Fed Court Strikes down OK Amendment to ban Sharia Law

[JC5123]

OKLAHOMA CITY –  An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The court in Denver upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange's order blocking implementation of the amendment shortly after it was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in November 2010.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

The amendment read, in part: "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."

Backers argued that the amendment intended to ban all religious laws, that Islamic law was merely named as an example and that it wasn't meant as a specific attack on Muslims. The court disagreed.

"That argument conflicts with the amendment's plain language, which mentions Sharia law in two places," the appeals court opinion said.

The court also noted that the backers of the amendment admitted they did not know of any instance when an Oklahoma court applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other countries.

Awad argued that the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death. The appeals court pointed out that Awad made a "strong showing" of potential harm.

"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.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/court-oklahoma-ban-on-islamic-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1jAjYjsms

[Timothy]

This was not a Supreme Court ruling was it, only the Appeals court, right?

[JC5123]

This was not a Supreme Court ruling was it, only the Appeals court, right?

Yup, was reading another SCOTUS Case, and transposed info. Good Catch. And fixed.

[Timothy]

Yup, was reading another SCOTUS Case, and transposed info. Good Catch. And fixed.

 

[MikeBjerum]

Will be interesting to see where it goes as it heads up the Courts.

Read today that the Supreme Court has ruled that judges can not get involved in church-employee issues.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/137091608.html

It will be interesting to see how this ruling and the Oklahoma case match when it hits the Supreme Court.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Will be interesting to see where it goes as it heads up the Courts.

Read today that the Supreme Court has ruled that judges can not get involved in church-employee issues.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/137091608.html

It will be interesting to see how this ruling and the Oklahoma case match when it hits the Supreme Court.

Hopefully it never will. This was one of those stupid laws that legislators came up with to score political points by taking a stand against a straw man. I mean, is Oklahoma in danger of having Sharia imposed on it? The fact is, that had they dropped the word Sharia, it might have passed court muster, but they didn't, because that would have defeated the whole purpose of the thing which was to stir up anti-muslim sentiment for political advantage. Lets take a step back and look at this. A lot of folks engage in private contracts that use a non-judicial source to arbitrate disputes. I'm not really a fan of Sharia or Jewish Beit Dins  or or other religious bodies dealing with divorce or inheritance or the like. But, if all parties to the contract agree, are we in violation of the 1A's free exercise clause if we interfer with them, but not secular means of private arbitration? I'm not defending sharia here, I just think that the court was not wrong to say that there are larger issues of religious freedom at stake. Issues that the politicians who pushed this thing didn't care jack about as it boosted their poll numbers. I would hope the Court gives this one a pass and waits until a serious issue involving these principles comes before it.
FQ13

[JC5123]

Actually many places in the country are at risk of Sharia law. Oklahoma was just taking a proactive approach to the problem. Here is another problem with the ruling. They also site that international law cannot be used. Islam is not simply a religion, but a way of life, controlling cultural, religious, and political aspects of the society that it rules. It allows (in fact demands) things like honor killings, forcing women to marry their rapists, and makes killing non muslims an obligation rather than a crime. What is sad is that our courts are so rampant with liberal activist judges that a state would even have to consider a law like this necessary. Personally I think that is why this law was struck down. Judges don't want to be forced to use the state and federal constitution in making their decisions. It's much harder to justify activism when you can't site some "international standard".

[fightingquaker13]

Actually many places in the country are at risk of Sharia law. Oklahoma was just taking a proactive approach to the problem. Here is another problem with the ruling. They also site that international law cannot be used. Islam is not simply a religion, but a way of life, controlling cultural, religious, and political aspects of the society that it rules. It allows (in fact demands) things like honor killings, forcing women to marry their rapists, and makes killing non muslims an obligation rather than a crime. What is sad is that our courts are so rampant with liberal activist judges that a state would even have to consider a law like this necessary. Personally I think that is why this law was struck down. Judges don't want to be forced to use the state and federal constitution in making their decisions. It's much harder to justify activism when you can't site some "international standard".

And again with the strawmen. I don't think that Ok. or any other state is going to authorize any of the parade of horribles you've just cited.
FQ13

[twyacht]

C'mon only 70% of the OK citizens were blown off, ignored,....

Geez, it's only mercy killings of teenage girls for family honor....and stuff....

Lighten' up,. only Liberal assclown Judges,...tearing this country down....Nothing to see here...

 

[deepwater]

I think what this law was intended to do is to prevent what happened in the UK with their 'Muslim Arbitration Tribunal'. obviously a bit controversial because a man can kill wife, daughter, whatever for 'honor' according to thier law. I remember a few years back when something similar happened and the man was tried under Sharia law instead of the great honest court we all know and love. (sarcasm). I don't remember the outcome of the case, but do remember the outrage of the people. the Euro-weenies have bent over backwords for these people and it is biting them in the arse. I sincerely hope that we do not acept this as it is another way of governing as well as strict in it's treatment of the family, especially for women.


deepwater