|
?:reviewBody
|
-
On 27 January 2015, the website Breitbart published an article titled ISLAMIC TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED IN TEXAS; ATTORNEY CLAIMS 'IT'S VOLUNTARY.' While the article's details were novel, the premise was not: A number of locations in the U.S. (Dearborn, Michigan, is frequently mentioned) have been rumored to be partially or fully subject to Sharia law enforcement. The claim also echoed the discredited belief in so-called no-go zones exist in the United States and Europe, where law enforcement agencies refuse to tread and immigrants who favor Islamic law have created a de facto parallel system of justice. The Breitbart article began by stating that [the existence of] an Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law in Texas had been confirmed by the site, that the tribunal was operating as a non-profit organization in Dallas, and that it was voluntary in nature. It went on to discuss potential conflicts between the tribunal and state law in Texas, making particular note of possible social sanctions for not abiding by the decisions rendered: The claim was recirculated by readers and other blogs, many of whom inferred (in part due to the insinuation the rulings were somehow binding in a way the tribunal would not disclose) the service in question superseded local, state, or federal law. One such version voiced concern over the purpose of such an organization: The source article linked to the tribunal's web site, which explained the center's intent and scope: While its stated purpose is religious in nature (and specific to Islam), the practice described is neither new nor unusual. Mediation and arbitration are common practices to circumvent the escalation of disputes to civil court, often employed by people facing a family law issue (such as a pending divorce or the details of a child custody agreement). In business arrangements, parties frequently sign agreements mandating disputes first go to arbitration before any legal action is taken. Disputes resolved through mediation or arbitration are not enforceable unless confirmed by a court, and even decisions reached by binding arbitration (which the Texas Islamic tribunal does not claim to render) can be challenged: Furthermore, the Islamic Tribunal in Dallas is by no means the only faith-based mediation entity operating in the United States. One such mediation service with a Christian focus describes their service thusly on their web site: Similar mediation centers provide such services to Jews: So while there is an Islamic mediation center in Dallas, the tribunal neither possessed nor claimed any ability to supersede extant laws in its jurisdiction, either civil or criminal. Parties are not obligated to participate in the mediation it offers, nor does the center have any power to operate outside the law or enforce any settlements it may reach. Similar faith-based mediation centers are offered as an alternative to costly litigation, but ultimately, all citizens and residents of the United States are subject to the laws of its jurisdictions, and no such entity has the ability to override existing laws or enforce illegal contracts or agreements. Dallas' D Magazine published an article that addressed various political responses to the media controversy over the Islamic mediation center, including the Irving City Council's voting in favor of a bill that would forbid such tribunals from using foreign law in their rulings (which is already illegal): The Houston Chronicle dubbed rumors about Sharia courts 2015 Texas Hoax of the Year, making many of the same points about it that we did:
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}