Beis Din vs. Sharia Courts

Absolutely none in theory. From the point of view of the American legal system they are private arbitration tribunals, meaning that if the parties sign a contract to accept the ruling it is legally binding (with the same exceptions as apply to any arbitration). Sociologically there is a difference since Muslims aren’t used to being a minority group and are more likely to forget that they aren’t in charge in America (Christians have the same problem, Jews on the other hand have centuries of experience at being a minority and negotiating life in a world we don’t control).

heretohelp: In terms of civil law (other than domestic relations) they are very similar. It appears they copied much from us, and much that reflects commercial custom in the middle east at the time. Their criminal law is totally different (our criminal never amounted to much since the evidence rule was so strict – most crime was probably dealt with as a dine mamonos). They are a little less strict on ribis, and allow polygamous and temporary marriages (which would be banned in the US under the public policy exception). They have a little more variety with greater difference than our Sefardi-Ashkenazi or Hasidic-Yeshivish divides.

Sure. They both (Sharia and American Law) both borrowed a ton from us, Torah people.

Charlie- that hasn’t happened. You’re right, we do need to sand with the Muslims here, but there isn’t really a legitimate threat. Some jurisdictions have passed silly nonsense laws that don’t do anything. The fact remains, private parties can contract to arbitrate their disputes however they want.

It is worth noting that in Medinat Yisrael, sharia courts operate, are binding for Muslims on personal status matters including marriage and divorce, and are paid by the Israeli government.

Hmm. Are they required to accept testimony from apostate moslems in America?

Popa,

You can read about it in the opinion page of the Quran, also referred to as the NYT.

“Are they required to accept testimony from apostate moslems in America?”

Ah, clever slander directed towards Rabbi Avi Weiss, who even according to his most bitter enemies such as Rabbi Pruzansky is a kosher eid. Nobody who is actually Orthodox could question that.

“Some Muslims want a situation similar to what exists in Muslim countries in which Muslims would be required to use shariah courts and they wouldn’t be a need to gain their consent. That is very unlikely to happen. “

As I mentioned, that is the law in Israel.

“The danger is some people want to make it illegal for a Muslim court to exist and such laws would prohibit arbitration according to legal system other than American law – such laws would probably violate equal protection, freedom of religion, and right of contract and would severely restrict the rights of Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many groups of businesses that rely on private arbitration according to non-US law (which include major companies engaged in international transactions).”

This is exactly the problem; it is exactly what happened in Ontario, Canada.

Are they required to accept testimony from apostate moslems in America?”

Since in the United States religious courts are private courts of arbitration, the rules would be governed by the contract signed by the litigants and the courts. If the parties stipulate that heretics’ testimony is inadmissable, so be it. “Private” means the government doesn’t get to tell you what to do and how to run your life.