Court: Oklahoma can't enforce Sharia law ban

[5-90]

http://news.yahoo.com/court-oklahoma-cant-enforce-sharia-law-ban-011240179.html

Mixed feelings here.

1) I don't with to see the religious beliefs of other being subjugated (provided they don't try to enforce those beliefs upon me, overriding my own belief system. Whatever it may be.)

2) I don't want to see anyone's belief system having the ability to override anyone else's beliefs - or rights.

Granted, I don't see what the actual text of the original proposed measure was, so there are some questions I have at this point:

- How are conflicts between Sharia Law and US Law to be resolved? Ultimately, this is the United States, and US Law must take precedence.

- Is it necessary that all parties explicitly agree to be tried under Sharia Law, or may this be a unilateral decision?

- If Sharia law is selected, will the entirety of Sharia Law be brought into play? See Point One.

My basic issues with this are that I don't know what's going on (leaving aside "activism from the bench," where a judge is allowed to override the essential will of the majority with no real legal matter at question...) If I'm in OK, and someone chooses to bring a Sharia action against me, must I answer under Sharia Law? As a non-Muslim, can I invoke Sharia law if doing so would be to my advantage?

This latter would be a key point is resolving what is known in Islam as an "honour killing" - there are cases, as I recall, where killing is all but required under Sharia Law, even though such killings would be handled as murder (and therefore potentially capital, and very rarely dismissable/acquittable under the law) under US law in all jurisdictions.

I don't think I'm being willfully ignorant here - I just want someone to explain to my satisfaction how any major conflict of interest (or of Law) would be resolved equitably to all.

 

[Wallyman]

A law is only as good as the enforcement behind it. For decades now people have been trying to drive ANY mention of religion from anything public-related.
A set of laws based on religion ought not be allowed to be enforced or even considered by any government based on the fact not everyone is the same religion.
I wont even go into the fact there are some brutal rules involved in sharia law and some punishments amount to violating existing "natural laws" that would be considered assault or worse. You can make whatever "laws" you want in your house as long as you arent harming others really. laws, rules, whatever you want to call them can be enforced by you but municipal law enforcement has their own set that of course overrides...

Well after actually reading the article it seems more like a case of activism pressuring judges to tell the overwhelming majority of a states citizens they have no voice and CAIR and their ilk have more say than the citizens of Oklahoma. This case is a new standard on what some of these judges are going to change our courtrooms into. "have argued that it stigmatizes Islam and its adherents and violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against the government favoring one religion over another."
Nothing stigmatizes Islam like Islam itself. Our laws may be argued as being based on the bible but they are common sense, modified and adjusted laws. Sharia laws are drawn from the Quran and followed directly. The government doesnt favor a certain religion, as activists have been stating for decades. We've heard "seperation of chrch and state" by the same people who are now pushing for religious freedom and supporting activist judges.

 

[WB9YZU]

I think the issue here are clauses in Wills which are based on Sharia law, and not State/Federal law. They are being nullified in court, sometimes for good reason.

Personally, I think the courts have this one wrong. I understand the Constitutional question involved, but our Laws, though based on a set of Values, are not religious laws.

We have one set of Laws, and by god, they should apply to everyone or no-one.
One of our greatest achievements as a country was to move from a system of 'Rule of might justice" to a "Rule of Law justice". The laws we created, and continue to create make sense for who we are as a society. To apply laws that apply to another group here may not make moral sense.

 

[drsaabaru]

From here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ory-or-useful/2012/01/11/gIQAGFP1qP_blog.html

"The appeals court also noted that no example could be found in which Sharia law was used or cited in a U.S. court case."

The US already has one set of laws for everyone. Even without the amendment, sharia law (or any religious law) would never override existing state or federal laws. The only practical purpose of this amendment is to stir up fear of an islamic takeover and to deliver a big f you to Oklahoma's muslim community.

 

[5-90]

From here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ory-or-useful/2012/01/11/gIQAGFP1qP_blog.html

"The appeals court also noted that no example could be found in which Sharia law was used or cited in a U.S. court case."

The US already has one set of laws for everyone. Even without the amendment, sharia law (or any religious law) would never override existing state or federal laws. The only practical purpose of this amendment is to stir up fear of an islamic takeover and to deliver a big f you to Oklahoma's muslim community.

As I said, I hadn't been able to read the text of the proposed law/amendment/whatever.

That having been said, do you think it would have been at issue if Sharia Law hadn't been mentioned specifically, and that "all other laws outside of American jurisprudence" would be disqualified from holding a standing in court?

It may have merely been fearmongering to specifically mention Sharia Law, but what other system of law is trying to force itself into considering in American courts? Perhaps the measure should have been written more generally, but could this not also have been interpreted as a specific action against a specific perceived encroachment?

 

[Wallyman]

The article stated there were 20 ( as i recall) other states with similar bills in legislature. Oklahoma just happened to be the one that made the headline.
I know a bi about Oklahoma with it being a 20 min drive from my front door and my wife hailing from there.
Why was Oklahoma the one targeted? I cant really say as i know nothing of the other states' bills verbiage. Funny thing about OK though is they have a good amount of American Indian population living on reservations and in cities that have their own rules and laws that apply on the reservations but NOT outside of those areas. Mabye the activist "civil rights" groups see that as a good wedge issue on their side. Mabye im wrong. Im just looking at it as politically strategic.

 

[drsaabaru]

As I said, I hadn't been able to read the text of the proposed law/amendment/whatever.

Here's the text:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_"Sharia_Law_Amendment",_State_Question_755_(2010)

That having been said, do you think it would have been at issue if Sharia Law hadn't been mentioned specifically, and that "all other laws outside of American jurisprudence" would be disqualified from holding a standing in court?

I think the problem is that the amendment doesn't just reaffirm that US law is the law of the land, or that US law overrides other laws. If that's all it said, then it would be pretty harmless because it wouldn't be saying anything that's not already true. What the amendment says is that sharia law (or international law, whatever that is) can't be considered at all.

A potential consequence of this amendment might be that someone could write a will leaving half his estate to his son and dividing the other half between his two daughters, and that would be legal. But, if he said his estate should be divided among his children according to the Koran (http://quran.com/4/11-11), then it could be challenged and might have to be voided. It's never come up in court before, so who knows what would happen, but that's a possible outcome. That's obviously unfair, but I don't think extending it so that Christians can't cite Deuteronomy either would make it any fairer.

It may have merely been fearmongering to specifically mention Sharia Law, but what other system of law is trying to force itself into considering in American courts?

Who is trying to force islamic law into US courts?

 

[5-90]

Gah. Link no worky ("There is currently no text on this page,") ergo no comment on the second bit.

For the final, wasn't there something similar in Florida a while ago, where someone wanted a legal dispute settled in Court under Sharia Law - and kept kicking about it? If you want Sharia Law to govern, then take it to a mosque - most American judges aren't going to be familiar enough with Sharia law to make an informed decision on the matter (and American law is fraught with illogic as it is. I'm not sure I want our judges to have to become familiar with two sets of laws, when keeping up with American law is already a full-time job...)

 

[87manche]

Who is trying to force islamic law into US courts?

people that stand to gain from it's interpretation.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/...aw_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf

that link is most definitely NOT an un-biased source. Ignore the commentary and scroll down to the actual case history parts. There are case numbers and links to the public records those cases were pulled from.

So yes, some individuals have attempted to use Sharia law to their advantage, mostly in divorce/custody cases it seems.

I see Sharia law as something that should be treated like village elders.

Yes, you can go to the village elders and they can resolve your problems, IF both parties agree to it, like civil arbitration. Otherwise, abide by the law and go to the court system.
I also don't think that there should be any religious/cult/whatever law that should ever be put above the judicial system.

I think it is stupid to introduce legislation specifically banning it, common sense would already dictate that you can't introduce it into the court system, as they're not laws that were passed by the legislative branch.

 

[XJEEPER]

I think it is stupid to introduce legislation specifically banning it, common sense would already dictate that you can't introduce it into the court system, as they're not laws that were passed by the legislative branch.

Summmed up nicely.

 

[Wallyman]

common sense would already dictate that you can't introduce it into the court system, as they're not laws that were passed by the legislative branch.

Common sense is an un-common virtue in our day and age especially in the realm of the law and politics.
And judging from recent events, it seems the judicial branch is able to work without the checks of the legislative branch in play anymore. The system is slowly dissolving. It's stoppable but the judicial branch has been used to enforce ideals that other behind the scenes parties desire instead of judging weather or not a bill is indeed legal or constitutional.

 

[5-90]

people that stand to gain from it's interpretation.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/...aw_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf

that link is most definitely NOT an un-biased source. Ignore the commentary and scroll down to the actual case history parts. There are case numbers and links to the public records those cases were pulled from.

So yes, some individuals have attempted to use Sharia law to their advantage, mostly in divorce/custody cases it seems.

I see Sharia law as something that should be treated like village elders.

Yes, you can go to the village elders and they can resolve your problems, IF both parties agree to it, like civil arbitration. Otherwise, abide by the law and go to the court system.
I also don't think that there should be any religious/cult/whatever law that should ever be put above the judicial system.

I think it is stupid to introduce legislation specifically banning it, common sense would already dictate that you can't introduce it into the court system, as they're not laws that were passed by the legislative branch.

Which is part of the point I was trying to make - I would have no particular trouble with it if:
- All parties had to agree to the decision, and agree to be bound by it (if it don't go your way, don't change systems and appeal.)
- If any one party doesn't agree to be bound by it, then no parties are subject.
- Sharia Law has to be invoked by all parties - if anyone prefers US Law, then US Law applies.
- If Sharia law is to be used, then take it to mosque, or to an Imam, or whatever. Don't expect a conventional judge to know Sharia - they've got enough to do keeping up with American law! (Sharia Law may be close to immutable, but American Law changes all the bloody time!)
- If a principle of Sharia Law is going to run counter to American Law, American Law takes precedence (an "honour killing," for instance, is still "homicide" under American Law. Deal. Or don't go killing people.)

But, I only seem to hear of Sharia Law trying to be introduced into American jurisprudence and given precedence over American Law - which is something I have a big issue with. (I also have issues with the perversity of American Law, "activism from the bench," and that sort of rot - but that's fodder for another discussion.)