Florida judge uses Sharia law in decision

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Before we begin, I support each persons right to worship as they want, as long as their worship does not harm someone else, and they follow state and federal laws.

Two people entered into an agreement and agreed to use sharia law. The two people could not come to an agreement, so things went to a Florida court.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...gh-judge-from-considering-islamic-law/1198321

The judge has been accused of using sharia law in his decision.

An appeals court refused to overturn the decision.

Related forum thread about students in Britain demanding sharia compliant loans - http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2197623

How can a judge use a law that has not been passed by the state or federal government when deciding a case?

I am concerned that radical muslims will try to setup a sharia legal system in the USA. Where muslims have one set of laws, and everyone else has another set of laws.

Parts of London are fighting the encroachment of sharia law, will the US be next?

Related youtube video about London - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN6CHtGGo4g

Would you consider this case an encroachment of sharia law into the US legal system?
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
Before we begin, I support each persons right to worship as they want, as long as their worship does not harm someone else, and they follow state and federal laws.

Two people entered into an agreement and agreed to use sharia law. The two people could not come to an agreement, so things went to a Florida court.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...gh-judge-from-considering-islamic-law/1198321

The judge has been accused of using sharia law in his decision.

An appeals court refused to overturn the decision.

Related forum thread about students in Britain demanding sharia compliant loans - http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2197623

How can a judge use a law that has not been passed by the state or federal government when deciding a case?

I am concerned that radical muslims will try to setup a sharia legal system in the USA. Where muslims have one set of laws, and everyone else has another set of laws.

Parts of London are fighting the encroachment of sharia law, will the US be next?

Related youtube video about London - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN6CHtGGo4g

The two parties reportedly agreed ahead of time to use an imam and Islamic Law to resolve any potential differences through arbitration.

So two private parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate by a certain set of rules, and the judge used the previously agreed on terms of arbitration to settle the dispute.

Why is this a problem again?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
This is nothing more than a judge deciding if the agreed upon terms for arbitration were properly followed or not. OMG Sharia Law!!!1 not found.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Why is this a problem again?

So muslims can have 2, 3, 4 or even 5 wives, because the husband and wife agreed their marriage would be governed by sharia law? Women can be forbid the right to vote because sharia law says so? Its ok to kill a child who brought shame to the family, because the family agreed to live under sharia law?

I see a problem with judges using sometime besides state law to make their decision.

We have laws for a reason, if people can circumvent those laws at whelm, what is the use in having them?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
State law is what dictated this judge enforce the terms of their arbitration. Sharia law is not superseding state law in any US court.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
So muslims can have 2, 3, 4 or even 5 wives, because the husband and wife agreed their marriage would be governed by sharia law? Women can be forbid the right to vote because sharia law says so? Its ok to kill a child who brought shame to the family, because they family agreed to live under sharia law?

I see a problem with judges using sometime besides state law to make their decision.

Of course they can't, that would violate state law. Are you claiming that the terms of arbitration agreed upon violated a state law? Which one?

You do realize that judges rule on arbitration all the time and that in many cases this arbitration has rules that have nothing to do with state law, right? It's just an agreement between two parties that the judge is enforcing.

If we had a contract that had a stipulation where we resolved our differences through arbitration, in that same contract we could set up the rules for arbitration. If we ended up having that dispute arbitrated by a judge, he would rule based on the terms that we set up so long as they didn't run afoul of state or federal law. This isn't the judge basing his ruling on eskimiospy-sharia or anything like that, it's him enforcing the terms of a contract.

I still don't see the problem here other than OMGMUSLIMS.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
State law is what dictated this judge enforce the terms of their arbitration. Sharia law is not superseding state law in any US court.

Like I asked in my above post, if there is an agreement to follow a set of rules outside state law, where do you draw the line?

Can a wife be denied the right to vote if the husband and wife agreed to use sharia law in the marriage?

Can a father kill his daughter if the family agreed to follow sharia law, and the daughter was not a virgin on her wedding night.

Can a husband have more then 1 wife if the husband and wife agreed the marriage would follow sharia law?

And the list goes on and on.

After all, the family agreed to use sharia law, so the judge has to uphold that agreement.

Of course they can't, that would violate state law.

But the people agreed to use a system outside state laws, so the judge has to uphold the agreed set of rules.

If the judge can use laws outside the state law, where do you draw the line? Only when the two sets of laws conflict? But the people agreed to use laws outside the state law.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
Like I asked in my above post, if there is an agreement to follow a set of rules outside state law, where do you draw the line?

Can a wife be denied the right to vote if the husband and wife agreed to use sharia law in the marriage?

Can a father kill his daughter if the family agreed to follow sharia law, and the daughter was not a virgin on her wedding night.

Can a husband have more then 1 wife if the husband and wife agreed the marriage would follow sharia law?

And the list goes on and on.

You draw the line when any term of the agreement violates a state or federal law.

State and federal law already covers who has the right to vote and does not provide an exemption for religious marriage. Therefore an agreement barring someone from voting would violate state law.

Murdering someone is a violation of state law, therefore an agreement that allowed someone's murder would be invalid.

Bigamy violates state law, therefore polygamous marriages would be invalid.

The distinction is really simple in this agreement, and it's the same basis that we use for every other agreement, religious or not. You can make a deal with any terms you feel like so long as it doesn't violate the law. In this case, they decided to arbitrate based on a certain set of rules. Unless you can show how these rules violated state law, why would the judge invalidate them? Why wouldn't people have the right to set the terms for their arbitration so long as they were within the law?

But the people agreed to use a system outside state laws.

If the judge can use laws outside the state law, where do you draw the line? Only when the two sets of laws conflict?

Yes of course you only draw the line when the two sets of laws conflict. If they aren't doing anything that violates the law, why do you care?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
How is this any different from any other agreement by two parties where one party is in breach of contract and the other party pursues the remedies/arbitration outlined in said agreement?
 

Jeeebus

Diamond Member
Aug 29, 2006
9,181
901
126
Op is being a bit obtuse here. Since I need to run out to court, I don't have time to read the entire article, but parties are free to make their contracts governed by the law of any state or country of their choosing. That said, it is a common principle of any state's laws that parties cannot agree by contract to do that which would be illegal under the forum state's laws.

I know you're trying to ruffle feathers here, but you're doing a piss poor job at it. I'm not seeing anything particularly controversial here based on what I've had time to read (nothing).
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Like I asked in my above post, if there is an agreement to follow a set of rules outside state law, where do you draw the line?

The line is drawn at state law. There are plenty of things people can agree to that are legal and illegal. If people agree to something legal then the terms of that agreement apply as long as they are also legal. If they agree to something illegal or with illegal terms the court nullifies it. There is no separate set of laws being applied.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,356
32,984
136
Op is being a bit obtuse here. Since I need to run out to court, I don't have time to read the entire article, but parties are free to make their contracts governed by the law of any state or country of their choosing. That said, it is a common principle of any state's laws that parties cannot agree by contract to do that which would be illegal under the forum state's laws.

I know you're trying to ruffle feathers here, but you're doing a piss poor job at it. I'm not seeing anything particularly controversial here based on what I've had time to read (nothing).
Texashiker? Obtuse? Shocker!
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
So two private parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate by a certain set of rules, and the judge used the previously agreed on terms of arbitration to settle the dispute. Why is this a problem again?

"Florida law is clear that courts may not decide corporate governance disputes involving religious organizations," the motion said.

I don't know the validity of the arguments made but if the above is true then that's the problem. If the judge ignores the law then that in itself is the real issue.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
I don't know the validity of the arguments made but if the above is true then that's the problem. If the judge ignores the law then that in itself is the real issue.

Well that's why quoting motions by one side or the other in a court case is a pretty universally terrible idea. It's amazing what issues are considered 'clear' by attorneys trying to advance the interests of their client.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Op is being a bit obtuse here.

At least I know the difference between an IP address and a person. :colbert:

1 - I disagree with courts upholding religious laws, there is this little thing called separation of church and state.

2 - If the people enter into an agreement governed by rules and laws outside the US, a judge should not be bound to uphold those laws. We as tax payers pay those judges to uphold "our" laws, and not someone elses laws.

3 - if people agree to use laws from outside this nation, then they should go to a court where the laws reside.

Example - If a party agrees to use Russian laws, then go to Russia and use a Russian court. Our judges and legal system are paid to uphold our laws, not Russian laws.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
At least I know the difference between an IP address and a person. :colbert:

1 - I disagree with courts upholding religious laws, there is this little thing called separation of church and state.

2 - If the people enter into an agreement governed by rules and laws outside the US, a judge should not be bound to uphold those laws. We as tax payers pay those judges to uphold "our" laws, and not someone elses laws.

3 - if people agree to use laws from outside this nation, then they should go to a court where the laws reside.

Example - If a party agrees to use Russian laws, then go to Russia and use a Russian court. Our judges and legal system are paid to uphold our laws, not Russian laws.

1.) They aren't upholding religious laws, they are upholding the terms of an arbitration agreement. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding about this, why don't you think that two parties shouldn't be able to choose the terms of their own arbitration if they don't run afoul of our laws?

2.) They ARE upholding our laws, in this case they are upholding our contract laws.

3.) They would have to if they were using someone else's laws. In this case they are clearly not, as were any of the rules of arbitration found to break Florida's laws they would be considered invalid.

Seriously, why are you against people deciding their own method of settling a dispute so long as those terms are legal under US law? Don't you think people entering a contract should have this right? If this didn't involve Muslims it wouldn't even have merited an article. (the article itself implicitly admits this as it mentions that such agreements under Jewish law happen in the US constantly)

Our judges do uphold our laws, not someone else's.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,349
32,852
136
More right wing hysterics designed to push their narrative.

I'm sure someone at Fox News will cover this nonsense
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
1.) They aren't upholding religious laws, they are upholding the terms of an arbitration agreement.

The people agreed to use sharia law in arbitration.

sharia law is a set of religious laws.

So the judge "is" upholding religious laws.

My opinion, a state judge has no business upholding religious laws, there is this thing called separation of church and state. This needs to go to an arbitrator, and not a state judge.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
The people agreed to use sharia law in arbitration.

sharia law is a set of religious laws.

So the judge "is" upholding religious laws.

My opinion, a state judge has no business upholding religious laws, there is this thing called separation of church and state. This needs to go to an arbitrator, and not a state judge.


The judge can uphold any law from any country that is agreed on between two parties as long as that law doesn't violate any state or federal laws.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Well that's why quoting motions by one side or the other in a court case is a pretty universally terrible idea. It's amazing what issues are considered 'clear' by attorneys trying to advance the interests of their client.

Well that's really how the whole topic runs. Neither you or I nor anyone else knows more than the article says, which is pretty much nothing. If the court followed the law then there is no problem and if not there is. Which of us is privy to the objective truth? Not me and I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just pointing out a potential argument against the ruling. Now if anyone wants to say that if the motion is correct then the judge should ignore the law, be my guest.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
The judge can uphold any law from any country

I have some paperwork at my desk that needs to be done, do you think your boss will mind if you come over here and do it for me?

As long as the paperwork is done, does it matter who is paying your salary?

How can you justify paying our judges to uphold laws from other countries?