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

[Asclepias]

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.

So far not one of the idiots have proven the claim that they were seeking anything other than an apology from the mayor for grandstanding at the expense of muslims.

 

[jillian]

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:

in new York, we have bet din's (jewish religious courts) set up in courthouses. appearance in those courts is by consent of the parties only and decisions of the bet din are enforced by the courts of the state of new York.

i'm not sure what the problem is with that or with a similar circumstance for muslims or Christians or anyone else who wants a religious tribunal to resolve inter-community disputes.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You people should go back and read your own posts.

This is beyond sad.

These mock courts on TV will be next !!!!

 

[jillian]

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.

it means it's not based in evidence but in your observation... and we all know how well that works for you.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

"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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

I wrote that it was the word that YOU use to preface shit you made up.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

it means it's not based in evidence but in your observation... and we all know how well that works for you.

It means it's based on what's apparent. These camel lovers wouldn't feel threatened by any law that didn't affect them in a material way.

Critical thinking skills, buy some or steal some, but by all means get some.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

I wrote that it was the word that YOU use to preface shit you made up.

Oh, liar liar pants on fire. If that's all you got, we can all go home now.

 

[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

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

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

I'm guessing you dont have a link that supports that uneeded falsehood?

 

[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.

"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.

it means it's not based in evidence but in your observation... and we all know how well that works for you.

It means it's based on what's apparent. These camel lovers wouldn't feel threatened by any law that didn't affect them in a material way.

Critical thinking skills, buy some or steal some, but by all means get some.

You should take your own advice. You actually used the OP as your believable source.

 

[jillian]

You people should go back and read your own posts.

This is beyond sad.

These mock courts on TV will be next !!!!

what are you talking about?

 

[Uncensored2008]

"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

 

[rightwinger]

"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

 

[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

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

 

[jillian]

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.

I'm guessing you dont have a link that supports that uneeded falsehood?

Who are these arbitrators? That depends on what the contract or arbitration rules require. They may be industry professionals, retired judges, private practice attorneys, or anyone identified by the contract. -

See more at: What You May Be Giving Up When You Agree To "Arbitration" In Your Farming Contracts

 

[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

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

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

I'm guessing you dont have a link that supports that uneeded falsehood?

Who are these arbitrators? That depends on what the contract or arbitration rules require. They may be industry professionals, retired judges, private practice attorneys, or anyone identified by the contract. -

See more at: What You May Be Giving Up When You Agree To "Arbitration" In Your Farming Contracts

I guess that pretty much kills his assumption that they are required to be retired judges.

 

[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?

 

[jillian]

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.

I'm guessing you dont have a link that supports that uneeded falsehood?

Who are these arbitrators? That depends on what the contract or arbitration rules require. They may be industry professionals, retired judges, private practice attorneys, or anyone identified by the contract. -

See more at: What You May Be Giving Up When You Agree To "Arbitration" In Your Farming Contracts

I guess that pretty much kills his assumption that they are required to be retired judges.

seems so. I actually got to read a really interesting texas decision on the enforceability of arbitration clauses in farm contracts. but it may differ based on the type of arbitration. I haven't seen the texas statutes so don't know if there are limitations.

if there are, it doesn't seem the limitations are in all cases, but would be governed by the individual arbitration clause.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

"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

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 ?