Skip to comments.Court: Oklahoma can't enforce Sharia law ban
Posted on 01/12/2012 9:55:12 AM PST by yoe
A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against a voter-approved ban on Islamic law in Oklahoma on Tuesday, saying it likely violated the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against religion.
A three-member panel of the Denver-based U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the rights of plaintiff Muneer Awad, a Muslim man living in Oklahoma City, likely would be violated if the ban on Sharia law takes effect.
The decision upholds the ruling of a lower federal court.
"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out ... the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," the appeals court said in a 37-page written decision.
The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations welcomed the ruling, calling it "a victory for the Constitution and for the right of all Americans to freely practice their faith."
Oklahoma's "Save Our State Amendment," which was approved by 70 percent of state voters in 2010, bars Oklahoma state courts from considering or using Sharia law.
The lawsuit challenging the measure was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Awad, who is director of the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
So banning Islam in school is discrimination, but banning Christian prayer in school is seperation of church and faith?
I get it.
I guess this means that Catholic Canon Law can be imposed also?
so Islam says you can have 4 wives and stone women and it is unconstitutional to not use the constitution in law now
Just who appointed this judge for heavens sake, can they do a recall on this buffoon?
New strategy, vote to incorporate Islamic theocratic law in Oklahoma courts and watch the ACLU’s collective head explode.
My guess is Oklahoma will proceed as planned. At least that’s what they SHOULD do. Screw the feds, they’ve f&#%ed things up enough.
United State Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Actually in this case the judge was right, for a reason that had nothing to do with Sharia.
One of the deep, abiding rules about writing laws is that laws must apply to everyone equally. So you never, ever, mention in the law that it applies to just one person or group of people.
But this law did. It specifically mentions Sharia law twice.
However, in this case, there is a paradox.
For a long, long time, US courts have recognized and taken a hands off approach to Jewish law, Catholic law and other ecclesiastical laws. But this is no problem, because these laws are “within the limits” of secular law, and if there is a conflict, secular law wins. So most of the time, courts just ignore these other laws.
However, Sharia law is different. It does not recognize or make any effort to be “within the limits” of secular law; and many, even most of its arguments and decisions are not recognized or legal under secular law.
This means that we cannot tolerate it on any equal footing with secular law, but the paradox is that we cannot create laws specifically refusing to permit *just* Sharia.
In other news, the Ten Commandments is banned everywhere.
Exactly. They ban Christian artifacts but uphold Muslim ones. See my tagline.
“A three-member panel of the Denver-based U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the rights of plaintiff Muneer Awad, a Muslim man living in Oklahoma City, likely would be violated if the ban on Sharia law takes effect.”
Doesn’t appear that the Tenth Circuit Court is differentiating between a religon and an alternative system of law. Assuming my understanding is correct, there is not differentiation between muslim beliefs and sharia law.
Muneer Dickwad can follow any religion he wants, that is his personal right. However, to say that his system of law (Sharia) must also be enforceable among others in this country is to say: 1) That others must be held accountable to islam, and 2) That within our country there no longer remains a consistent rule of law, it will have variation at an individual/arbitrary level.
Okay, so does this mean that two folks who agree to a contract or otehr instrument that happens to be in line w/shariah law are bound by it (just as folks who enter in to an agreement to follow catholic or protestant or otehr agreements) or does it mean that a muslim can force another person into a contract etc that must be based on shariah?
If the former, then so what, two parties agreed to abide by some non-secular code, if the later- uh oh, big time problem. Becasue, if that is the case, then I can expect Christian principle to be applied to anyone I contract with, not just the common law. Would that fly? (If someone asks for your shirt, give them your cloak as well).
Advice to OK and all other states: Pass legislation that clearly prevents any other form of law/code from applying unilaterally to any other party(ies), when all else is considered, the highest law of the land is the one passed by consent of the people (via the states legislatures) and automatically applies if there is any dissent to a legal consideration.
It would have been wise for the argument to have been framed around your advice. Well said.
What is wrong with these judges? What does protecting an individual’s freedom to practice religion have to do with a ban on citing Sharia law as an authority and as a precedent equal in authority to the U.S. Constitution in a U.S. court of law proceeding? Have we all gone nuts? Who appointed these “judges”?
Sharia law is ok with these Judges ?
So stoning to death the victim of a rape is ok ?
Sharia LAW is UNAMERICAN you JACKA$$ES of the Court....