Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Sharia - Polidicks

Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/10/justice/oklahoma-sharia/index.html[/url] [quote] A federal appeals court has blocked an Oklahoma voter-approved measure barring state judges from considering Islamic and international law in their decisions. The three-judge panel at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier injunction preventing State Question 755 from being certified until the free speech questions are resolved. The decision Tuesday allows a lawsuit brought by Islamic-American groups to move ahead to a bench trial. "The proposed amendment discriminates among religions," said the judges. "The Oklahoma amendment specifically names the target of its discrimination. The only religious law mentioned in the amendment is Sharia law." A federal judge last summer had issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had sued to nullify the law completely. The amendment would require Oklahoma courts to "rely on federal and state law when deciding cases" and "forbids courts from considering or using" either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. In bringing suit, CAIR argued that the amendment violates the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. The group's local leader, Muneer Awad, has said the amendment passed in November 2010 under a campaign of fear and misinformation about Islam. "This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact," Awad told CNN after Tuesday's announcement. The appeals court said voter initiatives normally should be given great deference by the courts but concluded the Oklahoma measure would be applied selectively. Ballot supporters "do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve," said the 37-page ruling. "Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma." State Question 755, also known as the "Save Our State" measure, was approved by a 7-3 ratio. It was sponsored by Oklahoma State Reps. Rex Duncan and Anthony Sykes, both Republicans. "The fact that Sharia law was even considered anywhere in the United States is enough for me" to sign on, Sykes told CNN last year. "It should scare anyone that any judge in America would consider using that as precedent." Sykes said his concern was compounded by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's comments during her confirmation hearings in June 2010 that she would be willing to consider international law when hearing cases before the court. As written on the ballot, the measure states it would amend a state constitution section dealing with the state courts, making them "rely on federal and state law" when deciding cases, forbidding them "from considering or using international law" and "from considering or using Sharia Law." The ballot then briefly described international law, which "deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes," and Sharia, which is "based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed." "Shall the proposal be approved?" the ballot read, instructing voters to respond "yes" if they're for the proposal and "no" if they're against it. Saleem Quraishi, president of the American Muslim Association of Oklahoma City, runs the Islamic Center at the Grand Mosque of Oklahoma City. He said there are more than 5,000 Muslims in the city. While there are no exact numbers for the Muslim population in the state, it is not among the larger communities, said Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR. "It's just fear-mongering; it's nothing," Quraishi told CNN. "What's Sharia law have to do with Oklahoma?" The Oklahoma controversy stems from a New Jersey legal case in which a Muslim woman went to a family court asking for a restraining order against her spouse, claiming he had raped her repeatedly. The judge ruled against her, saying that her husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties. The decision was later overruled by an appellate court, but the case sparked a nationwide firestorm. The issue spread to Oklahoma, prompting the ballot initiative. Tuesday's ruling deals only with the injunction stopping certification and enforcement of 755. There was no indication when the federal district judge would hear the larger merits of the Oklahoma case and issue a ruling, but that could be some months away. The losing side could then try again at the federal appeals court, then possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court. [/quote] So let me understand this correctly...America is fighting Sharia law, and people are dying so the world can be rid of this, yet it is allowed to exist in America? Where is the logic in that?

I'm glad they overtuned it as it included International law in it. When they reintroduce it with jsut Sharia Law it will be ok

probably just a benign application of sharia law for civil disputes that people are freaking out about

If you're this concerned about Sharia Law you probably don't know what it's about anyway

[QUOTE=Zeke129;34154930]If you're this concerned about Sharia Law you probably don't know what it's about anyway[/QUOTE] If you're referring to me, which you usually are, in response to that... Yes, I do know what it is about. It goes against what America was founded on. It is why countries like Saudi Arabia are so fucked up.

Umm what kind of stupid law would that be. Judges only consider the law, not Sharia law jesus christ [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] Just because it has the word law in it doesn't mean it has the force of law at all.

[QUOTE=faze;34154777]Source: [URL]http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/10/justice/oklahoma-sharia/index.html[/URL] No - it's allowed to act as a consideration for the judges. Just as canonical law is, or international law is. So let me understand this correctly...America is fighting Sharia law, and people are dying so the world can be rid of this, yet it is allowed to exist in America? Where is the logic in that?[/QUOTE] Essentially the big issue with this was, not that they barred something from consideration, but that they directly named what they barred. This is more or less a law that screams discrimination 101. If you want to bar Sharia but make it a legal ban you have to use more abstract wording. Bar all legal systems which discriminate from consideration. Or bar all legal system which assign different rights in a discriminatory manner. [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;34155131]Umm what kind of stupid law would that be. Judges only consider the law, not Sharia law jesus christ [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] Just because it has the word law in it doesn't mean it has the force of law at all.[/QUOTE] Actually they can consider it. Comparing legal systems is a pretty good way to reach decisions at times. Or well to put it bluntly. This ban goes so bloody hell strongly against the US constitution it's almost a wonder it ever passed in the first place. Which makes it unsurprising that it got overturned.

[QUOTE=faze;34154777] So let me understand this correctly...America is fighting Sharia law[/QUOTE] bloody christ, jersey shore has a better understanding of politics than you do. [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=faze;34155111]It is why countries like Saudi Arabia are so fucked up.[/QUOTE] example of said understanding.

[QUOTE=thisispain;34155250]bloody christ, jersey shore has a better understanding of politics than you do. [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] example of said understanding.[/QUOTE] You are an example of why I am scared to live in this country. [QUOTE=wraithcat;34155233]Essentially the big issue with this was, not that they barred something from consideration, but that they directly named what they barred. This is more or less a law that screams discrimination 101. If you want to bar Sharia but make it a legal ban you have to use more abstract wording. Bar all legal systems which discriminate from consideration. Or bar all legal system which assign different rights in a discriminatory manner. Actually they can consider it. Comparing legal systems is a pretty good way to reach decisions at times. Or well to put it bluntly. This ban goes so bloody hell strongly against the US constitution it's almost a wonder it ever passed in the first place. Which makes it unsurprising that it got overturned.[/QUOTE] Agreed. The constitution was put in place for a reason, and has gotten this country to where we are up to when Carter started fucking shit up. After that, it started being ignored.

[QUOTE=faze;34155475]You are an example of why I am scared to live in this country. Agreed. The constitution was put in place for a reason, and has gotten this country to where we are up to when Carter started fucking shit up. After that, it started being ignored.[/QUOTE] Hahahaha

[QUOTE=faze;34155475]You are an example of why I am scared to live in this country.[/QUOTE] you're scared to live in a first-world industrialized country where food and water is plentiful because some dude in california called you politically inept? [quote]Hahahaha [/quote]

[QUOTE=faze;34155475]You are an example of why I am scared to live in this country. [/QUOTE] Could you actually go into detail about why Sharia law and thisispain scare you so much?

[QUOTE=thisispain;34155540]you're scared to live in a first-world industrialized country where food and water is plentiful because some dude in california called you politically inept?[/QUOTE] No, because of the people that believe in this PC bullshit that the media is feeding them.

[QUOTE=faze;34155577]No, because of the people that believe in this PC bullshit that the media is feeding them.[/QUOTE] you're one who's posting an article from CNN, not me.

[QUOTE=faze;34155577]No, because of the people that believe in this PC bullshit that the media is feeding them.[/QUOTE] Using any type of law other than US law is illegal. This ban is unnecessary, illegal, and only serves to promote religious intolerance, so it was immediately struck down. I hate you.

Sharia law: A. Sharia means law, so just say sharia, not sharia law. B. Only applies to muslims. C. Has absurd burdens of proof for most things that could result in death or whatnot. D. As a whole, it's completely harmless to people. We already let other groups do their own small scale law things in which they run their own little towns, see highly orthodox jewish towns.

Faze...cmon man.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;34155916]Faze...cmon man.[/QUOTE] Avatar fits so well.

[QUOTE=faze;34155111]If you're referring to me, which you usually are, in response to that... Yes, I do know what it is about. It goes against what America was founded on. It is why countries like Saudi Arabia are so fucked up.[/QUOTE] I wasn't actually addressing you but thanks for going ahead and being wrong about things to save us all some time

hoorah for smacking down redundant, bigoted and needless bans

[QUOTE=faze;34155111]It is why countries like Saudi Arabia are so fucked up.[/QUOTE] I suspect Saudi Arabia is still a developing country because of an array of sociological and political problems, not because of Sharia Law. I'm not totally sure what Sharia Law is though.

[QUOTE=thisispain;34155250]bloody christ, jersey shore has a better understanding of politics than you do. [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] example of said understanding.[/QUOTE] Well why are all the countries that supposedly follow sharia so fucked? I mean, is it a coincidence or something?

Homosexuality: [quote]Homosexual activity is illegal under sharia, though the prescribed penalties differ from one school of jurisprudence to another. For example, these Muslim-majority countries may impose the death penalty for acts perceived as sodomy and homosexual activities: Iran,[186] Nigeria,[187] Saudi Arabia,[188] Somalia.[189][/quote] Leaving Islam/Apostasy: [quote]In most interpretations of sharia, conversion by Muslims to other religions or becoming non-religious, is strictly forbidden and is termed apostasy. Non-Muslims, however, are allowed to convert into Islam.[130] Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death. During the time of Muhammad, treason and apostasy were considered one and the same; nowadays, many scholars differentiate between treason and apostasy, believing that the punishment for apostasy is not death, while the punishment for treason is death.[/quote] 2 of the most serious crimes, which Muslims consider crimes against God. As these are extreme crimes, I feel it is only honest to also say that punishments for normal crimes are usually comparable to ours. Regardless, Sharia law has quite a ways to go before it deserves to be considered in Western law.

[QUOTE=Clementine;34156512]Well why are all the countries that supposedly follow sharia so fucked? I mean, is it a coincidence or something?[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation]Correlation != causation[/url]

[QUOTE=faze;34155475] Agreed. The constitution was put in place for a reason, and has gotten this country to where we are up to when Carter started fucking shit up. After that, it started being ignored.[/QUOTE] Haha are you fucking serious? This was struck down because it violates the 1st amendment The practices of other religions are allowed as mitigating factors, and Oklahoma singled out Islam.

1: Sharia Law is not always institutional, sometimes its just treated in the same way as the ten commandments 2: no one was trying to get any Islamic laws on the books, so this entire ban was pointless

In the more extremist regions of the middle east, it would be Sharia banning [I]Oklahoma![/I]

Doesn't the concept of legal precedent come from Sharia?

[QUOTE=Haywood;34156748]Doesn't the concept of legal precedent come from Sharia?[/QUOTE] Good question. Not sure. I do know things like taxing those living above subsistance to help the poor were given legal form in Sharia, but I can't say for sure those originated with Sharia either. Chances are Islam was beat to it by the Eastern religions/philosophies anyway.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;34156973]Chances are Islam was beat to it by the Eastern religions/philosophies anyway.[/QUOTE] The way it worked in ancient china is that people were guilty until proven innocent. So I don't think so.