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

[Asclepias]

Who told you they wanted something above and beyond this?

Because they're mad at the Irving city counsel. Apparently they were denied something above and beyond what every church and congregation does to its members.

Do you know they are mad? Evidently you dont or you would not have made the idiotic comment you made about them wanting something above and beyond.

"We don’t care about the bill,” Sheikh said. “It’s not going to affect us in any way, shape or form. The bottom line is the foundation of this bill is anti-Islamic.”

Good for them.

Nonsense. They feel it affects them in a material way beyond a perceived offense.

Yes your post is nonsense. Show me a link that says what you are claiming. The other clown slinked off in defeat when I asked for proof. Are you up to the task?

I don't need to provide a link. Go to the first page and read the OP.

Thanks for admitting you are failure by omission.

 

[paddymurphy]

Big deal. Sharia doesn't supersede our law now, and never will. That doesn't mean that anyone who wants to can't agree to any type of legal settlement or arbitration that they want. If they want to settle their personal, civil disagreements according to sharia law, or by flipping a coin, it's nobodies business but theirs.

Unless the sides are not equally interested in the arbitration. We know some immigrant Muslim communities have the rules tilted in favor of men, similar to the issues you see in some Hasidic Rabbinical courts. That can give lie to the concept of willful, mutual arbitration.

And those panels would violate state law or public policy. Again, this law was absolutely not needed.

 

[martybegan]

Big deal. Sharia doesn't supersede our law now, and never will. That doesn't mean that anyone who wants to can't agree to any type of legal settlement or arbitration that they want. If they want to settle their personal, civil disagreements according to sharia law, or by flipping a coin, it's nobodies business but theirs.

Unless the sides are not equally interested in the arbitration. We know some immigrant Muslim communities have the rules tilted in favor of men, similar to the issues you see in some Hasidic Rabbinical courts. That can give lie to the concept of willful, mutual arbitration.

And those panels would violate state law or public policy. Again, this law was absolutely not needed.

How quaintly naive.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

The Mayor passed a thoroughly enforceable law... precluding the means of Islamic interests to act as a court of law... or to be recognized as a court of law.

People can go into whatever venue they like and subject themselves to the authority of whoever they want... as long as within the framework of whatever that is, they do not subject themselves to any agreement which rests outside of the legal code of their locality, their state or federal authority.

For instance... the Sharia hearing cannot represent itself as a court. If it does so, it is breaking the law.

The Sharia hearing cannot pass judgement on ANY CRIME... as to do so subjects them to criminal statutes regarding the duty of the citizen to report criminal behavior, or where such is NOT a function to statute, there is NO WHERE in the United States which provides for anyone to overtly conceal a crime, as to do so one becomes complicit in that crime.

Therefore where the Sharia hearing is hearing evidence of a crime, and fails to report such, they are acting to conceal it. Works out the same, but there is the distinction.

Further, the cackling which holds that such is merely a civil forum are foolish in the extreme, as such would-be forums will morph into greater perceived authority as they grow their constituency.

Which is why the US should ban Islam, entirely... and IMMEDIATELY.

Or, we could ban the stupidity of assholes like you.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Big deal. Sharia doesn't supersede our law now, and never will. That doesn't mean that anyone who wants to can't agree to any type of legal settlement or arbitration that they want. If they want to settle their personal, civil disagreements according to sharia law, or by flipping a coin, it's nobodies business but theirs.

Unless the sides are not equally interested in the arbitration. We know some immigrant Muslim communities have the rules tilted in favor of men, similar to the issues you see in some Hasidic Rabbinical courts. That can give lie to the concept of willful, mutual arbitration.

And those panels would violate state law or public policy. Again, this law was absolutely not needed.

And yet they're angry about it. I love how Leftists pretend that Muslims promoting Sh'ria courts aren't seeking the power to impose civil penalties not unequal to that of any government.

 

[paddymurphy]

Third party civil arbitration is completely legal in the US.

Without means of enforcement such arbitration is pointless.

Judge Judy is legally binding if the participants agree that it is beforehand.

Judith Sheindlin is a real judge in a real court of law.

The stupid is strong in this one.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Muslims are ANGRY at Texas Mayor After She Stops "Sharia Court"... Here Is Her EPIC Response! - The Political Insider

"This radical group of Muslims is not pleased with the Mayor of Irving, Texas after she put the end to America’s first “Sharia Court.” Mayor Beth Van Duyne has accused mosque leaders of creating separate laws for Muslims, which is why the city voted to stop these supposedly “voluntary” tribunals from operating.

In a very close 5-4 vote, the city of Irving ruled to back the Texas state bill banning foreign law from the state. The bill doesn’t mention Sharia or any religion, but it’s a huge defeat for Sharia supporters, as such courts are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is how Mayor Duyne responded on Facebook, before the historic and controversial vote:

Small Business Trends | The U.S. Small Business Administration | SBA.gov

Hilliary must be LIVID that the Sharia court was shut down.

She will absolutely blame the next terror attack on this...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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?

SMH

 

[rightwinger]

Political grandstanding

There is nothing the state can do if litigants voluntarily accept the terms of a muslim court
If it was a Christian church, I'm sure they would be celebrating

Without recourse what good is the decision. And what if sharia courts differ in areas such as same sex marriage and women's rights.

If that religious community agrees to the terms established by their clerics, there is little Texas can do about it

I didn't see Texas stepping in about the Branch Davidians making their own laws but god forbid them Moooslims try to do it

Offering up lawless behavior on the part of others to further justify even more lawless behavior is anachary you dumshit.

What lawless behavior are you accusing Irving Muslims of engaging in?

 

[Asclepias]

Big deal. Sharia doesn't supersede our law now, and never will. That doesn't mean that anyone who wants to can't agree to any type of legal settlement or arbitration that they want. If they want to settle their personal, civil disagreements according to sharia law, or by flipping a coin, it's nobodies business but theirs.

Unless the sides are not equally interested in the arbitration. We know some immigrant Muslim communities have the rules tilted in favor of men, similar to the issues you see in some Hasidic Rabbinical courts. That can give lie to the concept of willful, mutual arbitration.

And those panels would violate state law or public policy. Again, this law was absolutely not needed.

And yet they're angry about it. I love how Leftists pretend that Muslims promoting Sh'ria courts aren't seeking the power to impose civil penalties not unequal to that of any government.

Only a complete retard would believe your post. I see you still havent came up with that link supporting your claims.

 

[Asclepias]

Political grandstanding

There is nothing the state can do if litigants voluntarily accept the terms of a muslim court
If it was a Christian church, I'm sure they would be celebrating

Without recourse what good is the decision. And what if sharia courts differ in areas such as same sex marriage and women's rights.

If that religious community agrees to the terms established by their clerics, there is little Texas can do about it

I didn't see Texas stepping in about the Branch Davidians making their own laws but god forbid them Moooslims try to do it

Offering up lawless behavior on the part of others to further justify even more lawless behavior is anachary you dumshit.

What lawless behavior are you accusing Irving Muslims of engaging in?

He wouldnt know. He thinks personal contracts are illegal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Political grandstanding

There is nothing the state can do if litigants voluntarily accept the terms of a muslim court
If it was a Christian church, I'm sure they would be celebrating

Texas law requires arbitration to be conducted by retired judges at law.

It doesn't appear that the Imams ever served on the bench.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Big deal. Sharia doesn't supersede our law now, and never will. That doesn't mean that anyone who wants to can't agree to any type of legal settlement or arbitration that they want. If they want to settle their personal, civil disagreements according to sharia law, or by flipping a coin, it's nobodies business but theirs.

Unless the sides are not equally interested in the arbitration. We know some immigrant Muslim communities have the rules tilted in favor of men, similar to the issues you see in some Hasidic Rabbinical courts. That can give lie to the concept of willful, mutual arbitration.

And those panels would violate state law or public policy. Again, this law was absolutely not needed.

And yet they're angry about it. I love how Leftists pretend that Muslims promoting Sh'ria courts aren't seeking the power to impose civil penalties not unequal to that of any government.

Only a complete retard would believe your post. I see you still havent came up with that link supporting your claims.

The OP supports my claim. Your stupidity is not exercising proper exegesis is not my responsibility.

 

[Asclepias]

Big deal. Sharia doesn't supersede our law now, and never will. That doesn't mean that anyone who wants to can't agree to any type of legal settlement or arbitration that they want. If they want to settle their personal, civil disagreements according to sharia law, or by flipping a coin, it's nobodies business but theirs.

Unless the sides are not equally interested in the arbitration. We know some immigrant Muslim communities have the rules tilted in favor of men, similar to the issues you see in some Hasidic Rabbinical courts. That can give lie to the concept of willful, mutual arbitration.

And those panels would violate state law or public policy. Again, this law was absolutely not needed.

And yet they're angry about it. I love how Leftists pretend that Muslims promoting Sh'ria courts aren't seeking the power to impose civil penalties not unequal to that of any government.

Only a complete retard would believe your post. I see you still havent came up with that link supporting your claims.

The OP supports my claim. Your stupidity is not exercising proper exegesis is not my responsibility.

I know the OP supports your claim. They were stupid just like you. I need a valid source since I already posted a link that refutes the OP and the grandstanding mayor.

 

[rightwinger]

Political grandstanding

There is nothing the state can do if litigants voluntarily accept the terms of a muslim court
If it was a Christian church, I'm sure they would be celebrating

Texas law requires arbitration to be conducted by retired judges at law.

It doesn't appear that the Imams ever served on the bench.

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

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

"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." A complete lie. The only thing Muslims were doing is what you, in the paragraph preceding your lie, described. A completely voluntary agreement to resolve civil disputes in accordance with their faith. If any principle of that faith that is applied, however, is violative of our secular law, it is not enforceable.

 

[paddymurphy]

Third party civil arbitration is completely legal in the US.

When all parties agree to it as a precondition to a contract. Otherwise it's not binding.

Tell that to the idiots on here who think otherwise. Or tell it to the moron mayor of Irving.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

Who told you they wanted something above and beyond this?

Because they're mad at the Irving city counsel. Apparently they were denied something above and beyond what every church and congregation does to its members.

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

 

[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?

Who told you they wanted something above and beyond this?

Because they're mad at the Irving city counsel. Apparently they were denied something above and beyond what every church and congregation does to its members.

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

No, that word doesn't mean that at all. People use that word all the time and it doesn't mean they're lying, duncecap.