Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A judge in Tampa, Florida is creating a buzz with a ruling some say shows that shariah law is creeping into America. One look at the alleged ruling shows it is suspicious. But is it really an example of shariah coming to America?

According to a document on the website Jihad Watch, Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Nielsen ordered earlier this month that a civil dispute between current and former leaders of a local mosque over who controls funds awarded during a 2008 eminent domain proceeding be decided under “Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.” Below is a copy of the relevant section:



Continues in link...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-shariah-law-just-work-its-way-into-a-florida-court/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
Or big government decided to stay out of this case and let the individuals involved figure it out. The ruling did not apply islamic law, but rather made no judgement. It only states that the courts arent going to decide how the money is divided.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Or big government decided to stay out of this case and let the individuals involved figure it out. The ruling did not apply islamic law, but rather made no judgement. It only states that the courts arent going to decide how the money is divided.
Now it’s not unusual for a dispute to arise within a religious institution and for a court to order a mediation or arbitration, in order to resolve this without the court having to render its own judgment.

But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge.

:huh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
Now it’s not unusual for a dispute to arise within a religious institution and for a court to order a mediation or arbitration, in order to resolve this without the court having to render its own judgment.

But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge.

:huh:
I reread the link. It appears that the judge is saying that since the dispute is within the mosque Sharia law acts as the contract and therefore must be followed. As long as an ordinary citizen does not enter some form of contract with a muslim and specify it will be controlled by Sharia law this ruling will never apply to ordinary citizens.

Im not a legal scholar though. :cheers:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I reread the link. It appears that the judge is saying that since the dispute is within the mosque Sharia law acts as the contract and therefore must be followed. As long as an ordinary citizen does not enter some form of contract with a muslim and specify it will be controlled by Sharia law this ruling will never apply to ordinary citizens.

Im not a legal scholar though. :cheers:
Me neither.. but it does seem pretty strange, when the "separation of church and state" advocates suddenly retreat to the shadows. :lookinup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
Me neither.. but it does seem pretty strange, when the "separation of church and state" advocates suddenly retreat to the shadows. :lookinup:
I dont think that applies. Again, if I sign something that says the church will be the decider in the event of a dispute the court must honor that contract.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
I'm no lawyer either. But I still wonder if members of the Zion Baptist Church took a financial dispute to court, would the judge sign a document instructing the parties to use the Holy Bible to settle their dispute? I doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,476 Posts
I'm no lawyer either. But I still wonder if members of the Zion Baptist Church took a financial dispute to court, would the judge sign a document instructing the parties to use the Holy Bible to settle their dispute? I doubt it.
:agree:

This judge just gave credence to Sharia Law. :down:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
I'm no lawyer either. But I still wonder if members of the Zion Baptist Church took a financial dispute to court, would the judge sign a document instructing the parties to use the Holy Bible to settle their dispute? I doubt it.
I believe there is history of courts defering to laws within the church. Ill see what I can find.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
I'm no lawyer either. But I still wonder if members of the Zion Baptist Church took a financial dispute to court, would the judge sign a document instructing the parties to use the Holy Bible to settle their dispute? I doubt it.
yes they would.
several cases of non intervention in curch affairs.

http://www.charlestonlawreview.org/archive/vol4num4/Johnson2.pdf

This one they did rule http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s155094.pdf

but with this note before the ruling.

Accordingly, if resolution of the property dispute involves a
doctrinal dispute, the court must defer to the position of the highest ecclesiastical authority that has decided the doctrinal point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
yes they would.
several cases of non intervention in curch affairs.

http://www.charlestonlawreview.org/archive/vol4num4/Johnson2.pdf

This one they did rule http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s155094.pdf

but with this note before the ruling.

Accordingly, if resolution of the property dispute involves a
doctrinal dispute, the court must defer to the position of the highest ecclesiastical authority that has decided the doctrinal point.
I think you have found good examples of what I was asking for. There is a very fine difference, though. In the case that the thread is based on, the judge is pointing to Sharia law itself as the arbiter. In the cases you listed, the judge is pointing to "ecclesiastical authority" as the arbiter. This would be essentially religious judges. One points to law itself (Sharia law) and the other points to men (ecclesiastical authorities) as the arbiters. I will admit it is a fine point.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
I think you have found good examples of what I was asking for. There is a very fine difference, though. In the case that the thread is based on, the judge is pointing to Sharia law itself as the arbiter. In the cases you listed, the judge is pointing to "ecclesiastical authority" as the arbiter. This would be essentially religious judges. One points to law itself (Sharia law) and the other points to men (ecclesiastical authorities) as the arbiters. I will admit it is a fine point.
In sharia law as I have personally seen it used in saudi arabia and had it taught to me by an Imam and Suadi general.
The highest eclesiastical authority is the Imam and the Imams have a ranking within their governance ( think catholic priest-Monsignor, arch bishop-cardnal-etc)
When a known member of the Imam's congregation has a matter of marriage, banking, life or other category (I think there were 9 in total) He is to judge based on one of 4 laws (varying strictnesses--from actual quaran text to people's belief).

reality is to think of this no different than a local elected judge carrying out the rules of a city/state.

If the dispute is between members of opposing mosques or (faiths-- sharia, wahabi-etc) then the strictest text of the quran prevail (that sucks) and the arbiter (judge) is the ruling Imam for the tribal area (think state).

Actually it doesn't seem that hard and it's based on their religious beliefs-- no different than our system is origianlly based on our beliefs founded in Christianity- they just are stuck in the 1800's. And it's easy to apply since all members of these areas are of the same faith.. No different than saying members of the same state have rules of that state applied-- not rules of another state.

Could you imagine if we tried the same religious sets of laws? A souther bapstist minister trying to apply their churches doctrine to --say even a lutheran churches congregation...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
I think you have found good examples of what I was asking for. There is a very fine difference, though. In the case that the thread is based on, the judge is pointing to Sharia law itself as the arbiter. In the cases you listed, the judge is pointing to "ecclesiastical authority" as the arbiter. This would be essentially religious judges. One points to law itself (Sharia law) and the other points to men (ecclesiastical authorities) as the arbiters. I will admit it is a fine point.
In sharia law it is up to the Imam to interpret based on his congreegations sect and tribal beliefs.

I think this was not meant to insert the laws any more than if they had said use Morman laws or Canon law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
More important then any of these "resembling" facts, is the precedence it sets for future outcomes. These things don't happen all at once. They are fed to us in little bitty bite-sized pieces. It is in the future that this precedence may allow more weight and expansion of the law as we know it, in cases surrounding those practicing Sharia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
In sharia law as I have personally seen it used in saudi arabia and had it taught to me by an Imam and Suadi general.
The highest eclesiastical authority is the Imam and the Imams have a ranking within their governance ( think catholic priest-Monsignor, arch bishop-cardnal-etc)
When a known member of the Imam's congregation has a matter of marriage, banking, life or other category (I think there were 9 in total) He is to judge based on one of 4 laws (varying strictnesses--from actual quaran text to people's belief).

reality is to think of this no different than a local elected judge carrying out the rules of a city/state.

If the dispute is between members of opposing mosques or (faiths-- sharia, wahabi-etc) then the strictest text of the quran prevail (that sucks) and the arbiter (judge) is the ruling Imam for the tribal area (think state).

Actually it doesn't seem that hard and it's based on their religious beliefs-- no different than our system is origianlly based on our beliefs founded in Christianity- they just are stuck in the 1800's. And it's easy to apply since all members of these areas are of the same faith.. No different than saying members of the same state have rules of that state applied-- not rules of another state.

Could you imagine if we tried the same religious sets of laws? A souther bapstist minister trying to apply their churches doctrine to --say even a lutheran churches congregation...
Interesting stuff. Personally, I wish disputes would be settled based on Federal, State and Local laws. If the dispute doesn't involve those laws, it shouldn't be before a court in the first place. If religions have dispute resolution systems built in, they should use them instead of the courts.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top