Source 
The people of Oklahoma had a measure on the ballot, State Question 755 that altered the state Constitution to ban Oklahoma's courts from considering Islamic or international law when making judicial rulings.
It passed by over 70%.
Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma promptly filed a lawsuit calling the law unconstitutional.
Awad gave a press conference and was joined by Chuck Thornton, deputy director of ACLU-Oklahoma; Imad Enchassi, imam of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City (who famously referred to the Tea Party as 'the KKK in drag'); and Nathaniel Batchelder, director of the Central Oklahoma Human Rights Association.
Awad's basis for the suit? He claims SQ755 violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it singles out Islam.According to Awad, there is no threat of an Islamic takeover of state courts, and the law is designed to unfairly single out Islam.
Thornton referred to the law as an "ugly piece of legislation that was used to inflame passions against the Islamic community."
Since sharia law directly mandates an inferior status for women, and non-Muslims and the death penalty for adulterers, homosexuals and those who attempt to leave Islam, all of which violates our Constitution, one would think there would be no question of it getting a foothold here.
Really?
Just recently a judge in New Jersey denied a Muslim woman's case against her husband and ruled that a Muslim husband's right to rape his wife was covered under religious freedom because it did not violate his Islamic beliefs.
While his decision was overturned on appeal, this judge is still sitting on the bench, and there are undoubtedly others like him.Recently, we even had the obscene spectacle of a Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer opining that the Qu'ran might be covered by 'special rights' and that criticism or desecration might not be covered by the First Amendment.
For CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Federation terrorism trial who our own FBI recently cut all ties with, the advantages of the lawsuit are easily seen.
As an Islamist group, their goal is exactly what SQ755 was designed to prevent - the gradual perversion of our justice system to allow sharia law to become an accepted norm here in America - as it already is in Britain, where sharia courts are mandatory in civil matters for Muslims.
So they filed suit as a warning to other states not to allow Americans to vote on similar measures unless they want to be faced with expensive litigation.
It was quite acceptable and proper for the people of Oklahoma by a vast majority to enjoin judges legally not to consider sharia in bench rulings to avoid any confusion, especially in light of the instances mentioned above. And it has nothing to do with fear of an Islamist 'takeover'.
Quite simply, sharia and our Constitution are not compatible, and it has no place in American jurisprudence unless one feels that Muslims - women in particular - do not deserve Constitutional protection simply because they are Muslim.
The people of Oklahoma took a good look at that and decided 'no thank you'.
The people of Oklahoma had a measure on the ballot, State Question 755 that altered the state Constitution to ban Oklahoma's courts from considering Islamic or international law when making judicial rulings.
It passed by over 70%.
Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma promptly filed a lawsuit calling the law unconstitutional.
Awad gave a press conference and was joined by Chuck Thornton, deputy director of ACLU-Oklahoma; Imad Enchassi, imam of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City (who famously referred to the Tea Party as 'the KKK in drag'); and Nathaniel Batchelder, director of the Central Oklahoma Human Rights Association.
Awad's basis for the suit? He claims SQ755 violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it singles out Islam.According to Awad, there is no threat of an Islamic takeover of state courts, and the law is designed to unfairly single out Islam.
Thornton referred to the law as an "ugly piece of legislation that was used to inflame passions against the Islamic community."
Since sharia law directly mandates an inferior status for women, and non-Muslims and the death penalty for adulterers, homosexuals and those who attempt to leave Islam, all of which violates our Constitution, one would think there would be no question of it getting a foothold here.
Really?
Just recently a judge in New Jersey denied a Muslim woman's case against her husband and ruled that a Muslim husband's right to rape his wife was covered under religious freedom because it did not violate his Islamic beliefs.
While his decision was overturned on appeal, this judge is still sitting on the bench, and there are undoubtedly others like him.Recently, we even had the obscene spectacle of a Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer opining that the Qu'ran might be covered by 'special rights' and that criticism or desecration might not be covered by the First Amendment.
For CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Federation terrorism trial who our own FBI recently cut all ties with, the advantages of the lawsuit are easily seen.
As an Islamist group, their goal is exactly what SQ755 was designed to prevent - the gradual perversion of our justice system to allow sharia law to become an accepted norm here in America - as it already is in Britain, where sharia courts are mandatory in civil matters for Muslims.
So they filed suit as a warning to other states not to allow Americans to vote on similar measures unless they want to be faced with expensive litigation.
It was quite acceptable and proper for the people of Oklahoma by a vast majority to enjoin judges legally not to consider sharia in bench rulings to avoid any confusion, especially in light of the instances mentioned above. And it has nothing to do with fear of an Islamist 'takeover'.
Quite simply, sharia and our Constitution are not compatible, and it has no place in American jurisprudence unless one feels that Muslims - women in particular - do not deserve Constitutional protection simply because they are Muslim.
The people of Oklahoma took a good look at that and decided 'no thank you'.
0 comentários:
Post a Comment
Be respectful. Comments are moderated.