This is a rush transcript from "The Five," October 26, 2011. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: And yet, another example of America bending over backwards to be inclusive. A Florida appeals court has just cleared the way for lawsuit over a monetary dispute at a mosque to be determined by Islamic Sharia law -- in a U.S. court, no less. It's not the first time. But why is it happening at all?
Kimberly, the legal eagle here.
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Yes.
BOLLING: Sharia law shouldn't --
GUILFOYLE: You know my opinion on this, right?
BOLLING: I don't.
GUILFOYLE: I think it's serious and should not be allowed at all. This should frighten people that this is even acceptable that a judge says, OK, wait a second, you can use it. It's not the law of the United States.
So what is his legal authority for allowing Sharia law to be implemented in the court system? Wake up, we have the U.S. Constitution. Those are the laws we're governed by. Not Sharia law.
BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: But there's been a long history of using -- the courts using laws, religious laws, when there's dispute between two people in the same fate within an organization. They've used Jewish law in cases where the Talmudic law, I believe they call it, and it has been done in 26 states, cases where Sharia law has been cited.
I don't see what the problem is. It's like if you had a dispute and say in Eric's country club for example. They would go in and --
BOLLING: I don't have a country club. First of all, every night, reference --
GUILFOYLE: That's international law.
BOLLING: Please, do you see a problem --
GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: I got to tell you --
BOLLING: -- where we're expecting our judges and juries know the Islamic law, read the Koran before you decide this case?
GUTFELD: But I mean, I think, Eric, everyone knows the practice of law was perfected by sixth century goat herders. And if you disagree with that, you're clearly Islamophobic.
BECKEL: Exactly right.
GUILFOYLE: Is everyone getting a little nuts? Or --
BECKEL: No, no, I don't understand.
GUILFOYLE: You can't codify Sharia law.
BECKEL: Nobody mentioned this -- if we look at our research that we had today, it goes back -- many, many states have used it over many --
BOLLING: A few times.
BECKEL: Twenty-six states.
DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: No, not Sharia. That Talmudic law, that was a reference to that in terms of the states. The Sharia law is a new thing.
BECKEL: What it should be different than Talmudic law?
PERINO: Well, why I don't understand is, OK, so if you say that you are -- accept the idea that Sharia law should be allowed in the courts. But at the same time, why do we have all of these people who are trying to take away, like manger scenes that are traditional at a lot of these courthouses?
GUTFELD: Yes, that's a good point.
PERINO: That bothers me.
GUTFELD: They pick and choose. For example, OK, if we are going to do this in this court, then, theoretically I should be able to get rid of my mortgage interest on my house because Sharia law outlaws --
BOLLING: Hold on. What about if it's -- if this sets precedent, there not going to be a day where a judge says, by the way, under Sharia law, you ripped off, you stole that thing over there. We need to cut your left hand off.
BECKEL: By the way, did you make these arguments over Jewish law being used in the courts where they've been using it for years? Or do you're just find -- you actually just say now because it's Muslims? Muslims and Jewish, they're using their own religious laws.
BOLLING: Number one I don't necessarily believe they're using different laws in the U.S. courts.
GUILFOYLE: If you think that honor killings are OK, sure, codify Sharia law. And if you think the amputations are fine, husbands are allowed to kill their wives.