Well, kinda. After the whole row over the Archbishop of Canterbury’s declaration that Sharia Law in Britain is “unavoidable“, Eugene Volokh notes that it has been allowed in some US court, in a way. It seems some parties entered into a contract that provided for arbitration based off of rules of sharia law, and the judge upheld the arbitration. From my understanding, this isn’t a judge using Sharia to make a ruling, nor it being enshrined into a legal system, but simply provisions of a contract being upheld. Perhaps Michael can chime in and let me know where I’ve erred, and clarify it some more. This is not to say that I agree with the Archbishop, but just thought it was interesting to keep in mind.
-
Archives
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
-
Meta
The Archbishop’s statement was more nuanced and what-not, something about adapting some aspects for whatever value of the word “some” he had in mind.
I would think that the adaptable aspects would be the ones held in common already so which of the contrary aspects did he have in mind?
A contract and arbitration is a different matter so long as the contract and penalties are otherwise legal. (ie. a contract to force marriage of your daughter when she came of age to some guy she didn’t want wouldn’t fly, regardless.)
You got it, Chris.