It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I have read all posts up to this point. I would just like to say, I live in the UK in an area with quite a lot of muslims and we have a Sharia Court in our town.
Yes it is supposed to be arbitration but the women who are *tried* under Sharia law are rarely agreeing to do it they are being forced to do it by the men of the community. Most are too frightened to object because of reprisals from their *elders*.
One woman refused and took the incident to the police only to find that the officer was Muslim and did nothing to help her. I know this was wrong of him and that he has to answer for his actions but how long before the police have more officers who agree with this.
This was one brave woman but many are so oppressed that they really have little choice unless they are to be ostracised by their community for now conforming to Sharia law themselves.
I know the law of the land should be final but it never actually works 100% of the time.
This I know is a step in the wrong direction but is becomming increasingly common. I also accept the view of divide and conquer as this soooooo works.




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by squizzy
 


See, here is my view on this....

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." —Thomas Jefferson

Freedom and liberty are given to you by the same Creator that put you here. It is the natural state of how He expects us to live. Anyone who chooses to stifle your freedom or liberty is seeking to work against the natural order of things as determined by the Grand Architect. If I were Christian, I would say it is the devils work.

But "evil" does lurk in the hearts of men. We seek to subjugate each other, to hoard whatever we prize, and control our fellow man to make them meet our own personal tastes. Whatever it is that motivates various people to seek a control over people and situations.

"It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." —Thomas Jefferson

So to stand and face this....this is the duty of each and every human who desires to see this natural born right to freedom go unhindered to stand in the face of tyranny and oppression. Liberty is a prize that must be guarded jealously, or it will slip away.

And you cannot just guard it as it pertains to you and yours. You must guard it for others, too. If at any time tyranny is allowed to go untested, it threatens all men. It is the basis of that famous Voltaire quote of "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." We must be smart enough, insightful enough to put personal differences aside when such lofty principles are at stake.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty." —Thomas Jefferson

I am ashamed to say that I come from a time and place where liberty is tossed aside like all other unvalued, disposable items. The timidity of man, or possibly just the apathy of man, is a sad and pitiful phenomenon.

Whether you are a religious person or not, the truth of the following rings true:

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." —Thomas Jefferson

It is exactly what I state above: that our natural state is intended to be free. Anything that contradicts that freedom is an abberation and must be confronted. I cannot say it isn't hypocritical of me given the state of the US, but it sounds like you folks in the UK have some spring cleaning to do, too.
edit on 27-3-2011 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Nice comments there

However we dont need to do sping cleaning we need to virtually scrub and disinfect the place. So much is creeping into our laws that errodes the small amount of freedom that we still have. The largest being part of the EU, any educated person who cares about freedom and choice can see that it will end up being a US of Europe, already Brussels overturns our laws etc. We SOOOO need to make a stand and remove ourselves from it but as you say apathy seems to reign, oh well, I still stand by my beliefs even if we are a minority.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 

Many soldiers died for this republic, the founding fathers wrote a constitution, and a bill of rights. Isn't it said that religion and the state are to be kept separate?
Why don't you go to other countries especially one that is dominated and controlled by Islam and see if you can get away with what's going on here. This is no joke, no laughing matter, your like a frog in a large pot of cold water, and their turning up the heat on you and you don't even realize that your about to be boiled to death.

People with your kind of thinking and attitude is what can be the end of this country. A liberal mind is a dangerous mind, we can thank the hippy movement for that. And that's right, your either with us or against us, period.
Bush abused that saying, I'm not. This is about the United States of America for which it stands, yes liberty and justice for all. This is not the middle east where that don't apply.


edit on 27-3-2011 by hawaii50th because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 

Another apathetic person to add to the sorry state of the population, and another frog in the pot thats about to boil.
Either you people are nothing more than bots that come in here to ATS try and put out the flames of alarm, or you live in a place where your drinking water is heavily laced with mind altering drugs to dumb down your minds to reality.
This is totally un F__ken believable.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 

Good evening Hawaii50th,

You are correct in that many soldiers died for the freedoms we hold so dear in America. Those soldiers include both of my Grandfathers who died for this country and most Americans will never know their name! My Father and Brother served as well. I raised my two nieces while my brother was wounded from his tour in Iraq. If this is a lecture about sacrifice, I know all too well the lesson to be learned in that. I did not serve myself and I am sorry that I have not given my life for country, but my skills were better used at home. If you served, I honor you in whatever way I can.

Our forefathers were very clear that separation of church and state was key to the survival of the republic. With that in mind, what would you have us do regarding Sharia law and Islam? Should we pass laws banning both? That would be contradictory to the spirit of what our forefathers wrote in the constitution and the separation of church and state. In fact, we have allowed the Judeo/Christian religions to intertwine into the very fabric of our governments. Not only in the wording of legislation, but into the very stone carved to house our "religious free" republic. (Ten commandments on government buildings?) I don't see you concerned with that! If we are interested in truth, and true separation of church and state, we must treat others religions in the same fashion as Islam. There is no wiggle room on that issue and it is contradictory to say otherwise.

Just because I am willing to accept that Muslim people have the right to govern personal matters in accordance to their religion, just as Christians are allowed to do, does not mean that I invite their religion to overrun the daily lives of each American. Sure, they can try. But you know as well as I do that would never happen. For you to make that broad of accusation is disingenuous and detrimental to the very ideology of what it means to be American.......Free!



This is about the United States of America for which it stands, yes liberty and justice for all

You said it brother, liberty and justice for all! Freedom for all men and religions! The Freedom to live and worship in whatever manner you so desire without interference from outside bigotry that is more interested in unfounded self-preservation than the freedom they espouse from on high. Make your choice. Is it freedom for all, or freedom for those you agree with?

Be careful how you answer that question!

Let me close by saying that it is quite clear you do not know who I am and what I stand for. I am the true form of "patriot" conservative. I stand for the freedoms of all fellow Americans, and people of the world for that matter. Freedom is not granted by government or borders. Freedom is given to us by simply existing, whether you believe it came from your God, my God or Daffy Duck. Freedom is universal! When I use my freedom to prohibit the freedoms of others that I disagree with, the republic will truly be dead!

So go ahead and call me a liberal hippy, thats fine. I recognize and honor your right to say what you like. But when you seek to undermine another's right to live as a free man then you are perpetuating that which you claim to be against.


edit on 27-3-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: cuz I can



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaii50th
reply to post by TKDRL
 

Another apathetic person to add to the sorry state of the population, and another frog in the pot thats about to boil.
Either you people are nothing more than bots that come in here to ATS try and put out the flames of alarm, or you live in a place where your drinking water is heavily laced with mind altering drugs to dumb down your minds to reality.
This is totally un F__ken believable.


So, i provide not only the relevance of the judges actions as it applies to the constitution (you know, that document that those soldiers you are using for cheap debate fodder swore to uphold and protect), but a link to his own explanation as to how how decision is misrepresented by political factions. You shrug that off to throw out some cheap ad hominems against another member?

Now one is here as a bot. I have a very long and highly credible history on this forum. I have my own blogs and internet persona that is fairly well documented. Your ad hominem falls flat on its face.

Having said that, would you care to discuss this in a constitutional, instead of a xenophobic and politicized context? Like explain how you would replace all forms of contract and ecclesiastical law nation wide? And how we will reconcile the needed government take over of all HR and Executive functions for all companies required to have their own bylaws/employee handbook?

You know, in the run up the Nazi supremacy in Germany, there was a lot of class and racial division. I am sure a fine patriotic man like yourself is aware of this, and the parallels in what we see today in America (even including the eminent inflation, just like the end of the Weimer).



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 

Maybe you should speak to the women under that sharia law and see how they feel about it, if they are not afraid to do so. This sharia law conflicts with freedom. You can not have two standards in a free society, the law of the land rules in a court of law that exist in the United States. Allowing a court to operate under two standards will eventually erode the system. This whole thing is causing disunity and we can not stand if we don't remain united. It will lead to anarchy, something that the forefathers worked diligently on with much caution when they wrote the constitution.
How can anyone be a patriot and at the same time want to allow an alien belief that is rooted in the oppression of others especially women to infiltrate into a free republic, it can't work. And you agree that religion and state is suppose to be kept separate and yet you want to allow a religion to dictate it's foreign laws in our court system. Where is the moral sense in that?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

So what your saying is that your in agreement for this court to conduct this case in accordance to sharia law?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawaii50th
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

So what your saying is that your in agreement for this court to conduct this case in accordance to sharia law?


What I am saying is that the court ruled in line with US law as they only ruled that whatever contract was in place would need to be followed, as nothing about the contract was unlawful.

The judge didn't rule in accordance with Sharia Law. He explicitely stated that if the case returns to his court, it will be heard under US law. The headline is a lie. That is what i am saying. The headline is a lie. Inform yourself. I have gone to great pains to type lots of words explaining this in great detail.

If you disagree with the judge, then you also have to disagree with all US contract law, as well as all US ecclesiastical law. This would mean that all contracts will be overseen by the US government, not the parties who are involved. This means you can no longer be employed unless it is by the US government, as employment is entering into contract with an employer, with the agreement that the company policeies will be the arbitrating factor.

Do you not understand what is going on here? It is a ruling that the contract that both parties agreed to complied with the US constitution, and therefore must be adhered to. It has nothing to do with Sharia law, and everything to do with Islamic Ecclesiastical Law (bylaws of the Muslim church, a requirement of all nonprofits) and how it meshes with US Contract Law.

You have been played by someone who oversimplified this case in the hopes that enough people would choose to remain ignorant of the facts. The media lies. The headline is a lie. Wake up.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 



Maybe you should speak to the women under that sharia law and see how they feel about it, if they are not afraid to do so

Maybe you should talk to the Christian women in the battered women's shelter. Better yet, talk to the children molested by the priests they trust and look to for spiritual guidance. This is the slippery slope we all face, and I find it best not to point fingers in such a situation because you may have many more pointing back to at you.



This sharia law conflicts with freedom.


And so does every religion. Freedom allows every Man to govern themselves in any way they choose as long as they follow a few common sense rules of society. Can you show me any religion that does not conflict in some way with the pure definition of freedom? No, I have looked. Who are we to chose who's freedoms are more "right or wrong" based on our own personal beliefs? If you do just that, you are stepping-on their freedom to believe as they so choose, thus contradicting the very notion of what it is to be American!



It will lead to anarchy, something that the forefathers worked diligently on with much caution when they wrote the constitution.

Wrong! The forefathers WERE anarchists! They ousted the British government and all their controls to be free! Their goal was to shed the bias' of the very tunneled-visioned rhetoric that you speak of right now. So your answer is to reapply those restraints on personal freedoms based on a certain groups particular beliefs and outright unfounded fears? Wrong, wrong, wrong! I claim shenanigans on that one.



How can anyone be a patriot and at the same time want to allow an alien belief that is rooted in the oppression of others especially women to infiltrate into a free republic, it can't work.

Islam is rooted in the oppression of women? I don't think so. That's like saying Catholicism is rooted in child molestation. It's a bogus argument and you are using a small minority to taint the value of the whole. Once again, I think you need to be careful where you point fingers, they may lead back to you. As a side note, just because Islam may be "alien" or different to most of us, does not mean I fear it. Are you scared? I'm not scared of Muslims.



And you agree that religion and state is suppose to be kept separate and yet you want to allow a religion to dictate it's foreign laws in our court system. Where is the moral sense in that?


The heart of the matter rears it's ugly head again. I don't want any religion to dictate anything in regards to our government. I also don't want government to be involved in religion. That is what this judge said! It was not his place to get involved in the matters of FREE people! Your very stance spits of the face of what it means to be FREE! Need I say more?

Morality? It is relative, is it not? Do we arrest a man for stealing bread....or free the man who felt he had to steal bread to feed his family? Is it moral to go to war and kill millions.... to avenge the death of three thousand? Which is better, tit-for-tat? So I respectfully disregard your notion that morality has anything to do with it.

I am not a religious person, but I'd like to leave you with a positive Biblical verse that I find missing from the modern paradigm. Take it for what you will.



For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. (Matthew 6:14-15)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by hawaii50th
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

So what your saying is that your in agreement for this court to conduct this case in accordance to sharia law?



You have been played by someone who oversimplified this case in the hopes that enough people would choose to remain ignorant of the facts. The media lies. The headline is a lie. Wake up.


I think I'm not the one asleep here, maybe it's you that should be waking up.


Florida circuit court judge allows case to proceed under Islamic law What was that Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacist groups were saying about how it was utterly fanciful that Sharia would ever be used to judge cases in American courts?

Here is a copy of page 1 of 2 court document.

www.jihadwatch.org...
On this website you'll also read some comments that talks against this and those that make it sound as you do, "you know their just merely following the law" and those that say "so what." Seriously, your the one that needs to wake up.


ala sux | March 18, 2011 1:43 PM | Reply Canada came close to allowing CAIR-canada and Dr.Sheem Khan to enshrine Shariah Law on our soil. Bu tthe victim of Shariah law that fled to canada for safety had come forward to denouce it. CAIR fought tooth and nail to demonize the females that came forward with great fear for their lives from the islamists allowed to set-up in canada. CAIR still wants to label Honopur-Killings as Domestic-Violence to blame all males and all faiths. But Canada didn't have this issue in the Pre-CAIR/Shariah Law days and this means it is really rich for CAIR to push Shariah law and claim it doesn't enbale violence against females. But tell that to Muhammad who was a misogynistic/pedophile and mass murderer that inspires the islamists to become Suicide-bombers.


There is always going to be more than one interpretation to all matters when it comes to laws and judges and or judgments. And that's a problem especially in a democratic system.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Here's more in dept articles on the topic.


FLORIDA judge defends his harebrained ruling that Shari’a (Islamic) Law should prevail A Florida judge is defending his decision to apply Islamic law instead of state or federal statutes in determining whether an arbitration award was correct.

barenakedislam.wordpress.com...



“The Case Should Proceed Under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law” / Jews, Ketubahs, and Gets





There’s been much talk about the trial court decision in Mansour v. Islamic Education Center, a Florida trial court case. I think the court erred, for reasons I discuss in item 3 below, but I think the matter is more complex than some suggest. Here’s an excerpt from the court decision: This action was filed in 2008 to resolve issues relating to the corporate governance of the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, Inc. (“IEC”). The IEC is a learning center and community center for Muslims in the Tampa Bay area. The dispute began in the early 2000s, but was exacerbated by disagreement concerning control of the cash proceeds from an eminent domain settlement [and a purported binding arbitration of the matter –EV].... From the outset of learning of the purported arbitration award, the court’s concern has been whether there were ecclesiastical principles for dispute resolution involved that would compel the court to adopt the arbitration decision without considering state law. Decisional case law both in Florida and the United States Supreme Court tells us that ecclesiastical law controls certain relations between members of a religious organization, whether a church, synagogue, temple or mosque.... The court has concluded that as to the question of enforceability of the arbitrator’s award the case should proceed under ecclesiastical Islamic law. Based upon the testimony before the court at this time, under ecclesiastical law, pursuant to the Qur’an, 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. If that is not done or does not result in a resolution of the dispute, the dispute is to be presented to an Islamic judge for determination, and that is or can be an A’lim. The court will require further testimony to determine whether the Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter. When the hearing was recessed to reconvene at a later date the defense was presenting its case. Counsel advised that he anticipated calling between five and seven witnesses.




3. But despite this, I think the court erred, not in being open to enforcing a religious arbitration decision, but in proposing to use “ecclesiastical Islamic law” to evaluate the validity of the “dispute resolution procedures” that were used. If there is a contract that provides, in secular terms, for certain procedures — that this particular person is to be the arbitrator, or that the proceeding is to happen at a particular time in a particular place — or for certain preconditions (e.g., as one side says, that “Dr. Bahraini had to agree to Mr. Shabiri serving as the arbitrator and second, the other side in the dispute had to dismiss their lawsuit”), then a court may decide if those terms can be met. But a secular court may not resolve terms that can only be interpreted by determining what “Islamic law” calls for, since that would involve taking sides as to the proper meaning of Islamic law.




volokh.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


I don't like guys that beat up women and perverted guys that mess with children, one way or another they will pay for those abuses that they committed.

But give me a break with telling me about battered Christian women and perverted Catholic priest, this is totally a weak choice of comparison. You got nothing else to come back with so you choose that, oh my goodness. And if your not a Christian, then you got no business quoting scripture to me, it's empty and your just blowing dust out of your mouth.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawaii50th
give me a break with telling me about battered Christian women and perverted Catholic priest, this is totally a weak choice of comparison.

Brainwashed in believing this ? :
LINK
oh, yes I was once a 'christian', but thankfully I'm all better
now.


___________________



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ToneDeaf

Originally posted by hawaii50th
give me a break with telling me about battered Christian women and perverted Catholic priest, this is totally a weak choice of comparison.

Brainwashed in believing this ? :
LINK
oh, yes I was once a 'christian', but thankfully I'm all better
now.


___________________


Whatever turns you on.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


As far as you quoting comments from another website, that has absolutely no bearing on the FACTS of this case. It is merely the opinions of other people like you and I.

RE: the court document, it shows exactly what I said:

1. first, it is NOT "Sharia Law". It is "Ecclesiastical Islamic Law." You need to look up the definitiion of "Ecclesiastical Islamic Law", and when it is applicable. Once you understand that, you will be enlightened on this matter.

2. The ruling is nothing but an interpretation of the arbitration process per the contract that both parties entered into, using Ecclisiastical Islamic Law.


You still have not addressed the rest of my points. If you want to ban Muslims from having Ecclesiastical Laws, then you will have to reconcile all other religious nonprofits as well. Then you still have the issue of employment contracts.

What you propose is a suspension of the First Amendment (but only seem to want to discriminate against Muslims) and a whole sale government takeover of all American business.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


I am seeing your links, but they are to people who are, um, less than credible. The first link goes to someone who will call the judge names ("hairbrained") but completely ignores any facts related to US law.

The second one ignores completely (especially on Item 3 that you are so fond of) the rights of people to enter into a contract and have that contract be executed.

It seems that some people only want rights for people who are not Muslim. The New American Nazi Republic is almost ready, huh?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


Actually no, I am not a bot, nor do I drink flouridated water. We have nice clean well water here, thank you. A contract was signed, and the judge ruled that the contract was valid, and held the parties to the contract. Happens all the time....



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Usually I would be right there with you.. but not this time.

As others have pointed out, this wasn't that big of a deal.

Come back when you've got 30 million muslims living in the states, as of now muslims pose NO THREAT WHATSOEVER to the United States of America. Hell, they couldn't even touch the U.S. if every single muslim and muslim country in the world wanted to see your country burn..
In fact, that's pretty much the reality of the world post 9/11 and muslim terrorists have done a downright LOUSY job of blowing things up.. if it wasn't for U.S. intelligence agencies working so hard on false flags you wouldn't even be this worried about muslims.

0,6% of the population!? That's nothing. And the american population is huge, basically muslims have no way to affect the U.S., their population is too small, not enough immigrants, too large population.

Come back when you've got muslim no-go zones with muslim youth rioting and attacking police and firemen screaming 'allahu akhbar!'

Muslims aren't used like puppets to destroy the USA, your shadow government is doing a great job all by itself with decades of propaganda, lies and utterly insane politics.

You need to worry about getting your sh*t together before the whole world erupts into chaos, this is a non-issue compared to what your country and the world is facing in the coming years.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join