Oklahoma Sharia Amendment Heads To Appeals Court

By Omar Sacirbey
c. 2011 Religion News Service

(RNS) An amendment to Oklahoma's constitution that bans state judges from considering Islamic law will face its next legal hurdle on Monday (Sept. 12) when a federal appeals court considers its constitutionality.

Just weeks after it was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters last November, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange ruled it unconstitutional, saying "the will of the 'majority' has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals."

The case now heads to the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the outcome could affect efforts to pursue similar legislation in more than 20 other states.

Muneer Awad, the director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations who filed the original suit to block the amendment, said a second legal victory would put pressure on conservative lawmakers who are pushing bills to block Sharia, or Islamic law.

"Despite knowing that these arguments are flawed, they're pursuing them for their own political reasons," Awad said.

While judges routinely consider religious law when deciding family or contract disputes that could not be settled by religious authorities, constitutional law supersedes religious law if they are found to be in conflict.

Opponents say the Oklahoma measure would invalidate civil documents like marital contracts and wills, which some people draft according to religious guidelines.

And by singling out Sharia among other religious laws, lawyers argued the Oklahoma amendment violates the First Amendment's prohibition on government preference for one religion over another.

Calls to the Oklahoma Attorney General's office were not returned. Supporters of the anti-Sharia measure say the amendment would not affect religiously guided civil documents as long as they don't run afoul of the Constitution.

"Just as Mr. Awad's First Amendment rights are fundamental, so too are the voting rights of the 695,000 Oklahomans who voted in favor of State Question 755," lawyers defending the referendum wrote in a March 28 brief that will be the basis of their arguments Monday.

"The results of their 'fundamental political right' to vote has been enjoined by this district court."

While many Muslims viewed the Oklahoma referendum as discriminatory and fueled by Islamophobia, they say it has also given them a chance to educate non-Muslims about Sharia and Islam.

"We've stepped up our outreach efforts, and I think we've been able to change a lot of minds," said Saad Mohammed, a spokesman for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City. "If the referendum were held again tomorrow, I think a lot fewer people would support it."

Comments

[GaveltoGavel]

11:54 AM on 09/12/2011

For those interested in seeing a list of all such bills introduced in 2011 (and references back to the 2010 bills) check out my blog. http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=2470

[TruthisStrong]

10:40 PM on 09/11/2011

The alleged Prophet Mohammad massacred the men of Qurayza, took the women as slaves, raped some, and Sharia says that anything the Prophet did is good for Muslims to do. All crimes are permissible against Non-Muslims by Sharia Law.

[Caernarvon]

10:05 PM on 09/09/2011

Are extremist muslims going to get Sharia to supplant US law and rule over us all with Islamic jurisprudence? No, there's no threat of it.

Have there been instances, going back to at least 1978 and as recently as last year, of people trying to use Sharia law to influence court decisions in the US, sometimes with measures of success? Yeah, it's happened once or twice.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

That's exactly what this law addresses, the consideration of foreign law in US courts, and it goes no further than that (so processing halal beef and wearing burqas will not, as some have theorized, become jailable offenses). It also extends to all forms of religious and foreign law, not just Sharia, although earlier versions of the legislation did specifically target Sharia and were struck down on that basis.

[Yasser Yousufi]

06:44 AM on 09/10/2011

You are more likely to be attacked by machete wielding Maritians than Shariah Law taking over. Get Real for Goodness Sake~!

[Caernarvon]

11:59 PM on 09/10/2011

In the first line of my comment I basically stated the same thing that you just did, that there is "no threat of" Sharia taking over. In what way do you and I disagree?

[riff4u]

07:52 PM on 09/09/2011

What's next........forcing Muslims to wear the star and crescent on their clothing?

[deridaa]

12:52 PM on 09/12/2011

Crosses are forbidden to be worn in Muslim countries in this day and age imagine that. This mentality remains intact in the religion. WE ask what next quite frankly after attending 911 ceremonies. Political Correctness only works in classrooms it doesn't work at security checkpoints or in airports at check in. Perhaps when Muslims speak out against discrimination against other religions- and such practices, against ALL violence, against the disgusting treatment of women perhaps then free minded people will feel less threatened by their culture. Legislating political correctness doesn't cut the mustard when our daily security has been so profoundly affected by 911. Chopping hands and feet in the square in the modern age certainly makes people wonder about the mentality of the culture!

[spacekadet1]

06:19 PM on 09/15/2011

Crosses are forbidden to wear in US public schools. Also in France. What's your point? The US has one of the most disgusting spousal abuse statistics in the world. Alcohol and drug abuse and the violence that goes with it is off the scale. People who live in glass houses............

[dolphi2864]

06:22 PM on 09/09/2011

"While many Muslims viewed the Oklahoma referendum as discriminatory and fueled by Islamophobia." BS!

[dolphi2864]

06:08 PM on 09/09/2011

Brainwashed Americans!

[thebigbike]

04:39 PM on 09/09/2011

another bunch of grandstanding pinheads promoting a "solution" for which there was no problem in the first place.
Welcome to the 19th Century Oklahoma

[BigotThudd]

04:38 PM on 09/09/2011

How about am amendment that prohibits judges from considering Sharia Law or Mosaic Law? There's a lot in the OT that is indistinguishable from Sharia Law.

That will change opinions in a hurry.

[bruin1954]

08:02 PM on 09/09/2011

Or Christian or Jewish law.

[BigotThudd]

09:06 PM on 09/09/2011

You're headed in the right direction.

How about no specifically religious law at all? :)

[snurps]

04:02 PM on 09/09/2011

This law is so offensive.

[Bob Wood]

03:48 PM on 09/09/2011

Our Federal Gov't was purposely founded on the principle of the seperation between churches and the state. This principle prevails throughout the nation...even at the state level. Thus...sharia...being religious law does not apply here...anywhere. It can't...it would be unconstitutional. Someone is making a mountain out of a molehill. There must always be a clear separation of church and state here. Anyone who thinks we should allow churches more access to the state should study a bit of European history in the 17th and 18th centuries...or look at Iran today. Reason is the better guide for 21st century life than superstition and mythology...reason...(sigh)

[Myoho Mod]

04:39 PM on 09/09/2011

That ammendment is a direct result of Henry 8. Watch the Showtime show the Tudors and you will get it. So more of a 15th century Euro

[taoistpunk]

02:15 PM on 09/09/2011

perhaps now is the time to establish clear rules preventing law enforcement from engaging in martial arts training. it is obvious that such an influence would lead to asian-ization of the police force, leading to an unamerican implementation of the law. also the hebrew-ization of the old testament books is likely harmful to our institutions. likewise the greek-ification that comes from contemplating both history and govenment would surely lead to incorporation into the european union....

[A Dub]

02:05 PM on 09/09/2011

This is totally ridiculous. Our laws are based on the constitution and sharia law does not apply. This is way out of control. Islamophobia running rampant.

[Sucheta Maheshwari]

08:37 PM on 10/06/2011

Dud you haven't got a clue about what you are dealing with here.

Sharia is a mechanism of total control of individual and collective freedoms as per Islam.
It is a parallel constitution (bypassing the prevailing one) which starts with controlling Muslims' lives at first and then goes on to controlling others' around them. e.g. 'Muslims Only' zones in Europe

FYI, find out how Sharia has invaded England and encroches on everything about English life.
Let's not even talk about other 'Islamic' countries.

[dougded]

01:29 PM on 09/09/2011

Tell us why we should allow a Muslim law code to be put into place in America when all of you at this Post think that Judeo-Christian based law is wrong? We ain't gonna let you have it both ways.

[Myoho Mod]

04:45 PM on 09/09/2011

Nobody said we should put Islamic Law in place. We are saying to have a law that says "no sharia law" is redundant when the contistution says constitutional law is is always first. Have a law that says "no sharia law" effectively outlaws Islam as Sharia is more than crime and punishment and women's dress codes. It also deals with praying and how to bury the dead.

[bruin1954]

07:58 PM on 09/09/2011

No one is suggesting that a Muslim law code be put into place. The issue is that to explicitly call out the Muslim law code is discriminatory. The constitution already requires separation of church and state. Either, create laws that disallow ALL religious based laws (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.)... or just leave it alone since the constitution already disallows it.

[KMBerger]

11:55 AM on 09/09/2011

Why States are so reactive and quick to impose uneducated restrictions on people's lives without proper understanding of events is very frustrating. Our lawmakers are supposed to be educated and fair minded, but I see too many who are parochial and just plain bigoted about others who are supposedly part of their constituency. Why don't these politicians start spending more time meeting the real Americans who they represent, the vast minority and religious groups that all constitute part of being American. "Out of Many, One (E Pluribus Unum) is the unifying motto of our nation that so many of us have forgotten while certain conservative groups vie to impose their mores on everyone. This kind of behavior has got to be stopped. Our Constitution must be observed and followed. Revisionist interpretations of our nation's history are fine debating points, but they must NOT influence our democratic republic in terms of governance.

[OneFish]

03:58 PM on 09/09/2011

I think the OK law is weird but I do not see how it imposes any restrictions at all on people's lives. In short, it is nothing more than an insult and as such is an improper use of the public trust that lawmakers are given during their terms. I think your reaction is a bit odd.

[KMBerger]

05:32 PM on 09/09/2011

Your understanding of the law seems lacking. First of all, if you were orthodox Jewish, you would know that Jewish law is upheld and applied in certain aspects of people's lives such as in marriage, divorce decisions and legally recognized by all States in the Union. The same applies to the fact Roman Catholics do not technically divorce, but have their marriages annulled. This is in respect to Catholic belief that divorce is not appropriate. So why would States then take a double-standard towards Sharia Law? That's why the issue is being appealed to a higher court. It will likely end up at the US Court of Appeals or Supreme Court if Oklahoma's law is upheld.

[Zen Learning Community]

11:37 AM on 09/09/2011

Any belief structure based on the premise that information does not change, is destined to fail in the very long term.

In order to maintain a belief system that is based on a book that cannot change cannot function in a culture that understands that all information changes.

The key is that information is dynamic. Any religion that believes that what was written thousands of years ago still has meaning today is basing that view on the fact the information is static.

Personal and public policy decisions must be made on the most current information. The best decisions come from the best information and the best information changes dynamically.

Change is a constant. Things either move toward entropy or toward structure. The key thing is that nothing remains in its current state.

Eastern beliefs are better suited to an information rich environment.

I think Christians and Muslims are forced to fight harder and harder to explain why their static views still apply. Absent logic or reason, they resort to political and physical force to ensure the followers adhere to the static information.