Sharia in American Courts. Again.

It wasn’t long ago that we were all assured that there is no future of Sharia being implemented in the United States. Groups like CAIR and ISNA work diligently to calm our fears and to ensure that we harbor no concern for what many have labeled creeping Sharia. There was a significant outcry against the recent ban of Sharia in Oklahoma, and other states have followed a similar path. Opponents of such ban claim it is simply “anti-Muslim,” and mock anyone who tries to express a concern that Sharia may take root in the United States.
Unfortunately, what happened in Europe is beginning to occur in the United States. Until recently, my favorite example of the implementation of Sharia was a court case in New Jersey. Judge Joseph Charles, denied a request for a restraining order on the basis of Islamic law. Because Sharia defines rape differently than United States law, Judge Charles ruled that a the plaintiff had not been raped and her assailant, her husband, was innocent of all charges. There is plenty of information about this case if you are inclined to do some research, but the long and short of it is that a sitting judge in a court that is charged with enforcing the laws of our country decided that Islamic law superseded the laws of our nation.
The biggest defense of this ruling is that Judge Charles did not apply Sharia law, but rather ruled based on the ignorance of the assailant. Because he was relatively new to the United States, they claim, he was not responsible for his illegal actions. Apparently these icons of tolerance believe that ignorance justifies rape. These defenders of moral relativism argue that the ruling was based on cultural standards, rather than Islamic law. Unfortunately, Islamic law is a cultural standard, and was exactly the standard by which Judge Charles ruled. Fortunately, this ruling was later overturned by a higher court.
This is no longer an isolated incident. Florida has joined the march towards Sharia. On February 23 of this year, a court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit issued an order which included a phrase which sets precedent for future cases that involve Sharia law.
1. This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.
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.
About these ads

Categories: World Events

10 replies

  1. This judge should not be allowed on the courts. There is only one law in America and it is Constitutional Law! If you come to America you become American. If foreign laws are used we will be in the same mess England is in, trying to appease everyone.

    If someone is trying to establish Sharia as law in this country they should be brought up on charges of sedition. PERIOD!

  2. This opens the door for Christians to be able to get out of child abuse charges based on the Bible telling them to kill disobedient children. But, on the plus side, Evangelicals will now be able to kill those who they believe are leading sexually immoral lives.

  3. Lots of potential mischief here and lots of potential for obfuscation. U.S. courts follow no particular law; they follow the principal: stare decisis. Their job includes determining whether a law has been followed or broken and applying penalties in the latter case. Another job is what amounts to binding arbitration of disputes. In that, they apply traditional principles to interpret evidence.
    The Florida case was a result of a failed arbitration. If the arbitration contract or a contract that was the subject of the arbitration itself required Sharia by agreement of the principals, then Sharia became a term of the contract thereby; the court couldn’t throw it out when interpreting that contract in a later lawsuit.
    This sort of thing can get awfully muddy; it’s hard to have much of an opinion unless it’s certain all the facts are present.

  4. Just saying…

  5. The question is how many other cases since 2011 have had sharia law included in them? I knew of the NJ ruling but not FL. How many sharia courts are functioning in the US today? In the UK, these courts were functioning in the muslim communities before they became courts of arbitration. Since Islam is a political system as well as religion, does each mosque have one? If the USA justice system is really muddy, we need to get the environmental folks to clean it up.

  6. “If the interpretation of the instruments of ownership would require the civil court to resolve a religious controversy, then the court must defer to the resolution of the doctrinal issue by the authoritative ecclesiastical body.” United States Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf, 1979.

    This case brought to you by somebody who is not hysterical.

    The concept is actually quite simple. It would be a violation of the First Amendment for a civil court to inject itself in religious disputes, no matter the religion.

    See also, Klagsbrun v. Va’ad Harabonim of Greater Monsey, D.N.J, in which the Court refused to hear a slander action, as it related to interpretation of Jewish law related to a “get,” or Orthodox divorce.

    And now, back to our regularly scheduled hate and hysteria.

    • “The concept is actually quite simple. It would be a violation of the First Amendment for a civil court to inject itself in religious disputes, no matter the religion.”

      Dhonig, perhaps the Beast’s mind is befuddled with hate and hysteria, but here’s his first thought upon reading your comment: and rape is a religious dispute exactly how…?

      From the record: ““Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”

      This must be some version of the First Amendment the Beast has yet to encounter.


  1. New Beats From The Delta
  2. Vander Plaats Adds Sharia Law to his Campaign of Hate - Page 3 - CycloneFanatic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,356 other followers

%d bloggers like this: