Oklahoma Anti-Sharia Ballot Measure Ill-Advised
I am of two minds about the recently passed State Question 755 in Oklahoma.
This is the measure that bars Oklahoma state judges from using international or religious law, specifically Sharia law, to guide their decisions. It was passed by over 70 percent of Oklahomans.
It’s problematic to say that it would forbid judges from using international treaties to guide their decisions as some of the opponents have claimed. International treaties are part of international law, it’s true. They are also, once ratified, part of federal law and therefore subject to the same use as any other federal statute.
It is also problematic, however, that the “Save our State” amendment singles out Sharia law. Please do not misunderstand: I do not want Sharia law implemented in the United States. It is a blight on the Muslim world. That judges are referring to it in England is frightening in the extreme. Indeed, there are 85 Sharia law courts in England.
However, what got this amendment put on hold, and will probably get it struck down, is that it did not include, for instance, Talmudic law or Canon law — Jewish and Catholic law, respectively.
Few Americans would want those used in our court system either.
Amen! As the writer says: “the reason this law was passed, and others like it probably will be passed, is because American Muslims are not standing up and saying that what men like Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, and al-Awlaki have done is wrong. The stigma the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other opponents of this amendment are complaining about will continue to exist until they make it clear their first loyalty is to the United States of America.”
For anyone needing a PRIMER on living under Sharia law these writers (who have) bring it to life:
While Europe Slept – Bruce Bawer
Infidel – Ayaan Hirsi Ali (ahafoundation.org)
Nomad (from Islam to America) – Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Londonistan – Melanie Philips
A God Who Hates – Wafa Sultan
Why They Hate – Brigitte Gabriel (www.actforamerica.org)
The citizens are trying to prevent judges from relying on laws endorsed and passed by tyrannical regimes from getting into our court. If you can’t specify Shariah as a body of law that we totally reject then expect Saudi Arabia to introduce resolutions into the U.N. Committee on Women(?) which we’ll soon see championed in Michigan. They’re already arresting Christians on the streets.
The reason that this law should not pass Mr. Richardson is that Islam, has been, is now and will always be a political totalitarian ideology that has sought, is seeking, and will always seek to destroy everything and everybody in its path – until Sharia compliance is established throughout the earth.
“The American people also note that American Muslims, for whatever reason, do not speak out against the extremists in their midst.”
That’s because Islam condemns them to death, unless they lie – in order to use our own PC rules against us – while remaining loyal to Islam in their hearts. Hello Rep. Ellison swearing allegiance to the Constitution with his hand on the Quran…
To put it as bluntly as I can: Islam is a death cult political system disguised (veiled) as a religion, which is wholly incompatible with freedom of any kind; the CAIR is a travesty and so are the myriad organistions linked with it.
Islam has no place interfering in any of our laws, anytime, any place;
no compromise; as in “food or poison?”. Let’s choose food and freedom over poison and Sharia.
Good job Oklahoma…you got it right…no apologies needed. Keep up the good work.
As it should. Name one other faith:
– with a significant body of followers;
– whose creed promulgates a law code;
– that it is required to impose upon the whole world;
– by force.
You’re nose-to-nose with the greatest, most fanatical, most populous enemy Americans have ever faced, and you’re worried that we’re being too harsh in criticizing its mascara. Get your priorities in order. 70% of Oklahomans already have.
Islam is here to stay. It’s been around for 1500 years and it ain’t going anywhere, anytime soon. You best get used to it cos Muslims ain’t going anywhere. We’ve taken over a fifth of the world already.
Murder, rape, theft, sexual oppression, genocide…all of those have been around for a lot longer than 1500 years, and will never go away so long as homo sapiens exists.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight against them, perpetually. In particular we should fight against the cult which packaged up murder, rape, theft, sexual oppression and genocide and claimed them as a ‘religion’ for the convenience of the brigand who invented it.
Ouch. Ouch. It hurts just to read that. Are you at all familiar with the way that christianity was introduced to south america? Murder? Check. Rape? Check. Theft? Big time. Sexual oppression? Yep. Genocide? You figure that out.
Well isn’t that the way it always is..we talk about things that happened dozens if not hundreds of years ago and forget that islam is murdering daily worldwide in the spreading of their hate.
Bring it on, primitive savage. You and yours have never achieved anything except through bloodshed. You had to steal four of our airliners to inflict noticeable damage on us — and we shrugged it off. We can take you for any stakes you care to name.
Your murderous, pedophilic, voluptuary of a “prophet” is already screaming in Hell. Follow his lead and your fate will be no prettier.
Islamm has conquered many parts of the world, and then lost them again and again. What makes you think this time will be any different? It is still stuck in the elventh century and will lose hold once again.
“Islamm has conquered many parts of the world, and then lost them again and again.”
Pick empire. Any empire. Same as it ever was.
1500 years? Just go back to your Soros manual & check again.
Ok so it was closer to 1350 years ago when Mohammad started his cult, it is still a cult based on 7th century mores and attitudes and it is unable to change, it has no place in the modern world yet you and others are trying to force us to live under it. Moslems are dreaming if they think they are going to conquer the world like the were ordered to.
I especially love the fact that WE have the power to completely vaporize all their holy sites, and incinerate millions of them, with weapons we developed 70 years ago…but DONT.
THEY have to resort to stolen airplanes, defective underwear devices, and FIREWORKS in a an abandoned van….
Yeah, and who are the “real warriors” again?
Allah help you if we EVER accept your pathetic declaration of “war”
“We’ve taken over a fifth of the world already.”
i love it when people talk about how many muslims there are in the world…it always makes me wonder how many there would be if untold numbers were not FORCED to call themselves muslims under threat of social ostracization and/or death
Islam is NOT here to stay…delusional twits like islam Forever don’t take into account that even France kicked their asses out of Western Europe a long time ago.
Islam – contrary to goofy Imams and revenge freaks, is filled with cowards that run when they see infidel resolve!!! Heh! Heh!!
American Islamic Forum for Democracy supports the law
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=6302
“The issue is simple. As Americans we believe in the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, and our one law system. SQ755 reaffirms the First amendment to the Constitution and prevents the Establishment or empowerment of a foreign legal system like the specific shariah legal systems implemented in many Muslim majority nations and in western shariah courts seen in places like Britain.
By filing a lawsuit, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has wasted no time in proving once again that they are unable to stand behind public declarations that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our one law system supersede and are preferable to a sharia law system. They are using the American cover of religious freedom to try and knock down a simple law that prohibits the domination of one religion over others.”
AIFD?
Means nothing but a bunch of hot air…again, sanctioned by Islam and under Islamic rules can say whatever they want about Muslims, and even condemnation against them from fellow Muslims is sanctioned…there’s no end to the deception.
The notion that any of islam is pure, and has somehow this purity has been ‘hijacked’ or ‘misunderstood’ is a foundational deception and enables guys like Jasser to peddle victimhood of an apostate – which he isn’t because he’s protected by the very Islam he pretends to oppose.
Same ol’ same ol’ stuff….. ……. …..
The US Must Suppress Sharia Law to Uphold Freedom of Religion
By Tawfik Hamid
“The US courts MUST draw a clear line between parts of acceptable parts of Sharia that are considered personal issues, which are usually not debatable in court rooms, such as washing before prayers and those foundational and fundamental parts of Sharia that promotes violence, discrimination, and gender inequality. These Sharia rules include killing apostates, beating women, stoning of women for adultery, killing homosexuals, accepting slavery, and inequality in inheritance between a man and a woman.”
“In short, it is impossible to uphold the US constitution and Sharia Law at the same time. It is impossible to accommodate both systems together because the one protects freedom and equality of humans and the second advocates violence and domination.”
leciat,
I appreciate the links…so here’s one for you:
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/submission-and-duality/
Here’s an excerpt explaining “Duality” one of the two principles of Islam, the other of course being “Submission”.
“But submission is not enough to explain the success of Islam. Its most powerful principle is duality. Duality is the second major principle of Islam. We see duality in how the Koran and Mohammed’s life are divided. First comes Mecca, the preacher, the religion–you have your religion, I have mine. Then comes Medina. Medina is Jihad. You must submit in this life or Islam has the option of harming you. The two positions contradict each other, but both of them are equally true.”
Tawfik Hamed – I seriously doubt that he has actually renounced Islam publicly and professed another religion; i.e. converted, for which of course he would be condemned to death….meanwhile, I think his writing and opinions are allowed under Islam because if he still holds Islam in his heart, he skates. That’s an important rule for us to remember when dealing with Islam…
Still not convinced about Tawfik…he doesn’t skate that easily with me.
Unless the U.S. Constitution is no longer applicable, I believe what the Oklahomans have done is in keeping with Article 6 of the Constitution. Liberal judges and some Supreme Court Justices would throw the Constitution under the bus if they had their way. Also, I do not believe the Jewish people or Catholics are attempting to make their beliefs a part of our laws. There are Muslims that are trying to push Sharia Law all around the world. Sharia law can be equated to the islamic Constitution.
#7 TW: “I do not believe the Jewish people or Catholics are attempting to make their beliefs a part of our laws…..” According to Catholic doctrine, a fertilized egg is a human being. The Catholic Church opposes any form of artificial birth control that would prevent their definition of a human being from coming into existence.
Then there is the personhood movement that would elevate into state constitutions and state laws that a fertilized egg is human. This would have the legal standing of eliminating forms of birth control, as well as all abortions, and is a method of making Catholic beliefs a part of our laws.
It’s not only Catholics who believe a fertilized egg is a human. Many scientists believe this also. Additionally, this would be a states rights issue.
Its not even a matter of “belief”, as it can be proven…
View the remains of a typical abortion procedure….head, limbs, fingers, toes….
Looks like a person to me….smaller yes, but remakably simmilar to my baby son…who I would (justly) be procecuted should I decide his crying was interfering with my social life, and smothered him to death with a pillow.
Its only a “belief” to people who’d rather party and be irresponsible than accept the responsibility that SOMEONE TOOK FOR THEM TO BE BORN.
Abortion: the ultimate “Me First”
That seems like a somewhat dubious argument to me given that substantial numbers of people of MANY faiths, not just Catholics, think that life begins at conception. Even many atheists feel that way. So if a law was passed that regarded human life as beginning at conception (or fertilization) it wouldn’t simply be an expression of Catholic beliefs but of beliefs that are held by many people of many faiths.
Bingo! Oklahoma voters voted for this proposition, because the American Governing Elite has proven itself time and time again incapable of defending this country and our institutions. The Elite has turned into subversives to undermine the foundation of this country. That is what Obama’s ‘fundamental transformation’ is all about.
In the recent election, Americans have started the process to eject the corrupt, decadent, subversive elite and elect new guardians of our liberty.
To criticize Oklahoma voters in this situation is to pretend that we have a law-abiding establishment, looking out for the best interests of Americans. 70% of Oklahoma voters called BS on that. And they were correct.
Can you just IMAGINE what the ACLU and other, assorted liberals would say if the Supreme Court had been free to consider Canon law in making the Roe vs Wade decision? All we Okies did on November 2nd is affirm that WE won’t stand still for ANY Oklahoma courts use Sharia in making legal decisions in Oklahoma. If the liberal courts on the coasts want to do so, I don’t care. We just don’t want it HERE. In Oklahoma, there’s ONE law…the Constitution…and IT leaves no room for using foreign law in making decisions for Oklahomans.
Part of the problem is, we ARE a Judeo/Christian nation….the tennents of justice, mutual respect for eachother, our posessions, contracts, laws all flow from the concept of a TRUE AND JUST KINGDOM where fairness (and love) rule all.
These are historically, uniquely JUDEO/CHRISTIAN concepts, and these principals (desires?) were codified into our Constuitution as the “way things ought to be” if true fairness between men was ever to be possible on this earth…but it was done so minus the official prayers, incense and particulars of any of the various sects. An honorable, noble attempt to do right by all.
This however leads now to an unfortunate problem, in that we must (however distasteful) BE judgemental about certain other religions that evolved excusively through violence, plunder and intimidation.
WE do not “like” to condemn anyones religion, but some are simply evil, totally incompatable with a free society….My Christian faith compells me to love and be kind to all, even to my enemies, a difficult but honorable model that will ensure harmony among all who believe in co-existance.
Others are not so accomodating, and saying “all religions are the same” is simply untrue.
Our founding documents are based on one particular model, slightly modified for the benefit of all. The other model seeks the total domination of all others, through violence and intimidation.
We must find a way to acknowledge this, AND avoid the “Constitutional” delemma of favoring one religion over another.
A dangerous Catch-22 the other guys are using against us, bigtime
“A dangerous Catch-22 the other guys are using against us, bigtime”
This is the Quran-sanctioned tactic of using the “enemy’s” own rules against them and is proof of the fact that the intent of Sharia has nothing to do with equal rights under the law or love for others.
We are enemies of Islam. Why? We don’t worship Muhammed. Islamic rules; not mine.
Let’s just look at what Islam really is without blinders of multiculturalism. Let Islam show what it is by it actions words and deeds and decide whether it is compatible with our Western Society. If it is not we need to reject it. Far too often I hear from my friends that “Oh Muslims are just like Catholics or Jews, it’s just another religion”. I also hear that out there somewhere is “Moderate Islam” or “Religion of Peace” Islam. I’ve been following current events for some time and I have yet to hear or see a Muslim describe him/her self as some sort of moderate. All the labels seem to come from non-Muslims. The West needs to have the stones to reject Islam. We need to stand on our principles.
Get a copy of the Koran that is arranged in chronological order and then read it, you will discover that thanks to abrogation the early peaceful verses are to be ignored and the latter violent verses are to be obeyed. This is all it takes to see that Islam is not a religion of peace and that any Moslem that believes in Islam and follows the Koran is forbidden to be a friend of non Moslems. Too many people refuse to investigate this issue and think for themselves.
Already been done…
http://prophetofdoom.net/
Great site with lots of great informative anti-sharia links
silence! i keel you!
#6 Tawfik Hamid sez, “acceptable parts of Sharia”. This kind of rhetoric is to be regarded with caution; since the “acceptable” pa
no what he means by acceptable sharia is that which has to do exclusively with prayer rituals…i guess the excerpt i posted here didn’t make that clear…i thought the full article to long to post and i don’t know where is it posted online…i am subscribed to his email articles. check out his website and blog…. http://www.tawfikhamid.com/
Leciat
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. There are indifferent Muslims, there are uneducated Muslims, there are Muslims who will misrepresent their agenda for political purposes, but there are no moderate Muslims.
They are called apostates. Read the book.
Abrogation and chronological order? Makes no difference barely 3% of the texts are about “inner struggle” the rest…well, the results are obvious. Have been for years and years…But wait; suddenly there’s a “moderate” Islam. Not buying it. Nor any nefarious ‘inroad’ to Sharia.
Islam has been misunderstood? I don’t think so.
The author is far too “understanding” in his take on this matter. For example, he says that the failure of the enactment to ban Talmudic law as the basis for judicial decisions renders it unconstitutional. That may end up being what happens in fact, but it is a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be constitutional. To illustrate, nobody would object on constitutional grounds to a law that prohibits people from driving while under the influence of intoxicating beverages, would they? The fact that such a law does not also prohibit people from driving while under the influence of psychedelic substances doesn’t render it unconstitutional, does it? Of course not. And, in like manner, the failure of the enactment to prohibit Talmudic or other religious codes from governing judicial decisions should in no way be deemed to render the enactment unconstitutional. It would only be unconstitutional if, while prohibiting the code of one religion, it mandated the code of another religion. And then it would violate the First Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment, to the U.S. Constitution. So, I suggest the author rethink this matter in terms of what the Constitution really means, not in terms of what the cultural Marxists have for 100 years turned it into.
The author is far too “understanding” in his take on this matter. For example, he says that the failure of the enactment to ban Talmudic law as the basis for judicial decisions renders it unconstitutional.
I never suggested the Oklahoma amendment was unconstitutional sir, I simply suggested the grounds on which it will likely be struck down.
In point of fact, by my interpretation of the Constitution it probably is Constitutional.
The point here is simply that we have been so PCed that something like that will be struck down on those grounds.
The Authors of said bill were more interested in making a point than they were in actually enacting a meaningful ban on the use of religious law in American Courts.
My objection to the Oklahoma amendment is that legislation should only be enacted to redress a problem. If the legislation is offered only to make a policitcal point then it should never be passed.
Read closely sir, before calling me a Marxist.
Patrick
What the heck is Cannon Law? Catholic Law? I know the Ten Commandents and the Golden Rule. Cannon Law? Was it what Lord Nelson used in Traffalgar?
We are already under defacto Shariah Law in this country:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/de_facto_shariah_law_in_americ.html
And the politicians, media and leftist/academic elites, as well as our military leaders and the POTUS are more concerned with diversity and protecting Muslim sensitivities than in defending America and protecting American lives.
9/11 was a victory for the Islamofascists: nearly 10 years ago, did you think that we would:
build a victory mosque at Ground Zero?
elect a Muslim president?
allow jihadists and Islamists into the FBI and US Military?
expend our blood and treasure to make Iraq and Afghanistan safe for Sharia?
Now imagine the next attack: we will be like the Japanese in WWII and beg for peace and allow the UN and OIC to enter America to eradicate “islamophobia”.
I’ve heard it said , that the righteous judge will always look to precedent . This certainly rings true , when you consider . Roe v Wade , the overturning of state referendums , as well as legislation on same sex marriage , bans on benefits and voting for non citezens , and etc. Not to mention the duly legislated sodomy laws . All overturned without precedent in US or state laws . What was resorted to in most of these cases were the judges own delicate sensibilities , in total disregard for the will of the people . And when it would serve ,foreign law was cited to gain the object of their sensibilities . The use of foreign law is always a threat to our sovereignty under our constitution . Any judge using foreign law , or guilty of substituting their sensibilities for law should be empeached or voted out . Up to and including supreme court justices , doing the aforementioned certainly passes for bad behavior , which is empeachable .
You are 100 % correct…judges unfortunately cannot be trusted to adhere to the constitution, and “need” the somewhat obvious and reduntant voter initiatives like this to keep them in their place.
Maybe these will be overturned, but the public awareness they create makes quietly legislating from the bench a little less viable.
Utter nonsense! If Oklahomans want to proscribe the use of Sharia law, they can, and it is not bigoted to do so. It’s not bigoted to hate the enemy, and Islam is a declared enemy, not just of the U.S. but of all free nations.
Read “De Facto Shariah Law in America” at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/de_facto_shariah_law_in_americ.html and tell me Oklahoma is wrong.
Since the constitution proscribes the establishment of a religion, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that laws elucidating that proscription would be constitutional. That is, if you can’t pray in a (government-run) classroom, you can’t invoke Sharia law in a government court of law – or the public square, for that matter.
“the reason this law was passed…..is because American Muslims are not standing up and saying that what men like Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, and al-Awlaki have done is wrong”
Followers of Mohammed will NEVER stand up and say this was wrong…because these men were explicitely FOLLOWING their religion, doing EXACTLY what is demanded of muslims.
I grow weary of the “earnest confusion” otherwise intelligent people have, with trying to grasp why the “moderate” muslims dont speak out against these atrocities.
It is because there IS NO MODERATE ISLAM…they keep their mouths shut because the’ve read and comprehend the Koran and Hadith. Condemning Fort Hood, or 9/11, or any other violent act commited in the name of Islam is incompatable with being a muslim.
They would be apostates, traitors to their faith to condemn violence. They themselves would be sentenced to a death fatwa for doing so. Either by agreement with the acts, or by simple fear, they do not speak out against these things because they are REQUIRED BEHAVIOR of muslims.
Islam is spread and enforced by the sword, not by reason, agreement, acceptence, or choice.
It has no place in a free society, and the more people stand up and say so, the better for all.
Especially for the oppressed muslims who live in constant fear of death for daring to believe in free thought.
“I grow weary of the “earnest confusion” otherwise intelligent people have, with trying to grasp why the “moderate” muslims dont speak out against these atrocities.”
Rubbish. Make an effort and just google it. Yes, moderate muslims DO speak out, they DO condemn terrorism, they have SPECIFICALLY condemned the nut who opened fire at fort hood.
Here – I’ll make it easy: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=muslims+condemn+fort+hood
Feel free to claim it’s all a conspiracy, but don’t claim that muslims don’t speak out about violence by muslims. Because they do. That’s just a fact.
“They would be apostates, traitors to their faith to condemn violence.”
Then it would seem there are a lot of apostates.
“Islam is spread and enforced by the sword, not by reason, agreement, acceptence, or choice.”
Actually, these days it’s mostly spread by population growth. There aren’t a lot of new muslim converts globally.
“It has no place in a free society, and the more people stand up and say so, the better for all.”
Yes. Because we’ll know who the creeps are.
“Especially for the oppressed muslims who live in constant fear of death for daring to believe in free thought.”
Hmm. Sure.
“Actually, these days it’s mostly spread by population growth.”
see here again are claims that because someone who is born to muslim parents then they are muslim….when truth is they pretend to be muslim because if they try to leave the “faith” they are either murdered (sometimes by the government) or they AND their family are ostracized by socity….i know so called muslims who are NOT in fact muslim they just go through the motions to keep from their families being hurt…i.e. their sisters will not be able to find someone to marry them, their mothers will be shunned by the community, their fathers and brothers will find it hard to find employment…this is TRUE…just go ask some muslims…in private of course because they would never dare speak about this in public
Well, in that case there’s no problem then. If you’re right then eventually the pretend Muslims will outnumber the real ones and they’ll take over, right?
Sorry….
The cheering in the streets, the handing out of candy, and the naming of parks for terroists who killed women and children with their own (sometimes bare) hands far far outweighs any alleged “protest” of terror you mentioned.
The most common response is silence, there are no such millions in outraged daily protest against these alleged defilements of Islam. This tells a reasonable observer something….
…..If I need a magnifying glass, or a microscope to distinguish a precious few contrary particles in a sample dish of powder “X”, I can reasonably say that powder “X” is predominantly, mostly, basically, overwhelmingly, predictibly, uniformly, identifiably, quanitifiably “Powder “X”.
These alleged “protesters” are the contrary particles. Overwhelmingly, the muslim response to terror attacks IS SILENCE.
Put another way, there might be a moderate needle in that muslim haystack….but its a haystack, not a needle
This is drifting a bit. I’d like to remind you of the quote which started this particular sub-thread:
““the reason this law was passed…..is because <b<American Muslims are not standing up and saying that what men like Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, and al-Awlaki have done is wrong””
Yes, I agree that the nuts who run palestine have named public parks after terrorists. The palestinians themselves, pretty much by definition, have no say in it. That accounts for a couple of million muslims from a figure of something exceeding a billion people, most of whom want to just get on with their lives every bit as much as you do.
The british have a lot of streets named after kings and queens. That doesn’t mean that all white people are monarchists. Or even all christians.
You might find it interesting to hear about the history of religious law in Ontario, my home province in Canada. Here is a brief history.
Until 1991, all matters of law were decided by the secular courts. In 1991, the provincial government, which was at the time dominated by an NDP majority (the NDP, or New Democratic Party, is our “moderate” socialist party) decided that they could ease court backlogs by allowing some matters of family law to be handled outside of courts. They announced that it would now be possible to use religious courts for matters of Canon (Catholic) law and Talmudic (Jewish) law provided BOTH parties voluntarily agreed to this. The new religious courts started being used. By 2005, Ontario Muslims wanted to be able to do the same with Sharia Law. Although the Liberals were in power by then, a former NDP cabinet minister was appointed to decide if the religious courts were to be expanded to allow for Sharia Law. She decreed that they WOULD be allowed to do so, subject to the same rule that both parties had to agree, otherwise the matter would be subject to the secular courts. Also, any appeals of decisions from the religious courts would be made in secular courts.
Substantial protests broke out and the Liberal Premier (equivalent to a US governor) decided to not only oppose the establishment of Sharia courts but to also close down the Catholic and Jewish courts as well. Since then, all matters are to be arbitrated strictly via the secular courts.
I thought you might find it interesting to see how religious law CAN be combined with secular law, at least for Canon and Talmudic law, and how public protests can successfully defeat measures that the politicians want to apply but the majority of the public rejects.
I enjoyed the tone in which this subject was written, but do not agree with two things.
One, there is no such thing as extreme Islam. There is just Islam, and those who follow Mohammad like CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, AQ, Hamas, Hizboallah, to name a few.
There are extreme Muslims. They are called Apostates. I wonder what happens to Apostates?
Two, Oklahoma got it right! Screw Islam’s laws, and let the moon god worshipers know it! They have earned it.
ROPMA!
“Few Americans would want [Jewish and Catholic law] used in our court system either.”
*Ahem*
http://www.bethdin.org/
Yes. It IS the same thing, but from a jewish perspective. These courts don’t cover criminal cases. They’re arbitration courts, and the rulings don’t (and can’t) overrule the civil or criminal courts. I wouldn’t want a muslim court ruling on my affairs, but I wouldn’t want a jewish one doing so either. So – who’s got some outrage left for beth din? Anyone?
Now, as for …
Can somebody provide some more details about that case? It’s extremely hard to find out details because the original court documents were impounded after the appeal. The appeal is all we’ve got:
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html
If the request was only for a restraining order, then I can’t quite see how the court “upheld a muslim man’s right to beat and rape his wife”, because that wasn’t the matter before the court. The rejection of the request seems to be based on the fact that they were separated anyway (i.e. no longer married or living together), and unlikely to come in contact anyway (which was bogus, I agree). The (frankly stupid) assertion that the guy lacked criminal intent to rape doesn’t seem to be central to that decision.
From the contents of the appeal judgment, it seems that there was an ongoing CRIMINAL trial that also imposed a restraining order of its own (and was, presumably, considering whether the man had a “right to beat and rape his wife based on his religion” – and I don’t like his chances). I’m not a judge, but I would have granted the restraining order at least because they had a baby due, which would have meant some sort of contact eventually.
I think it was a bad judgment, but I don’t think your summary of the case is very accurate or balanced.
We here in Aus once had a judge who declared, in a domestic rape case, that it was only natural that a husband might use “rougher than usual handling” in order to obtain consent from his wife. That was in the 90′s, nobody was a muslim and religion wasn’t a factor:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLJ/1999/20.html
Judges make stupid decisions sometimes. I think that was one of them, but “sharia” wasn’t a factor in either of these.
Matthew,
You are right, it was not Sharia in this case but it might as well have been….
You had a liberal Judge, applying the typically liberal racist position known as “the soft bigotry of low expectations”
The judge explained his decision thus:
The guy in question was a Muslim, following his normal custom of beating and raping his wife. Since he was completely unaware of the “western way” he was therefore unable CONSCIOUSLY violate the laws of our land.
Since he could not CONCEIVE of such a radical judicial concept,(not beating and raping whom allah has commanded you to beat and rape) he didnt MEAN to be a law breaker, and it is therefore unfair to apply a standard to him which he did not KNOWINGLY violate.
Ignorance of the law is a GREAT excuse, especially when you are a PC protected class of vermin, in front of a typical liberal racist.
You’re missing the point. This court wasn’t judging whether the perp was guilty of criminal anything. Here’s the actual, relevant part of the findings (from the appeal). Apparently it’s not enough to keep pointing at it, I have to spell it out. Notice that the judge doesn’t try to deny that assault has occured, but it’s not the focus of the decision:
—8<—–8<—–8<–
Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff’s domestic violence action. In doing so, the judge characterized November as a “bad patch” in the parties’ marriage and plaintiff’s injuries as “not severe.” The judge then stated:
The judge therefore found that the parties had no reason to be together again, but immediately thereafter, he noted that their baby was expected in August and “[t]hat will require that the parties be in contact presumably.” The judge then concluded:
Nonetheless, the judge cautioned defendant not to have any contact with plaintiff and to instruct his family members and friends to have no further contact with plaintiff’s family. Additionally, the judge acknowledged that the two would have to be involved in litigation over the baby and child support.
As a final matter, the judge recognized the pendency of a criminal action against defendant, and indicated its existence constituted an additional basis for the judge’s ruling denying a final restraining order, since he assumed that a no-contact order had been entered as a condition of bail.
Mr. Richardson has displayed his conflictions for all to see, but while one may sympathize with his attempt at fair play, it is hard to follow why the Oklahoma law should be struck down.
Most Muslims claim their goal is to make America completely Muslim. Many say it is to be accomplished by only “peaceful” means, while other more radical Muslims say it is by eliminating or physically conquering us, which is apparently approved by their law. Not giving them a legal chance would seem reasonable.
Mr. Richardson does find that Muslim law allows husbands to abuse their wives and he seems agreeable to not allow that to get into American law. In fact the Constitution and Sharia law are at odds most everywhere and not allowing it to be used by Oklahoma Judges should be completely Constitutional. We already have a precedent where American preexisting law on polygamy kept the Mormons out of joining America until they changed their church law to match American law. What is the problem with Oklahoma’s law?
Again, my only issue with the Oklahoma amendment is that it was written in such a way as to virtually assure that a liberal judge would find an excuse to strike it down.
This law was written and put on the ballot merely to make a point, and to score political points for the sponsors.
I have no issue with finding ways to make sure the evil that is sharia law is not used in American courts. I do have major issues with using law to score political points — no matter which party is doing it.
I agree, sharia in no way is compatible with the constitution. Nor is the Oklahoma amendment strictly speaking unconstitutional — it just wasn’t the best way to go about it.
Patrick
Patrick,
“…my only issue….was written in such a way as to virtually assure that a liberal judge would find an excuse to strike it down”
NOTHING can be written that a liberal judge wont strike down.
Full-on cut and paste language straight from the constitution will be ruled “unconstitutional” by them, stop trying to appease them
We need more and more of these to flood the courts day and night, and force the liberals show their loyalties to the enemies.
If you worry about creating something “reasonable” to a liberal, you have already LOST.
“It is true that using Sharia law to decide cases in the U.S. would be against all precedent……. Should some liberal nut of a judge somewhere decide to use a justification from Sharia law one time, then the precedent is set, and enterprising lawyers will expand upon it.”
Precedent has already been set. A whacked out Judge has ruled that a fanatic, Muslim man can beat and rape his wife. That an appellate court reversed this whacked out decision is irrelevant. No restraining order was issued. Until the appellate court got around to reversing, the fanatic Muslim man was allowed to continue beating and raping his wife.
Unacceptable!!!
The Oklahoma law should stand and a similar law should be ratified in every state in the country. Ruth Bader Ginsberg should never have been allowed on the Court and should be impeached. If Talmudic or Canon law should ever BECOME as pernicious and despicable as Shariah/Islamic law IS, then let them be singled out as well. Until that happens, no more ridiculous discussions of moral equivalency please.
“Until the appellate court got around to reversing, the fanatic Muslim man was allowed to continue beating and raping his wife.”
Yeah, see, every bit of that is false.
I stand corrected and I agree it would be helpful to see the trial court’s transcripts. It does not change the fact that the trial court, in refusing the restraining order, and vacating three previous restraining orders, created a condition whereby the defendant COULD HAVE continued to beat and rape his wife…. legally. Would you agree? I’m not familiar with the domestic violence case you refer to in the 90′s, but there is enough in the NJ Appellate Court transcripts (that you provided a link for) that it’s clear that Sharia/Islam was very much involved in this case.
“I stand corrected and I agree it would be helpful to see the trial court’s transcripts.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “trial court”. This was a family court hearing to apply for a permanent restraining order.
“… created a condition whereby the defendant COULD HAVE continued to beat and rape his wife…. legally.”
No. Absolutely not. Firstly, she was no longer his wife. According to the appeal they were no longer married, weren’t living together and didn’t actually have any contact with one another anyway. And I don’t see where in the judgment that normal laws applying to rape and assault were declared null and void. He could still be prosecuted for those, and the judgment even hints that he WAS being prosecuted for those. That wasn’t what this court was ruling on. If the judge hadn’t made his bizarre comment about the man’s background, the outcome would have probably been the same and the whole thing would have been filed under “obscure administrative family court outcomes”.
“Would you agree? I’m not familiar with the domestic violence case you refer to in the 90’s, but there is enough in the NJ Appellate Court transcripts (that you provided a link for) that it’s clear that Sharia/Islam was very much involved in this case.”
I don’t see the word sharia anywhere. The judge doesn’t mention islamic law. He minimizes the perp’s guilt by saying that criminal intent didn’t apply because of cultural/religious expectations. That was a bogus claim, I agree. But there’s no reference to anything to back it up, so I don’t see how anyone can claim it’s “sharia”.
Unfortunately we can never know what ACTUALLY happened when a court was asked to rule on the criminality of the husband’s behaviour, because we don’t know who these people are. But this court wasn’t where that was being decided. The coverage about this case has been factually wrong – she was no longer his wife, and this court wasn’t even considering his criminality. It was JUST considering a particular restraining order.
I don’t see the word sharia anywhere. The judge doesn’t mention islamic law. He minimizes the perp’s guilt by saying that criminal intent didn’t apply because of cultural/religious expectations. That was a bogus claim, I agree. But there’s no reference to anything to back it up, so I don’t see how anyone can claim it’s “sharia”.
Matthew, apologists make me sick. Anyone with half a brain realizes the the cultural/religious expectations of the twit that was beating up on his wife were informed by Sharia, as the right to beat your wife and demand sex weather she likes it or not are enshrined in that so-called code.
Get a dose of reality. Sharia is evil, and a pinhead of a NJ court judge refused to issue a restraining order that should have been a no brainer, which the appellate court judge said was a no brainer and which even a brain dead apologist for the Islamists should be able to agree was a no brainer.
Once again, my beef with the Oklahoma amendment is not that it targets sharia specifically, but that it was written and put on the ballot simply to score political points — not to actually DO anything about the real threat of Sharia law creeping in to American Jurisprudence.
Patrick
Matthew, apologists make me sick.
Anyone with half a brain realizes the the cultural/religious expectations of the twit that was beating up on his wife were informed by Sharia, as the right to beat your wife and demand sex weather she likes it or not are enshrined in that so-called code.
A few things.
(1) You could have just read the judgment I linked to, and you would have read about the imam who actually argued, in court:
(2) You are now, presumably, going to provide some links to “sharia law” sources which back up your claim that “the right to beat your wife and demand sex weather she likes it or not are enshrined in that so-called code”. It shouldn’t be hard. You must have some reason for believing that to be true, right?
Sharia is evil
I’m not sure if you know what sharia actually is.
and a pinhead of a NJ court judge refused to issue a restraining order that should have been a no brainer
Absolutely. But not because the husband was muslim. Read the appeal judgment.
even a brain dead apologist for the Islamists should be able to agree was a no brainer.
I have already agreed that it was a no-brainer. I would have issued the restraining order.
it was written and put on the ballot simply to score political points
I suspect we agree about that. It’s a stupid law because it’ll never be applied. It’ll never be applied because it’ll be struck down the moment anyone tries to – it’s quite clearly “making a law respecting an establishment of religion”. It’s a bit like the clause in arkansas’ constitution which bans atheists from ever holding high office or testifying as witnesses.
not to actually DO anything about the real threat of Sharia law creeping in to American Jurisprudence.
If you’ve got some actual examples of “sharia law” being applied outside of arbitration courts (which are voluntary, as you would know) then by all means – let’s hear about it.
Blast. Hit post instead of preview. I was nearly done, though ..
Matthew, apologists make me sick.
Do you mean all apologists? Do christian apologists make you sick as well? I, for one, find some christian apologetics to be quite interestnig.
Anyone with half a brain realizes the the cultural/religious expectations of the twit that was beating up on his wife were informed by Sharia, as the right to beat your wife and demand sex weather she likes it or not are enshrined in that so-called code.
A few things.
(1) You could have just read the judgment I linked to, and you would have read about the imam who actually argued, in court:
(2) You are now, presumably, going to provide some links to “sharia law” sources which back up your claim that “the right to beat your wife and demand sex weather she likes it or not are enshrined in that so-called code”. It shouldn’t be hard. You must have some reason for believing that to be true, right?
Sharia is evil
I’m not sure if you know what sharia actually is.
and a pinhead of a NJ court judge refused to issue a restraining order that should have been a no brainer
Absolutely. But not because the husband was muslim. Read the appeal judgment.
even a brain dead apologist for the Islamists should be able to agree was a no brainer.
I have already agreed that it was a no-brainer. I would have issued the restraining order.
it was written and put on the ballot simply to score political points
I suspect we agree about that. It’s a stupid law because it’ll never be applied. It’ll never be applied because it’ll be struck down the moment anyone tries to – it’s quite clearly “making a law respecting an establishment of religion”. It’s a bit like the clause in arkansas’ constitution which bans atheists from ever holding high office or testifying as witnesses.
not to actually DO anything about the real threat of Sharia law creeping in to American Jurisprudence.
If you’ve got some actual examples of “sharia law” being applied outside of arbitration courts (which are voluntary, as you would know) then by all means – let’s hear about it.
All ANONYMOUS needs to do is read about creeping Sharia in other parts of the world (try Britain for starters), and garner some background regarding the real; very real successes of Sharia creeping into host-country judicial systems.
How about Sharia influencing international law via the U.N.?
Sh……..aria happens anonymous!!! There can be no compromise with it or with any hint of resemblance to it.
I added my name in the repeat post. As I explained – I hit the wrong button. The “ANONYMOUS” thing is just silly.
And no, I don’t buy melanie phillips’ claims about ‘creeping sharia” in the UK. I’ve been paying enough attention to melanie phillips to know better.
Twelve years after the war of independence the thirteen colonies got together to “form a more perfect union.” They needed that union to fight Muslims!
We have seen unwillingness on the part of Judges to conform to the Law as written. Judicial precedent is not a strength of American Law but the country’s greatest weakness. It has driven the country into one civil war and may do so again.
Until 1982 the fourteenth amendment did not say that anchor babies were citizens and until 2008 the constitution said that the President had to be born in the territory of the United States.
It will be interesting to see over the next 2 to 3 years, how many judges lose their appointments? This is the kind of issue that can bring about rapid change and rapid loss.
The will of the people is no small force to be ignored. They are quite literally prepared to move heaven and earth for their country. The judges who sit for these considerations had better put any activist ideas to bed. Because for a certainty, the people will have them removed.
I fail to see any coherent reasoning in your article as to why you oppose banning sharia law other than one sentence in which you said that Christian and Jewish law also wasn’t banned. That wasn’t exactly a convincing argument. Ban it. I don’t care if it offends muslims. The #1 security threat to our nation at the moment is sharia. Sharia is much more than just legal rulings but an entire “political” system that justifies waging violent (and non-violent) jihad against non-muslims – aka modern islamic terrorism. Sharia law is utterly and totally opposed to the U.S. Constitution and our entire civilization and way of life. It must be eradicated – not only from our shores, but the entire world – in order to ensure global security and human progress.
Here’s a clip from Human Events regarding CAIR’s lawsuit against the ruling:
“And Hamas-linked CAIR makes a stunning admission in its press release about the lawsuit against Oklahoma. It calls the Oklahoma amendment “anti-Islam,” admitting that the brutal, oppressive and radical Sharia, with its stonings and amputations and oppression of women, is Islam. Why call the amendment “anti-Islam”? It is anti-Sharia. Oklahoma meant to ban stonings, amputations for theft, death for apostates, and the other elements of Sharia that contradict the rights and freedoms guaranteed to American citizens by the U.S. Constitution. And now CAIR is admitting that all such practices go back to Islam itself.
By their fruits we shall know them, and so once again, we know Islamic-supremacist CAIR.”
Just in case that there’s any ambiguity about where Sharia comes from…and the stated goal of Islamic supremecists to bring down America from within.
With all due respect to the author of the article and its topics! The premise and foundations of the authors “mixed feelings” has NO funamental foundation in either constitutional or common law. Foregoing a long dissertation into either foundation of law, heres a couple of things contemplate.
1. The foundation of “law” has NO elements of free speech or First Amendment Rights. Law, once legislated, is the “mechanism” of authority to enforce The law, once modeled, forms the “intent” and the elements of the law to be enforced. Yes, if the intent or the elements of a legislated law are deemed unconstitutional, such law in part or in whole can be reversed and repealed.
2. Constitutionally, Sharia Law [cannot] be determined to be a matter of religion or free expression. The fact is, that Sharia law could be legislated by the United States Congress to be incorporated or become the law of the land and stand the test of constitutional challenge.
3. With regards to States Rights to govern and legislate laws. The United States Constitution gives to the States the right to govern and legislate laws NOT specifically addressed in the Constitution.
4. International “treaties” ratified by the United States Congress does NOT become any part of America’s Common Law system. Any liablity to such treaties applies ONLY so long as Congress agrees to be a signator to such treaty. There are many treaties and portions of treaties of the UN and Genevas Convention to which the United States are not signators to. I’m not sure how the author of this article frames “treaties” into the topic. The United States is not a signator to any “global” standard of law. For most countries who are signators of treaties, they don’t tend to consider such treaties to be worth the paper they are written on….unless they believe the U.S. has somehow violated it.
Conclusion. The States have every constitutional right to legislate [any] laws not specifically addressed in the constitution! Far to many people of todays generations have become conditioned by the abuse of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they routinely mis-interpret the constitution. Is that not a large part of the foundation to the “Take America Back” movement?
To Oklahomans….I say good for you folks! You’ve shown your Traditional American Patriotism and your will to make a stand in defense of all that is Traditional America!
The response to the response:
“Sharia is evil”
I’m not sure if you know what sharia actually is.
Boy, are you deluding yourself…read up on it someday, and while youre at it try a page or two from the KORAN and the HADITH just for giggles, as you obviously have cracked open neither…
Hair rasing, blood curdling horror shows, to be feared and loathed by any reasonable person.
Problem:
March 2009, Pakistan presented a resolution to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva which calls upon the world to formulate laws against the defamation of religion.
This example is ongoing from Islam, to initiate blasphemy laws under one guise or another, eg, hate speech, in countries that are non-Islamic. Any necessary proof of the corruption and heavy-handedness in the political arena to accomplish this totalitarianism, see Geert Wilders.
Argument:
The Constitution of Pakistan, an Islamic Republic, includes penalties for blasphemy. Therefore, to resolve in our courts, because our laws don’t consider blasphemy a crime, we should use foreign (Sharia) law?
This argument is exactly what the two recently appointed US Supreme Court Justices agree with, and Congress approved them, to a position where they could usurp The Constitution.
Political correctness is a plague of stupidity.
Salute Oklahoma!
Sharia? What About Catholics?
Catholics and Devils
Yahoo recently posted a Reuter’s article titled, “Exorcists wanted: apply to Catholic Church,” which began with the lead, ”Overwhelmed with requests for exorcists, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops are holding a special training workshop in Baltimore this weekend to teach clerics the esoteric rite, the Catholic News Service reported.”
Exorcisms? An overwhelming demand? What’s next, overwhelming requests for clerics to cast out evil politicians? Well, no, the Catholic Church believes that casting out evil politicians is and always will be the prerogative of voters, at least in America. Elsewhere, it may be the prerogative of the politicians who manipulate elections.
Point is, exorcisms, the ritualistic process of ”ἐξορκισμός, exorkismos–binding by oath, the practice of evicting demons or other spiritual entities from a person or place which they are believed to have possessed,” is alive and well, if not a favorite belief of most people, Catholics and otherwise, today.
The whole idea of exorisms and exorists is just, well, not popular.
Nevertheless, American Catholic clerics who refuse to concede that all is not exactly sweetness and light and jollity in America and that some nasty devils really exist are looking for people–males only!–who will commit to exorcising those devils.
Americans are woefully lacking in such exorcist-qualified men and ”each diocese deserves its own,” according to Bishop Thomas Paprocki. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2660)
I recently sat through a lecture concerning various religions. The speaker pointed out the Janes who won’t even hurt an insect. The more fanatical the adherents are, the safer we are from the Janes. He compared that to the fanatical Muslims who are a great danger to others. Clearly, fanaticism is not the problem. The problem is the religion itself and what it commands the followers to do to others.
I have been considering the implications and sources of fundamentalist fanaticism. In the case Jewish and Christian fanatics they tend to seize on phrases or concepts and apply them out of context. Since the texts were penned by men those concepts and/or phrases could have been put in placed for the purpose of misapplication. Humans have often used religion to attain and hold earthly power. Islam is different from the earlier mentioned religions, fanatics like Ben Laden, receive their justification from the Koran, in context, from Mohammad. At the same time there are passages in the Koran, taken in context, that condemn Ben Laden’s actions, again from Mohammad. These opposing frames of reference are the reasons for the sects and their seeming willingness to kill one another, as heretics. This brings us to the importance of Mohammad. He is the sole source of Allah’s enlightenment of man. Every word in the Koran is from Allah through Mohammad. If Mohammad is but a man and, therefore, fallible, what happens to the Koran?
The all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God, creator of all that we experience does not need men as protector and can end all, any part or any individual without our intervention or help!
Re #33. Sorry for the misspelling. It’s ‘Jain’.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism