Muslims are ANGRY at Texas Mayor After She Stops “Sharia Court”

[bodecea]

They aren't illegal. ...

They literally are... . As where any individual or group of individual knowingly conceals a crime, they are complicit in that crime. Thus, where a body is established to hear evidence of criminal behavior and fails to notify relevant authorities of such, they are complicit in concealing the crime, therefore they are complicit IN THE CRIME.

Now, if the issue is civil... and it is an in-house body which seeks to mediate disagreements or to enforce the rules relevant SPECIFICALLY and EXCLUSIVELY to the entity at issue... then anyone or any group is entitled to hold such a hearing. But the terms handed down by such are not legally binding, except with they have written agreements and the agreement does not set aside any of their respective rights.

The issue here is that Islamists came looking for Government Sanction... in order to raise its perceived status in the hopes of establishing itself as a legally recognized body.

Like the Catholic Hierarchy being complicit in the crimes of pedophile priests. True.

 

[bodecea]

Muslims! BOOOOOO!

 

[rightwinger]

If you have an agreement that provides for binding arbitration, the decision of the arbitrator is binding and non appealable. The civil court is only limited to enforcement.

The decisions of religious courts are not legally binding and Texas cannot enforce them. Nobody is saying they should

If you are willing to face the wrath of your church, you are free to ignore the findings of church elders

 

[ogibillm]

you really are stupid.
jewish law calls for stoning - do you see that happening anywhere with jewish courts?

When is the last time Jews stoned anyone, sploogy? A thousand years ago?

What about your Muslim cronies?

Yesterday?

here in the united states? i'm going with never.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Had your Imams completed the training required, comrade?


Also, what you list is mediation, not binding arbitration.

For binding arbitration the requirement is as I stated:

{
The TAA sets forth specific procedures for the handling of arbitrations. For the most part, the
procedures to be followed are those that were specified
by the parties themselves in their own agreement.
Lacking the details in such an agreement, the court may appoint qualified arbitrators to proceed.
Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code § 171.041. Under the TAA, duly appointed arbitrators may issue subpoenas,
adminis
ter oaths, hear evidence and decide cases. Parties at arbitration have a right to be heard, present
evidence and cross examine witnesses.
Id.
at § 171.047. An arbitrat
ion
award must be in writing and
signed by each arbitrator, and an award may be enforc
ed by the courts.
Likewise, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) also recognizes the right of parties to agree to
resolve their disputes by arbitration. In instances where there is some disagreement between the TAA and
the FAA, the Federal Act prevails. It
provides for procedures that are generally similar to those found in
the TAA. The Federal Arbitration Act, found in Title 9 of the United States Code was first enacted in
1925 and has since been revised from time to time. The United States Supreme Court
has repeatedly held
that an agreement between parties pursuant to the FAA to arbitrate will be enforced even over objections
or contrary provisions of state law.
See
e.g.
Preston v. Ferrer
, 522 U.S. 346 (2008).}

http://fletcherfarley.com/articles/Alternative Dispute Resolution in Texas.pdf

Where does it say the arbitrators have to be retired judges? Dont lose sight of the question.

You know, I was just noticing, I've been a member here a few months longer than you, yet you have four times as many posts.
That's insane !
You have 43 thousand fucking posts in just two years !!
Don't you think you should concentrate on getting a life ?

Its not my fault you have nothing to say. Dont try to compete with me. Be yourself and dont be envious.

Lol !
I'm definitely not envious of someone who spends all their time here !

Of course you are envious. Thats the reason you took the time to note how many posts I have made. I, on the other hand, could care less about how many posts people make. You should be more secure in yourself or learn the ability to have something to say people will respond to.

I'm secure enough that I don't feel the need to create fifty posts a day.

 

[Godboy]

Creeping Sharia.
Today it's a voluntary system, with these people tomorrow it's likely to go further.
Best to kill the cancer while they still can. Shame on the four assholes who voted against stopping it.

lol. you just can't help yourself, can you? when you have to make things up to support your position there's a good chance you don't have a leg to stand on.

the mayor and the five idiots that voted to pass a completely unenforceable ordinance are idiots and should be ridiculed and shamed publicly.

You might want that, but the opposite is happening. The Muslims are the ones being shamed and ridiculed for bringing their retarded shit into our nation.

 

[Asclepias]

Where does it say the arbitrators have to be retired judges? Dont lose sight of the question.

You know, I was just noticing, I've been a member here a few months longer than you, yet you have four times as many posts.
That's insane !
You have 43 thousand fucking posts in just two years !!
Don't you think you should concentrate on getting a life ?

Its not my fault you have nothing to say. Dont try to compete with me. Be yourself and dont be envious.

Lol !
I'm definitely not envious of someone who spends all their time here !

Of course you are envious. Thats the reason you took the time to note how many posts I have made. I, on the other hand, could care less about how many posts people make. You should be more secure in yourself or learn the ability to have something to say people will respond to.

I'm secure enough that I don't feel the need to create fifty posts a day.

Sure you are. Stop trying to convince me you are not insecure. What other reason would you notice how many times I post?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

"Texas law requires arbitration to be conducted by retired judges at law." More made up shit.

Here is the actual Texas law on arbitration. It says nothing remotely like what you claim.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE CHAPTER 154. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

Here are the required qualifications of the third party to arbitrate:

Sec. 154.052. QUALIFICATIONS OF IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTY. (a) Except as provided by Subsections (b) and (c), to qualify for an appointment as an impartial third party under this subchapter a person must have completed a minimum of 40 classroom hours of training in dispute resolution techniques in a course conducted by an alternative dispute resolution system or other dispute resolution organization approved by the court making the appointment.

(b) To qualify for an appointment as an impartial third party under this subchapter in a dispute relating to the parent-child relationship, a person must complete the training required by Subsection (a) and an additional 24 hours of training in the fields of family dynamics, child development, and family law.

(c) In appropriate circumstances, a court may in its discretion appoint a person as an impartial third party who does not qualify under Subsection (a) or (b) if the court bases its appointment on legal or other professional training or experience in particular dispute resolution processes.

Had your Imams completed the training required, comrade?


Also, what you list is mediation, not binding arbitration.

For binding arbitration the requirement is as I stated:

{
The TAA sets forth specific procedures for the handling of arbitrations. For the most part, the
procedures to be followed are those that were specified
by the parties themselves in their own agreement.
Lacking the details in such an agreement, the court may appoint qualified arbitrators to proceed.
Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code § 171.041. Under the TAA, duly appointed arbitrators may issue subpoenas,
adminis
ter oaths, hear evidence and decide cases. Parties at arbitration have a right to be heard, present
evidence and cross examine witnesses.
Id.
at § 171.047. An arbitrat
ion
award must be in writing and
signed by each arbitrator, and an award may be enforc
ed by the courts.
Likewise, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) also recognizes the right of parties to agree to
resolve their disputes by arbitration. In instances where there is some disagreement between the TAA and
the FAA, the Federal Act prevails. It
provides for procedures that are generally similar to those found in
the TAA. The Federal Arbitration Act, found in Title 9 of the United States Code was first enacted in
1925 and has since been revised from time to time. The United States Supreme Court
has repeatedly held
that an agreement between parties pursuant to the FAA to arbitrate will be enforced even over objections
or contrary provisions of state law.
See
e.g.
Preston v. Ferrer
, 522 U.S. 346 (2008).}

http://fletcherfarley.com/articles/Alternative Dispute Resolution in Texas.pdf

Has nothing to do with members of a religion resolving conflicts internally

It is done not just by Muslims but Christians, Mormons, Amish, Orthodox Jews and Scientologists

Exactly my point. So what more are Muslims seeking that goes beyond the rights of all private organizations that they should be mad at this law?

Who said they were seeking anything other than an apology?

I did. I said they were seeking the right to impose civil penalties like government can because that's what Sh'ria law is all about and nothing short of that will satisfy this evil religion.

 

[Asclepias]

"Texas law requires arbitration to be conducted by retired judges at law." More made up shit.

Here is the actual Texas law on arbitration. It says nothing remotely like what you claim.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE CHAPTER 154. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

Here are the required qualifications of the third party to arbitrate:

Sec. 154.052. QUALIFICATIONS OF IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTY. (a) Except as provided by Subsections (b) and (c), to qualify for an appointment as an impartial third party under this subchapter a person must have completed a minimum of 40 classroom hours of training in dispute resolution techniques in a course conducted by an alternative dispute resolution system or other dispute resolution organization approved by the court making the appointment.

(b) To qualify for an appointment as an impartial third party under this subchapter in a dispute relating to the parent-child relationship, a person must complete the training required by Subsection (a) and an additional 24 hours of training in the fields of family dynamics, child development, and family law.

(c) In appropriate circumstances, a court may in its discretion appoint a person as an impartial third party who does not qualify under Subsection (a) or (b) if the court bases its appointment on legal or other professional training or experience in particular dispute resolution processes.

Had your Imams completed the training required, comrade?


Also, what you list is mediation, not binding arbitration.

For binding arbitration the requirement is as I stated:

{
The TAA sets forth specific procedures for the handling of arbitrations. For the most part, the
procedures to be followed are those that were specified
by the parties themselves in their own agreement.
Lacking the details in such an agreement, the court may appoint qualified arbitrators to proceed.
Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code § 171.041. Under the TAA, duly appointed arbitrators may issue subpoenas,
adminis
ter oaths, hear evidence and decide cases. Parties at arbitration have a right to be heard, present
evidence and cross examine witnesses.
Id.
at § 171.047. An arbitrat
ion
award must be in writing and
signed by each arbitrator, and an award may be enforc
ed by the courts.
Likewise, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) also recognizes the right of parties to agree to
resolve their disputes by arbitration. In instances where there is some disagreement between the TAA and
the FAA, the Federal Act prevails. It
provides for procedures that are generally similar to those found in
the TAA. The Federal Arbitration Act, found in Title 9 of the United States Code was first enacted in
1925 and has since been revised from time to time. The United States Supreme Court
has repeatedly held
that an agreement between parties pursuant to the FAA to arbitrate will be enforced even over objections
or contrary provisions of state law.
See
e.g.
Preston v. Ferrer
, 522 U.S. 346 (2008).}

http://fletcherfarley.com/articles/Alternative Dispute Resolution in Texas.pdf

Has nothing to do with members of a religion resolving conflicts internally

It is done not just by Muslims but Christians, Mormons, Amish, Orthodox Jews and Scientologists

Exactly my point. So what more are Muslims seeking that goes beyond the rights of all private organizations that they should be mad at this law?

Who said they were seeking anything other than an apology?

I did. I said they were seeking the right to impose civil penalties like government can because that's what Sh'ria law is all about and nothing short of that will satisfy this evil religion.

I meant someone credible.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Apparently" The word you use when you know you are making shit up.

Now you're basing that upon what? And please, be at least as specific as your limited intellectual means allow.

 

[Coyote]

The mayor is a bigoted idiot. ... .

The absolute COOLEST thing about the use of the word "bigot"; where such is advanced to frame the character of another, is that it is a marvelous demonstration of BIGOTRY!

HYSTERICALLY! ... such is a paradox that is lost to the Intellectually Less Fortunate. So it happens among them... as a matter of ROUTINE!

The absolute coolest thing about your statement is.....you actually think you said something

Are you really a 'moderator'? And a USMB staffer?
Does'nt look like you're doing much 'moderating' friend.

Yes, I am. I suggest you check the rules and if you have any questions, feel free to PM one of us or if you feel a post is a violation, report it. This region operates under Zone 2 rules

 

[Coyote]

The mayor is a bigoted idiot. ... .

The absolute COOLEST thing about the use of the word "bigot"; where such is advanced to frame the character of another, is that it is a marvelous demonstration of BIGOTRY!

HYSTERICALLY! ... such is a paradox that is lost to the Intellectually Less Fortunate. So it happens among them... as a matter of ROUTINE!

The absolute coolest thing about your statement is.....you actually think you said something

Oh, you. Be nice now.

pfft. If you insist.

 

[Coyote]

it, in my sentence, actually referred to your objection to the courts. ...

The Courts ... which are illegal in the United States, because we already have a legal system, which rests in principle rejected by ISLAM. Which is the basis of my REJECTION OF SUCH.

so judge judy is illegal? the people's court is illegal? jewish and amish courts... illegal?
why aren't you protesting them?

incidentally, none of those are illegal.

Does Judge Judy have also have a 1200 year record of employing mass-murder as a means to acquire political power? I wasn't aware?

(Reader Judge Judy considers civil matters to which the parties sign contracts within the scope of the program... Judge Judy does not have any authority over the individuals and she cannot use law enforcement to enforce her rulings. Where the individuals fail to adhere to her ruling, the prevailing parties would need to seek judgement from a duly appointed court to enforce such.

By seeking sanction from the City of Irvine, the Muslims were seeking to increase their perceived authority... a first step to becoming recognized as an ACTUAL "AUTHORITY".)

Where is it ever mentioned that the Muslim Court is seeking any "sanction" from the City of Irvine?

The better question is, why are they seeking anything more than what any church does when there's an offense. Disciplinary action is decided upon within their power and anything from a rebuke to full disfellowship is applied. Any religion can do this, so what the hell do Muslims want above and beyond this?

Nothing.

Most of these are civil cases involving marriage, divorce, contracts.

 

[Coyote]

The Muslims insisted sharia law was superior. She laid down it is not.

If two sides want to have an arbitrator, that is fine and dandy. If one side or another wants civil law to take over, that is what takes precedence. She made that abundantly clear who wanted their own court to take precedence instead.

Third party civil arbitration is completely legal in the US.

Is the Sharia court only hearing civil cases? Do you what sharia law says punishment for adultery is? 100 lashes. For homosexuality? Death.

Is the Sharia court only hearing civil cases? Of course. All arbitration courts here civil cases. Did you really think otherwise?

It can only be used for civil cases.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Courts ... which are illegal in the United States, because we already have a legal system, which rests in principle rejected by ISLAM. Which is the basis of my REJECTION OF SUCH.

so judge judy is illegal? the people's court is illegal? jewish and amish courts... illegal?
why aren't you protesting them?

incidentally, none of those are illegal.

Does Judge Judy have also have a 1200 year record of employing mass-murder as a means to acquire political power? I wasn't aware?

(Reader Judge Judy considers civil matters to which the parties sign contracts within the scope of the program... Judge Judy does not have any authority over the individuals and she cannot use law enforcement to enforce her rulings. Where the individuals fail to adhere to her ruling, the prevailing parties would need to seek judgement from a duly appointed court to enforce such.

By seeking sanction from the City of Irvine, the Muslims were seeking to increase their perceived authority... a first step to becoming recognized as an ACTUAL "AUTHORITY".)

Where is it ever mentioned that the Muslim Court is seeking any "sanction" from the City of Irvine?

The better question is, why are they seeking anything more than what any church does when there's an offense. Disciplinary action is decided upon within their power and anything from a rebuke to full disfellowship is applied. Any religion can do this, so what the hell do Muslims want above and beyond this?

Nothing.

Most of these are civil cases involving marriage, divorce, contracts.

Which are all public institutions subject to law and not subject to private arbitration. These are Muslims and Muslims have always meant Sh'ria law to have the force of law behind it. One has to be willingly blind to see nothing short of this will satisfy them.

 

[Coyote]

So?

What does that have to do with the judgement of pastors, rabbis, imams or church elders?
If you subscribe to that religion you can either accept their decision or leave the fold

Your fellow Communists were claiming Sharia was protected as arbitration, but arbitration is legally controlled.

Sorry, your allies can't set up a separate system of law and justice, the theocracy that you leftists seek conflicts with the law.

So you going to get rid of all arbitration courts then?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Any religion can do this, so what the hell do Muslims want above and beyond this?

Nothing.

Yet another demonstration that the Ideological Left is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of Children and Fools... .

 

[theDoctorisIn]

so judge judy is illegal? the people's court is illegal? jewish and amish courts... illegal?
why aren't you protesting them?

incidentally, none of those are illegal.

Does Judge Judy have also have a 1200 year record of employing mass-murder as a means to acquire political power? I wasn't aware?

(Reader Judge Judy considers civil matters to which the parties sign contracts within the scope of the program... Judge Judy does not have any authority over the individuals and she cannot use law enforcement to enforce her rulings. Where the individuals fail to adhere to her ruling, the prevailing parties would need to seek judgement from a duly appointed court to enforce such.

By seeking sanction from the City of Irvine, the Muslims were seeking to increase their perceived authority... a first step to becoming recognized as an ACTUAL "AUTHORITY".)

Where is it ever mentioned that the Muslim Court is seeking any "sanction" from the City of Irvine?

The better question is, why are they seeking anything more than what any church does when there's an offense. Disciplinary action is decided upon within their power and anything from a rebuke to full disfellowship is applied. Any religion can do this, so what the hell do Muslims want above and beyond this?

Nothing.

Most of these are civil cases involving marriage, divorce, contracts.

Which are all public institutions subject to law and not subject to private arbitration. These are Muslims and Muslims have always meant Sh'ria law to have the force of law behind it. One has to be willingly blind to see nothing short of this will satisfy them.

Actually, all of those things can be subject to "private arbitration", as my parent's divorce was.

Your delusions of what those scary muslims really want are irrelevant.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, be sure to take a moment to scan this thread and note that without exception, each individual advocating on behalf of Islam, is a Socialist.

That is all you need to know, to understand why:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!​

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Does Judge Judy have also have a 1200 year record of employing mass-murder as a means to acquire political power? I wasn't aware?

(Reader Judge Judy considers civil matters to which the parties sign contracts within the scope of the program... Judge Judy does not have any authority over the individuals and she cannot use law enforcement to enforce her rulings. Where the individuals fail to adhere to her ruling, the prevailing parties would need to seek judgement from a duly appointed court to enforce such.

By seeking sanction from the City of Irvine, the Muslims were seeking to increase their perceived authority... a first step to becoming recognized as an ACTUAL "AUTHORITY".)

Where is it ever mentioned that the Muslim Court is seeking any "sanction" from the City of Irvine?

The better question is, why are they seeking anything more than what any church does when there's an offense. Disciplinary action is decided upon within their power and anything from a rebuke to full disfellowship is applied. Any religion can do this, so what the hell do Muslims want above and beyond this?

Nothing.

Most of these are civil cases involving marriage, divorce, contracts.

Which are all public institutions subject to law and not subject to private arbitration. These are Muslims and Muslims have always meant Sh'ria law to have the force of law behind it. One has to be willingly blind to see nothing short of this will satisfy them.

Actually, all of those things can be subject to "private arbitration", as my parent's divorce was.

Your delusions of what those scary muslims really want are irrelevant.

You still owe me an apology, one that you agreed to give. Until that happens, I have NOTHING to say to you.