Spencer: Court Blocks Oklahoma Sharia Ban

Yes, heaven's above, what is there to fear from Shari'a? Well, maybe being sentenced to death for blaspheming against the prophet. After all, saying something negative about that 7th. Century paedophile merits a good hanging, no?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8120142/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-Pakistan-for-blasphemy.html

The command most probably shook down the chain from El Prezidente. .

So the Muslim Brotherhood, a group of foreign terrorists, has a say in American domestic politics ?

And has the power to negate, at least temporarily, the will of the people ?

What is Judge Miles - Lagranges rational for her decision not to let the measure stand ?
What " proof " did CAIR produce, to show how this measure is unconstitutional ?
It looks like another case of judicial activism.
Judge Miles - Lagrange should be tossed out, for dereliction of duty.

I hope that this lawsuit backfires on CAIR, in a big way.

Hopefully, by putting themselves back into the spotlight, they will be scrutinized and exposed on a larger scale.

CAIR should also be counter sued for all court costs. This is a nuisance suit.

Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma CAIR chapter, sought the restraining order on the grounds that the law stigmatized Islam.

If, as the apologists for Islam teach us, Sharia is not essential and crucial element of Islam (which, in contrast to Sharia, is peaceful, tolerant and humane) then why prohibiting Sharia, thus letting the true Islam to prove its benign nature, is an Islam-stigmatizing measure?

Indeed, few things stigmatize Islam more effectively than a law against stigmatizing Islam.

This attempt to legitimise Shariah is, in the long term, far more damaging to America than the Ground Zero Victory Mosque (which was intended as a calculated insult rather than a major act of subversion). Let's hope the counterjihadists can mobilise as much support against this attack as against the rather more emotive GZV Mosque.

OT:

"Michelle Obama wears a head scarf as the Obamas tour the Istiqlal Mosque in Indonesia"

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/

As for the Judge in OK, if I could speak to her I'd say: "Anyone can be "anti-Islam" just as they are anti-Fascism and anti-Nazism."

I'd love to see the look on her face.

All people can reject the claim that Islamic clerics are the center of all power just as completely as they can reject the belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe.

The TRO was not issued until Tuesday:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_101109_shariah_tro.html

On Monday the judge said only that she would release it as soon as possible.

Arbitration is pointless if the results cannot be filed with a court to be enforced through the compulsory powers of the state. Any religious determinations however they are characterized must have no force of law beyond the power of the group/association to expel a member. There is a perfect parallel between the power to compel and the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve civil matters. Any Sharia-based determinations that encompass more than just religious matters, or with any compulsion beyond the threat of member expulsion, are themselves a violation of the exclusive powers of the state to resolve civil matters in an open and publicly accessible forum and subject to the limits on the exercise of government power.

What does a typical Sharia-based arbitration award look like? What is the correct label to apply to such awards? What is the enforcement mechanism for such awards? Can a participant insist upon the conformity of such awards with the limits on our official secular civil courts and our secular legislatures?

There is a "secular purpose" in actually restraining the scope and power of dispute resolution by any Sharia-based entities. It would be based on the very same secular purpose of confining the scope and power of our own secular government, including our secular courts.

Yet matters are not all bad here.

With this temporary restraining order this whole affair represents bad publicity for Islam & Muslims who have irritated voters (not just in OK) and created at least a little more fear that we the people can lose some control of our government to the rising population and activism of a group that's looking less & less American and more & more threatening.

The more incidences like this the sooner America will wake up to the fact that inherently Muslims = trouble, and that this trouble is rooted in a very problematic and dangerous faith held by even the not so trustworthy "moderate" Muslims.

Just as the UK steps further and further into submission, so too, does the US...It really is time to ban Muslim Immigration and take whatever action necessary to remove this real threat upon your freedom as you know it...

You might take a look at a Muslim school located in Lilburn, Georgia (near Atlanta). Google "City of Knowledge Islamic School". Go the the right side and click Student Handbook under Favorites. They have 24 pages of the rules.

On page #16 they list unacceptable behavior. Rule one is that Islam is not to be questioned.

On page 17 see suspensions.

On page 23...the school does not celebrate non-Islamic holidays.

This last one should get everyone's attention. They have no intention of integrating with American society. The way I read it they will be in school while the rest of us will be celebrating the Fourth of July.

Surely this an issue which relates to the principles set out in the American Constitution.

Barack Obama taught constitutional law when he was a lecturer at the University of Chicago.

A constitutional lawyer like Mark Levin talks about this on his radio show and wrote an entire book on the subject ( if anyone’s read it can they post their comments and impressions.)

Is this fatwa by Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange a case of Federal Government overruling government at the State level? Can anyone explain ( I’m a Brit so I may need some help here.)

Surely Sharia Law is totally incompatible with the American Constitution.

It surely is also incompatible with the British Constitution too, since they share common roots.

John Adams, the lawyer and US President who helped to frame the American Constitution, called the British Constitution “the most stupendous fabric of human invention in history.”

Related to this topic is a videotaped comment posted by Newt Gingrich in July of this year:

YouTube: Newt Gingrich- Ban Sharia - It is' totally abhorrent to the Western World' 7:36
Hat Tip BareNakedIslam

Transcript provided @ Newt.org

"Let us be clear. This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. The militant form believes in using military power in one form or another. The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual and political but their end goal is exactly the same.
The fight against Sharia and the madrassas in mosques which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth. It's time we had a national debate on this.

One of the things I'm going to suggest today is a federal law which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.

Let me draw a sharp distinction between those Muslims who live in the modern world and those Muslims who would radically change the modern world. Radical Islamists want to impose Sharia on all of us for legitimate reasons. Let me be quite clear. You can respect your adversary without agreeing or giving in. They have profound, deeply held beliefs and one of the great challenges for secularists is they can't understand the level of passion that a belief which is derived from an underlying religious form leads one to have, which is why, frankly, deeply believing Christians and Jewish Americans have a much better understanding of what's going on than do secular intellectuals in deracinated universities looking out of their ivory tower or trying to wonder what it is that would lead people to kill themselves and having no comprehension of the emotions and the depth of passion engaged.
Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. But in fact they're both engaged in jihad and they're both seeking to impose the same end state which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Sharia.
Let me be quite clear, and I could not disagree more with Dean Kagan in accepting the Saudi money to have professors of Sharia at Harvard. I couldn't disagree more with every university in America which teaches a transparently propagandistic version. Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world, and the underlying basic belief which is that law comes directly from God and is therefore imposed upon humans and no human can change the law without it being an act of apostasy is a fundamental violation of a tradition in the Western system which goes back to Rome, Athens and Jerusalem and which has evolved in giving us freedom across the planet on a scale we can hardly imagine and which is now directly threatened by those who would impose it.
So let me also be quite clear that the rules are radical and horrific. I think again it's fascinating that even when people go out and do polling and they say to, for example, Muslims in general, do you believe in Sharia, they don’t then explain what Sharia is. Sharia becomes like would you like to be a Rotarian and it sounds okay. Let me give you an example that was on the news. I was doing Fox & Friends this morning and coming across was that Iran in trying to appease world opinion, has graciously agreed that a woman who had been convicted of adultery would not be stoned to death, should be hung. That was the moderation. You can't make these things up.
I say to all of our friends on the left who believe in gay rights, the principle of Sharia is painful execution, not just death. Painful execution. How we don’t have some kind of movement in this country on the left that understands that Sharia is a direct mortal threat to virtually every value that the left has is really one of the most interesting historical questions and will someday lead to many dissertations being written. . .

Lan Astaslem.

But in this CAIR was, 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. The idea of the Oklahoma Sharia ban is to prevent judges from making decisions based on a legal system that contradicts the principles of American law in numerous particulars.

To prevent judges from making legal decisions that "contradicts the principles of American law in numerous particulars"? Let me count the ways these American principles, in particulars of law, are violated by Sharia:

1. Death for leaving one's religion, i.e., Islam apostates.
2. Death by stoning for adulterous adults.
3. Death by stoning for women who were raped, but could not produce four male witnesses.
4. Death for homosexuality, often by hanging.
5. Death for non-Muslims who killed a Muslim (reverse corollary does not apply to Muslims).
6. Death for women who violated their family "honor".
7. Whipping for various "morality" crimes against Islam.
8. Amputations for theft, beheadings and painful executions for other crimes.
9. Death for practicing one's non-Islamic religion in public.
10. Death (post da'wa 'invitation') for failing to convert to Islam or pay the dhimmi Jyzia poll tax.

"Let me draw a sharp distinction between those Muslims who live in the modern world and those Muslims who would radically change the modern world. "
- Newt Gingrich from link above.

Newt is a politician and has to make strong qualifications like this, but IMO the distinction should not be "sharp". I totally disagree with him on this.

Remember the smiling photo of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a highly educated officer whom anyone would have described as one of "those Muslim who live in the modern world", a moderate Muslim we can trust. Sudden Jihad Syndrome took control and with deliberate planning he shot to death 13 fellow soldiers like fish in a barrel, wounding 38.

I think Islam makes people, especially educated people, insane in order to cope with believing what Islam really teaches. While statistically not frequent, IMO the evidence is that the potential is there that Sudden Jihad Syndrome can overcome any "moderate" Muslim like a demon.

And contrary to what Newt implies, a true Muslim cannot be "modern", he is mentally a 7th century creature of a lie, and it is not just extremist who want sharia, a great many "moderate" Muslims want it also - just review the polls. When they read & believe the same Qu'ran they represent the same threat, even if only the threat of stealth jihad.

My point is not that we should hate Muslims but that we can't trust any of them. Under Obama, the real lesson learned from the Hasan case cannot be officially learned and certainly not admitted. But the public deserves to know the real lesson learned, and the point about the official Army report never associating Hasan's traitorous act with Islam is that Obama didn't want to help the public to figure it out.

The idea of the Oklahoma Sharia ban is to prevent judges from making decisions based on a legal system that contradicts the principles of American law in numerous particulars.
..................

Here's CAIR-OK Executive Director Muneer Awad interviewed by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein on New York City's WABC 770 AM radio:

"A religious law can never replace and conflict the law of our land," Awad countered. "Shariah law doesn't govern the case; Shairah (sic) law is something for the judge to consider in order to come to a ruling."

Awad insisted that Shariah is compliant with both American values and its Constitution, since the Islamic law is "dynamic" in that it changes based on circumstances, including governing law of land where implemented.
..................

So—Awad *does* want to see Shari'ah law taken into account in court rulings in Oklahoma (and presumably elsewhere, as well).

The idea that Shari'ah is so "dynamic" as to have no core at all is entirely meretricious. Also—if this were so, then why refer to Shari'ah at all? Presumably a Muslim could follow *any* set of laws, and it would be perfectly fine from an Islamic point of view. Obviously this is not the case.

I imagine what Awad intended to convey is the usual sop to alarmed Infidels—an assurance that Shari'ah need not mean stoning unveiled women in the streets. What Awad meant is that it would not mean that—yet, at any rate.

He also brings up the assertion that Shari'ah is compliant with the US constitution—a falsehood first posited by the shady Ground Zero mosque proponent, Imam Abdul Rauf. Rauf, however, was cagier—he suggested that it was the constitution and America that were themselves "Shari'ah compliant"—in other words, that the American tradition of pluralism and freedom of religion means that it will have no defense against the imposition of Shari'ah—and hence, it is "Shari'ah compliant"

For Awad to claim that the *ban on Shari'ah law* "conflicts with the U.S. Constitution"—when it is Shari'ah law *itself* that would do so—is the height of perversion.

You can read more on the interview here:

"CAIR's Shariah defender dodges questions on terror ties"

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=225289

This ruling might not be as bad as it appears at first. Hate to say this because I loathe Sharia, but as Megyn Kelly, a very astute lawyer who ripped Fibrahim Hooper to shreds a couple of weeks ago in her interview with him on Fox News, pointed out to Bill O'Reilly, the Oklahoma law seems to be framed with wording that would disallow judges to even take into account what international law or Sharia or other nations' laws have to say about a particular subject. She used the example of a gay couple from Canada (where gay mariage is legal) here in the United States (where gay marriage is not a federal right) and who find themselves in an American courtroom for some reason related to their marital status. Kelly averred that in such a scenario a judge is allowed under American law to CONSIDER what Canadian law maintains about gay marriage but could then dismiss it if not applicable. Same thing with Sharia. A judge could CONSIDER Sharia but if it is at all violative of the US Constitution or a state constitution, then the judge could decide to ignore whatever provision of Sharia is being adjudicated.

Once again we can see that Muslims will push America to the limits in trying to make their profoundly troubling religion a part of American life. This struggle will continue for some time as Islam, so at odds with one provision after another in America's Constitution, parasitically feeds off of freedom to advance itself, even though there is nothing about Islam and true liberty that is compatible. All part of the reason why I hold Islam in such low esteem. Yep, it's going to be a bumpy century, courtesy of Mo's warped creed.

Sharia already violates the constitution. The only reason this was necessary is that many who should be defending the constitution, won't do their job. Groups that are supposed to protect the separation of church and state often come out and wrongfully condemn people fighting Islamic encroachment as bigots. In the meantime there are a lot of activist judges who ignore the constitution whenever they think they can get away with it. This was just the people of Oklahoma standing up and trying to protect our liberty from Islamic fundamentalists, bent on replacing the U.S constitution with their religious laws. Sharia is not compatible with our constitution or a free or even a just society.

Well well well, we gotta ban on a Sharia ban.

*** 33:21 ***

Back in the dark daze of the first Jihad terror war WTC attack, things looked a little gloomy for our Moslem "American" friends. But since 9/11 things have gone swimmingly for them, with one 4 yard run after the other, moving the ball steadily downfield. Sure, they suffer the odd loss of yardage or penality here and there, but I must tip my NASCAR ballcap to them. Moving on downfield.

Suppose my will said give all my estate to Hamas?

Suppose Muneer Awad's will said give all my estate to Hamas?

Do we, or the judge, know that it does not?

"Islamic Ambulance Chasers"

(by Edward Cline)

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7873/pub_detail.asp

Thomas Pellow beat me to it and referred readers here to “Islamic Ambulance Chasers,” at Family Security Matters. It could just as well have been titled, “Unsheathing the Sword of Lawfare.” This article drew a response from Paul Maas Risenhoover, who reported that “We have appealed to the Tenth Circuit for a writ of mandamus against Judge Miles-LaGrange, and it is pending. The Supreme Court of the US excoriated Sharia law in IN RE ROSS, 140 US 453.” Mr. Risenhoover also cites other Supreme Court cases. The balance of his comment also deserves attention.

Ross 140 US 453, which I have read, dates to 1891, and concerns a murder committed years earlier by an American aboard an American merchant vessel in a Japanese harbor. The thrust of the argument is that anyone, of any nationality, working or present on an American vessel anywhere in the world, temporarily swears allegiance to the flag under which the vessel sails, and is bound and protected by the laws of that country, with the implicit conclusion that the same reasoning applies to anyone on American soil, American or foreign. The person who was the subject of this ruling, Ross, originally drew the death sentence, but this was commuted by President Rutherford B. Hayes to a life sentence. He appealed the sentencing, even though a president had commuted the original one, on specious reasons, but the appeal was rejected.

May I also draw attention to the American woman and student who, together with male friends, was charged with complicity in the rape and murder of a British woman and student in Italy? She committed the crime in that country and so was subject to its laws. As in the Ross case, her nationality and religious persuasion were immaterial and irrelevant to the fact of murder, as were the nationality and religious persuasion of the murder victim. As in the United States, the scope and nature of a crime made no difference; whether she was charged with petty theft, larceny, or murder, she came under that country’s laws that covered the act.

Some critics of the Oklahoma ban on Sharia claim that Awad and CAIR are within their rights to oppose the ban because it infringes on the right to settle “small disputes” within the Muslim “community.” But Sharia is not the same as, say, the American Arbitration Association or similar secular organizations that hear private, non-capital crime and non-civil law disputes. Sharia is both a religious and political code. As individuals, Muslims have recourse to those organizations, as well as small claims courts and the like. Sharia was singled out in the ban because of its religious and political nature. To admit it into American jurisprudence would be suicidal and an act of dhimmitude.

Some critics of the Oklahoma ban on Sharia claim that Awad and CAIR are within their rights to oppose the ban because, aside from being “discriminatory” and “stigmatizing,” it infringes on the right of Muslims to settle “small disputes” within the Muslim “community.”

But Sharia is not the same as, say, the American Arbitration Association or similar secular organizations that hear private, non-capital crime and non-civil law disputes. Sharia is both a religious and political code. As individuals, Muslims have recourse to those organizations, as well as small claims courts and the like. Sharia was singled out in the ban because of its religious and political nature. To admit it into American jurisprudence would be suicidal and an act of dhimmitude. It is “minor” cases that Awad and CAIR (and MSNBC) insist are innocuous and harmless that help to incrementally insinuate Sharia into a culture, as it has in Europe and especially in Britain, with the intention of expanding the scope of Sharia until it attains a status of unassailable "respect" and independence from the national secular code of laws. The next step, of course, is to subvert and suborn the secular code of laws in direct opposition, which would result in submission of the secular authority or a violent clash.

When are we going to put a stop to judges ruling against voters? Sharia does not follow American law. Islam is not a religion it is a cult!

I have been to MSNBC, CNN and a few other news channels and the people that are against the law, by the comments, do not know anything about sharia or islam. Rachel Maddow is one of these. I posted this before but will post it again.
Watch this video from the Rachel Maddow show.. Oklahoma Law. If they are not trying to get their sharia law established then why the lawsuit? Every country that they are in they setup sharia.
They want to destroy America and set up their own government, Islam. They can lie all they want but in the end the truth will come out. Read some of the posts and comment if you can.