The Oklahoma law was not specific enough in explaining that Sharia is not just a system of religious laws and doctrines, but a political and military system. And so Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange wrote this (plaintiff, remember, is the local rep of Hamas-linked CAIR):
Furthermore, plaintiff has presented testimony that “Sharia Law” is not actually “law”, but is religious traditions that provide guidance to plaintiff and other Muslims regarding the exercise of their faith. Plaintiff has presented testimony that the obligations that “Sharia Law” imposes are not legal obligations but are obligations of a personal and private nature dictated by faith. Plaintiff also testified that “Sharia Law” differs depending on the country in which the individual Muslim resides. For example, plaintiff stated that marrying more than one wife is permissible in Islam but in the United States, where that is illegal, Muslims do not marry more than one wife because Sharia in the United States mandates Muslims to abide by the law of the land and respect the law of their land. Based upon this testimony, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown “Sharia Law” lacks a legal character, and, thus, plaintiff’s religious traditions and faith are the only non-legal content subject to the judicial exclusion set forth in the amendment. As a result, the Court finds plaintiff has made a strong showing that the amendment conveys a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith and, consequently, has the effect of inhibiting plaintiff’s religion.
All perfectly reasonable, and perfectly false. Sharia contains the doctrines of jihad that mandate warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. It does not vary all that markedly from country to country, which is why states that implement it most fully, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, tend to resemble one another. If Muslims in the U.S. abide by the law of the land and do not practice polygamy (and even that is debatable, as even Honest Ibe Hooper of Hamas-linked CAIR has admitted that some Muslims in the U.S. do indeed practice polygamy), that does not mean that should conditions change and they exercise sufficient political power here, that they wouldn’t try to change the laws of the land to make them more Sharia-compliant.
I don’t know who is advising the anti-Sharia people in Oklahoma about what Sharia is, but they have completely failed to show Miles-LaGrange that Sharia has an inherent political and supremacist character. Of course, it may be that she simply refuses to acknowledge that fact, despite the mountains of available evidence to establish it.
“Judge issues permanent injunction on Oklahoma Sharia law ban,” by Bill Mears for CNN, November 29:
Washington (CNN) — A federal judge in Oklahoma has issued an order putting on hold the certification of a ballot measure that forbids state courts from considering or using international laws, as well as Sharia, or Islamic law. That permanent injunction will allow the judge more time to consider the constitutional issues raised by State Question 755, which was approved by voters earlier this month.
Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange had earlier issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had sued to nullify the law completely.
“While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out,” wrote the judge in Monday’s order, “the court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.”
The language of her 15-page order indicated Miles-LaGrange has initial doubts about the constitutionality of the ballot measure. She said the case goes “to the very foundation of our country, our Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country’s history, the will of the ‘majority’ has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals.”
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 both 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 under a campaign of fear and misinformation about Islam…
Misinformation? Nonsense. I would meet Muneer Awad anytime, anywhere, to discuss in an open forum the contents of Sharia. But I know he won’t, because he knows what those contents are as much as I do.
The Oklahoma City-based Miles-LaGrange is a 1994 Clinton appointee.