OK, kiddies. Break out the duct tape to keep your head from exploding. Yup, you’re going to need it.😦
A US circuit court judge in Florida, Richard J. Nielsen, has ordered that Muslims in a dispute over who controls the funds of a Muslim mosque in Tampa, Florida, are to follow the Islamic Sharia law!
Gosh, will the disHonorable Judge Nielsen also command that Eowyn, who’s Catholic, follow Canon Law if she were in litigation? Buddhists too should follow the Buddha law. What about Satanists?
And why isn’t the ACLU screaming about this? What about the atheists? Noooo. For the Left reserve their outrage about religion’s intrusion into civil affairs and insist on “a wall of separation” between church and state only when it comes to Christianity.
~Steve & Eowyn
March 18, 2011
Florida Judge orders Muslims to follow sharia law! The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.” You can read the ruling HERE.
In Tampa, Florida, a dispute arose over who controls the funds a mosque received in 2008 from an eminent domain proceeding. Former trustees of the mosque are claiming in court they have the right to the funds. Current mosque leaders are disputing that claim.
The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly. The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.
Here’s the kicker.
Now it’s not unusual for a dispute to arise within a religious institution and for a court to order a mediation or arbitration, in order to resolve this without the court having to render its own judgment. But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge!
This is reminiscent of the 2009 New Jersey case, where a Muslim woman sought a restraining order, in civil court, against her Muslim husband, who was raping her several times a day. The judge denied the restraining order because, in his opinion, the husband did not commit a crime because he was following his Islamic beliefs.
In the New Jersey case, and now in this recent case in Tampa, Muslims found themselves being subjected to sharia law against their will.
Last October, ACT! for America aired a radio ad across Oklahoma in support of the referendum preventing Oklahoma judges from using sharia law in their decisions. The referendum won with 70% support. The point we made then, which now bears repeating, is that such legislation protects non-Muslims AND Muslims alike from being subjected to sharia law.
When someone claims that opposition to sharia law in America is “anti-Muslim,” make sure you tell them about the New Jersey woman and the mosque leaders in Tampa.