Nov. 3rd News Oklahoma) Law professor: Ban on Sharia law 'a mess'

[GassyKitten]

Oklahoma's new ban on Islamic law poses potential legal hurdles.

Oklahoma voters on Tuesday approved a measure that bans the application of Islamic law and orders judges in the state to rely only on federal law when deciding cases. State Rep. Rex Duncan, a Republican, was the primary author of the measure, which amends that state constitution.

Watch how the ballot initiative's author and others feel about the ban

For months, legal experts had lambasted the initiative as biased toward a religion and potentially harmful to local businesses that engage in commerce with international companies. It also presents potential constitutional law problems, experts say. Is Oklahoma's state constitution now in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... "?

There has never been a previous case in the state in which Sharia law was applied, said Rick Tepker, the first member of the University of Oklahoma School of Law faculty to try a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tepker called the passage of the measure "a mess" with implications unknown until a case that challenges it arises.

"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he said. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren't going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

What is Sharia law, and how is it defined in the ban?

Businesses that engage with international companies may also find the ban is a stumbling block, Tepker said. The ban also requires all state business to be conducted in English.

Duncan has said he knew of no precedent in the state's history in which a judge applied Sharia law. But he backed the measure, he told reporters, as a "pre-emptive strike." (Source)

*RELATED*

Oklahoma voters may have accidentally outlawed the 10 Commandments


Judge blocks absurd Oklahoma ban on Sharia law
* November 9th, 2010




I guess it's no surprise that our guarantee of freedom of religion has to be curtailed a bit in the case of certain Muslims practices, wherein they may believe Sharia law as part of that religion of peace, entitles Muslim males to cut off their daughters heads or kill their wives.

Oh hell, where's the ACLU!? *looks around* /sarcasm

[TruthAddict]

Why would they have to make a law about this? That New Jersey case had a fucking stupid judge. You use the law of the United States of America in an American court. This isn't Saudi Arabia.

[BnW]

The judge in the NJ case was wrong but, just to be clear, her ruling had absolutely nothing to do with Sharia Law. Nothing, zippy, nada, zilch.

This entire thing is nothing more than dressed up racism for political purposes and is a flat out embarrassment to this US and I'm ashamed that any part of my country had something to do with this nonsense.

[GassyKitten]

(12-11-2010 01:26 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  Why would they have to make a law about this? That New Jersey case had a fucking stupid judge. You use the law of the United States of America in an American court. This isn't Saudi Arabia.

I'm thinking the concern revolves around the first Amendment and how Muslims freedom of religion guarantee, when their religion often times can include implementation of Sharia, could be argued as entitled to practice as a separate law governing Muslims in America, under Sharia law/courts jurisdiction. (Just a guess)


What is Sharia Law? Why it threatens America. Wafa Sultan explains



Sharia Courts Operating in Britain (Sept.14,2008)

August 08, 2010
Sharia Law in Canada and Britain (American Thinker)

[BnW]

Sharia Law does not threaten America at all and the entire argument is bullshit. The US has a legal system and the First Amendment does not in any way provide an "out" for that. Now, Muslims can decide, amongst themselves, to form Sharia Courts within the US to hear cases but those courts will have absolutely no legal authority and if the outcomes run contrary to US laws then the people involved risk criminal prosecution.

As for these so-called "Sharia Courts" in the UK, the UK has agreed to limited instances of resolving petty commercial disputes for Muslims who are willing to submit to them. There is no requirement to do so the authority of these courts is very limited.

What is missed in all this fear mongering is that parties in both the US and UK already have the right to submit themselves to arbitration, which happens somewhat outside the legal system. So, parties are always able to seek a redress of their disputes outside the courts using any type of law they want: Sharia, Talmudic, etc. Whether or not it will hold up in front of a judge is another matter. And, if it's not consistent with law, it will not.

Finally, in the NJ case, the judge did not rule based on Sharia Law. What the judge did was rule - erroneously as she was thankfully over turned - that a subjective religious belief in a man's dominance over his wife was a defense against marital rape and other crimes in determining if a restraining order should be issued. The decision had nothing to do with Sharia at all, it just so happened that the man in front of her based his subjective religious belief on Sharia. If she had a Southern Baptist in front of her who said he could not be held accountable for beating his wife to a pulp because his subject view of the bible said she had it coming, the judge would have likely reached the same erroneous conclusion. Fortunately, smarter heads prevailed on this "God said it was ok" defense but the point is it has absolutely nothing to do with Sharia.

[GassyKitten]

I think it's a big responsibility to be ashamed for any act anyone else has committed in this matter. I also don't think it's racism that's at play here. I think rather it's fear and ignorance, based on what stereotypes certain Muslims have generated for the world to see as the methods and practices of Islam, when Sharia is practiced in Muslim countries. And as such people may think it's likely to come here, given how it appears in the media Islam gets special treatment in certain respects.

It's good to know Sharia will never stand in America, legally. However, I don't think we can say it's not practiced in Muslim communities, as a defense it's part of their culture. And the fear and ignorance there, precludes victims from reporting the abuse to the proper authorities .

[BnW]

I'm not defending Islam but I don't see how these calls to protect Americans from Sharia Law can be viewed as anything but racism. I agree it's playing peoples fears and ignorance but it's still racist (or maybe "religionist?). The jackass in OK who did this is a politician and used fear of the brown Muslim man to help his campaign, which is about as disgusting a tactic as there is.

As for your comment on what is practices in Muslim communities, I can't comment on what goes on in these communities within the US or UK because I don't know. What I can say is that if a Muslim does something that violates a criminal statute in either country, Sharia is not going to provide any kind of defense, irrespective of what his community may think about it.

[GassyKitten]

I would make the observation that what would be considered racism in this matter, is that what would imply Islam is the religion of the "brown man".

When in truth, Islam enjoys a diverse population because it is not a faith exclusive to one race, but rather is a political ideology enshrouded in a faith system.

[BnW]

Yes, it is but we're generally not doing cavity searches on Asian Muslims at the airports. I do a decent amount of traveling and some of it is international and I see who is getting pulled over and it's anyone who looks like they are of mideastern decent, irrespective of religion.

This fear of Sharia law is not a fear based on, for example, Indonesian Muslims coming over, it's about people of Arabic origins. Most people are not even thinking about these people being Muslims when it comes to things like this.

[GassyKitten]

(12-11-2010 09:20 PM)BnW Wrote:  Yes, it is but we're generally not doing cavity searches on Asian Muslims at the airports. I do a decent amount of traveling and some of it is international and I see who is getting pulled over and it's anyone who looks like they are of mideastern decent, irrespective of religion.

This fear of Sharia law is not a fear based on, for example, Indonesian Muslims coming over, it's about people of Arabic origins. Most people are not even thinking about these people being Muslims when it comes to things like this.

I don't travel very often, so I've not had the opportunity to witness what goes on at airports. However, while it sounds like racial profiling of a sort, it could be because those who are of Arabic origins are the most vocal protesters against America, and as such prompt after 911, the impression that is the profile that is out to do the most harm. Especially when Islamic terrorism is racist and xenophobic and exacted so as to persecute other religions. So, for all that people argue our security measures in America are guilty of, as far as racist, xenophobic, etc... What those measures are in place to preclude is an offensive assault based on those very factors that prompt the act in the first place, that protocols to prohibit those offenses are said to exhibit in kind.

While we do remember, at least I hope TSA at the very least remembers,Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab. A Nigerian terror suspect, a black man who dressed as a woman and boarded a plane in Amsterdam without luggage, without the proper attire so as to disembark in Detroit upon arrival in winter and was intending to blow up the flight he was on, who does not fit the Arab profile but none the less bears a name that isn't like unto Joe Smith, and as such would be worthy of a profile simply because of his name, wasn't even checked at Amsterdam airport.

And what makes matters of travel security worse, is there's not a uniform practice of security employed in every country at airports. So while America may appear to employ racial or religious profiling tactics in checking certain passengers that look a certain way, what's missing and thus putting a risk factor in the mix, is not enough is being done at other airports so as to avoid that racial profiling accusation while those missed, are terrorists! As was the case with Mr. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab.
Who in their right mind doesn't have a flag raise when that "woman" had no luggage, and no coat so as to arrive in dead of winter in Detroit USA on a one way ticket?
The fear factor plays a large part in all of this of course. The profile of the terrorist Muslims on 911 was Arab males. The crowds that wanted the Florida minister dead for threatening to burn the Koran, who burned his image in effigy in Afghanistan and other Arab States, lend the impression those visages that profile, are those who are racist against America in their own right.

While Al-Qaeda and other Terrorist Muslim groups are actively recruiting non Arab looking people, to carry out their missions. Because they know that a blond haired blue eyed Aryan woman, would be more apt to go through security with a mission firmly in place, than would a Burka clad Arab woman on the same track.

Fear, makes people irrational. They're willing to set aside virtually everything in order to be placated and feel safe for the sacrifice. What I think plays into that twisted game on both sides, is that the Arab Muslims who are not supportive of the terrorist intent, aren't as vocally opposed as are their counterparts who scream death to America, often enough even from our own streets,while enjoying the freedom to speak those words, in the country they despise. While a man who lit a Koran on fire in front of Park51, intending to exercise his same first amendment rights, was arrested as soon as the lighter flame hit the page and it was all captured on film, and that man later lost his job with the Transit authority even though he was in civilian clothing and off duty at the time.

There's a double standard in place in this country when it comes to anything Muslim or Islamic, already. In place it appears because we don't want to piss off a cult who's followers are more than willing to kill us for it.
So, when that cult does practice Sharia law in their own community, because it's a cultural thing, without care of what western law says to the contrary, it's an issue. Especially when pandering to Muslims and Islam is already something that's already able to be witnessed in various aspects of American society, so that they're accorded special exemptions or privileges over others, simply because of their faith or profile, the Sharia law issue isn't a mute point at all. Not when "racism" "xenophobia" "freedom of religion" are all keywords that can be employed to declare prohibiting Sharia from being practiced in the Muslim communities here are a violation of cultural tradition, religion.

I think it's a precautionary matter, in drafting the kind of law that went forth in Oklahoma, before the block. Because the Muslim community does not cease to practice Sharia simply because immigrants enter into a country where Sharia is not permitted to be practiced legally.
And if it is practiced and found out, the only way to truly prosecute it fairly it would seem, is to make a law against it's practice so that non-compliance can then be addressed in a manner that doesn't result in accusations of the aforementioned "racism" "xenophobia" or "religious persecution".