• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Florida judge uses Sharia law in decision

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Texas, a great portion of our own law is based on Judeo-Christian precedent.

Screaming for separation of church and state when it comes to anything RESEMBLING Sharia law, but ignoring the whole current system and its incontestable resemblance to J-C law is just laughable.

Summary:

Sharia law used AS the law = Bad
Sharia law used as the guidelines for an agreement that does not violate ANY applicable local, state or federal law = WTFGAS.
 
guyver01 said:
the judge is using sharia law
Click to expand...

And that is what I disagree with.

Due to separation of church and state, I disagree with a judge using religion in a decision for anything.


Ninjahedge said:
Texas, a great portion of our own law is based on Judeo-Christian precedent.

Screaming for separation of church and state when it comes to anything RESEMBLING Sharia law, but ignoring the whole current system and its incontestable resemblance to J-C law is just laughable.
Click to expand...

Even though a lot of our laws are based on christian laws (the bible), the judge does not pull a bible out and say "Jesus said,,,,, and that is my decision."

We have separation of church and state for a reason, and I think this case is an example of that. We can not allow our judges to review religious books for a decisions.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
Due to separation of church and state,...
We have separation of church and state for a reason
Click to expand...


you misunderstand the first amendment. "separation of church and state" does not exist anywhere in the constitution.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...


this does NOT state that various religious texts cannot be consulted when considering judicial decisions.

it states that congress CANNOT pass a law saying XXX religion is the official religion.

it also says that congress CANNOT prohibit the free exercise of religion.

so saying that people cannot follow sharia law ...is against the first amendment.

you're anti-american.
 
Texashiker said:
We can not allow our judges to review religious books for a decisions.
Click to expand...

then you do not believe in MIRANDA.

you do know that the Surpreme Court consulted various religious texts when crafting the decision for MIRANDA..

Chief Justice Warren stated in his own decision:

We sometimes forget how long it has taken to establish the privilege against self-incrimination, the sources from which it came, and the fervor with which it was defended. Its roots go back into ancient times.


"To sum up the matter, the principle that no man is to be declared guilty on his own admission is a divine decree."

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah (Code of Jewish Law), Book of Judges, Laws of the Sanhedrin, c. 18, 116, III Yale Judaica Series 52-53.
 
Texashiker, I don't know if you just don't understand the issues presented or are being wilfully obstinate with your claimed outrage over the judge holding (and the appellate court affirming) that the parties agreement to apply rules of conduct chosen by them in a private matter, rules which do not violate any applicable state law.

PS-from the very little I know about sharia law, in many ways it is very similar to our common law.
 
This is a civil case. It appears both parties agreed to have this type of abritation and now the losers are crying foul. It really isnt any different than if in a contract you agreed to have a designated arbitrator.

If two sides in an arbitration, for example, agree to use Jewish law, then a judge could properly use the Talmud in deciding a case, Wagner said.
Click to expand...
 
Private parties to a contract can agree that the contract is governed by any set of rules. They can agree that the contract is governed by the official rules of the boardgame "Monopoly" if they want to. This is a bedrock principle of U.S. contract law, and it goes back hundreds of years into the British common law from which our system is derived. Today, there are state and federal statutes that codify this rule. ANY system of rules can be agreed upon by the parties so long as they do not otherwise violate the law.
 
Thump553 said:
Texashiker, I don't know if you just don't understand the issues presented or are being wilfully obstinate with your claimed outrage over the judge holding (and the appellate court affirming) that the parties agreement to apply rules of conduct chosen by them in a private matter, rules which do not violate any applicable state law.
Click to expand...

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.
 
guyver01 said:
you misunderstand the first amendment. "separation of church and state" does not exist anywhere in the constitution.





this does NOT state that various religious texts cannot be consulted when considering judicial decisions.

it states that congress CANNOT pass a law saying XXX religion is the official religion.

it also says that congress CANNOT prohibit the free exercise of religion.

so saying that people cannot follow sharia law ...is against the first amendment.

you're anti-american.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this at all. It's a much narrower interpretation of the establishment clause than the SCOTUS has adhered to in the past. The SCOTUS says that if any part of government engages in activity that has the effect of endorsing any particular religion, or religion in general, that is in effect "establishing" a state religion. In other words, it doesn't matter if Congress says by decree "Christianity is our state religion" or if it merely passes a set of rules which make it clear that Christianity is our state religion without actually saying it is. Either way it violates the establishment clause.

The reason "separation of church and state" aka the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment does not apply here as Texaxhiker argues is that a court who is using a set of religious rules to resolve a contract dispute where two private parties have agreed to the use of those rules isn't an "endorsement" of religion by the state. It is just the court mechanically applying the law of the state, which says that parties to a contract are free to agree on whatever set of rules they desire so long as they do not otherwise violate the law.

- wolf
 
Come on man - ATPN has again united in opposition to your view. ATPN!! ATPN never agrees on anything! Take the hint!
 
woolfe9999 said:
I don't agree with this at all. It's a much narrower interpretation of the establishment clause than the SCOTUS has adhered to in the past.
Click to expand...

i agree... but most of the fucktards in P&N like a 'literal interpretation' of the constitution. they all believe they're constitutional scholars and can interpret what people who have been dead for 200+ years where thinking.
 
Contract law could embrace Sharia law, however, since different interpretations of Sharia law and sects of Sharia exist, then the agreement and the enforcement may be too vague to be completely enforceable.

I always wondered how banks are suppose to make money if they cant earn interest under sharia law.
 
"Let's complain about the evils of binding arbitration in consumer contracts but rejoice if it involves Sharia law."

Personally, I think arbitration is pretty much always a nasty thing.
 
Infohawk said:
"Let's complain about the evils of binding arbitration in consumer contracts but rejoice if it involves Sharia law."

Personally, I think arbitration is pretty much always a nasty thing.
Click to expand...

Who is "rejoicing" about a contract containing a "sharia law" provision in it? Sounds like a straw man to me.
 
Infohawk said:
"Let's complain about the evils of binding arbitration in consumer contracts but rejoice if it involves Sharia law."

Personally, I think arbitration is pretty much always a nasty thing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
eskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fine, take out rejoicing then and replace it with defend or tolerate. Do you really think Sharia doesn't have internal disparities either? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam#Sharia_law Do you doubt that a Muslim woman could be compelled to sign an arbitration agreement that might be against her interests?

I'm still seeing the same inconsistencies in attitudes towards Islam that we see in other realms. In other threads that have come up, your first reaction to a decision on arbitration is to worry about the consumers being unfairly treated. Then, but when Sharia law comes up, which probably has more unfairness in it, you don't bring up that concern at all. Is there some reason for that?

And I'm not questioning the legal decision, but I'm still against all forms of arbitration. The fact that people can use Sharia is a good example of why, just like consumer contracts. In fact, given the status of women in Islam, I would say they are probably in even worse bargaining positions than most consumers.
 
Last edited:
Infohawk said:
Fine, take out rejoicing then and replace it with defend or tolerate. Do you really think Sharia doesn't have internal disparities either? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam#Sharia_law Do you doubt that a Muslim woman could be compelled to sign an arbitration agreement that might be against her interests?

I'm still seeing the same inconsistencies in attitudes towards Islam that we see in other realms. In other threads that have come up, your first reaction to a decision on arbitration is to worry about the consumers being unfairly treated. Then, but when Sharia law comes up, which probably has more unfairness in it, you don't bring up that concern at all. Is there some reason for that?

And I'm not questioning the legal decision, but I'm still against all forms of arbitration. The fact that people can use is a good example of why, just like consumer contracts. In fact, given the status of women in Islam, I would say they are probably in even worse bargaining positions than most consumers.
Click to expand...

There is no defending or tolerating either. We're just explaining what is legal in this country and what is not. And we're correct.

So far as a Muslim woman being compelled to sign a contract, under our law that is duress and it voids the contract for lack of true consent. Wouldn't matter if the contract said that Islamic law governed its terms because the contract itself would be invalid. Hence, there is no inconsistency. In any situation where you have extremely uneven bargaining power and/or duress suggesting a lack of consent, you have no contract. That is a totally separate from the question - assuming there is a valid contract, is a "sharia law" provision valid and enforceable.

In any event, there is no duress or uneven bargaining power in this particular case. It's not even alleged by either party. This is a dispute between a mosque and some former members of its board of trustees. Introducing the poor Muslim woman under duress is a red herring, and claiming we defend it is a straw man.

Finally, your focus on arbitration is actually somewhat misplaced here. The OP linked case involves an arbitration clause in a contract, but the issue is broader than that. It has to do with the sanctity of a valid contract. Under the law, parties who enter into a contract freely and fully understanding its terms can agree to anything that doesn't otherwise conflict with other laws. This is enforceable in a court of law as well as by an arbitrater, if the contract says so.

- wolf
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

also many times the consumer has no choice. they are forced into it.
 
Infohawk said:
Fine, take out rejoicing then and replace it with defend or tolerate. Do you really think Sharia doesn't have internal disparities either? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam#Sharia_law Do you doubt that a Muslim woman could be compelled to sign an arbitration agreement that might be against her interests?

I'm still seeing the same inconsistencies in attitudes towards Islam that we see in other realms. In other threads that have come up, your first reaction to a decision on arbitration is to worry about the consumers being unfairly treated. Then, but when Sharia law comes up, which probably has more unfairness in it, you don't bring up that concern at all. Is there some reason for that?

And I'm not questioning the legal decision, but I'm still against all forms of arbitration. The fact that people can use Sharia is a good example of why, just like consumer contracts. In fact, given the status of women in Islam, I would say they are probably in even worse bargaining positions than most consumers.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top