Judge blocks Okla. amendment banning court use of Islamic law

Judge blocks Okla. amendment banning court use of Islamic law

co ntent.usatoday.com

A federal district judge has issued a temporary restraining order to block an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.

The order was sought in a lawsuit by Muneer Awad, an Oklahoma Muslim and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, who argues that the amendment against sharia law "demonizes" his religion.

The amendment was approved by 70% of voters l

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.rawstory.com

Residents in Oklahoma thought they were voting to ban Sharia law last Tuesday but it turns out that the new constitutional amendment may also extend to the Ten Commandments.

www.rawstory.com...

Interesting, but let's see what this means exactly

"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he told CNN. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

Haha, I was going to enter this thread and have an opening post a little different then I am now after reading the above.

He does make a good point
In any case it doesn't make that much of a difference, they could just have laws mimicking the ten commandements but no refer to it, that's all.

But I do not understand people that come to this country wanting to change legislation to emulate that of more extreme regions in the world.

And this is coming from me, someone who doesn't even believe that "people must integrate to live here".
I don't even agree with that, nobody needs to integrate outside of law.
They can't break the law in this country, no prob.
But that doesn't mean they HAVE TO integrate socially, this is something I completely disagree with.

But this entire case is stupid imo



co ntent.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by ModernAcademia


How can they even say that.

The Ten Commandments aren't being used in courts of law. We just happen to think it's a good idea not to murder or steal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We're not locking people up for making graven images. But then again, hey. They gotta be able to deny their wives inalienable rights right? RIGHT?

I'm founding a new religion. It only has one law. That it is our duty to but our boots so far up these idiots ** that they can taste what I stepped in last week!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by PayMeh
I'm founding a new religion. It only has one law. That it is our duty to but our boots so far up these idiots ** that they can taste what I stepped in last week!!!!!!!!!!

I have an even better religion to create, I'll call it Individualism
Watch it wipe out hatred and racism globally!!!

Does this mean that OK should become the new capital for polygamists? I mean isn't that a religious right for some? I mean, if you are going to consider one religions laws shouldn't you consider them all?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I agree whole heartedly man. I've got a unique set of beliefs, but no one ever hears them because, well.. I don't really care what anyone else thinks. There are too many nutters in all the other established ones that keep me at bay. They have enough nuts, they don't need one more!!

This is really it though. It's over. We'd been suspecting it was for so long, but this is a clear internal temperature meat thermometer and it came out and said "beef - well done."

I'm glad the amendment was blocked as it was unconstitutional.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
But I do not understand people that come to this country wanting to change legislation to emulate that of more extreme regions in the world.

It's one thing to WANT that. They are free to WANT whatever they want, but I agree that NO religious law should be considered from the bench.

But that doesn't mean they HAVE TO integrate socially, this is something I completely disagree with.

Me, too. I don't think people should have to assimilate, culturally, but they MUST obey the same laws as every other person in the US.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


As all freedom of religion I am...

This is a good law. It should not be blocked. Sharia law should not exist in the US.

But I could see the argument that that this is a violation of a the 1A

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The amendment was just parroting what was already in place. The fact that they are blocking it says what the POTUS has been saying since he got elected. "The Constitution is flawed."

It wasn't discriminating against one certain religion, it was against all religious law and international law. So some judges couldn't rule a case based on some law in say France for example. Your viewpoint is in the right place, it's just been skewed. Setting a precedence by striking this law down will lead to a tidal wave of people claiming their religious laws give them the right to do something that others can't get away with. That concept in itself is discriminatory. For example, if this holds judges can dismiss cases against Islamic husbands for beating his wife, allow polygamy for certain individuals, and turn around and put ME under the jail for the same actions.

I'm not attacking you, I just think your response isn't very well thought out due to above examples. The moment we place a higher weight on religious and international law than we do state and federal law, we lose the sovereignty of both.

this just proves what kinda jackasses we have as federal court judges. this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
if its not a law that was put in place by our legislative branches then it has no place in our courts of law. all pklahoma was doing was reminding idiots of that fact. fed court judge needs to go back to high school and take civics over again what an idiot.

Originally posted by PayMeh
It wasn't discriminating against one certain religion, it was against all religious law and international law.

You are mistaken. It specifically called out Sharia law.

The measure:

STATE QUESTION NO. 755 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 355

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

Oklahoma Elections

If they wanted to keep religious law from being used, I totally support that, but they shouldn't have specifically named Sharia Law. Of course that's discrimination.

So some judges couldn't rule a case based on some law in say France for example.

Oh, dear... Do you know what International Law is?

The moment we place a higher weight on religious and international law than we do state and federal law, we lose the sovereignty of both.

Please read this post to see why this amendment was unconstitutional.

Originally posted by aptness
And second, this measure directly contradicts the Constitution in that, under the supremacy clause, “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” In other words, you can’t ban international law, as that would be akin to banning any domestic law.

judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

...yep... if you're going to throw out one "came from somewhere else" mindset, throw em all out... works for me but i doubt many of the descendants of the boat people will agree...

...this silliness in oklahoma is being baited by (1) those who stand to profit by keeping people afraid of muslims - as well as - (2) christians who have always been blindly tolerant or outright accepting of the evil their own religion endorses...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


*sigh*

Alright, don't come bitching to me when they start beating/raping their wives and chopping the hands off the curious neighbor kid with sticky fingers.

If they were to itemize all religious laws to not be considered and failed to mention some tribal religion in the Congo, would you want it stricken down too? I suppose the reason it was mentioned is because it's the one that is being challenged. I agree that it was poor effort on part of those who worded the amendment. It doesn't make it wrong though, it just makes it not encompassing enough. Striking it down, will send a message that it SHOULD be used in court cases.

Whatever though, legalize Jihad if you wish. If it were Roman Catholics I'd be just as up in arms. The country can go to hell for all I care anymore. I'm tired of legal discrimination for the sake of political correctness. Every day, my fate gets sealed a bit tighter. I wish everyone got treated the same, but the fact is groups are given leeway to do things they should never be able to. Advantages are handed out that trample over others right to fair and equal treatment. I fear my last stand will be over me and my families right to acquire food, water, and shelter with our own hands. That becomes the scenario more and more every day.

Originally posted by PayMeh
Alright, don't come bitching to me when they start beating/raping their wives and chopping the hands off the curious neighbor kid with sticky fingers.

You're not listening (or reading)... I AM ALL FOR BANNING RELIGIOUS LAW. Perhaps if I put it in all caps you'll get it. The amendment was discriminatory. It was written poorly.

If they were to itemize all religious laws to not be considered and failed to mention some tribal religion in the Congo, would you want it stricken down too?

Nothing like taking it to the extreme to make your point. If they want to ban religious law, why itemize?

I suppose the reason it was mentioned is because it's the one that is being challenged.

I have asked in other threads and have yet to see where this is being challenged in court. Do you have a link that shows that a judge is using or considering Sharia law in his decisions? I cannot find one. Thank you.

Striking it down, will send a message that it SHOULD be used in court cases.

I don't think so. We use US law here in the US. Not Sharia law. There's no danger of this.

reply to post by PayMeh



If sharia law was specifically named, then it would be seen as discrimination. In my opinion it doesn't matter, but the argument could be certainly made that it was targeting Islam if Sharia law is named. How that could be over looked by the lawyers that reviewed the bill is beyond me. So I am going to assume Sharia law is not specifically named, because any lawyer could look at that and know the results that would be produced.

Sharia Law is specifically contrary to Human Rights.
The fact that the Islamic countries had to come up with their own Islamic Human Rights should clearly demonstrate this.
Sharia Law is 100% unacceptable in a Constitual Democracy with Human Rights.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I got that point. I get it. You're against all religious laws, and so am I.

Sharia law used here: www.associatedcontent.com...

The problem is, and the reason I said itemize it, is that you can't have blanket terminology in legislation. You'd HAVE to have every single situation it applies to itemized in the wording.

The problem is that it will be used as a precedence to say that it should be considered. It will be a misconstrued strike down of the law.

I'm not fighting you or against you. I'm honestly tired of fighting. I even agreed it was worded wrong. Striking this down though, will suggest that the whole idea is wrong. It will be up for interpretation in every court case that follows.

Is Sharia Law really part of Islam?
frontpagemag.com...

I always thought it was not religious but cultural

Originally posted by PayMeh
Sharia law used here: www.associatedcontent.com...

THANK YOU! The judgment was reversed and that judge should lose his robe, IMO.

I don't want to fight either. I enjoy getting to the bottom of the issue, however.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


en.wikipedia.org...

The interpretations can be cultural. Sharia is considered God's Law in all Muslim countries.