Why the anti-Shari’ah bill that passed in OK is poppycock

The anti-shari’ah ballot proposal passed yesterday in Oklahoma stating that shari’ah nor international law can be used in Oklahoma law.  The passage of this is not only a moot issue for the most part, but it will probably be overturned when it is legally challenged.

First, this ballot measure appears to clearly violate the 1st Amendment, which is one of the most important foundations of the U.S. Constitution.  The measure clearly singled out shari’ah thus Islam without mentioning other religions or “religious law.”  Even if it clearly included Catholic Canon Law or Judiac Law as well, this would still be improper.

Second, given that Oklahoma is governed by the U.S. Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution, not the Torah, Bible or any other religious text, there was no practical need for the ballot initiative to begin with EXCEPT for some politicians and activists to capitalize off of Islamophobia.  Even with this ballot measure passing, religious practice will still be considered regarding martial arbitration in Oklahoma.

Ironically, Oklahoma is a state which has the death penalty in which people, like in other states, have been placed on “death row” for crimes involving circumstantial evidence.  Many innocent persons in America, primarily minorities, have been unjustly executed over the years as has been clearly documented.  The reason behind the Illinois moratorium on executions is a clear reference.  It is a main principle in the books of judging in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) that “it is better for the imam [judge] to err in pardoning a person than to err in punishing” per the saying of the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS). 

The other sad part of this whole discussion is that shari’ah does not even mean “Islamic law,” nor is shari’ah even a set codex of legislations and punishments.  Shari’ah is a path towards pleasing G-d, and the Qur’an doesn’t legislate one set model of governance to ensure security, tolerance and justice in any society. 

It is sad how divided our nation has become when we see a ballot measure such as this passed based upon Tea Party inspired brouhaha.

17 thoughts on “Why the anti-Shari’ah bill that passed in OK is poppycock

  1. Pingback: Why the anti-Shari’ah bill that passed in Oklahoma is poppycock « The Key To Power
  2. Your claim that the ballot measure violates the First Amendment is utter nonsense. Prohibiting the establishment of religion was introduced to the Constitution to prevent the US government from doing what England had done – it made Anglican Church doctrine its official religion. How is rejecting the principles of sharia as a basis for any court ruling equated with making the doctrine of a religious group the official religion of a state?

  3. Here we go again. The same old chorus of accusations that Americans are Islamophobic. WRONG! Americans are just beginning to wake up to the reality that Islam is not just a benign religion, but it is a political movement also. Alert Americans resist political movements when we reject their ideology and agenda. No Sir, it is not fear that is motivating us. I call it COURAGE in the face of political correctness and accusations of Islamophobia from operatives like you, CAIR, ISNA, MAS and others.

    READ ABOUT MUSLIM ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE BEING OUTED FOR THEIR SEDITION AGAINST AMERICA: http://harrisonburg-va.actforamericachapters.org/radicals-unveiled/

  4. Constitutional scholars say that the way the law singles out a particular religion violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but also point out that Shariah law has never been used in Oklahoma court decisions anyway.

    “Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don’t cry,” Rick Tepker of the University of Oklahoma Law School told CNN.

    “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.”

    http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk-elections/article/muslim-group-to-sue-okla-over-shariah-law-amendment/19702172

  5. Under Sharia law there is no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, no freedom of thought, no freedom of the press. In other words, Sharia is un-Constitutional and un-American. Sharia in fact violates the First Amendment. Sharia is Allah’s law and it is a violation of the separation of Church and State. Newt Gingrich has proposed a federal law to ban the use of Sharia in America. I fully supports this. Oklahoma has taken a courageous step in defending America from those seeking to establish a theocracy on our free soil and I applaud her for it. Sharia is, quite simply, Islam’s Trojan Horse and we must stop it.

  6. Sharia law is not religion, it is primarily a political systems of state — the state of Islamic Caliphate.

    Sharia law is counter to the US Constitution. If implemented fully into a society, all original laws are replaced by sharia law, with a resulting loss of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of just living, child marriages, and a total denial or women rights under their male superiors; all in conflict with US law.

    Say YES to US Constitution, NEVER to Sharia!!!

  7. Sadly to say this is another ploy by the muslims to stop Americans from keeping Shari’ah law or international law from being considered in American courts. I hate to burst your bubble, but the ten commandments are so embedded into our common law there is no way we would be able to take the ten commandments out of our court system. Just as Islamic countries would not be able to take Islam out of Shari’ah law. My question is, by what Constitutional right does a religion have to force its particular religious laws upon our American judiciary? If Islam and Shari’ah cannot be separated, then it is a particular religious dogma attached to a particular religious law, like Jews and their religious laws. Jews cannot force the American judiciary to follow their religious laws because that is a violation of church and state as defined by years of common law – by codifying the common law and federal law, OK is doing nothing less than what Arizona did with the immigration law. There is no judicial precedence that states that A RELIGION’S PARTICULAR BELIEFS CODIFIED BY ITS PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS LAWS SUPERSEDE THE LAWS OF AMERICA. These people can stuff it!

  8. If people would crack open a book on sharia laws (one such book is ‘Reliance of the Traveller’) you would find out the atrocities allowed under sharia.

    Here is an example of a few:

    o9: Jihad:, ‘…to wage war against the non-moslem…’ (for no other reason than they are non-moslems)

    The Arabic version of the law states:
    “Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (bazr in Arabic)- (this is called HufaaD). “ (Reliance of the Traveller, a classical manual of Islamic sacred law in Arabic with facing English text, commentary and appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (1994) p59. Note the English version falsely translates bazr as ‘prepuce ‘ of the clitoris!!)

    f1.3 Sharia law f1.3 says they are hypocrites (which is based on the koran) and if they don’t repent and go back to being a believer they are to be killed. …

    Sharia law: h8.17 The seventh category (of recipients of zakat) is those fighting for allah, meaning people engaged in islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration). They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; off weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (…. the expense involved in supporting such people’s families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).

    and the last one that I find really disgusting:
    o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation for killing:
    (1) a child or insane person….
    (2) a moslem for killing a non-moslem
    (3) … for killing an apostate…
    (4) a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.

  9. Again, the flaw with law is two fold.

    First, this makes unlawful in Oklahoma considering international law for legal rulings. What happens if there is a dispute between and Oklahoman corporation with a foreign one in which there is a contractual dispute??? What if a person is married or divorced in another country but is a native born or naturalized citizen???

    Second, no one religion or “religious law” can be singled out in any bill. This is a violation of the 1st Amendment. See the Establish Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment. Now if the Oklahoma Bill would have said that no religious laws can be factored into rulings including Catholic Canon Law, Judaic Law and Islamic Law, then that would be somewhat better. That would still be problematic in terms of martial arbitration and children custody and foster care issues in which the persons religions are factored into decisions historically in American courts.

    You all are giving emotional responses.

    • Rich debate and elected legislators will sort out the language for how exactly to prohibit sharia from court rulings. I want to see prohibition of sharia in each of our three branches of government.

  10. Reliance of the Traveler is a book of fiqh (jurisprudence) from the Shafi’i school of thought. You read a translation of a classical text written within a time period centuries ago in another land.

    Interpretation of rulings is much more dynamic and much more rich than what you read from ONE translation of a text written centuries ago.

    I could go to old Catholic rulings, Orthodox rulings and some Jewish rulings that would probably make your skin crawl too.

    Get for real!

  11. Appauld that anyone would even consider having Sharia law in AMERICA!! The laws come from our country, no other and no other people groups! I personally will fight to uphold our laws and constitution and keeping them sacred to the USA! This is an ongoing battle that the muslims will continue to try to use against us….and they will fail to do so as long as we unite against them!

  12. Again, shari’ah does not mean LAW. It is a spiritual path. Spirituality guides values, and values guides one’s politics. No law instituted by any state can block that in the hearts of the faithful.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sherman-a-jackson/what-is-shariah-and-why-d_b_710976.html

    Now, genital mutilations or so-called “honor crimes” have nothing to do with religion or shari’ah. So-called female circumcisions have pre-Islamic origins and are a practice of many people in Africa that are traditional religion followers and CHRISTIANS too. In the case of so-called “honor killings,” these are crimes of passion that take place all over the world. When Billy Bob in West Virginia catches his wife having sex with his cousin then shoots her dead, isn’t this an “honor killing?” No faith sanctions vigilantism.

    Regarding this being a “Christian nation,” I beg to differ. Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration of Independence, was not a Christian and was a key figure in ensuring that all people would free to practice their faith including “Mohammedans.” http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

    The statements that this is a “Christian nation” reminds me of your parent generation declaring to my parents that this is a “White nation.” You’re entitled to feel that way, but that doesn’t make it morally or legally correct.

  13. <> You know what? I find it ironic that a Muslim is giving us a lecture on humanitarianism. If you don’t like the way the way US courts operate you can simply pack your bags and go live in another country such as Saudi Arabia where Sharia Law is practiced. BUT be aware, if you are accused (not convicted by a jury of your peers, like here in the US) of a crime they simply cut your head off, publicly.

  14. Who said that I didn’t like the court system? It is the court system that found “separate but equal” being unconstitutional, torture being unconstitutional, etc.

    And I have full confidence that under the 1st Amendment, this ballot measure will be struck down in court. We’ll see what happens on Monday.

    Perhaps you may consider packing your bags.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s