Gunning for Oklahoma: Law prof makes ridiculous claim that Sharia ban outlaws the Ten Commandments

For those interested in seeing the Muzzie Awad's memorandum in support of his TRO, which is intended to emasculate each of the several states from practicing self-defense (in the vein that gun control laws are intended to handcuff the law-abiding and to remove the right of self-defense), go here,

http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/argument.pdf

Is Oklahoma's state constitution now in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" ... "?

There in lies the problem with Islam as being defined as just a religion. Most objective experts point to Islam as being nearly 85 pct. political and more of a totalitarian ideology then just a good old religion.

Is it any wonder why 96pct of Islamic Countries are run by dictators,despots,and demagogues while the opposite figures are represented in Western Democracies.

The allowance of sharia no matter whether it reflects any of it 4 schools of application of Sharia law is in conflict with the Ten Commandments as well as our US constitution, the first amendment in my opinion as well.

Hanbali: This is the most conservative school of Shari'a. It is used in Saudi Arabia and some states in Northern Nigeria.

Hanifi: This is the most liberal school, and is relatively open to modern ideas.

Maliki: This is based on the practices of the people of Medina during Muhammad's lifetime.

Shafi'i: This is a conservative school that emphasizes on the opinions of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad.

Maybe the Oklahoma referendum is poorly construed but at least the people of Oklahoma have spoken out against the archaic practices of sharia laws that flies in the face of US laws on the domestic front.

I agree with the thesis of this article. I challenge the simplistic assumption that the ten commandments are compatible with the constitution.

It takes a profound lack of appreciation of the word "liberty" to think that the following "commands" allow for full religious liberty as required by the US constitution:

"You shall have no other Gods before me..."

"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"

How can an honest person think that the United States government could enforce those rules without extreme incursions on basic freedoms? Does Robert think that the government should force him to keep the Sabbath day holy and prohibit him, in his own house, from making a painting of heaven? If these commandments do not mean to enforce the prohibitions listed, then they have no meaning at all, and no purpose would be served but to further erode respect for our existing laws.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but using the Ten Commandments to decide cases would indeed be every bit as unconstitutional as using sharia law.

There would most certainly be cases where "false idols" were involved, as well as "not honoring father and mother" and "saying the lord's name in vane". And then there's not "keeping the sabbath holy". In fact, no doubt many cases could be tinged with religious sanctimonious "judging" and the decisions swayed and sentences and penalties influenced by one religious belief system. This is absolutely in conflict with the Constitution.

Indeed NO RELIGION WHATSOEVER should ever be involved in any legal case in the modern world.

I see that blaine and I are right on top of this.

I expect more from Jihad Watch. You're usually a lot sharper than this, Robert.

I see from the above remarks that the posters don't know much about our founding fathers nor their committment to the Judeao-Christian principles that the Declaration of Indepence and Constitution of the United States were written.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
John Adams

Is Oklahoma's state constitution now in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... "?

Nope. The 1st Amendment (adopted 1791) was, among other things, about Congress passing a federal law establishing a national religion. Many of the people drafting the Constitution were from communities that had fled persecution under established churches such as the Church of England and didn't want the same in America. For a while states were left free to pass a state law establishing a religion, if they wanted, but a case in the Supreme Court (1925: Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652) established that a "Due Process" Clause of the 14th Amendment in effect applied the 1st Amendment to each state. None of this prevents a state from passing a law preventing judges from taking into account alien codes of law, whether associated with a religion or not. What is Tepker on about?

Tepker called the passage of the measure "a mess" with implications unknown until a case that challenges it arises.

But that's how the law normally works. Laws are drafted by lawyers, who don't want laws to be lucid and unambiguous, as that would take the bread out of a fellow lawyer's mouth.

Businesses that engage with international companies may also find the ban is a stumbling block, Tepker said. The ban also requires all state business to be conducted in English....

Contract documents normally have a clause stating the that the laws of a particular country apply to that contract. Pretty standard. All state business in English? - what's the problem there - does it have to be in Cherokee (Tsalagi)? - or is he worried that he won't be able to use his favourite courtroom Latin phrases.

Our legal system is based on English common law, which was based on Roman law.

Don't worry, we don't have to pray to Zeus before the trial starts.

OT but interesting...

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

The views and goals of the founding fathers are immensely interesting and important, but why waste your time arguing about that here? Is it not clear that laws prohibiting you from drawing heaven in your own house would be as non-democratic, and indeed theocratic, as the Taliban that we are fighting. Same applies to sending people to jail for not honoring the sabbath or for honoring some other God. Surely the readers of this open-minded forum are intelligent enough to deduce for themselves that we don't want a theocracy like the Taliban's without needing to check with the Founding Fathers.

It was just last Thursday that Robert wished... Hindu, Sikh, and Jain Jihad Watchers and their families a happy and prosperous Diwali. If these celebrants happen to be American citizens, then our freedom-loving Fundamentalist Christian and Jewish members here would prefer to have them jailed for these flagrantly commandment-violating rituals.

Religious supremacy is intolerable, as long as it isn't Christian or Jewish fundamentalism, eh?

It astonishes me that people get so worked up about the Mosaic Decalogue (10 commandants, in Hebrew it's davar). It is a statement for a group of people to follow, to live in some harmony with each other. There are 10 statements with no penalties if they are broken. There is no references in the 10 to any other laws laid out in the Torah, nor do any of the other laws reference back to the 10. These statements given at Mt. Sinai about 1200 b.c.e.

However, in Dr. Joel Hoffman's book, "And God Said" he explains the reason no penalties are mentioned is because we know without being told that some things are just wrong. "The Ten Commandments may be the most widespread statement that some things are wrong, regardless of the consequences or illegality.

These laws have been kept (mostly) by the Jewish people for 3200 years. The Christians latched onto them after 400 c.e., the founding fathers utilized the concepts in forming our Constitution. It had nothing to do with religion.

Jewish interpretation:
1. I am the Lord - assumption there is a God.
2. There are no other gods - so don't make idols
3. Do not use the Lord's name in vain - no cussing
4. Keep the Sabbath - Includes all people, slaves & animals
5. Honor your parents - your kids will honor you in old age
6. No murder, or manslaughter - self protection okay
7. No Adultery - don't sleep around
8. No stealing - do not take what is not yours
9. No lying - no false witnesses, or harmful gossip
10. Do not take (Hebrew is chamad-take, not to covet-envy)your neighbor's wife, property, or other belongings

"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he said. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation?

This is a fatuous argument, since the "precepts of another culture" is not the key issue here, but precepts that "contradict" the law of the land. For example, cannibalism may be a precept of another culture, but it is not acceptable in our legal culture, neither is ritualistic murder, or human sacrifice and head shrinking. Sure, they're part of another culture or nation, but their application to our culture and nation has no bearing whatsoever. The same for Sharia, it is totally unacceptable to our freedoms and human rights protected by our Constitutional laws. This law professor Tepker is an arse.

allah =\= God... it's that simple..

The U.S. Constitution prohibits the passage of laws that affect an "establishment of religion".

Sharia law is an establishment of religion if ever there was one.

Therefore, the Oklahoma law upholds the U.S. Constitution.

How is this constitutionally incorrect?

BTW, if the Oklahoma law prohibited the incorporation of the first three Commandments (and coveting too) into Oklahoma court decisions it would also uphold the U.S. Constitution. But, because as a moral code the Ten Commandments possess no penalties, they are not logical analogues to Sharia, despite Rick Tepker's claims.

I think a better argument to defeat any challenge of this new law is that Islam is not a religion but rather a political ideology very parallel to Nazism. Seperation of church and state after formation of the constitution meant the laws were set and the church was not to be a factor to them any more. If Islam wants to promote a change of the constitution, we have two options... remove their tax exempt status. Throw them out or kill them as the constitution makes allowances we are allowed to do this to anyone who is a threat to this form of government now over 200 years old. America did not become great because of Islam and the Koran. America became great on Bible-based laws valued by our forefathers. That lesson should never be lost in these modern times or we are doomed.

Good point from kohana, above.

A further point that may be made, since the subject of the Ten Words has come up: if one looks at the life of Mohammed, and at the sharia, one realizes that Islam sanctions and sacralises the open and deliberate breach of each of the six principles stated in what are sometimes called the 'second table' - items 5 through to ten.

If a person becomes a Muslim, he or she is under no obligation to honor their non-Muslim parents...he might even plot to murder or enslave them and his entire community of origin. Whereas I recall seeing a girl from a Buddhist/ Confucian background who had become a Christian; she did *not* cease to treat her parents with love and respect, and indeed waited patiently until her father was willing to recognise her change of faith and give permission for her baptism, before she underwent the rite.

Islam breaches principle # 6 - do not murder - all the time. Murdering a non-Muslim does not carry the same penalty, under sharia, as murder of a fellow Muslim (and if a Muslim feels like offing a fellow Muslim he can get away with it so long as he can claim convincingly - however falsely - that his victim had done something that sharia requires to be punished by death - e.g. apostasy, blasphemy, or in the case of females, zina...hence the 'honor' murders that occur with horrifying frequency in Islamic societies).

Adultery? - under sharia, if a Muslim man seizes the wife of a non-Muslim man, the woman's marriage is deemed to have been made void and having sex with her is perfectly halal. Of course, what the *woman* thinks of being raped by her kidnapper, and the anguish that she may feel over the desecration of her marriage vows, is of no consequence to her vicious and amoral Muslim rapist. Islam has no respect for the marriages or chastity of anybody except Muslims. IN Pakistan and Egypt, a favourite trick is to kidnap a non-Muslim's wife, forcibly 'convert' her to Islam (or claim that she has converted), which according to sharia renders her marriage null and void (how bloody convenient!) and then 'marry' her to a Muslim. In other words: Islam encourages and permits Muslim men to deliberately break up - destroy - the marriages of non-Muslims. *All* non-Muslim women are objects to be used and abused sexually at will - actual or potential 'possessions of the right hand'. As we see in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia the Abominable, where Filipino and Sri Lankan non-Muslim maids are regularly raped by their Muslim owners.

No stealing? - well, according to Islam, the lives and property of non-Muslims are there for the taking if the Muslims are able to seize them. Islam sacralises and commands theft, if what is taken belongs to non-Muslims. It does this by a piece of 'reasoning' that boggles the mind: all good things in the world rightfully belong to 'allah' and hence by extension are the rightful property of Muslims...so when a Muslim seizes and rapes a non-Muslim somebody's wife or daughter, or steals his car, or robs a non-Muslim's bank, all they are doing is taking what is theirs...they're not stealing, they're 'liberating' things. 'What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine also". When I first encountered this Muslim concept I felt like vomiting; it's so obviously a brazen rationalisation of evil.

No lying, no false witnesses or malicious gossip? - well, jihadwatch regulars know what the Ummah is like, on that count. Sharia permits lying for the benefit of Islam. Taqiyya, kitman, and all the rest of it. Lies, false witnesses, forgery, fraud, and malicious gossip aplenty, employed both against fellow Muslims and against non-Muslims with malice aforethought, morning, noon, and night.

And as for # 10 - see the discussion of # 8.

As far as I know, the Qu'ran and hadith never replicate the Decalogue. Does anyone more knowledgeable than I have better info? I'd greatly appreciate correction if I need it.

Rick Tepker seems to be another example of a lawyer who is merely clever rather than wise, learned, or principled. Perhaps he uncritically accepts the idea that Muslims somehow also honor the Old and New Testaments simply because the Muslims invoke Moses, Abraham, Jonah, John the Baptist, Zechariah, David, and Jesus as prophets.

As for the Decalogue being "foreign" in America,there are plenty of science- and state-worshipers who'd jump on that concept. Then again, most of the great traditions of Western Law from the Decalogue, through Roman Law, through English Common Law (and even the concept of federalism) originated outside the United States.

This just came in on my blog:

“But in this CAIR is, yet again, lying. The Oklahoma law forbids lawmakers from legislating for Oklahomans as a whole using Sharia rather than American law. It does not forbid private individuals from getting married or writing wills in any way they wish.”

That’s simply not true. Here is the ACTUAL text from the ballot:

“It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law. ”

CAIR is correct. If a will is written with regard to Sharia law, and a dispute arises under the will, the court cannot “consider” Sharia law. That essentially voids the will on the sole basis of the person’s religion.

If that isn’t unconstitutional on its face, the Constitution has no meaning.

This is exactly what appeared on the ballot:

"This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.
Shall the proposal be approved?"

While it singles out Sharia law (which could be argued violates freedom of religion), it also enforces citing only federal and state laws. The Ten Commandments are not federal or state laws, so they cannot be considered in the legal process.

"Tepker said. The ban also requires all state business to be conducted in English...." Now, that's not a bad point.
Mr. Davis cites a point of review, "The U.S. Constitution prohibits the passage of laws that affect an "establishment of religion".
Sharia law is an establishment of religion if ever there was one." As Sharia would over-lay or pre-empt the USC, it would be allowed to be interpreted as establishing." We can't afford even the slightest of precedence to take hold; municipal, country, state or commonwealth.
And, we should be mature enough and self-confident enough within the contect of our own priciples to stop short any effort to compromise the the USC, whiich can be eroded at the bases: municipal, country, state or commonwealth.
The caveat: "we should be mature enough and self-confident enough" is a great concern.
As PC (the intellectual equivalent of AIDS) has gained near-establishment status, so it will shepherd in Sharia.