Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Last Tuesday, Florida Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen defended his decision to uphold a binding arbitration agreement, based upon Sharia Law, between ex-trustees of a local Mosque who claim to have been unfairly removed by the current leadership of that Mosque. The Islamic arbitration ruled in favor of the ex-trustees. The current leadership appealed, which is why the matter ended up before Judge Neilson:
Say you sign a contract with a firm in the United Arab Emirates. That contract will have a “choice of law” clause, mandating under the law of which country the contract will be construed. Firms obviously haggle over this, and usually firms will want to have the choice of law clause based upon a law with which they are familiar. Indeed, I know several trasnactional attorneys who specialize in drawing up contracts to comply with Sharia for big investment deals, and undoubtedly some of those contracts say something along the lines that they will be construed according to Sharia, or at least will not directly violate Sharia.
So when Gingrich says that he wants a statute forbidding the enforcement of Sharia in the United States, he is saying he wants to 1) tell businesses how they are supposed to write their contracts; and 2) thus give American businesses a competitive disadvantage via-a-vis their foreign competitors.
Similarly, Sharia would come into play if US courts have to construe contracts written and executed in Muslim countries that use Sharia as part of their domestic law. A contract might be signed, executed, and acted upon in another country, making Sharia law clearly the governing body of law; but then the litigant moves to the United States (thus getting the jurisdiction of American courts), requiring the court to construe the contract and use Sharia in doing so.
Two people enter into the contract, the government should enforce that contract as long as there's nothing illegal in it. I'm not worried about contractual terms consistent with Sharia law between two private individuals. I'm worried about Jewish law being imposed (mostly by judges) on Americans.
The problem is when the person entering into the contract is unsuspecting. Most people don't real legalese and there are many contracts that you have to sign or you don't get the product.
Florida Judge Defends Decision to Allow Sharia Law to Decide Civil Case
Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said it is not improper for a judge to use foreign law in an arbitration if all the parties agree to do so.
"If we both sign a contract agreeing to be governed by German law, then Florida courts will interpret German law," he said.
The judge said he would use Islamic law to decide only the legitimacy of arbitration.
"What law would we be applying (at) trial?" [Paul] Thanasides [attorney for the Mosque] asked.
"That trial would be civil law," the judge said. "Florida law."
Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership - Tampa Bay Times
Be careful who you do business with. Read those contracts! If you sign a contract and in doing so agree to have any disputes negotiated under Sharia law, that is what will happen. Sharia is comint to the US as we speak in the guise of 'choice of law' clauses in contracts.
Sharia Law IS Enforced in the United States « The Reality-Based Community
The problem is when the person entering into the contract is unsuspecting. Most people don't real legalese and there are many contracts that you have to sign or you don't get the product.
Florida Judge Defends Decision to Allow Sharia Law to Decide Civil Case
You do understand this concerns only the conditions of the arbitration contract the parties entered into, yes? That both parties agreed to abide by the Sharia process. The execution of the contract will be subject to State law, however, as noted below from a more objective and non-hysterical source concerning the case:
Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said it is not improper for a judge to use foreign law in an arbitration if all the parties agree to do so.
"If we both sign a contract agreeing to be governed by German law, then Florida courts will interpret German law," he said.
The judge said he would use Islamic law to decide only the legitimacy of arbitration.
"What law would we be applying (at) trial?" [Paul] Thanasides [attorney for the Mosque] asked.
"That trial would be civil law," the judge said. "Florida law."
Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership - Tampa Bay Times
Which renders ‘Sharia Law in America’ a non-issue.
Um, okay…yeah...
So don’t enter into a contract which subjects you to Sharia law…it’s not rocket science.
Sharia Law IS Enforced in the United States « The Reality-Based Community
Yes, as are the laws of other countries with regard to international contracts, it’s a normal, non-issue aspect of doing business overseas, as has been the case for many years – nothing new here. And again, if one is that concerned about a choice of law clause, don’t enter into the contract.
The problem is when the person entering into the contract is unsuspecting. Most people don't real legalese and there are many contracts that you have to sign or you don't get the product.
Anyone who enters into any contract not reviewed by a lawyer deserves whatever horror befalls him.
U.S. case lawThe leading case on unconscionability in the United States is Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1965). In this case, the defendant, a retail furniture store, sold multiple items to a customer over the course of several years. The payment plan contract was written so that none of the furniture was considered paid for until all of it was paid for. When the plaintiff failed to make payments on the last furniture item, the furniture store attempted to repossess all of the furniture, not just the last one purchased. The court ruled that the lower court could rule the contract unconscionable and refuse to enforce it, and returned the case to the lower court to decide whether or not the contract was in fact unconscionable.
