes, voluntarily, by any peaceable metric then there would be no need for the court to act as a tie-breaker for unresolved differences.//

Agreed. But here we have what appears to be a situation in which one party is living up to their obligations under a contract, and the other party is attempting to avoid their obligations without cost.

//Even if the parties agree to a arbitrator under Shariah it cannot be something that undermines our judiciary process especially if it pertains to breaking laws, or ownership of property, treatment of children, or multiple wives.//

Agreed. Contracts that obligate parties to break the law are not enforceable. Each party is free to demonstrate that the terms of the contract are illegal and therefore void. However, that does not seem to be the issue here.

Absence such a showing illegality or fraud, parties can enter into a contract by which their disputes are resolved outside of the Court system. The focal purpose of an arbitration agreement is to push the Courts out of the equation of dispute resolution as between the parties.

It doesn't seem to make much sense then to create a maelstrom over the fact that the Court defers to the parties to resolve their dispute by Islamic law when that is what the parties have agreed to before hand. Arbitration is a very common form of dispute resolution, and it is present in almost all industries as an alternative to litigation in the courts.

It must be remembered that we are not dealing here with Islamic law being forced upon a party, but rather, a situation where two parties, upon the exercise of their free right to negotiate terms of dispute resolution, ACTIVELY chose Islamic Law as the basis upon which that dispute will be resolved.

//So if the a'lim tells them that whichever one of them kills the most number of infidels wins his case?Would that be legal? Yes it would//

No, it would not be legal. Only legal contracts are enforced. The only thing U.S. law has recognized is the right of people to arbitrate their dispute by rules that they formulate or agree to in the process of negotiation. This has been recognized for quite some time now. There is nothing new here.

I am actually quite shocked that Robert would post this case with what seems either an intentional attempt to mislead people into thinking that such dispute resolution is novel or somehow against the laws of the United States, or otherwise to have, with deliberate indifference, posted this story as a way of taking advantage of people's general ignorance of the law with the purpose of leading them to come to counter some very counter - factual conclusions.

"THE DISPUTE IS TO BE PRESENTED TO AN ISLAMIC JUDGE"
read much?

The real Judge just abdicated to an ISLAMIC JUDGE

thus enshrining islamic jurisprudence into the American legal net..

ba dum ching..

You dismiss the fact that muslims have a contract with Allah..An overriding contract through sharia..Infidel "law(s) are meaningless. The tool has now been created for islame to proceed uninhindered..

//"THE DISPUTE IS TO BE PRESENTED TO AN ISLAMIC JUDGE"
read much?//

That Islamic Judge, is the arbitrator of the dispute. When parties enter in an arbitration agreement, they select the person that will apply their choice of law to the dispute at hand - that person is the arbitrator.

The arbitrator can be a Rabbi, a priest, your best friend, or a guy of the street. The arbitrator does not even have to have any background in law.

The law in this area is not ground breaking. The judge is not abdicating his power. The Islamic judge, or arbitrator, for example, is not granted authority under this order to resolve anything other than the specific dispute in question.

It is appalling to see such heavy handed conviction on legal matters from people who obviously do not have even the slightest conception of how the American legal system functions.

..unhindered..ex 6th Grade spelling bee winner..

yes.. much suffering will occur..
that doesn't mean we should give up the facts.. not ever..
courts of law have become tools of political whims..
I hope you are proven wrong one day.. with respect.

One day the Creator that gives the Declaration it's Imprimatur will be defined as not allah..

find it in your heart to light the fires of real hope, not douse the flames of good natured ineptitude...

We live at the fulcrum of fate..

Goonies never say die.

//You dismiss the fact that muslims have a contract with Allah..An overriding contract through sharia..Infidel "law(s) are meaningless. The tool has now been created for islame to proceed uninhindered..//

I am not dismissing that fact. But since these two parties are within the United States of America, they can resort to any Court of competent jurisdiction to enforce their arbitration agreement, so long as there was no fraud, duress, coercion, or illegality.

No new tool has been created here. Arbitration has existed for parties to circumvent the expense of Court litigation for many decades now. If these parties wanted to have their disputes resolved on the Basis of the Teachings of the Book of Mormon, they would be free to do so for the same reasons.

One party is being FORCED into ""religious"" arbitration.. One party does not agree with BIASED decisions..

Hmmm.. why?

comon smartypants..

why is Shariah being forced over proper American Law?

hmmmm?

BT,

I think some of the issues have been muddied.

I think it's dangerous for the courts to enforce any sort of religious law.

Does that mean I'm against arbitration? No. If the two parties to a dispute agree that Imam Abdullah, who is an expert in Sharia law, can settle a particular dispute, I'm all for it. We are assuming, of course, that the area under contention is not a human right that is not negotiable. For example, no court under any circumstances would enforce the agreement of a father to marry off his daughter.

But, the point of arbitration is, you choose the arbitrator, and the arbitrator makes the decision. If you don't agree with the arbitrator, you're SOL. Better luck next time, and choose your arbitrator with more care.

So, if Imam Abdullah decides on a property dispute that the two parties have agreed he should arbitrate, I have no problem. The court will enforce the decision of the arbitrator, and that will be that.

What upsets me no end is that the court took it on itself to supervise whether Sharia law was in fact followed. A US court has no business whatsoever deciding any dispute under any law but US law. Note the language of the decision:

"The remainder of the hearing will be to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter."

In my opinion, it is plain unconstitutional for a US court to supervise whether a proceeding follows a religious law. And, incidentally, I feel the same way for enforcing the laws of any other religion. The Amish can agree to settle their affairs through a religious court, and can use the power of the US courts to enforce the decision, as long as it was clear beforehand they both agreed to the religious court.

What they cannot do is to ask the court to look over the shoulder of the religious arbitrator. Remember, the benefits of arbitration is, it relieves the courts of the burden of trying the cases. If the courts have to approve the decision, the benefits of arbitration are gone.

Note that I'm not necessarily singling out Muslims. No US court should ever decide according to religious law. Religious arbitrators should be treated as arbitrators. Their decisions may be enforced, but may not be supervised, except in the case of obvious conflict-of-interest.

In sum, I find it very upsetting that a court would agree to supervise the following of Sharia law, under any circumstances. The two parties may agree on an arbitrator, who they assume will follow Sharia law. The decision of the arbitrator is enforcible, but not subject to review.

Of course, if the two parties had not previously agreed to religious arbitration, the court decision is entirely and unequivocally outrageous and blatantly unconstitutional.

And apparently you have no idea how islame law,ergo sharia works either..You are as tool-ic as the judge in this case..

The islame-ic "judge" has TONS of power! Are you insane? He can tell them to kill,rape,maim etc etcetera..Anything! U.S. Law means NOTHING to these people! Wake up and go to sleep right..

//One party is being FORCED into ""religious"" arbitration..//

Courts enforce contracts. That party is no more forced into religious arbitration than you are forced to pay your credit card bills. If you enter into a contract, you are obliged to act in accordance with your duties under that contract.

Presumably both parties entered into the arbitration agreement for the purpose of resolving dispute under Islamic Law. If they find they do not like their predicament under the terms of the contract at a later point, they are stuck with the contract.

In your expert opinion, are the parties in 'cahoots'?

yes or no

regardless of the issue.. why ask ask a non-muslim kafir judge to rule on the validity of islam?

last time I checked, muslims don't ask for kafir permission to work out islamic problems..

unless..

//The islame-ic "judge" has TONS of power! Are you insane? He can tell them to kill,rape,maim etc etcetera..Anything! U.S. Law means NOTHING to these people! Wake up and go to sleep right..//

The Islamic Arbitrator can tell his Muslim patrons in the course of Arbitration to kill, rape, and maim.

In that case, the arbitration "awards" will not be upheld since it calls for illegal action, and the arbitrator will be indicted for inciting violence and/or murder.

//"The remainder of the hearing will be to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter."//

I don't think this is particularly unusual. I took it to mean that the Court will make sure that the procedures agreed to resolve the dispute in the arbitration agreement will be followed, per the order - not that the Judge will supervise to make sure the arbitrator properly applies Islamic Law.

it's already happened...

http://bahairants.com/appeal-court-decision-us-nsa-loses-again-509.html

In 1966 Mason Remey and the NSA Under the Hereditary Guardianship brought forward a case agains the NSA of the Baha’is of the US. They were attempting to wrest control of the Wilmette temple and assets from the NSA. They lost but the NSA followed up with a counter litigation strategy that sued them for infringing on the “Baha’i” trademark.

The court found in the favor of the NSA and ruled that Mason Remey’s organization couldn’t use the name Baha’i as that belonged to the NSA. I made fun of this ruling because it defies any and all legal precedent as well as good old common sense. In summary, it has no validity since you can not trademark common terms like Christian, Jew, Baha’i, Muslim, etc. Various factions, like for example the Protestant and Catholic churches use the common term of “Christian” or “church” with equal freedom.

---

had to do it again...

Collusion produces precedent..

I don't think the Hubbard joke is funny Wellington.. Scientologists are exempt from Obamacare, along with muslims.. but not Christians..

funny that..

//regardless of the issue.. why ask ask a non-muslim kafir judge to rule on the validity of islam?

last time I checked, muslims don't ask for kafir permission to work out islamic problems..//

The Florida judge was not asked to rule on the validity of Islam. He was asked to enforce a contract. The Islamic Law is up to the Muslims to apply.

//At the bottom of the document Robert says, as usual, "Thanks to all who sent this in". Where did all of them obtain this document? How can someone obtain such court documents? What about the privacy of the parties?//

With a few extremely narrow exceptions, anything you file with the courts, including any judgments entered against you, is a public document. Most Court systems even have websites through which you can access and read the latest decisions.

so why ask a kafir to validate an islamic contract?

shariah doesn't allow for kafir permission...

The Islamic Arbitrator can tell his Muslim patrons in the course of Arbitration to kill, rape, and maim.

In that case, the arbitration "awards" will not be upheld since it calls for illegal action, and the arbitrator will be indicted for inciting violence and/or murder.

Good enough..but then take it a step or two further..Muslims..many many muslims..are VERY upset now that a VERY highly respected and VERY much loved Imam,AND the "winner" of the case, have now been prosecuted and actually CONVICTED! of following islameic law! Oh the gall of these American courts! blah blah and so on..
Time for even MORE terrorism now..Right?
And don't say I'm being too hypothetical..I'm not..

TheSSBlock,

I think you're missing one point:

"That Islamic Judge, is the arbitrator of the dispute. When parties enter in an arbitration agreement, they select the person that will apply their choice of law to the dispute at hand - that person is the arbitrator."

I agree that any parties to a dispute have the right to agree on an arbitrator and have the arbitrator decide the case according to rules that they agree on...and, within the bounds of US law, the decision of the arbitrator should be enforcible by the courts.

However, note that in this case, the court not only reaffirms enforcement of the arbitration decision: the court TAKES IT ON ITSELF TO SUPERVISE THE APPLICATION OF SHARIA LAW.

I think such a course is not only a bad idea: it is blatantly unconstitutional. It is far more dangerous for the courts to recognize Sharia law (as opposed to mutually-agreeable arbitrators who use it) than to recognize, say, Amish law. But the principle is the same: in the case of religious law, the courts cannot be involved in deciding the specifics of the law; only that an arbitrator was chosen fairly and without coercion or misrepresentation.

"The Islamic Law is up to the Muslims to apply"

again.. kafir permission.. where is that in shariah law?

muslims just submitted to a higher power than allah.

hypocrisy alert..

//Good enough..but then take it a step or two further..Muslims..many many muslims..are VERY upset now that a VERY highly respected and VERY much loved Imam,AND the "winner" of the case, have now been prosecuted and actually CONVICTED! of following islameic law! Oh the gall of these American courts! blah blah and so on.. //

If they become involved in terrorist activity or other violent actions they will criminally prosecuted under the applicable state and federal statutes.

It will be a matter of law enforcement at that point, and quite a glaring lesson to America about the general irrationality and inhumane state of Islamic Law.

But does the specter, however real or attenuated, of certain Muslims launching criminal attacks, justify denying the right to parties in a civil dispute to arbitrate their conflict according to their freely negotiated choices of law? I don't think it does.

"I don't think this is particularly unusual. I took it to mean that the Court will make sure that the procedures agreed to resolve the dispute in the arbitration agreement will be followed, per the order - not that the Judge will supervise to make sure the arbitrator properly applies Islamic Law."

TheSSBlock,

You sound pretty rational. But, the interpretation you gave above is clearly not consistent with what the language of the court decision presented: as shown by your quote. Your interpretation directly contradicts the exact language of the document.

//However, note that in this case, the court not only reaffirms enforcement of the arbitration decision: the court TAKES IT ON ITSELF TO SUPERVISE THE APPLICATION OF SHARIA LAW.//

Granted that we only have this brief order to work with, I do not see where in the decision it states that the court will supervise the application of Sharia Law.

# 3 states that the court will make sure that Islamic dispute resolution procedures are followed.

# 2, I presume states the procedures to be followed under the arbitration agreement.

Again, it does not seem that the Court binds itself to supervise anything other than that the terms of the agreement are followed. Nothing in the order says the Court will take any initiative in the substantive aspects of Islamic law.

Not to mention blasphemy alert..Right Muslims? Sharia says they should be killed,normally,but not in this case..They are penetrating the Constitution of the United States of America! alla inshalalalaland!../sarc

Thanks Grungy..

certain muslims?

might as well say certain British Loyalists in 1782..

are things different now?
Only because we have 'collectively' embraced revisionism as legal certitude..

up is down.. evil is good.. there is no such thing as a moral code..

why should there be?

It's all relative.. right?

It's ok, a Judge ruled, so it's correct.. Judges are perfect humans who are never wrong, even if overruled..

the People are never correct, ever..

who are the final arbiters of the Law?

grungyoldvan,

I read the decision you linked to. From what I could see, there was zero reliance on any religious dogma or law for the ruling. It was entirely a matter of property rights, with the court emphasizing the obligation of the courts to avoid deciding on religious dogma:

"In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church), the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."

This decision seems to be an affirmation of the obligation of US courts to stay out of the affairs of religious dogmas.

//It's ok, a Judge ruled, so it's correct.. Judges are perfect humans who are never wrong, even if overruled..

the People are never correct, ever..

who are the final arbiters of the Law?//

I understand the extent of the philosophical and moral implications of Islamic Law being perpetuated in American society.

But the current discussion is about the legal rights of people to resolve their disputes pursuant to civil remedies courts have recognized for many years. Is American law the ultimate end of Justice? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not.

Is this order against precedent and American jurisprudence? No, it is not. It is very standard and typical.

TheSSBlock:

"# 2, I presume states the procedures to be followed under the arbitration agreement."

The provisions of #2 state "Under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law, pursuant to the Qur'an, Islamic brothers should..."

Now, to me that's the definition of Sharia: "Ecclesiastical Islamic Law, pursuant to the Qur'an"

If you can think of another term to describe the phrase, let me know.

Then, #3, clearly referring to #2, goes on to state "the remainder...will be to determine whether ISLAMIC (emphasis added) dispute resolution procedures have been followed..."

The decision does not state "to determine whether agreed-upon procedures have been followed." It is difficult to conclude anything other than that the court has taken upon itself to interpret and enforce Sharia law directly, rather than to merely enforce the decision of an arbitrator.

//It is difficult to conclude anything other than that the court has taken upon itself to interpret and enforce Sharia law directly, rather than to merely enforce the decision of an arbitrator.//

It really is not that difficult. It just so happens in this case that the arbitration procedures to be enforced are contained in the Qur'an and further memorialized in the agreement.

Therefore, enforcing the obligations to follow those procedures involves references both to the arbitration agreement (which agrees to use Qur'anic law), and to the Qur'an, from which the procedures are derived.

If two parties, for example, agreed to have their dispute resolved in arbitration pursuant to what the Oracle at Delphi determined was the appropriate course of action through an analysis of secret and divine messages as revealed in grains of sand, a court that subsequently orders these rituals to be followed is not, by implication or otherwise, binding itself to supervise and master the art of reading sand.

Nothing in the order indicates the court has taken it upon itself to interpret Sharia. The language simply isn't there.

I am butting in very late here, but from a lay perspective, let us say that the parties are told by the Muslim arbiter that one has the weaker position than the other, party two.

Party one expects more concessions from party two, and party two feels more obligated to offer them, since, he is told that Islamicly, party one has the stronger position. Since shari'a law is so very complicated, as we are told, and since clearly every Muslim in the U.S. doesn't know all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence inside and out (remember, it takes a MUSLIM SCHOLAR as we are told ad nauseum), they hammer out a deal from this position.

They go back to the FL judge, and the parties attest that they made their agreement in accordance with shari'a law. The deal is approved. Then, later, party two learns from learned scholars (Muslim ones, of course) that he's been had. The regulation to which the arbiter had referred didn't mean any such thing as he had been told. In fact, it was the opposite meaning and he's been taken advantage of, or even unintentionally disadvantaged.

He and his (now secular, probably Jewish :) attorney go back to the FL judge and say that the arbitration was made under false pretenses.

What, praytell, is the U.S. judge going to use to decide if the shari'a deal was made properly or improperly? This allows for these matters to be considered on appeal, do they not?

What if the deal is made improperly under the wrong Islamic shari'a "statute" and a third party objects? What about precedence?

I agree about contracts, provided (as is standard in most business contracts) that the arbiter is decided ahead of time. However, not all contracts are signed where both parties feel free to reject the arbitration stipulation on its face, in advance. A female in the business arrangement, for example, may feel that stipulation is one she must agree to, even though she knows full well that in some ways, it may place her at a disadvantage as a result of her gender, her very status as her own person (married, unmarried, never been married, divorced, children become apostates or cause fitna in the close community, any number of things).

In America, except where one might suspect contracts to be made under duress ("I promise to use Vito's Garbage Collection, Vito's Catering, Vito's Liquor, Vito's Valet Service...gulp!"), it is assumed that both parties are free to choose, sanely enter into the contract under their own volition, etc.

But it is equally assumed that contracts can only be made where the terms and conditions of the contract are all legal. Agreeing to arbitration by a party who will enforce aspects of shari'a that do not comport with U.S. law, for example, and then having to use shari'a to decide the settlement, somehow doesn't seem right. What if two parties decide that a game of Russian Roulette will be used in the event arbitration is necessary. (Stay with me.) One party might become severely disadvantaged by the decision of arbiter, even though both were so enamored with their new business partner's expertise and acumen they chose that method due to the unlikelihood of the whole thing ever falling apart. Yet now they sit, with a third party bringing them the gun. The first party petitions a Florida judge for secular arbitration, he's changed his mind, he no longer likes the rules and possible outcomes of a narrow field of "decision outcomes." He thinks his chances are better with a FL arbiter. The judge tells him, no, you agreed to Russian roulette, now go pick up the gun and take your lumps.

Arbitration done by outside parties are nearly always using remedies that are legal and ethical under U.S. law. Are we sure that arbiters using a decision-matrix from international law should be allowed to impose those restrictions and parameters on the parties?

I am open to the arguments; I just wanted to throw it out there. This is worse exponentially of course if family law is under contest, as it has been used for a decade in Texas. I would not want to be a divorced Muslim woman in those counties.

http://bahai-library.com/bahais_vs_new-mexico_covenant-breakers

Two separate fraudulent groups in the United States continue to ignore the Federal judgment of 1966 using Bahá'í trademarks. A cursory look at telephone directories since 1966 in which the image of the Bahá'í Temple or use the word "Bahá'í" used by these groups bears this out. Their websites continue this violation and provide legal evidence and sufficient proof of their intent to defy not only secular court justice, but also a strict Bahá'í religious law which commands the faithful Bahá'í to obey the government and violate no law or court decision.

//What, praytell, is the U.S. judge going to use to decide if the shari'a deal was made properly or improperly? This allows for these matters to be considered on appeal, do they not?
//

The provision of any appeals is usually contained within the arbitration process. Some arbitration contracts contain these provisions. Other do not. A Court will typically review arbitration if there are clear indicators that an arbitrator was partial to one party over the other, or if some discriminatory methods or coercive measures were used. In the overwhelmingly majority of cases however, absent very clear indicia that fraud was perpetuated, a Court will not review the law, religious or otherwise, that was employed during the arbitration, even if it was employed incorrectly.

The downside of arbitration is that once you are bound, you are bound even to decisions in which the arbitrator completely botched the law they applied.

If a party wants to avoid such issues, they should contract around terms they find to be acceptable. The general thinking is that if you are freely negotiating, with full information and in the absence of coercion, you are free to enhance or diminish your rights and have nobody to blame but yourself if something goes wrong.

you never mentioned..

are the parties in collusion in your opinion?

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I'm off to read the comments on Robert's exposition on Karen Armstrong's complete submission to Allah.

How long does a universal 'faith' get to trademark it's so called symbols?

I don't remember any Christian denomination owning the cross..

why do you think the westboro lawyers get a free pass to subvert the truth?

why has no court ruled on the validity of the westboro lawyer's faith?

hmmm...?

A Judge may rule on the validity of a faith..

it has already happened.. and factual Judeo-Christianity is being shunted to the bottom of Precedent..

"After all, the whole basis of arbitration is to save the court time and energy in being forced to otherwise resolve the dispute."

Well I guess two million muslims,if not more,can fake an argument and ask an infidel judge if it's ok if they ask an imam or a' whatever to solve their "dilemma"..After all,a precedent has now been set,.ne'st ce pas? Lawfare extraordinaire en mass..Right SS?

What's to stop them?

Right on James..

//In this case, however, the court held that Islamic law will govern the court's decision to confirm or not confirm the award//

Unless you are making reference to documents in addition to the one cited by the original post, I do not see anything in the order stating that the Court is using, or will rely upon Islamic Law to determine whether or not to confirm to award.

The order appears on its face pointedly silent on this point, which leads me to assume it will use standard, secular procedures applicable in that jurisdiction to determine whether the award is proper.

//The court specifically stated that the procedures were found under Islamic law pursuant to the Qur'an, not pursuant to the parties' agreement.//

If the Qur'an is the basis for the choice of law to be used in arbitration, the safest assumption is that there was a contract of some sort memorializing an agreement to that end. A contract could easily have included terms that all disputes shall be resolved according the laws contained in the Qur'an, and then stated the applicable religious standards.

What you seem to be suggesting is that a Muslim party approached the Court for enforcement of an arbitration award, without any evidence of a contract relegating all disputed claims to arbitration, and the Court, of its own initiative, summarily applied Islamic law, rather than applicable state law, to determine whether or not the arbitration award was appropriate.

Granted, I do not have all the information on this case, but the above scenario seems incredibly improbable if not implausible.

If that is the case, it is certainly beyond the power of a Florid State Court. I reiterate however, that I see nothing in the order to indicate this is the case.

Hi MoBasher..Beautiful..
Just substitute in "Is that means" your "is" to Does and take off your s after means..and all the best!

And SS..Your spelling is remarkable..along with your naïveté..

//Well I guess two million muslims,if not more,can fake an argument and ask an infidel judge if it's ok if they ask an imam or a' whatever to solve their "dilemma"..After all,a precedent has now been set,.ne'st ce pas? Lawfare extraordinaire en mass..Right SS?

What's to stop them?//

I don't really understand what you mean by "can fake an argument."

If they want to resolve their civil disputes through Islamic law, without recourse to the Court system, they can. In that case, they would not bother entering into any arbitration agreements the validity of which can be questioned by a court.

"If the Qur'an is the basis for the choice of law to be used in arbitration"..

Are they muslims?

"If they want to resolve their civil disputes through Islamic law, without recourse to the Court system, they can"

So why didn't they?

//Are they muslims?//

Judging by the caption in the order, I assume they are.

//So why didn't they?//

I don't know. People often disagree, even if it is over contracts both parties signed.

Are you muslim?

Do you have a link to that petition? I am having trouble navigating the Court website.

This is my point however. You state:
A Court will typically review arbitration if there are clear indicators that an arbitrator was partial to one party over the other, or if some discriminatory methods or coercive measures were used.

How is that judge going to notice the indicators if he is not clear on the shari'a? Most Westerners do not notice the daisy chain of intimidation that Muslims use, leading to hellfire or references to Marwan's daughter.

Also, I mentioned what if the a party is innately under duress. You reply buyer beware. Not much comfort for the second-class party, is it?

Thanks for the file. Has a reply been filed?

Not yet.

//How is that judge going to notice the indicators if he is not clear on the shari'a? //

If a party to the arbitration alleges that the arbitrator was being partial to another party or violated public policy to an extent that the arbitration was a sham. For example, Islam's notorious restrictions upon women would more than likely suffice for an invalidation of the arbitration procedure on the public policy ground that women in American law are recognized as equals at law. In fact, I think there were some cases holding that rule.

The judge need not be fluent in Sharia to recognize such partial behavior.

Thanks Gene but no..I'll just send him a kkkoran..just to keep him warm on cold nights..after sparking it up.

Troubling turn of events indeed. It is much worse than the order in original post indicates. What is even more troubling is that the petition asserts that the IEC was not a party to the arbitration.

SSBlock, you are ignoring paragraph 3 of the order, which says that the remainder of the proceeding will be to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures were followed. Who knows if impartiality is even required under those dispute resolution procedures? You'd have to consult the Qur'an or the Hadith to determine that. The court leaves no room for consideration of confirmation issues, such as partiality of the arbitrator, under the applicable secular arbitration code.

Yet, wait until clan affiliation bears on the outcomes. It doesn't matter. It is the same argument against international law as precedent: its antecedents cannot be reviewed or the circumstances under which the statute, if we call it that, is predicated. These are, of course, religious, circuitous-logic contorted fundamentalists working the law of 700AD. Can we just say no?

Creep creep creeping sharia..creepier still..Tarbaby on the way.Actually already delivered..Thank you Judge Nielson..You stupid F**k..

Thanks for the info James..

James,

I agree that TheSSBlock, for whatever reason, has totally ignored the plainly stated basics of the case, and has made unsubstantiated assumptions as to the agreements between the parties. He also, for whatever reason, has chosen to interpret the words "under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law" as meaning "proceed according to arbitration agreement."

I broke off arguing with him because his repeated and consistent interpretation of words that seemed to mean exactly the opposite did not indicate that we had a common basis for reasoning.

But, I agree that this case represents an outrage in the most explicit terms, and that the judge in the case ought to be impeached and removed from office for gross violations of the most fundamental aspects of US law and Constitution.

//I agree that TheSSBlock, for whatever reason, has totally ignored the plainly stated basics of the case, and has made unsubstantiated assumptions as to the agreements between the parties.//

The reason I made those assumptions:

1) I referred only to the order. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude, on the basis of the order alone, that "this case" refers to the arbitration - and not the ruling upon the confirmation.

2) I was not going to presume that a Judge would apply Islamic law on whim.

Having read other documents in the case, it is now clear that the arbitration contract contained no reference to Islamic Law. Moreover, it is now also clear that the law was referencing the procedural review by the court of the award, and not the actual arbitration.

It is absurd to claim, on the basis of the order alone, that the order is plain and clear, without observing other facts. Given that I was explicitly basing my assumptions on the limited facts contained within the order, my interpretation was reasonable, even if it turned out to be incorrect in light of the other facts of the case.

Gene,

I totally disagree with you, about emailing the judge. And here is the reason.

The US legal system is based on three branches of government. The judicial branch is tasked with the impartial application of laws. It is the job of the legislative branch to take public opinion into account.

The very notion of the Bill of Rights and of judicial review is that the law must be applied without recourse to public opinion. That is a fundamental difference between a constitutional republic, which guarantees rights and procedures to citizens, and a pure democracy, which blows with the wind.

It would be very scary to have a judge respond to popular opinion, since that is exactly what they are not supposed to do. The proper place to express your opinion is to your legislator. The bills to prevent Sharia law from being implemented are the proper expression for outrage at this decision.

However, from my reading of the legal reasoning in the decision and the appeal, the judge pretty much violated US laws anyway. I would support a legislative review of the judiciary if this ruling is allowed to stand in any way, as it patently goes in the face of the First Amendment.

Ok, TheSSBlock,

We'll go another round.

You stated yourself in earlier comments that under arbitration law, once the agreement is made to arbitrate, unless one of the parties can show that the arbitrator was patently biased or that a decision directly conflicts with US law, an arbitrator's decision is enforceable by the courts as is, without further review.

The original decision states in #3 "The remainder of the hearing will be to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter."

Provision #3 clearly indicates that the court is concerning itself with Sharia procedure, and is not simply enforcing the decision of an arbitrator. That indicates that under the most benign interpretation, the court is grossly violating the usual procedures involving arbitration.

In sum, I see no justification for your previous interpretation of provision #3.

All # 3 is saying, albeit in religious terms, is that the parties have agreed to attempt to resolve the dispute personally, and if in having attempted to do so the parties cannot reach a conclusion, the matter will be decided by a third party.

Of course all of that follows from the assumption, which is not applicable to the case, that there was an arbitration agreement memorializing the procedural steps to be taken in accordance with religious mandates.

//Provision #3 clearly indicates that the court is concerning itself with Sharia procedure//

Determining whether the parties commence arbitration pursuant to PROCEDURES they have memorialized in a contract is not tantamount to review of the SUBSTANTIVE aspects of any particular choice of law invoked within that agreement.

In all arbitration disputes which come to a court for review, the court must invariably assess whether the PROCEDURAL steps agreed upon have been followed. That is part and parcel of assessing not only whether the parties are acting in accordance with their obligations under the contract, but whether or not the agreement was justly applied.

A court may, fully within its power, insist that the parties before it follow whatever PROCEDURE they agree upon without in any manner stepping with the bounds of any SUBSTANTIVE dispute.

re: TheSSBlock,

I really shouldn't carry this any further. But,

You state:

"Nothing in # 3 necessitates any SUBSTANTIVE review of Islamic Law."

In #2, in the statement BY THE COURT: "Under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law, pursuant to the Qur'an, Islamic brothers should try to resolve a dispute among themselves..."

If you claim that this is not an attempt to review substantive issues of Islamic law (Sharia) as opposed to the procedural issues of whether an Islamic legal expert was consulted, our logics are completely different.

Well, Mary,

I disagree with you (and perhaps with Spencer.)

"Please be vigilant in eliminating this kind of judicial betrayal and pass legislation prohibiting the use of Sharia law as an alternative to U.S. law."

From what I can see in reading this case, and the other cases referred to, there is already a very strong precedent in US law that the courts ought not concern themselves at all in religious law. If the two sides to a party want to settle a dispute (not a criminal or fundamental rights matter) according to a religious doctrine, they are free to formally engage an arbitrator. However, once subjecting themselves to the alternate law, they are not free to appeal the decision. They are on their own.

So, in my opinion, any legislation forbidding Sharia law in particular will actually weaken our protections against enforcement of religious doctrines, since it implies that other religious doctrines can creep in somehow.

I prefer a more general mandate that under no circumstances will a US court use any law other than US or state law as a point of reference for any decision. That would shore up the strength of our legal system, since this is a very strong rule binding our courts already.

The real fight is over immigration anyway.

Your wife must be very interesting then. :)

Yours, too!

//Did the plaintiffs and defendant in this case have an agreement to submit their dispute to binding arbitration or, since they were both trustees of the Islamic Center and the dispute involves Center funds, were there bylaws of the organization which required disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration?//

According to the petitioner's request for a writ of prohibition there was in fact an arbitration agreement.

However, Petitioner does make the following contentions:

1) The agreement did not specify Islamic law as the means of resolving the dispute.
2) The IEC (The Islamic Educational Center)was not a party to the arbitration agreement.

If what the Petitioner states is correct, it seems the Court's decision to apply Islamic Law to the decision of whether or not to confirm the arbitration award was not only unconstitutional, but whimsical and arbitrary.

And here it is:

http://www.4shared.com/document/RW5GFSX_/110308_Petition_for_Writ_Of_

Sir,

Only if you learn how to listen and have a complete understanding of the laws of physics

//So...does this mean that muslims in this country can agree to use sharia law to settle their disputes and then, if anything goes awry, to use the power of our courts to enforce their sharia? So they're just using OUR law to enforce THEIR law?//

George, not exactly. Arbitration is a creature of contract. Awards resulting from arbitration conducted pursuant to an agreement to arbitrate can be confirmed by the courts under an extension of normal contract principles. Courts routinely require a party to specifically perform the obligations it assumed under a contract. Accordingly, the rule is: if you agreed to be bound by an arbitration award, and an award was issued, you must live with it. These contract principles have been somewhat circumscribed by the policy favoring arbitration agreements found in the Federal Arbitration Act and the various state arbitration codes. Those laws provide that the courts are not to re-examine the arbitrator's reasoning, which normally means that the court is not to examine the substance of the law applied by the arbitrator. So, referring to your example in the post above, the court would not be required to first wade through the Space Federation Law before it could confirm Mr. Nimoy's arbitration award. And, referring to your question that I quoted above, the parties would be using secular law to enforce their agreement, not to enforce their foreign laws.

All that being said, this is not what the court's order calls for in the case at issue. The above order provides that the court will use Islamic law to enforce the agreement by examining whether the award that resulted from the agreement was obtained according to Islamic dispute resolution procedures, which the court interpreted from the Qur'an. The court is not going to examine the award under the requirements for confirmation of awards found in the Federal Arbitration Act or the Florida Arbitration Code, but will instead examine the award under the requirements found in the Qur'an.

Yes, I read the petition and found those two allegations very troubling. However, the link did not reproduce any of the exhibits to the petition which would have been very illuminating. Perhaps, James could provide a link to the exhibits. Certainly, if the agreement did not call for the application of Islamic law to the arbitration, this order is very troubling indeed.

Cheeky !

I would hate to imagine how prolix and tedious this post would be if the gentleman DID want to "bore everybody with a lot of case citations" and offered DETAILED specifics, rather than "just an outline of the general principles of American law"! No wonder court cases drag on for years--in real life, not just in Dickens's "Bleak House." "Legalese" and clarity are usually mutually exclusive. But maybe that's why we see so much of the former and so little of the latter in our courts. Who would eagerly take a case that reached a concise, definitive resolution on the first try, and offered just 10 or 12 billable hours? The Constitution is remarkable for its clarity and brevity, among other things--virtues seldom seen in today's laws, suits, and court rulings.

That having been said, this judge's ruling is an outrageous violation of his oath and his duty. Would it be acceptable for a priest to claim Benefit of Clergy, and demand immunity from our state and Federal laws, in order to be tried and judged in a Vatican court under Canon Law? That was one of the major triggers of the Reformation, if I recall. I doubt it would hold water here and now. If the Moslems in this case agreed to settle their dispute under Sharia with a Moslem arbitrator, then why did it end up in a Florida court at all? This is an extremely dangerous precedent; and if allowed to stand, will undoubtedly be the first step down a slippery slope. Shame on all who see no problem with it, and feel no alarm.

Forgive me, for being so. I've read all of the responses to the subject matter.

Whitehunter,

OUTSTANDING !

James, your response is much appreciated, thank you. I think I understand that you're saying that the court is ruling on the agreement itself. But it seems to me that it goes much further than that. Sorry to be so thick-headed, but...

If an agreement between parties stipulates that "islamic conflict resolution per the qoran," is the method of settlement--and the court interprets and enforces this--which I believe this document says in paragraphs 2 and 3--then isn't the court, in effect, enforcing
sharia law in this case?

And, I look at paragraph 2 and wonder just who an "islamic judge" is? If the agreement were in-place and an arbitrator was named, why all the alternatives, "the greater community of muslims within the mosque," or the "greater muslim community?" That sounds pretty vague to me. Is there an arbitrator in place here or isn't there?

Sorry, it still looks to me (admittedly a none-too-smart layman)as if the court is recognizing and enforcing sharia law in this case. And, despite all the legalese here, I can't read that document without coming to that conclusion. And I find it troubling, to say the least.

Thank you again, James...

G

George,

I don't disagree with you. No matter how you slice it, by the plain terms of the order, the court interpreted the Qur'an in paragraph 2 of the order and, in paragraph 3, stated that it would to impose its interpretation of the Qur'an on the parties to decide the motion to confirm the arbitration award.

//If an agreement between parties stipulates that "islamic conflict resolution per the qoran," is the method of settlement--and the court interprets and enforces this--which I believe this document says in paragraphs 2 and 3--then isn't the court, in effect, enforcing
sharia law in this case?//

Yes,if the agreement were so vague as to the procedures that were to be followed and required the court to review and interpret the Qur'an to determine whether it could confirm the award, then I believe the court would not have jurisdiction to confirm the award.

//And, I look at paragraph 2 and wonder just who an "islamic judge" is? If the agreement were in-place and an arbitrator was named, why all the alternatives, "the greater community of muslims within the mosque," or the "greater muslim community?" That sounds pretty vague to me. Is there an arbitrator in place here or isn't there?//

Terrific point. I think this point is a strong counter to the presumptions made in earlier posts that the language in the order simply recites the provisions of the arbitration agreement between the parties.

American Exceptionalist,

Thanks very much for providing a detailed background of the matter. It is very interesting. You pointed out you would have to know more about the specifics of this case, but the background information is very valuable.

James,

OK, I feel a little less "out-in-left-field" on this based-on your informative responses.
I'm off to a niece's birthday party--thank you again & I hope to interact with you here in the future.

Regards!

G

I'm afraid you miss the point. The concern is not that the courts are intruding into religious doctrine, it is that Sharia law, which enforces Islamic principles of Muslim supremacy, inequality of the sexes, plunder and abuse of non-Muslims, etc., will be intruding into our legal structure and being enforced despite being contrary to our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights (and, no, state laws cannot disregard or oppose the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights either). Sharia law is incompatible with U.S. law and should not be an alternative system within the system.

Regarding whether Sharia law can rule a contract, one basic thing about U.S. contract law (that any real businessman will know) is that one of the requirements for an enforceable contract (in U.S. courts) is that it be for something legal, that the provisions are not illegal. You cannot enforce a contract in the courts for murder. You cannot enforce a contract in the court for underage sexual molestation/rape of a minor. You cannot enforce a contract for sexual discrimination. You cannot enforce a contract for fraud, etc., etc., etc. These actions may be legal under Sharia law, but they are UNENFORCEABLE contract provisions under U.S. law.

Very much appreciated your 7:58 P.M. post from yesterday, grungyoldvan. Well written indeed. Funny too. My compliments. And may all of us who oppose Islamic supremacist designs, even though we may differ on certain particulars at times, never lose sight of the real goal out there, i.e., exposing Islam for all the horrors it contains with the bulk of humanity finally realizing this and saying "no more" to the worst religion ever.

SSBlock I hear what you are saying about arbitration and the two parties agreeing on it but instances like this whereby one party has no interest in arbitration especially under Sharia poses a problem. One is calling for decision to be made under the civil courts, and another party calling for the decision under Sharia. It becomes much more problematic, and what Wellington has been saying all along that this is going to become very complicated but in fact can be resolved. Many of these issues are going to come before the Supreme Court. Islam from what I am seeing will cause much havoc here because they are issues that have never been brought before our courts before. The example of Rafiq Barry comes to mind. The family courts seemed to be confused as to the need to protect Rafiq because they were ignorant of the dangers before her. It all seemed like an ordinary wayward juvenile case but it was far from that. We know that Sharia would have been the arbiter as to what would happen to her but Spencer and Geller gave witness as to what was really going on here. So the question bids asking who comes first in this case the party asking for civil court decision or the party asking for Sharia arbitration? I would see it being quite clear our civil courts would have to decide the case in this dispute. Any other choice would cause mayhem. This in fact would be the slippery slope. It seems to me that this is just what this judge has begun.

>So the question bids asking who comes first in this case the party asking for civil court decision or the party asking for Sharia arbitration?

You answered your own question

>but instances like this whereby one party has no interest in arbitration especially under Sharia poses a problem. One is calling for decision to be made under the civil courts, and another party calling for the decision under Sharia.

If both parties don't agree to arbitration it doesn't happen, onto civil court.
As theSSBlock pointed out in different words, if you want to have some shaman hear and decide a non-criminal case under Wiccian rules, go for it.
They just can't make a judgment to have you cut of the hand of the loser in the case and expect the State to sit by and let you do it, even if the one getting his hand cut off is cool w/it.
At that point it's a criminal act no matter what the arbitration said.

A lot of pppl here are getting hysterical because they see the word sharia, but it's really a non-issue.

Actually, the word 'shari'a' does not appear in that court order.

I am personally concerned that:

(a) per item #1, the order states that 'this case'--this case being heard in an American court--will proceed under Eccleisiastical Islamic Law

(b) the judge did not need to include item #2 at all

(c) the judge should have simply declared that the remainder of the hearing would be to determine if the (apparently) previously agreed to arbitration has been fully implemented.

There was no reason to mention Islamic law at all.

IMO

>Actually, the word 'shari'a' does not appear in that court order.

You're right, but it was in the blurb underneath the header so that was enough reason for everyone to get hysterical.

The answer should be obvious, The litigant that chose
Shari'ah, feels, or may even know, that a Shari'ah ruling will favor his case. And probably the reason, the second litigant is opposed to it.

Our preoccupation with, and lawyers trying to provide cojent answers for Shari'ah, will serve to aid it's acceptance into our court system.

Therein lies the problem and therin lies the answer, as well.
Remove the option, remove the bias, remove Shari'ah.

Ecclesiastical Islamic law is Sharia law.

>does this mean that a wife-beating case can be null and void because both parties agreed to it ahead of time?

NO, criminal law trumps civil law.
You can't have an enforceable contract that embodies criminal acts as part of the contract.
I could have a contract with a brothel owner to trade 2oz. of heroin for 4 of his girls to use as sex slaves for my homies for 6 months, and even get the local godfather to arbitrate it if any problems arise, but we damn sure ain't gonna bring it to a State court if we're not satisfied w/t the outcome of the arbitration.

Again, there's no shortage of shit to worry about when it comes to creeping Islamofacsism, but this isn't one of them.

"Again, there's no shortage of shit to worry about when it comes to creeping Islamofacsism, but this isn't one of them."

I have to disagree.

That an American judge has stated--per item #1--that this case (this case making its way through an American court!)--will proceed under ecclesiastical Islamic law is, IMO, a prime example of the kind of shit to worry about when it comes to creeping shari'a.

Why are you ignoring the fact that both sides did NOT agree to extra-legal arbitration via Sharia law: one did, and one did not. Have you read any of the articles about this case? Or are you a Sharia shill?