Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Sharia law

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If Sharia were to be implemented in our Courts it would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. I think it's that simple. Only a radical Islamist would want that in the first place.

Then again, perhaps just long enough to bury activist judges up to their necks and stone them

reply to post by Daedal


I believe that Blasphemy is a good tonic for the uptight, and recommend a good dose of it daily.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Guess i am just here to spoon feed people when all it takes is a 1 second google search.

oneminutelawyer.com...

Heres another

shariahinamericancourts.com...

reply to post by neo96


Sure looks like Sharia Law...........

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


I'll drink alcohol and blow smoke right their faces and all they can do is groove on it.

Originally posted by Kafternin
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

There is currently no ban on Sharia law.
There is currently no ban on Abrahamic law.
There is currently no ban on Halacha (Jewish Law)
In the United States.

Reasons why only not banning one of those is supposed to upset me?

Thank you for giving us a reason why the Federal Court blocked this, that doesn't involve the non-existant persecution of christians, political correctness, or the insanely idiotic conspiracy theory that muslims are trying to implement Sharia Law on the U.S.A.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by neo96

 

Sure looks like Sharia Law...........

Cherrypicked Court Cases=/=Sharia Law.

Imagine the outrage if a Judge were to uphold a Christian Court, a Jewish Court or perhaps a Hindu Court. Nuf said?

If anything hypocrisy and bigotry are on the rise and it's all coming from the same Progressives who play the Race Card at the drop of hat.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by mwuhi
Well then get your affairs in order, under Sharia law if you refuse to be a moslem you are to be beheaded.

Good point.

If you are punished under a law under Sharia and not under American law, are you libel for your actions if it took place in America?

Is Honour Killing then justified?

nope, an honor killing is still murder in the US, so regardless of the religion, you'll be charged. for example, here's one that happened in my neck of the woods:
Man accused of killing daughter for family honor

nope, the ish dont fly.

didn't mean to reply

reply to post by spinalremain


Hmmm .... and you don't think that he has instructed the courts how to deal with this issue.Perhaps you are the one who lacks the ability to form coherent thoughts.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Guess i am just here to spoon feed people when all it takes is a 1 second google search.

If you are going to make a claim, it's your responsibility to back it up with a source. It's not everybody elses responsibility to go searching google blindly guessing which incident you were refering to. Take that as a note the next time you post, link it with a source. Not everybody is going to blindly believe what you say either.

oneminutelawyer.com...

Heres another

shariahinamericancourts.com...

According to Politifact, an impartial source:

A brief filed in federal court in support of the Oklahoma amendment did not assert that Sharia law had been used in Oklahoma courts. Instead, it listed one example from New Jersey.

This brings us to Cain’s mention of New Jersey during the June 13 debate. In 2009, state Superior Court Judge Joseph Charles denied a woman a restraining order after she reported her husband repeatedly beat and sexually assaulted her. She and her husband are Muslim.

Charles asked their imam during the injunction hearing how Islamic law applies to sexual behavior. The imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, but a husband was forbidden to approach his wife "like any animal."

Charles said he denied the restraining order in part because the husband’s "desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited," according to the decision.

The New Jersey appeals court ruled July 23, 2010, that Charles was wrong. His decision contradicted U.S. and state Supreme Court precedent on conflicts between criminal law and religion, the ruling said.

www.politifact.com...

In the end, the courts in New Jersey took the right actions in accordance with the constitution and law, to protect the rights of this woman. If anything this case demonstrated a fault with the decision of a judge that required rectifying, it happens. In addition to this, the court case you referenced did not demonstrate at any time an attempt by muslims to inject sharia law into the courts decision. The religious rules and beliefs of islam, of the husband, were merely considered as a circumstance to his actions (however wrong we may feel he was, doing what he did to his own wife).

Refering back to the Oklahoma law:

Voters did pass an amendment to the state (Oklahoma) constitution that would prevent the use of Sharia law in state courts, but supporters found no instance where "Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law,"

www.politifact.com...

The core basis of this Oklahoma law laid with this assumption that muslims are trying to influence the decisions of the courts around this country, and that the courts are considering sharia law as legitimate law in their rulings, which is completely false, and delusional to say the least. Neither have the Oklahoma advocates behind this law demonstrated why exactly it's needed in their State? Considering that constitutional law already protects individual Americans, in particular women, from the core beliefs of sharia law, considering that muslims don't even make a dot among the population demographics, are you really to lead believe that there are legitimate reasons for this law? Other than to score political points? Other than to fearmonger?

Sharia law is a religious law, a religious rule, contrary to what we value here, contrary to what the American contsitution establishes as law. There is no need to create another state law that in part only serves to target a particular group. It does nothing but waste tax payer money, and fulfull the political and social agendas of certain individuals.

These restrictions should apply to all religious law. Then there is no argument. All laws go to the legislature, not through some chicken waving yahoo with a religious book.

reply to post by technical difficulties


No, Muslims have only accidentally stumbled on a way to implement Shariah as a wedge in all the Western secular nations. All at the same time!

Its AMAZING. Serendipitous!

Right around the same time that major powers are pushing "pluralism" all over the Western nations. Only one way pluralism though. And dictated from the top down. During a push to install Islamist regimes in multiple resource rich nations.

Wow. As accidents go, I'm impressed. It ALMOST looks planned.

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by spinalremain

 

Hmmm .... and you don't think that he has instructed the courts how to deal with this issue.Perhaps you are the one who lacks the ability to form coherent thoughts.

You're right. I'm sure Obama pulled all his secret Muslim strings and had the ruling in his Muslim favor.

You only see what you want to see.
How can Obama be accused of being a Muslim killing war monger, and five minutes later he's a secret operative for some Sharia conspiracy?
- You guys don;t even have your story straight. It's always the same. Obama bad, the end.

Well they say they want to have a better life so they come here. Then make us bend over backward for them. We give them many tax breaks, "free" money to them (our taxes), and a free college education. Now we are implementing their laws in our system (granted the system is shot to hell anyway)?! I think it's a crock! You come here then live by our laws! If you want to live the way you did back where ever you came from, then GO BACK THERE!!!!

Now that was hard to do without violating t&c

Originally posted by ahmonrarh


nope, an honor killing is still murder in the US, so regardless of the religion, you'll be charged. for example, here's one that happened in my neck of the woods:
Man accused of killing daughter for family honor

nope, the ish dont fly.

For now..........

not at all really, its not that easy rather it's a complicated one the law is designed to protect everyone regardless of personnal beliefs so that justice is preserved equally we forget this until it hits at home then blind vengeance takes over theres no such thing as justice in this world sense noone can agree on what that is so yes the law is blind but that is what protects us if only from ourselves i thought this site was too deny ignorance that may be true but still those that post yes like me must realize that our way isn't the best way but regardless people all have the same rights in this country it ain't perfect thats for sure but it's better than others thats what makes it great

Originally posted by F4guy

Originally posted by gunshooter

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters

If I see anybody on my country's soil enact Sharia Law on anyone, they are going down hard in the most painful way possible PERIOD!!

Wow, it never fails to amaze how "bravery" flourishes in the face of a non-existent threat. It is so east to say, "If my goldfish are ever attacked by sea horses piloting tiny nuclear submarines, those sea horses are going down hard." I'm just in awe of your bravery.

I can't help the fact that you are out of touch with reality pal, sorry

reply to post by spinalremain


I never said that he was a "moslem killing war monger". I simply said that he was in favor of the law of his religion. Perhaps people say what you want because you put the words in their mouths. As you mentioned reading comprehension is necessary. I only implied that his agenda is not what it seems.

Originally posted by mwuhi
reply to post by F4guy

 

Tell that to those who died from honor killings here.

edit on 11-1-2012 by mwuhi because: (no reason given)

Those killings were not the result of any Sharia law being enacted but, rather, a result of a malignant cultural abomination.