Texas sharia court is approved by the Second Court of Appeals
simple_...@yahoo.com
The Second Court of Appeals of the State of Texas has rendered a
ruling on the enforceability of shari'a judgments rendered by imams.
According to the Texas appeals court, it's all good.
You've heard of the Texas Courts. Ladies and gentlemen, make way for
the Texas Islamic Courts!!!
The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to
Texas Islamic court within "Seven Days" from the establishment of the
Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include
ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family
members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other
party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing
of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above
appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.
In general, private arbitration agreements are enforceable by
government courts. Shari'a arbitration agreements are one type of
private arbitration agreement. Without a theory as to why shari'a
arbitration agreements shouldn't be enforced by the courts, I'm not
sure what else the appeals court could have done in this case. Still,
this is not a welcome development.
someone
<simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7a33d37c-fdc5-488f...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Looks like it's coming our way too, in the U.K. What a bummer, especially
for the women. Canada rejected this idea.
s.
simple_...@yahoo.com
> Looks like it's coming our way too, in the U.K. What a bummer, especially
> for the women. Canada rejected this idea.
UK already has a few sharia courts:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=2a6e0551-2b00-4742-b541-c72f8f1de9cf
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330193,00.html
f. barnes
They are getting their foot in door; a little bit of Sharia law is
like being a little bit pregnant.
GeekBoy
"someone" <som...@flibbernet.com> wrote in message
news:47ae3c75$0$8427$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
This is arbitration that is not required, not a "court"
> s.
>