Does the author even live in the State of Oklahoma?

I live in Oklahoma and I don't approve of using the Laws given to Moses in Oklahoma courts either.

I am a follower of Jesus; I don't follow Moses.

There are three million Jews living in exile from their native lands in the Middle East. Some of them come from families that date back to the Middle Ages. They were murdered, deported, treated as second and third class citizens. Their property and land were stolen from them by the muslims.

These muslim gang states treat the remaining Jews and Christians, not to mention Hindus, and B'hai, like fourth class citizens. They are arrested and held without trial. They are limited in the schools they can attend, the jobs they can hold. The B'hai in Iraq and Iran are in mortal danger.

The muslims in Asia have a caste system in which the Christians serve as "sweepers," sweeping the streets with wisk brooms, cleaning sewers with their hands. They are kept impoverished from generation to generation, raped, beaten, killed with impunity.

Palestinian muslims are treated as "unclean" in Saudi Arabia, polluted. In Egypt Palestinian Egyptian children cannot attend state schools.

Ismaeli Muslims and Ahmadis have rights in one country: Israel.

Asizk: "A Muslim feels much more comfortable and tranquil living under US laws than in most 'Muslim' states because of the fundamental freedoms and liberties availed-which are truly reminiscent of the early egalitarian days of Islam during and immediately after the Prophet."

Totally nauseating rubbish. That is the time when the Arab pagans were not even accorded the choice that other Kafirs were getting to pay jiziya with humiliation and not submit to Islam. Arab non-muslims were to convert or die. This was the time when literally millions were enslaved and sold into slavery by the marauding Arab army. This notion of an egalitarian time is an Islamic myth that attempts to hide the absolute evil of war and destruction that was let loose by the expanding Arab Empire. If it was such a great time, why were there so many wars, and why were three of the first four Khalifas assassinated?

Asizk:
Only a few days ago you were writing 7 million muslims and now it is 8 million? Why the urge to inflate the numbers?

There is no Sharia anywhere by your standards. Do you decide the validity of the judgments of the Shariat Courts around the world? Have you spoken up about the hateful laws against the non-muslims in the muslim countries? Have you spoken up about the discriminatory laws against women in muslim countries? In the words of a Pakistani Lawyer:

http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/view-a-misogynist-and-bigoted-society-%E2%80%94yasser-latif-hamdani/

"To start with, in many parts of this country women are treated worse than cattle. Not only are women discriminated against by custom and tradition but also by the inheritance law and the law of evidence. Imagine our embarrassment as lawyers when we advise foreign clients to use male witnesses on contracts because thanks to General Zia our law does not think women are credible in financial matters."

General Zia had only put into law what the Islamic Ulaema had told him were the Islamic Sharia required. Women's evidence is weighted half of that of a man!! A woman gets half of what a man does when it comes to inheritance. All of this because that is what your Allah commanded. Now the rebellious Kafirs disagree and want to treat the women as equals in evidence and inheritance.

"Overall it is unfair to single out Muslims and Islamic law and make them feel under siege as the 1.5 million Palestinian refugees under jewish siege."

I agree. How many muslims have been killed by non-muslims just because they were muslims in Kafir America? How many non-muslims have been killed by muslim jihadists just because they were non-muslims over the last few years in America? How many attempts are being made by muslims to blow up Kafirs around the globe just because they are Kafirs?
Tell me how many million Kafirs in muslim world are being treated as second class citizens by the absolutely hateful laws against them in those muslim countries? Have you ever, ever protested or voiced how unfair and evil that hatred for the Kafirs is? Do you know of many Muslim leaders who have stood up and spoken against that injustice? Do you know of any OIC papers by Muslim Scholars against the hatred for the Kafirs in Muslim lands?

After the disaster in NJ where the judge let a guy off after beating his wife since it was "OK" under sharia, this should be on all 50 states ballots

The same Islam bashers and haters show on these threads at every turn-and are part of and integral to a larger on-going vicious campaign in America against some eight million Americans who happen to be Muslims.

No American Muslim wants to impose Shariah on top of the US constitution: I know of no Muslims country that has Shariah as the governing law-including Saudi Arabia which violates the very fundamental principle of choosing a ruler by popular consensus-for saudi is ruled by a feudal tribal hereditary monarch which flies in face of every thing Islamic; Saudis and other 'Muslim' states have reduced Islam to mere rituals thou the true Islamic form of government is Republican and not a monarchy.
Present day Turkey with a secular constitution is the closest form of government to an Islamic government because of the respect for the law, democracy and freedoms.

Most if not all Muslim majority states have confined Shariah to the realm of family, inheritance and to the mosque because the true application of Shariah would never accept their despotism and dictatorship .They have also incorporated many aspects of western secular laws-well accept Democracy. .

There is a profound ignorance and deliberate distortion of what Sahriah is in America and the West: in many ways Shariah is compatible with US laws; A Muslim feels much more comfortable and tranquil living under US laws than in most 'Muslim' states because of the fundamental freedoms and liberties availed-which are truly reminiscent of the early egalitarian days of Islam during and immediately after the Prophet. There are a good number of fundamental commonalities between Shariah and US law-more than most people think and know.

Overall it is unfair to single out Muslims and Islamic law and make them feel under siege as the 1.5 million Palestinian refugees under jewish siege.

Gee, now if the good Christians of Oklahoma would pass a law requiring Catholics to turn over their pervert priests to civil authorities for prosecution.

What's that?

There is already a law requiring reporting child molestation?

Oh, really?

Never mind.

Farnaz, what has this article got to do with the recent bomb crisis?

Posted by: aussiebarry
________________________________
Precisely.

AussieBarry:

"Nihads argument is that the Oklahoma Amendment specifically targets Islam and not other religions."

It does not target Islam but instructs the judiciary to not consider "Sharia" or Islamic Law. It merely states that ruling by Shariat Courts that currently exist around the world and give rulings may not be cited to make judgements. Separation of Church and State with regards to Christian and Jewish faiths is well established and the US law and Constitution has developed with that Separation in context. That cannot be said for Islamic Sharia.

However Islamic Law usage is not and has led to alarming decisions by judges in the west.

http://volokh.com/2010/07/23/cultural-defense-accepted-as-to-nonconsensual-sex-in-new-jersey-trial-court-rejected-on-appeal/

A New Jersey Trial Court accepted a Moroccan Man's cultural defence that he had not raped his wife because in Morocco (i.e. Sharia Law) a husband is permitted to have non-consensual sex with his wife. The judge "After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes ". Fortunately the Appellate court overruled this judgement.

In Germany a judge used a verse from the Koran to justify her ruling:
http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/spip.php?article1389

Explaining these extreme conditions did not exist, the judge said in January that her decision was based on the Islamic religion of the couple. “In this cultural context, it is not unusual that the man uses this type of discipline. The young woman, who was born in Germany, must have been aware of that when she married a man raised in Morocco.”
*****************************

As I said earlier it would be great for Nihad's organisation to take this to the Supreme Court. As you say the Constitution would never allow any Sharia law that goes against the Constitution, and that the people at present find insufficient. I think the desire is for a stronger separation of religion and state. The American people do not want to consider any precedent established by Sharia courts in the present or in the past in setting precedents in American law. Whether a particular Sharia Law is against the US constitution is insufficient. Sharia Law should not be part of the legal discussion. "Reasonable religious accommodations" as it exists in US law is sufficient, but relying on Sharia for precedence to make that accomodation is unacceptable.

Nihad Awad Part I

You wrote, "Today, no constitution of any state places special burdens on a specific religious tradition. That will change on November 9 if Oklahoma amends its constitution in accordance with State Question 755."

Is the "special burdens" that you speak of being that the seperation of church and state remains as part of United States law and that a "religion", any religion, does not have preferential treatment just because they demand it?

You then wrote, "State Question 755, which was approved by state voters on Tuesday, will amend Oklahoma's constitution to forbid state courts from considering "Shariah Law.""

As it should, this country was not set up to be a theocracy and just because islam wants to impose its will on others does not give it that right.

You then wrote, "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."

As it should, this is the United States of America not the United States of the World and this country has its own laws and these are the law of the land.

Don't you think that it is rather telling that until islam tried to impose itself on others in this country that this country or in this case, a state, did not deem it necessary to actually put it into writing?

You then wrote, "It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law."

Thank God.

You then wrote, "Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed."

As you said, "Sharia Law is Islamic law" and it has absolutely no place in American law since this country is not a theocracy.

You then wrote, "For Muslims, the Quran and the traditions (hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad are the basis of our faith."

That's fine but to impose your "faith" on others is not only wrong but according to some Muslims is against islamic teachings, is it or is it not?

Nihad Awad Part II

You then wrote, "Shariah is a dynamic legal framework derived from the Quran, hadith, the ongoing consensus of Muslim scholars, and analytical reasoning."

And does this mean that you have the right to impose this on others?

America is not a theocratic nation but is a nation with "freedom of conscience" written into its founding documents and as you have written "Sharia is Islamic", therefore sharia law has absolutely no place in American jurisprudence.

You then wrote, "To be clear, State Question 755 does not target Shariah, but instead targets Islam and the religious principles Muslims use to guide their spiritual lives."

This is absolutely untrue, however you or any other Muslim wishes to live your spiritual life, unless it is to impose it on others, is up to you, the "law of the land" is about the "laws" that apply to everyone.

You then wrote, "For generations, American Muslims have had the same civil liberties as all other Americans, and have lived and practiced their faith with the protection of the Constitution. The act of erasing Islam from the cognizance of Oklahoma's courts has real consequences for Muslims."

And they still do have the "same civil liberties as all other Americans", seems as if the "real consequences for Muslims" is that All will continue to have the same civil liberties and that sharia will not be allowed to take these "civil liberties" away from others.

You then wrote, " If it becomes part of the state constitution, State Question 755 would contradict the U.S. Constitution, jeopardizing the personal freedoms of Oklahoma Muslims by affecting their ability to seek reasonable religious accommodations from employers, schools, and other institutions,"

I suppose some people's "reasonable" just might be compromised but if one wishes to live in a theocratic state maybe they should choose to live in one rather than to remake the place they choose to live in into a theocratic state and by the way the US Constitution was written to specifically not be a theocratic government and since "sharia is islamic law", as you have written, then sharia law is incompatible with US law.

You added, "or to choose to wear a headscarf in a driver's license photo. It could invalidate the burial instructions a Muslim leaves in his or her will, or prevent couples from choosing an Islamic marriage contract."

Seems to me that you do not wish to live in America, why pretend that you do?

You then wrote, "Perhaps the worst of impact of State Question 755 is that it will place Oklahoma's courts in the position of defining the parameters and contents of Islam."

You may have a point here and the "parameters and contents of Islam" being the "political aspects" of islam, concerning "world domination", but more specifically in this case the "islamization of America", most definitely should be looked at for the benefits of All of the citizens of America.

Nihad Awad Part III

You wrote, "It is not the place of Oklahoma's courts to decide the elements of my faith."

And it is not your place to impose your faith or your sharia law on others.

You then wrote, "Thankfully, the U.S. Constitution is clear on this issue. There is perhaps nothing more unbending in the First Amendment than the absolute prohibition against courts taking positions on matters pertaining to religious doctrine."

This is not about "religious doctrine" that is unless that "religious doctrine" is to impose itself on others which the Constitution is, as you say, clear that this is not allowed.

You then wrote, "The Oklahoma amendment violates that basic principle of American law and governance by specifically targeting one faith, Islam, and one religious community, Oklahoma Muslims."

Pretty sad isn't it, that islam is the "one faith" that needed to be "targeted" since it seems to be a "basic
tenet" of islam to impose itself on others and the US Constitution is for everyone to freely use their conscience and is very specific about "religion" or "religious law" can not be imposed by the state and as you wrote "Sharia Law is Islamic law", therefore as I have previously stated, sharia law is incompatible with US law.

You then wrote, "If there is any good to come out of State Question 755, it is to remind us all that the U.S. Constitution exists to protect the interests of all Americans, whether or not their faith happens to be unpopular at a particular time in our nation's history."

Do you really think that those that wish to impose sharia law on the rest of Americans will realize that it is against the very founding documents of this country to do so?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

@AKAFIR
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
The USA is not an Islamic country and thanks to the American Constitution , can never be one, as it can never be a Christian country. Obviously the Constitution would never allow any Sharia law that goes against the Constitution as it would against any law from Leviticus. Nihads argument is that the Oklahoma Amendment specifically targets Islam and not other religions.
Farnaz, what has this article got to do with the recent bomb crisis?

This is a horrible crisis.

Moving on, I'm a little more concerned about Muslims attempting to blow up Chicago synagogues.

Hello? Awad?

aussiebarry writes: "Why on earth should she have to justify laws that are in place in another country?"

Excellent Question. And everyone should ask it and make sure that they understand the answer.

The laws of ALL the muslim countries incorporate laws and ideals from one form or another of Sharia. And in ALL of these laws the non-muslims are treated as second class humans. Don't you think that Americans are entitled to find out whether Sharia really represents a set of ideals as Mr. Jackson (whose article is linked by icymount) asserts or Mr. Awad implies? Should the Kafirs in America not look at the example of where Sharia has been implemented and is implemented to see exactly how ideal it is for them? Don't you think these practical issues how Kafirs have been treated under Sharia should come up when considering whether it is constitutional or not? Don't you think it is appropriate to see how the implementation of Sharia, and the ideals of Sharia in any one of the foreign Countries has been for the non-muslims or Kafirs?

Mr. Awad does not have to justify foreign laws but he should explain, in my judgment, why the ideals of Sharia that he thinks should be considered by the courts of USA have all ended up treating the non-muslims as second class citizens all over the world.

If you disagree, I really would like to know your reasons.

@AKAFIR
Nihad Awad is arguing whether State Question 755 is constitutional, surely as an American Citizen,he/she is entitled to do so.Why on earth should she have to justify laws that are in place in another country?

icymount,

Since you know Sharia, could you please tell why is it that the non-muslims in Sharia ruled nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Mali, Sudan, Yemen, etc. have laws that are against them and reduce them to second class humans.

Now please take the time to teach and don't disappear as most Muslim posters and apologetics do after making such a strong claim as you do. If you do not know the laws for the non-muslims in muslim countries, please call up Nihad Awad and I am sure he will have CAIR resources at your disposal.

Really looking forward to reading your post on this important issue.

Great article! I noticed that most of the comments have been made by people who seem to have made up their minds even before reading this article. The article is in fact quite illuminating in terms of what shariah really is. Most of the times, we Westerners think Shariah a whole bunch of punishment for subjugating women in Muslim society-- which it turns out is completely wrong. There is a great discussion of what shariah really is by Dr. Jackson (link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sherman-a-jackson/what-is-shariah-and-why-d_b_710976.html) Again, thanks very much for your views pointing out the obvious flaws of this State Question in OK.

Mr Nihad Awad does not seem to be well informed on the Constitutional history and jusrisprudence concerning the First Amendment. That amendment also prohibits any law infringing on the freedom of speech, yet the Supreme Court has repeated ruled in favor of laws restricting libel or the archetypal "yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. The amendment prohibits any law infringing on the freedom of public assembly, yet the Supreme Court has reapeated ruled in favor of reasonable laws require parade permits and upholding bans on public assembly in certain places.

Very little indeed in our Constitutional law is an absolute that is not subject to the balancing of other interests to protect individual rights and civil society.

If you want to stone to death your daughter because she has eloped with a non-Muslim, you will have to do it in another country.

“State Question 755 would contradict the U.S. Constitution, jeopardizing the personal freedoms of Oklahoma Muslims by affecting their ability to seek reasonable religious accommodations from employers, schools, and other institutions, or to choose to wear a headscarf in a driver's license photo.”

It is this “reasonable religious accommodation from employers, schools and other institutions” that is targeted. This “accommodation” is the process of creeping Islamization of America and if we allow it soon America will look like Somalia or Sudan. Each Muslim here will for example have four wives and could dispose of any or all at will for any or no reason simply by saying “I divorce you”. If a person wishes to know how we would fare under Sharia rule he should review the constitution for the treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims as codified by “Pact of Omar” cited below.
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm

The muslim Jihadist will not comment on the hatred embedded in Sharia for the non-muslims in her "Family law" in her tolerant and moderate but racist Islamic republic of Malaysia.

Playing the victim to arouse guilt in the Kafirs is a diminishing returns tactic now. No one considers Muslims an enemy, but hopefully people do consider Islam as a vile and hateful ideology as they learn more about the Koran and Islam's prophet muhammad and his life. If Muslims were considered an enemy, the reaction to the killings and murder by the jihadists among us would have been quite different than what it has been and is. However, how the Malaysians have been treating ALL non-muslims in Malaysia, or how the Egyptians have been treating ALL christians among them, or how the Pakistanis have been treating ALL Kafirs among them is far more than shameful. It is downright evil. Hopefully, American muslims associated with CAIR, ISNA and other Muslim organistions will speak up against that evil.

Will Nihad take the lead and speak up for the hateful treatment of the Malaysian Kafirs?

I applaud the Oklahoma voters for their courage and conviction, and look forward to the rest of the union following suit.

Mr. Nihad Awad,

American Muslims are from different countries, different school of thoughts and Islamic jurisprudence.

You won't like living in Turkey as much as you won't like living in Saudi Arabia. There are more freedoms for American Muslims than in both countries - Turkey banning headscarves, Saudi Arabia insisting on full hijabs for Muslim women in specific places etc.

Do what Turks do - have a civil marraige preceding or following an Islamic marraige by an imam. And do the will according to Shariah and done by a civil lawyer.

If the family are following the Shariah, they would not contest it i courts and accept their inheritance.

Do a prenuptials by Shariah Islamic marraige contracts if you must done by civil lawyers.

A will done by a civil lawyer is acceptable in American courts even if by Shariah principles and no member of the family contest it.

As for drivers' licence, you do know that all Americans, including American Muslim women, have to show their ears in their passport photos.

Methinks better for CAIR to focus on American Muslim men honouring their Islamic marraige contracts, divorce, alimony and child support by Shariah, including the property of the female spouse is hers, and hers alone.

American civil laws, upon divorce, gave men and women equal share regardless of 100% of the property is the woman's. At least in California.

Hope CAIR maintains Shariah when it comes to that, whereby in a divorce, what is the woman's is hers and the man can't touch and we know men don't quite faithfully dole out alimony and child support after divorce and needs the courts to chase them to do so.

I can see why you are nervous and anxious in these times when Islam and Muslims are regarded as "enemies" in America from atheists to Jews to Hindues to Christians to pagans to Mormons, but look around Muslim majority countries a bit for some examples on civil and Shariah laws and courts, including and especially Islamic Family Law. You will find them closer to American civil/secular law than you know and think.

"For generations, American Muslims have had the same civil liberties as all other Americans, and have lived and practiced their faith with the protection of the Constitution. The act of erasing Islam from the cognizance of Oklahoma's courts has real consequences for Muslims. If it becomes part of the state constitution, State Question 755 would contradict the U.S. Constitution, jeopardizing the personal freedoms of Oklahoma Muslims by affecting their ability to seek reasonable religious accommodations from employers, schools, and other institutions, or to choose to wear a headscarf in a driver's license photo."

Nihad you do not specify how it contradicts the US constitution. The question simply states that in US the law will be consistent with the laws of the US (i.e. its constitution and the laws that flow from it). Where does it say that it must ignore the US constitution? If the US law says "reasonable religious accommodations" then that does not change. What does change is that there is unambiguously one law and not separate laws for different communities.
The Sharia laws that are hateful and discriminatory towards the non-muslims have no place in the US, or do you want the US to consider them?
1. Do you want the US courts to give special considerations to Muslims who kill apostates from Islam because all the fiqh of Islam require death for apostates?
2. Do you want the testimony of women in cases which involve a muslim to be discounted because all the variations of Sharia say that womens testimony be weighted half that of a man?
3. Do you want the testimony of a Muslim to have more weight than a non-muslim because that is in the Sharia?
4. Do you want the marriage of a non-muslim male married to a muslim female in US dissolved or not recognised because that is what Sharia requires?

There are many many examples where it should be clear to any American that Sharia has no place in USA.

I hope you (CAIR and ISN and MAS) take it to the supreme court, and I hope they rule on it because that will bring clarity and automatically make the ruling applicable to all the states. You will be doing the American Kafirs a favor.

There was a case in my home state, Maryland, a couple of years ago in which a Muslim immigrant couple were going through a separation, and the husband claimed he had already divorced his wife while they were visiting their homeland by saying "I divorce thee" three times.

The court threw it out for lacking due process.

This does NOTHING but make clear that under our Constitution, including it First Amendment, that US laws apply in its courts and that religious laws don't, even when both parties belong to that religion.

It may be redundant, but at least it's clear.

Oklahoma, O Kay!