Archbishop of Canterbury seeks adoption of Islamic law

[Soldier4Christ]

As mentioned earlier, the trial court determined the parties' signatures on the Arbitration Agreement were authentic. Appellants were not required to offer additional evidence in order for the trial court to make a ruling regarding the validity of the Agreement. See Jack B. Anglin Co., 842 S.W.2d at 269. Applying contract construction principles, we must review the entire Arbitration Agreement to determine whether it is so worded that it can be given a certain or definite legal meaning or interpretation. See Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393. An examination of the document reveals:

    * "[the parties] agree to submit all claims and disputes among them to arbitration. . . ." [Emphasis added.]

    * "The Parties agree to arbitrate all existing issues among them in the above mentioned Cause Numbers in the appropriate District Court, which includes the Divorce Case, the child custody of the [sic] Noor Qaddura and Farah Qaddura, the determination of each party's responsibilities and duties according to the Islamic rules of law. . . ." [Emphasis added.]

    * The Arbitration Agreement lists with specificity the exact cause numbers, case styles, and names of the trial courts in which the three causes that are subject to the Agreement are pending.
    * The document states that the parties agree the ruling of the arbitration panel is "Binding, and Final, and no party will take any appeal or future legal action of any matter afterwards."

    * The Arbitration Agreement concludes with the recitation that each party will cause the above cause numbers to be abated pending the decision of the arbitrators, and will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration within seven days from the establishment of the panel of arbitrators. Further, "[t]he assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties."

The Arbitration Agreement does not contain any language purporting to except the applicability of the Agreement to certain issues, causes of action, or claims between the parties.

Jamal asserts that the issues disposed of by the partial summary judgment were no longer "existing issues" at the time the Arbitration Agreement was signed; therefore, the Agreement does not encompass these matters. A summary judgment that does not dispose of all parties and issues in the pending suit is interlocutory and not appealable unless a severance of that phase of the case is ordered by the trial court. City of Beaumont v. Guillory, 751 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1988). It is proper for a trial court to reconsider and reverse its prior interlocutory ruling on a partial summary judgment. Elder Const., Inc. v. City of Colleyville, 839 S.W.2d 91, 92 (Tex. 1992), citing Cunningham v. Eastham, 465 S.W.2d 189, 192 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Accordingly, the partial summary judgment in this case was interlocutory and subject to being reconsidered and set aside by the trial court. The trial court could elect to re-examine the evidence on which the partial summary judgment was based and could subsequently conclude that it does not support the judgment. See Cunningham, 465 S.W.2d at 192. Therefore, the issues addressed in the partial summary judgment were not finally disposed of and remained pending between the parties at the time the Arbitration Agreement was signed.

Additionally, an examination of the circumstances surrounding the formation of the Arbitration Agreement reveals that although the partial summary judgment had been granted on several issues,(9) the parties' pleadings still sought considerable relief:

The divorce case:

Rola and Jamal: Each wants to be appointed sole managing conservator of the two children, with the possessory conservator ordered to pay child support. Each requests the court divide the parties' community property -- Rola seeks a disproportionate share for herself, Jamal states he wants a just and right distribution. Rola wants Jamal to pay her attorney's fees.

In his counterclaim, Jamal alleges a separate cause of action against Rola for "defamation and false light," in which he seeks $250,000 actual damages and $1,000,000 exemplary damages.
 

Rola and Osama: Rola seeks reimbursement for all community funds tendered to Osama by Jamal, whether in the form of a business or in community assets or in cash.

In his counterclaim, Osama seeks attorney's fees from Rola or from the community estate of Rola and Jamal.

The protective order case:

Jamal filed an application for a protective order pursuant to section 81.001 of the Texas Family Code, seeking to protect his two children from their maternal grandparents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 81.001 (Vernon 2002). The court master held a hearing on the application and denied it on February 27, 2002; Jamal was ordered to pay the grandparents' attorney $3,350 in attorney's fees. The next day, Jamal filed a notice of appeal from the master's recommendation. The record before us does not contain any further orders or judgments in this case.

As evidenced by a review of the issues that have yet to be addressed by the trial court in these two cases, the parties still had much to resolve on the date the Arbitration Agreement was signed.

Applying the pertinent rules of contract construction, we conclude the Arbitration Agreement is worded so that it can be given only one certain or definite legal meaning or interpretation, and it is therefore not ambiguous. We hold that as a matter of law the plain language of the Arbitration Agreement expresses the intent of the parties that the scope of the Agreement include all claims raised by the parties' pleadings in the two cases before us up until September 25, 2002, the date the Agreement was signed by the parties. The scope of the Arbitration Agreement therefore includes all claims and matters previously ruled upon by the trial judge in the partial summary judgment. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the Arbitration Agreement to be invalid and in denying Appellants' motions to stay litigation and compel arbitration under the Texas General Arbitration Act. We sustain Appellants' first and third issues.

Conclusion

We reverse the trial court's orders denying Appellants' motions to stay litigation and to compel arbitration in these two consolidated cases. We render judgment that the Arbitration Agreement signed by the parties is valid and enforceable and covers all disputes between the parties that arose prior to the date the parties signed the Arbitration Agreement, including all matters that were the subject of the partial summary judgment previously granted by the trial court.
 

                                                           DIXON W. HOLMAN
                                                           JUSTICE
 

PANEL A: CAYCE, C.J.; DAY and HOLMAN, JJ.
 

DELIVERED: May 8, 2003

1. Cause No. 76-184050-00 is not part of these consolidated appeals and is not pending before this court.

2. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 171.021, 171.025 (Vernon Supp. 2003).

3. Osama did not attend the hearing. His attorney informed the court that the attorney was not present when the two arbitration documents were signed, he did not sign the documents on behalf of his client, and he could not agree that the signature on the documents belonged to his client. The court, however, determined the signature belonged to Osama.

4. Appellants' attorney stated that after she became involved in the case she filed a motion to set aside the partial summary judgment.

5. Osama's attorney attempted to persuade the trial court to sever the partial summary judgment from the remainder of the case so the judgment in favor of his client could be final. The court denied the motion to sever.

6. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.1 ("The trial court need not, but may--within 30 days after the order is signed--file findings of fact and conclusions of law.").

7. The divorce suit is appeal no. 2-02-416-CV; the protective order suit is appeal no. 2-02-415-CV. This court previously granted Appellants' motion to consolidate the two suits for purposes of appeal.

8. Appellee Osama is proceeding pro se on appeal and has not filed an appellee's brief.

9. The court held the Islamic Marriage Certificate was unenforceable, the house on Gladstone Drive is the separate property of Jamal, the house on Vesta Via Court belongs to Osama, and two certificates of deposit were never the community property of Rola and Jamal and belong solely to Osama.

[Soldier4Christ]

New sharia row over Chancellor's plans for 'Islamic bonds'

A new sharia law controversy erupted last night over Government plans to issue special "Islamic bonds" to pay for Gordon Brown's public-spending programme by raising money from the Middle East.

Britain is to become the first Western nation to issue bonds approved by Muslim clerics in line with sharia law, which bans conventional loans involving interest payments as "sinful".

The scheme would mark one of the most significant economic advances of sharia law in the non-Muslim world.

It will lead to the ownership of Government buildings and other assets currently belonging to British taxpayers being switched wholesale to wealthy Middle-Eastern businessmen and banks.

The Government sees sharia-compliant bonds as a way of tapping Middle-East money and building bridges with the Muslim community.

But critics say the scheme would waste money and could undermine Britain's financial and legal systems.

Senior Conservative MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: "I am concerned about the signal this would send – it could be the thin end of the wedge.

"British Common Law must be supreme and should apply to everyone."

A spokesman for the National Secular Society said: "There are lots of different ways to arrange financing.

"Constructing financial instruments to be sharia-compliant seems to me to involve a lot of unnecessary complication, which will serve only to make a lot of lawyers very rich."

The attempt to embrace Islamic financing would also appear to be at odds with Mr Brown's promise to promote Britishness and British values and institutions.

The Treasury has already faced heavy criticism for removing Britannia from 50p coins.

Other Western nations have been reluctant to issue Islamic bonds.

In the United States the bonds are banned partly as a result of claims that the money could be linked to terrorism.

The Treasury proposal follows the heated debate over the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams's claim that the spread of elements of sharia law in parts of Britain was "inevitable".

Downing Street distanced Gordon Brown from Dr Williams's comments.

A spokesman said: "The Prime Minister is very clear that British laws must be based on British values and that religious law, while respecting other cultures, should be subservient to British criminal and civil law."

However, The Mail on Sunday has established that Chancellor Alistair Darling is ready to give the go-ahead to sharia-compliant bonds – known as "sukuk", an early Arabic form of cheque.

Treasury officials have been working behind the scenes for months on the plan.

The deadline for responses to Mr Darling's consultation document setting out how the bonds will work expires on Thursday.

The Islamic bonds proposal was devised by Mr Brown's former Treasury adviser Ed Balls, now Schools Secretary and the Premier's most powerful Cabinet ally.

He claims it is a vital way of improving relations with Muslims in Britain as well as helping the UK to obtain vast sums from Middle-East banks in oil-rich nations such as Dubai and Qatar.

Sharia-compliant bonds have been issued by the governments of Pakistan and Malaysia and private banks but never by a Western government.

Treasury officials say the aim is to attract big investors as well as making it easier for British Muslims to invest in National Savings products at banks and post offices.

The Government has already backed Islamic car loans and mortgages.

Sharia-compliant bonds were designed to get round the ban on paying interest – "riba" in Islamic law.

The Koran says it is sinful to make money from money.

Unlike a conventional bond which is debt-based, a "sukuk" is asset-based. Instead of receiving interest, bond holders receive "rent" on the asset, thereby complying with sharia law.

The Treasury consultation document says Government assets such as "buildings or a piece of infrastructure" would be switched to a "special-purpose vehicle" set up to administer the bond.

This would be carried out by a contract known as an "ijara".

The asset would then be leased back by the Government, generating rental payments for the Islamic bond holders.

When the "sukuk" matured, the Government would guarantee to buy back the asset, allowing the bond-holders to get their redemption payments.

"Sukuk are akin to Islamic investment certificates," the document says.

"They are designed to be in compliance with sharia law, the divine law in Islam which is based on the Quran."

Islamic bonds are slightly more expensive than Western-style bonds, mainly because they require extensive legal and religious advice.

The Treasury initiative has been given added impetus by the worldwide credit squeeze, which is making it harder for all governments to raise money.

The Government says the bonds will also help London retain its position ahead of New York and Frankfurt as the world's leading financial centre.

Global Islamic finance assets, including private equity and bonds, are now said to be worth up to £150 billion. Sukuk volumes have soared from almost nothing to £35 billion in the past ten years.

Maurice Fitzpatrick, a senior tax partner at accountants Grant Thornton, said: "The Treasury wants to borrow money from as wide a range of sources as possible.

"Sharia bonds might well prove to be more expensive, but we would not know for sure until it was put into practice."

Special rules for Islamic finances have been challenged by Mahmoud El-Gamal, chairman of Islamic economics at Rice University, Houston.

"The main beneficiaries are lawyers, multi-national banks and self-styled religious scholars retained as consultants to certify the Islamicity of re-engineered financial products," he said.

Muslim Labour peer Lord Ahmed said: "This is a positive step for Muslims in Britain but the main reason for doing it is to attract money to the UK from Middle-East investors. Claims that it is connected to terrorist funds are absurd."

[Soldier4Christ]

Sharia law will be imposed one way or another as we can plainly see it ebbing it's way into courts throughout the world.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

All of this is ridiculous and insane.

Our courts and our laws are the foundation, and that can't be changed without a Constitutional Amendment and a vote of the people.

However, our courts and laws have always recognized arguments in civil disputes involving oral agreements, handshakes, and various forms of written agreements. BUT, the standard used was our courts and our laws. As an example, a judge could listen to witnesses about a business arrangement that involved only a HANDSHAKE to see if the parties had a binding civil contract UNDER OUR LAW. Without witnesses and documentation, these kinds of civil contracts are many times difficult to enforce or impossible to enforce. The weight, IF ANY, of these types of informal agreements are subject to OUR ESTABLISHED LAW, the LAW OF OUR PEOPLE, and subject to OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS. ANYTHING ELSE IS ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND NOT ENFORCEABLE!

Brothers and Sisters, the next step is to force others to be subject to Sharia Law. The only portions of Sharia Law that should apply would be common sense things that relate to COMMON LAW - NOT SHARIA LAW. In other words, Sharia Law can't be the standard for anything. The "Handshake" agreement example would fall under COMMON LAW. Whether you have a binding agreement or not is determined by OUR ALREADY EXISTING LAW. It's interesting to note that "Handshake" agreements can constitute a binding contract that can be enforced. Whether it can be enforced or not is NOT dependent on the nationality, religion, or ethnicity of the parties making the agreement. BLUNTLY, the customs, practices, and cultural considerations DO NOT APPLY! The only thing that applies is OUR EXISTING LAW!

Brothers and Sisters, the only time I could see anything other than OUR EXISTING LAW being used is when OTHER COUNTRIES ARE INVOLVED. If I made a business deal as an American citizen with someone in Iraq, we would have to make our agreement LEGAL in both countries. Otherwise, laws of other countries mean NOTHING! There are many obvious reason why we SHOULD NOT become parties to International Law unless multiple countries are involved in the agreement or contract. It would be INSANE to give away our CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER OUR OWN LAW!

So, where does it appear that we're going? TO INSANITY! AND, evil will be attached to that insanity!

[Soldier4Christ]

 SHARIA STORM GROWS



MUSLIM radicals have demanded Sharia law across Britain “without compromise”.

Extreme Islamics said the hardline system – where people are punished by stoning and beheading – is the future.

Speaking at a meeting in Birmingham, Abu Ibraheem said: “Let us make this absolutely clear. Islam is not subject to dilution, compromise or relegation.

“The behaviour of some Muslims is failing miserably to meet these commands.”

About 50 activists held the meeting in the same town where terrorist Parviz Khan, 36, plotted to behead a British soldier.

Ten thousand leaflets were distributed to attract moderate Muslims.

They criticised comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, 58, who suggested parts of Sharia law may be good for the UK.

Abu Abdullah, who spoke at the meeting, added: “The purpose of this was not to discourage Muslims from following English laws.

“It is to educate people about Sharia and its meanings.”

[nChrist]

1 - I think they need to be bluntly told that they don't demand a SINGLE THING!

2 - If there's something they don't like - LEAVE AND GO HOME!

3 - Learn how to live as civil human beings or BE KICKED OUT OF THE COUNTRY!

It really should be just this simple, and I'm sure that many would donate for their trip back home. None of this garbage should be tolerated in any country, and that certainly includes this part of the world.