Sharia Law sweeps into Irving, TX? -or- Islamaphobes raise phantom fears?

[Cryptic]

One story, two different spins, both are based in truth and both are over reacting:
Dispute over Islam lands Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne on national stage | Dallas Morning News
National Islamic furor focuses on Irving vote tonight | Dallas Morning News

Local muslims form a voluntary, unofficial, nonbinding body to apply sharia law principals to intra muslim family disputes. Local ultra Orthodox Jews might (or might not) already have a rough equivelant operating. Mayor leads city council in passing a resolution supporting a proposed state bill declaring that the only binding laws or principals recognized by Texas are those passed in Austin and DC under the auspisces of the US constitution. Protestors (overwhelmingly muslim) declare that Irving resolution is "divisive" and "anti Islamic".

Though the resolution was probably not needed as the Sharia court did not present themselves as being official, why are the particular protestors and mosque leadership who purportedly had no intention of creating a seperate court system be so opposed to a resolution affirming that the Sharia court, and any rabbinical, hindu, or christian equivelants are also non binding?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

A mosque cannot make a law. The local mosque or group or whatever it is can make voluntary, unofficial, non-biding rules for their group, be it sharia law, or orthodox jewish customs. Its not like now in North Texas now, if a Muslim man breaks the law he has the choice of going to some "sharia law panel" or the Texas or US court system...

 

[Cryptic]

A mosque cannot make a law. The local mosque or group or whatever it is can make voluntary, unofficial, non-biding rules for their group, be it sharia law, or orthodox jewish customs. Its not like now in North Texas now, if a Muslim man breaks the law he has the choice of going to some "sharia law panel" or the Texas or US court system...

I agree with you on this core point (voluntary, unofficial etc). At the same time, the creation of dual justice systems, even if non binding, voluntary etc, can lead to the creation of seperate societies and hence stability problems.

Therefore, the State has an interest in officially saying:

"There can be many alternative voluntary dispute resolution systems for administrative matters (say, socialist arbitrators, as well as those based on Islamic, Jewish, christian and hindu religous principals), but the only binding laws are those passed by the legislature under the auspices of the constitution..... ."

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I agree with you on this core point (voluntary, unofficial etc). At the same time, the creation of dual justice systems, even if non binding, voluntary etc, can lead to the creation of seperate societies and hence stability problems.
Therefore, the State has an interest in officially saying:
"There can be many alternative voluntary dispute resolution systems for administrative matters (say, socialist arbitrators, as well as those based on Islamic, Jewish, christian and hindu religous principals), but the only binding laws are those passed by the legislature under the auspices of the constitution..... ."

Voluntary arbitration is not some new thing.
It's a well established procedure.

Why does the state suddenly have this interest when arbitration has been ongoing for some time?
Why now instead of however long ago?

 

[Cryptic]

Voluntary arbitration is not some new thing.
It's a well established procedure.

Why does the state suddenly have this interest when arbitration has been ongoing for some time?
Why now instead of however long ago?

All good points, and a valid question. And I suspect the answer depends on who is offering the arbitration and how many people might be interested in it.

There is also another question:

Why would those with purportedly no intention of establishing an alternative court system oppose a bill directly stating that their voluntary arbitration is non binding? Irving's action impacts ultra orthodox jews as well, yet none protested.

 

[ludin]

All good points, and a valid question. And I suspect the answer depends on who is offering the arbitration and how many people might be interested in it.

There is also another question:

Why would those with purportedly no intention of establishing an alternative court system oppose a bill directly stating that their voluntary arbitration is non binding? Irving's action impacts ultra orthodox jews as well, yet none protested.

yep because I could see where this would have a conflict of interest in a muslim/non-muslim issue.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

All good points, and a valid question. And I suspect the answer depends on who is offering the arbitration and how many people might be interested in it.
There is also another question:
Why would those with purportedly no intention of establishing an alternative court system oppose a bill directly stating that their voluntary arbitration is non binding? Irving's action impacts ultra orthodox jews as well, yet none protested.

I suspect that the suspicion is because the state does not actually have an interest in making such a statement.
The humans running the state are acting on their own agenda rather than that of the state.
But, I'd look to the people doing the protesting for a more authoritative answer.

This kind of has been kicking around the Chicken-Little side of the internet for a while now.
Several threads on this board about similar situations.

When parties agree to arbitration, that arbitration is just as binding as any other contract afaict.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

yep because I could see where this would have a conflict of interest in a muslim/non-muslim issue.

How's that?

Both parties have to agree to arbitration before arbitration can proceed.

 

[VanceMack]

Voluntary arbitration is not some new thing.
It's a well established procedure.

Why does the state suddenly have this interest when arbitration has been ongoing for some time?
Why now instead of however long ago?

Perhaps the key can be found in the word 'voluntary'. Devout Muslims arent always keen on that whole voluntary compliance thing. It could be that the law offers a level of protection to members that might otherwise fear bucking the faith.

 

[HonestJoe]

Though the resolution was probably not needed as the Sharia court did not present themselves as being official, why are the particular protestors and mosque leadership who purportedly had no intention of creating a seperate court system be so opposed to a resolution affirming that the Sharia court, and any rabbinical, hindu, or christian equivelants are also non binding?

Because they believe, with some good reason, that the raising of this bill is based on a lie and that it is intended as an underhanded attack on Muslims in America.

If people object to "creeping Islamification", they should come out and say so, demonstrate the problem and address it directly. If nothing else the dishonesty and abuse of the legislative system is a major issue. Creating a bill declaring illegal something that is already illegal to make a political point is indefensible regardless of the realities behind it.

 

[Cryptic]

I suspect that the suspicion is because the state does not actually have an interest in making such a statement.
The humans running the state are acting on their own agenda rather than that of the state.

Dual justice systems would facilitate the creation of dual societies. As the British (home of officially recognized sharia courts), and other Europeans are finding out, the creation of dual societies in one nation is not a good idea. Britain is even considering revoking the official status of their voluntary sharia courts.

That aside, the State does have an interest in declaring that the only binding laws are those enacted by the legislature. Of course some of the officials advocating the bill may be pursuing their own agendas. That possibility, however, does not change the fact that the State has a legitimate interest in the matter.

yep because I could see where this would have a conflict of interest in a muslim/non-muslim issue.

Both parties must agree to the sharia court, so I dont think it would be a big issue. I think the main issue is that the creation of alternative justice systems facilitates dual societies and dual societies lead to stability problems.

If people object to "creeping Islamification", they should come out and say so, demonstrate the problem and address it directly. If nothing else the dishonesty and abuse of the legislative system is a major issue. Creating a bill declaring illegal something that is already illegal to make a political point is indefensible regardless of the realities behind it.

One only nees to look to Britain and France to see demonstration of the dangers of dual societies existing in one nation. Now that the problem has been identified, it can be addressed in part via a bill declaring that voluntary arbitration of any kind does not constitute law.

Perhaps the key can be found in the word 'voluntary'. Devout Muslims arent always keen on that whole voluntary compliance thing. It could be that the law offers a level of protection to members that might otherwise fear bucking the faith.

And I think there have been documented cases of that happening with Britain's officialy sponsored, but voluntary sharia alternative.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Dual justice systems would facilitate the creation of dual societies. As the British (home of officially recognized sharia courts), and other Europeans are finding out, the creation of dual societies in one nation is not a good idea. Britain is even considering revoking the official status of their voluntary sharia courts.

It's not a second justice system
It's arbitration among consenting parties.

As stated earlier arbitration has been around for quite some time.
It's only recently become a topic of concern in the Chicken Little section of the int4rwebz.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Perhaps the key can be found in the word 'voluntary'. Devout Muslims arent always keen on that whole voluntary compliance thing. It could be that the law offers a level of protection to members that might otherwise fear bucking the faith.

Since no one has to consent to that sort of arbitration anyway, what new protections does the law offer?

 

[VanceMack]

Since no one has to consent to that sort of arbitration anyway, what new protections does the law offer?

Perhaps the same protections passage of domestic violence laws offered. Women were often trapped and felt they had no recourse. Its not inconceivable to me to think that a fundamentalist Muslim might feel trapped and coerced into abiding by the dictates of Sharia law within their community. This law doesnt prevent them from still having voluntary arbitration...it merely ensures all parties involved understand the supreme law of the land. And since it doesnt impact the voluntary arbitration decision, why are you upset by it?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That aside, the State does have an interest in declaring that the only binding laws are those enacted by the legislature. Of course some of the officials advocating the bill may be pursuing their own agendas. That possibility, however, does not change the fact that the State has a legitimate interest in the matter.

There is no creation of laws going on.
Arbitration is not legislation.
There has been no assertion that laws other than those usually expected to be binding are binding.

All that is binding and relevant here are contracts among consenting parties.
And the statement about laws being binding is a red-herring at best which only serves to further confuse the issue.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Perhaps the same protections passage of domestic violence laws offered. Women were often trapped and felt they had no recourse. Its not inconceivable to me to think that a fundamentalist Muslim might feel trapped and coerced into abiding by the dictates of Sharia law within their community. This law doesnt prevent them from still having voluntary arbitration...it merely ensures all parties involved understand the supreme law of the land.

The govt made the statement just in case to protect any Muslims who may be ignorant of the fact the arbitration process is voluntary?

And since it doesnt impact the voluntary arbitration decision, why are you upset by it?

Why would you choose to decide I was upset?
don't answer
let's just stay on topic instead.

 

[Cryptic]

It's not a second justice system
It's arbitration among consenting parties.

Correct, it is not. But it could well be presented as one. In addition, in the minds of the participators it could well function as a second justice system.

Both of these elements facilitate the creation of dual societies,which as the French and British have found out is not a good idea. This is the core concept (creation of dual societies) that gives the State a legitimate interest is directly stating: "Seek out whatever alternative arbitration system you want. Binding laws come from the legislature".

As Vance Mack stated: "The proposed law offers a measure of protection to individuals". I think it also offers a measure of protection to the nation by making clear where the source of laws stem from in a society.

 

[Cryptic]

The govt made the statement just in case to protect any Muslims who may be ignorant of the fact the arbitration process is voluntary?

Yes.

The muslim community in Texas consists of many individuals of varying levels of education, sophistication and exposure to western democratic processes. As with all groups, the levels of can vary from "extremely high" to "almost none".

As Vance Mack stated, the proposed law offers a measure of protection, not just to Muslims but to participants in any voluntary arbitration system.

 

[VanceMack]

The govt made the statement just in case to protect any Muslims who may be ignorant of the fact the arbitration process is voluntary?


Why would you choose to decide I was upset?
don't answer
let's just stay on topic instead.

Does the government law overrule, override, or otherwise deny voluntary arbitration? No? Then all you are doing is ignoring the answer I have given in your continued insistence at defending all things Muslim.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Correct, it is not. But it could well be presented as one.

Kind of like you did.
Kind of like the Chicken Little section of the internet does.
The statement in question also leads to the confusion rather about the difference between arbitration and legislation.

Both of these elements facilitate the creation of dual societies,which as the French and British have found out is not a good idea. This is the core concept (creation of dual societies) that gives the State a legitimate interest is directly stating: "Seek out whatever alternative arbitration system you want. Binding laws come from the legislature".

As Vance Mack stated: "The proposed law offers a measure of protection to individuals". I think it also offers a measure of protection to the nation by making clear where the source of laws stem from in a society.[/QUOTE]
Why is there suddenly confusion when arbitration has been going on for years?

The only people who seem to be confused on the point are Chicken Little segment of the int4rwebz.
The statement under discussion has not helped enlighten them one whit about the differences among legislation, the justice system, and arbitration.

I suspect with only a cursory search we can find examples of very confused people who have had their confusions re-enforced by the statement in question.

Then all you are doing is ignoring the answer I have given...

I asked for clarification instead of ignoring it afaict.

in your continued insistence at defending all things Muslim.

Your perceptions of me, my emotional state, and my motivations are ill-informed and off-base.
See if you can leave them somewhere else, how 'bout?

 

[DA60]

I want reverse Sharia Law. Where men have to cover their faces/bodies and women can where what they want to.

 

[Cryptic]

The only people who seem to be confused on the point are Chicken Little segment of the int4rwebz.
The statement under discussion has not helped enlighten them one whit about the differences among legislation, the justice system, and arbitration.

Your fondness for the term "chicken little" is ironic. A law is proposed directly stating that:

- Laws in this society stem from the legislature under the auspices of a constitutional document- ergo
-The decisions of a variety of voluntary alternative arbitration sytems do not constitute law.

And what do you it fear will be the negative impact of such a proposed law?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Your fondness for the term "chicken little" is ironic.

I find it accurately conveys my meaning.
A quick google shows many hits where people wrongly assume that what is happening is that an additional justice system has been created.
People who think that it will allow husbands to beat their wives or for people to have their hand cut off as punishments for crimes, etc
A quick search of this site will also give similar results.
You and I both know that these ideas are patently false.

Hence Chicken Little.

And what do you it fear will be the negative impact of such a proposed law?

I'm not protesting nor starting threads about it.
It's just dumb that's all.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Jews and other groups have been doing this forever. It isn't Sharia LAW. It is nonbinding arbitration.

 

[Hard Truth]

One story, two different spins, both are based in truth and both are over reacting:
Dispute over Islam lands Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne on national stage | Dallas Morning News
National Islamic furor focuses on Irving vote tonight | Dallas Morning News

Local muslims form a voluntary, unofficial, nonbinding body to apply sharia law principals to intra muslim family disputes. Local ultra Orthodox Jews might (or might not) already have a rough equivelant operating. Mayor leads city council in passing a resolution supporting a proposed state bill declaring that the only binding laws or principals recognized by Texas are those passed in Austin and DC under the auspisces of the US constitution. Protestors (overwhelmingly muslim) declare that Irving resolution is "divisive" and "anti Islamic".

Though the resolution was probably not needed as the Sharia court did not present themselves as being official, why are the particular protestors and mosque leadership who purportedly had no intention of creating a seperate court system be so opposed to a resolution affirming that the Sharia court, and any rabbinical, hindu, or christian equivelants are also non binding?

Many businesses make their customers agree to use arbitrators (chosen by the business) to resolve any disputes with the business. That is something that should be prohibited. Ordinary people having their religious leader or a mediator to resolve their disputes should be encouraged (as long as all parties participate voluntarily) because it reduces use of the courts, saving tax payer money.

When an unnecessary, but benign, law is created for the purpose of scapegoating, harassing and marginalizing an unpopular group of people, it should be opposed by all good people to make a statement against the intended bigotry. (which seems quite obvious in this situation)