Florida judge uses Sharia law in decision

[IAteYourMother]

haiguise, i just dropped by to laugh at the OP.

 

[actuarial]

I understand the issue- 2 parties agreed to use a certain set of rules for their contract.

Regardless if the 2 parties agreed to use sharia law or not, I disagree with a state judge making a decision based on religious law.

When it comes to matters governed by laws of a certain religion, I think the government needs to stay out of it.

I've going to modify your post to see if you can spot the problem with it.

I understand the issue- 2 parties agreed to use a certain set of rules for their contract.

Regardless if the 2 parties agreed to use these rules or not, I disagree with a state judge making a decision based on the set of rules agreed to in their contract.

 

[momeNt]

Sharia creep
.
.
Sharia creep
.
.
Sharia creep

 

[Infohawk]

Wolfe said it better than I will, but basically I'm in no way defending arbitration. The reason I immediately brought up the consumer issue in those cases was that the threads were about consumer abuse. The goodness or badness of arbitration wasn't even at issue here, it was a question of whether or not the judge making this decision was a case of OMGSHARIA.

If you want to talk about modifying laws that govern the inclusion of arbitration in contracts, I'm totally on board with you. This was only about if the judge enforcing the law as it is currently written was doing so in some sort of surrender or endorsement of Islamic religious law in US courts, and it wasn't.

Again, I just think it's interesting that you immediately talk about fairness in the context of consumer arbitration but then don't worry about it at all (that I see here) when it comes to sharia arbitration. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it just seems like the reason you don't bring it up in one context is a knee-jerk defense of anything Islamic. Both are the kind of contracts most people are not going to want to enter into without some sort of duress / adhesion and added into Sharia is a blatant bias against certain classes of people. So if you agree that both are dangerous, I'll let it go, but this still strikes me as another situation where left-wing positions are compromised by not criticizing Sharia / Islam where it's appropriate.

 

[SagaLore]

I am concerned that radical muslims

:|

Tell us how you really feel.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, I just think it's interesting that you immediately talk about fairness in the context of consumer arbitration but then don't worry about it at all (that I see here) when it comes to sharia arbitration. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it just seems like the reason you don't bring it up in one context is a knee-jerk defense of anything Islamic. Both are the kind of contracts most people are not going to want to enter into without some sort of duress / adhesion and added into Sharia is a blatant bias against certain classes of people. So if you agree that both are dangerous, I'll let it go, but this still strikes me as another situation where left-wing positions are compromised by not criticizing Sharia / Islam where it's appropriate.

I think Sharia law is a bad system of law that we in the United States shouldn't use. Mandatory arbitration has a lot of potential for abuse, and I believe that laws governing it should be changed. I don't know anything about the details of this case and have no idea if one party was coerced into arbitration or not. If they were, I don't like that either. If they entered into it freely and fairly, I have no problem with it.

I am also not sure how 'adhering to US contracts law' is a 'left wing position'.

That being said, this thread has nothing to do with the contractual nature of Sharia law, it had to do with whether a judge was allowing some undue influence from it into the US system. (and the judge didn't) I don't believe that when I post about an issue that involves Sharia only so far as to acknowledge that it exists, that I need to reiterate how I don't like it each time. If I come off as excusing Sharia on this forum it is almost certainly simply due to the absolute batshit islamophobia that many posters here display frequently. Compared to them I'm sure I appear to be a Muslim apologist, but really I'm just choosing not to act like a crazy person.

 

[Infohawk]

I think Sharia law is a bad system of law that we in the United States shouldn't use. Mandatory arbitration has a lot of potential for abuse, and I believe that laws governing it should be changed. I don't know anything about the details of this case and have no idea if one party was coerced into arbitration or not. If they were, I don't like that either. If they entered into it freely and fairly, I have no problem with it.

I am also not sure how 'adhering to US contracts law' is a 'left wing position'.

That being said, this thread has nothing to do with the contractual nature of Sharia law, it had to do with whether a judge was allowing some undue influence from it into the US system. (and the judge didn't) I don't believe that when I post about an issue that involves Sharia only so far as to acknowledge that it exists, that I need to reiterate how I don't like it each time. If I come off as excusing Sharia on this forum it is almost certainly simply due to the absolute batshit islamophobia that many posters here display frequently. Compared to them I'm sure I appear to be a Muslim apologist, but really I'm just choosing not to act like a crazy person.

Fair enough. Btw the left-wing position is wanting to limit consumer arbitration clauses (again, a position I agree with.)

 

[peonyu]

Sharia creep
.
.
Sharia creep
.
.
Sharia creep

Atleast there wouldn't be interest on loans under Sharia law. Well...That is if you are a Muslim, if your not Muslim you are pretty fucked, but thats what you get for not being a member of the real true faith™ which is also the Religion of Peace™.

 

[sandorski]

Atleast there wouldn't be interest on loans under Sharia law. Well...That is if you are a Muslim, if your not Muslim you are pretty fucked, but thats what you get for not being a member of the real true faith™ which is also the Religion of Peace™.

They copied that from Ancient Jewish Law.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Who is rejoicing? They are just saying that the judge followed the law correctly.

Arbitration is fine if both parties join into it willingly and from equal bargaining positions. It's often bad in consumer law because of the massive disparity in power between the corporation and the consumer, not because arbitration is inherently bad.

also many times the consumer has no choice. they are forced into it.

The consumer is only forced into it; if they originally agree when a purchase/contract is signed.
No one is forcing them to such a contract - it is their free will/choice.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You're still here?

 

[actuarial]

Again, I just think it's interesting that you immediately talk about fairness in the context of consumer arbitration but then don't worry about it at all (that I see here) when it comes to sharia arbitration. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it just seems like the reason you don't bring it up in one context is a knee-jerk defense of anything Islamic. Both are the kind of contracts most people are not going to want to enter into without some sort of duress / adhesion and added into Sharia is a blatant bias against certain classes of people. So if you agree that both are dangerous, I'll let it go, but this still strikes me as another situation where left-wing positions are compromised by not criticizing Sharia / Islam where it's appropriate.

I guess it depends on the situation. If the article was framed as 'husband and wife agree to Sharia arbitration' I would certainly agree with you, as the system specifically discriminates against women which is against the law. If the agreement forced the wife to give up rights that she was not legally allowed to forfeit, I don't think it should apply. I went back to the article and apparently there is a concern with wives wanting equal protection and due process. That is a situation where I think Sharia law does not have a place in the legal system.

I didn't read far into the situation, but it didn't seem to me this was the issue here. If that WAS the issue, I would retract my position that there was nothing wrong with this.

The article also mentions that this is not a novel ruling with respect to civil cases using religious law, though in the past it seems it was primarily Jewish law.

 

[Vic Vega]

State law is what dictated this judge enforce the terms of their arbitration. Sharia law is not superseding state law in any US court.

There really isn't anything more to discuss. This post sums it up.

 

[jman19]

There really isn't anything more to discuss. This post sums it up.

But but but Islam is scary!

 

[woolfe9999]

I guess it depends on the situation. If the article was framed as 'husband and wife agree to Sharia arbitration' I would certainly agree with you, as the system specifically discriminates against women which is against the law. If the agreement forced the wife to give up rights that she was not legally allowed to forfeit, I don't think it should apply. I went back to the article and apparently there is a concern with wives wanting equal protection and due process. That is a situation where I think Sharia law does not have a place in the legal system.

I think you're over complicating it a bit. So long as the parties enter into the deal with full understanding of it and with consent, it is fine unless it conflicts with other laws. No agreement would say "I agree to be discriminated against." That might be against the law, but what does that even mean?

Let's say a man and woman want to get married. The laws of almost every state provide rules for the division of property upon divorce, but also state that those rules only apply absent a pre-nuptual agreement between the parties regarding the division of assets. So the man and woman decide to have a pre-nuputal agreement. Version A says, all property is to go to the husband upon divorce. While that "discriminates" against the wife, she is free to enter into such a lopsided contract if she wishes, and it is enforceable so long as she didn't sign under duress.

Now let's say that the man and the woman are Islamic, and hypothetically Islamic law says, in the case of divorce, the husband gets all the assets. And so they sign a pre-nuptual agreement, but instead of it saying, "upon divorce, the husband gets all the assets," Version B says, "upon divorce, the division of assets is to be governened by the rules of Islamic law." Same exact result as the first case. And it's enforceable for the exact same reason.

Now if the wife signs a contract that says "I freely agree to be whipped and beaten by my husband" then the agreement is void because spousal abuse is a criminal act. And it's going to be void regardless of whether it is framed as an aspect of religious law or not.

- wolf

 

[Patranus]

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?

I thought liberals were all about killing children in the name of "choice".

 

[ElFenix]

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?

contracts. and that's it. this is a staple of contract law. contracting parties can pick the laws they want the contract to be governed by. very common provision.

you and i, despite both being residents of texas, could decide to enter into a contract governed by the laws of mexico. and if i were to sue here in texas state court, i'd ask the judge to apply mexican law. this isn't any different.

 

[actuarial]

I think you're over complicating it a bit. So long as the parties enter into the deal with full understanding of it and with consent, it is fine unless it conflicts with other laws. No agreement would say "I agree to be discriminated against." That might be against the law, but what does that even mean?

Let's say a man and woman want to get married. The laws of almost every state provide rules for the division of property upon divorce, but also state that those rules only apply absent a pre-nuptual agreement between the parties regarding the division of assets. So the man and woman decide to have a pre-nuputal agreement. Version A says, all property is to go to the husband upon divorce. While that "discriminates" against the wife, she is free to enter into such a lopsided contract if she wishes, and it is enforceable so long as she didn't sign under duress.

Now let's say that the man and the woman are Islamic, and hypothetically Islamic law says, in the case of divorce, the husband gets all the assets. And so they sign a pre-nuptual agreement, but instead of it saying, "upon divorce, the husband gets all the assets," Version B says, "upon divorce, the division of assets is to be governened by the rules of Islamic law." Same exact result as the first case. And it's enforceable for the exact same reason.

Now if the wife signs a contract that says "I freely agree to be whipped and beaten by my husband" then the agreement is void because spousal abuse is a criminal act. And it's going to be void regardless of whether it is framed as an aspect of religious law or not.

- wolf

I probably framed my position badly, as I agree with basically everything you wrote.

The one thing I had in mind when posting was the laws surrounding who could enact divorce. After looking it up, it isn't in classical sharia, but in some places the wife cannot unilaterally decide to divorce her husband. I don't think any agreement should take away a woman's right to divorce her husband, even a signed contract saying "I relinquish my right to request a divorce".

I'm also wondering how it would apply with respect to child custody and child support (which Sharia has positions on), and whether a prior agreement would stand up with respect to that.

 

[senseamp]

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.



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.

It's very simple.
You draw the line where Sharia law on a matter is in violation of an actual law, just like you do with any other arbitration. If you agree to go to arbitration and they tell you to kill you daughter or break any other law, you can't do it, Sharia or not. But on matters where there is no law being broken by following it and both parties agreed to use Sharia principles for arbitration, the law requires the judge to enforce that contract.

 

[OutHouse]

contracts. and that's it. this is a staple of contract law. contracting parties can pick the laws they want the contract to be governed by. very common provision.

you and i, despite both being residents of texas, could decide to enter into a contract governed by the laws of mexico. and if i were to sue here in texas state court, i'd ask the judge to apply mexican law. this isn't any different.

man i love it when you bust out the lawyer and give solid 100% correct info concerning laws. not to mention smacking TH up side the head.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I thought liberals were all about killing children in the name of "choice".

They're for killing some cells that don't even have a brain yet. Conservatives are the ones that don't give a crap about babies once they're born.

 

[piasabird]

The judge should have ordered the paintiff to be beheaded. Then he could have also ruled that the wife and children have no property rights and kick them out on the streets with no money. This gets kind of stupid after a while.

 

[dabuddha]

OP: You sound like a typical reporter trying to stir up something out of nothing lol.

 

[jman19]

The judge should have ordered the paintiff to be beheaded. Then he could have also ruled that the wife and children have no property rights and kick them out on the streets with no money. This gets kind of stupid after a while.

Posts like this get kind of stupid after a while.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Posts like this get kind of stupid after a while.

Only after a while? LOL