09-16-2008, 09:51 AMFebruary 08, 2008
Good News! Shari'a Law in Texas!
Assalam aleikum, y'all!
The Second Court of Appeals of the State of Texas has rendered a ruling on the enforceability of shari'a judgments rendered by imams. According to the Texas appeals court, it's all good.
You've heard of the Texas Courts. Ladies and gentlemen, make way for the Texas Islamic Courts!!!
The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within "Seven Days" from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.
In general, private arbitration agreements are enforceable by government courts. Shari'a arbitration agreements are one type of private arbitration agreement. Without a theory as to why shari'a arbitration agreements shouldn't be enforced by the courts, I'm not sure what else the appeals court could have done in this case. Still, this is not a welcome development.
Last edited by bijou; 09-16-2008 at 09:53 AM. Reason: edited out the formatted word in the original
09-16-2008, 10:23 AM
Orthodox Jews do have their own bodies to rule on many aspects of community life. The reason this more or less flies under the radar is because these rulings only apply to Jews (or very rarely) to the Gentile spouses of Jews. Even so, some of the rulings still have a civil component that needs to be addressed by the state, such as divorce.
At the moment, the situation in the UK wouldn't involve infidels or pagans unless they agreed to bound by the rulings for some reason.
09-16-2008, 10:49 AM
Another reason that the Jewish courts don't raise any hackles is that they are subject to civil law and cannot impose decisions contrary to it. The Sharia courts deny the legitimacy of civil courts and impose unequal settlements based on gender, religion and other factors that have nothing to do with the merits of the case. They also claim jurisdiction over all Moslems, whether they want to be under their jurisdiction or not, while Jewish courts do not mandate jurisdiction over all Jews. As a result, a Jew who chooses not to take his or her case to the Jewish court will not be attacked as an apostate, but any Moslem who seeks to go to a civil court will be attacked as having denied the authority of Islam and will be under threat of death.
Unless Britain acts decisively to eliminate these courts, they will undermine the English Common Law at every turn and eventually supplant it.
09-16-2008, 11:00 AM
Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing.
Religious courts are for religious people and can't apply to outsiders. This is the way we have been doing it over the past several hundred years and I'm happy about it. Canon law applies to Catholics, the LDS have their own arbitration methods, and the Copts deal with Coptic issues according to their own traditions. This is great. There would be a big problem, however, if my Catholic neighbor insisted that we see a priest to mediate an easement issue.
I have no doubt that a lot of cultural Muslims would be happy to drag the rest of us into a religious court which automatically favors them. We simply have to laugh when they propose this.
09-16-2008, 11:16 AM
Each of the religions or sects that you described understands that they must pursue their faiths separately from the enforcement of civil law. Christianity and Judaism were formed under hostile states (Rome and Egypt, respectively), and have basic philosophical underpinnings that reflect that. The admonition to "render unto Caesar" is a reflection of the knowledge that the laws of the state must be complied with, even as you seek to live by the laws of God, and the Talmud was written as a means of maintaining the traditions and requirements of Judaism in exile from Judea. Islam, OTOH, has never conceived of a secular sphere, but assumes that it will conquer all others, and that those who resist have only those rights which the faithful are willing to begrudge them. Once Sharia is permitted in cases involving devout Moslems, it will be imposed on secular Moslems on pain of death, and on non-Moslems through politically correct guilt mongering or the manipulation of the courts. This is another step on the road to the new caliphate of Eurabia.
- Join Date
- May 2008
09-16-2008, 01:31 PM
What a mess.
Chamberlain would be proud.
:(If leftists didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
noonwitchGuest09-16-2008, 04:28 PM
As a woman, I'm really glad I'm not a british citizen.
I can just see the mess-we have problems here when an american woman marries a muslim and they then get divorced. A former coworker of mine went through a nasty divorce like that-she got custody, but only because she knows american law better than her ex did.
We have an agency in the Detroit area called ACCESS, that serves the arabic and chaldean population. They do a pretty good job, but their job is to help arabs and chaldeans adjust to our system, not the other way around. If a woman wants to get away from an abusive husband, they will help her do so and help her keep custody of the kids. But giving muslims separate courts of their own is wrong-the only people we do that for are native americans (regarding custody issues and crimes on tribal lands) and that is only because there was a treaty that specified such treatment.
If muslims get sharia court, than shouldn't every religious group get their own courts?
09-16-2008, 06:59 PM
Here's the difference between Jewish and sharia courts. Jews are not bent on converting the whole world to their faith by hook or by sword.Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
09-16-2008, 07:17 PM
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|