Tag Archives: Oklahoma

Check out the status of Anti-Sharia Bills introduced nationwide

BNI/

Contact your representatives and tell them why they should support anti-sharia legislation as well as why terror-linked CAIR is fighting to kill these bills.

102511-sharia-crescent-lg1

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: AL threatens to refuse full faith and credit to court decisions of other states; new OK bill avoids using word “sharia”

shariah-630x286

March 29th, 2013 by Bill Raftery Gavel to Gavel

As I noted in last month’s update, this year’s batch of bans of sharia/international law use by state courts looks very different than those of the past several years. After criticism that a) past versions would effectively cripple businesses who have to sign international contracts and b) that bans on references to the law and court decisions of other nations would make the judicial determinations of tribal courts in the U.S. enforceable, most such bills have been completely rewritten.

  • Alabama’s newest versions (SB 4 and SB 44) are new and unique; beyond banning just that state’s courts from using international law they also purport to ban the use in other state courts. SB 4, as approved by the Senate last week, reads in operative part:

Where the public acts, records, or judicial proceedings of another state violate the public policy of the State of Alabama, the State of Alabama shall not give full faith and credit thereto

Children-raped

The bill elsewhere defines the “public policy” of the state to exclude use of international law.

  • Oklahoma, whose original version used the word “sharia” and was struck down by the federal courts for that reason, has come up with a new version that amends existing statutes (the original version amended the state’s constitution) and avoids using the word “sharia”.

  • Also tellingly is the concern businesses have had over such bans in the past. Texas’ latest version, although limited to banning use of international or foreign law in family court proceedings, has nevertheless been forwarded to the Senate Business & CommerceCommittee.

female-circumcision

List of bills:

Bill
Does not affect right to contract freely/contract provisions
Does not apply to corporations
Does not apply to tribal court decisions
Does not apply to ecclesiastical matters/religious orgs
Other items
Status
X
X
Full faith and credit with other states suspended if they use international law
Approved by full Senate 3/20/13.
X
X
Full faith and credit with other states suspended if they use international law
In Senate Judiciary Committee.
X
X
X
In House Judiciary Committee.
X
X
X
X
Limited to Family law. Does not apply to use of English common law.
Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/21/13.
X
X
X
X
Limited to Family law. Does not apply to use of English common law.
Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 3/6/13. Approved by House Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee 3/21/13. In House Children, Families, and Elder Affairs Committee.
X
In Senate Rules Committee.
X
Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/21/12. Approved by full Senate 2/26/13. In House Judiciary Committee.
X
X
X
X
In House Judiciary Committee.
X
X
In House Judiciary Committee.
X
Specifically uses word “sharia” Died in House Judiciary A Committee.
X
X
X
Died in House Judiciary A Committee.
X
Died in House Judiciary A Committee.
X
X
Died in Senate Judiciary A Committee.
X
X
X
In House Judiciary Committee.
X
X
Approved by Senate General Laws Committee 3/27/13.
X
X
X
X
Approved by full House 3/6/13. Approved by Senate Judicairy Committee 3/26/13.
X
In House States’ Rights Committee.
X
X
In House Rules Committee.
X
X
X
In House Rules Committee.
X
X
In Senate Judiciary Committee.
X
X
X
X
Approved by full Senate 3/13/13. In House Judiciary Committee.
Approved by full Senate 2/25/13. In House Judiciary Committee.
X
In Senate Judiciary Committee.
X
In Senate Judiciary Committee.
In House Judiciary Committee.
X
X
Limited to family law (divorce, marriage, parent-child relationship)
In House Judiciary Committee.
In House State Affairs Committee.
X
X
Limited to family law (divorce, marriage, parent-child relationship)
In Senate State Affairs Committee.
X
In Senate State Affairs Committee.
X
X
Limited to family law (divorce, marriage, parent-child relationship)
In Senate Business & Commerce Committee.
Limited to Domestic Relations (marriage, divorce, custody, visitation, support, adoption)
Withdrawn at sponsor’s request.
X
X
In House Judiciary Committee.
X
X
In House Judiciary Committee.
Does not apply to use of English common law, if enacted
Killed by full House 1/24/13.
Does not apply to use of English common law, if enacted
Died in House Judiciary Committee.

I-will-not-submit-US-flag

OKLAHOMA: Will Muslim Brotherhood proxy CAIR again be able to overturn the will of the people who voted to block sharia law from state courts?

BNI//

OKLAHOMA: Will Muslim Brotherhood proxy CAIR again be able to overturn the will of the people who voted to block sharia law from state courts?

english-only-anti-sharia-measures-pass-in-oklahoma1Two years ago, on Election day, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a state bill in support of anti-sharia legislation. But the Islamofascists at CAIR (Council on Anti-American Islamic Relations) and their Commie pals at the ACLU sued to block the anti-sharia bill and were able to convince a few Obama appeals-court-blocks-oklahoma-ban-on-shariadhimmi judges to overturn the will of the people on appeal. Hopefully, this time, the patriotic citizens of Oklahoma will succeed in their crusade to have  barbaric sharia law banned from their state courts forever.

Associated Press Once again, Oklahoma lawmakers are considering banning judges in the state from basing any rulings on foreign laws, including Islamic Sharia law.

Okla_Sharia_Law_Headlines

A Senate panel on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the bill, which has broad support in the Republican-controlled Legislature. The bill would specifically make void and unenforceable any court, arbitration or administrative agency decision that doesn’t grant the parties affected by the ruling “the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions.”

Muslim groups will start buying billboards condemning the people of Oklahoma who want to outlaw sharia in their state:

6a00e00986be4d883300e5504db4138833-800wi

“This is a way to protect American citizens … where somebody may try to use any kind of foreign law or religious law to affect the outcome of a trial,” said Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, who sponsored the bill. Shortey described it as “American Law for American Courts.”

A handful of other states have laws aimed at keeping courts from basing decision on foreign legal codes, including Islamic law. Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that would have specifically prohibited courts from considering Sharia law, but a federal judge blocked its implementation after a Muslim community leader alleged it discriminates against his religion.

CAIR uses social media to disparage criticism of Islamic sharia law as bigotry and lies:

6be4d88330147e14e804f970b800wi-vi

Shortey said he didn’t know of an instance in Oklahoma where a judge has relied on foreign laws, but he said there have been cases in other states. That prompted state Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, to describe the measure as a “solution that’s looking for a problem.” Crain was the only member of the Senate committee to vote against the bill.

The panel approved the bill 8-1. It now heads to the full Senate for a vote. A similar measure has been introduced in the Oklahoma House.

CAIR Islamists gather their fellow jihadists to try to intimidate opponents and interfere with hearings:

c60bf53ef0134896ae0ef970c800wi-vi

The executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Oklahoma courts already are required to enforce state and federal laws when they conflict with foreign law that violates public policy.

“This bill is entirely unnecessary and creates significant uncertainty for Oklahomans married abroad as well as those Oklahomans who have adopted a child from another country or are seeking to do so,” Executive Director Ryan Kiesel said in a statement. “These Oklahoma families don’t deserve to have this type of doubt cast over them. ”It also creates an atmosphere of uncertainty for foreign businesses seeking to do business with Oklahoma businesses.”

sharialawsm-vi

Necessity of Anti-Sharia Laws

By Robert Spencer

Louisiana, Arizona ,and Tennessee have already passed legislation restricting the use of foreign law in state courtrooms, and twenty-one other states are considering similar laws.  These statutes are designed to halt the use of Islamic law, sharia, by Americanjudges — a measure that many see as necessary, since sharia has already been involved in cases in twenty-three states.  Many see this as an alarming encroachment upon First Amendment protection of religion; however, anti-sharia laws do not actually infringe upon religious freedom at all, and they become more urgently needed by the day.

Photos of the Sunday, August 22, 2010 Park51 (...

In the March issue of First Things, law professor Robert K. Vischer equates anti-sharia laws with recent intrusions upon the religious freedom of Christians, such as laws that now require “pro-life pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill” and “Christian adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples, and religious entities to pay for their employees’ contraceptives.”  He asserts that “[t]he recent spate of ‘anti-Sharia’ initiatives is just the most politically popular example of such threats” to religious freedom.

This is a widespread misapprehension.  The Associated Press recently noted that critics of anti-sharia laws view the drive to pass them as an “unwarranted campaign driven by fear of Muslims.”  In criticizing an anti-sharia amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that gained seventy percent of the vote in a state referendum but was later struck down, Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union‘s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said:

This amendment did nothing more than target one faith for official condemnation. Even the state admits that there has never been any problem with Oklahoma courts wrongly applying religious law. The so-called ‘Save Our State Amendment’ was a solution in search of a problem, and a blatantly discriminatory solution at that.”  Ryan Kiesel of the ACLU’s Oklahoma branch declared: “No one in Oklahoma deserves to be treated like a second-class citizen. This proposed amendment was an affront to the Constitution and everything it stands for.” The Muslim writer Reza Aslan hysterically and inaccurately charged that “two-thirds of Americans don’t think Muslims should have the same rights or civil liberties as non-Muslims.

In reality, the properly formulated anti-sharia laws neither infringe upon Muslims’ civil liberties or religious freedom nor address a nonexistent problem.  Vischer correctly states some of reasons why Americans are concerned about sharia when he says that “proponents of this legislation tend to focus on manifestations of Sharia overseas: the stoning of adulterers, cutting off of the hands of thieves, and the denial of basic freedoms for women in some Islamic countries,” and that “there are many schools of interpretation among Islamic legal scholars, and some interpretations stand in tension with the rights that we have come to take for granted in liberal democracies, including the rights of women, homosexual persons, religious minorities, and religious converts.”

Vischer clearly means to imply that Muslims in America have no intention, now or ever, of bringing “the stoning of adulterers, cutting off of the hands of thieves, and the denial of basic freedoms for women” to America, and that there are schools of interpretation among Islamic legal scholars that do not “stand in tension with the rights that we have come to take for granted in liberal democracies.”  In reality, however, there is no school of Islamic jurisprudence among either Sunnis or Shi’tes that does not mandate stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, and the subjugation of women.  Stoning adulterers is in accord with the words and example of Muhammad, whom the Quran holds up as the supreme example of conduct for believers (33:21); amputation of the hand for theft is mandated in the Quran itself (5:38); and the oppression of women in numerous ways is amply attested by the words of both the Quran and the prophet of Islam.

And while there are individual Islamic legal scholars who have crafted interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah that are more compatible with Western pluralism and liberal democracy than is sharia in its classic formulations, these have never gained any significant traction among Muslims.  Wherever Sharia has been the law of the land, throughout Islamic history and in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other areas of the Islamic world today, it has had largely the same character — one that has never resembled liberal democracy by any stretch of the imagination.  Sharia polities throughout history and today have denied the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience, and they have mandated discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

Vischer says that “fears about the most extreme applications of Sharia need not prompt a categorical ban on Sharia,” but the world has never seen a form of sharia that has not been “extreme.”  Many non-Muslims mistakenly believe that relatively free and Westernized majority-Muslim states — principally Turkey, as well as, up until recently, Tunisia and Egypt — demonstrate the compatibility of sharia with understandings of human rights that are otherwise universally accepted.  This is, however, a fundamental misapprehension: Turkey and other relatively Westernized Muslim countries have been governed by sharia not at all, but instead by legal codes imported from the West.  In fact, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk established the modern-day Turkish republic as a defiant rejection of sharia and an explicit determination to establish a Western-style state, free from the strictures of Islamic law.  Such states don’t have a different, more expansive version of sharia; they don’t have sharia at all (and today their freedoms are rapidly eroding, as the “Arab Spring” is bringing sharia back in force).

Sharia is also political and supremacist, mandating a society in which non-Muslims do not enjoy equality of rights with Muslims.  And that is the focus of anti-sharia laws: to prevent this authoritarian and oppressive political and social system from eroding the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.  It is plainly disingenuous to claim that anti-sharia laws would infringe upon Muslims’ First Amendment rights to practice their religion.  As Thomas Jefferson said, it doesn’t matter whether my neighbor believes in one god or seventeen; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.  It is only when my neighbor believes that his god commands him to pick my pocket or break my leg that his beliefs become a matter of concern for those who do not share them.  No one wants to restrict individual Muslim religious practice, or even cares about it.  The purpose of anti-sharia laws is not to stop Muslims from getting married in Islamic religious ceremonies and the like, but to stop the political and supremacist aspects of Islam that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims.

The Islamic state, as delineated by sharia, encroaches on the basic rights of non-Muslims.  It would be a sad irony for non-Muslims to oppose anti-sharia and thereby abet their own subjugation.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.