Adam Freedman · Nov 4, 2010 at 7:47pm

By a margin of roughly 70%, Oklahoma voters approved Question 755, which forbids state courts from "considering" Sharia law in their decisions. A challenge has, of course, already been filed under Establishment Clause grounds. Not sure I buy that -- the measure doesn't say that courts should consider other religions. Presumably, courts are there to enforce the secular law and should not base a decision on any religion.

But then why single out Sharia? The WSJ Law Blog reports that constitutional scholars are "scratching their heads" over that question. My hunch is that lawmakers in the Sooner State are looking at the example of Britain, where judgments of private Sharia tribunals can be enforced in the public Courts -- never mind Sharia's slightly, er, unconventional evidentiary standards (eg, a woman's testimony is worth half a man's), Her Majesty's Courts are there to give them the force of law.

As between UK and OK, I choose the latter.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

Shucks. My lawyer was gonna spin that unfortunate road rage incident in downtown Tulsa as an honor killing.

We even had a witness all lined up to claim that I cried, "Allahu Akhbar!" as I pummeled the guy with my nephew's sippy cup.

Man, I pray that Anthony Kennedy's health holds up....

Edited on Nov 4, 2010 at 9:02pm
Cas Balicki
Joined
Jun '10
Cas Balicki

For any interested in spending an hour listenig to Mark Steyn discussing sharia.

http://www.ctstv.com/michaelcoren/?vidID=20537

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

It was a smart move. It's harder to accomplish after sharia has become entrenched and when more voters are sympathetic to a variant of Islam that they either don't care to consider or actually support. All states should ban sharia now.

It's far from certain that sharia will gain a foothold in U.S. -- not only because of demographic/assimilation patterns, but also because it's harder to mutilate little girls where the neighbors have shotguns.

Still, there is a chance. Al Qaeda, the Saudis and radical Islamic groups are smart enough to realize that a country that refuses to plug its borders is ripe for strategic immigration. And parts of our country share Europe's cultural vacuum. Even without maliciously coordinated immigration, every century is full of unexpected cultural changes and population movements.

As the Boy Scouts say, be prepared. Assume the best, but make ready for the worst.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

It's probably not a coincidence that this happened first in Oklahoma, where so many people have first-hand experience with separate legal systems (for native tribes). There is a precedent.

Joseph Stanko
Joined
Jun '10
Joseph Stanko

University of Oklahoma law professor Rick Tepker: “I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments."

Is he serious? I thought the courts couldn't even display a statue of the 10 Commandments any more, let alone consider them in reaching decisions...

Good Berean
Joined
Oct '10
Good Berean

Adam Freedman: By a margin of roughly 70%, Oklahoma voters approved Question 755, which forbids state courts from "considering" Sharia law in their decisions. A challenge has, of course, already been filed under Establishment Clause grounds. Not sure I buy that -- the measure doesn't say that courts should consider other religions. Presumably, courts are there to enforce the secular law and should not base a decision on any religion.

But then why single out Sharia? The WSJ Law Blog reports that constitutional scholars are "scratching their heads" over that question.

I am scratching my head over the confusion. Every culture's law is based on it's religion. American culture has christianity as it's law base. If we apply a sacred vs secular dichotomy to our law, we are indeed a house divided.

Jeremias Heidefelder
Joined
Oct '10
Jeremias Heidefelder

Aaron, good point about the shotguns. But that's just another temporary roadblock.

Berean, certain European states have certain churches established as the State Church, like Denmark's Folkekirken, established by its state constitution. Most of the Scandinavian states (Iceland, Norway, Finland) have theirs. But none of these have helped stem Islamic colonization much, thanks in part to how "enlightened" thinking has marginalized most of Christianity, and consequently eroded much of Europe's moral and philosophical backbone.

What law can address that?

It's funny, I've heard three atheists in the past year say the same thing--Bruce Bawer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and S.E. Cupp.

America is not there yet, but it doesn't mean we're not subject to the same cultural, philosophical, and, yes, spiritual atrophy.

Edited on Nov 5, 2010 at 1:39am

Joined
May '10
Conor Friedersdorf
Aaron Miller: It was a smart move. It's harder to accomplish after sharia has become entrenched and when more voters are sympathetic to a variant of Islam that they either don't care to consider or actually support. All states should ban sharia now.

This makes no sense. Sharia law couldn't become entrenched in Oklahoma without the legislature voting for it. I am guessing exactly zero Oklahoma officials would cast that vote.

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules
 

The European equivalent to tribalism is known as balkanization. The latter term throughout most of the 20th century was considered a pejorative. The word carried with it an understanding that ethnic strife frequently spilled over the borders with the potential to ignite a greater conflagration involving Europe's great powers. The cure for balkanization was, and remains, cultural assimilation.

The term balkanization today is known as cultural "diversity." It's a tactic used by the left to carve out easily controlled constituent groups, based on real or perceived grievances, for the accumulation and maintenance of personal political power. Europe's cultural quislings recognize Islam as another tribal group to be manipulated and controlled. There's always a silk stocking somewhere willing to throw open the back gate of the fortress to the barbarian horde if it means personal power. History tells us that Roman elites escaped the mayhem of the Gothic invasion by surrendering the Roman populace into slavery.

The rustics of Oklahoma recognize the threat from our urban elites even if they lack the historical perspective. The strength of empire resides in the provinces. The red-blue map clearly illustrates the division between slaves and free men.

 

cdor
Joined
Jun '10
cdor

CF, "This makes no sense. Sharia law couldn't become entrenched in Oklahoma without the legislature voting for it. I am guessing exactly zero Oklahoma officials would cast that vote."

This makes perfect sense. It is a case of the legislatures beating the loony courts to the punch. Already in New Jersey a lower court judge allowed a man to claim sharia exclusion from prosecution for beating and raping his wife. The judge's idiotic decision was overturned this time. I don't have unlimited trust in the courts. If we want non-suspicious inclusion of Muslims into our society, then we need an absolute line in the sand. That line is Sharia...under no circumstances will any form of Sharia be allowed to be practiced in the United States. I love what Oklahoma has done. And, naturally, it is one of those moderate Muslims from CAIR that is challenging the law. I look at this law as a fence. Not to keep Muslims out, but to allow them into our society...on our terms. Good fences make good neighbors.

ConcernedCanadien
Joined
Sep '10
ConcernedCanadien
Adam Freedman: But then why single out Sharia?

Like Aaron mentioned, different Indian tribes have their own court system. Even the Jews have their own internal courts. But these side-courts tend to work within the existing system and none of them profess to be the true court system that should replace what is in place now. Sharia does.

ConcernedCanadien
Joined
Sep '10
ConcernedCanadien

Conor Friedersdorf

Aaron Miller: It was a smart move. It's harder to accomplish after sharia has become entrenched and when more voters are sympathetic to a variant of Islam that they either don't care to consider or actually support. All states should ban sharia now.

This makes no sense. Sharia law couldn't become entrenched in Oklahoma without the legislature voting for it. I am guessing exactly zero Oklahoma officials would cast that vote. · Nov 5 at 2:21am

Conor, they would vote for Sharia law, I agree. But they could vote to do it a piece at a time. For example, why not allow Muslims to have Sharia courts, assuming they follow all current laws. Sounds simple because these side courts already exists.

It's called Sharia-creep. AIG already offers Sharia-compliant loans to Muslims who are not allowed to pay interest.

Just a little piece at a time until you realize that Sharia is jsut around the corner.

That sounds paranoid and I don't think it will happen, mostly because of legislation like this which makes people more aware and sets up some roadblocks before things go too far.

Good Berean
Joined
Oct '10
Good Berean

ConcernedCanadien

Adam Freedman: But then why single out Sharia?

Like Aaron mentioned, different Indian tribes have their own court system. Even the Jews have their own internal courts. But these side-courts tend to work within the existing system and none of them profess to be the true court system that should replace what is in place now. Sharia does. · Nov 5 at 9:10am

As you know, Canada is much further down this road than the US. This is because, in my opinion, the majority in Canada (notice I said majority, not all) have embraced multiculturalism as one of the defining characteristics of Canadian culture (I know, my mother was Canadian, I was raised in Ontario, andI listen the the CBC almost every day).

Because all culture is essentially an expression of a religious faith (belief system), it only makes sense that those who preserve their culture within a "multicultural" society, would want to governed according the the laws derived from the values of that culture. A biblical concept, derived from the Old Testament, that is fundamental in US law is "one law for all peoples". In a democratic republic, that means the rule of the majority.

Brian Watt
Joined
Jun '10
Brian Watt

I'm not one that supports polygamy, heck I wasn't even able to hold onto one wife. But I digress. If Sharia is permitted in America will law enforcement arrest Muslim polygamists the same way that they incarcerate so-called Christian polygamists? Calling Elena Kagan now to get a ruling...Hello, Ms. Kagan?

Brian Watt
Joined
Jun '10
Brian Watt

By the way - there is no truth to the rumor that the number one single on the charts in Iran is still Dylan's "Everybody Must Get Stoned"

ProEnglish
Joined
Sep '10
ProEnglish

Interesting analysis on Oklahoma and its anti-Sharia law. On November 2nd, residents of Oklahoma also voted on State Question 751 which effectively declared English as the official language of Oklahoma. The measure passed by a margin of 76%. Are these two related?

Edited on Nov 5, 2010 at 1:01pm
Brian Watt
Joined
Jun '10
Brian Watt

The challenge that was filed over this recently passed law is from CAIR of course, the Council of American-Islamic Relations. I'm not supposed to say anymore that the federal government once named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial...but I believe I'm just reciting history and so my speech on this matter is protected.

Here's what one of the founders of CAIR expressed:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.”
Omar Ahmad, CAIR co-founder, quoted in the San Ramon Valley Herald,
July 4, 1998

Just putting this discussion in context.

ConcernedCanadien
Joined
Sep '10
ConcernedCanadien

Good Berean

As you know, Canada is much further down this road than the US. This is because, in my opinion, the majority in Canada (notice I said majority, not all) have embraced multiculturalism as one of the defining characteristics of Canadian culture.

Because all culture is essentially an expression of a religious faith (belief system), it only makes sense that those who preserve their culture within a "multicultural" society, would want to governed according the the laws derived from the values of that culture. A biblical concept, derived from the Old Testament, that is fundamental in US law is "one law for all peoples". In a democratic republic, that means the rule of the majority. · Nov 5 at 9:28am

I used to be very proud of Canada's multiculturism. The idea of people retaining their culture and identity sounds apealing because, liek you said, they want to preserve their way of life.

But here in Montreal we have the Chinese section (not Chinatown), the Italians, the Haitians, etc where immigrants can come in a never NEED to learn English (or French, here in Quebec).

That;s just the start of the problems...

ConcernedCanadien
Joined
Sep '10
ConcernedCanadien

ProEnglish: Interesting analysis on Oklahoma and its anti-Sharia law. On November 2nd, residents of Oklahoma also voted on State Question 751 which effectively declared English as the official language of Oklahoma. The measure passed by a margin of 76%. Are these two related? · Nov 5 at 12:59pm

Edited on Nov 05 at 01:01 pm

I would say the two rulings are identical for diffferent subjects. And to the same end. It's about protecting the American melting pot.

ConcernedCanadien
Joined
Sep '10
ConcernedCanadien
Brian Watt: The challenge that was filed over this recently passed law is from CAIR of course, the Council of American-Islamic Relations. I'm not supposed to say anymore that the federal government once named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial...but I believe I'm just reciting history and so my speech on this matter is protected.

Actually, CAIR is still on the list as an unindicted co-conspirator. CAIR was quick to pounce that the court ruling vindicated them.

In the fact, the court ruling simply stated that the list of unindicted co-conspirators should never have been made public. So although widely published that CAIR has been cleared of wrong-doing, in fact they are still and have always been unindicted co-conspirators to finance Hamas terrorism.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In