Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership

[rushmc 23]

Now before anyone gets their panties in a bundel read my question to Andy and Lawrocket

Andy, lawrocker

After reading this is apears to me that the judge will be an arbitor for the parties using the law they use in regards to the mosque.
Now, I would think that there are a bunch of what is proper that he do this but my question is more of wondering if you two read it the same?

Can he,as a judge in the US call upon himself to do this in a proper US court?

It there something else I/we are missing?

Thanks in advance guys

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article1158818.ece

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>Can he,as a judge in the US call upon himself to do this in a proper US court?

Sure. If both parties sign a contract that includes parts of Islamic law (or German law, or Catholic canon, or Disney rules) - then yes, a court can interpret and enforce that contract.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Can he,as a judge in the US call upon himself to do this in a proper US court?

Sure. If both parties sign a contract that includes parts of Islamic law (or German law, or Catholic canon, or Disney rules) - then yes, a court can interpret and enforce that contract.

Yes
That part I undestand
But is it proper for him to use another law (that not of the us) in a US court?

Editied to add

I feel that a court dealing with contract issues is differnt than a countries different laws

or

maybe not

That is why I am asking the experts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Coreece 190]

Quote

>Can he,as a judge in the US call upon himself to do this in a proper US court?

Sure. If both parties sign a contract that includes parts of Islamic law (or German law, or Catholic canon, or Disney rules) - then yes, a court can interpret and enforce that contract.

What if the breach of contract listed penalties of either a beheading, a trip to the gass chamber, being burnt at the stake, or being forced to ride "It's a Small World" for 8 hours staight!?!?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 3,120]

>What if the breach of contract listed penalties of either a beheading,
>a trip to the gass chamber, being burnt at the stake, or being forced to
>ride "It's a Small World" for 8 hours staight!?!?

Then they wouldn't enforce it. I mean, OK, some people deserve to be killed, but no one deserves to be Small Worlded.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Now before anyone gets their panties in a bundel read my question to Andy and Lawrocket

Andy, lawrocker

After reading this is apears to me that the judge will be an arbitor for the parties using the law they use in regards to the mosque.
Now, I would think that there are a bunch of what is proper that he do this but my question is more of wondering if you two read it the same?

Can he,as a judge in the US call upon himself to do this in a proper US court?

It there something else I/we are missing?

Thanks in advance guys

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article1158818.ece

Courts can and have taken two different approaches to religious disputes involving religious law and doctrine. One approach is called the Deference approach. This is the older sort of approach as I understand it, being first enunciated by the Supreme Court in the 19th centure. It appears to be what the judge is doing here. It basically means seeing and enforcing the religions own internal code as a sort of subset of contract law, as Billvon has indicated.

The other approach is called Neutral Principles of law approach. That appears to be what the defendants are asking for in this trial. It would decide the ownership of church property (in this case) by applying common civil law questions about what the deeds read, what the articles of incorporation read, etc. without reference to the religions own internal code and as if the mosque was a small business (which of course in many ways it is, especially legally if it is incorporated).

Both these approaches have been applied in a variety of cases and have been in the religious news a lot in regards to church property ownership disputes in some mainline denominations such as Episcopal and Presbyterian and the trust clauses that those denominations have in their own internal religious documents, but not necessarily in civi trust documents. Both approaches have been considered valid in different courts with parties to suits arguing for the application of one of the other depending on their interests and the particulars of the case.

I'm sorry I can't pull up the exact precedents. I used to follow this sort of stuff much more closely. But my answer to your question is that yes, the judge can do this and they have been doing it for many years. The only thing that makes this comment worthy is that it involves Islamic law and Mosque not Christian Doctrine and Church.

Caveat: I am not a lawyer and it is possible that Andy or lawrocket could have a much more informed opinion about such things.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Now before anyone gets their panties in a bundel read my question to Andy and Lawrocket

Andy, lawrocker

After reading this is apears to me that the judge will be an arbitor for the parties using the law they use in regards to the mosque.
Now, I would think that there are a bunch of what is proper that he do this but my question is more of wondering if you two read it the same?

Can he,as a judge in the US call upon himself to do this in a proper US court?

It there something else I/we are missing?

Thanks in advance guys

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article1158818.ece

Courts can and have taken two different approaches to religious disputes involving religious law and doctrine. One approach is called the Deference approach. This is the older sort of approach as I understand it, being first enunciated by the Supreme Court in the 19th centure. It appears to be what the judge is doing here. It basically means seeing and enforcing the religions own internal code as a sort of subset of contract law, as Billvon has indicated.

The other approach is called Neutral Principles of law approach. That appears to be what the defendants are asking for in this trial. It would decide the ownership of church property (in this case) by applying common civil law questions about what the deeds read, what the articles of incorporation read, etc. without reference to the religions own internal code and as if the mosque was a small business (which of course in many ways it is, especially legally if it is incorporated).

Both these approaches have been applied in a variety of cases and have been in the religious news a lot in regards to church property ownership disputes in some mainline denominations such as Episcopal and Presbyterian and the trust clauses that those denominations have in their own internal religious documents, but not necessarily in civi trust documents. Both approaches have been considered valid in different courts with parties to suits arguing for the application of one of the other depending on their interests and the particulars of the case.

I'm sorry I can't pull up the exact precedents. I used to follow this sort of stuff much more closely. But my answer to your question is that yes, the judge can do this and they have been doing it for many years. The only thing that makes this comment worthy is that it involves Islamic law and Mosque not Christian Doctrine and Church.

Caveat: I am not a lawyer and it is possible that Andy or lawrocket could have a much more informed opinion about such things.

Thanks

When added to billvons comments you and he make sense

Interesting

Thanks again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Southern_Man 0]

Looks like Watson v. Jones (1871) [80 U.S. 679, 680] was the original case on which the Deference Doctrine was established.

Jones v. Wolf 443 U.S. 595 (1979). looks to be the best precdent for the Neutral principles of law approach.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

There is not much that I can really comment on the case at hand - there simply isn't enough information in the article to know what was going on.

Quote

After reading this is apears to me that the judge will be an arbitor for the parties using the law they use in regards to the mosque

My scientific wild-ass guess is that there was some kind of arbitration provision either in the trust document or in usage and common understanding. Courts often fill in gaps with common usage and understanding when construing agreements because they look to the understanding of the parties at the time the agreement was made.

Furthermore, Muslims - like Christians, Catholics, etc., are faced with the situation of trying to reconcile their obligations to live under their religious law and their civic duty to follow secular laws. It seems entirely reasonable, for example, for Muslims to set up business relationships, draft wills and trusts, and otherwise contract for goods and services in acccordance with Shari'a.

An issue that can easily arise is gharar. We deal with this situation all the time in the US. Let's say, for example, that I am a Muslim seller of precious metals in California and that a customer has agreed to buy 200 ounces of gold in 60 days for the prevailing market price as defined by the Wall Street Journal on the day of the purchase. We also agree that Sharia shall govern interpretation of the agreement. Then assume the next week that the dollar tanks and gold skyrockets. A week later, my customer voids the agreement under the Shari'a doctrine of gharar because the price was uncertain and speculative. As the seller with a load of cheap gold that I want to sell - but didn't because I had a buyer lined up - I'm mad. The day after contracted delivery, the US treasury releases all its gold, making the 200 ounces I'd set aside now worht 10% of their value the day before. I sue for breach of contract and damages.

It will be up to a judge to determine whether a valid contract existed under the Uniform Commercial Code: offer, acceptance, consideration, etc. If the judge found a contract then the judge would have to determine the intent of the parties. See, under California law and the UCC the judge would merely look at the date of the intended sale and find out how much I suffered in damages, using "gap fillers" to fill in uncertainties.

But under Sharia law, this may be different. What did the parties intend? Would the uncertainty of the contracted price be enough to violate gharar? What was the buyer's understanding of gharar versus mine?

There is a fine line for a judge to draw there. For example, a judge will not order a remedy that is unconscionable or illegal under state law such as beheading or even the dreaded ride on Small World (the horror!!!). But the judge may be required to look at Shari'a law or even unwritten tradition to make the determination of the intent of the contracting parties because an enforceable contract requires a meeting of the minds.

Make sense?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Yes

Makes sense and fills in a few more gaps the billvon and others started

Thanks to all

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Just to throw a little more out there...

The article said there was an agreement that if the lawsuit was dismissed, then the dispute would go to arbitration. The new suit is because the mosque refused to participate in the arbitration. The judge ruled that the mosque has to participate in the arbitration, and that the arbitrator would be from the church.

At the very end of the article, the judge stated that "Muslim Law" would only apply to the arbitration, and if the suit ended up back in civil court, then Florida law would apply to that.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Just to throw a little more out there...

The article said there was an agreement that if the lawsuit was dismissed, then the dispute would go to arbitration. The new suit is because the mosque refused to participate in the arbitration. The judge ruled that the mosque has to participate in the arbitration, and that the arbitrator would be from the church.

At the very end of the article, the judge stated that "Muslim Law" would only apply to the arbitration, and if the suit ended up back in civil court, then Florida law would apply to that.

Hey thanks

That makes even more sense

Thanks again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln