The opponents of anti-Sharia laws say that they will restrict individual Islamic religious practice. This is absurd. In reality, they are designed to prohibit the political and supremacist aspects of Islam — the ones that contradict American Constitutional principles. That is all. If Islam did not contain those elements, no one would bother with anti-Sharia laws at all. They are not designed to prohibit individual Islamic religious practice, and would not do so.
Note also that the opponents of these laws say on the one hand that they’re unnecessary, and then go out of their way to stop them from being implemented. Why bother, if they just duplicate existing laws?
“Denver Court To Hear Oklahoma Islamic Law Case,” by Deb Stanley for the Associated Press, September 12 (thanks to Twostellas):
DENVER — A federal appeals court in Denver is considering Oklahoma’s voter approved law that prohibits state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.
A federal judge in November blocked implementation of State Question 755. It was approved by 70 percent of voters Nov. 2.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments in the case on Monday.
The executive director of the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, Muneer Awad, filed the lawsuit.
The lawsuit says in part that the measure transforms Oklahoma’s Constitution into an enduring condemnation of Islam by singling it out.
Legal experts say the measure is unnecessary. Courts only consider international law when deciding issues involving a federal treaty, a business contract or a will that incorporates international law.
Again: if it’s unnecessary, why is Hamas-linked CAIR working so hard to block it?