Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Shariah law banned in Oklahoma
Oklahoma's State Question 755, which prohibits state judges from resorting to International Law or the Shariah Law while passing judgments has been passed by an overwhelming margin - 76% Yes, 24% No.
In trying to ban Islamic law from encroaching into Oklahoma, the voters have in effect banned an important provision of the US Constitution itself. I shall demonstrate in the following paragraphs.
The proposition to amend the Oklahoma constitution was authored by State Representative Rex Duncan, a Republican, who has a history of religious bigotry. He tried to ban the headscarf from driver's licenses and refuses to take the Quran as a gift. His motivation to ban Shariah law, according to him a pre-emptive strike, stems from the fear that some judges are allowing out of court settlements and arbitration that allows Muslims (usually in divorce cases) to come to an understanding based on their religious beliefs.
Critics of Shariah in Oklahoma argue that they also oppose the Shariah law because it is against freedom of religion. In this age, when ignorance and bigotry are being celebrated in America, I am sure that most people in Oklahoma must have missed the irony in the situation.
The key sentence in the State question 755 is: It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Shariah Law. The proposition also bans international law. To consider how ignorant both the authors and the voters of the proposition are, please take a look at Article Six, Section I, Clause II of the US constitution. It is called the supremacy clause.
According to this clause, international treaties to which the U.S. government is a signatory become "the supreme law of the land". Treaties, along with custom and UN declarations are the main sources of international law (the proposition 755 actually mentions it). Thus by rejecting international law the proposition designed to institutionalize Islamophobia in Oklahoma, has effectually said "thanks, but no thanks" to the U.S. Constitution. Here is the relevant text of the constitution (the emphasis are mine):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.As you notice, the proposition's injunction to judges to abstain from using international law explicitly violates the constitutions' injunctions to state judges to consider it as the supreme law of the land.
As far as the Shariah is concerned, most of it is enshrined in US laws. The five main goals of the Islamic Shariah - freedom of religion (Quran 2:256), protection of life, protection of property, protection of affiliations and protection of reason - are well protected in US constitution, and Federal and state laws. That is why Muslims, who understand Islam and understand America, intuitively love the American system.
Many aspects of Islamic values are well embedded in American life. For example only a day before the banning of Shariah law, the Dow Jones Islamic Index that identifies shariah-based investments has been recognized as the best in the world. It has been operational since 1999. Would the Republicans now like to ban Dow Jones Index or perhaps Wall Street itself?
Many of the Republican candidates, who oppose the Shariah, argue that the U.S. Constitution and its laws are based on Judeo-Christian values. But if that is a fact then the Shariah is also enshrined in the Constitution since the Shariah is based on Judeo-Christian values like the Ten Commandments.
Muslims have no desire to impose their values on anyone else. American Muslims wish to enjoy the freedoms that are available to them in America, like all other citizens. Over four years ago I explicitly articulated this in a widely published article. Muslims cannot impose Shariah on others; the Quran opposes compulsion in religion. Imposition of Shariah is a violation of Shariah.
The Oklahoma initiative is a political gimmick designed to cash in on the rise of Islamophobia in America. Politicians without substance and vision have latched onto hate as a campaign strategy. I am confident that hate-propositions like this will be struck down in courts.
More On Faith and politics:
Catholic America: The disappearing abortion issue
Jordan Sekulow: We're back: Christian conservatives swarm Congress
Albert Mohler: New political equation for religious rightBy Muqtedar Khan | November 3, 2010; 12:52 AM ET Save & Share:
Previous: Vote your conscience on ALL the issues | Next: New political equation for religious right
Posted by: research4truth | November 8, 2010 8:24 AM
Report Offensive CommentWay to go Oklahoma!!!
Posted by: zionslion777 | November 7, 2010 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment"...State Representative Rex Duncan, a Republican...has a history of religious bigotry. He tried to ban the headscarf from driver's licenses and refuses to take the Quran as a gift. His motivation to ban Shariah law, according to him a pre-emptive strike, stems from the fear that some judges are allowing out of court settlements and arbitration that allows Muslims (usually in divorce cases) to come to an understanding based on their religious beliefs."
This is NOT "religious bigotry;' it's common sense. You would not have made such an ignorant statement if you understood Islam!
Shariah law (READ: "Muslim control") is an essential part of Islam. I, too, will fight Islam in any way I can. As much as I disagree with the theology of some Christian denominations, they are not out to *control* us, and there is no need to fear them. We CAN "live and let live" between them and us. There ARE, however, huge differences in such religions as these, which simply want us to know God and those (i.e., Islam) which want to make us just like them because they think only they are correct in their beliefs!Yay, OKlahoma!
Posted by: flipper49 | November 7, 2010 8:56 AM
Report Offensive CommentNow, isn't this interesting. Azisk's antisemitic, antiChristian cum nazi comments removed, Akafir's learned critiques removed, my comment on Azisk's posts removed, reply to Akafir removed, query on Quorayza Jews removed. . . .
Notice common denominators in the censorship?
Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 5, 2010 9:54 PM
Report Offensive CommentThe line upon line, “breakdown” of the clause is mine, but presented in this format only for the purpose of clarity.
This Constitution . . .
and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . .
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States . . .
shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . .
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby . . .
any Thing – in the Constitution or Laws of any State – to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Reading the clause WITHOUT the Moo-Lah’s attempt to change the meaning by his erroneous emphasizing, it’s obvious that what the clause is conveying is simply the fact that any and all laws, and treaties are subject to the United States Constitution -- NOT the other way around.In other words, the United States Constitution IS, and SHALL ALWAYS REMAIN, the SUPREME LAW OF THIS UNITED STATES, AND ANY LAW, OR ANY TREATY, THAT CONFLICTS WITH ANY PROVISION OF “THIS CONSTITUTION” IS NOT ONLY VOID, BUT WORTHLESS ! ! !
While I totally understand how a mentality so irrevocably damaged by Muslim culture could come up with such a totally asinine “interpretation” of the Supremacy Clause, I take great comfort in my knowing that any 7th grade civics student can read it, and rest securely in the knowledge that our founders were NOT so terminally stupid as to make the United States Constitution subservient to ANY subsequent laws or treaties, let alone
foreign treaties!Posted by: ctroop | November 5, 2010 8:20 PM
Report Offensive CommentHello Jihadist, glad to hear from you.
1) Please read my post on the first point you make that the American Muslims cannot impose their laws here.
2) Coming to Islamic banking, I was giving my analysis of value value of Money. The Islamic banking may be adhering to the letter of the dumb proposition but in actuality it is implemented in such a way that person lending the money is getting her fair value for use of her money. Trust me even the pious bedouin is not giving up what he can get for his money because MO said so. The so called Islamic banking is growing only because some clever people have put together a scheme that meets the letter of the dumbness and in the spirit of economics. Earlier those schemes were not available. Once these were available or sold as halal every dumb pious muslim start using them. I have a Pakistani friend who does this stuff and you should this man's disdain for these pious fools. He says these pious morons are being taken to cleaners by himself. So much for Islamic banking.
3) I am not in denial about Tea partiers, I had been telling that they were bunch of bigots right from day one, when they held their first tea party on 4/15/2009. Part of the problem was because of the Democrats getting all goo goo eyed with young Obama. I was all for HRC. Billary know how to deal the red neck repubs. If we had HRC as the prez repubs would have been asking to be put out of their misery by jumping off the sears tower.
Rest later
Posted by: Secular | November 5, 2010 8:19 PM
Report Offensive CommentI have never heard of any such thing as foreign people feeling descriminated against because they are not allowed to impose their foreign law on a legal system in their host country which is already well-founded, stable, utilitarian, viable, and generally accepted as modern and fair.
- Daniel in the Lions Den
*******************************************
Hello Daniel,
You do know that it is impossible for any minority faith and ethnic groups to impose any laws on the majoritarian faith and ethnic group in any country.
A Muslim in America can marry and die by Ismalic rites and comply with the necessary civil laws and regulations like other Americans of other faith groups - including a civil marraige and/or registration, and death certificates etc.
On inheritance, if American Muslims want to go by Shariah, they can do so in their "civil" wills with their family pre-informed and agreeing to beforehand.
Members of their families can contest it in civil courts if they want to if they don't agree to the inheritance they got like non-Muslim Americans. As you know, non-Muslim Americans also contested wills they are not happy with, on what they got.
Posted by: Jihadist | November 5, 2010 4:24 PM
Report Offensive CommentMy dear "Secularist",
Just as American Muslims and overseas Muslims don't have the "power" to determine the laws of America at the state and federal level, Americans and secularists don't have the power to formulate, implement, regulate Islamic banking and finance in Muslim majority countries.
In Asia, non-Muslims are also sourcing capital from Islamic banks. It's a growth sector even the HSBC and Citibank are in and doing very well indeed.
You have still in denial the impact Tea Partiers, constitutional conservatives, evangelicals have in the recent US midterm elections on "secular" America.
What makes you so sure they are not affecting your secular ideals more directly than some misguided and excitable notions of the "dhimmitude" of America and the Shariah law being "imposed" in America by American Muslims whose numbers are less than atheists and secularists?
Congratulations in you seeing eye to eye on this Oklahoma thing with "true" American believers and patriots of the "right" faith group.
Posted by: Jihadist | November 5, 2010 4:09 PM
Report Offensive CommentYou give an inch, they'll take a mile.
1) Remember the Trojan Horse
2) Remember the bombing of Pearl Harbor
3) Remember if you allow the Sharia Law, you just lost these United States. It don't take much, just some idiot who thinks they're smart, knows how to capture your attention and then win you over to their way of thinking and doing business. Look at France - use to be catholic NOT its all Muslim who have inherit the Sharia Law. I say this - If you don't like the laws of this land - then by all means go back to YOUR land where you have your own laws.Posted by: BigPop11 | November 5, 2010 3:15 PM
Report Offensive CommentMr. Khan, what a steaming pile of Qurap. Kudos to Oklahoma for being proactive.
Posted by: David850 | November 5, 2010 3:15 PM
Report Offensive CommentAll of these issues would go away if the jurists who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and not change it to their liking.
I just read several comments by jurists about the defeat of the Supreme Court Justices in Iowa. If they had followed the law that all men (people) are created equal and that the Constitution did not intend to enter into the personal lives of everyone, they would not have been defeated. Anytime you put one person ahead of another through the court system, you have to expect consequences.
Posted by: nodakson | November 5, 2010 12:02 PM
Report Offensive CommentGee, I'm shocked. Not as shocked as the endless antisemitism at UC Irvine by Muslim students and faculty, so serious that it has not only garnered statewide, but nationwide attention. That would be the antisemitic students you defend, "Prof." Kahn.
I'm not as shocked as I was by the honors Muslim Club at NYU that sent out a college-wide email to all NCC students containing excerpts from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (taken, not as satire, but as a serious report by the honored Muslims), along with antisemitic filth.
I'm not as shocked as I was by the Muslim faculty at Columbia being taken to task by Jewish students for the antisemitism of their professors.
Not as shocked as I was by the ethnic cleansing of three million ME Jews, deported, murdered, robbed, I among them.
Not as shocked as I generally am by your whining, bigoted self, Prof.
Jus' sayin'
Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 4, 2010 9:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment- I love Oklahoma -
I might be a tad bit naive, but to me our country should look mighty appealing to those who are tired of being oppressed and living as 1/2 a person without rights or freedoms. I wrongfully assume, I guess, that when you come here, you should be able to leave your oppressive, backward, abusive systems of law behind, and adhere to the values and beliefs of the country you came to...supposedly came to because we have rights and liberty, whereas you did not before coming here.
If you want Sharia Law, go back to the countries that have Sharia Law courts. We have a hard enough time trying to decide whether ANY religion has a place in established secular arenas, and if I had my choice of which one to let in, it sure as crap wouldn't be ISLAM. We seem to pick and choose when it's OK for religion to enter our courts and schools, and what I'm getting is that as long as it's minority and completely against our present system of beliefs, it's OK. If I said I wanted to institute "Christian Law Courts" and start sentencing people who have babies out of wedlock and start locking up people who have abortions and gay sex, someone would start crying about all those rights and how secular laws should override whatever my courts decide.
But apparently it's ok if we have courts in the US that support Islamic Agenda. Nice one, retards.
Next thing you know, you'll all start saying you think it's ok to build a mosque on ground zero....oh, wait...
Posted by: spaded_glory4 | November 4, 2010 4:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
- Ban banks in Oklahoma from pursuing Islamic banking and finance and having transactions with banks who do either domestically or globally.Jihadist, please don't demagogue this, it really doesn't become you. You know and I know you know that Islamic banking is whole pile of camel manure. It was devised by the man who could not tell the difference between money and a commodity - like camel manure. People even back then did know the time value of money. However, the pious people all they knew was how to sell their sky-daddy miracles to the gullibles. They made up the laws, in the name of - who else the sky-daddy. You tell me why should I lend you million dollars for a year for you to buy inventory that you can sell at a profit and me not get any part of it? Is that fair to me? The people who talk about Islamic banking don't know their arse from their elbow.
Posted by: Secular | November 4, 2010 2:16 PM
Report Offensive CommentJihadist
In the US, there is no nattional language or religion. People just do as they please.
As far as the law is concerned, I do not understand why a specific religious group would require a system of law different than regular civil law.
When people immigrate to the US from foreign countries, there is already a system of civil law in place here, all ready to go; there is no need to bring in forgeign law and superimpose it on what is already here. All that is left behind in the old country, in the old world; this is the new world.
I have never heard of any such thing as foreign people feeling descriminated against because they are not allowed to impose their foreign law on a legal system in their host country which is already well-founded, stable, utilitarian, viable, and generally accepted as modern and fair.
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | November 4, 2010 1:52 PM
Report Offensive CommentJust want to say,Im not proud of all oklahoma laws but any of you who think islam is a peaceful religion need to read the book.Its anti-Christ just as simple as that.
Posted by: joshu1_8 | November 4, 2010 1:28 PM
Report Offensive CommentSecular, I usually agree wholeheratedly with your postings. Howeveryou appear to be missing a major point today in yiour post about the fairness supposedly in sharia and non-muslims. You missed a very big, vsry specific rule of sharia. IT ONLY APPLIES TO MUSLIMS. If an issue comes up between two people who are non-muslim or between a non-muslim and a muslim, sharia cannot be involved.Thank you very much Schnauzer, for that endorsement. It is nice to know one is not alone in ones world view. As I come from India, I have some knowledge of this situation. The jurisprudence through age of enlightenment is the major, major achievement of humanity in moving away from the days of Hamurabi, Manu, Moses, Mohammed. These are very hard won victories not for just some for the entire humanity. I am not at all swayed by the neo-liberal superstition that less developed world should not be thrust with liberal western notions. I find them, while with pure thoughts, very grotesque. In India where I come from during the, during the heady days of mid 1940s the Congress party in its attempts to thwart the trifurcation of India, threw several bones for the muslim bigots & opportunists. One of the bones was that Muslims-on-muslim disputes would be resolved by the muslim personal law. Of course that and several other bones did not appease the bigots and opportunists. We know the result of this quite clearly. However the opportunists and bigots who stayed back demanded that even in the divided India muslims should be governed by their own personal law. So as they say one the genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back. So the currently, after 63 years and multiple so called Hindu Fascist governments, goddamn muslim personal law is still the law for muslims.
Do you know the consequences of that you need only google it. Here is the url for it
This the most grotesque case of legal victimization of an hapless 62 year old divorcee, whose pond scum ex-husband did not want to support her after giving him 5 children. This is gross miscarriage of justice of epic proportions. To me it matters little what the person religion is or is not. I do not wish to see another country to be added to the list. Mind you India is not an OIC. Mr. Khan, I am positive hails from the subcontinent and is aware of this case as well. If he is not I would have to chalk it up to his professional negligence. Given that when he claims that there is fairness in Sharia, I need to take him to task. I again ask the gullible liberals - mind you I am also a liberal and am proud of being one - take note evil is evil. Don't be fooled just because the evil is not from here. Again I ask you how many so called Moderate Muslims protested this not many. They were perhaps embarrassed but not enough to protest.
Posted by: Secular | November 4, 2010 1:26 PM
Report Offensive CommentAdhering to Shariah is completely voluntary, no? So any two people who agree to be bound by Shariah can do so in a standard civil contract, no?
What am I missing here?
Posted by: Freestinker | November 4, 2010 10:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment"Its called separation of church and state, duh! #4. Not sure why OK felt it necessary to create a law when its not necessary. Makes one wonder..."
*******************************************
Oklahomans don't get out and about much perhaps.
Next steps:
- Ban Oklahoman companies from doing business with oversea companies whose funding and/or capital are sourced from Shariah-compliant Islamic banking and finance.
- Ban banks in Oklahoma from pursuing Islamic banking and finance and having transactions with banks who do either domestically or globally.
- Ban Oklahoman Muslims from having a traditional-cultural-religious marraige (apart from a state required civil one) in mosques or homes.
- Ban mosques and Muslim prayers in Oklahoma.
- Ban other languages apart from English from business transactions and interpersonal communications. Oh, they already did so.
Oklahoma a landlocked, mindlocked state?
Posted by: Jihadist | November 4, 2010 10:38 AM
Report Offensive CommentSecular, I usually agree wholeheratedly with your postings. Howeveryou appear to be missing a major point today in yiour post about the fairness supposedly in sharia and non-muslims. You missed a very big, vsry specific rule of sharia. IT ONLY APPLIES TO MUSLIMS. If an issue comes up between two people who are non-muslim or between a non-muslim and a muslim, sharia cannot be involved. The muslim individual is not supposed to take any actions that are against sharia as it applies to him/her, but none of it ever applies to the non-muslim party, nor can it supercede the laws of the land. For another line in sharia is then when in the land of foreigners, follow their laws.
So if by some bizare path sharia could be consulted by courts (which i believe the constituion forbids) the only people it would apply to would be muslims. So they are the only ones who be concerned at all. Notice they aren't? Thats because they appear to be more aware of our constituion that about 75% of Oklahoma voters.Posted by: schnauzer21 | November 4, 2010 8:58 AM
Report Offensive CommentA few observations: #1. The writer of the article is probably a Muslim. #2. Islamic Law is based on a religion (unless you are admitting that it more of a political ideology and in that case, we should strip it of its 1st amendment protections) and the constitution is a law made by men for men (and women) #3. Its called separation of church and state, duh! #4. Not sure why OK felt it necessary to create a law when its not necessary. Makes one wonder...
Posted by: tlludwig | November 3, 2010 11:32 PM
Report Offensive Commentyeah right. Hail Oklahoma! The land of freedom and telling things as they are. Sharia sucks. And the author gave me a good idea. If someone gifts me a Koran, I am going to burn it right in front of him.
Posted by: ramboreturns | November 3, 2010 11:27 PM
Report Offensive CommentMuslim majority nations adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which diverges from the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)substantially, affirming Sharia as the sole source of human rights. This declaration was severely criticized by the International Commission of Jurists for allegedly gravely threatening the inter-cultural consensus, introducing intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, restricting fundamental rights and freedoms, and attacking the integrity and dignity of the human being.
Posted by: lovelystill | November 3, 2010 11:06 PM
Report Offensive CommentKhan pontificates thus:
"Many of the Republican candidates, who oppose the Shariah, argue that the U.S. Constitution and its laws are based on Judeo-Christian values. But if that is a fact then the Shariah is also enshrined in the Constitution since the Shariah is based on Judeo-Christian values like the Ten Commandments."Christian values are not based on the Ten Commandments. As an illustration, one of the Ten Commandments states “Do not commit adultery.” According to the teaching of Christ that lusting after a woman is as good as committing adultery with her. Another one says “Love your neighbor”. Jesus asked his followers to “Love their enemies” etc.
Posted by: abrahamhab1 | November 3, 2010 10:58 PM
Report Offensive CommentThanks Professor Khan for calling out the religious bigots of Oklahoma.
Posted by: sjblackman | November 3, 2010 8:41 PM
Report Offensive CommentOne Ban at a time folks, the next ban should be the Muslim Koran.
Recent news about a young muslim girl listening to Anwar al-Awlaki's lectures and then goes taliban on a British labor MP.
Anwar al-Awlaki's lectures are obviously based upon the koran and sunnah. He is a respected Islamic scholar. If muslim lectures quoting koran and sunnah can cause young muslims to give up their carriers and cause mayhem then the koran needs to also be banned.Posted by: Arif2 | November 3, 2010 8:13 PM
Report Offensive CommentMuqtedar Khan
You wrote, "As far as the Shariah is concerned, most of it is enshrined in US laws."
The definition of sharia law:
sharia law
noun
the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed; "sharia is only applicable to Muslims"; "under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state" [syn: shariah]
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?If you agree with this definition, then sharia law is against both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights besides being against the common dignity of mankind.
Also if you agree with this definition, it makes what you wrote quite a farce, does it not?
It is also against what the "Jesus" of the bible taught, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's", "My Kingdom is not of this world", of course I have no idea if it goes against what is written about "Jesus" in the koran since the discrepancies between what is written about Jesus in the bible and the koran are quite monumental, are they not?
If you disagree with this definition, then what is your definition of sharia law?
There is a motto of the US, it is "E Pluribus Unum" which means "out of many one", do you wish it to be changed to "out of many, well many a few but at least two"?
Or do you wish it to stay "E Pluribus Unum" with the "many" all under "sharia law"?
Makes one wonder that if and when the whole world is under sharia law considering that the "goal" of islam is world domination, who or what group of who will decide who is "muslim enough", have you ever thought about that?
As I have said before, it doesn't matter what anyone believes, Truth Is Truth whether one believes it or not and as I have also said, The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.
I am thankful that God's Plan is for All to be in God's Kingdom and God's Plan is not just for All of humanity but for All of creation.
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: ThomasBaum | November 3, 2010 7:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment***** many of the republicans candidates who oppose the Sharia,argue that the us constitution and its laws are based on Judeo-Christians values *****
the fact is,
whether the us constitution is based upon Juchristianity or traced to Democritues c.460-c.370B.C or the jurisprudence of the Romans,
all of the above do not super the constitution up to divine ordinances and legalizations unless is clearly written in the scripture of moses and the scripture of jesus?another fact for those who want to turn it into a theological ball game is that the last divine revelation to mankind(Quran and sunna)contain it all,
the sharia of moses ,the sharia of jesus and the sharia of Mohamed,
3 in 1,
1+1+1=1 because its coming from one god .Posted by: mono1 | November 3, 2010 7:28 PM
Report Offensive CommentThis may have been done for all the wrong reasons - but the outcome is more than satisfactory. Expect to see more of this.
Sharia Law does not belong anywhere in the USA. We're going to be having more than enough trouble from fundamentalist Christians interfering with secular government as it is, given the election outcomes.
Some of this political trouble will no doubt be coming from Christian fundmamentalists that live in places like Oklahoma and Texas, not to mention the entire southern tier of states.
No Sharia, no thanks.
Posted by: persiflage | November 3, 2010 7:27 PM
Report Offensive CommentI guess Mr. Doty below felt it was neccessary to interject his hatred of Christianity into a discussion of Shariah Law, and since it was neccesary for him to do that, I will correct his misrepresenations so that on his next post he can increase his knowledge for his rhetoric:
1. The "religion" of Christianity is not based on the Jewish Ten Commandments. Christianity was founded by those who had encounters with Jesus after his bodily ressurrection, in which even his Jewish enemies admitted that the tomb he was buried in was empty.
2. Jesus did command his followers to obey all of the Ten Commandments except obedience to the Sabbath, plus additonal old testament laws, the most important ones being the laws about divorce and children.
3. Whether you decide to live by Judeo-Christian Values or not is none of my business, but you seem to be confusing the term. Jesus and the writers of the New Testament did communicate a way of life that the followers of Jesus are expected to follow, which supports the Theology he communicated for those who are members of His kingdom.
4. You are possibly correct though that the term "Christian" is only used three times in the New Testament, and that Pagans made up the term "Christian" (It is found in ancient roman documents from about 60-100 A.D. if you care the look those up. The Roman Historian Tacitus used it). The definition in those days meant Follower of Jesus.
5. Based on your lack of knowledge mention above, I seriously doubt you are in a position to qualify whether others are taking the Bible out of context. Maybe you can post their cited verses and interpretations and have qualified people give their opinions.
I hope this helps you, and am looking forward to helping you again.
Posted by: maddog25 | November 3, 2010 7:01 PM
Report Offensive CommentProfessor Khan-thank you for your continuing insights. As an American born muslim female who grew up in Oklahoma, I too am frustrated about being the target of bigotry, ignorance and prejudice. No doubt muslim countries are plagued with cultural issues that must be addressed, but those countries and cultures have little, if anything, to do with American muslims.
The above is what ZM01 had to say about this article. All that is going in the muslim countries is they are plagued with cultural issues. This is how this woman sees the whole thing. America steeped in bigotry & prejudice, where as the OIC countries are plagued with cultural issues. All the apologists, read this nonsense and think for yourself. Every goddamn OIC has discriminatory laws on their books, each one of them. One state in the union passes a referendum against Sharia creeping in. May be that is too alarmist, but the entire nation is made of Bigots and prejudiced people? I say she is the most bigoted person here. Then the arrogance of her claiming that she and her ilk are far superior to the rest of white trash, black crap, the brown wetbacks. Listen up you liberal gullibles.
In my post below I have actually presented the falsities of Mr. Khan and asked all the muslim posters to repudiate my assertions. Instead we get is this diatribe from a so called muslim woman.
Posted by: Secular | November 3, 2010 5:38 PM
Report Offensive CommentProfessor Khan-thank you for your continuing insights. As an American born muslim female who grew up in Oklahoma, I too am frustrated about being the target of bigotry, ignorance and prejudice. No doubt muslim countries are plagued with cultural issues that must be addressed, but those countries and cultures have little, if anything, to do with American muslims. I suppose the real question American muslims have to answer is this: how do we deal with being the target of hate? The key of course is to maintain perspective. The majority of Americans have probably never come into contact with ordinary American muslims. There just aren't that many of us. I don't believe that people who know muslims (friends, acquaintances, colleagues, etc) harbor the kind of hatred reflected in online comments or Fox news. (The exception of course being those who are seeking votes or financial gain by fueling the hysteria). People who don't know muslims and people who have something to gain by promoting Islamaphobia are living in an era where it is socially acceptable to demonize muslims, but nothing that anyone says on television, prints, or posts online can change the facts. Muslims maintain a household income level that is significantly higher than the median US income level. They hold the second highest number of college degrees. The rate of domestic violence, teen pregnancy, alcoholism, incarceration, divorce, substance abuse, and reliance on welfare is well below the national average. The wage gap between professional muslim women and men is signficantly narrower than the wage gap between non-muslim women and men. These are the facts. And with all of these facts in our favor, what is left is for us to dispel prejudices one person at a time. As for those people who refuse to let go of their bigotry and ignorance, they can say or write whatever they want to say or write, but they can't take away what you, I or any other American muslim in this country has achieved personally or professionally. Given that education, family stability, and professional success are values that the vast majority of American muslims actually live by (rather than long for, criticize or dismiss as "elitist" because we just can't quite cut it), the truth is that our communities are and will remain well ahead of the norm.
Posted by: zm01 | November 3, 2010 4:31 PM
Report Offensive CommentMr. Khan, it may be some what amusing to write about the Oklahoman referendum. Because it is not set up in an open loop. If there is some judge who follows the referendum to the last tittle, the aggrieved party can and will appeal to an upper court and that one will for sure set aside the provision of International law. So there is no real need for any kind of panic. As to your possible contention that what if to Muslims wish to resolve their issues based on Sharia? If they wish they can themselves between the just two of them can still do that and ratify it with a normal contract. So really that referendum is not going to be a real issue.
However, your straight out falsities are indeed not very amusing and are very sinister. I notice you have authored from time to time articles in this blog to assuage peoples misgivings about sharia. Most of them are full of misrepresentations. Here are a few from this article itself.
Continued below
Posted by: Secular | November 3, 2010 3:07 PM
Report Offensive CommentContinued from above
As far as the Shariah is concerned, most of it is enshrined in US laws. The five main goals of the Islamic Shariah - freedom of religion (Quran 2:256), protection of life, protection of property, protection of affiliations and protection of reason - are well protected in US constitution, and Federal and state laws. That is why Muslims, who understand Islam and understand America, intuitively love the American system.Is that really so, is the goal of Sharia really protection of life? If that were be so why is there a disparity between the punishment for murder vary depending on the religion of the murderer and the victim? How does that promote the protection of life?
How does the imposition of Jizzya in OICs protect the freedom of affiliation?
How do the apostasy laws protect the freedom of association, or the freedom of reason?
How do the inheritance laws of Sharia protect the property rights of non-muslims in a mixed marriage?
And the claim that muslims intuitively loving American law isn't it a canard? tell me which non-muslim country does not protect the above freedoms?
Muslims have no desire to impose their values on anyone else. American Muslims wish to enjoy the freedoms that are available to them in America, like all other citizens. Over four years ago I explicitly articulated this in a widely published article. Muslims cannot impose Shariah on others; the Quran opposes compulsion in religion. Imposition of Shariah is a violation of Shariah.If your above contention were true, why do you feel so compelled to write again and again, articles expounding teh virtues of Sharia. To your other condition, please enlighten us why is it that in every OIC a non-muslim is required to adopt Islam if he or she chooses to marry a muslim?
All the muslim commenters, you are very welcome to repudiate my contentions and answer the questions I have raised. I know it is really a futile request, because I know no one will take up the challenge. This is not the first time.
Posted by: Secular | November 3, 2010 3:06 PM
Report Offensive CommentUnder Sharia Law:
The worth of a buddhist woman is 3.3% of a muslim man. If a muslim kills a buddhist woman from ceylon in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, under Sharia law the muslim cannot receive a death penalty for killing a Kafir. For punishment he can pay "blood money" to her relatives which currently amounts to $890. Is this the type of Law Muqtedar and a muslim supremacist like Jihadist pulling for?
Under Sharia law, the non-muslims are second class humans, and it truly has no place in any kafir country. These evil aspects besides the barbaric punishments of Sharia law have no place in the USA. Can muqtedar point to a single good aspect of law that exists in Sharia that does not already exist in the secular laws of USA?
I hope the remaining states follow the example and make sure that not even a muslim judge at present or appointed in the future can consider using any precedence from Sharia.Posted by: AKafir | November 3, 2010 2:16 PM
Report Offensive CommentThe Federal government makes all treaties, and if such treaties are the law of the land, then they are therefore domestic law, as well as international law.
Imposition of religious laws is forbidden in the US, so why should there be any particular bias towards Sharia law, which is not only religious, but also, culturally alien?
Sharia Law in Oklahoma seems a lot stranger to me than banning Sharia Law in Okalahoma.
I mean, it's Oklahoma, for crying out loud! What would you expect?
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | November 3, 2010 2:03 PM
Report Offensive CommentNo need for barbaric sharia laws, ALL states should ban Sharia otherwise we'll have Muslims trying to stone women for adultery. At least that won’t happen in Oklahoma. By the way just how is sharia compatible with the US constitution? I don’t see chopping off hands in the constitution, or beheading or stoning. Dhimmis or Zakaat, or even Jizziya. What about inheritance laws. Inferior women, I bet we'll need two women senators for every one Male Senator.
Posted by: Arif2 | November 3, 2010 1:16 PM
Report Offensive CommentLyndalbd, did you read the article? The author writes that Sharia Law's main principles are "freedom of religion (Quran 2:256), protection of life, protection of property, protection of affiliations and protection of reason". Where in this do you see it prohibiting "freedoms of choice, speech, and all rights"? Do you read with your eyes closed? Even if you disagree with the author, shouldn't you at least make an effort to back up your claims, instead of making things up? Shouldn't you at least make an effort to address his points?
The sharia law vote in Oklahoma is one of the most ignorant and shameful moments in American election history. It's also against the 1st amendment, which states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment, and thus, the non-establishment, of religion. Funny how Oklahomans are "defending America" against the Constitution. Funny how un-American they're turning out to be. It's really not funny at all.
Posted by: sali18 | November 3, 2010 1:10 PM
Report Offensive CommentWe already have laws on the books - American Laws, and Shariah law has no place in America. It prohibits freedoms of choice, speech, and all rights. If the Muslims don't like our laws, then they are free to leave...you know, go back to Iran. Outstanding Oklahomans - keep the Shariah out of our law!!! And leave the pagans alone, they are a peaceful group. Emperor Constantine made up the word "Christians", not the pagans.
Posted by: LyndaLBD | November 3, 2010 12:54 PM
Report Offensive CommentThe religion of "Christianity" might be based on the Jewish Ten Commandments. But, Jesus never told any of his followers to obey the 600 plus commandments given to Moses when the Israelites were wondering around in the Wilderness of the Sinai for 40 years.
I don't live by "Judeo-Christian" values because there is no such thing in the New Testament. You won't find "Christian values" in the New Testament either. The epithet "Christian" is only used 3 times in the whole New Testament. Pagans made up the word "Christian."
Oklahoma does have proof-texting Bible-thumpers who are elected politicians. They (MIS)use the Bible to support their own political agendas. And they even quote the Bible, out of context of course, when the legislature is in session and they are at work in the Capitol building.
Posted by: joe_allen_doty | November 3, 2010 12:10 PM
Report Offensive CommentOutstanding Oklahomans! On international laws.
The IATA and bilateral air services agreement? Nahhh....no 5th and 6th freedom given to foreign airlines in Oklahoma.
The Law of the Sea? Nahhh...nothing to dispute on EEZ and such as the Atlantic and Pacific oceans' shores have yet to reach Oklahoma due to global warming or tectonic plates' movements.
No need for Oklahoma to accede to the ICC and ICJ. Oklahoma can be the refuge of the scums of the earth with no extradition treaties for genociders, territorial land and sea grabbers and war criminals from other countries.
Oh, wait, international laws are handled by the Federal government.
Outstanding Oklahomans! On Shariah law.
Now, just make sure there be less Judeo-Christian-Hindu-Buddhist-Mormon-Pagan laws imbued in and enacted as state laws. If that is possible now that Shariah law is out of the way by law.
Posted by: Jihadist | November 3, 2010 12:08 PM
Report Offensive CommentThe comments to this entry are closed.
Go, Oklahoma! This article is a ridiculous piece of liberal media propaganda.
In England, extreme Muslims have been trying to get the entire law of the land changed to accept Sharia law. Do we want it to go that far in America?
The main purpose of this is just the opposite that the article says - They DO want to impose Sharia law on America. It starts with a finger, then they will want the whole hand.
Islamic countries persecute, confine, torture and murder those who try to practice other traditions and religions in their own countries. Why should we allow their religious laws in America, when they won't allow other faiths to practice in their own countries?
And give me a break - how come the article doesn't mention how they still punish their women caught in adultery? In Judaism and Christianity, that practice has been abolished. How come they make their women cover themselves up, deny their women an education or a career, and threaten with death anyone who wants to stray from the religion? Do we want that to happen to Muslim women in America?