Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit

http://patriotupdate.com/4557/judge-...41081fa8c9%2C0

Quote:

---

Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit
March 22, 2011


“This case,” the judge wrote, “will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.”

Nielsen said he will decide in a lawsuit against a local mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, whether the parties in the litigation properly followed the teachings of the Koran in obtaining an arbitration decision from an Islamic scholar.

The suit was filed by several men who say they were improperly ousted as trustees in 2002. The dispute may decide who controls $2.2 million the center received from the state after some of its land was used in a road project.

But attorney Paul Thanasides last week appealed Nielson’s decision with the 2nd District Court of Appeal, saying religion has no place in a secular court.

His client: the mosque.

“The mosque believes wholeheartedly in the Koran and its teachings,” Thanasides said Monday. “They certainly follow Islamic law in connection with their spiritual endeavors. But with respect to secular endeavors, they believe Florida law should apply in Florida courts.”

The judge’s ruling comes as conservative lawmakers in Florida and around the nation are increasingly discussing legislation to ban or curtail the use of Islamic law, sometimes called sharia law, in U.S. courts.

Two Florida Republicans, Sen. Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz, this month announced legislation to prevent Islamic law, or any foreign legal code, from being applied in state courts.

The Tampa case is drawing attention from some who cite it as proof judges are improperly using foreign law.

---

Wtf!?!?!?

separation of church and state: another liberal one way door

if he had ruled that a case should be decided by tenents of christian belief, liberals would go code red ape shit.

Ask that same judge to give you license to marry more than one wife and see what happens.


Sharia allows it.
why not?

America, Home of the double standard.

Islamic law is OK with me iffn it includes hacking off the limbs of thiefs, a more liberal use of the death penalty, and any other law that marks a criminal asshole. If it doesn't include it that judge can get bent..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BREATHER

Islamic law is OK with me iffn it includes hacking off the limbs of thiefs, a more liberal use of the death penalty, and any other law that marks a criminal asshole. If it doesn't include it that judge can get bent..

---

Practice the Sharia/Muslim Month of Ramadan and then let me know

For those that say its just an Arab thing... Trust me, it's Sharia.

when you see a westerner arrested and then deported for smoking during Ramadan in daylight, it's Sharia.


But yeah, I Agree with their views on Crime and Punishment as well as citizenship

even as Legal and lawful visa holders, when my wife and I had Little Byte in Kuwait, he was not a Kuwaiti, there was no option to make him a Kuwaiti.
He was seen as an American/Filipino.
even before we had the certificate of Birth Abroad from the respective Consulates.


As far as illegals, They will only deport you once.
Then you are property of the state.


and I don't mean like here where you get cable TV, 3 hots and a cot.
you share a bowl of rice with 500 of your closest cell mates and work from dawn-dusk with 5 breaks a day for prayer.

Females that overstay their visas are greatly appreciated by the guards...
I won't go into it, but your nightmares wouldn't cover half of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BREATHER

Islamic law is OK with me iffn it includes hacking off the limbs of thiefs, a more liberal use of the death penalty, and any other law that marks a criminal asshole. If it doesn't include it that judge can get bent..

---

B/S makes the point. Go spend a year in the sandbox and tell us how it works. Almost all will will hate even hearing the word. Just a thought from one who has. :)

I am going to demand my future court endeavor to be treated as my religion dictates and since I am a minority, it would be discrimination and racist to refuse!!! I will start every sentence in the name of Jesus Christ and God Almighty - if you guys see me on the newspaper, I have made my point!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerrymrc

B/S makes the point. Go spend a year in the sandbox and tell us how it works. Almost all will will hate even hearing the word. Just a thought from one who has. :)

---

spending a year in the sandbox as a Civilian and as a Suit are two different worlds.
Military are not as subject to local law.
Civilians have no exemption what so ever.
So Visit Kuwait or Saudi during late August....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB888

Two Florida Republicans, Sen. Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz, this month announced legislation to prevent Islamic law, or any foreign legal code, from being applied in state courts.

---

the fact that this even needs to be discussed is mind boggling

So wait, this was a lawsuit to allow the teaching of the Koran at a mosque? and who had control over that mosque? The article is loosely written, as is common when people refer to "islamic law" i am just confused on what is in question here...

Back to my thought. Yeah, maybe it's tough,,, so just don't screw up. Amercia wouldn't be so screwed up if tougher laws were in place, or the ones on the books would be inforced and not "interpreted"...

And the laws need to enforced regardless of socio-economic status...

[Bang] That is F'd up. Separation of church and state should be determined the same, no matter what religion is in question. If it had been a Christian church, the discrimmination knows no end...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by al-x

[Bang] That is F'd up. Separation of church and state should be determined the same, no matter what religion is in question.

---

This. Wondering if there isn't more to the story, or why a judge would think it's ok to use Sharia law in the US.

I know lots of Liberals, none of them are OK with Sharia law. They can't even stand the puritan "no alchohol sales on Sunday" laws, at least half of them would learn to shoot a gun if someone told them they had to pray five times a day. The other half would probably make signs and be fodder.

H.

I wish that article would have had more facts on the lawsuit, etc...

We don't need more laws, shiria law, tougher laws, or envelope middle eastern legal system in any way, period.

This country was founded by people trying to escape at kind of govt abuse. Quite frankly, I think you could take about half the laws in the federal and state systems and toss them out. It would be a good start.

This thread is stupid, and the judges ruling will be overturned immediately upon the appeal starting. Complete no brainer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA Friday

This thread is stupid, and the judges ruling will be overturned immediately upon the appeal starting. Complete no brainer.

---

I agree. Yesterday however, if someone asked me if there was ever an American Judge to allow sharia court in his courtroom in US. I would say heck no, completely no brainer there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB888

I agree. Yesterday however, if someone asked me if there was ever an American Judge to allow sharia court in his courtroom in US. I would say heck no, completely no brainer there.

---

If two parties willingly submitted to a non-government arbitrator who was using Sharia law, in as much as implementation of it wasn't a violation of state or federal law, then OK. Same for if two Christians were in a dispute in went to a pastor to solve it using Biblical rules. As long as it doesn't involve actually cutting a baby in half or chopping off a hand (Islam) then whatever.

But for a Government paid judge to use any other law-set is serious WTF territory.

H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettodub

I wish that article would have had more facts on the lawsuit, etc...

---

This. I have no idea what the main purpose of that article is, it just sounds like mindless rable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lebru

This. I have no idea what the main purpose of that article is, it just sounds like mindless rable.

---

Per the article, the lawsuit is about whether the ex-trustees were improperly removed from overseeing the $2.2 million dollars the mosque earned in a land sale. The mosque is accused of not abiding by arbitration. The party asks the judge to rule per Sharia law - the Judge agrees.

2 second google search also yielded..
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...cle1158818.ece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB888

Per the article, the lawsuit is about whether the ex-trustees were improperly removed from overseeing the $2.2 million dollars the mosque earned in a land sale. The mosque is accused of not abiding by arbitration. The party asks the judge to rule per Sharia law - the Judge agrees.

2 second google search also yielded..
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...cle1158818.ece

---

Well, since this is a case regarding Sharia law (the mosque) the judge would have to rule per those specifications for a fair trial. So, if the ex-trustees were removed per sharia law, it would be a legitimate removal since it is a religious matter in this case. However, if it was a business and they were removed per sharia law it would not be a legitimate excuse, but since it is a place of worship sharia law is proper place. That sounds like churches asking judges to rule based off church law, which has happened again and again.

But what was the reason why they were removed? because it doesn't really say.


edit: because they were outed as per sharia law, the judge has to rule based on the sharia law since it is a place of worship and the business principles they adhered to were sharia law. they all had agreed prior to taking the job, I am sure(because it says they are strong believers in the koran), that sharia law governs their lives. Its hard to explain, but yeah because they all had prior ackowledgement that they were being governed by sharia law the judge had no choice. and since it is a mosque and not a business the ruling has to be based on their beliefs.

wow.. just wow lebru.

1st, its about the proceed of the land sale who was owned by a Mosque. Some of the trustees of the nonprofit corporation sue for some control over those proceed.

2nd, the florida state law super cede private contracts, the US federal law super cede state law and the Consitution is the supreme law of the land.

The point is, someone sue you in the court of law over a private disagreement, the federal judge must proceed as a FEDERAL JUDGE and rules by FEDERAL LAW, not some kosher, islamic, buddhist, christian, or lebru law.

But if the non-profit adheres to sharia law, and all the trustees know and acknowledge that, and everything they do and all their profit is distributed as sharia law, then federal law doesn't apply. It is their 'religious duty' to distribute the money per sharia law, or whatever they want to do. So therefore, the Federal Judge can't rule that the money the MOSQUE raised has to be distributed per Federal Guidelines because the separation of church and state also ensures the government won't interfere with religious matters. Separation of church and state is a Federal law that supersedes the judge, the judge can't interfere with religious matters and religious freedoms.


edit: its the same reason why they can't interfere with peyote use, because they are given those rights under the various religious freedoms acts allowing them to conduct business and others under their religious guidelines so long as its an established religion


edit2: if it were a case of individuals or businesses it would be a different case, but since it is a religious matter he did the right thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lebru

But if the non-profit adheres to sharia law, and all the trustees know and acknowledge that, and everything they do and all their profit is distributed as sharia law, then federal law doesn't apply. It is their 'religious duty' to distribute the money per sharia law, or whatever they want to do. So therefore, the Federal Judge can't rule that the money the MOSQUE raised has to be distributed per Federal Guidelines because the separation of church and state also ensures the government won't interfere with religious matters. Separation of church and state is a Federal law that supersedes the judge, the judge can't interfere with religious matters and religious freedoms.

---

Again, it's not a matter of a federal judge is trying to intervene in private matter. It is a matter of a party is suing another party in the FEDERAL COURT.

Quote:

---

someone sue you in the court of law over a private disagreement, the federal judge must proceed as a FEDERAL JUDGE and rules by FEDERAL LAW, not some kosher, islamic, buddhist, christian, or lebru law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB888

Again, it's not a matter of a federal judge is trying to intervene in private matter. It is a matter of a party is suing another party in the FEDERAL COURT.

---

again, you are thinking of individuals, corporations, ect. Religious matters can't be ruled on in FEDERAL COURT under FEDERAL law ever since 1993.

this case was individuals v church, and thats a big no-no

I am not agreeing with it, but the judge knows what was best. Challenge the constitutionality of the first amendment and the 1993 religious freedoms act if you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lebru

again, you are thinking of individuals, corporations, ect. Religious matters can't be ruled on in FEDERAL COURT under FEDERAL law ever since 1993.

---

Yet again, you think like a liberal. It is not RELIGIOUS matter. One party of the trustee is SUING another party through FEDERAL COURT.

Federal court can either turn it down, or proceed under federal law- NOT SHARIA. In this case, the FEDERAL COURT proceeded under SHARIA law advisement.

If it was a religious case - not monetary case, then federal court should TURN IT DOWN. as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB888

Yet again, you think like a liberal. It is not RELIGIOUS matter. One party of the trustee is SUING another party through FEDERAL COURT.

Federal court can either turn it down, or proceed under federal law- NOT SHARIA. In this case, the FEDERAL COURT proceeded under SHARIA law advisement.

If it was a religious case - not monetary case, then federal court should TURN IT DOWN. as simple as that.

---

How is it not a religious matter? It is a non-profit islamic mosque, retard. Islam isn't a religion now? And they don't fall under the religious freedoms act? He proceeded under sharia law, because that is how the non-profit proceeded and he was clarifying that they had full rights to do whatever they did to that trustee under sharia law. He didn't say "well cut off his hand", and now every woman in my jurisdiction is to be stoned for revealing more than her eyes, did he? No, he was clarifying that the Mosque was allowed to act under sharia law.


Why is it that Liberal is used as a generalized insult used by people who don't know shit about shit against people who actually have a little bit of knowledge? Let me guess, next you are going to say that gravity, plate tectonics, and the universe were created by god? And that the USA is the only country on earth who are good Christians and everyone else is inferior right? Do you even know what the word Liberal means?

Because if it is religious matter, than it wont be in the federal court, smarty. In fact, if you are correct, then federal court should turn it down instead of making comments or ruling. Federal judge should stick with federal laws, period - I thought we are in agreement on this part.

It is a big deal because as you mentioned yourself, Sharia law also dictates family life, wife, children and so on. This ruling will be used and quoted in many future 'sharia' cases. This has happened in western europe, SE Asia, and many other places.

I fought the damn sharia islamist all my life until I was ousted from my own land. What I see in US now is what I saw couple decades ago in the 'moderate-multi cultural' Indonesia. That's my bias, whats yours?

You were being hypocrite on the 'federal law' should stay out of religious yet it's ok for a federal judge to pass an opinion on this 'religious' dispute, and now you are being a hypocrite about being offended because you were being generalized, yet you came back with one.

For your info, I am not religious nor was I born Christian. One thing I know, you are a great definition of a libtard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA Friday

We don't need more laws, shiria law, tougher laws, or envelope middle eastern legal system in any way, period.

This country was founded by people trying to escape at kind of govt abuse. Quite frankly, I think you could take about half the laws in the federal and state systems and toss them out. It would be a good start.

This thread is stupid, and the judges ruling will be overturned immediately upon the appeal starting. Complete no brainer.

---

You're absolutely correct, this thread is stupid. BUT we have so many laws because of stupid human behavior. Driving while intoxicated,,, gee whiz how freaking stupid does one have to be to know you can't drive drunk. Hunting laws with game limits,,, look at the buffaloe and actually deer in the east in the early years... Gosh darn ,,how stupid does one have to be to know if ya kill everything there won't be anything left.. Most laws are in the books because someone did something STUPID.

You need a license to drive, hunt, fish, ya need a license to cut hair, to sell booze, BUT ONE DOES NOT NEED A LICENSE TO BREED..,, stupid people beget stupid children. '

FAG!


Oh, sorry... everyone was calling each other names and I felt left out.
[Tooth]