PDA

View Full Version : Court: Oklahoma ban on Islamic law unconstitutional



txradioguy
01-11-2012, 06:35 AM
OKLAHOMA CITY – An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The court in Denver upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange's order blocking implementation of the amendment shortly after it was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in November 2010.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

The amendment read, in part: "The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law."

Backers argued that the amendment intended to ban all religious laws, that Islamic law was merely named as an example and that it wasn't meant as a specific attack on Muslims. The court disagreed.

"That argument conflicts with the amendment's plain language, which mentions Sharia law in two places," the appeals court opinion said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/court-oklahoma-ban-on-islamic-law-unconstitutional/

txradioguy
01-11-2012, 06:37 AM
The irony is thick in this one. :rolleyes:

linda22003
01-11-2012, 10:35 AM
It might have worked if they had specified ANY religious law (a Jewish "get", for example, or Catholic Canon law). Narrowing it down to one religion was the issue.

AmPat
01-11-2012, 11:32 AM
It might have worked if they had specified ANY religious law (a Jewish "get", for example, or Catholic Canon law). Narrowing it down to one religion was the issue.

Correct. I suspect that had ANY other religion been used other than the moon god, it would have sailed through.

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 11:47 AM
Correct. I suspect that had ANY other religion been used other than the moon god, it would have sailed through.

That's not what Linda said- the law targeted a specific religion and that was the problem. So they need to re-write the law so that it will generically prohibit considering religious law. That, of course, will not sit well with the folks who have bought into the BS that US law is founded on the Bible. If you ban the consideration of all folk or tribal law you, especially in Oklahoma, you are going to fun afoul of the reservation Indians.

AmPat
01-11-2012, 11:59 AM
That's not what Linda said- the law targeted a specific religion and that was the problem. So they need to re-write the law so that it will generically prohibit considering religious law. That, of course, will not sit well with the folks who have bought into the BS that US law is founded on the Bible. If you ban the consideration of all folk or tribal law you, especially in Oklahoma, you are going to fun afoul of the reservation Indians.
I KNOW what Linda said. That MIGHT explain the "correct" at the beginning of my response. The rest of my statement was preceded with; "I suspect."
;)

txradioguy
01-11-2012, 11:59 AM
Correct. I suspect that had ANY other religion been used other than the moon god, it would have sailed through.

I just find it funny that the one and only religion that seems to be protected the way it's supposed to be under the Constitution these days is the one that wants to kill and/or convert us.

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 12:07 PM
I KNOW what Linda said. That MIGHT explain the "correct" at the beginning of my response. The rest of my statement was preceded with; "I suspect."
;)

Oh, well in that case, don't let me disturb your paranoia. I keep forgetting that discussing the reality is always the opportunity to wax victimlike about a perceived future slight.

linda22003
01-11-2012, 12:09 PM
Correct. I suspect that had ANY other religion been used other than the moon god, it would have sailed through.

No - it wouild have to be written to apply to ALL religions. Oklahoma could have done that, and did not.

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 12:09 PM
I just find it funny that the one and only religion that seems to be protected the way it's supposed to be under the Constitution these days is the one that wants to kill and/or convert us.

Pass a law which says that the courts can't consider Christian scripture or folk law and see how it flies. It's not that "the one and only religion" gets this ruling, it's that "the one and only religion" (it's so funny you would call it that) is the one targeted in the law.

linda22003
01-11-2012, 12:11 PM
I just find it funny that the one and only religion that seems to be protected the way it's supposed to be under the Constitution these days is the one that wants to kill and/or convert us.

Saying - correctly - that you cannot apply a law to one religion only is hardly "protecting" that religion. It's following the Constitution, something we're usually in favor of around here. I hope we're not only in favor of it when it suits us, which is how it's looking here.

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 12:13 PM
No - it wouild have to be written to apply to ALL religions. Oklahoma could have done that, and did not.

The way I read it they actually had, but they also specifically mentioned and put emphasis on Islam.

It will be interesting to see where this goes, if anywhere, because CAIR/DU keeps telling us that Sharia is not Islamic law, it's a folk law of Islamic culture. As such, to prohibit the consideration of Sharia would not be singling out a religion, it would be singling out a culture.

The easiest thing for them to have done would be to write a law which says, "... shall only consider the laws of the State of Oklahoma..." but that wouldn't have been as much fun as taking a shot at the muzzies.

linda22003
01-11-2012, 12:14 PM
And yet would likely have stood up in court.

RobJohnson
01-11-2012, 12:38 PM
They are just bored in Denver due to the lack of snow. :cool:

JB
01-11-2012, 04:29 PM
It might have worked if they had specified ANY religious law (a Jewish "get", for example, or Catholic Canon law). Narrowing it down to one religion was the issue.That's the appearance the snippet in the OP gives. However, in the article itself:
(Muneer) Awad argued that the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death. The appeals court pointed out that Awad made a "strong showing" of potential harm.I suspect that even if the law is rewritten to apply to any/all religions, this guy is not going to go away.

He doesn't care about Islam being used as an example in the way the law was written, he wants the law squashed so he can apply international or Sharia laws here in the US.

Odysseus
01-11-2012, 11:52 PM
It might have worked if they had specified ANY religious law (a Jewish "get", for example, or Catholic Canon law). Narrowing it down to one religion was the issue.

Which is stupid, because Sharia isn't like any other legal system. First, let's look at the amendmentin its entirety:


he Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.

The amendment upheld the supremacy of the United States Constitution and the state laws of Oklahoma. Sharia conflicts with both. The state's constitutional prohibition on Sharia only interferes with the practice of Islam if one accepts that Sharia imposes requirements on Muslims that conflict with US law, which it does.

Take your example of the Get. For example, a Jew who does not receive a Get cannot remarry in temple, just as a Catholic who does not get an annulment cannot be married in the church, but neither has any effect on civil law. Orthodox Jews and practicing Catholics are free to get civil divorces and remarry in civil ceremonies, it is only before their congregations that they are not considered divorced. OTOH, the get and the annulment do not negate the necessity to go to a civil court in order to have the state recognize the divorce, and for the division of marital assets and establishment of custody rules. Here, the civil law reigns supreme, by the design of the religious laws. But, Sharia divorces do conflict with civil law. A Muslim male may divorce his wife by proclamation (he just has to announce it three times in public), while a Muslim woman may not initiate divorce, and if she seeks to do so in civil courts, she is guilty of apostasy. The Jewish Get and Catholic annulment are silent on property divisions, while Sharia compels unequal distribution of marital assets. Neither Jewish nor Catholic law permit polygamy, while Sharia codifies it.

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Torah, Talmud and the canon law of Judaism (Halacha) do not apply to non-Jews, and the laws that apply to Jews are subordinate to the civil laws of the nation in all areas. Thus, while a practicing Jew is not allowed to eat non-kosher food, there is no punishment under Jewish law for the lapse, and Jewish law does not compel Jews to prevent non-Jews from eating non-kosher foods. Sharia, OTOH, applies to everyone, Muslim and infidel alike, and imposes penalties on infidels for simply not being Muslims.


Awad argued that the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death. The appeals court pointed out that Awad made a "strong showing" of potential harm.
"When the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not outweigh Mr. Awad's in having his constitutional rights protected," the court said.

Awad's argument is specious. Banning Islamic law from American courts does not interfere with Awad's practice of Islam, unless he is acknowledging that Sharia conflicts with American law. For example, he cites the execution of his will. Sharia demands that a son must inherit twice the share of an estate as a daughter, but nothing in US law prevents a Muslim from defining his bequest to his heirs. He is free to specify what his son and daughter will receive from his estate in his will. This is a false argument. OTOH, Sharia does make demands on Muslims which cannot be reconciled with US law, but I highly doubt that Awad would be willing to stipulate them. David Yerushalmi has written a superb column contrasting Jewish and Islamic law at http://bigpeace.com/dyerushalmi/2010/09/18/is-shariah-the-same-as-jewish-law/. The whole article is worth reading, and should have been entered into evidence at this trial. Here is his summary of why Sharia cannot be compatible with US law:




The telos or purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah’s law.
Shariah seeks to achieve this goal through persuasion and other non- violent means. But when necessary and under certain prescribed circumstances the use of force and even full-scale war to achieve the dominance of Shariah worldwide is not only permissible, but obligatory. The use of force or war is termed Jihad.
The goal of Shariah is to achieve submission to Allah’s law by converting or conquering the entire world and the methodology to achieve this end (by persuasion, by force and subjugation, or by murder) is extant doctrine and valid law by virtue of a universal consensus among the authoritative Shariah scholars throughout Islamic history.
The doctrine of Jihad is foundational because it is based upon explicit verses in the Qur’an and the most authentic of canonical Sunna and it is considered a cornerstone of justice: until the infidels and polytheists are converted, subjugated, or murdered, their mischief and domination will continue to harm the Muslim nation. And,
Jihad is conducted primarily through kinetic warfare but it includes other modalities such as propaganda and psychological warfare.


Read the whole thing. It's worth it.

Lanie
01-12-2012, 08:44 PM
OKLAHOMA CITY – An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.



That's bullcrap. This is America. We're not supposed to have our government mix in with religion. That means no Islamic courts. Surely, they can take this to the Supreme Court.

AmPat
01-13-2012, 01:12 AM
That's bullcrap. This is America. We're not supposed to have our government mix in with religion. That means no Islamic courts. Surely, they can take this to the Supreme Court.

Commendable attitude but I don't see how the establishment clause appies in this case.

Lanie
01-13-2012, 01:30 PM
Commendable attitude but I don't see how the establishment clause appies in this case.

It's supposed to keep the government out of religion and religion out of government. You have a bunch of people twisting it in the name of I guess multi-culturalism. They don't realize how hypocritical it is, but it needs to be fought.

txradioguy
01-13-2012, 01:40 PM
It's supposed to keep the government out of religion and religion out of government. You have a bunch of people twisting it in the name of I guess multi-culturalism. They don't realize how hypocritical it is, but it needs to be fought.

We've been telling you this for 6 years now.

Except the religion is Christianity and not Radical Islam where the Establishment Clause has been twisted by a bunch of multi-culti idiots.

Odysseus
01-13-2012, 05:45 PM
We've been telling you this for 6 years now.

Except the religion is Christianity and not Radical Islam where the Establishment Clause has been twisted by a bunch of multi-culti idiots.

Give credit where it's due. The last time that we talked about Sharia, Lanie went and read the entire reading list that I gave her and changed her mind, or at least opened it, on the subject. She's willing to learn, if we take the time to teach.

txradioguy
01-13-2012, 07:20 PM
Give credit where it's due. The last time that we talked about Sharia, Lanie went and read the entire reading list that I gave her and changed her mind, or at least opened it, on the subject. She's willing to learn, if we take the time to teach.

You're more optimistic where Bridget is concerned than I am.

Time and time again just when you think you're about to make a breakthrough with her...she'll post a longwinded face palm worthy screed that totally erases every bit of progress you think you've made with her.

Odysseus
01-14-2012, 12:18 AM
You're more optimistic where Bridget is concerned than I am.

Time and time again just when you think you're about to make a breakthrough with her...she'll post a longwinded face palm worthy screed that totally erases every bit of progress you think you've made with her.

If America stands for anything, it's that a well-informed citizen can govern his or herself. It takes time to undo decades of programming, but the facts are on our side. Be patient, grasshopper. That pebble in my hand will be there for a long time. :D

Lanie
01-14-2012, 08:54 AM
You're more optimistic where Bridget is concerned than I am.

Time and time again just when you think you're about to make a breakthrough with her...she'll post a longwinded face palm worthy screed that totally erases every bit of progress you think you've made with her.

Just because I'm not like the rest of you all doesn't mean I'm some far leftist. I can believe in Muslim human rights without believing they should get to take over. I can recognize where some of them are going too far in this country.

I know you believe in Muslim human rights too. It's just I make the argument whenever somebody makes some crazy comment about getting rid of them all, and you think I just degress back to not knowing what I'm talking about. Like I'm for them taking over or like I don't know there's a fringe element to be aware of. I do know. Put me in the right position, and I'd do something about radical threats. You have no idea what I'd have in store to get rid of radicals. They'd make Bush look like an angel. I just know that there are enough of them who aren't bad people too. I think if you gave me half of a chance, you'd find we have more in common than differences.