Particularly in light of the fooforaw following the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement about the inevitability of Sharia law in the UK, this piece from The Volokh Conspiracy on the application of Saudi Sharia law in Texas and Minnesota is interesting, to say the least!
The issue is not actually whether Saudi law applies in Texas (or other states as the article notes), but whether people can, in the course of making contracts, require that Sharia law be applied as the rule for arbitration. It’s a bit complicated, but the courts’ decisions are worth reading. And certainly read the entirety of the Volokh post. The comments, particularly about how Jewish laws can be enforced through arbitration in US courts are also worth while.
Read all about this (and Osama is even involved). But wait, it’s also in Minnesota. And in New Jersey (Nat’l Group for Communications & Computers Ltd. v. Lucent Technologies Int’l, Inc., 331 F. Supp. 2d 290 (D.N.J. 2004)).
Oddly enough, the American courts treat this as a perfectly normal matter. In the first two cases I cited, the parties entered into a contract that provided for Sharia arbitration; the courts considered challenges to the arbitral process, and upheld the awards. The third case involved a contractual provision expressly stating that disputes about the contract would be resolved under Saudi Arabian law; the court then dutifully investigated what the Saudi rules (which are built on Sharia) would call for, and rendered judgment “based upon this Court’s review of various academic texts, the testimony of the experts, the submissions of the parties, and the Court’s understanding of the fundamental principles of Islamic law as they would be interpreted by a court in Saudi Arabia.”
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
February:08:2008 - 11:57
Maybe American judges can teach Saudis how to apply Shariah Law and I am not joking either…
February:08:2008 - 11:57
Camel’s Nose
What if one of the parties (like a battered spouse) is intimidated into taking a dispute to Sharia Court
February:08:2008 - 11:57
As the issue in the US concerns only agreements to arbitration, as part of a contract, for which both parties must demonstrate that they understand and freely accept the consequences, I don’t see much of a problem. A lack of understanding or a lack of volition would void the terms.
The original piece notes that this is already common practice among Conservative Jews in the US.
February:08:2008 - 11:57
This is much ado about nothing. “Conflict of Laws” jurisprudence is one of the oldest areas of Anglo-American law and is offered as a course in every US law school. Just because a court is located in the US doesn’t mean it will always apply US law to a civil case; sometiems US law itself mandates that the law of another country be applied (the fact that that country’s law incorporates Shari’a is irrelevant from the US court’s perspective). For example, if most of the contract was meant to be performed in Germany, then German law is likely to be applied, and so forth. Choice of law clauses are also a routine matter in contract cases.
The person who worries about “battered women” cases or is afraid US courts will apply “Shari’a punishments” obviously doesn’t know that Conflict of Laws principles do not apply in criminal cases.
February:08:2008 - 11:57
Another commenter said: “Conflict of Laws†jurisprudence is one of the oldest areas of Anglo-American law and is offered as a course in every US law school.”
Okay. That’s what this means to us.
But what you have to think of is WHAT THIS MEANS TO THEM.
They are applying dhimmi status on us.
What happens if an American driver runs over a muslim pedestrian? He’ll be punished by our courts while they hold a secret closed hearing in sharia court where they dish out their own punishment. And they will carry it out too.
February:08:2008 - 11:57
You know, fear of ‘dhimmitude’ is just that: fear. It’s not particularly rational fear, either.
It’s true that people like Usama bin Laden talk about the return of the ‘Caliphate’. The last Caliphate, the Ottoman one, actually outlawed the concept of ‘dhimmi’. So until UBL takes over, there’s not a lot to be worried about. And since ULB and his ilk are not going to create a new Caliphate, there’s nothing to be worried about. The majority of Muslims themselves are sick and tired of his pathologies.
More directly, the linked articles note that the application of foreign law is limited to civil, not criminal law. Running someone over is a matter for criminal law. Two competent adults, choosing to use Sharia law to arbitrate disagreements about a contract, is purely civil law.
Not only is it legal in the US–and many other countries–for contractors to specify which law they will apply to arbitration (in the US alone, they’ve the choice of more than 50 state and territorial laws, as well as whatever other country or organization they prefer), it’s already being done for other religions.
Do a Google search for ‘Beit Din’ or ‘Beit Deen’.
Also, take a look at the next agreement you sign. You’ll find words like ‘Any dispute about this will be resolved according to the laws of X’, even if you live in Y.
February:08:2008 - 11:57
“What happens if an American runs over a Muslim pedestrian?”
Ugh … do you even know what dispute resolution even means? How is running over a pedestrian even remotely similar dispute resolution of a contract?!? I’m sorry to tell you this, but there’s probably not a legal system on earth that hasn’t been applied by a US court at one time or another in the past 220 years.
If an “American” runs over a “Muslim” at least one of two things will happen: (1) The “American” will be prosecuted in criminal court, where US law will apply. (2) The “Muslim” may decide to sue in civil court for damages, where again, US law will apply.
This reminds me of the bruhaha over when banks in British started offering “Islamic loans” to their customers. Another non-issue, but a great chance for some good ole’ fashion anti-Muslim hysteria.
February:08:2008 - 11:57
Modest solutions to the Archbishop of Canterbury problem
Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury started quite a row when he suggested that Britain’s legal system should accommodate aspects of traditional Islamic law.
The British have been putting up with so much lately. I was wondering …
February:08:2008 - 11:57
Right under your very noses: Shari’a courts in Tex
That’s right. When it won’t work in Europe, it’ll apparently be legitimized in the US, as is the case now in Texas (Hat tip: The Jawa Report)
February:08:2008 - 11:57
Tel-Chai: You’ve succumbed to the notion that if it’s Sharia it must be evil. May I suggest you learn a bit about it before you get your panties in a twist?
Sharia is not, in and of itself, bad. How it’s interpreted and flavored with local cultures can be very bad. Try not to confuse the differences.
February:08:2008 - 11:57
Likewise, in the UAE, Sharia Law, to a certain extent is not applied to “non-believers”. Applying Sharia Law, Rabinical Law or any other law(s) outside the US is fair, very fair. Back when I lived in Abu Dhabi, I know I would not like it very much if my husband had to say to me just three times, ” I divorce Thee.” (UAE have seperate courts (civil/family) and so should all countries)