Which is stupid, because Sharia isn't like any other legal system. First, let's look at the amendmentin its entirety:
Originally Posted by linda22003
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...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.