<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Et tu, Minnesota?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:21:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: rahma</title>
		<link>http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/comment-page-1/#comment-70832</link>
		<dc:creator>rahma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:25:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/#comment-70832</guid>
		<description>Huh.  Imagine that.  I live in Minnesota, became a paralegal here, and somehow did not come up with that case when I had free westlaw access and was attempting to write about the validity of a nikkah contract in minnesota courts.  Maybe it&#039;s time to revist that paper for an update.

Added to the growing list of why Minnesota is an awesome state:  kick butt public radio, Keith Ellison and Sharia arbitration.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Huh.  Imagine that.  I live in Minnesota, became a paralegal here, and somehow did not come up with that case when I had free westlaw access and was attempting to write about the validity of a nikkah contract in minnesota courts.  Maybe it&#8217;s time to revist that paper for an update.</p>
<p>Added to the growing list of why Minnesota is an awesome state:  kick butt public radio, Keith Ellison and Sharia arbitration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amir</title>
		<link>http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/comment-page-1/#comment-70743</link>
		<dc:creator>Amir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:08:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/#comment-70743</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;There is still the “No establishment” clause to think of. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

The establishment clause would only prevent government establishing a national religion or giving preference to one religion over another. It would prevent the government from establishing Islamic or other religious courts, but I don’t see how it would prevent private individuals from establishing their own arbitration organisations provided their authority is only derived from the consent of the participants and not from statute or presidential decree.

In other words, the establishment clause is about limiting the actions of the state, not limiting the actions of the citizenry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>There is still the “No establishment” clause to think of. </p></blockquote>
<p>The establishment clause would only prevent government establishing a national religion or giving preference to one religion over another. It would prevent the government from establishing Islamic or other religious courts, but I don’t see how it would prevent private individuals from establishing their own arbitration organisations provided their authority is only derived from the consent of the participants and not from statute or presidential decree.</p>
<p>In other words, the establishment clause is about limiting the actions of the state, not limiting the actions of the citizenry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/comment-page-1/#comment-70693</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:50:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/#comment-70693</guid>
		<description>Interesting, but Minnesota and Texas are only two states out of a union of 50 states.  In the Minnesota example this was contract law / resolution.  At first both sides agreed to what was essentially binding arbitration by the Sharia authorities.  When one lost, they went crying to the civil authorities. The civil authorities then said &quot; sorry Charlie you can&#039;t back out of a previous agreement on a competent arbitration authority.&quot;  So what the state recognized was the validity of the previous agreement not the Sharia court itself per se.  From a first Amendment perspective this is more of a freedom of religion issue.  As the Supremes have not weighed in on this yet you are definitely jumping on the gun as far as &quot;acceptance&quot; is concerned.  There is still the &quot;No establishment&quot; clause to think of.  The Supremes may still invalidate the Sharia court- enforcing the ideas of the non-establishment clause and the supremacy of the civil authorities in certain fields. Plus there is also the equal protection clause of the Constitution to think of also.  Sharia law might get tossed due to excess leniency or excess stringency or just because five of the Justices want to be Islamophobes. 

This is not to say that Sharia principals can not fit into common law or that the non-establishment clause make Sharia law a total no-go.  But there are definite limits.  I don&#039;t see any state in the union allowing a Sharia court usurping its authority in divorce/family court.  The civil authorities are still going to monopolize that function mainly for equal protection reasons.  

Good luck telling child protective services or the woman&#039;s shelter that you have a right via the Koran to beat your wife/ child senseless.  Yes I know that the Koran says no such thing; but the civil authorities don&#039;t care what the Koran or Bible, or Tao De Jing say about such matters.  What they care about is what the local laws say about such things.  You can quote Haddiths and  Fiqh till you are blue in the face- the state still has the final say on whether you are Married or not and how many people you can be Married to at any one time.  In the US that would be the individual states of the Union.

England being England; they have every right to investigate accommodating the Ummah and its laws.  In the USA there is the small matter of both the Individual States Constitutions and the Federal Constitution that seem to be a high walls against such accommodation.  Muslims should think twice, thrice and a few more times about fiddling with these protections.  Right now they are the only thing between the your Masjids and the wrecking ball in some of the more backwards neighborhoods of the USA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting, but Minnesota and Texas are only two states out of a union of 50 states.  In the Minnesota example this was contract law / resolution.  At first both sides agreed to what was essentially binding arbitration by the Sharia authorities.  When one lost, they went crying to the civil authorities. The civil authorities then said &#8221; sorry Charlie you can&#8217;t back out of a previous agreement on a competent arbitration authority.&#8221;  So what the state recognized was the validity of the previous agreement not the Sharia court itself per se.  From a first Amendment perspective this is more of a freedom of religion issue.  As the Supremes have not weighed in on this yet you are definitely jumping on the gun as far as &#8220;acceptance&#8221; is concerned.  There is still the &#8220;No establishment&#8221; clause to think of.  The Supremes may still invalidate the Sharia court- enforcing the ideas of the non-establishment clause and the supremacy of the civil authorities in certain fields. Plus there is also the equal protection clause of the Constitution to think of also.  Sharia law might get tossed due to excess leniency or excess stringency or just because five of the Justices want to be Islamophobes. </p>
<p>This is not to say that Sharia principals can not fit into common law or that the non-establishment clause make Sharia law a total no-go.  But there are definite limits.  I don&#8217;t see any state in the union allowing a Sharia court usurping its authority in divorce/family court.  The civil authorities are still going to monopolize that function mainly for equal protection reasons.  </p>
<p>Good luck telling child protective services or the woman&#8217;s shelter that you have a right via the Koran to beat your wife/ child senseless.  Yes I know that the Koran says no such thing; but the civil authorities don&#8217;t care what the Koran or Bible, or Tao De Jing say about such matters.  What they care about is what the local laws say about such things.  You can quote Haddiths and  Fiqh till you are blue in the face- the state still has the final say on whether you are Married or not and how many people you can be Married to at any one time.  In the US that would be the individual states of the Union.</p>
<p>England being England; they have every right to investigate accommodating the Ummah and its laws.  In the USA there is the small matter of both the Individual States Constitutions and the Federal Constitution that seem to be a high walls against such accommodation.  Muslims should think twice, thrice and a few more times about fiddling with these protections.  Right now they are the only thing between the your Masjids and the wrecking ball in some of the more backwards neighborhoods of the USA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kashmiri Nomad</title>
		<link>http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/comment-page-1/#comment-70559</link>
		<dc:creator>Kashmiri Nomad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:34:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/#comment-70559</guid>
		<description>Trackback:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://kashmiri-nomad.blogspot.com/2008/02/islam-and-west-accelerated-links-for-17.html&quot;&gt;
Austrolabe on Sharia arbitration in American courts.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trackback:<br />
<a href="http://kashmiri-nomad.blogspot.com/2008/02/islam-and-west-accelerated-links-for-17.html"><br />
Austrolabe on Sharia arbitration in American courts.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: muslimmatters.org &#187; FOX&#8217;s Struggle, War Against Terrorism &#38; Shariah in UK (3 Updates)</title>
		<link>http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/comment-page-1/#comment-69846</link>
		<dc:creator>muslimmatters.org &#187; FOX&#8217;s Struggle, War Against Terrorism &#38; Shariah in UK (3 Updates)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austrolabe.com/2008/02/14/et-tu-minnesota/#comment-69846</guid>
		<description>[...] [Update 3] Austrolabe brings Shariah home to America: Et tu, Minnesota? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] [Update 3] Austrolabe brings Shariah home to America: Et tu, Minnesota? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
