First I thought it was funny.  The state of Oklahoma passed a ballot measure prohibiting the use of Sharia law, the Muslim legal code, from being used to decide cases in Oklahoma courts.  

The media emphasized the ban on Sharia law.  Ballot measure 755 also prohibited the application of international law in Oklahoma courts.

Okay, OK, next you're going to ban burning witches.  I mean, what was the point other than political melodrama?  Of course it is unconstitutional to override state and federal laws with Sharia law, and I don't know anybody who wants to.  Maybe there are some Muslim fundamentalists who would prefer Sharia law to secular law, as I'm sure there are fundamentalist Christians who would insist on Mosaic law.  However, America is not a theocracy in the first place.  We separate church from state.  Most Muslim countries don't apply Sharia either.  What's the worry?  

The Council on American-Islamic Relations did file suit against the ban and won an injunction from Judge Vicki Carr-LaGrange.  

Can somebody explain the logic behind all this to me because I'm getting puzzled.  Not a court in the country would sentence a woman to one hundred lashes for adultery.  Why are Oklahomans making a fuss?  Why is CAIR making a fuss?  Perhaps CAIR wants to see customary measures allowable in Muslim families to settle certain cases.  They do this in varying degrees in countries such as Great Britain and Indonesia.  

Of course, it's the same Southern Baptists bellyaching about this ridiculous federal judge who themselves would want to govern by Mosaic law, which presumably would let you stone your son to death if he sassed you, but anyway...I'm finding both sides of the issues more than a little loony.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif

Just more empty headed posing and chest thumping.  They know that this is a waste of time, but it looks good to the palin like constituency.  Wait until election time when they start touting their vote on this key question.  ::)

I read somewhere that CAIR's primary concern is supposedly in property matters, primarily where probate is concerned.  Sharia Law conflicts with Oklahoma law so the distribution of property would be in conflict when a person dies.

I'd be willing to bet a majority of the people who voted FOR this amendment have no clue what Sharia Law is about, only that it has to do with Muslims....why "International Law" was included in there, I have no clue???  Is there REALLY an abundance of cases in Oklahoma where International Law has been invoked as a defense???

The reason for this law? FEAR!!! Plain & simple.

Oklahoma is the heart of the Bible Belt. When I lived there, I had a neighbor who wore a ring and I asked her if it was her birthstone. She told me it was her "rebirth stone."  ???

I am surprised that there is quite a Jewish community in Tulsa. My grandmother used to live in a Jewish retirement community. I'm sure there is also a Muslim community in the state, too. But, the "funny-mentalist" just take over everything.  ::)


I hope that no one in my family who lives in Oklahoma voted for absurdity.



Cat

I read somewhere that CAIR's primary concern is supposedly in property matters, primarily where probate is concerned.  Sharia Law conflicts with Oklahoma law so the distribution of property would be in conflict when a person dies.

I'd be willing to bet a majority of the people who voted FOR this amendment have no clue what Sharia Law is about, only that it has to do with Muslims....why "International Law" was included in there, I have no clue???  Is there REALLY an abundance of cases in Oklahoma where International Law has been invoked as a defense???


Another major distinction the media failed to mention -- Sharia covers ALL aspects of Muslim code, though only a few countries, such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, observe the harshest measures of the criminal code.  I know only a little bit about Sharia, but most of what it covers is what we call "civil" code.  So, as you point out, Muslim families might want to handle probate by Sharia.  This would fall under the "family level" of Sharia.  Britain, Indonesia, and the Philippines allow for Sharia law among Muslim communities as long as it does not interfere with criminal law or with non-Muslims. 

There are about 1,500 Muslims in Oklahoma in a state with a population of 3.6 million.  They are a tiny minority.  The number of Muslim families who wanted to use Sharia law might number 100.  As long as they're not asking to apply Sharia in lieu of criminal code or, as stated above, trying to  require non-Muslims to observe Sharia, what is the big deal?  This is just not statistically significant.  I would vote for a provision in civil matters that would allow Muslims who do not wish to be subjected to Sharia code to opt out in favor of secular law.  Otherwise, there was no practical purpose for ballot measure 755 -- other than xenophobia.

Fear of the other is essential to a fascist state, which the American right is successfully establishing in this country.  It is not enough to say we ARE Christians, we must also say we ARE NOT Muslims. 

CAIR files suit.  A federal judge issues a restraining order.  The corporate media reports activist federal judges are once again interfering with the will of the people in favor of the terrorists who want to kill us.  No mention in the summary reports of any distinction of what parts of the Sharia law would be applied to whom and when. 
::)

What a huge waste of time. The courts would never allow Sharia or any kind of religious law to be applied to our society to begin with. They could have made better use of their time addressing relevant issues to their state.

What a huge waste of time. The courts would never allow Sharia or any kind of religious law to be applied to our society to begin with. They could have made better use of their time addressing relevant issues to their state.


I don't even think they should ask witnesses to swear on the Bible in court.  I say so as a practicing Christian. 

First I thought it was funny.  The state of Oklahoma passed a ballot measure prohibiting the use of Sharia law, the Muslim legal code, from being used to decide cases in Oklahoma courts.  

The media emphasized the ban on Sharia law.  

Well, thankfully, that will not happen.  Because Oaklahoma rejected the use of Sharia Law.

And Sharia Law demands the punishment of beheading for those that practice witchcraft.

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=152869835

Well, thankfully, that will not happen.  Because Oaklahoma rejected the use of Sharia Law.

And Sharia Law demands the punishment of beheading for those that practice witchcraft.

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=152869835


I specified I would only be in favor of allowing Sharia law among consenting practicing Muslim families with the caveat that it be restricted to civil and not criminal law.  Execution is allowed in Oklahoma only by sentence handed down in a criminal court.  I would not support Sharia in a criminal court. 

If anybody in Oklahoma would try make witchcraft a capital crime, it is right-wing Protestants!
::)