Florida Judge Defends Decision to Impose Sharia Law…
Dhimmi hall of fame.
(Fox News) — A Florida judge is defending his controversial decision to apply Islamic law instead of state or federal statutes in determining whether an arbitration award was correct, the St. Petersburg Times reports.
The case in question involves former trustees of a local Tampa mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, who are suing because they claim they were unfairly removed as trustees.
Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen said that the two parties can seek guidance from the Koran to resolve their dispute, according to MyFoxOrlando.com.
Nielsen said that based on testimony, “under ecclesiastical law,” and pursuant to the Koran, “Islamic brothers should attempt to resolve a dispute among themselves.”
“If Islamic brothers are unable to do so, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of Islamic brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community for resolution,” he said.
Posted by ZIP on Thursday, March 24, 2011, at 10:45 am | 
Tweet
Continue hammering this moron since he clearly doesn’t understand what the hell is going on.
This seems to be a big to do about nothing really.
This was a ‘test’ case and Florida failed. If the two trustees agreed to use isSLUMic law – why bother to take the case to the state in the first place.
One law only, US law. Sharia law for the ME. When is this judge up for re-election? Can he be recalled?
So if one beheads the other, is that covered under Sharia Law also?
Ok, I just got it..
The judge is scared shitless and can’t rule for either side without pissing the crazy muslim death fartwas, off and on to he and his family.. So he leaves it to Islam to choose the winner.
Chicken Shit.. If we can rule by our own law’s and Constitution then maybe we shouldn’t have these people in our Country. Whatda ya think?
All religions have disputes and usually settle them amongst themselves and their communities, but if a dispute arises in a U.S. court, it is settled by the Rule Of Law under the U.S. Constitution. There should be no question about it. We are not here to cater to other religions beliefs and practices when it comes to the law.
This judge should be removed from the bench for even considering doing otherwise. Seems like a bunch of 6th graders are running this country.
Read between the lines here on this judge’s thought in using sharia law…
““If Islamic brothers are unable to do so, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of Islamic brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community for resolution,” he said.”
Another words he just exalted mosques & the judgement of Muslims over any authority or non Muslim here in America.
“Islamic brothers”…I could probably read this judge’s mind mail without any effort from just the way he phrases things.
Could this be the beginning of seemingly simple arbitration judgments, being put into our court system, to show a precedent, for when more people advocating Sharia Law, get elected into Congress? Once they try to slide Sharia into our courts, their claim will be, “See, we have been doing it all along and it has worked out fine!” Then, the door is OPEN.
I have read to ad nauseam, how it is Islamophobic, to try to pass laws banning Sharia Law from being used in the U.S. Court System, as it is already banned (in General) per the Constitution. Maybe the states that are going ahead and passing legislation, don’t trust the FEDS, or Activist Judges, to Protect,Defend, and Abide by the Constitution.
TreyTalon:
Yep, that’s exactly how they’ve done it in France and the UK. They file a bunch of court cases about “internal disputes”, and beg clueless judges to use sharia law.
At first, they’re minor cases that are relatively meaningless, but each one starts to expand and overreach on that idea, until they’ve created enough precedent judgments that simply claiming you’re muslim is enough reason to have sharia law applied to any dispute, regardless of who your opponent is, whether it’s an individual, or the government itself.
TreyTalon, the Brits will tell you this is how Sharia Law got its start in the UK. Just innocent, rinky-dink arbitration issues. Then it moves up to domestic issues. Beheading? “Hey, the Koran says it’s okey-doke and I’m well within my rights to lop off her melon as her husband.”
Sometimes I think about 80% of the United States is under mass hypnosis; other days, I’m convinced a mind-altering drug has been introduced via the food supply. My guess is that it’s in something in the organic section of the store, since moonbats and “enlightened” indies are the shoppers who frequent that stuff.
If a system of jurisprudence — Sharia as Law — is premised upon the following, can it actually be said to be ‘law’ as is understood in any US Court:
1. In Islam, lying is mandated (Taqiyya), as well as ‘mental reservation’ (withholding of full FACTS: Kitman), thus sanctioning PERJURY
2. In Islamic Law, INEQUALITY between Moslems and non-Moslems and between males and females is mandated, thus sanctioning INJUSTICE
3. In Islamic Law, a Moslem may kill a non-Moslem, an apostate from Islam, or his/her child or grandchild WITHOUT any legal action being taken against the murderer
Discuss…
jh says:
March 24, 2011 at 11:56 am
This seems to be a big to do about nothing really.
Come on…think…please…just a little bit…pretty please?
Now any Muslim in the USA can reference this case as Precedence.
The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.
In the United States and England, the Common Law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.
Now imagine the next court case involving two Muslims. They will reference this court case and if the judge is another moonbat like Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen, he/she would probably allow precedence…and on and on. Until enough court cases have poisoned the system to the point where sharia law is considered when a Muslims pursues legal action against a non Muslim, or when a Muslim has been “offended” by some non Islamic traditional value here in America & challenges our non sharia compliant way of life.
We need to kill this NOW, for the sake of our sanity.
Again, I think a large well funded private conservative legal group should go after these judges and court cases – it should raise funds from the public to protect our constitution and system of law. Our taxes are being used to fund a legal system now allowing sharia law which is not right. These cases should not even enter the legal system unless they are to be handled under US law. Congress should go after Holder right now. This is insanity.
Courts as a general manner try to avoid Church Property and Church Leadership disputes . The Judges reasoning I suspect is very consistent here with that doctrine
“First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is
made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine
and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such controversies in order to
adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever present of inhibiting the free
development of religious doctrine and of implicating secular interests in matters of
purely ecclesiastical concern.”
Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 709-10 (1976); see also Watson
v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 728-29 (1872).
For a review of cases that deal with this a very recent case dealing with Episcopal Church Property disputes describes the two tests COurts are allowed to use Google up Masterson v. The Diocese of Northwest Texas for that
JH if the matter comes to the court, it is their priority to follow established law, no matter the context of the dispute…otherwise the rule of law would be meaningless. That case didn’t have take away anybody’s first amendment rights, just rule on who actually own the church property. Sounds like a gutless judge passing the buck to me. They should have ruled on it. So does this mean you are in favor of a Christian or Islamic theocracies were there is two sets of law, or worse yet…laws favoring one religion over everybody else’s rights?
Revparadigm
As a general matter Courts like to punt these property and leadership question in “Church” cases and for very good obvious reasons.
I must say I am much more worried about the Courts setting up precedents where the Courts are interfering with the internal workings of the Catholic Church and other bodies. I really don’t want for intance Civil Courts making a habit of intefering with Canon Law
There is a lot of talk about IMPEACH the Judge he should follow US Law. Well fine but the people that are saying that are not engaging the US LAW itself so I cite these cases so people can look at the issue through that prism. As they say don’t kill the messenger
As to your general question my problem with some of these NO FOREIGN LAW NO SHARIA Law proposed laws we are seeing the States do are they way overbroad and quite frankly pretty much Unconst on their face.
If there are elements of Sharia Law that violate public policy , which I suspect there are, then laws can be enacted to prohibite those laws themselves. For back in the 1800′s we could not “Ban” Mormonism. However we could ban the practice of mutiple wives.
In the case of Islamic law if you have concerns about it I would suggest that laws that are narrowly tailored to address the problematic aspect be done. If not those laws would and in my opinion should be found to to violate established US Law
When did the fear of Islam overtake conservatives’ love of free markets? This is not applying Sharia law, it is enforcing an arbitration agreement. Two parties are allowed to use whatever they contract to use for arbitration. Christian and Jewish arbitration has been used for a long time.
If Islamic law is so wonderful that it can solve all disputes between muslims, WTF are courts involved in the first place? Let them hold a mock trial, come up with a resolution, and handle it internally. Essentially, if both parties are willing to accept sharia law, then for most situations, “arbitration” should be enough, and handled without any “outside interference”.
However, if that doesn’t do the job, then clearly, sharia law is inadequate for the job, which means there’s NO JUSTIFICATION AT ALL for using it in a courtroom in the USA.
This “everyone must bend to our needs because our community is to childlike and inept to police itself” garbage has to stop!
All of this brings us back to two points:
Islam must be reclassified as a seditious political ideology, the doctrines of which (including its Sharia as Law) are antithetical to, and a clear and present danger to, our Constitution, our freedoms and the future of our country; following which, Islam should be Proscribed;
No amount of laws by various state legislatures, attempting to prevent the use of Sharia Law within their own borders, will be anything but a delaying operation (and will lead to people wrongly believing the issue has been properly dealt with) IF Moslem Immigration is not STOPPED PERMANENTLY. The grounds for stopping it should be an open statement of the facts of Islamic doctrines (including Jihad as a tactic of MANDATED PERMANENT WARFARE against all non-Moslems) and the facts of the INJUSTICE, INEQUALITY AND BARBARITY of Sharia as Law. If these steps aren’t taken, in only a relatively short period — through ‘refugees’, ‘student visas,’ Mexican border used to ferry jihadists, and ‘cultural exchange of professionals’ between the US and the Middle East — we will be seriously at risk of a demographic imbalance leading to Moslem enclaves instituting Sharia law, ‘no-go’ areas (751 in France and parts of major British cities, Germany, etc) and intifadas in major US cities.
Lawyers will discuss the minutiae of this particular case, never managing to see the larger picture: the future of this country and its laws, Constitution and freedoms.
This is a case where the judge should have dismissed the case as frivilous. The two plaintifs had agreed in advance to abide by Islamic law using th e Iman as the arbritrator. They had no business bringing this decision to court. Unless they had some other ulterior motive?
“They had no business bringing this decision to court.”
-Yes they did. Any Islamic arbitration decision is not binding without the approval of the courts. It is admitting that Islamic law holds no power to bind people.
JH: See my point above (12:18) re the basic premises of Sharia as law. The three points in my earlier comment are based directly on the Koran (mandating lying) and on the Reliance of the Traveler (‘Umdat al-Salik), the Islamic Manual of Sharia Law accepted by the Sunnis (comprising at least 85% of all Moslems in the world).
Rupaula,
It’s what it represents and the first baby step to complete Sharia Law.
We are trying to look into the future and not have it turn out like Europe.
Do you think giving in a little here or there won’t lead to Muslim’s only following Sharia?
Not our Constitution?… Doling out punishment according to the Koran and not the law of the land?
Are you prepared to keep your daughters locked up for their own safety because its ok under the Koran and Shaira to take these girls as sex slaves, beat them, torture them, rape them and kill them all in the name of Sharia.
Are you ready for some no go zones in America because of Muslim and Sharia Law??
Are you ready for carbaques in your neighborhood because Muslim didn’t get Sharia Law?
I’m not.. I like our little piece of the world and I would like it a whole lot better without these rats determined to destroy her and rebuild her in the image of Islam?
I’m not and it has nothing to do with Capitalism its about survival, you Lefts better get on board with plan because they will come after you first.
The weaker opponent.
Rupaula it is the exact opposite, just turn around a 90
This is how Muslims get sharia law established in the USA, through using a little something called…
Precedence
Shall I repeat it?
“This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.”
JH the difference here is the case was brought to court, Feds or the States did not invade the church dispute, it was brought to them. Courts cannot dismiss cases out of fear or laziness. The problem is precedence is set once it enters, no matter the ruling. This is the weight of responsibility of all judges to uphold…it comes with the job title. This is why this is so dangerous. To over rule this now, it would have commit to a higher court to undo the damage.
Basically this turns it over to mob rule…who ever rules the mosque now controls this dispute between Muslims here in America, not our laws. This is now sharia law built up enough momentum in the UK to reach the point where it is effectively began a splitting of that Nation into two entities. “Great Britain” and “Great Dar-al Islam” [conquered territory for Islam].
DO NOT let that even begin here in America.
Correction…
“This is how sharia law built up enough momentum in the UK”
Its ok.
Muzzies are just like U.S.
Freedom loving people that just cherish children and women.
They are even compassionate in how they slaughter animals.
How could they be wrong in their beliefs when Mo was such a caring ,loving man.
He loved a child sooooo much ,he married one at 6 and raped her ,I mean loved her,when she was 9.
Thanks Roo for stating the moral equivalency between Christian,Jews,and the heathen.
How would you like a czar position changing my tampon?
Your probably WAY out of practice
>>>Rupaula says:
March 24, 2011 at 1:26 pm
“They had no business bringing this decision to court.”
-Yes they did. Any Islamic arbitration decision is not binding without the approval of the courts. It is admitting that Islamic law holds no power to bind people.<<<
Which begs the question, if neither party feels that they should be bound to adhere to a sharia law decision unless it's administered by non-muslims, WTF are we even having this debate?!!
They want their own set of laws because non-muslim laws aren't good enough for them, but they don't care about their own laws enough to abide by them. Talk about a line of circular BS!
The precedent has already been set! Two parties are allowed to use whatever means of arbitration they contract to. That is the precedent and that is what the judge used. That has been established for a long time. The court is merely enforcing the arbitration agreement. It is not recommending or using Islamic law.
Let me repeat, this only affects the two parties that agreed to the arbitration clause. It will not be forced upon you unless you are dumb enough to consent to it. It is also not usurping any established law, criminal or civil.
Good gravy, this is a mountain out a of a molehill.
“Let me repeat, this only affects the two parties that agreed to the arbitration clause.
Well of course the circumstances here are between two Muslims…nobody is even challenging that point…you are completely ignoring the fact sharia law has been officially injected into our court system…and no matter how much you claim “this is nothing but a molehill”…this is the beginning. You think in the UK it was boom! sharia law across the court system for all Muslims instantly?
Do not despise small beginnings, some of the biggest volcanoes started out as a little insignificant nuisance. You already have vast networks of pro sharia elements here in the USA ready to pounce on this.
“It is not recommending or using Islamic law.”
The judge set the precedence of using sharia law for these two settle the matter.
YES IT IS recommending sharia law here.
Rupaula:
The judge stated: “The court has concluded that as to the enforceability of the arbitrator’s award, the case should proceed under ecclesiastical Islamic law.”
The two Moslem parties in this supposed ‘dispute’ managed to get a US court to acknowledge the validity of Islamic Law in its (the US Court’s) decision on allowing the case to proceed. Little steps, using ‘arbitration’ as the first step, then domestic law, all part of making American law ‘sharia-compliant.’
I checked out that ‘islamic education center’ and the sermon of its imam on ‘Kuffars’ (non-Moslems who, under Islamic law, are unequal to a Moslem and who are regarded as ‘innately unclean” — as it states in the Koran — along with excrement, urine, pigs, dogs, blood and sweat.)
Since JW hasn’t answered the issue I brought up in my remark at 12:18, would you like to have a go?
CALM DOWN. Calm down, everyone.
This is going to Appeal as we speak. Our legislators in Tallahassee are ACUTELY aware of this case and are watching it closely.
The ones I have spoken with recognize ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW as the law of the land here in the great state of Florida.
This judge better find another place to live if he knows what’s good for him…..like maybe, the liberal northeastern United States.
Can anybody say B-O-S-T-O-N?????
The judge should be fired, enforcing Sharia Law on Muslims without their consent absolutely unacceptable. Liberal Judges are a threat to our legal system, Sharia arbitration today ergo Sharia Courts for women tomorrow.
What would Thomas Jefferson have to say about ‘Barbary Pirates’ (muslims, no different from today’s latent jihad worshipers) setting up barracks and bringing more Pirates inside America to subvert it?
Let’s look at Jefferson’s famous words: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..
Life: “We love death more than you love life” (muslim battlecry)
Liberty: Apostate Rule
Pursuit of Happiness: To emulate mohammad is to be the best muslim possible
Conclusion.. Jefferson would bitch slap you if you declare muslims are a-ok..
Jefferson doesn’t have to say jack shit to you morons who embrace your own doom and future slave masters..
‘scuse me, channeling the spirit of the real Chris Rock there.. my bad?
I notice that neither “rupaula” nor “JW” have commented on the three points I raised in my original comment on Sharia Law. That’s because there is no way around the blunt fact that Sharia Law is antithetical to, in fact, VIOLATES, the basic premises on which our law, and all Western and civilized law, is based: truth, equality and justice. There is none in Islam. Neither Islam, nor its ‘sharia’, as either jurisprudence or ‘path,’ ‘way’, have any place in the US, the West, or wherever Islam now dominates and enslaves people.
Florida’s governor Scott needs to take this judge off the bench.As soon as possible.