Comments on: Saudi Law Applied in Texas, Minnesota Courts

By: Lincoln Olson

Lincoln Olson — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:49:56 +0000

As I read these comments, it appears a number of them are contributed by lawyers (or wan-a-be’s) who I can understand would support it because it gives them oportunities to stick something to somebody else. Just be prepared to learn to speak Arabic because the folks who are pushing Sharia law (just as they pushed Sharia finance) are here for one reason only and that’s to Islamize America. As of now that’s being made easy for them with the help of YOUR President. His plan is to totally break America (financially) while at the same time disarming it’s citizens and military. It’s already working, so wake up America. Oh yeah, How’s that CHANGE thing working out for you?

By: swedish

swedish — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:54:47 +0000

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)

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:13:15 +0000

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.

By: Tel-Chai Nation

Tel-Chai Nation — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:24:28 +0000

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)

By: Exit Zero

Exit Zero — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:09:51 +0000

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 …

By: Commentor

Commentor — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:14:17 +0000

“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.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:09:37 +0000

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.

By: jillosophy

jillosophy — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:50:10 +0000

Another commenter said: â€œConflict of Lawsâ€ 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.

By: Commentor

Commentor — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:33:15 +0000

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.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:09:49 +0000

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.