Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Federal Appeals Court Overturns Oklahoma State Ban On Sharia Law

In 2010, an amendment banning any Islamic (Shariah) or international law from being implemented in Oklahoma courts was approved by an overwhelming 70 percent of  voters. But, the ban was shot down by a federal appeals court in Denver on Tuesday because it violated Muneer Awad's First Amendment Rights. And can you guess what organization Awad is executive director of in Oklahoma?  Bingo. Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR).  Yes, poor Awad bemoaned the fact that his whole life would be affected (including his will upon his death) if the law took effect, and so he won his lawsuit. 

The Oklahoma amendment, called "Save Our State" was deemed unconstitutional because it discriminated against religions. It was actually blocked soon after its approval by dhimmi  U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange because she knew he would prevail. Isn't that telling. And, although the amendment called Save Our State was aimed at banning all religious laws, the backers made the mistake of using the term 'Islamic' as an example. 

"The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law."

Because the amendment mentioned Sharia Law twice, the appeals court determined it was an attack on Muslims, so bye-bye ban. Another reason it was blocked was none of the backers were able to prove that Sharia Law (or any other international law) had been used in Oklahoma courts. Yet!

"When the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not outweigh Mr. Awad's in having his constitutional rights protected," the court said.

So, the so-called constitutional rights of one individual takes precedence over the will of the people, it seems. And I guess 'separation of church and state', part of that same First Amendment, means absolutely nothing.  Because we can't ruffle their feathers, right?!

This court decision, sadly, will set a terrible precedent. Down the line, it will pave the way for implementation of Sharia Law in our court systems.


unrighteousfury said...

The first amendment does not say anything about the separation of church and state.

You are referring to this

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It says freedom of religion not freedom from religion. In fact the only constitution I am aware of that actually says anything about the separation of church and state is the soviet union's.

Yes the constitutional rights of one individual do take precedence over the will of the people. This is why we are a republic and not a democracy, so that 55% can't tell 45% what to do.

Not saying I agree with the ruling since sharia law is also unconstitutional, as it ignores the rule of law according to the constitution as well.

This is why the constitution can answer most of these questions as long as it is followed. Yes it's true you can't discriminate based on religion. If the religion on the other hand has rules that go against the rule of law as set down by the constitution such as "Sharia Law" then it should have been equally ruled unconstitutional.

Cranky White Woman said...

The dhimmis in government are selling out We, The People. They're committing cultural suicide, and taking the rest of us along with's a murder-suicide, IMO. Anybody who is in a position of authority MUST BE MADE to study Sharia before making rulings on whether or not it can be used in our courts. Sharia is incompatible with our western freedoms and democracy. These leftist judges are handing down rulings that are absolutely treasonous!

Incognito said...

yep.. double sigh. I just think it's easier for them not to have to deal with the likes of CAIR.

I just hope I'm not around to see this country go further down the tubes. though I probably will be.

Incognito said...

@URF. didn't see this comment until now.
Yes, of course, technically you are right. but Jefferson did write as much in a letter to the Danbury Baptist assoc.

"If the religion on the other hand has rules that go against the rule of law as set down by the constitution such as "Sharia Law" then it should have been equally ruled unconstitutional."

and it does, so it should be.

unrighteousfury said...

He did indeed. I have a copy of the letter [not the original of course] framed on my wall.Many people don't really understand what the letter was all about in context.

You are right too. These judges are radical in the fact that they no longer seem to care what the constitution says. This discourages me sometimes as well. If judges don't understand the constitution then who the hell are we supposed to turn to who does [in my case Ron Paul] that though is a battle we shall wage another day.

I agree with Cranky White Woman. The government is selling us out. Makes me sick!

Incognito said...

well, if you had the original you could be a very wealthy man.

Even if Ron Paul were to become president there's not much he'd be able to do to force those judges to adhere to the constitution. not like they can be fired.