More

Oklahoma Sharia Law Blocked By Federal Judge

Sharia

First Posted: 11/08/10 05:01 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:10 PM ET

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the order after an Oklahoma man filed a lawsuit claiming the amendment stigmatized his religion and would invalidate his will, which he said is partially based on Islamic Law, also known as Sharia Law.

"My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith," said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. "Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose."

The measure, State Question 755, was approved with 70 percent of the vote in the Nov. 2 general election. The judge's order prevents the state Election Board from certifying the results of that vote, which it had planned to do Tuesday afternoon.

The order will remain in effect until a Nov. 22 hearing on a preliminary injunction.
Awad, a law school graduate who has not been admitted to practice in Oklahoma, was congratulated by Muslims and other supporters following Miles-Lagrange's ruling. Between 20,000 and 30,000 Muslims live in the state.

"We're confident in the case. We're confident in the claims we are making," said Awad, who filed the lawsuit Thursday. "Today's ruling is a reminder of the strength of our nation's legal system and the protections it grants to religious minorities."

The measure's author, Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, attended the brief court hearing and said afterward he was surprised by Miles-Lagrange's decision.

"It thwarts the will of the people," said Duncan, an attorney who was elected district attorney in the northern Oklahoma counties of Osage and Pawnee in the general election.

Duncan has said the constitutional amendment was not intended as an attack on Muslims but an effort to prevent activist judges from relying on international law or Islamic law when ruling on legal cases.

In 2007, Duncan rejected a Quran as a gift from a council created by Gov. Brad Henry, explaining that "most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology."

The constitutional amendment was one of several on Oklahoma's ballot that critics said pandered to conservatives and would move the state further to the right.

Among other things, Awad's lawsuit alleges the measure transforms Oklahoma's Constitution
into "an enduring condemnation" of Islam by singling it out and barring courts from referring to Islamic law. It also alleges it violates the First Amendment's prohibition against laws regarding the establishment of religion.

Legal experts also have questioned the measure. Joseph Thai, a professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Law, said the ballot measure is "an answer in search of a problem" and that there is no danger of international law or Sharia law overtaking the American legal system.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international ...
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international ...
Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,049
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (39 total)
  1 of 4  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS

photo
LeftLeanWing 06:10 PM on 11/08/2010
Somewhere in the Republican/Con/Teabagger playbook it is written in their continuous Fear Initiative..
.
"
To motivate our folks with their penchant for Fear of Islam.... push anti-Sharia Law initatives .. since the anti-Gay initiatives and anti-Latino initiatives have run their course
"
Republicans are much more politically savvy than Democrats.... they now how to stir up Fear of the Other  Read More...
06:49 PM on 12/02/2010
I have no problem with this law because all it does is reinforce the already existing laws that should constrain a judge 1/ decisions should be based on the US laws and 2/ no religion should be given preference in a decision.

That this law has been challenged by CAIR (a organization with terrorist ties) saying that it interferes with his freedom of religion (and the organization has been known to state they want Sharia courts in the US) makes me think that the law might actually be a even better idea than before it was passed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:32 PM on 11/18/2010
SQ755 is not anti-Islam, it is anti-Sharia law and there is a big difference between the two. No Muslims are against Islam but many oppose Sharia law (http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=6302)

If we assume that SQ755 will be rewritten to meet Constitutional standards, and then assume that all the states will pass it with large margins, which part of the Muslim community, here and abroad, will be offended?

1) The part of the American Muslim community that should not be here in the first place (because they are colonists), and

2) the part of worldwide Islam that does not wish us well (Islamists).

Such an event would be our tardy answer to bin Laden's declaration of war on us in 1998. It would be our long delayed identification of the enemy's ideology--finally.
01:45 PM on 11/18/2010
I love your lucid posts. F&F
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:30 PM on 11/18/2010
Good points :)
09:03 AM on 11/17/2010
Look to the mess in Europe to see where we are headed.
Facts are facts
08:58 AM on 11/17/2010
Our self-indulgent cultural apologist "ideals" are putting the human rights of our daughters, sisters and mothers at risk...
05:54 AM on 11/17/2010
Cannot find my post - obviously Huffington Post is not interested in opinions that they do not agree with... there seems to be a pattern of censorship... sharia is alive and well!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
roninroshi
Oni ni Kanabo (鬼に金棒 )
11:45 PM on 12/15/2010
I have had many posts vanish today when commenting on anything related to Islam or Muslims...
When checking "My Activity" the pages i visited were gone as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peztopia
Does this font make my micro-bio look big?
11:49 PM on 12/15/2010
I've had post disappear like that too. Nothing on my activity either. I thought it was my computer.
11:24 PM on 11/16/2010
I suppose the simple answer would be to pass an amendment prohibiting state courts from considering any form of religious or international law whatsoever when deciding cases.
02:10 PM on 11/12/2010
This law seems to me to be height of busy-body-ness, stupidity and political pandering. I was not aware of Sharia interfering with the execution state or federal law. One big Islamic straw-man set up by tough guy OK politician.

And by-the-way doesn't his law have the potential to completely back fire by coding Islam into the state constitution, and thus forcing courts to consider it. He is in effect officially recognizing a religion he holds so much disdain for.

Also what ever happened to conservative conservatives who didn't believe in writing a bunch of new laws to satisfy their whims?
01:50 AM on 11/12/2010
On behalf of Oklahoma, I'm sorry. Most everyone down here that isn't crazy understands that this question was not meant to succeed a constitutional challenge. It was simply meant to bring the crazies to the polls, which it did. /sadface
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:49 PM on 11/11/2010
So I live in Oklahoma, and I voted against this state question - and I was quite dismayed that it passed. The idea that Sharia law is coming to Oklahoma is ridiculous. Many of the concepts within Sharia law (depending on who you talk to because Sharia laws means different things to different Muslims) would be violations of US federal and/or state laws anyway. This was a purely political move. It is completely unnecessary, especially when there are so many more important things to be discussing like the economy or immigration. I hope that it the injunction rules that it is unconstitutional and cannot be added as an amendment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:15 AM on 11/15/2010
I hope that it the injunction rules that it is unconstitutional and cannot be added as an amendment.
=============================

Why?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:20 PM on 11/17/2010
Because I feel that the law does three things - 1) will cost Oklahoma a fortune in lawsuits 2) creates unnecessary fear towards Muslims and Islam 3) ignores the US Constitution supremacy clause and 1st amendment.

Of course, I would never want the courts to use Sharia law when ruling - but we already have a supremacy clause and a 1st amendment that separates church from state to prevent that from happening. Since Sharia law is inherently a religious law, it could never be used in the US. Even if it was attempted (like in New Jersey), it would be overturned (like the ruling was). Because all the necessary precautions are already in place that would prevent Sharia law from being used, the fact that it was brought to a vote in a state question means it was simply a political tactic to instigate fear. It was created so that those who voted against it could be labeled as those who want Sharia law here - right here in Oklahoma!

I suppose if we must enact a law in Oklahoma (although I think the supremacy clause suffices) we could create a law that prevented any religious or international law to be used - without singling out Sharia law. This is why I believe it is simply a fear tactic and will provide inspiration for conspiracy theories. The CAIR in Oklahoma has already received numerous death threats and horrible messages.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:25 PM on 11/17/2010
Because I feel that the law does three things - 1) will cost Oklahoma a fortune in lawsuits 2) creates unnecessary fear towards Muslims and Islam 3) ignores the US Constitution supremacy clause and 1st amendment.

Of course, I would never want the courts to use Sharia law when ruling - but we already have a supremacy clause and a 1st amendment that separates church from state to prevent that from happening. Since Sharia law is inherently a religious law, it could never be used in the US. Even if it was attempted (like in New Jersey), it would be overturned (like the ruling was). Because all the necessary precautions are already in place that would prevent Sharia law from being used, the fact that it was brought to a vote in a state question means it was simply a political tactic to instigate fear. It was created so that those who voted against it could be labeled as those who want Sharia law here - right here in Oklahoma!

I suppose if we must enact a law in Oklahoma (although I think the supremacy clause suffices) we could create a law that prevented any religious or international law to be used - without singling out Sharia law. This is why I believe it is simply a fear tactic and will provide inspiration for conspiracy theories. The CAIR has already received numerous death threats and horrible messages.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MadamDeal
10:32 PM on 11/10/2010
Oklahoma's state motto used to be "Thank God for Mississippi".
Not any more.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Ergon
Man From Atlan
06:26 PM on 11/10/2010
The good people of Oklahoma need to respect the 1st Amendment, otherwise they should not complain when their 2nd Amendment rights are taken away from their cold, dead hands :)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
allengoldchain
Proud to be a 53%! I always pay my fair share!
05:58 PM on 11/10/2010
Judges should come to a decision based on the laws that we are all governed by. Religious laws have no place in our courts.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Ergon
Man From Atlan
06:28 PM on 11/10/2010
Let me guess: you don;'t know what the 1st amendment stands for.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
allengoldchain
Proud to be a 53%! I always pay my fair share!
06:46 PM on 11/10/2010
Who doesn't know the first amendment. So when has religious laws dictate decisions made in the courts?

Site the case please. Provide a link
05:13 PM on 11/10/2010
This law is like a law that makes it illegal to murder aliens. Since aliens are not humans, they wouldn't be covered under our current murder laws. And since it would be morally equivalent to murder kill peaceful aliens, there is nothing wrong with having a law against it. But as far as I am aware, there are no aliens.
photo
Overshadow
intellectual honesty, one issue at a time
01:22 PM on 11/10/2010
Maybe the Federal judge was considering international law at the time?

It seems sound from a legal perspective to ONLY consider that system/rule of law that you are governed by. We can't have separate courts for separate beliefs.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
LiberalBuzz
Voting republican is voting against America.
08:56 PM on 11/10/2010
You missed the point didn't you?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:00 AM on 11/10/2010
In a penetrating analysis of the roots of the incompatibility of Sharia and Western concepts of law and justice, David Goldman shows why Sharia family courts contradict the basic intent of Western law--the government's monopoly on the use of violence:



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE25Ak01.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
allengoldchain
Proud to be a 53%! I always pay my fair share!
06:02 PM on 11/10/2010
Sorry it doesn't belong in this country. We have seen already a down right rejection of these cases by our legal system. Take the case in NJ where the judge tried to justify the rape of a Muslim woman by her husband because he had the right through sharia. That judge was overruled by higher courts.