Oklahoma ban on Sharia law ruled unconstitutional

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.”

The problem here is with the test, and not with the Constitution.

What constitutes a religion under 1A. This needs to change if by religion, members of a sect (like Islam) are allowed to establish their own court system, and impose their own criminal and civil penalties.

This is especially important if Dhimmis could be considered parties to claims, or criminal defendants under such ‘shadow’ systems.

There are no criminal or civil courts under Canon Law, nor are there any under Wicca, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity (any variant), Satanism, Atheism, etc.

Islam is the only ‘belief system’ that has within it a complete constitution that understands or respects any geographical classification you could call ‘jurisdiction’.

Indeed, under Sharia, you and I are subject to it right now. If either of us were to denigrate either the Koran, the name of Mohammed, his image, etc., a fatwa would be issued against us and we could be subject to the death penalty under Sharia.

The test of what a religion is MUST make the distinction between a system of beliefs, and an imposed criminal and civil code that respects no sovereign boundaries or treaties between nations.

Jefferson more effectively, if not jocularly, defined the intent of the 1A as follows:

“It neither BREAKS MY BACK, nor picks my pocket what another man believes.”

The implication here is that if anothers belief system indeed BREAKS ONE’S BACK (or beheads one’s body, or burns one’s body, etc.) then whatever your belief system is FAILS THE TEST.

You brought up Jizya. Is that not ‘picking one’s pocket?’

What Jefferson was SPECIFICALLY trying to prevent was the Vatican from coming over here and declaring ‘Papal Lands’ as had been done in Europe. In the UK, one tithed not because one chose to, but because it was something all royal subjects were required to do.

It was only recently that Germans were free to NOT tithe to the Lutheran church. I believe in the last 30 years or so.

The test of what constitutes a religion has not been properly applied here.

Muslims should feel free to worship in Mosque, but hold criminal and civil proceedings under a separate system of laws created without representation of the people subject to them is PRECISELY what 1A was built to prevent.

Islam breaks one’s back AND picks one’s pocket, and as such is a competing system of government within the sovereign boundaries of the US. It violates one’s rights to due process, security of persons and papers, etc.

As usual, the Circuits botched this. I don’t hold any hope that Scotus will get this right either.

Thank you for that detailed and well-researched response and I agree with what you are saying.

This decision by the 10th Circuit as well as that of the lower court is very ALARMING.

Back in the fifties, the Federal Courts instituted two great social changes in America - one very good, the wholly evil. The good one was to eliminate segregation. The evil one was to effectively divorce the Judaeo-Christian concepts of morality and God upon which America was founded, from Public Life. This social revolution is still proceeding with horrific results I need not go into here.

The same liberal thinking men - and women - in black, appear to be embarking on another change of course in American Social life - open acceptance of Sharia Law.

This is such a serious and evil adventure that it MANDATES a vigorous response from all freedom-loving Americans, from active civil disobedience on the state, local and personal level to whatever is necessary to STOP these social engineers.

Islam does not belong in the west - at least not in its current form and is totally antithetical to everything America stands for.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.