It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Florida Judge Defends Decision to Apply Islamic Law

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link Florida?

Welcome to the slippery slope people.

Two people having a dispute, "agreed" beforehand to have Islamic Law guide them in the resolution of their differences. The Judge agreed that this was ok, even though Islamic Law might contravene Florida Law.

Bit by bit...unless people remain vigilant Sharia Law will gain its foothold in Western society. Decisions like these, unless challenged, will add to the Common Law, which future judges and judgments will use as "precedence" (to guide them in their current case).

Ignore this development at your peril folks...

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by mobiusmale

Humm. Fox news is not really the most trusted source IMO. As far as arbitration goes, I don't see much of a problem as long as it is superseded, and supervised by FL law. Slippery slope though. I see your concern.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:31 AM
Sharia Law has no place in western society... and neither do the people who wish to practice it! It shows flagrant disrespect and contempt for the host country, it's laws, moral code and culture.

edit on 24/3/11 by InfaRedMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by Chindogu

Are you suggesting that this did not happen, just because it was reported on Fox News? This is rather odd I think...just because they seem to have a Conservative/Republican bias, does this somehow suggest they everything they report is untrue?

Other networks and newspapers seem to have a Liberal/Democratic therefore everything they report is also suspect?

Can't be bothered really, but I could list a bunch of other links to the same story...

Anyway, thanks for understanding what I am talking about re the "slippery slope".

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:37 AM
More than just Fox News is reporting on this. Fox was actually one of the last ones to pick up the story. Its been covered on The Blaze, CNN and the European Union Times.

And I also say, its wrong to apply laws of another nation to American court decisions. This the US, use and follow the laws here, or get out.
edit on 3/24/2011 by MadDogtheHunter because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:58 AM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Sharia Law has no place in western society... and neither do the people who wish to practice it! It shows flagrant disrespect and contempt for the host country, it's laws, moral code and culture.

glad we agree on something

IMO, this judge acted no different
than just being a mediator/arbitrator
between the parties. But yes, the
slippery slope does apply.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:06 PM
Its just arbitration and this is from fox news.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:09 PM
let me foresee what might come from this.

a future TV show similar to Judge Judy
but it will be all sharia law instead
of US law. To be entitled:

Judge Muhammed

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by mobiusmale
Two people having a dispute, "agreed" beforehand to have Islamic Law guide them in the resolution of their differences. The Judge agreed that this was ok, even though Islamic Law might contravene Florida Law.

According to the First Amendment, if two individuals choose to practice their religion in that way, they can.

Civil law is different than criminal law. The parties couldn't use Sharia law if it was a criminal case. But in civil law, it's perfectly fine. From your source:

"This concept of agreeing to a different set of rules outside of state law is not unusual."

Read more:

No one will ever be able to impose Sharia law on anyone else here in the US, but if 2 parties agree to it, it's their religious freedom being exercised.
edit on 3/24/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:44 PM

Originally posted by boondock-saint
let me foresee what might come from this.

a future TV show similar to Judge Judy
but it will be all sharia law instead
of US law. To be entitled:

Judge Muhammed

lol and at the end of every show no matter what the judgement is they kill both parties for being non believers

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:49 PM
reply to post by boondock-saint

IMO, this judge acted no different than just being a mediator/arbitrator between the parties. But yes, the slippery slope does apply.



If you should have the need to report the judicial misconduct of a Florida judge or the misconduct of a judicial officer that may not be a judge, the Code of Judicial Conduct would apply....

All judges and judicial officers have taken an oath of office to "support and defend" state and federal constitutions. Specifically, a judge must not deny anyone of their rights to due process of law, access to the courts, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and many other rights set out in our state and federal constitutions....

The First Amendment

Madison was true to his word — on June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison rose and gave a speech in the House where he introduced a series of articles of amendment. One concerned religious freedom:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

Madison's proposal follows the proposals of some of the states. New Hampshire's read:

Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

Virginia was much more verbose:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

New Yorkers had the same to say, but more succinctly:

That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others....

Through the debates in the House, Senate, and conference committees, the wording of all of these proposals was whittled down to the religion clauses of what is our 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Does this final version have the same effect of all the other proposals? Was it the intent that these clauses of the 1st Amendment the same as that of New Hampshire's "no touching" proposal?

Probably. Whereas in Europe, the "establishment of religion" did mean a state church, it took on a whole new meaning in America. Several attempts were made in several states to have and maintain official churches, but the multitude of denominations made it increasingly difficult to do so. If a state established the Congregationalist Church and required taxes be paid to it, it was not long before Lutherans or Baptists began to refuse to pay the tax. By the time the Constitution was ratified, several states had official state churches, but not official state denominations. In other words, a state would charter a church as it would a business today, but it would have no other formal role in the running of the church. Even that practice was waning, with only six states incorporating churches in any way by 1789. Clearly, the trend in church/state relations was towards no relationship at all.

In the end, the 1st Amendment not only prevents the establishment of a national religion, but it also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit.





SECTION 1. Political power.—All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.

SECTION 2. Basic rights.—All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
History.—Am. S.J.R. 917, 1974; adopted 1974; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 9, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.

SECTION 3. Religious freedom.—There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution....

It looks to me as if you are free to worship as you will BUT your religion has no standing in a court of law.

Now think of


A religious group known as the Branch Davidians lived in their compound they called Mt. Carmel just outside Waco, Texas. On April 19, 1993 agents of the United States government attacked their compound and murdered helpless women and children with battle tanks, flame-throwers, and poison gas. Nearly 100 innocent people lost their lives as a result. What makes this a tragedy of the most terrible proportions is that the Davidians had done nothing to provoke this attack by the United States’ government.

The Branch Davidians got along well with those of the surrounding community. They had some religious beliefs that made them different from other churches, but, then, many of the so-called standard churches differ from each other. Their religious differences were certainly no excuse for the United States government to destroy their home and their lives, especially without a trial. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, but the government completely ignored this right in the massacre at Waco....

Many people believe that David Koresh (or the Branch Davidians) were responsible for the deaths of the 74 men, women and children who died in the inferno at Waco on April 19, 1993. This is the story that the FBI put out. It is a lie. The guns they had were legal. The local sheriff investigated and found no basis for complaints against them. These were law-abiding American citizens, even if they thought differently to most other folks. They trusted the U.S. Constitution to ensure their political rights, but they were murdered by agents acting under the authority of the U.S. government. Read this page if you believe otherwise....

Now compare that to the Muslims:


Islamberg was established in 1980 by Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, a Pakistani cleric...

...Under Gilani’s direction, the DAR transformed into Jamaat ul-Fuqra (“the community of the impoverished”) and continued its prison ministry under Muslims of the Americas, a new, non-profit corporation. The sheikh soon came to realize that it would be financially advantageous to train new recruits for the holy war on American soil rather than shelling out the freight of sending them to Lahore and Peshawar. He purchased a seventy acre parcel of land near Green Haven, set up a firing range and an obstacle course, purchased a slew of old single-wide trailers, and created a paramilitary compound called Islamberg. When released from the federal prison, former convicts now received not only the customary $10 and a suit of clothes but also a one-way ticket to Gilani’s compound....

What took place at Islamberg and the International Quranic Open University? The answers came from Sheikh Gilani in his recruitment videos: “We give [students] specialized training in guerilla warfare. We are at present establishing training camps. You can easily reach us at Open Quranic offices in upstate New York or in Canada or in South Carolina or in Pakistan.” Similarly, in a handbook, published by the university, Gilani writes that the foremost duty of all students is to wage war against “the oppressors of Muslims.” The students are expected to sign an oath that reads: “I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah’s sake.”

...I was later provided with two more tapes, one showing the group’s female recruits receiving such training at “Islamberg” and the other espousing their propaganda, including a declaration that the U.S. is now a Muslim country. These clips were put together into a YouTube video that has since received over 140,000 hits. The evidence we have presented has failed to stop government officials from embracing this group.

The website of MOA’s United Muslim-Christian Forum proudly displays a photo of Binghamton’s Mayor Matt T. Ryan holding their sign. This sort of outreach effort by the MOA is not new. The “Islamberg” website has photos of a picnic they had with Christian neighbors, and in August 2008, the FBI and New York State Police gave awards to the group’s Muslim Scouts of America. In 2005, an FBI Special Agent gave them a note of appreciation.

In 2004, FBI Special Agent in Charge Leslie Wieser spoke at the graduation of the Muslim Scouts of America at “Holy Islamville” in York County, South Carolina. The website also lists three other FBI Special Agents, the York County Sheriff, and Mayor Eddie Lee as being present at the graduation. Over the past year, I’ve received recordings from a nearby resident of the sound of gunfire coming from the site....

It must be nice to have the Rockefellers as your friends not to mention all that oil money.

Not to mention kissy face, Pres. Bush. A photo or two is worth a thousand words

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

Their religion has no standing in a court of law. The judge isn't USING Sharia law. He's allowing the parties to settle their dispute in the manner they agreed to.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:21 PM
I am a bit confused about what they problem is here. Apparently, from what I can tell from the reporting, this judge is not acting in the role of a Judge but int he role of an Arbitrator. This role implies that he will follow the rules agreed to by the people seeking arbitration on a matter. If this was an outright civil suit he would have to follow civil law as defined by the legislature of the state of Florida.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:31 PM
This has already been posted by centurion1211 here:

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

But as I posted there, this judge is just enforcing the terms of the arbitration clause found in their agreements. The fact that the parties selected Sharia law as the rules for conduct during arbitration is no different from other contracting parties selecting rules established by similar domestic or international private arbitration bodies who set up such rules.

Moreover, the article found in the first thread says:

The judge said he would use Islamic law to decide only the legitimacy of arbitration.

"What law would we be applying (at) trial?" Thanasides asked.

"That trial would be civil law," the judge said. "Florida law."

Under most circumstances, private parties should be able to come to whatever contractual agreements they wish. That is all that was done here. They simply selected Sharia Law to govern their relationships.

You and I could contract similarly and choose the laws of Ancient Rome to govern our relationship. It might sound crazy, but would be perfectly acceptable.

I have no wish for the state or federal government to further restrict how I may obligate myself and others by contract. If there is a meeting of the minds between willing participants, then I want the state to do nothing more than enforce our arrangements.

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Civil law is different than criminal law. The parties couldn't use Sharia law if it was a criminal case. But in civil law, it's perfectly fine....

AHHHhhh but you are talking about the "Right to Freedom of Contract"

An Agency of the US government has just ruled there IS no "Right of Contract"

FDA’s Views...

...these are direct quotations from the agency’s response to a lawsuit the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund filed earlier this year...

"There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract."

[A--p. 27]

This should be "heard" in front of a religious leader and NOT in a civil court of law since they agreed to abide by the dictates of their religion.

The ONLY reason for it to be taken to a civil court is because the Muslims are "pushing the envelope" to give THEIR LAWS legal standing in the US court system using CASE LAW. This is part of our law system and they are exploiting it.

Case Law

(n) Case Law is the decisions, interpretations made by judges while deciding on the legal issues before them which are considered as the common law or as an aid for interpretation of a law in subsequent cases with similar conditions. Case laws are used by advocates to support their views to favor their clients and also it influence the decision of the judges.

The Judge if he had brains should either toss it out entirely OR consider the matter using the universal commercial code.

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a comprehensive code addressing most aspects of commercial law, is generally viewed as one of the most important developments in American law. The UCC text and draft revisions are written by experts in commercial law and submitted as drafts for approval to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (now referred to as the Uniform Law Commissioners), in collaboration with the American Law Institute.....

Unfortunately since it is two Muslims there will be no appeal and they got what they were really after: Legal standing of sharia law in the US Court system.

…and this is just a representative sample. As we noted here, Intro to Islamic Family Law in US Courts, even Muslims have acknowledged that U.S. judges are “creating a body of case law” that involves Islamic sharia law. From the Public Policy Alliance:

Legal Cases Involving Shariah

A recent (11-08-2010) representative sample of 17 civil legal cases from 11 states where plaintiffs or defendants attempted to use Shariah law is provided here. The states for these sample civil cases are Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.

Shariah_Civil Legal Cases_Representative_11 States

Shariah is frequently encountered in family law cases across the USA today; in Shariah-compliant accommodations that may result in discrimination against non-Muslims; and in Shariah-Compliant Finance on Wall Street and in the U.S. government.

There’s more, and a long list of accommodations to Islamic sharia law in the U.S. at the PDF link above....

For those who would defend sharia law in the USA:
Do not forget that Slavery was legal until 1962 in Saudi Arabia and is still practiced. (Think Drugs in the USA) Muslims coming to the USA sometimes even bring their slaves with them, especially Muslim diplomats.

...Dr. Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, has said on the subject of justifications for Islamic permission of slavery:[125]

"Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each other - it is not acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner."

...The author Ronald Segal[88] distinguishes the Islamic slave trade from that of the Atlantic or European slave trade by highlighting the aspects of its duration and nature: "It began in the middle of the seventh century and survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. With the Islamic slave trade, we're talking of 14 centuries rather than four." Further, "whereas the gender ratio of slaves in the Atlantic trade was two males to every female, in the Islamic trade, it was two females to every male."

...Unlike Western societies which in their opposition to slavery spawned anti-slavery movements whose numbers and enthusiasm often grew out of church groups, no such grass-roots organizations ever developed in Muslim societies. In Muslim politics the state unquestioningly accepted the teachings of Islam and applied them as law. Islam, by sanctioning slavery - however mild a form it generally took - also extended legitimacy to the nefarious traffic in slaves....

In 1925 slaves were still being bought and sold at Mecca in the ordinary way of trade.[110] The slave market there consisted of the offspring of local slaves as well as those imported from the Yemen, Africa, and Asia Minor.

By the Treaty of Jedda, May 1927 (art.7), concluded between the British Government and Ibn Sa'ud (King of Nejd and the Hijaz) it was finally agreed to suppress the slave trade in Saudi Arabia. Then by a decree issued in 1936 the importation of slaves into Saudi Arabia was prohibited unless it could be proved that they were slaves at that date.[111]

In 1953, sheikhs from Qatar attending the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II included slaves in their retinues, and they did so again on another visit five years later.[112]

It was not until 1962 that all slavery practice or trafficking in Saudi Arabia was prohibited.

By 1969 it could be observed that most Muslim states had abolished slavery although it existed in the deserts of Iraq bordering Arabia and it still flourished in Saudi Arabia, the Yemen and Oman.[113] Slavery was not formally abolished in Yemen and Oman until the following year.[114] The last nation to formally enact the abolition of slavery practice and slave trafficking was the Islamic Republic of Mauritania in 1981.[115]

Gordon describes the lack of homegrown Islamic abolition movements as owing much to the fact that it was deeply anchored in Islamic law. By legitimizing slavery and - by extension - traffic in slaves, Islam elevated those practices to an unassailable moral plain. As a result, in no part of the Muslim world was an ideological challenge ever mounted against slavery. The political and social system in Muslim society would have taken a dim view of such a challenge.[116] Some Muslim leaders, like Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah did ban slavery, but it had little influence in the Islamic world.[117]

In 2003 a high-level Saudi jurist, Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam...
According to multiple sources, religious calls have also been made to capture and enslave Jewish women.

As American journalist John J. Miller said, "It is hard to imagine a serious person calling for America to enslave its enemies. Yet a prominent Saudi cleric, Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik, recently urged Palestinians to do exactly that with Jews: 'Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women?'" [123]

Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri of Karbala expressed the view in 1993 that the enforcement of servitude can occur but is restricted to war captives and those born of slaves.[124]

Saudis deny human trafficking allegations
By Mariam Al Hakeem, Correspondent
Published: 00:00 August 13, 2006

The Saudi government has denied a recent report released by the US Department of State ranking the kingdom as one of the largest human traffickers in the world....

The US Government report said household servants and drivers are among the most abused group of workers in the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia also serves as a safe haven for children smuggled from Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Mali and Afghanistan who are forced to beg or work as street vendors, the report said.

It also alleged that the Saudi government does not protect victims properly and also accused the Saudi government of not being serious in enforcing law against human traffickers....

Modern Slavery:

THIS IS THE RELIGION many ignorant souls are busy defending! THIS IS THE LAW we are allowing to creep into our legal system!

No I do not hate Muslims, I spent yesterday entertaining a Muslim family for three hours or four hours who stopped by my farm and asked to see my animals. On Sunday I was at two different synagogues helping celebrate Purim
edit on 24-3-2011 by crimvelvet because: fumble fingers

top topics


log in