Court rules Sharia ban unconstitutional

Nonsense.

Killing someone who disagrees with you is not unconstitutional?

Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) says: "Whoever curses the Prophet (صلي الله عليه وسلم), Muslim or Kaafir, must be killed."

(Mukhtasar As-Saram Al-Maslool `Ala Shatim Ar-Rasul Pages 31-33)

Acquiring and raping slaves is not unconstitutional?

"It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would release his water (semen) while he was fasting. Ahmed says: " What I see is that he can release the water without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has a "Ammah" (i.e. slave girl) whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible."
(Ibn al-Qayyim: Bada'i al-Fawa'id p. 603)

Maybe I live in Egypt and not in America.

Making demands of non-Islamic believers IS INHERENTLY part and parcel of Islam.(*) To that extent these various state proposals banning Sharia law would deny Muslims the ability to be “fully Muslim” as that phrase is interpreted by Muslims. That is, BEING FULLY MUSLIM MEANS (TO THE MUSLIM) IMPOSING ISLAM ON NON-MUSLIMS. This task is to be done until the whole world submits. This instruction is expressly stated, more than once, by Mohammed himself in his Quran, as well as in the sira and hadiths. The waging of holy war (jihad) is affirmatively imposed on all Muslims. (In Islam there are two jihads: the greater struggle (or jihad) deals with personal spirituality; the lesser struggle deals with advancing Islam throughout the world by any means necessary (including force). Strangely Muslims confuse their priorities, choosing a pre-occupation with the physical, lesser jihad. Perhaps if Muslims chose to focus on personal, spiritual self-improvement, and not on getting the rest of us to submit, then the world might be a more peaceful place.)

This then is the problem: separating Religious Islam from Political Islam. We in the West can easily do this as such separation is part of our culture. Muslims find such a separation both incomprehensible and impossible. Without Sharia, Islam isn’t Islam, Islam can’t be Islam, will be the predictable claims of Muslims.

But that world view is not the world view of the West. Separating the political from the religious can be done. Utah’s admittance as one of the United States shows it can be done PROVIDED all parties acknowledge the supremacy of the US Constitution for federal matters and the respective state constitutions for other matters.

We have precedent to divorce practices from belief, despite the shrieking banshee stage acts of the left and Muslims alike. Current state attempts seek that balance.

* As Bill Warner has ably documented, "Most people think that the Koran is a religious text. Instead, 64% of the text (by word count) is about non-Muslims, who are called Kafirs (a nasty term). The Koran is fixated on Kafirs and makes many demands on them. Not the least is that Kafirs submit to the rule of Islamic Sharia law. Ultimately Sharia law is the pure expression of Islamic politics and it completely contradicts our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Under Sharia there is no freedom of speech, wives may be beaten and apostates murdered."
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/religious-freedom-and-a-mosque

I suspect that the loss of civil liberties from following Sharia law will fall disproportionately upon Muslim women. Look at the position of women in Muslim countries, how women are mistreated and controlled, how this is the direct product of Quranic teachings. Surprising that there were no Muslim women on board to oppose instituting Sharia here, or are they too submissive?

Reliance of the Traveller, a standard Islamic law reference text certified by Al-Azhar, the chief center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world, supports extreme discrimination against women and non-Muslims:

From page 590 of The Reliance of the Traveller/Umdat Al-Salik:

The indemnity [compensation for damages] for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity for a Jew or a Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim.

The indemnity for a Zoroastrian [the Persian pre-Islamic religion, to which some Iranians still adhere] is one-fifteenth of that of a Muslim.

From the back cover of Reliance of the Traveller:

"There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language."
- Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought

...is the first translation of a standard Islamic legal reference in a European language to be certified by Al-Azhar, the Muslim world's oldest institution of higher learning. It presents an explanative interpretation of Umdat al-Salik, a classic Sunni manual of Sacred law...

A standard Islamic legal reference, certified by Al-Azhar, the chief center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world, not only says one can kill one's children or grandchildren with impunity; impunity also extends to a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim, and to non-Muslims who kill apostates from Islam:

From page 583-584 of The Reliance of the Traveller/Umdat Al-Salik:

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:

1. a child or insane person, under any circumstances...

2. a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

3. a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam...

4. a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

From the back cover of Reliance of the Traveller:

"There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language."
- Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought

...is the first translation of a standard Islamic legal reference in a European language to be certified by Al-Azhar, the Muslim world's oldest institution of higher learning. It presents an explanative interpretation of Umdat al-Salik, a classic Sunni manual of Sacred law...

“No one in Oklahoma deserves to be treated like a second-class citizen,”

Exactly! Islamic law mandates a humiliating second-class status for Jews and Christian's, hence the people of Oklahoma want to ban it!

OT

Shiite pilgrims targeted in Baghdad as double car bombing kills 16

Attacks come less than a week after 90 were killed in similar plot

Two car bombs exploded on Monday evening in the Iraqi capital and killed at least 16 people, authorities said.

At least one appeared to target Shiite pilgrims, sinking the country deeper into a new wave of sectarian violence.

The second car bomb struck near a police vehicle in the Shiite neighborhood of al-Shaab, killing three policemen and four other people, police and hospital officials said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084359/Shiite-pilgrims-targeted-Baghdad-double-car-bombing-kills-16.html#ixzz1j6B06k69

Perhaps it is time to move on from state legislatures banning Sharia. Rather, these same legislatures should ban amputation for theft, death for criticism of a religion, death for one who converts from one religion to another, polygamy, any provision that makes women second-class citizens, any legal system that would ever replace the Constitution, etc. Ban the specific provisions of Sharia, without mentioning Sharia, which contravene the Constitution (and/or federal law) in any way.

At this moment in time legal high theory in America will not permit discrimination against Islam, or Sharia taken as a whole. After all, Muslims banging their heads five times a day is not unconstitutional, nor is washing before prayers. Specificity is key.

Muslims play games and leftist organizations like the ACLU play games. Very well. Those who understand Islam's true threat to liberty must play games as well. After all, we do live in the Age of Nonsense. If we didn't, Islam would by now already be as reviled by most everyone in the West as Nazism.

"Indeed, they admitted . . . 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.” "

NO One ever beheaded a human for religious purposes until one day they did...

Are any of us regular readers of JW surprised by this ruling?

I swear that it looks as if the West is trying to commit cultural suicide by any and every possible means.

There go's the neighborhood...Does this mean that American Mahoundians can now kill their children? Will they have to apply for a permit first, or just do it?

Islam mandates that those who leave be killed. That makes Islam a GANG (like the MAfia and Mexican drug lords) and not a RELIGION.

Hence the Establishment Clause does NOT APPLY.

To follow on what Mary Hartman said, the Muslim world-view is very different from ours.

According to the historic Muslim understanding, there is no separation between religion and government—what in Christianity would be called the separation of church and state. We are not speaking here of the secularist idea that the state should marginalize religion and discourage people from voting their consciences as Christians. We are talking about the idea that church and state are not the same thing and that they have different spheres of activity.

This idea of a separation between religion and government is not characteristic of most peoples in world history. It is a contribution to the world of ideas that was made by Christians—indeed, by Christ himself. In his book Islam and the West, historian Bernard Lewis explains:

"The notion that religion and political authority, church and state, are different and that they can or should be separated is, in a profound sense, Christian. Its origins may be traced to the teachings of Christ, notably in the famous passage in Matthew 22:21, in which Christ is quoted as saying: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.’ This notion was confirmed by the experience of the first Christians; its later development was shaped and in a sense even imposed by the subsequent history of Christendom. The persecutions endured by the early Church made it clear that a separation between the two was possible."

Most peoples in world history have not shared this understanding. In most societies, religion and government have been inseparably linked. This is especially true in Muslim society.

In the Muslim world-view, Islamic society is or should be a theocracy—a society in which God himself is the monarch, reigning on earth through subordinates.

That Islam sees itself as a theocracy has enormous ramifications for how it regards itself and for the behavior of Muslims. First, it means that Islam is not only a religion. It is also a political ideology. If the government of the Muslim community simply is God’s government, then no other governments can be legitimate.

We can expect civilizational clashes between Islam and the West to increase as the influence of Islam encroaches upon our political and legal systems.

{A federal appeals court today unanimously upheld a ruling that blocked implementation of a discriminatory and unnecessary Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that would have prohibited state courts from considering what is broadly described as Islamic “Sharia law” and “international law.”

The court concluded that by singling out Islam for unfavorable treatment in state courts, the law likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.}

Hmmm. This is a Pyrrhic victory for Muslims, since it calls the Okla. law "unnecessary", meaning that state courts should be left open to "consider" Sharia, even though they know good and well that being based on Islam the Establishment Clause will rule any use of it out on appeal to the federal courts. In other words, the feds are more interested in protecting their power than in states rights.

Still, Obama used all the influence he had to even get that ruling :) Of course the First Amendment already prohibits Sharia, but now everybody has to rely on the federal courts to stop it. Nothing about this precludes Congress from singling out Islam as a threat to the Constitution and passing federal laws including a moratorium on Muslim immigration. We'll only have to worry when the Supreme Court gets a Muslim majority, ugh, I hope never. If Congress gets a Muslim majority, the U.S. is kaput.

What do you know about the modern Muslim World, its key orgs. and leaders? How would you do on a test? Ace it with my free Freakin' Powerful Muslimscope:

http://tinyurl.com/muslimscope

Sharia has so many provisions, it would be impossible to obey all of them...The majority of it has no particular interest to us at all...But there are sections that do...Crime and punishment, including jihad, the prescribed treatment of women, stoning, hanging gays, etc, are already against established US law...Islam and full sharia are one, and cannot be permanently separated...This means that it is already illegal for Mahoundians to fully practice their religion...
Either the law has to be changed to allow Mahoundians to kill their children, or Mahoundians are going to have to move to a country that allows it...Freedom of religion in America was never meant to be a license to kill your children, and that's the way it should stay...

JUDGES = F IDIOTS.

This is really sad that our ELITE, like these judges, are clueless. So we not only have to fight this Jihadist threat but also these clueless HELPERS OF THE ENEMY. That is how CIVIL WARS start. NO, USA IS NOT IMMUNE TO CIVIL WAR.

I continue to be amazed that there isn't much more conflict with Islam in the West. On the other hand, since Christianity is all but dead now in most Western countries, it makes sense in a way.

I always laugh when I think of what Michael Savage said, "Only the soccer thugs can save Britain from Islam." But I know what he meant. Is it any wonder he's been banned from the country?

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/01/10/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-cairs-favor-blocks-oklahoma-voter-approved-ban-on-sharia-law

come over and educate..

the key word is SEVERABILITY..

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that each of the preliminary injunction factors weighed in favor of Mr. Awad’s request and that he made a strong showing on the substantial likelihood and balance-of-harms factors as the heightened standard requires. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.16

16 Appellants raised the issue of severability of the Sharia law portions of the
amendment for the first time to this court in post-oral argument supplemental briefing. Their argument consisted of one sentence and cited no authority, stating that if this court decides the Sharia law provisions in the amendment render the amendment invalid, “the court should simply treat the explicatory example as surplusage, and strike it.” Because this issue has not been adequately briefed, we do not address it. See United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011) (“It is well-settled that arguments inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived.” (quotations omitted)).

Jihad Watch:

This news concerns me a lot. Aren't you concerned that some judhes in their ivory tower are so disconnected. Don't they have grand-children? I do not like this decision, not one bit.

like Obamacare.. SEVERABILITY is the key to destroying shariah..

mormons compromised their """"faith"""" to get a State.. muslims NEVER will agree to SEVER the evil of their """"religion"""" to get morsels to 'live as muslims' in America...

focus on the basics and force the courts to actually fact check the case presented to them..

shove 'muslim authority' opinions about shariah into their generally useless faces..

polygamy is mormon faith.. do you deny that FACT!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082823/Warren-Jeffs-church-secretly-holding-underage-girls-sex.html

mormonism that was SEVERED to save the totality of Christian based Progressivism..

The legal scope of what the Oklahoma legislators tried to do was too broad. The defendant, Muneer Awad, the executive director of CAIR in Oklahoma, was able to successfully argued that his religious freedoms would be violated. That the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death. And so on.

I'm not too worried about this case. I think if the scope is narrowed a good law could be passed. Something to the effect of where Sharia law conflicts with our constitution or established state law Sharia law shall be subordinate to those laws or something to that effect. It would be very interesting to watch CAIR argue against that.

Meanwhile, Egyptians using their new Democratic freedoms, demand Islamic law!

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/southern-egypt-demonstrators-demand-islamic-law-1.356717

polygamy is not an 'aspiration'.. Joseph Smith did not try to be a 'latter day' mohammad for nothing.. your mormon legacy is 'girl farms' for decrepit men that need fresh meat..

GFY

Lol, hey Spencer, you wriggled out of debate with Danios from Loonwatch all this time because 'debating such a compromised and dishonest individual would be a waste of time' for you. Will you be adding a post with the unedited video of the debate which you have apparently accepted? You would'nt want to look 'compromised' would you? I'll bet my house on it that you will come up with some 'mitigating circumstances' or other to cancel the gig.

Dunderhead disciples and lurking wingnuts...Please do make sure you tune in if Robert decides he can discreetly house an extra absorbant diaper in his pants on the day of the debate.

Lol, hey Spencer, you wriggled out of debate with Danios from Loonwatch all this time because 'debating such a compromised and dishonest individual would be a waste of time' for you. Will you be adding a post with the unedited video of the debate which you have apparently accepted? You would'nt want to look 'compromised' would you? I'll bet my house on it that you will come up with some 'mitigating circumstances' or other to cancel the gig.

Dunderhead disciples and lurking wingnuts...Please do make sure you tune in if Robert decides he can discreetly house an extra absorbent diaper in his pants on the day of the debate.

So lessee here...

We got us a court ruling that finds in favor of a religion with its own legal system, one that not only refuses to recognize the authority of the ruling court and would ban it if given the chance but is actively looking for chances to do so. So it happens that it is violation of the non-establishment clause if measures are taken to prevent the established dominance of their religion. Maddening!

But let's not let it rest. Let's try again. Never give up.

Time to go back to the drawing board. Since we respect our processes and the issue is that apparently Islam was mentioned in the ammendment, then someone has to write an ammendment that doesn't mention Islam nor sharia.

Just says that no other source of legislation other than approved by U.S. congress or the legislature of [insert state name here] will be allowed in the courts of [insert state name there] as precedent, comparison, or anything else. period.

That way no religion is mentioned. but is included.

I beg to differ. Outlawing political provisions of islam while allowing the religious islam not only isn't the answer but is the best way to grant islam victory in the long run.

Muslim populations can go on end without enforcing sharia or wearing head scarves... until they're strong enough to revive the true faith.

Also, mere adherence to islamic ethics is sufficient to deeply alter for the worse someone's caracter simply because islam instills a double morality that runs against the ideal of universal love and human compassion. No good and no beauty can come of this and it must be banned altogether.

From the briefs leading to the decision:

1. Mr. Awad Has Standing to Bring His Establishment Clause Claim

To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must establish (1) that he or she has
“suffered an injury in fact;” (2) that the injury is “‘fairly traceable to the challenged
action of the defendant;” and, (3) that it is “likely” that “the injury will be redressed by a
favorable decision.” Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436, 1442
(2011) (quotations omitted); see also Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1019 (10th Cir.
2011).

“At bottom, the gist of the question of standing is whether petitioners have such a
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness
which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for
illumination.” Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007) (quotations omitted).

As in all standing analyses, we must begin by determining whether Mr. Awad has
alleged an injury in fact. To satisfy this requirement, plaintiffs must allege they “have
suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete
and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Winn,
131 S. Ct. at 1442 (quotations omitted).
Appellants argue that Mr. Awad does not have standing because he has not
-12-
suffered an actual or imminent injury.4 They contend that because the amendment has
not taken effect or been interpreted by any Oklahoma court, Mr. Awad’s alleged injuries
are necessarily speculative. They further contend that Mr. Awad’s assertion that he will
suffer official condemnation of his religion is “personal opinion.” Aplt. Br. at 14.

Mr. Awad claims that the amendment threatens to injure him in several ways, such
as condemning his Muslim faith, inhibiting the practice of Islam, disabling a court from
probating his will (which contains references to Sharia law), and limiting the relief he and
other Muslims can obtain from Oklahoma state courts.
Determining whether a plaintiff has alleged a sufficient injury in fact is often not
difficult. But “the concept of injury for standing purposes is particularly elusive in
Establishment Clause cases.” Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 494 F.3d 494, 504-05
(5th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted); see also Suhre v. Haywood Cnty., 131 F.3d 1083,
1085 (4th Cir. 1997) (same quote); Robinson v. City of Edmond, 68 F.3d 1226, 1230 n.6
(10th Cir. 1995) (“Standing is of course always necessary in an Establishment Clause
case, and it is sometimes a difficult issue.”).

The Supreme Court discussed this issue in Valley Forge Christian College v.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982).

In Valley
Forge, a group of plaintiffs dedicated to the separation of church and state attempted to
challenge the transfer of surplus federal property to an educational institution affiliated
4Appellants have not challenged the causation or redressability elements of Mr.
Awad’s standing.""

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Don't sweat too much, JWatchers.

Believe me, as soon as there is something actionable, Sharia provisions will be tossed, one after the other. The voters of OK approved the proposed state constitutional amendment by some 70%, making their voices heard, albeit in what has turned out to be in the form of a rather weakly argued case by the Appellants. This is not to be completely disparaged, though, for the obvious reason and value of issuing a clarion call, if nothing else.

Ironically, the Awad character says, "The so-called ‘Save Our State Amendment’ was a solution in search of a problem, and a blatantly discriminatory solution at that."
__________________________________________________________
**********************************************************

Just as soon as Mr. Awad and his cohorts begin causing actionable "problems" through Shariah application, a solution will be found because of the ancient legal Canon of, "for every Law there must be redress, when that Law is improperly applied".

"Muslim populations can go on end without enforcing sharia or wearing head scarves... until they're strong enough to revive the true faith." -- Maxilo

That is about what I am expecting to happen. The West will not ban Islam. The West will not even temporarily stop Muslim immigration. That is how Islam got into the West to begin with. No attempt is even being made to slow it down.

Therefore, all we can do is try to cope and resist until Muslims gain enough political power to assert their beliefs through governmental action. And that is going to happen.

If you didn't see the demographic video I posted, it is available in this thread:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/egypt-islamic-parties-claim-62-in-latest-round-of-voting.html#comments

It got exactly zero comments. Apparently, we're not concerned about that.

Sharia law IS unconstitutional. The law that they were trying to pass was poorly written. It should have copied the “Establishment Clause” and “Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and included the rational by Justice Hugo Black in “Everson v. Board of Education (1947)” and The three-part Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1970).

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1970), the Court provided a three-part test for Establishment Clause analysis.

The three-part Lemon Test asks:

(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.

(2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

(3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

Note here that these are not factors which are employed in some balancing test, but rather, these are all requirements which must be met for a law to pass review. There must be a secular purpose, the primary effect must not be the aid or inhibition of religion, and there must be no excessive entanglement. If any of these three requirements are not met, the law violates the Establishment Clause. See e.g. Windmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 272 (1981).

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOfExpression/FreedomOfReligion&EstCl.asp

Hmm, are these judges really that clueless? ..I don't know, maybe someone paid them off or threatened life and limb.

Your wish is my command.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/01/muslims-at-madame-tussauds.html

Just because afew muslum support Hilter in WWII doesnot mean all muslim did so many america muslum serive in the americas military during WWII an quite afew fight fighting nazie germany. Many muslim soilder service in the UK military during WWII. Black man fought in the Gemany army during WWII, with the storage of manpower the Germany where willing to take in anybody willing to fight with then. There was than SS Serbian Divison fighting for the Nazie during WWII.

As I live in Oklahoma, this really makes me angry. I have two mosques within four blocks of my house. The looks of hatred are, unreal. I've never done anything to them, yet, they have spat at me, tried to hit me with cars (walking and while I drive), and one tried to assault me in the parking lot of the 7-11 (while I was trying to get ready to back out, he whipped in almost hitting my car then decided to start screaming and yelling while making threatening gestures at me). I know that if I do anything to defend myself, it will be considered a "hate" crime. This "ruling" will only serve to embolden them.

So, in light of this "ruling", I'm carrying my .45 with me. No matter if it's just to go to the mailbox. I will not be a victim.

And to defenderofislam, spell check. It's on every computer. Use it.

Someone needs to remind these morons about the meaning of treason. Where are all these crack attorneys when you need one..?

The resaults of Sharia Law are all around us daily. So proving its intent shouldn't be to difficult.

And what about free speech and telling the truth..?

Fact is it's Islam that is spreading bigotry, murder, lies, and crulity not the non-Muslims.

Why can't the administration and courts figure this out when use pee-ons can..?

Bottom line...Islam is evil, sharia is Islam...it has no place in the US...

When it was suggested that aspects of sharia law be implemented in Ontario, Canada, there was a huge uproar from....muslim women. They were the most committed and vocal in their opposition to having any part of sharia law in Ontario.

No other Canadian province has tried to bring sharia law to Canadian courts. Yet.

To All,

The above 61 comments are some of the silliest legal musings I've ever read. First, to calm all of you down, I agree with all of you about Islam and the evils that it entails, to include sharia. HOWEVER, hey...news flash!! HAVE SOME FAITH IN YOUR CONSTITUTION AND YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS!! It is not the job of the U.S. legal system to go around identifying systems that are incompatible, such as sharia, and then creating legal bubbles that supposedly protect us from these systems that on their own would already put them in violation with our own legal system. Think about this objectively, outside of your laudable crusade against Islam. There are thousands of stupid, horrible, evil systems out there, but we don't need to burden our legal system down trying to preempt the imposition of those systems. Our Constitution and Bill or Rights already does that!! There are men in jail in the Unites States today because they conducted honor killings. Our legal system worked, it ignored appeals to Islamic culture and sharia and threw the bastards in jail. Yes, some Muslims will attempt to use sharia as a defense. When they do, I have faith that our values and legal system will shoot these defenses down like fat pigeons flying through a skeet shoot. You all insult our system, our way of life by pining away for the capricious failure of some paranoid few who have lost all faith in our country and think we need to be raising the drawbridge because you are a afraid of a few Muslims. I'm not afraid....let them attempt their worse....I believe in our country and our values and I believe our system is superior and will stand firm against those who don't share our values or even seek to destroy it. The Oklahoma court basically said what I said, and it could be paraphrased something like this, "We don't need a special rule banning Sharia, because our current legal system won't tolerate sharia anyways...so move along." Do we have rules banning radical views of Mormons who believe in polygamy? No...but we do have laws that say you can't be married to more than one person. Enough said.
Lloyd

To All,

The above 61 comments are some of the silliest legal musings I've ever read. First, to calm all of you down, I agree with all of you about Islam and the evils that it entails, to include sharia. HOWEVER, hey...news flash!! HAVE SOME FAITH IN YOUR CONSTITUTION AND YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS!! It is not the job of the U.S. legal system to go around identifying systems that are incompatible, such as sharia, and then creating legal bubbles that supposedly protect us from these systems that on their own would already put them in violation with our own legal system. Think about this objectively, outside of your laudable crusade against Islam. There are thousands of stupid, horrible, evil systems out there, but we don't need to burden our legal system down trying to preempt the imposition of those systems. Our Constitution and Bill or Rights already does that!! There are men in jail in the Unites States today because they conducted honor killings. Our legal system worked, it ignored appeals to Islamic culture and sharia and threw the bastards in jail. Yes, some Muslims will attempt to use sharia as a defense. When they do, I have faith that our values and legal system will shoot these defenses down like fat pigeons flying through a skeet shoot. You all insult our system, our way of life by pining away for the capricious failure of some paranoid few who have lost all faith in our country and think we need to be raising the drawbridge because you are a afraid of a few Muslims. I'm not afraid....let them attempt their worse....I believe in our country and our values and I believe our system is superior and will stand firm against those who don't share our values or even seek to destroy it. The Oklahoma court basically said what I said, and it could be paraphrased something like this, "We don't need a special rule banning Sharia, because our current legal system won't tolerate sharia anyways...so move along." Do we have rules banning radical views of Mormons who believe in polygamy? No...but we do have laws that say you can't be married to more than one person. Enough said.
Lloyd

Good points from Freeman; however, since we have laws that say you can't be married to more than one person, who are all those wives popping up openly on shows such as "Big Love"? Obviously, the law forbidding polygamy is not being applied in some cases of "fundamentalist" Mormons who believe the nonsense of special revelation from "god" that Mormon men should take many wives. These polygamous sects operate openly -- why are they not subject to the law, as would be other cased of bigamy?

Seems once you say the magic word, "religion", all sorts of things get past the law.

Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, it doesn't seem to me that this decision itself makes much sense.

The statute in question does NOT concern an establishment of religion. It concerns what laws a court may refer to in it's deliberations.

The court issued the decision not because the statute VIOLATES the establishment clause, but because it REMINDED the judge of the establisment clause. It called it to mind, it was associated in his subjective view with the establisment clause.

This is the kind of primitive thinking we get from the bench these days.

If there were something in the law that explicitly allowed judges to follow say, Buddhist marriage law, then there might have been grounds to draw a relation to the establishment clause on the grounds of clear favor.

But there's nothing like that there. Judges STILL can't apply Buddhist marriage law and expect their decisions to stand.

It's just that our bonehead judges (this one being a good example) don't need to be reminded about Buddhist marriage law because nobody is trying to impose that on us. They DO need to be reminded about sharia.

THe gross incompetence of US Federal judges ruling on issues in which they have no knowledge, and decline to acquire knowledge, is legendary.

During the Clinton administration, a nationalized Chinese named Wen Ho Lee working at the national weapons labs (???!) amassed the detailed blueprints and specifications for US thermonuclear warheads, took them from the labs on a tape, and uploaded the tape to an unsecured global network. A federal judge ruled that no espionage had been committed because it could not be 'proven' that a hostile nation had downloaded the weapons data. Mr. Lee was charged with 'mishandling classified data', a misdemeanor.

I has recently been discovered that China is converting its thermonuclear arsenal to the compact and extremely lethal US thermonuclear weapons designs representing many billions of dollars in research and development, in addition to quadrupling the number of warheads now aimed at the USA. Free trade works!

The same Federal judge then went on to award Mr. Lee millions of dollars in a racial discrimination lawsuit.

Cut the crap. Perverse accomodation of jihad-bots does more than encroach on the "establishment clause"; it obliterates it. Protection of the arab murder cult is so pervasive that freedom of conscience, free speech and free media is nothing but a memory.

It looks like the court is not willing to attack a "faith", and the OK law is not focused on that issue.

Islam itself is the issue, and to require the court to undertand islam is a bridge to far, that is why statements against "sharia" only clouds the issue. Are we asking a court to disect the faith of islam? Looks like it to me.

It is not our interest to slice and dice this "faith", it is up to its followers to make it compatable with our way of life here, an if they are unwilling, or unable, then that should be the basis on the argument to outlaw islam as a cult.

Is islam compatable with our life, liberty, or happiness? How can it be when the the qur'an sets the believers against us for not following its rules?

Only a full frontal assult on the "faith" of islam, all of it, will have a chance of success, if it (islam) is framed as a Cult, the death cult it truly is.

“No one in Oklahoma deserves to be treated like a second-class citizen,”

But if Islamic law were to take hold - it would bee obligatory for all non-Muslims to hold second class citizenship - as Muhammad ordered - [Koran 9:29]

Perhaps we should challenge the court to find one country where Islamic law either forms the law or is the basis for the law - that a non-Muslim enjoys equal citizenship and full and equal civil rights with a Muslim.

Let's look at international law!

[Or would this be considered racist and discriminatory.]

The call for Islamic law

It is not only about chopping off hands or guidance for Muslims - it is the means by which others are controlled - under which those who don't submit [or become a Muslim] are subjugated.

And moderate Muslims across the world are perfectly happy with this!!

::

Once the law falls - its over -

It can almost be seen as a mounting of an attack from within - Nostradamus predicted an Islamic attack from within - and his words seem to almost - eerily - mirror those of the HolyLand Foundation trial documents - which also talked about an attack from within - and that the west's misrable house will brought down in part by their own hands.

The Memorandum explains ....as a "grand jihad" eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and "sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. wiki

And you can see how this could happen with the infighting - instead of saying - we should respect all people, period - we are instead forcing people to respect Islam - a doctrine that calls for the elimination and maligning of the other. And under this the anti-racist campaigns are being used to preach or spread religious messages. Of which if you do not accept as given - you are deemed a racist. Extremely successful orchestration!!

Noteworthy Nostradamus also seemed to predict - that the Islamic rise - named Iran/near Asia will be put down.

::

The nature of the animal that is Islam

We are trying to say that Muslim people are either good or bad - for various reasons. But it is more complex - they may be good people - but the nature of the religion they worship [those of them who care] means that they are required to bring the world under Islam.

So that it is a religious requirement to crossover into state.

::

Look what Islam has done for Egypt - where the object of life is the religion itself - if it wasn't for the pre-Islamic pyramids there would be little else there of interest.

The disaster of Islam is apparent - but religious belief requires them to attempt to implement Muhammad's 7th century Arabian ideas and laws again and again. And the west looks to many like a new shop - to open up for its business.

Here is a FEDERAL law in the making: H.R. 973 can be found and tracked at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-973 (see a copy of the main wording of the Bill below.)

Let's write to Congress (www.congress.org):

Dear Representative:

Under the condition that HR 973 deletes the words "or Act of Congress," I support H.R. 973 because.President Obama is trying to give the Muslim Brotherhood's global jihad a large loop hole to commit jihad/enforce Sharia law in the U.S. by preventing the criminal intent of thieving, extorting, abusing, raping, and murdering non-Muslims BECAUSE they are non-Muslims (Sharia) from being recognized,evidence collected, and being used in prosecution by banning/censoring even the words describing such intent from the U.S. Government vocabularies. Such action is in itself enforcement of Sharia law which prohibits any critical analysis or criticism of Islam or Mohammad.

Muslims in the U.S. have every right under the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights to believe whatever they want, they do NOT have the legal right to enforce Sharia law. As we have "gang crimes" with stiffer penalties because of the extreme disregard for human life and property, let there be "jihad crimes" which recognize the criminal intent of committing crimes against non-Muslims BECAUSE they are non-Muslims, and giving tougher punishment because they are seditious in attempting to enforce Sharia law over Constitutional law.

Bill 973:

‘CHAPTER 183--USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS

‘Sec. 4201. Limitation on use of foreign law in Federal courts

‘In any court created by or under article III of the Constitution of the United States, no justice, judge, or other judicial official shall decide any issue in a case before that court in whole or in part on the authority of foreign law, except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.’.