<p>Not if the wife didn’t sign the contract.</p>
<p>There might be some contracts that would be enforceable under religious law, but unenforceable in US law.</p>
<p>Not all contracts must be writing. Oral contracts are enforceable, so long as they do not involve certain enumerated activities, like the sale of real estate. The case may hinge on whether the wife verbally agreed to follow Jewish law. If so, does the court apply Jewish law and the plaintiff win? I don’t think it is so clear. </p>
<p>But this is a made-up example anyway, the point of which was to say I think it is possible that there could be issues involving Sharia law presented to a US judge in the context of case before him. If applying Sharia law (or other foreign laws) is barred by legislative action, then it would be clear to the judge not to consider it.</p>
<p>There is no “Jewish law” if you make a wager about not eating bacon. You may enter into that because one is Jewish but it’s a wager. The enforceability of a wager in court is subject to ordinary legal rules. It’s no different from saying “I’ll clean your house if I smoke a cigarette in the next month”.</p>
<p>This is similar to a website where you enter a goal like weight loss, give them a credit card # and authorize them to charge you an amount if you fail to reach your goal.</p>
<p>So then what is a scenario in which Sharia law (or Jewish or ecclesiastical law) would possibly be “enforced” by a judge or used in a legal dispute?</p>
<p>The only thing I can think of would be a contract that included a term that stated that some issue would be determined under Sharia (or whatever) law if there was a dispute between the parties. It could put a court in an uncomfortable position to have to determine what that non-US law provided–but a US court would still not require anything that would be unlawful under US law.</p>
<p>I’m making this up, but imagine that a pre-nuptial agreement specified that in case of divorce, the parties agreed that division of property and child custody issues would be done in compliance with [religious] law. That might be enforceable, with some limits.</p>
<p>^It might also come into play if the contract specified that conflicts are to be resolved pursuant to the laws of a specific country, like Yemen - and my understanding is that Yemen law is based upon sharia.</p>
<p>But then it’s still not enforcing “Sharia Law,” right? It’s enforcing the terms of a contract previously agreed to (and we’re assuming all parties were adult, of sound mind, and so forth). So, then, it really isn’t any different if I agree to a contract to be bound by Sharia Law or to a contract to be bound by rock-paper-scissors, right? </p>
<p>What (aside from not-sound-mind of one of the parties) would make a contract unenforceable? I mean, let’s say I signed a contract saying that if I weighed over 20 pounds from what I weighed on my wedding day, my husband could beat me. Obviously that’s not enforceable, since it’s illegal to beat someone else. But what if the contract said that he could then divorce me? Would that be enforceable? I’m just trying to understand the parameters here, not being a lawyer.</p>
<p>One of the cases that razorsharp cited did involve the judge referring to Sharia law, although the judge did not use Sharia law itself to decide the case. In the New Jersey family dispute, the intent of the husband was key to deciding part of the case, since intent itself was part of the NJ law. The judge considered the fact that the man was brought up in Islamic traditions as one factor in trying to determine the man’s intent. </p>
<p>The judge never applied actual sharia law, but nevertheless razorsharp and others like to cite this case as evidence of just that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It might involve applying Sharia Law to a contract to interpret the intent of the parties, and could form the basis of a judge’s decision so long is it did not conflict with US laws.</p>
<p>Admittedly, it is a far-fetched notion that US courts would be applying Sharia law to anything ever, but I don’t believe that anyone can say with certainty that it would never happen. It can’t ever happen in state courts where state legislatures ban the use of Sharia or foreign laws by their state courts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure there is case law on it but I was thinking of a scenario where a husband wouldn’t give his wife a ‘get’ the Jewish divorce agreement and whether a civil court could order him to do so…</p>
<p>The answer about a “get” is generally no unless there is some extreme reason. You can get a civil divorce. A get is a religious divorce. It is generally not up to the courts to deal with religious divorces. Thus for example a divorced Catholic can get married without getting an annulment and the civil system pays no attention to the Church’s position on that. </p>
<p>It is normal for courts to refer to the parties’ traditions to determine intent. This is usually cultural but is sometimes religious. I can imagine a case where a trustee has been empowered to make donations from an estate and family members object because the trustee wants to make donations outside the donor’s intent. How else to interpret the donor’s intent without reference to the donor’s life and beliefs?</p>
<p>I can imagine a possible “sharia” scenario. Say the legal question is whether a contract was reached. The court needs sometime to look at the intent of each party to see if they had a “meeting of the minds”. Let’s assume one or both is Muslim and that person reasonably believed the contract needed to be witnessed by 2 women, not 1. I’m having trouble imagining how this would work because witnessing a contract is not generally part of the actual agreement but I can see it coming up as an issue. Maybe the issue would be whether discussions made after “agreement” were actually part of the contract or need to be treated as potential modifications. That could invoke the witness issue to determine when they actually agreed but again that’s because a contract is formed when there is a meeting of the minds not when it is witnessed under sharia.</p>
<p>I think it is possible that a court might find itself in the position of having to interpret sharia, or Jewish, or foreign law, in order to decide a case governed by US law. For example, it might sometimes be necessary to determine if two people were legally married in some other jurisdiction, in order to figure out what their respective rights are here. Courts can deal with this–sometimes they have to use experts.</p>
<p>AFAIK, the courts do uphold awards from arbitration agreements that involve religion, whether Christian or whatever. But that’s because, as noted by others, you can contract to have some person or body arbitrate your dispute and that doesn’t become “wrong” just because you choose a religious body. </p>
<p>I know of a NJ criminal case where a court refused to issue a TRO against a muslim man because he felt under his religion his wife was obligated to have sex and thus he could force her. The court said he didn’t have “intent”. That lousy decision was tossed out by the appellate court. </p>
<p>I’d say it’s extremely clear the role of religion in US courts is very limited. If any religion gets brought in, it’s Christianity. We see that expressly in obscenity cases because areas which are heavily devout Christian have successfully upheld stricter bans solely because they set the “community standards”.</p>
<p>Good news for the runners who were not able to finish the race:</p>
<p>[Boston</a> Marathon invites stopped runners back](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/boston-marathon-invites-stopped-runners-back-152528301.html]Boston”>http://news.yahoo.com/boston-marathon-invites-stopped-runners-back-152528301.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I expect the biggest turnout next year since the 100th race. That was a sight. I think the official number of runners was 50k - compared to maybe 35k most years - but with tens of thousands more unofficial runners. It was a moving river of humanity with none of the usual breaks for hour after hour. I’m guessing 50k runners next year.</p>
<p>I don’t understand. Why is Sharia law being discussed? This is the US, we do not live under Sharia law, so it shouldn’t be a concern in US courts.</p>
<p>And to be frank, I’m slightly uncomfortable with Sharia law being discussed in this thread, because so many people have misconceptions about it, a few of which have become apparent.</p>
<p>It came up because the “Virginia Anti-Sharia Task Force” was objecting to the burial of the older brother in Virginia.</p>
<p>Also, thread creep means that anything may end up being discussed on just about any thread.</p>
<p>Yes, and if someone is uncomfortable with a topic, they can simply stop following the thread. Happens all the time!</p>
<p>^Well, yes, I could, and I normally would stop following the thread. But the situation is a bit different when I’m concerned about something important to me being misrepresented.</p>
<p>
Hunt, I’ll take you up on this. Another bit of good news. We will feel a bit safer next summer when Jack Bauer returns to put on his terrorist-busting cape.</p>