Quantcast

By - November 9, 2010

Sharia Law, Coming To A State Near You

Last Tuesday we were all a glow about the Republican landslide throughout the country. We missed an important issue that was on the ballot in Oklahoma.  Last Tuesday Oklahomans had the chance to make sure that Sharia Law would never be used by the legal system in their state, and that issue passed overwhelming, thus keeping the state and federal Constitutions as the only basis for legal decisions in Sooner land.

Oklahoma was looking into the future, with developments such as Sharia courts in England, and was obviously making a pre-emptive strike.

U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange saw fit to suspend the Ban until a hearing on Nov. 22, when she will listen to arguments on whether the court’s temporary injunction should become permanent.

CAIR, an Islamic political action group who supports Hamas and terrorism in general, brought the suit against Oklahoma.  Muneer Awad filed the suit, claiming the law violated his constitutional rights.

Let me get this straight:  Mr. Awad feels like his constitutional rights are being violated because he couldn’t get away with beating his wife, or declaring Jihad against any Jews or Christians, as Sharia Law supports?!  Note:  A Muslim in New Jersey was found innocent of raping and beating his wife based on Sharia Law.  Fortunately a higher court overturned that decision.

Here is the plan for the future:  We need as many states as possible to pass a Ban on the use of International and Sharia Laws in their respective states. CAIR will of course sue, but if enough states do this, CAIR will not be able to afford these lawsuits and will either face bankruptcy or give up on this ridiculous course they are on.

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Comments (3)

 

  1. This post reveals the typical ignorance about what it means to ban sharia or international law. The conservative fear of “Sharia law” (by the way, that’s as redundant as “ATM machine”) seems to be based on the weird belief that it’s possible Sharia will somehow overtake US law. However, that never has happened, never will happen, and is just a crazy figment of conservative imaginations.

    What’s more likely, and what’s happening in Britain, is that Sharia will start to be a legitimate framework under which to write private contracts. In other words, two parties can choose to have their contracts and private disputes evaluated under Sharia, if they both agree to it. Sharia in that sense would be no different from other forms of arbitration that use legal rules distinct from the typical US civil code. This is exactly what’s happened in Britain. (And it’s what’s already happened with Jewish arbitration in the US, by the way.)

    “Mr. Awad feels like his constitutional rights are being violated because he couldn’t get away with beating his wife, or declaring Jihad against any Jews or Christians, as Sharia Law supports?!”

    First of all, you clearly aren’t an expert on Sharia, so your assertions about what it would or would not allow are basically meaningless. As to the substance, though: no, that is not why a ban on Sharia violates Mr. Awad’s constitutional rights. None of those things would be allowed even if Sharia was available for arbitration. No, the ban violates his constitutional rights because it represents government discrimination against a specific religion, when other religious arbitration is allowed. And no matter how much conservatives like to pretend it doesn’t, the Free Exercise clause protects American Muslims in addition to American Christians.

  2. Mike says:

    In America we are free to do as we wish so long as it not steal from harm or kill another person.
    This is the American prime directive
    If any “law ” is to be legal it must fall under this statute.
    If it does not fit the American prime directive it is not a legal law
    Americans are protected by the law and Americans are above the rule of law. One must agree to or take voluntary action placing his activity UNDER the rule of law such as accepting license of privilege, taking oath of office, or committing a crime.
    The law is the law of the land not the law on the man
    It is this way because we are free. The rest of the world does not agree because it is not free
    Sharia is not freedom and therefore cannot be justice for there is no justice for a person outside of liberty.
    Since one man first put a chain upon another man. Since Cain struck down Able mankind has been struggling to institute our lost liberty.
    In America, we did it. We did not establish a wild society of feral men, We achieved the accomplishment of tens of thousands of generations of mankind by instituting an orderly society where a man can do anything he wishes so long as he not steal from, harm, or kill another person.
    The American prime directive does not belong to America. It was handed down to Americans. It belongs to humanity. It is the highest achieved work of our species known to date.
    The American dream isn’t like the media says a house and a car 3 hot meals and a well cared for family.
    Every oppressive society since the dawn of time has offered this to some of the people so others, or so all may be enslaved. this commercialized American dream (to quote George Carlin( you would need to be asleep to believe.
    The original…The Aboriginal American dream is to be free and to maintain liberty whatever the cost come what may.
    Aboriginal Americans, The Indians knew what liberty was…they lived it.
    The Europeans who settled here acknowledged that individual liberty was biblical and they adopted their European system of order and their religious beliefs to the Native American practice of living free.
    Not the Tyrants of American history but the everyday American.
    Tyrants have never changed.

    This is why when Europe fell into revolution, the nations became something other than free.
    It was not something the common man knew as a way of life until they came to America and saw it being lived.
    Same reason that when the iron curtain fell the Soviet people didn’t know how to start their own business’ or find their own income. They never experienced it before.
    Oh yes, and Africans, even slaves knew how to live free and shun domination more-so to this day than the Europeans.

    This is the last stand. liberty lives on or dies right here, maybe in this generation.

  3. “In America we are free to do as we wish so long as it not steal from harm or kill another person.
    This is the American prime directive
    If any “law ” is to be legal it must fall under this statute.
    If it does not fit the American prime directive it is not a legal law”

    That’s actually completely false. That so-called “prime directive” is found nowhere in the Constitution, which is the actual supreme American law. You can’t just make things up and claim that all laws must follow them.

    “Americans are protected by the law and Americans are above the rule of law. One must agree to or take voluntary action placing his activity UNDER the rule of law such as accepting license of privilege, taking oath of office, or committing a crime.”

    Americans are not above the law in any rational sense of that phrase. If you are subject to punishment for your actions, you are not above the law.

    “It is this way because we are free. The rest of the world does not agree because it is not free”

    This is American exceptionalism gone crazy. We’re not the freest nation in the world, and anyone who thinks we are needs to spend a bit more time studying world government.

    “Sharia is not freedom and therefore cannot be justice for there is no justice for a person outside of liberty.”

    No system of laws is completely free, because law is by nature constraint.

    “Since one man first put a chain upon another man. Since Cain struck down Able mankind has been struggling to institute our lost liberty.”

    If you’re going to quote the Bible for dubious support, at least do so correctly. Cain didn’t enslave Abel (not Able), he killed him. It had nothing to do with “lost liberty”.

    “In America, we did it…by instituting an orderly society where a man can do anything he wishes so long as he not steal from, harm, or kill another person.”

    That’s never been true in American history. There have always been many more constraints on individuals than that.

    “”

    This is a nice, but false, historical anachronism.

    Anyways, basically nothing that you said is at all relevant. And, for future reference, line breaks after every sentence do not make for entertaining reading.

Leave a Reply