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

[Twisted]

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:

 

[ogibillm]

lol. idiots

 

[Osomir]

Third party civil arbitration is completely legal in the US.

 

[pwjohn]

The religious complaining about the religious. Like that's never happened before.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Pretty damn sad that it wasn't a 9-0 vote.

 

[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

 

[pwjohn]

Third party civil arbitration is completely legal in the US.

Without means of enforcement such arbitration is pointless.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I wanna only obey my own laws! Who's ass do I have to kiss?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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.

 

[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.

 

[pwjohn]

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.

There's nothing legal it. There's only one way to make it legal and binding and that's through a court of law.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

And as typical, the American Tom's rush in to defend their protected religion.

 

[Osomir]

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.

 

[aris2chat]

Third party civil arbitration is completely legal in the US.

within the law, not separate laws that don't conform to the state's

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Of course both sides have to agree to it. Who said differently?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

There's nothing legal it. There's only one way to make it legal and binding and that's through a court of law.

So personal contracts aren't binding? That's just dumb.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Excellent... that is an irrefutable sign that the Mayor of Irvine is SPOT ON!

 

[ogibillm]

Third party civil arbitration is completely legal in the US.

within the law, not separate laws that don't conform to the state's

do you have a point?