Thread: FL: Judge Defends Decision to Apply Islamic Law in Case

Florida Judge Defends Decision to Apply Islamic Law in Tampa Case

Published March 23, 2011

| FoxNews.com
Comments (1877)


A Florida judge is defending his controversial decision to apply Islamic law instead of state or federal statutes in determining whether an arbitration award was correct, the St. Petersburg Times reports.

The case in question involves former trustees of a local Tampa mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, who are suing because they claim they were unfairly removed as trustees.

Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen said that the two parties can seek guidance from the Koran to resolve their dispute, according to MyFoxOrlando.com.

Nielsen said that based on testimony, "under ecclesiastical law," and pursuant to the Koran, "Islamic brothers should attempt to resolve a dispute among themselves."

"If Islamic brothers are unable to do so, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of Islamic brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community for resolution," he said.

The two parties reportedly agreed ahead of time to use an imam and Islamic Law to resolve any potential differences through arbitration.

Legal observers say there are several cases in which agreements between two parties can supercede general laws in Florida -- like when a couple makes a prenuptial agreement.

"What the judge has said is that he will apply the Islamic Law, because that is what the two parties agreed to in their arbitration clause," Shahzad Ahmed, an attorney with NeJame Law Firm in Orlando, told the station. "This concept of agreeing to a different set of rules outside of state law is not unusual."

In an effort to defend his ruling, Nielsen issued an opinion Tuesday stating: "From the outset of learning of the purported arbitration award, the court's concern has been whether there were ecclesiastical principles for dispute resolution involved that would compel the court to adopt the arbitration decision without considering state law."

"The court has concluded that as to the question of enforceability of the arbitrator's award the case should proceed under ecclesiastical Islamic law," Nielsen said, according to the St. Petersburg Times.

Click for more on Judge Nielsen's controversial decision from MyFoxOrlando.com
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/st ... rbitration

Click for more on Judge Nielsen's controversial decision from the St. Petersburg Times
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civ ... se/1158909

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/fl ... z1HXfPiEK0

Related Here

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-232077-isl ... aw+florida

I didn't read the story because there is no defense

this imbecile needs to be pulled from the bench immediately

This judge must be a clone of Obama.

Originally Posted by Justthefacts

I didn't read the story because there is no defense

this imbecile needs to be pulled from the bench immediately

I'd suggest reading it. Its not what they make it out to be. Also such sort of a thing is actually quite common in other circles. Now I tend to hate Islamic Law and Islam in general but in this one circumstance as I consider myself fair and such see it as some taking it further then what it is.

The case is between people with one alleging against the other of favoritism in a mediation by the local Imam. These individuals agreed beforehand to use Islamic Law to settle their dispute and went to the local Imam. Now one claims favoritism towards the other in the settlement that went against Islamic Law when it was meant to be used for the settlement.

Now this judge is basically only using Islamic Law to determine if the settlement was fair according to Islamic Law to hold merit to the case and then to offer a new ruling based upon the same previous mediation agreement.

But people are taking it to far thinking it would allow in cases such as honor killing and so forth. But that isn't the case. This article is hiding behind partial truths to stir up the anti Muslim people out there.

Now I'm very much against Islam and Muslims, but I have many many real reasons to be so that are proven and not just spewed nonsense.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Originally Posted by Justthefacts

I didn't read the story because there is no defense

this imbecile needs to be pulled from the bench immediately

I'd suggest reading it. Its not what they make it out to be. Also such sort of a thing is actually quite common in other circles. Now I tend to hate Islamic Law and Islam in general but in this one circumstance as I consider myself fair and such see it as some taking it further then what it is.

The case is between people with one alleging against the other of favoritism in a mediation by the local Imam. These individuals agreed beforehand to use Islamic Law to settle their dispute and went to the local Imam. Now one claims favoritism towards the other in the settlement that went against Islamic Law when it was meant to be used for the settlement.

Now this judge is basically only using Islamic Law to determine if the settlement was fair according to Islamic Law to hold merit to the case and then to offer a new ruling based upon the same previous mediation agreement.

But people are taking it to far thinking it would allow in cases such as honor killing and so forth. But that isn't the case. This article is hiding behind partial truths to stir up the anti Muslim people out there.

Now I'm very much against Islam and Muslims, but I have many many real reasons to be so that are proven and not just spewed nonsense.

The problem is that this is in a US court and under US law. Islamic law has no jurisdiction in US courts. A Judge is NOT suppose to consider ANY law but US law in cases brought before him/her. Once you allow a Judge to use any law other then US law in a court case, then you set a legal precedent for others.

Once this case was brought into US courts and in front of a US Judge, Islamic law went out the window. The best they can do is make a case for a previous agreement but Islamic law can not trump US law.

Once you allow a Judge to use any law other then US law in a court case, then you set a legal precedent for others.

Yes this is the problem

Originally Posted by sugarhighwolf

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Originally Posted by Justthefacts

I didn't read the story because there is no defense

this imbecile needs to be pulled from the bench immediately

I'd suggest reading it. Its not what they make it out to be. Also such sort of a thing is actually quite common in other circles. Now I tend to hate Islamic Law and Islam in general but in this one circumstance as I consider myself fair and such see it as some taking it further then what it is.

The case is between people with one alleging against the other of favoritism in a mediation by the local Imam. These individuals agreed beforehand to use Islamic Law to settle their dispute and went to the local Imam. Now one claims favoritism towards the other in the settlement that went against Islamic Law when it was meant to be used for the settlement.

Now this judge is basically only using Islamic Law to determine if the settlement was fair according to Islamic Law to hold merit to the case and then to offer a new ruling based upon the same previous mediation agreement.

But people are taking it to far thinking it would allow in cases such as honor killing and so forth. But that isn't the case. This article is hiding behind partial truths to stir up the anti Muslim people out there.

Now I'm very much against Islam and Muslims, but I have many many real reasons to be so that are proven and not just spewed nonsense.

The problem is that this is in a US court and under US law. Islamic law has no jurisdiction in US courts. A Judge is NOT suppose to consider ANY law but US law in cases brought before him/her. Once you allow a Judge to use any law other then US law in a court case, then you set a legal precedent for others.

Once this case was brought into US courts and in front of a US Judge, Islamic law went out the window. The best they can do is make a case for a previous agreement but Islamic law can not trump US law.

Right , BUT if the two parties agree in BINDING ARBIRTATION to USE islamic law to settle their dispute , then the job of the JUDGE is to determine , USING islamic law which party is in breech of the agreed upon principles of islamic law ...

Let's say you and i have a dispute over something , and we go before a judge and both agree that the winner of a game of dungeons and dragons will also be the one to have the case settled in their favor ..

you and i play dungeons and dragons , and i lose ...

i then take you to court and claim before the judge that you used an illegal move to win the game ... the job of the judge is then to learn the rules of dunegons and dragons to determine if you cheated ... if you did NOT cheat , he finds in your favor and the case is thrown out with you winning arbitration ....

Originally Posted by marquis

Right , BUT if the two parties agree in BINDING ARBIRTATION to USE islamic law to settle their dispute , then the job of the JUDGE is to determine , USING islamic law which party is in breech of the agreed upon principles of islamic law ...

Let's say you and i have a dispute over something , and we go before a judge and both agree that the winner of a game of dungeons and dragons will also be the one to have the case settled in their favor ..

you and i play dungeons and dragons , and i lose ...

i then take you to court and claim before the judge that you used an illegal move to win the game ... the job of the judge is then to learn the rules of dunegons and dragons to determine if you cheated ... if you did NOT cheat , he finds in your favor and the case is thrown out with you winning arbitration ....

Exactly. Now when looking at old court cases there has been thousands upon thousands of such cases similiar using every possibly contrived of notion for settlement of the dispute where someone renigged on the deal. Now the Judge to settle by US Law has to acknowledge the contract which was a verbal contract to abide by Islamic Law as the mediator.

Now you meant to make a joke about D&D being used to settle disputes but it has happened and funny as it is I've seen it happen (D&D geek here). I've also seen people use other silly notions to try and settle a dispute. But if one tries to change his mind after then the Judge by US Law has to consider the agreed upon deal as a verbal contract and rule by US Law on that.

Now yes the fear is some trying to twist this into a precedent to use Islamic Law, and the judge has to mind himself extremely carefully in this one instance. But is it wrong to say a judge has to honor a verbal contract determining the winner by a game of D&D, Pong, or who can speak better Klingon? But the judge doesn't have to honor a verbal contract when it comes to Islamic Law as the deciding factor?