Florida judge uses Sharia law in decision

[Modelworks]

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?

If your boss hired you with the agreement that it didn't matter who did the work then he wouldn't be able to complain.

While you are hung up on them being laws from other countries , the legal system doesn't see it that way. The legal system sees it as an agreement between two people with no legal standing except that it is an agreement between two people.

I can say that I have a new religion called me-ism. Under my religion when two people make a business deal they are required to give each other a thank you card. If I sign a contract with another person and we agree that under our shared religion we agree to send the cards and then one of us does not send the card then a court of law can and will void the contract not because it is a religious law or a law of another country but because that was a term of the contract.

 

[dank69]

If your boss hired you with the agreement that it didn't matter who did the work then he wouldn't be able to complain.

While you are hung up on them being laws from other countries , the legal system doesn't see it that way. The legal system sees it as an agreement between two people with no legal standing except that it is an agreement between two people.

I can say that I have a new religion called me-ism. Under my religion when two people make a business deal they are required to give each other a thank you card. If I sign a contract with another person and we agree that under our shared religion we agree to send the cards and then one of us does not send the card then a court of law can and will void the contract not because it is a religious law or a law of another country but because that was a term of the contract.

You should have to go back to your heathen me-ism country to settle the dispute instead of wasting my tax money.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

This is true. The basis for the agreement is irrelevant as long is your criteria is met. The problem I have is that we are debating based on principle, not the facts of the matter. I was curious if the " Islamic Education Center of Tampa" was a an anti-muslim site, but it appears to be legit. I don't know what to make of the whole thing other than we have two parties using whatever legal means available to get their way, not that there is a real religious objection by either party. This appears to be a means to an end.

 

[Texashiker]

If your boss hired you with the agreement that it didn't matter who did the work then he wouldn't be able to complain.

Do the Florida voters know their elected officials are supposed to uphold laws from other nations?

I dont know about you, but I expect my tax dollars to be spent upholding the laws of Texas (where I live), and not the laws of some other country.

I also see a separation of church and state issue, it is not the governments place to uphold religious laws. The post office does not even observe religious holidays.

 

[Modelworks]

Do the Florida voters know their elected officials are supposed to uphold laws from other nations?

I dont know about you, but I expect my tax dollars to be spent upholding the laws of Texas (where I live), and not the laws of some other country.

Again they are not laws under the USA legal system, they are agreements between two parties.

 

[Texashiker]

they are agreements between two parties.

The agreement between the two parties just happens to be a religious law.

It is not the governments place to uphold religious law. Even if the 2 parties agreed to it, separation of church and state should forbid the judge from making a ruling.

Whats next, sharia law compliant neighborhoods, like a Property Owners Association (POA)?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Do the Florida voters know their elected officials are supposed to uphold laws from other nations?

I dont know about you, but I expect my tax dollars to be spent upholding the laws of Texas (where I live), and not the laws of some other country.

I also see a separation of church and state issue, it is not the governments place to uphold religious laws. The post office does not even observe religious holidays.

You seem to be having very hard time grasping this simple concept. They are not enforcing laws. Thy are upholding an agreement between two parties that did not violate the state law. It's irrelevant how the two parties based their greement. Only if it violated state laws. It didn't. They can base it on Horton Hears a Who if they want.

 

[Thump553]

A whole lot of silly conclusions drawn by the OP here. Perhaps he should get a basic understanding of US confilicts of laws rules before he goes off on these tangents.

 

[Demo24]

Does OP even understand what arbitration even is? Because at this point I have a feeling he doesn't and still doesn't understand what went on in this particular situation.

 

[Jeeebus]

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

You're really not helping your position here, though I am flattered that my legal career has staying power in your memory. FYI, the case you're referring to, both ISPs responded and gave the info we needed without issue. And the info confirmed that one of the defendants had logged into our client's customer database posttermination of employment, confirming our suspicions.

And guess what, i've recently helped someone out that was sued as a jane doe by some media holding company alleging illegal downloads against thousands of anonymous defendants. Trust me, i'm more than adequately familiar with the issues. So why don't we agree as such - you stop pretending to know the law and I promise to never assume I know more about being a dumb hick? Deal?

 

[Texashiker]

You seem to be having very hard time grasping this simple concept. They are not enforcing laws.

The judge is upholding a religious law, which should go against separation of church and state.

They can base it on Horton Hears a Who if they want.

"Horton Hears a Who" is not a religious law.

I am flattered that my legal career has staying power in your memory.

What is your take on the government enforcing a religious law in a contract?

 

[thraashman]

This is no different than if I get a job somewhere and agree to waive my right to sue in place of binding arbitration. If I then felt I got discriminated against or sexually harassed and tried to sue, the company I work for could hold up the document I signed which said I waived those rights and agreed to arbitration. In this case the arbitration both sides agreed to said it would be based on Sharia law. That Sharia law doesn't have any rules in this case where one side's rights within the US or the state of Florida are violated, thus the arbitration agreement is valid. Basically the judge is upholding that the agreed upon terms don't violate US law and therefore the agreed upon arbitration via Sharia law is legal.

It's not that hard to understand.
The US is not being invaded by Sharia law and if someone living under sharia is murdered due to that sharia law, they still violated US law in murdering that person and will be tried for such.

 

[OutHouse]

The agreement between the two parties just happens to be a religious law.

It is not the governments place to uphold religious law. Even if the 2 parties agreed to it, separation of church and state should forbid the judge from making a ruling.

Whats next, sharia law compliant neighborhoods, like a Property Owners Association (POA)?

damn dude what do you want the judge to do? what LAWS have been violated and what LAWS do you want him to enforce?

 

[Modelworks]

"Horton Hears a Who" is not a religious law.

So if the judge enforced an agreement based on Horton Hears a Who , you would have no problem with it ?

Now who is crazy

 

[Texashiker]

damn dude what do you want the judge to do?

Separation of church and state, that is what I want.

I would like to see the judge refuse to enforce any kind of religious law, even if it is in the agreed contract.

sharia law sees a difference in laws of men, and the laws of GOD. sharia law is a law given from GOD to man.

So if the judge enforced an agreement based on Horton Hears a Who , you would have no problem with it ?

I would have no problem with that.

Now who is crazy

Crazy for not wanting a judge to enforce a religious law?

 

[OutHouse]

The judge is upholding a religious law, which goes against separation of church and state.

arbitration is arbitration doesn't matter if it is agreed upon by legal contract or religious law.

If the judge heard a full case and handed down a ruling or sentence based totally upon sharia law for example he ruled that a wife must be stoned to death because she had an affair... THEN i could understand your bitching about separation of church and state.

on a side note i hate islam and in no way am i defending it. im just pointing out that your outrage is misplaced.

 

[Ninjahedge]

This is already on page 2?

Simply said, these guys made a contract. Whether it was based on Sharia law or an episode of the Care Bears, it does not matter so long as none of the stipulations run afoul of governing laws (town, county, State and Federal.)

If the contract required the forfeiture of first born on breach, that might be arguable as illegal, but what exactly was the transgression in this case that prompted the legal action?

You just can't run around crying "FOUL!" when the only perceived infraction was a contextual association with another culture/set of laws.

Are you saying we can't have any laws that coincide with a religious set of laws? (<- bait)

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The judge is upholding a religious law, which should go against separation of church and state.




"Horton Hears a Who" is not a religious law.




What is your take on the government enforcing a religious law in a contract?

Wow you are obtuse. It isn't a decision using any other law beyond the state. The state law asks if the agreement violated any laws of the state. It is using the agreement between the two parties. It doesn't matter how those parties based the agreement. Only if the terms of it violated state law.

My take on the subject is that's not what is happening and you are insane.

 

[Texashiker]

arbritation is arbritatoin

Arbitration is arbitration, then it should go to an arbitrator and not a state judge.

Wow you are obtuse. It isn't a decision using any other law beyond the state.

Do you even know what sharia law is?

 

[Ausm]

You Righties and your constant paranoia of Sharia Law taking over the US reminds me of McCarthyism and the "Red Scourge" scare in the 50's

 

[mchammer187]

Separation of church and state, that is what I want.

I would like to see the judge refuse to enforce any kind of religious law, even if it is in the agreed contract.

sharia law sees a difference in laws of men, and the laws of GOD. sharia law is a law given from GOD to man.




I would have no problem with that.



Crazy for not wanting a judge to enforce a religious law?

By your logic any agreement that has anything to do with religion would be invalid. Suppose they had a subset of Sharia law and called it Bob's Laws and the judge did not know. Would it also be unenforceable.


What if I am under contract to cater a party and provide a "Kosher" meal and I intentionally use pork products. Are you saying they can't sue me for breach of contract since Kosher is derived from religious customs?

 

[guyver01]

Arbitration is arbitration, then it should go to an arbitrator and not a state judge.

did you even read your own article??

Nielsen limited his use of Islamic law to deciding whether arbitration by an Islamic scholar mediating a dispute between the mosque and ousted trustees followed the teachings of the Koran.

The arbitration itself is in dispute, with mosque officials saying it never took place.

 

[HomerJS]

I don't know why people have such a mental block about this.

Two people have a dispute in court. Judge goes to the book of Sharia and rules based on it...bad.


Two people have a dispute in court and have an agreement which happens to be in the book of Sharia. The agreement doesn't violate any US laws and judge rules on agreement...good

 

[Texashiker]

By your logic any agreement that has anything to do with religion would be invalid.

No, that is not what I posted.

Just to clarify things - I feel that an agreement based on religion should go before an arbitrator, and not a judge.

Due to separation of church and state, the state should not be making decisions based on religious law.

When a judge makes a decision, it should be based on state law, and not from a book of religious laws. When judges have to look at books on religion to decide a case, I feel that goes against separation of church and state.

 

[guyver01]

I feel that an agreement based on religion should go before an arbitrator, and not a judge.

it did go to an arbitrator.

the arbitrators ruling is in dispute.

boy you are dense.

the judge is ONLY using sharia law to determine if an Islamic scholar is a valid arbitrator.