Temp. Restraining Order Issued Blocking Oklahoma Amendment on Islamic Law?!?

OKLAHOMA CITY – A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the order after an Oklahoma man filed a lawsuit claiming the amendment stigmatized his religion and would invalidate his will, which he said is partially based on Islamic Law, also known as Sharia Law.

"My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith," said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. "Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose."

The measure, State Question 755, was approved with 70 percent of the vote in the Nov. 2 general election. The judge's order prevents the state Election Board from certifying the results of that vote, which it had planned to do Tuesday afternoon.

The order will remain in effect until a Nov. 22 hearing on a preliminary injunction.

Awad, a law school graduate who has not been admitted to practice in Oklahoma, was congratulated by Muslims and other supporters following Miles-Lagrange's ruling. Between 20,000 and 30,000 Muslims live in the state.

"We're confident in the case. We're confident in the claims we are making," said Awad, who filed the lawsuit Thursday. "Today's ruling is a reminder of the strength of our nation's legal system and the protections it grants to religious minorities."

news.yahoo.com...

I know that this has been discussed, however, this is a new wrinkle in the case... looks like they may be allowing a consideration of Sharia Law in Oklahoma after all. Very chilling and very strange. The premise is a stretch, a huge, huge stretch, in my opinion, like one is trying very hard to test the waters of a state to see what they can do...

How is this not an issue of separation of Church and State? At a loss here. To me it is a black and white issue.
If it were any other religion, it would have been thrown out and vilified.

Anyone been following this closely at all? This article will not comment on the religious aspects of this at all, and I wonder why. It makes no sense to me.

And what is particularly interesting to me is the ties to CAIR.
Gives me a cold chill up my back.

Thoughts?

reply to post by thegoodearth


The judge is following jurisprudence.

The judge is going to have to provide Constitutional relevance to this. The Federal government is to ensure a Republic form of government in the states and the states are allowed to do what they want, as long as it does not counter what is in the US Constitution.

Just hopefully the judge thinks this through before doing the typical.

There are a couple of things to be cognizant of, just imagine if someone moves here that has been married in the Muslim faith, does that mean then they are not recognized as married by the courts.

To me, this does not matter, I see no where in the Constitution that authorizes the licensing of marriage. Can anyone refer me to the component of the US Constitution that authorizes licensing of marriages.

There are things that have to be looked at in the legislation. No problems so far, this is SOP.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I hope you are right.
Has this happened before regarding any Muslims wanting this kind of legal recognition of the law of their faith?
Sorry, but I really am wary of this.

I would think one would have to go by laws of the country you're living in. I've been seeing a trend developing, it's politically incorrect to oppose Muslims in any way shape or form. I don't see how they can do this. If they succeed then we should be able to put the Ten Commandments in courthouses too.

reply to post by thegoodearth


Well, as one can see, the ACLU and CAIR is behind this, so you can be assured that the agenda is not to actually think about Constitutional relevance. It has to do with furthering power of the government and lessening the rights of the people. IMO.

I hope things like this keep happening. The judges in California found out what happens when you go against the people, they have to start looking for jobs too.

To me, the old school is the way to look at things, Do unto others, or the Do no harm and do not infringe on another's rights of Life, Liberty and Property. It is such a simple law, known as Natural Law. I reference it in my Avatar.

Sharia law does not only apply to punishment, it is their form of government. IMO, Islam or Muslim society is not in any shape or form a religion per se, it is more a form of government. As the British Cleric said, he thinks a Muslim Flag will one day fly over the White house. Not in my lifetime, and that is a fact.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is behind this. CAIR is funded by....hmmmm.

Have they ever condemned Hamas, no matter how many brave interviewers have asked them to? Er...no.

The founder is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Quada.

Their leaders control criticism by fear tactics, manipulation, threats of blacklisting/ profiling those who dare to state the truth.

Their leaders have been filmed at rallies spreading dissent, whipping people into anti-American frenzies, and also roaring their determination in Sharia conquering America.

That is why I am very nervous.

Sharia law does not only apply to punishment, it is their form of government. IMO, Islam or Muslim society is not in any shape or form a religion per se, it is more a form of government.

I really respect your posts and opinions.

I have to respectfully disagree with this one.

The Muslim people's faith is intrinsically tied into their society. One cannot separate one from the other.

That is why we must hope that a nuclear device never falls into the wrong Muslim hands as they wouldn't think twice about using it within seconds. They do not care for one second about retaliation in kind, as it would be all for the glory and honor of Allah, regardless of how many of them were killed in retaliation. And that is a fact, my friend. And that is what makes them so different from the Soviets and the Israelies.

They want world dominion. Period.
Through sneakiness, if necessary.
Through their woman's wombs, they will conquer, if necessary, as they aren't "stupid" like us and prevent pregnancy to the point of below replacement rate.
Through lies to our politicians, if necessary, as it is allowed in the Quran, if it is for a holy purpose.
They are fast to becoming the largest religion, due to their reproduction rates, and their
one size fits all religion. It's all there.
Violence, love, wifely submission, Jesus, Mary, God, martyrdom, being bad is good when it is for God... and the peace side for those that aren't "bad boys and girls"....what more can one ask for?
Whatever it takes.

In trying to see if there has been any other attempts to use Sharia Law in court, I came across this as well...
Very disturbing.
Thankfully, it was overturned on appeal, however, think about the ramifications if the wife had no money or good representation.

And CAIR came out with guns blazing about "Muslim bashing". It had nothing to do with Muslim bashing.
They said not one word about the ruling itself, which was the actual focus of concern.

Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling

A New Jersey family court judge's decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife.

It took over ONE YEAR for it to be heard by the appellate court and overturned.

www.foxnews.com...