Oklahoma: When Sharia comes sweeping down the plains

Renew America ^ | 11-12-10 | Paul A. Ibbetson

[1pitech]

During the recent mid-term election, voters across the country voiced their will on more than just which politicians or political party they wanted to see in power for the next term. Voters in Oklahoma voted on whether or not Sharia, Islamic law, should or should not be used or considered within the state's court system. Seventy percent — that's right, seven out of ten Oklahoma voters — said no to Sharia and international law, and within days Oklahoma's chapter of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, filed a lawsuit against the Oklahoma State Election Board. As reported by Rachel Slajda of TPM Muckracker, Muneer Awad, director of the Oklahoma branch of CAIR who filed the suit, says that the new Oklahoma law violates his First Amendment rights, including his personal desires for actions to be taken after his death.

[redpoll]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Which part of “no law” is difficult to understand?

[JEC]

I’ll keep this short and sweet, F*CK ISLAM.

[rockinqsranch]

“...says that the new Oklahoma law violates his First Amendment rights...”

and the conflicting foreign Sharia laws violate our rights in our own country.

The Muslims have BIG brass ones as they seek to use our laws to overturn our laws.

[Roklok]

Just what the hell is going on here? I don’t recall seeing Sharia law anywhere in the constitution.

[jmacusa]

“F*CK ISLAM”” Till the cows come home!!

[Steely Tom]

...says that the new Oklahoma law violates his First Amendment rights, including his personal desires for actions to be taken after his death.

What? What does this mean? Muslims get to modify the Constitution if they put their wishes in their wills?

CAIR is cracked.

[Tax-chick]

I love Oklahoma.

[DefeatCorruption]

I don’t understand what is going on here...how does Sharia even come up as an issue in the United States of America?

[SpaceBar]

Oklahoma could have averted the inevitable attack by the jihadi enablers by making the bill language completely generic. Don’t say “sharia”, say any tribal, ethnic, or foreign system of laws or legal customs...

[SERKIT]

Nothing to see here...move along....
There will be no peace (based on Islamic definition) until we're all Islamic and fall under Shari'a Law. THEN there will be peace, under their definition. Words mean something - look at their words. It doesn't take much "interpretation" to see what is going on. What's the difference between a radical Muslim and a practicing Muslim? Hard to tell the difference.

[Tucson]

Which part of “Congress” is difficult to understand?

[Lurking Libertarian]

I don’t understand what is going on here...how does Sharia even come up as an issue in the United States of America?

It doesn't. This was just meant as an FU gesture to Islam [not that I have a huge problem with that :-) ]. The part about international law, though, is both stupid and, at least under some circumstances, unconstitutional.

One example: The United States is a party to the Hague Convention on international child abduction. An Oklahoma court is therefore required, under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, to apply that treaty in child custody cases. This referendum would say that the court can't look at that treaty, because it's international law.

Another example: An Oklahoma company signs a contract with a Canadian company. The contract says that any dispute will be resolved under the laws of Ontario. This referendum would seem to say that the court has to ignore that contract.

I could go on.

[Steely Tom]

It doesn't. This was just meant as an FU gesture to Islam

Remember the "thunder runs" that were used to clean jihadis out of Baghdad back in 2003? That's what this Oklahoma law reminds me of.

I remember, during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the fears I had for our troops as they would inevitably be called on to subdue major urban areas. There had been defeatest stories in the MSM for months about how there would be horrible losses for our side in the urban setting, how booby-trapped buildings, underground infrastructure, guerilla tactics, would bog us down and turn whole cities into shooting galleries, with our people as the targets.

Then came the thunder runs.

We'd run a big convoy of armored vehicles right down a main street in Baghdad. Use loudspeakers. Call out the muslims. Insult their mothers, insult their virility, whatever. They'd come out of the shadows like mad dogs, shooting wildly. Bye-bye jihadi.

I think this "FU gesture," as you put it, is like a thunder run. It draws these people out into the open. They can't help it; they think their god will give them the edge, that they can emerge from the shadows and somehow prevail in the light of day. They can't, they won't.

[redpoll]

>>>Which part of “Congress” is difficult to understand?<<<

Incorporation via the 14th Amendment.

[JEC]

Amen, brother.

[Tucson]

How so? I’ve read the 14th; there is nothing in the language to suggest a usurpation of the principles of the entirety of the Bill of Rights. I’m not a lawyer so I probably don’t appreciate the nuances and admittedly have not taken the time to research case law based on the 14th.

[redpoll]

The Supreme Court, a long time ago, incorporated the First Amendment to apply to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. I forget the case law, but it’s easy to find. The principle is called “incorporation.” Other than that, if I don’t go back to work, I’ll be looking at another principle called “unemployment.” Be well and God bless.

[Tucson]

Thanks for the response and suggestion; same to you .