Oklahoma voters ban shariah law

[Lars77]

Source: Indo-Asian News Service

The central US state of Oklahoma is to become the first state in the US to ban Islamic sharia law. That's the result of a voter initiative in the state that passed by a heavy majority in the midterm election on Tuesday night. State Question 755 amends the Oklahoma constitution to forbid courts in Oklahoma from considering sharia law or international law in reaching their decisions.

With more than 60% of precincts counted, more than 70% of voters had approved the measure, according to the Secretary of State's website.

Read more: http://www.hindustantimes.com/Oklahoma-voters-ban-shariah-law/Article1-621555.aspx

---

Take that, muslim fundamentalists! I'm sure Sharia law was completely normal before this election.

[MichaelHarris]

1. like

Oklahoma had a lot of Shariah law? Didn't see any in the Yellow Pages last time I was there. Way to waste money Oklahoma.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

30. exactly. religious law is not compatible with the Constitution

that whole First Amendment thingy. so why pass a law?

[Thor_MN]

66. Yes, I am relieved to know that something that has never happened, now can't.

[Lars77]

2. What an absurd initiative.

They might as well vote to have bacon dispensers on every street corner, or something.

[Mortos]

3. As a proud democrat in Oklahoma

I can finally rest easy knowing that our legal system will now cease to use international or Sharia law when considering legal questions. Now if we can just get a bill passed outlawing shark attacks on our many beautiful freshwater lakes and amend our Constitution so that zombies will not be allowed to vote (or eat my brains), our great state will be safe...for now.

[savalez]

5. lol

[Lars77]

7. At least you got coverage in The Hindustan Times

Pretty exotic!

[HankyDubs]

11. Whew!

Dodged that bullet! Too bad they didn't consider individual aspects of Sharia law, which actually are quite similar to much of the agenda pushed by our Chris-chin theocrat "friends."

[melody]

12. My favorite post of the night. Thanks. n/t

[Fruittree]

14. My brother and his family and my mom live in Oklahoma...

I just sent them congratulations on this monumental achievement...

[activa8tr]

19. Can you somehow smuggle them out of there? Or is it...

their choice to stay and live with the stupid?

[Wednesdays]

68. Can somebody please smuggle ME out of here?

:banghead:

[saigon68]

43. LOL K & R

[rainbow4321]

62. And here I went and bought a brand new burqua

for my next trip to Tulsa to visit my relatives..darn I hope I saved the receipt to return it!

But at least the roadkill-in-place-of-milemarkers and potholes that reach to China are still safe. Without those landmarks I'd never find my way along highway 75 to Tulsa (from Dallas)!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. I'll fight you with the last fiber of my being

Bacon dispensers are clearly the largest scourge our society faces, and I don't care if it takes a Constitutional Amendment, stopping these Pork Strip Pez dispensers must be our top priority, if it costs billions--so long as it doesn't detract from anti-Sharia and English-only initiatives.

[Lars77]

8. Don't take away mah baconfreedumz! nt

[mbperrin]

89. Mmmmmmm, bacon!

Love that bacon!

Hey, do those 10 commandments thingies that are part of sharia law matter at all now? Hope not!


Bacon!

[savalez]

4. Dumb sh#ts.

[ZombieHorde]

9. I wish they would have added the Holy Bible. nt

[jberryhill]

41. By implication, they did

Mosaic law is part of Sharia Law.

They just banned the Ten Commandments in Oklahoma.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Nice. nt

[NuttyFluffers]

60. i want that as a bumper sticker, that's so awesome!

i can already see the head explodey from here... :evilgrin:

[BlueCollar]

71. Can you expand on that? n/t

[jberryhill]

72. Sure

What people don't know about Islam is breathtaking.

The Ten Commandments is the basis of both Talmudic and Koranic (Sharia) law.


http://www.submission.org/God/ten.html

Islam (Submission to the will of God) is the same and only religion ever given to the human race. It is the religion of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, Muhammad and all the other messengers mentioned or not mentioned in the scripture. The Ten Commandments as we see them here are not any more than the same message given to the prophet Muhammad . See the following table.

-----

The Ten Commandments is, under the Oklahoma definition, something other than US law. Moses didn't wander down out of the Appalachians with those tablets and have them passed by the West Virginia legislature, you know.

The Ten Commandments is foreign law, and it is Sharia law.

[Bragi]

73. Both are banned from court decisions

I see, though, that later today the Oklahoma chapter of The Center on American-Islamic Relations will be supporting a lawsuit to overturn the results of the ballot.

Should be interesting to hear their argument for why Sharia law should be used in US court decisions.

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/political/elections_local/lawsuit-to-be-filed-against-sharia-law-state-question

[jberryhill]

75. Because courts have to enforce contracts

If you manage to pull your head out of simple minded thinking mode, and had any idea of how law actually works, you would understand that any two people can enter into a contract which includes any terms they want.

If a restaurant owner enters into a contract with a supplier to provide Kosher food to the restaurant, they are allowed to do that.

If the restaurant owner refuses a shipment of meat because it is not Kosher, then the two of them are going to go to court.

If the supplier defends on the grounds that he alleges the meat was Kosher, then in order to resolve the dispute, the court is going to have to rule on whether the supplier performed the contract by supplying Kosher meat.

A subsidiary question of that dispute is "Was the meat Kosher". That is a religious question on which the court may take testimony from, for example, two Rabbi's, and the court may have to rule on that question.


You, on the other hand, would prefer that the court refuse to enforce the contract at all, because the court is banned from considering the factual question in a contract dispute - did the supplier ship Kosher meat.

You do not agree with the Constitution, which states that the right of contract shall be respected.


You think that if a bookstore orders a shipment of Korans, and the publisher sends a load of Bibles, then the bookstore owner should be forced to pay, because a court is not allowed to determine whether a book is or is not a Koran.

You believe that if a church contracts with a builder to re-surface a parking lot, but includes in that contract a provision that the builder not perform work on Sunday, that it is perfectly fine for the builder to rope off the parking lot and start resurfacing work on Sunday morning.

Those are the direct consequences of your opinion on this question, and it is a violation of the Constitutional protection of the right to contract.

This has wider influence in relation to arbitration agreements, financial arrangements (Islamic non-interest mortgage agreements), and a wide variety of legal and contractual issues which courts resolve every single day.
\

[Bragi]

78. I am not grateful for your prose

I don't recall if we've met before, but I want to point out that you began your response with an insult -- If you manage to pull your head out of simple minded thinking mode, and had any idea of how law actually works, you would understand that... -- which was followed by a 300-word rebuttal of detailed points I've never made on a topic that isn't clear to me.

You even include in your prose a bold-highlighted section that begins: "You, on the other hand..." which is then followed by a sentence intended, I gather, to unify in some manner Kosher meat, the constitution and the "right to contract".]

If this is so, I'm wondering if this a case of mistaken identity, or is this maybe a misplaced posting? But if you are replying to me specifically, can you maybe just turn it down a notch so we can have a discussion? What's your main point?

[jberryhill]

79. I'm sorry

But this particular issues drives me insane.

The point is that courts are properly called on to apply religious law in resolving questions ancillary to legitimate legal disputes all of the time.

Banning them from doing so is an infringement of the right of contract.

There is nothing unusual about it, and I've started a thread on it to vent steam misdirected at you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9477187

Read the story. Answer the questions.

[Bragi]

80. No problem /nt

[Art_from_Ark]

10. Holy burqua, Batman!

I thought the Arkansas hunting and fishing rights amendment was silly, but this takes the cake!

Congratulations, Oklahoma! :rofl:

[Skittles]

13. KEEP FEAR ALIVE!

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

15. Sanity may have won last Saturday, but fear and stupidity won last night.

[dana_b]

17. really?!

they actually voted on this.... big facepalm

[alanquatermass]

58. They actually did, Dana!

Know something? I do believe these Okies are every bit as stupid as the laws they were repudiating (and that is pretty fucking stupid indeed)

I mean, granted, Sharia Law is sick and twisted and backward and allows for the mistreatment of women and homosexuals -- who's saying it doesn't? -- but the idea that it could ever take hold in this country is beyond moronic.

I'm glad I live in California.

[Wednesdays]

69. Our state didn't just vote for it, it was a 3-1 margin landslide!

:banghead: I swear, I'm on the other side of the looking-glass.

[a la izquierda]

18. English is also now the official language of my fair state.

What nobody is pointing out is that it isn't just sharia law, it's international law as well. So, the republicans just told any international business concerns that might have wanted to contract in oklahoma that it's US law or no law, end of story. No loopholes, nothing. Way to go, you regressive fucking morons.

I will be starting my class in Spanish today.

[StandingInLeftField]

31. Hey! Me too!

Nicaragua or Costa Rica?

[KamaAina]

45. You mean the "offical" language?

:dunce:

I caught the international law part, too. I imagine that will swiftly put OK state courts on a collision course with Federal courts.

[a la izquierda]

57. Yeah, the offical language...

buffoons. The lot of 'em.

[h9socialist]

20. Jeez! What a bunch of pig-ignorant, half-wit goobers!!!

[LeftishBrit]

21. Did they have shariah law in Oklahoma before?!

[onehandle]

26. Good question. Maybe we should carpet bomb them. Just in case.

Get 'em there before they come here!

[Capitalocracy]

22. Ridiculous about the Shariah, but I'm even more confused about the second part...

What does that mean exactly, "international law"? Isn't that a meaningless term except where it concerns treaties that we as a nation sign into and which are therefore domestic law? Isn't that completely, unequivocally unconstitutional?

[primavera]

50. It is completely, unequivocally unconstitutional

International law is incorporated into federal law and federal law trumps state law.

[Capitalocracy]

51. Makes me wonder how long this will go on

before somebody with enough authority either declares it unconstitutional or sets a completely nonsensical precedent that our constitution simply means nothing when it comes to honoring our international treaties.

[NuttyFluffers]

61. all unconstitutional laws are "enforceable" until challenged. thus, challenge ASAP.

if no one says anything and everyone else follows authority blindly, well, then there's no challenge and the unconstitutional law "stands." :)

[XemaSab]

63. How long do you think they would last

if China decided to boycott? :P

[NuttyFluffers]

82. that's a funny thought! unyielding force meet immovable object?

:evilgrin:

[Thor_MN]

67. Are there no Native American reservations in OK?

IIRC, Native American reservations are sovereign nations... I know conservations have trouble with the whole sovereign nation thing, but did OK just ban Native American law aw well?

[jberryhill]

81. Yes

Much of Oklahoma was Indian Territory, and many Cherokee were force-marched there from the south along the Trail of Tears.

[Quantess]

23. Congratulations!

I can see how sharia law would be a huge threat in Oklahoma. Finally, they can wrest control out of the muslim fundamentaalist's grubby hands.

[HillWilliam]

24. That's it. There it is. America has lost its collective

fucking mind.

[onehandle]

25. Good. I was really worried. Now they need to ban Bigfoot. nt

[Bragi]

27. Just ask Molly Norris about Sharia law. Oh wait, you can't...

Actually, you can't ask American cartoonist Molly Norris about anything, since she has been forced, on the advice of the FBI, to go into hiding and to change her identity because she has been accused of blasphemy against Islam, the punishment for which under Sharia law is death.

I think the serious political point on this matter for people of politically progressive views is this:

Yes, we can all go on about how stupid it is to have a question like that on the ballot, but I think it is more stupid (and arrogant) for us to dismiss as bigotry any and all concerns people may have about Islam.

We should instead start to think through and understand these concerns, and to engage with people who have such concerns, rather than just dismissing them all.

If we don't do this, we won't "win" the public debate on these matters, we will continue to be irrelevant to the discussion taking place, and to the concerns of many Americans.

And the right wing Tea Partiers will be happy to continue to reach out to concerned people without any confusing messages from us preaching moderation and tolerance.

[Lars77]

34. And this ballot initiative helps Molly Norris how? nt

[Bragi]

38. Response

My point wasn't about the ballot question itself. It's about the left not summarily declaring that any concerns and anxieties that people feel on this topic signal overt or hidden bigotry. While the ballot question and vote itself may be meaningless, we need to recognize that the anxieties that lurk behind this issue are quite real for many people.

[Lars77]

44. There is obviously a serious backdrop here,

but i think that this fear is completely irrational. There is no way Sharia law will ever end up in the courts of Oklahoma, the idea is completely ludicrus. So the threat is not there, although the fear is real. So then we have to ask, why are people afraid?

Because the media and politicians are using rhetoric to make people afraid, and then exploit that fear even more. For the media it's turned into profit, for the politicians it's turned into votes. And this is how fear manifests itself.

As someone further down the thread said, the census put Asians in OK at about 1,7%. The threat do not exist.

[beevul]

47. Why are people afraid?

The question might seem a befuddling one for a ballot in the heartland, but it stems from a New Jersey legal case in which a Muslim woman went to a family court asking for a restraining order against her spouse claiming he had raped her repeatedly. The judge ruled against her, saying that her husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties. The decision was later overruled by an appellate court, but the case sparked a firestorm.

Duncan secured support for the proposal on the state's Senate side from fellow Republican Anthony Sykes, who co-authored the measure.

"The fact that Sharia law was even considered anywhere in the United States is enough for me" to sign on, Sykes told CNN. "It should scare anyone that any judge in America would consider using that as precedent."



http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/28/oklahoma.sharia.question/

I believe this case has something to do with it.

[Lars77]

59. Interesting,

surely this must have had some consequences for the judge.

It's also interesting to note then, that this prop came in OK and not New Jersey.

[XemaSab]

64. That says more about the state of women's rights

than it does about Sharia law.

[Democat]

85. Did you mean Chuck Norris?

The tea party will continue reaching out to concerned Americans?

So will the KKK!

[glinda]

28. Conservatives in Canada were spreading this crap around too in order to

make people fearful. Well they succeeded here. stupid.

[PA Democrat]

29. And toe jams, too! Take that liberals!

[The Stranger]

32. Beyond the absurd . . .

Conflict of laws analysis and, in some cases, contract provisions, may require the application of foreign law. Presumably, this could include shariah law.

That this abstruse legal nicetie has become an issue in the electorate is beyond -- far, far beyond -- the absurd.

It's like living in another dimension.

[yellowcanine]

33. In other news, Oklahoma's legislature has voted to deny driver's licenses to Martians.

The sponsor of the legislation, Jeremiah Turdblossom (relationship to Karl Rove unknown) admitted that there have not been any instances of Martians applying for Oklahoma driver's licenses but said that, "this is a preemptive strike so that Martians do not get a toehold in Oklahoma and then we could have something like the War of the Worlds disaster that struck New Jersey in 1938." Reminded by a reporter that the incident he referred to was fictional, Turdblossom was unswayed. "You can't prove that it didn't happen, and as Vice President Dan Quayle noted in 1989, there are canals on Mars and that means Martians know something about transportation. So it stands to reason that Martians might be looking to drive on the highways and streets of Oklahoma. This legislation will stop them in their tracks."

Link to Quayle quote on canals on Mars:

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/526.html

[thereismore]

35. Holy shit, are you saying that 30% of Okees want sharia law? Scary! nt

[felix_numinous]

36. 2009 census puts Asians in OK

at a whopping 1.7%, I wonder how many of those people are from the Middle East, much less Muslim? One or two? They don't have a category for Middle Eastern people.

:crazy:

[PfcHammer]

37. "Dude, you have no Qur'an"

[Loki]

39. What's the collective IQ of Oklahoma........50?

Instead of the flu vaccine they need the "stoopid" vaccine.

[jberryhill]

40. Good - No More Of That "Ten Commandments" Stuff

I understand a lot of Oklahomans support the application of a set of foreign laws from the Bronze Age.

It's about time that was stopped.

[jmowreader]

46. We joke about this, but it's a serious issue

Re. Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court quoted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which is international law, of course) in telling Florida they could only give juveniles life-without-parole sentences in murder cases. Apparently there were a whole slew of things that could get your 10-year-old sent up forever, and now he has to kill someone for it.

http://www.crosstalkblog.com/2010/05/supreme-court-decision-based-on-international-law/

Anyway, the extremely-far-right latched onto this as an usurpation of America's sovereign right to throw juveniles in adult prison forever.

I think the Sharia law part is just icing on the cake to them; the real issue is getting the US out of the UN.

[felix_numinous]

48. Thank you for clarification,

there was a good link in the comment section:

http://stopdirectfile.org/

[Capitalocracy]

52. Shariah law isn't the icing on the cake

It's the bullshit excuse they came up with to shred the Constitution.

[jmowreader]

53. No, international law was the bullshit excuse

I think they just threw in Sharia law as a slam on our "Illegitimate Muslim So-Called President With The Insane Fascist Christian Preacher" (who he uses as a kind of beard) because, you know, President Obama wants nothing more than to make Sharia the supreme law of the land. Or something like that. Anyway.

[alanquatermass]

88. My theory? This is just racist bullshit

If a black man wasn't President, we wouldn't be dealing with this crap.

[jberryhill]

70. "Quoting" and "Relying Upon" are two different things

Unfortunately, most people do not understand how court decisions or legal reasoning works.

No court in the US is "applying" Sharia law or foreign law to the decision rendered in any case.

A court MAY enforce a private arbitration agreement in which the parties have agreed to any sort of decisional authority.

Also, courts may often cite "persuasive authority" where there is no "controlling authority" on a questions, and this often takes the form of what amounts to a law review or survey of other state laws, international agreements, how other legal systems handle similar circumstances on point, etc. That is utterly normal and in no way amounts to "Sharia law" being applied to decide a case, any more than a passing reference to, say, the Bible, is an application of what amounts to the same thing.

[ProudDad]

49. Exactly! They already have a perfectly disgusting criminal-injustice system already

one that locks up more people than most "Sharia" systems...

Especially those pesky Brown and Black people...

And pot smokers...(isn't pot legal under Sharia law?)

Idiots...

Typical "wedge issue" as the Earth heats up...

[Dash87]

54. How stupid.

As if Sharia law could ever happen in the US anyways. lol... :eyes: :)

♥

[Dash87]

55. How stupid.

As if Sharia law could ever happen in the US anyways. lol... :eyes: :)

♥

[Bragi]

56. Apparently CAIR thinks its a serious matter

CAIR to Announce Suit Challenging Oklahoma Anti-Islam Amendment

By: PR Newswire
Nov. 3, 2010 06:30 PM


OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla., Nov. 3, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On Thursday, November 4, the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) will hold a news conference with religious and civil rights leaders in the State Capitol Building to announce the filing of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an anti-Islam ballot measure (State Question 755) passed in yesterday's election. The measure amends the state constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic law or international law when making a ruling.

WHAT: CAIR-OK News Conference to Announce Legal Challenge to Anti-Islam Ballot Measure

WHEN: Thursday November 4, 2010, 2 p.m.

WHERE: State Capitol Building, 2nd Floor in the Press Room

CONTACT: CAIR-Oklahoma Executive Director Muneer Awad, 405-248-5853, E-Mail: [e-mail]

Law Professor: Ban on Sharia Law 'a Mess' (CNN)

http://tinyurl.com/2d9w8d8

America's Sharia Hysteria (Daily Beast)

http://tinyurl.com/2gycns3

What Is Shariah and Why Does It Matter? (Huffington Post)

http://tinyurl.com/2e9nmbt

Speakers at the news conference will include:

* Muneer Awad -- Executive Director, CAIR-OK

* Chuck Thornton -- Deputy Director, ACLU-Oklahoma

* Imad Enchassi -- Imam, Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City (ISGOC)

* Nathaniel Batchelder -- Director, Central Oklahoma Human Rights Association (COHRA)

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

Become a Fan of CAIR on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/pages/CAIR/42590232694

Subscribe to CAIR's E-Mail List

http://tinyurl.com/cairsubscribe

Subscribe to CAIR's Twitter Feed

http://twitter.com/cairnational

CONTACT: CAIR-Oklahoma Executive Director Muneer Awad, 405-248-5853, E-Mail: [e-mail]; CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, or 202-488-8787, E-Mail: [e-mail]; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, 202-341-4171, E-Mail: [e-mail]

SOURCE Council on American-Islamic Relations
Published Nov. 3, 2010— Reads 242
Copyright © 2010 SYS-CON Media, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.

[lynne]

65. Regarding sharia law restriction, sounds like separation of church and state -

- which is a good thing. Not sure why they felt a need to address it now - maybe its come up in a past case - but I support the separation of any and all churches - be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc, - and the state.

[jberryhill]

76. Could you please answer a question?

A restaurant owner, who advertises "Kosher food" signs a contract with a supplier for a shipment of Kosher meat to the restaurant.

The supplier ships the meat.

The restaurant owner refuses the shipment of meat and refuses payment, claiming the meat is not Kosher.

The supplier sues the restaurant owner, takes him to court, and claims the meat was Kosher. The supplier has a Rabbi witness who explains that the meat was Kosher in accordance with Jewish law.

The restaurant owner defends, and produces his own Rabbi witness who testifies that the meat was not Kosher in accordance with Jewish law.

What, in your mind, do you think the court is going to have to decide in order to reach a judgment in this contract dispute?

The question is WAS THE MEAT KOSHER?

The court may look to ordinary commercial standards in the Kosher meat trade, and may look to cases where the specific question may have been resolved. If there are no local cases on point, the court might look to, for example, industry standards in Israel and any relevant rulings there.

But, yes, courts have to face these kinds of questions every damned day. The problem is that civics education is so god-damned broken in this country, that people have really stupid ideas about how the world actually works.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

74. Maybe they also voted to prevent right wing fundamentalist law as well

Oh no, wait, they elected them to the governorship and all the seats in Congress as well.

So they rejected one form of fundamentalism while overwhelmingly endorsing another

Very clever people!

[jberryhill]

77. It's still an infringement of the right to contract, either way

The Constitution protects the right to contract.

If I contract with you to sell me Kosher food, then I have a right to do so, and I have a right to go to court to enforce that contract.

99% of the folks commenting on this matter are, quite frankly, too god-damned dumb to understand the consequences here.

[Bragi]

83. Alternately...

They may suspect that allowing Sharia law to be used in courts could have ramifications well beyond adjudicating contracts that touch upon the authenticity of religion-blessed foodstuffs.

An example might be attempting to limit the First Amendment rights of Americans by trying to criminalize anyone who engages in speech or other currently-legal forms of expression (such as burning holy books, for example) that are considered sacrilegious and banned under Sharia law.

[Democat]

84. That will teach the Red Chinese a lesson!

And Russia too! We've got to win this war!

The communists won't try that again!

[One_Life_To_Give]

86. American Society of International Law?

A quick google search found for starters a paper in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on International Law and it's application to Federal and specifically Constitutional law. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No1_Pryoronline.pdf

Also found the website fir the American Society of International Law which purports to be a resource for Federal and State judges in applying International Law to US court decisions. http://www.asil.org/resources-for-judges.cfm


It would also appear that Scalia has written on the subject and the adoption of Sharia Courts in Canada had alot to do with the hysteria around this issue.

[Bragi]

87. Not in Canada, actually

I think the only instance of the use of Sharia law in Canada was in Ontario, where up to 2005 one could cite Sharia law among willing participants to decide issues related to family law.

This was revoked in 2005 and there are no longer any Sharia-based adjudications allowed in Ontario.

See http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20050912/mcguinty_shariah_050911/