Florida Judge Green Lights Use of Sharia Law In Civil Cases…
Wow.
(Tampa Tribune) — A state appeals court has ruled that a Hillsborough County Circuit judge can consider Islamic law to decide a civil case between a mosque and its former trustees.
The decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland to decline the appeal of the Islamic Education Center of Tampa sends the case back to Hillsborough County Circuit Judge Richard A. Nielsen. Nielsen’s decision in March to allow the case to proceed under “ecclesiastical Islamic law” drew national attention when the ruling was criticized by conservative bloggers.
The case has its roots in 2002, when the mosque ousted four of its founding members; those founding members later sued the mosque. One of the main issues of dispute was who would be responsible for how to spend $2.5 million Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise had paid the mosque for 3.4 acres needed to widen Veterans Expressway.
When he made his March ruling, Nielsen said courts have ruled “that ecclesiastical law controls certain relations between members of a religious organization, whether a church, synagogue, temple or mosque.”
HT: Tonka
Posted by ZIP on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, at 2:29 pm | 
Tweet
The end is near!
Where’s the separation of church and state folks on this one? Crickets chirping – again.
They are not considering with Sharia Law. They are only using the agreement which was written in accordance with Sharia Law to decide the case. In other words ‘what was the intention of both parties?’ regarding this contract.
There is no way to know that intent without looking at the rules used to create the contract.
HOLY SHIT !!!!!!!!
THIS is KKKKKRAZY…….
They’re treating Islam to the very same deal that any other religion gets !!!!!!!
It’s a good thing that ZIPPY wrote up a bullshit misleading headline!!!
The Judge should be removed, hung by his toes, have a stick shoved up his ass, and all the other Muslim-like things done to him.
It has long been settled in the Law of Contracts that the parties can govern themselves and that their customary practices provide the context in which the contract is interpreted.
This is not shariah law ruling over American law. This is American law permitting shariah to inform judges about the subtleties of contractual relationships between two parties who come from a shariah background and referenced or alluded to shariah principles in their contract.
Another way to put this:
If two parties engage in an Islamic enterprise of some sort by contracting with each other, the determination of whether one party has breached the contract may need to be made with reference to shariah norms.
If two parties engage in a Christian enterprise of some sort by contracting with each other, the determination of whether one party has breached the contract may need to be made with reference to Christian norms.
In both cases, the breaching party should not be allowed to break their promises merely because religion is involved and the court cannot recognize religious custom.
“Islamic law”
————–
Whatever happened to “There is no compulsion in Islam?” If there is no compulsion, there can be no mandate.
‘Islamic Law’ would only be an ‘Islamic Guideline’.
Dear Todd, have you, as an adult, been baptized?
Sounds good to me…
OsamaHusseinIslamObama 2012′ (WTF)
(the terrorist-Uighur-ACORN-media choice)
-It’s never too early to campaign-
@fuster
I happen to agree with you on the principle here, but please do me a favor and go Die In A Fire.
Fuster is a troll Bunny Boy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2RoYIjBQBI
The Methodists, Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, and all the other religious denominations in America should demand their own legal system.
Islam (or submit) is a evil no-account, barbaric, nomadic, murdering hoarde cult.
Allah is Satan (may piss be upon him)!
It is antitheses of the U.S. Constitution under God, Our Supreme Law, and has no place in real American society.
Muslim immigration needs to END. There is no benefit in it for Americans, only danger.
Honor killings too?
@Jimco
Again, this is not new. If a church dispute spills into the courts, you better dang well believe that the case will be decided based on that church’s doctrine. The General Rules of the Methodist Church, the Catholic Canon, the Baptist By Laws, and the rules of the LDS church would all govern in their respective cases, and the judge would rule based on church law.
This isn’t esoteric law, either – it’s been tested on bar exams forever.
hoodaticus says:
@fuster
I happen to agree with you on the principle here, but please do me a favor and go Die In A Fire.
—–
since you posted comments demonstrating an intelligent understanding of the issues and reasoning in this case, I’ll have to consider acceding to your request.
“……ecclesiastical law controls certain relations between members of a religious organization, whether a church, synagogue, temple or mosque.”
———-
Then why is a judge for LEGAL JUSTICE deciding upon a MORAL DILEMMA?
Is the mosque claiming that an implied contract exists between the different parties of this dispute? How can a court of the United States make a determination that is not based on any law? (Legislature makes the law, Executive enforces the law, and Judiciary interprets the law)
Does the court gain a permanent power to make moral determinations within the Muslim community? Within the general community?
.
Camel. Nose. Tent.
Looks and sounds like sharia creep to me. Nudging its foot in the door… and it won’t stop there.
Then what about laws that have been created in Cult Religions? If it can pass for Islam it can pass for anything….. I just saying.
hood—
perhaps you might undertake to inform the weasels about what SCOTUS is wrestling with in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Keep in mind that this is an internal dispute between members of a mosque.
What happens when a church wants to split off? That’s decided under church law. For Catholics, the property is owned by the bishop, so the splitters need new digs. For Protestants, it is almost always the other way around.
How SHOULD a court decide such matters? Should it be up to Nancy Pelosi to govern church disputes through Acts of Congress? Of course not.
Tempest in a teapot – a very ignorant teapot. Read my comments here and educate yourselves.
Guess I will be getting my infidel ass prodded with a stick and shot soon.
Fundamentalist Islam and Sharia – is often referred to as “Communism with a god
If this is simply a case of both parties in a dispute agreeing to conform to a common standard, then i don’t care what that standard is as long as US law is respected.
As far as the US Judiciary is concerned, there is no such thing as Islamic Law. Nothing ‘Islamic’ is binding within US borders because those “laws” have not been passed by our legislature, nor signed by our executive branch.
.
@fuster
That case is going to end up being a statutory interpretation of the scope of the ministerial exception. They HATE making Constitutional rulings. I tend to think that any educator employed by a church is a minister, myself, but we’ll see what SCOTUS comes up with.
BTW, Daniel Pipes noted in November of last year, “No research informs us how often American judges rely on the Sharia to reach judgments but a provisional inquiry turns up 17 instances in 11 states.”
http://www.danielpipes.org/9068/oklahoma-sharia
I keep telling you the way they’re using courts over there is a lot more dangerous than we have it. We don’t have any of that shit here… yet.
hood—- agree that it’ll be decided on that ground (think that including teachers is far too much a stretch)
but was hoping that you might draw from the Hosanna-Tabor brief that the church felt that it was sufficient grounds for dismissal of the teacher that she violated church doctrine by threatening to use federal law rather than demonstrating obedience to the church.
might help folks understand some stuff.
Actually fuster I can think of many times over the years that Christian Scientists have been charged with manslaughter for their religious beliefs for refusing to see physicians and use medicine… after their children die. They stated it was their right religiously to pray to G-d as their religion forbids going to a doctor… our court system has always said to them… fuck you you’re off to jail.
Allowing a foreign body of law into our court system is similar to when a man decides an open marriage would be good for him and his wife. Disaster follows.
Hoodaticus, your arguments make sense.
Further proof that liberal actinists judges needs removed from the bench
The way to deal with fuster is to ignore him.
When you respond to him and engage him in conversation, you are helping him in his mission.
I actually know that Rufus and went against myself. lol
Teacake says:
Actually fuster I can think of many times over the years that Christian Scientists have been charged with manslaughter for their religious beliefs for refusing to see physicians and use medicine… after their children die. They stated it was their right religiously to pray to G-d as their religion forbids going to a doctor… our court system has always said to them… fuck you you’re off to jail.
——
and that’s exactly what the courts would say to anyone raising Islamic doctrine in a similar case.
Impeach the judge. This is absurd – any proposals of sharia in the USA are completely anti-Constitutional.
Shiiiiiiiiiiiiitty
@fuster
First, thanks for pointing out that case. I would like to remind people that the Supreme Court will be ruling in part on the meaning of 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, which was specifically pleaded by the Lutheran church.
The liberal members of the court take issue with the fact that she had no notice that she would be dismissed for filing a civil action against them. But the Bible is not exactly an obscure work, and Lutherans of all people will be following it to the letter. She at least had inquiry notice that she would be dismissed if she brought legal action against her own church in violation of the New Testament.
Instead of repenting, she has taken this case all the way to the Supreme Court, which would seem to validate the church’s original judgment about her.
In fact, she was dismissed by a vote of the Congregation specifically for violating 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. Whether reinstating her to her position would violate the Establishment clause is in issue here, so it looks like I’m wrong on the case ending up as a statutory interpretation.
Here is what the appellant has to say about it:
“The private plaintiff here is within the ministerial exception because she performed important religious functions. She taught religion classes, led worship, and led prayer. She was required to integrate faith into secular subjects. She was the Church’s primary instrument for communicating the
faith to her students. She held ecclesiastical office as a commissioned minister in the Lutheran Church.”
This is going to win the day. You can’t have religious teachers commit petty treason against their church, then have the government forcibly re-instate them over the will of the Congregation, and still comply with the Establishment clause.
Also, this proceeding she went through to be fired is well known in Churches. It’s the protestant version of excommunication. She’s not even a Christian anymore as far as the church is concerned, and she cannot rejoin without her dropping her lawsuit and coming back to the church humble and repentant.
@ThomNJ
So when a mosque splits up, what rules apply? Catholic?
when will the judge be wearing a turban?
@Undaunted
I guess my doctorate degree in this subject is worth something after all!
Sorry, hoo – I am overcome by anti-muslim sentiments today!
no quarter, right or wrong!!
Here in the United States, people are Christians, Jews, Hindu’s…….and even Muslim BY CONSENT only! All matters within a place of worship are ‘Moral’ in nature. The good standing that each member of a congregation has with their spiritual order is an implied agreement to conform to a standards.
According to the First Amendment, the US government has no authority to judge the relationship between any person and their CHOSEN faith.
The US judiciary is a Legal order, and ALL religion is a Moral order.
.
Is Asspacker Cooper 69 packing for the Florida Spring?
@ThomNJ
Now THAT’S the SPIRIT! I’m all for throwing out the Constitution when it comes to dealing with these “people”.
But I don’t want conservatives to think the sky is falling here, because it isn’t.
I’m joking hoodaticus!
Sorry – have to catch a train.
If you live in this country, live by the laws of THIS country….
Notice what is happening in Europe and the UK ……. Sharia is coming to a court near you whether you like it or not. Between the pc idiots and courts and those already afraid who is going to stop it.
Remember 2005 when out of fear no US paper printed a picture of muhammad with the bomb in his turban while the muslims murdered hundreds around the world? How many mosques are already being built around you ………….
Once upon a time, two fools decided that to settle ownership of a bag of gold they would both jump off of a cliff; the last one to die would be able to leave the entire bag of gold to his surviving family. In settling the ensuing lawsuit, the judge ruled that since the second jumper had not yet left the top of the cliff, the contract was not yet enforceable. The rules for enforcing the contract had been detrimined by the consent of the parties to the contract. See?
Little by little, they’re creeping into our way of life…why doesn’t anybody see this?!?!?! Has anyone seen what’s happening in Europe???
Hoodaticus… yea, looks like.
Lol. It’s rare for me to put it to use. I’m one of the few J.D.s who write software for a living
.
$735,000 per acre? Is that what Florida real estate is going for these days?
Shajean says:
If you live in this country, live by the laws of THIS country….
——–
what part of “ruling by Florida state appeals court” makes you think “NOT laws of this country” ?
Makes you wonder where Florida gets these judges and politicians……All those yankee transplants must have left what little common sense they had at the Florida border when they moved down from the north.
the problem is, a judge will USE shariah to decide this totally set up case.
the problem with an infidel judge using shariah to decide this case is that infidels aren’t allowed to decide matters for muslims. as per shariah law.
Ehhhh… I’m definitely against shariah law being imposed on Americans, or for anyone’s rights being violated by shariah law in this country (i.e., no legal condoning of the killing of apostates). But this looks like a case of simply deciding a dispute based on the terms of reference of the two parties involved. It’s dealing with technicalities of the customs of a religious body regarding who gets to control mosque (or church) property/money. This is not a religious dispute, but a legal property dispute. However, the terms of agreement are within the context of the commonly held religion of the two parties.
What hoodaticus said seems right to me: “What happens when a church wants to split off? That’s decided under church law. For Catholics, the property is owned by the bishop, so the splitters need new digs. For Protestants, it is almost always the other way around.
“How SHOULD a court decide such matters? Should it be up to Nancy Pelosi to govern church disputes through Acts of Congress? Of course not.”
When the issue is the protection of an individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then no religious beliefs to the countrary should be allowed into the considerations of the law. But when it’s a contract type of dispute regarding who controls mosque property… or church property … I think it’s appropriate to look at the rules of the religion itself.
As an atheist, I would feel no threat if church property disputes were to be decided according to traditional church rules. And if it’s appropriate for churches, why would it not be appropriate for mosques? I do not say: “OMIGOSH! That church dispute was just decided by an American judge according to the church’s traditional rules! It’s creeping establishment of religion!”
As to the deal about Christian Scientists not being allowed to let their children go without crucial medical treatment… well, as parents they do not own their children’s lives and are legally bound to do what they can to save their children’s lives. They should be able to refuse medical treatment for themselves, but they do not have the right to risk the life of a young person in their care. Just as Muslims do not have a right to marry six year olds, regardless of what Mohammad did over 1000 years ago, or to condemn an apostate to death, or to cut off the hand of a theif. This is an issue of the rights of individuals protected under the constitution. It is not, as the present situation under discussion is, a case of traditional rules of a religious institution regarding the property of the institution itself and the rules under which a trustee can be sacked.
I REALLT HOPE this isn’t going to ASSPLODE INTO MORE BULLSHIT about sharia law in the U.S.! The MAIN reason bombers and terrorist assholes want to be tried by sharia is that ( of course ) that murder of anyone who isn’t their flavor of the month muslim is not only a GOOD THING, the assholes who did it should be set free ( with an apology ), and held up as THE FINEST EXAMPLE of emulating the prophet ( you know who ), who claimed this is God’s idea. We shouldn’t be opening the door to assinine bullshit like this. Christian church and beliefs do not say, Go ye and murder in God,s name.
We must remember that Muslims HATE Christianity.They murder their own people for becoming christians. That is a fact.