Did Shariah Law Just Work Its Way Into a Florida Court?
- Posted on March 21, 2011 at 10:56am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
A judge in Tampa, Florida is creating a buzz with a ruling some say shows that shariah law is creeping into the U.S. One look at the alleged ruling shows it is suspicious. But is it really an example of shariah “comin’ to America?”
According to a document on the website Jihad Watch, Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Nielsen ordered earlier this month that a civil dispute between current and former leaders of a local mosque over who controls funds awarded during a 2008 eminent domain proceeding be decided under “Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.” Below is a copy of the relevant section:
Judge Richard A. Nielsen
Tom Tillison over at Red State explains the case via a post from Brigitte Gabriel:
The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly.
The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.
Here’s the kicker.
The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.” [Emphasis hers]
You can read the judge’s ruling here.
Now it’s not unusual for a dispute to arise within a religious institution and for a court to order a mediation or arbitration, in order to resolve this without the court having to render its own judgment.
But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge!
“In effect, due process in an American court is being denied and Sharia law is being imposed on an unwilling participant,” Tillison writes. “Right here in Florida.”
But some commenters over at Jihad Watch don’t think this is a blatant example of creeping shariah. For example, commenter TheSSBlock explains that those involved in the case are simply asking the judge to be an arbitrator (something Tillison’s post recognizes), and that isn’t cause for alarm:
This isn’t the imposition of Islamic Law per se. Arbitration agreements (contracts) between parties are regularly taken to Civil Courts for enforcement in cases of dispute. Parties who agree to arbitrate have willingly chosen a method of dispute resolution outside of the court system. Arbitrators do not have to follow state or federal laws in making their decisions – or any recognized law at all.
Although not truly unlimited, if two parties agree to arbitrate their disputes, for all intents and purposes, they can bind themselves to an outcome under almost any system of law, of any religion, or any procedure. Unless a party can show fraud, duress, or coercion, an arbitration agreement functions like any contract which a court must uphold so long as it is clear, unambiguous, and freely negotiated. Consequently, a party may also have a cause of action in questioning the neutrality of the arbitrator or if no meaningful procedure was followed to guarantee a just result.
Upholding Islamic law agreed upon through arbitration is not really a problem. A problem would arise however, if, absent any agreement, the court attempted to invoke Islamic law on its own initiative, which of course it is not permitted to do.
TheSSBlock is correct to point out that the case is a civil, not a criminal, one. But there still seems to be a lot of questions. So we called the Circuit Court clerk in Hillsborough County, Florida. A representative there referred us to Judge Nielsen’s judicial assistant, so we called her, too. We did talk to that assistant, but she refused to comment on the case. Instead, she took our name and number and said she would try and have someone get back to us.
We’ll keep you updated.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 685 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 534 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 443 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 331 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 288 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 296 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 183 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 288 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (328)
Gavinwcaf
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:22amFlorida Impeach this stupid judge now, no sharia law in the Us
Report Post »Toxic Pirate
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:22amReligion of Peace………and…….greed…….. just like everything it starts with the individual
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:22amGird your loins and be ready to rock in 2012.
Report Post »Kevin
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:20amFirst of all, I’m against Shariah law being incorporated into our legal system, or being favored in criminal matters over the constitution.
HOWEVER, this makes sense. If you think about it, what the judge did was keep Shariah out of the courts. If this case went through our court system, you could expect many references to the Quran and Sharia. In essence, the judge would have to make a ruling based on who had followed the Quran more closely. By washing his hands of it all together, we keep Sharia out of our legal process.
On a side note, don’t Orthodox Jews have their own “court system” where they take civil complaints that arise in the community? How would this be any different?
Report Post »Jabber
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 8:52pmExactly.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 1:54amNot exactly………………
1. This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.
Report Post »By entering this phrase into the official rolls of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Judge Richard Nielson has effectively acknowledged the validity of Islamic law as a factor in the American judicial system. Unless this court order is somehow overturned or stricken from the record, unlikely in the current political environment, this provides exactly what is needed for Sharia to take root.
Arguments could be made that this court order simply recognizes that the plaintiffs and the defendant have chosen to resolve their dispute amongst themselves. Such arguments ignore the fact that the court, by virtue of its involvement, is complicit in the verdict. Such arguments also ignore the fact that an official court order which states that a case will proceed “under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law” inherently legitimizes and recognizes a system of law other than those by which our country is ruled.
Later in the document it is stated that the case will be presented to an Islamic judge if the parties involved cannot reach a resolution. This further legitimizes a system of law other than United States law, and gives authority to an Islamic judge who is not a part of our judicial system. To say this is not furthering the establishment of Sharia law is ridiculous.
The final nail in this proverbial coffin is the last clause of the court order.
3. The remainder of the hearing will be to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter.
In other words, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is now part of the mechanism of Sharia law in the United States. Not only will a sitting judge be ruling based on Sharia law as a defense, but he will be ruling on the proper application of Sharia law. He has effectively made the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit an extension of the system of Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.
watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 1:57amIf orthodox jews kept it in “their” courts or Sharia in theirs no problem as long as American law is not broken. But they didn’t keep it in their courts they took to a Judge of the US civil court system. He abdicated his position and authority and became the arm of Sharia in doing so. Just my 2 cents..
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:15amDoes this mean the Pope can rule on abortion?
Report Post »ProgressiveLiberalMarine
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:23pmLet’s hope not.
Report Post »matt708
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:15amthrow the judge and his ruling out. this is how it starts. Where is the atty General for the state of Florida and the legislators
Report Post »Unbelievable
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:13amBut, but, but… This is just a figment of your imagination! CAIR promises Sharia isn’t coming to America!
Report Post »Mr. John Sauls
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:12amHere we go agene. It is the first slippery step, soon they will wont non muslims to follow Shariah law.
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:12amGlenn Beck is wrong when he says the country needs “god.“ For some people their ”god” tells them to kill their female members of their family for coming home late from a date.
Turning to “god” is not the answer. Turning to Jesus Christ and the Gospel is the answer.
Report Post »ZeitgeistBuster
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:38pmWhat about the Father? Wasn’t Jesus sent to point us to HIM? “The works I do are not my own, but the Father who sent me.” And this: “I have not come to glorify myself, but I glorify my Father who is in Heaven.”
If religious people were to put down what they believe on a list, I wonder how many things Christ would cross out, How many things he would correct and how many things he would agree with….
BTW, Glenn has ALWAYS stipulated that you should follow god, UNLESS he is ordering you to kill people.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 2:09am@ ZIETGEIST………Are you a JW, I assume from your post of wanting to point to the Father given the first comment you are a Jehovah’s witness. NICK you were right on the money. Right on it. Jesus is the way the truth and the life and NO man comes to the Father but by him.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 3:36
Report Post »Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 2:18amJohn 14:7
If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
John 14:9
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
JESUS is the second person of the trinity and is God
John fell to worship a created being at the end of Rev 22 and here is what happened………..
8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”
Yet when Thomas proclaimed him God Jesus did not correct him at all,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Report Post »Glockwise2000
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:12amThis is an upcoming events that we need to keep in check. Sooner or later, we would realize that the US Constitution is being taken over by sharia law.
Report Post »Tek
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:12amI have questions. The business end of this mosque had to have filed documents that would have helped determine where the money is supposed to go and who is responsible for it. This could have been filed such that Sharia Law would make the determination with no problems from me at all. The question is, was this actually the case or is the judge just taking it upon himself? I see nothing that indicates how the Corporation was formed and under what conditions.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 2:01amThank you that is what I have been saying to everyone that says they are just fine with this.
Report Post »TheWilderness
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:11amWow…
I‘m sure the judge didn’t think to himself “I’ll let Sharia decide this”, he’s probably just some PC yuppie that thinks that such people can have it both ways and still operate in the framework of our social and legal systems…
Report Post »PFNW
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:11amLoki is right on the money! Get rid of this judge now. What a disgrace!
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:10amFlorida, I’m not upset as much as I’m just plain disappointed in you.
Is this still America?
Report Post »dizzyinthedark
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 10:38amDon’t be too hard on us. Two years ago I joined the Tea Party and there I met with Joe Kaufman who leads the fight against sharia. He has an organization that is making waves–Americans Against Hate. Where have the others been for the last two years on the muslim issue here in Florida? Where have the others been on the issue of creeping sharia and terrorist harboring, mosque building here in Florida? I will stand with the Tea Party and American Against Hate as these organizations are for the Constitution.
Report Post »JQCitizen
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:10am“Ecclesiastical Islamic Law”; – “Islamic Judge” . Sounds like Shariah to me. Lousy, lazy, activist judge.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:09amDangerous and stupid, which makes it doubly dangerous.
Report Post »LIBERALSBEDAMNED
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:09amhttp://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=8017.6661.133.0
Report Post »SUEB
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:08amThis judge is NUTS…..We are in the USA and our laws should apply to everyone……He is setting the road for others to follow…BEWARE..
Report Post »Creestof
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:07amI really don’t have a problem with this. It is a dispute regarding a situation in an Islamic mosque. All parties involved have followed “their” laws in all other matters in the past…so it should prevail here as well. That one party wants to pick what law (ours in this case) presides over this matter, because it will act more favorably for his side…is not right. Live by the quoran, die by the quoran.
Not much different than if the parties had chosen at the outset to have a mandatory arbitration rather than an official legal remedy.
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:33amI can’t see past history being a consideration. Suppose two families in a church have been at odds a long time, but always settled particular instances with the help of the pastor. Then, one day, one side decides to file with the courts after a final event. Those people are within their right to do so. Same thing here, really.
Every citizen has a right to file with the court. This ruling denies one party that right to be heard–not based on the merits of the case but for some other reason. The judge didn‘t state that the petitioner’s case held no legal merit, and threw it out. Instead, he abdicated his position and responsibility to equally apply the law to all before the Bench. Never before have I heard of a judge putting ecclesiastical laws ahead of the authority of the American judicial system.
I hope there’s an appeal, and this ruling is overturned pronto.
Report Post »fordfan
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:40amNo, even if that one party did pick which law might give them the best result, it SHOULD NOT matter. We have ONE LAW in this country, not two, three, or however many we can come up with to suit our needs when it’s convenient……PERIOD. This judge knows this, and again, he just GAVE YOU AND THE REST OF US THE BIG FINGER. How does that feel to you?
Report Post »cromag11b
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:07amUm, its not circumventing the law.
Report Post »He’s sending it to mediation. Just like he could with a Rabbi.
CatB
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:10amNo this is a nudge….. nudge nudge ..
Report Post »BRAVEHEART
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:17amShariah Law is not the same as mediation as we know it in the U.S. This judge could have sent this to mediation under his or the court’s jusisdiction.
Report Post »Gavinwcaf
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:28amwhere does sharia law fit into this case.
Report Post »fordfan
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:32amNO, CROMAG11B, it IS circumventing OUR law! He took the oath to protect our constitution and OUR law and like one commenter stated….he just gave us the finger. And he wasn’t telling us we were #1.
Report Post »I DON’T WANT ISLAM OR SHARIA LAW INTERTWINED IN OUR SOCIETY FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER! They,re both WRONG and DO NOT belong! The 1st amendment tells me I have to grin and bear it…not accept it.
Gavinwcaf
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:32amSharia law is not American law, Clair will love this idiot of a judge.
Report Post »NancyBee
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:56amCatB….you’re exactly right………and this Judge is nothing but a coward!
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:06amNow…What was that the trolls have been saying to us for months, that we‘re paranoid Beckbots following our ’leader’ like sheep?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:20amYep and you still are paranoid beck bots. Look at the facts, the judge is upholding a prior agreement to arbitrait disputes, the judge is not introducing Sharia law, but forcing the parties to respect prior agreements.
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:48amWe’ll have to see, then, how valid that arbitration agreement fits with Florida state law if there’s an appeal, and/or how any final arbitration works out under the state law. I do know judges nullify contracts, implying an inherent ‘unfairness’–like how an allegedly conservative SCOTUS once let a health insurance company off the hook for half the total benefit stated in the policy (a contract) when a person with cancer sued after being dumped. So, it can be done.
Time will tell.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 12:28amENCINOM as usual and true to form doesn’t know that of which he speaks like he thinks he does NY. There are potentially numerous problems with this Judges rulings.
Report Post »KEA
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:06amThis Judge should be stripped of his title. He took an Oath of office to uphold the constitution of the United states and to enforce OUR laws not some religions laws.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:05amWHOOP there it issssssssss.
Report Post »TennesseeConservative
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 10:13pmLock and load. It is coming to a court near you. Be prepared.
Report Post »Loki
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:04amThis Judge needs to be taken off the bench AND disbarred as a lawyer. NOW
Report Post »felina g
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:06pm“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution” .-Abraham Lincoln
Report Post »Strictlybusiness
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:45pmThere is NO UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES BY THIS MAGGOT….. This Judge or anyone trying to SUBVERT THE U.S.A CONSTITUTION, that is a member of any of the 3 branches of Government, should be tryed for HIGH treason , it is time folks, For CONSERVATIVES to USE THE LAW TO FIGHT BACK against these animals who think they understand our ways and culture and are trying to use our laws and good nature against us……..VICTORY OR DEATH ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Report Post »ZeitgeistBuster
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:15pmTo the Muslims who are running the center and want civil arbitration…… PLEASE PLEASE APPEAL your case to a higher court. Don’t let this mess stand as it is.
We need a higher court to weigh in on the case but also weigh in on the rogue nature of this ruling. This is as bad as the German court which washed it’s hands of a Muslim woman seeking divorce for abuse at the hands of her Muslim husband. That judge just left her to the “tender mercies” of her husband and their community of Islamic judges.
I wonder if she is alive… and if so does she still have all of her teeth?
Report Post »ZeitgeistBuster
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:28pmReading the Post again…. If the method of arbitration was agreed to in advance and signed by both parties…. then the judge is right, and it sucks to be you guys. I was under the impression that one of the parties was being FORCED to use Sharia courts for arbitration.
If this gets overturned, then the Muslims will have stealthily broken a piece of our legal system by having a court violate a contract without grounds to do so. It is a bad precedent to set. Let them live by their own word and agreements. It is the bed they made for themselves…. let them lie in it, and give us the opportunity to watch “Islamic Justice” among Muslims in action. This could provide instructive examples to put in the old arsenal of arguments about how dangerous Sharia is to the Constitution.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 2:37pmIts only a civil court matter involved a contract and we do not know what the contract says so I don’t believe we can pass any judgement on this matter until or if we read the contract.
Report Post »http://wp.me/pYLB7-Lr
WhiteFang
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 4:43pmTexasProgressive
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:32am
And what would all of you ‘Beckies’ have said if a judge involved the court in a dispute between two Christian churches?
If two so-called christian churches were in a dispute in a court case, they would fall under the judicial system of the country in which they exist. There is chaos if there is not just one judicial system in a court. Divisions cause confusion.
If the two churches wanted to settle the matter according to the Bible, then they could follow the Godly advice at 1Corinthians 6:1-8; 1 Does anyone of YOU that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? 2 Or do YOU not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by YOU, are YOU unfit to try very trivial matters? 3 Do YOU not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? 4 If, then, YOU do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that YOU put in as judges? 5 I am speaking to move YOU to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among YOU that will be able to judge between his brothers, 6 but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for YOU that YOU are having lawsuits with one another. Why do YOU not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do YOU not rather let yourselves be defrauded? 8 To the contrary, YOU wrong and defraud, and YOUR brothers at that.
It is a challenge to be a true Christian.
Report Post »Robert-CA
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 7:15pm@ WALKWITHME1966
Don’t try to hide it by putting make-up on it .
Report Post »Welcome to sharia law .
Jabber
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 8:26pmOK OK OK!!!
(Can I mention how FRUSTRATING it is that a “reply” button doesn’t show up under EVERY SINGLE POST???)
First-as a group of people who should be exploring the FACTS, and doing our own homework before arriving at conclusions, we aren’t being very responsible here folks.
I’m not a lawyer, but a quick read online can give anyone who bothers a quick understanding about “contract law”. Basically, if two parties enter into a legally binding contract with each other, and that contract contains an arbitration clause that states that both parties AGREE to handle disputes in a specific manner-then a court judge is UPHOLDING U.S. law when he refers those two parties back to their previously agreed upon method of handling disputes. It would be the exact same response if both parties agreed to settle their differences according to Jewish Law, or Christian Law, or by using Rock, Paper, Scissors Law. The Judge is telling BOTH parties that their original agreement is binding.
IOW-
IF the “new” mosque leaders entered into a legally binding contract or agreement with the “old” trustees that stated they would handle disputes according to Sharia Law, then the US Court Judge was absolutely correct in referring both parties back to their agreement. It’s a law that protects EVERYONE who enters into contractual agreements that contain arbitration clauses.
That’s why the title to the article ASKS “Did………….Court”????? And the article also ends stating that they plan to keep checking into it.
If we stop reading/investigating/’checking out things for ourselves, and just assume that we automatically know what the content of something says just because it was posted (or posited) by The Blaze, then we truly do risk becoming the “mindless sheep” that the trolls come here to insist that we already are.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:20pm@ JABBER……….you know I like you a lot my friend and I know we approach things from a very similar point of view, but I think we may disagree on this one. Take a look at my last 2 posts as responses to the first post on this story just above your comment for my reasoning. Still appreciate your point of view though.
Report Post »Robert-CA
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 12:07am@ JABBER
As I said earlier “Welcome to sharia law”
Report Post »You may proceed .
BrerRabbit
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:00amJust UNBELIEVABLE !
CatB
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:09amThis idiot needs to be disbarred … now!
Report Post »Gold Coin & Economic News
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:11amBelieve it! It‘s in the Plan and it’s just the beginning.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:11amSounds like the judge is too busy, or too lazy, to take the case. If the Muslim leaders don’t want to be subjuect to sharia law, why is the judge doing this? I hope the Muslim leaders, who don’t want sharia law, have some good lawyers.
Report Post »ForgivenWretch
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:14amThe judge should be dethroned.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:14amHey judge settle a disagreement between us ! OK whatever your religious law is there I have ruled. He is no judge he is a PC ideology dispenser.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:15am“Florida circuit court judge allows case to proceed under Islamic law (March 3, 2011)
If both parties wanted the case handled by Sharia Law, they could have chose to do so without knowledge of the US Courts. In such cases, we would have no say in the matter…
This is not what happened…as I see it…
The current owners of the Mosque wanted the trial settled by Florida Secular Law. The former owners of the Mosque wanted the matter settled by Islamic Law. The Judge basically gave a big middle finger to the current owners and said the matter would have to be settled by Islamic Law.
This is putting the foot in the door to more Sharia law cases. I would be willing to bet money this case will be used as a precedent for future cases where one party wants to use Sharia Law for settling legal or possibly criminal matters…
What really ticks me off is that the Islamic world is so damn dysfunctional and wretched and now, due to the broad-based affluence, equality under the law, extraordinary mobility and real freedom that Western societies have created, something the Islamic world has never done and will never do because Islam is incompatible with liberty and other core Western values! Muslims in large numbers in the West are now parasitically taking advantage of achievements that their deeply backward world could never attain. Sickening. Islam is the ultimate parasite and ingrate.
I honest to God believe that NOW is the time to make the stand that if a Muslim is in favor or Sharia Law…THEY NEED TO BE DEPORTED to another country…one that SUPPORTS their disgusting doctrine!”
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:18amThis is a tricky one, huh?
So long as neither party is coerced, the parties can enter into any agreement they like.
drphil69
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:20amIt’s the end of the world as we know it!
BE PREPARED.
Obama Bin Lying
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:22amI guess so much for the Constitution…..The Obommunist Manifesto seems to be working
Report Post »redneck
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:26amWho’s the Islam Judge Hillsborough county?
Report Post »mikem1969
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:27amOne more liberal progressive puzzle piece put in place by the antiamericans. These anti-american politicians, judges, nad citizens need to be stopped. At this point at any cost.
Report Post »My-Hero-is-Allen West
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:31amTo Judge Nielsen,
How about you being an American and dealing with this under American law. You have no business using any law what so ever in an American court. You are an American Judge so how about you acting as such and do the job you are expected to do. If you do not have the ability to judge by American law then you sir are unfit to hear any cases under American law and should be required to resign. If you want to use any other law you should move to that country.
It’s people like yourself who have taken this great country to the very brink of destruction!
Report Post »TexasProgressive
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:32amAnd what would all of you ‘Beckies’ have said if a judge involved the court in a dispute between two Christian churches?
Marcobob69
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:50amIs this the “fundamental transformation” that candidate Obama was talking about back in 2008??? I believe it’s a part of it; “Top down, Bottom up, and Inside out….from the Heart”, as Van Jones so eloquently stated!!!
Report Post »uzi4u2
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:52amI don’t know if this “judge” is making a politcal statemnet, he‘s afraid to piss off the muslim community or he’s just stupid. I‘d like to think he’s stupid. Is this what we have to look forward to? Courts too afraid of the muslims here to do thier jobs and make rulings? Yeah, he should be dibarred, immediately
Report Post »JP4JOY
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:54am@TP
That the judge is doing his job!! Enforcing US law!!
Stupid is as stupid does(or writes)
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:58amCan anyone imagine a judge settling something between Christians by saying whatever your evangelical law is, it should be settled according to that. Without ruling based on American law that outrage would be palpable if the story went public. I hear the whole separation of church and state mantra that would rise up. It would be denounced on MSM all the time. How bout consulting our laws that regulate financial relationships between groups. Now if they want to settle outside court so be it that is up to them. But the instance you go before a judge for a ruling that ruling should be governed by American statutes.
Report Post »marine249
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:00pmno big deal as long as they
Report Post »follow U.S. law
kryptonite
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:01pmOH SH**! Traitor Holder has announced that the 9/11 jihadists will be judged in a NY federal court. Sending every four-letter word your way, you filthy America-hater.
Report Post »GODSAMERICA
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:03pmIf he doesn’t want to be a judge then let him resign – - NOW!!!
Report Post »JoeBtfsplk
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:04pmSetting a precedent is the problem. Now the camels nose is under the tent/
Report Post »exdem
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:06pmTHEIR HEREEEEEE!!!
Report Post »It starts with cases where both litigants are Islamic so Sharia is used. Then it starts happening where only one litigant wants Sharia law applied. Thats appealed to the Supreme Court and a leftie justice sides with Sharia. That case is sited in others until Sharia law decides them all. America under Sharia law. They have won.
banjarmon
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:13pmIn Florida, loaded and Ready
Report Post »teachermitch32
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:26pmA Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
The current owners of the mosque have essentially been “coerced” by the Judge in this case. At this point they have no choice to be arbitrated by any other than a sharia arbitrator. You are blind, aren’t you?
Report Post »sleazyhippo
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:27pmThe answer to the “Headline” is NO!
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:29pmWhat was the point of even bringing it into court? If they wanted to follow Shariah law then get a group of faithful together and make a decision. Why waste the courts time and our money if they just wanted to settle it internally anyway?
Report Post »teachermitch32
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:31pmTexasProgressive
I would say that both Christian sides should ultimately be able to agree on the aribitrator (not forced by the court). In this case both sides did not agree. One side is being forced to accept a specific arbitrator…so simple it’s unfair.
docgreen
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:33pmPeople, we need to make a huge stink about this! If we let this happen its only going to create more problems! So when some Idiot judge says, we need to hand this case of honor killing over to Sharia court, well what ever happened to separation of Church and State? Islam has no separation of it! Wake up people their coming! We need to F-ing stop this right now! Don’t let this judge get away with it! Besides who’s the Sharia Judge? Let me Guess, its some judge who’s also a muslim? What ever happened to Code of Ethics? Stop this Please!………….
Report Post »moonpeace
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 12:34pmYep…unfreakinbelievable! All I can say is be prepared for what is to come.
Report Post »drbage
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:00pmThe last time I checked there was one law of the land and it is embodied in the Constitution. I just reread it again today and could find no reference to Shari’a Law in it. SSBlock‘s comment that this isn’t the imposition of Shari’a Law “per se” is the most troubling, since it implies that this could be the first step to see how it works or to give us a nudge. What is further troubling is that since we have gradually drifted from being a nation of laws to a nation of precedents, this could be the precedent that sets the direction of the law. Depending on the outcome of this case, would the lawyer for the man who killed his daughter, because she was becoming too Westernized, request that the case be heard in Shari’a court?
Report Post »ForgivenWretch
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:01pmLan astaslem
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:07pmPeople, people…THE ISSUE is that Sharia Law SHOULDN’T even be MENTIONED in a U S Court! Get it?
Report Post »CaptGregg
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:22pm@TexasProgressive
“And what would all of you ‘Beckies’ have said if a judge involved the court in a dispute between two Christian churches?”
If either wanted the dispute settled by the court, then that’s the way to go. If they both wanted it settled by church authorities, then so be it. In this case, one side wanted to go with the court, so there is no excuse for the judge’s action.
Report Post »Rogue
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:37pmExcellent news for me! I recently started my own religion, and it is against our rule of law to pay taxes. Since religious beliefs now outweigh US law, I’m going to go buy a Ferrari with all that money I save.
Report Post »J.C. McGlynn
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:39pmIf this dispute was between 2 christian churches then the bishop would have settled it. Between the church and a parishioner, if needs be, the secular court.
Report Post »Ironmaan
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:42pmThis should not be paid any respect or deference by any American. He is a crackpot fool and should be treated as such.
Report Post »http://guerillatics.com
Think4yourself
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:42pmThe Blaze is a little slow on this one. http://www.unsalvageable.org had this up on friday
Report Post »123gone
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 1:55pmI’d like to know just what Statute authorizes any U.S. judge to refer, this or any other case, to a legal system that is not within their jurisdiction.
He is clearly not qualified under Shariah law, nor should he be. Shariah law should never be recognized in the United States. It’s interpretation is often in violation of our Constitution.
If this judge finds that U.S. law is not apporpriate given the circumstances, he must refuse to render a decission and dismiss the case.
Report Post »JesusFreak95
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 2:23pmYou folks are jumping to conclusions. The Judges duty is to enforce a legally binding contract. The contract is not posted here. I would say there is a very good chance that the parties have a written agreement that states that should a dispute arise, it will be settled in arbitration under Islamic law. If that is the case, the Judge is merely affirming their contract and is right to deny a motion to proceed to court. He is not endorsing the arbitrators any more then if you enter into an agreement with say the local SEIU, and their contract with you states that you are subject to arbitration. That is WHAT the parties agreed to. Basically they have VOLUNTARILY given up their right to proceed in court under “secular” law, by signing the contract.
If that’s not the case, then yes, it is troubling. I’m dubious.
Report Post »hud
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 2:37pmSimply put, this is grounds for appeal in a real court
Report Post »Think4yourself
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 2:42pmIslamic law has been used to manipulate situations in the UK for years. Here’s an example… http://www.unsalvageable.org/islamic-law-used-to-dodge-sales-tax-on-homes.html
Report Post »ConstitutionalPatriot
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 2:51pmIt is time to start disbarring judge‘s in the lower court’s for not abiding by the State, If State judges, or federal Constitution’s.
Report Post »This is ridiculous, in Libya they do not go by American law if it is an American being tried, or should I not mince words and say ‘beheaded’.
SeasonOfReason
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 3:04pmI’m no lawyer, but it seems to me this judge is just stating in writing what was said at a previous hearing. And what was said at that hearing was the decision by an arbitrator. I’m pretty sure that is all. Someone on here must be a lawyer.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 3:05pmwatchtheotherhand
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:58am
Can anyone imagine a judge settling something between Christians by saying whatever your evangelical law is, it should be settled according to that. Without ruling based on American law that outrage would be palpable if the story went public. I hear the whole separation of church and state mantra that would rise up. It would be denounced on MSM all the time. How bout consulting our laws that regulate financial relationships between groups. Now if they want to settle outside court so be it that is up to them. But the instance you go before a judge for a ruling that ruling should be governed by American statutes.
______________________________________________
Actually yes, remove your racist glasses for a second and read the entire order. The parties went into arbitration, the defendant if trying to get out of the arbitration judgment and Plaintiff filed suit to enforce the ruling of the arbitraitor. It happens all the time, two parties can agree to have a priest or a minister mediate a dispute, party B is unhappy with the outcome and is not living up to the decision forcing party A to sue to enforce the mediators decision.
The only difference is that the parties orgininally agreed to follow Sharia law, once one lost and got an out come he didn’t agree with, thats when the courts where brought in. US courts have a policy to uphold arbitraition, unless the errors of law where grave or against public policy.
Report Post »Dahart
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 3:12pmI would urge everyone living in Florida to email Gor. Scott’s email as I just did. This judge must step down.
Report Post »Secret Squirrel
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 3:35pm…………
Report Post »So separation of church and state is just to use against Christians.
Until we put our foot down LOUDLY, this PC crap will get worse.
No, no, no. I will not abide by your law.
mill
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 3:41pmFLORIDA!!!
Report Post »Disbar this judge now!!!!
Tnredneck
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 4:27pmHang his azz. I am getting so sick of this crap
Report Post »taskmaster78
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 4:47pmHow soon will this clown be impeached? I’d see no other option for any judge who has taken an oath to up hold our constitution. I hope those who live in Florida will begin the drive to bring him up soon. Disbar him as well.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 7:12pmHere’s a good clarification…I think I can live with this one…
“This isn’t the imposition of Islamic Law per se. Arbitration agreements (contracts) between parties are regularly taken to Civil Courts for enforcement in cases of dispute. Parties who agree to arbitrate have willingly chosen a method of dispute resolution outside of the court system. Arbitrators do not have to follow state or federal laws in making their decisions – or any recognized law at all.
Although not truly unlimited, if two parties agree to arbitrate their disputes, for all intents and purposes, they can bind themselves to an outcome under almost any system of law, of any religion, or any procedure. Unless a party can show fraud, duress, or coercion, an arbitration agreement functions like any contract which a court must uphold so long as it is clear, unambiguous, and freely negotiated. Consequently, a party may also have a cause of action in questioning the neutrality of the arbitrator or if no meaningful procedure was followed to guarantee a just result.
Upholding Islamic law agreed upon through arbitration is not really a problem. A problem would arise however, if, absent any agreement, the court attempted to invoke Islamic law on its own initiative, which of course it is not permitted to do.”
However, we need to be vigilant, NOW that we know they (Muslim Brotherhood) have such a strong hold throughout our Government and Judicial System…Nothing but a bunch of parasites…I’ll say it again…
Muslims in large numbers in the West are now parasitically taking advantage of achievements that their deeply backward world could never attain. Sickening. Islam is the ultimate parasite and ingrate.”
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 8:21pmSounds like a CA or MI decision, not FL. Is this judge sure he’s living in the right state?
Guess who’s, hopefully, getting voted out on the next retention vote.
Report Post »uncleal
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 8:34pmAll foreigners that come to live in our country MUST live by our laws and our way of live.
Report Post »It’s ok to follows their traditions but ours comes first. Period.
rireader
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 8:44pmThe Judge is not acting unusually. During the Cold War, there were several property disputes between the 2 separate Russian Orthodox churches which established exile parishes in the U.S. One of the churches tried to do a land grab, going after several of the other church’s properties. In all the property disputes, the U.S. courts did not rely on civil property law but determined the ownership of the property by church law. They did so in order to preserve freedom of religion; by previous precedents, our court system has determined that in order to guarantee freedom of religion, civil law should not be the deciding factor in disputes amongst members of the same religion, but rather, disputes must be decided amongst those members in accordance with the rules and laws governing the faith they share. The case above, as described, falls within the same parameters as the ones fought between the Russian Orthodox churches. For those who belong to a church where there has been disputes regarding property (be it real estate or parish accounts) or even leadership succession, think back to those and decide whether you‘d want the government telling your church that its rules don’t apply if a church “troublemaker” decided to take the church to court.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 9:52pm@ ENCINOM………..I was hoping you would be baited into commenting on this thread. First of all I am not racist thank you very much you doofus. You cannot tell me how or who ruled as arbitrator in this case can you? I know how arbitration works and that courts are to uphold most decisions, however, if it can be shown that there was undue bias the decision can then be voided. Stop and think for a second who was involved in this case. Muslim leaders, past and present, and current leaders want to go to civil court, why? Could there have been some unfair and undue bias? I think it could have been very possible given past and present leaders of the mosque were involved from the same mosque.
But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge! Why might they not want to be subject to their religions law? Could it be that it would not be a fair ruling with bias already built in and do you think that the current leaders even agreed to arbitration? You bet my ignorant little friend and you have no idea because you haven’t read on other cases similar to this one !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is reminiscent of the 2009 New Jersey case, where a Muslim woman sought a restraining order, in civil court, against her Muslim husband, who was raping her several times a day. The judge denied the restraining order because, in his opinion, the husband did not commit a crime because he was following his Islamic beliefs.
In the New Jersey case, and now in this recent case in Tampa, Muslims found themselves being subjected to sharia law against their will.
Judge Nielsen has single handily put Florida on a very dangerous and slippery slope because he seems incapable of making a simple legal decision based upon the facts in the case, something we are paying him to do as an officer of the court. According to the Florida case Matthews v. Adams, 520 So. 2d 334, (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) involving a dispute within the Catholic church, “When the members of the church decided to incorporate their body under the laws of the state of Florida they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the state courts in all matters of a corporate nature, such as accounting for funds.” Does not Judge Nielson know about this case?
Thankfully, Florida Senator Alan Hays and Representative Larry Metz have introduced legislation prohibiting the use of foreign laws to settle disputes in Florida. HB 1273:
Defines term “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system; declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void; declares that certain choice of venue or forum provisions in contract are void; provides for construction of waiver by natural person of person’s constitutional rights; declares that claims of forum non conveniens or related claims must be denied, etc.
It doesn’t matter what their religious laws are if it violates or transgresses against US law then it is illegal period.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:18pmJust for ENCINOM…………………..
1. This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.
Report Post »By entering this phrase into the official rolls of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Judge Richard Nielson has effectively acknowledged the validity of Islamic law as a factor in the American judicial system. Unless this court order is somehow overturned or stricken from the record, unlikely in the current political environment, this provides exactly what is needed for Sharia to take root.
Arguments could be made that this court order simply recognizes that the plaintiffs and the defendant have chosen to resolve their dispute amongst themselves. Such arguments ignore the fact that the court, by virtue of its involvement, is complicit in the verdict. Such arguments also ignore the fact that an official court order which states that a case will proceed “under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law” inherently legitimizes and recognizes a system of law other than those by which our country is ruled.
Later in the document it is stated that the case will be presented to an Islamic judge if the parties involved cannot reach a resolution. This further legitimizes a system of law other than United States law, and gives authority to an Islamic judge who is not a part of our judicial system. To say this is not furthering the establishment of Sharia law is ridiculous.
The final nail in this proverbial coffin is the last clause of the court order.
3. The remainder of the hearing will be to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter.
In other words, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is now part of the mechanism of Sharia law in the United States. Not only will a sitting judge be ruling based on Sharia law as a defense, but he will be ruling on the proper application of Sharia law. He has effectively made the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit an extension of the system of Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.
colonial10
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 1:01amI guess now we need to look up this Judge’s history to see where his opinions and views lay. Then we need to watch his actions in the future as well. He would have gotten the same results doing an American version as well. Arbitration is very simple in America. You settle it and move on, you don’t go to court and the judge settles it. Remember, radical Islam will exploit this.
Report Post »rekindle america
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 2:16amThis is believable and is happening right here in the Us. I am sure this isn’t being reported on NPR.
Report Post »dr_funk
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 2:34amFinancial and legal proceedings at my church don’t occur according to ancient jewish law, they occur according to US Federal and State law.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 2:52amThis will NOT stand!
http://tinyurl.com/4rv8xsm
Report Post »lisalake
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 3:17amHow–why does this commie judge even know islamic law????? Is this taught in law school!!?? W–T–F—
Report Post »Disbar the B–a–s–t–a–r—d–
beebacksoon
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 5:34amWhat ever happened to “the laws of the land”, meaning THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Report Post »Jackers
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 6:27amSharia Law is already recognized in courts in Canada… Are we to follow our gullible neighbors to the north?
This is America. We have one set of laws: the Constitution. All civil and criminal cases should be pursued in accordance to the Constitution; not any form of Sharia Law.
Report Post »Disabledvet
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 9:15amDeath sentence for treason according to the American Law.
Report Post »svedka
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 9:37amThe great thing is that if your religion says you are always right then thats that, you cannot lose, yeah! We are all winners now, Yeah. People our leaders have gotten dust in their wiring, we are in trouble. Remember to keep that rice you are storing in the chiller so that it lasts awhile and save those plastic clam containers they sell strawberries in because they are fantastic for starting seeds. There are too many ****** in the armour.
Report Post »Bum thrower
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 10:52amFlorida Judges are elected; “politicians in robes”; vote the SOB off the bench, just like the people did the judges in Iowa for siding with gay marriage.
Report Post »getalong
Posted on March 22, 2011 at 3:12pmI wonder how much money this judge is getting under the table?
Report Post »DisillusionedDaily
Posted on March 23, 2011 at 10:08pmI cannot believe the Muslim community in the USA would allow the sentencing of a Muslim under Sharia law by an infidel judge to be considered valid and binding. Sharia law is a religious law. No US judge should be allowed to pass a sentence based upon a religious law. It is not constitutional.
Report Post »