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

[Visbek]

One story, two different spins, both are based in truth and both are over reacting

Huh?

One is a description of an Islamophobic dust-up over a mediation firm, whose decisions are not legally binding, and do not in any way establish Sharia law.

The second is a reasonably even-handed profile of a mayor who caught the attention of a bunch of Islamophobic wing-nuts by siding with a superfluous anti-Muslim law, that tries to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist.

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?

The proposed law is clearly pandering to Islamophobes, and is ginning up people over things that don't exist. It's also a terrible law, which has no real purpose and will have no real effect, because a) other laws already prevent this and b) the problem doesn't actually exist in the first place.

By the way, if a city council tried to pass a non-binding resolution that "St John the Baptist did not exist," I suspect the reaction would be the same -- if not more fervent. Despite the fact that any such resolution would have absolutely no legal effect whatsoever, people would do everything they can to prevent it from being passed.

 

[chromium]

i suspect small town texas would prefer tanakh law, which isn't any better

 

[Cryptic]

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.

Will it?

The fears expressed on this thread in particular were:
A- That some muslims maybe coerced into opting for the Sharia arbitration
B- That such alternarative systems facilitate seperate socieites, and that seperate societies are not good ideas.

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

So you really cant think of a concrete negative impact.

By the way, if a city council tried to pass a non-binding resolution that "St John the Baptist did not exist," I suspect the reaction would be the same -- if not more fervent. Despite the fact that any such resolution would have absolutely no legal effect whatsoever, people would do everything they can to prevent it from being passed.

A specific denial of Saint John the Baptist? Yes, that would probably spark a reaction. But, that is not what is happening here. The resolution / bill states that no alternative arbitration system constitutes law (not Sharia in particular).

I have an aunt who is a nun and was on the Catholic marriage tribunal in my city (alternative arbitration system). Likewise, I have written letters in support of applicants for anulments (is person "X" free to marry again). The proposed bill says that the decisions of this body do not constitute law. I can accept that passively.

Huh?

One is a description of an Islamophobic dust-up over a mediation firm, whose decisions are not legally binding, and do not in any way establish Sharia law.

The second is a reasonably even-handed profile of a mayor who caught the attention of a bunch of Islamophobic wing-nuts by siding with a superfluous anti-Muslim law, that tries to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist.

Yikes, I was not being clear. I was not referring to the articles in particular. Rather, I was stating that people's views of the event could be polemic (impending Sharia vs Islamaphobia). That aside, one does not need to fear an impending sharia state to support the bill.

 

[Visbek]

A specific denial of Saint John the Baptist? Yes, that would probably spark a reaction. But, that is not what is happening here....

Correct, but that wasn't the point.

The point was that people would undoubtedly oppose a legislative action, even if it had no actual legal effects whatsoever.

The resolution / bill states that no alternative arbitration system constitutes law (not Sharia in particular).

The bill says that family courts in Texas cannot use any foreign laws, and makes no reference or changes whatsoever to non-binding private mediations.

Non-binding private mediations do not have the force of law anyway.

The law is utterly pointless and superfluous, and will make no changes whatsoever. There are no examples of anyone even trying to apply foreign laws to any US family courts. There is also no mechanism within US law to allow such a thing to happen.

Its only purpose is to send an anti-Muslim message to the citizens of Texas... in the same way a resolution denying the existence of John the Baptist would have no legal effect, but would send an anti-Christian message.

I have an aunt who is a nun and was on the Catholic marriage tribunal in my city (alternative arbitration system). Likewise, I have written letters in support of applicants for anulments (is person "X" free to marry again). The proposed bill says that the decisions of this body do not constitute law. I can accept that passively.

The tribunal you discuss never was an official court, and never did constitute US law. Its status is completely untouched by this law.

The term "annulment" refers to two completely separate processes. A legal annulment is the declaration that a marriage was never legally valid. E.g. if your spouse was already married and didn't tell you, or if a spouse was actually underage, or if the marriage was certified under duress, you can have it annulled.

The RCC also has its own annulment process, by which the Church declares a marriage null and void, based on similar reasons. This is an extra-legal process that, again, has no legal implications, and is not affected by this law.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Will it?
The fears expressed on this thread in particular were:
A- That some muslims maybe coerced into opting for the Sharia arbitration
B- That such alternarative systems facilitate seperate socieites, and that seperate societies are not good ideas.

thread ≠ site

So you really cant think of a concrete negative impact.

It does seem to increase the confusion that the arbitration is something more than what it is.

 

[Gaius46]

Grandstanding nonsense on the part of the mayor.

Arbitration has a long history in the United States as does religion based arbitration. As long as no US laws are violated and people voluntarily enter the agreements there is no issue here.