Calling All Simpletons - Re: "Sharia Law"

[jberryhill]

If you have concerns about "OMG, Sharia Law!" I would like you to read the following short story, and then answer some questions.

---

Moshe is the owner and operator of "Moshe's All-Kosher Kitchen", a popular restaurant in Anytown, USA. Moshe's reputation and commercial success are built, in part, on his "100% Kosher Promise" that all food in his restaurant is absolutely Kosher.

Moshe has a supplier, Benjamin's Butcher. Moshe has a contract with Benjamin that says:

"Benjamin warrants that all shipments of meat to Moshe will be Kosher in accordance with the standards of the Anytown Rabbinical Council. All disputes between Benjamin and Moshe shall be submitted to the Anytown Rabbinical Council for binding determination therof."

One day, a shipment arrives from Benjamin. Moshe says, "I do not think this meat is Kosher, and I am refusing the shipment." Moshe refuses delivery and does not pay the invoice.

Benjamin takes Moshe to court for breach of contract, demanding payment. Moshe defends, saying, "Your honor, the meat wasn't Kosher and I am not obligated to pay".

-----


What the court is going to do at this point, whether you pinheaded idiots like it or not, is order the two of them to follow the contract and submit to arbitration by the Anytown Rabbinical Council.


---

So, they go to the Rabbinical Council, which rules, in accordance with Jewish law, that the meat was kosher.

Benjamin goes back to the court and says, "Your honor, here is the judgment of the Rabbinical Council certifying the meat was kosher, and by the terms of our arbitration agreement, Moshe must pay."

The court issues judgment against Moshe and he is ordered to pay.


Here are my questions:

1. Should the court have dismissed the case because it is applying religious law by enforcing the judgment of the Rabbinical Council?

2. Should people be allowed to enter into contacts which assign judgment of specific issues to religious persons or bodies?

3. Do you understand that the Constitution specifically protects the right of contract?

This is the type of situation where, if the meat was supposed to be Halal, the stupid people of Oklahoma, and a good deal of the stupid people of DU, would be jumping up and down screaming, "OMIGOD, A COURT IS ENFORCING SHARIA LAW!"

There are substantial financial arrangements in this country, as anywhere else, that are premised on certain aspects of Islamic banking that avoid charging or collecting "interest", but which instead impose a structure of service fees and other charges that permit Muslims to invest and finance investments (such as Sharia Mortgages) without engaging in interest. These are legal contracts which are protected by the Constitution, and which people have every right to believe are enforceable in the courts of the United States.

Can any of the nitwit contingent explain to me what is wrong with people engaging in contracts and binding arbitration by reference to any principles that the contracting parties freely decide they want to be applied to their contract?

[Mikeystyle]

1. Oh man, you nailed it!

I've been arguing about the fact that Shariah law couldn't be imposed because of the Constitution, but you've made the case much better than that.

As I understand it, the Rabbinical Council acts like an arbiter on things like this---and courts have recognized the decicions of all sorts of arbitration decisions provided both sides agreed to arbitration in the first place (and as long as it doesn't violate any laws).

[jberryhill]

2. It is actually a better hypothetical without the arbitration

Because then the court itself has to resolve the factual question of whether the meat was Kosher by reference to rabbinical standards, industry practices, and potentially rulings of religious bodies on specific factual questions concerning that shipment of meat.

Another context where it comes up is compliance with "community service" requirements for certain criminal defendants who are remanded to a religious volunteer organization to perform the community service. If you are remanded to "Saint Alphonso's Community Church" for their pancake breakfast for the needy program, then your compliance with the court sentence is going to have be certified by St. Alphonso's that you performed the required hours in accordance with their requirements.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. Then the contract is unenforceable.

It's like demanding I picture a purple giraffe in my head at least three times while I fix your computer.

[jberryhill]

6. It's enforceable

A church can specify that the parking lot contractor not work on Sunday.

Without the arbitration clause, the court will look to standard practices in the Kosher food industry, just as a court looks to "standard industry practices" in enforcing other unspecified contract terms in any other context.

If "standard Kosher industry practices" are done with reference to a particular Rabbinical Council, the court will follow.

Whether the food was Kosher is simply a fact question to be resolved in the dispute. Standard industry terminology, even if by reference to religious rulings, will be used to define the contract term as having been understood by use of the word "kosher" in the contract.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. As far as the compliance can be objectively verified, yes. -nt

[jberryhill]

8. As readily as the official word on Punxatawney Phill seeing a shadow on Groundhog Day

If people want, they can submit a factual determination under a contract to this guy, who looks like he might be wearing "Muslim garb":

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. I want to add something:

If it's written in the contract that Benjamin has the right to cut off Moshe's hand for his unwarranted refusal, that's null and void, with no need to explicitly "ban religious law" in any way.

[jberryhill]

5. That is also correct, and also without the need to ban "religious law"

Yes, contract provisions which are otherwise unlawful will not be enforced.