So what’s really bothering you?
Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Oklahoma Chapter has filed a lawsuit against the state a few days after voters approved a measure by a 70% majority that instructs judges to ignore international law and Sharia law when adjudicating cases;
But Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma who filed the lawsuit, said that the measure is unnecessary because there is no threat of an Islamic takeover of state courts. Muslims make up only 30,000 of the state’s nearly 4 million residents – less than 1 percent.
Awad said the measure violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it singles out Islam. He said the measure is just another way to politically savage Muslims.
The Islamic community in Oklahoma has complained about the past actions of the state legislature, including a proposal to forbid Muslim women from wearing head garments in driver’s license photos and refusing to accept a Koran from a Muslim advisory council at an official state ceremony.
If the law is so unnecessary, what’s the problem with it?
Thanks to ROS for the link.
Category: Legal
Alan Colmes was discussing this last night.
I think they should have let it go at “International” without specifying Sharia. I’m less concerned that Sharia law would take over and more with the foreign bodies that have filed amici briefs in Arizona, and Ginsburg citing to foreign courts when she addresses Capitol Case issues.
I realize everyone gets all hot and bothered about Sharia, but on my fears for our country, adopting Sharia falls below Asteroids striking earth and Yellowstone exploding.
Or, Obama telling the truth? If one judge bases a decision on bowing to a Muslim, Shinto, Pashtun, Bhuddist or any other entity, it’s one too many. It’s already happened, and yes, he was overturned.
So, what exactly is CAIR all hot and bothered about? And, it isn’t violating Awad’s “freedom of religion”, he still has a right to worship Allah, or goats, if he wants to. So, if the law is “unnecessary”, the lawsuit is too.
Good job Oklahoma. I learned everything i need to know about sharria law on 9/11.
CAIR can kiss my US Army Airborne, Southern CHRISTIAN ass.
As an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial CAIR’s petition to have their name removed from the indictment failed as the DOJ had overwhelming evidence of CAIR’s long association with HAMAs and the Muslim Brotherhood. The FBI subsequently severed all ties with CAIR as part of the agency’s “out reach” to the Muslim community.
For more detail and information concerning Sharia, check out the following: “SHARIA, The Threat to America” published by the Center for Security Policy. You can link to the study (300+ pages of pdf) via the Center’s website.
The only thing wrong with it is that it does not kiss MOSLEM ass. Fuck them too. (Exercising my tolerance or lack thereof for the religion of exclusion and hate.) Not even an intelligent argument in that the matters here are matters of LAW not religion alone.
said that the measure is unnecessary because there is no threat of an Islamic takeover of state courts. Muslims make up only 30,000 of the state’s nearly 4 million residents – less than 1 percent.
Notice that the rationalization was not that “even if Muslims made up 100% of the residents, they would never push an Islamic takeover of State courts”, it was “we’re too small a minority right now to even push anything“.
Thus, this was most definitely needed now as prevention for if/when the Muslim population increases and they start to push their Shari’a crap, as they have in every other Western nation when their population is large enough to have such influence.
Speaking of Islamic Shari’a in America…
This update on the Elizabeth Smart story shows that we have defacto shari’a already here in another form. Instead of telling the guy to follow American law and lift the veil so the cop could do his job, this cop adheres to Islamic shari’a and allows the kidnapper to deny him a look at the kid to verify it is not Elizabeth Smart. PC adherence to Islam run amok.
—–
The detective had approached a robed Smart sitting at a library table and asked if he could look under the veil she wore across her face.
“He said he was looking for Elizabeth Smart,” Smart said.
Under the table, Mitchell’s wife at the time, Wanda Eileen Barzee, squeezed Smart’s leg – a sign, Smart said, that she should remain quiet.
Mitchell stood between Smart and the detective.
“He said that it was not allowed in our religion and that only my husband would ever see my face.” she said.
The detective pressed.
“He asked if he could be a part of our religion for a day, just so he could see my face, just so he could go back (to the police station) and say, ‘no it wasn’t Elizabeth Smart’,” she said.
Mitchell remained cool and calm, stating again firmly that it would not be allowed. The detective gave up and left, Smart said.
—–
That cop SHOULD have said “your religion does not supercede American law enforcement. Lift the damn veil and allow me to do my job or I am arresting you for interfering with an investigation”.
This is an indication of the power religion has to cow people period, Mike. There is no indication that Islam was a part of Mitchell’s ruse.
That said, no, I don’t want shari’a law enforced here in any way shape or form.
This is an indication of the power religion has to cow people period, Mike. There is no indication that Islam was a part of Mitchell’s ruse.
=====
Someone informed me on another blog that supposedly the kidnapper was part of some Mormon cult or something. Not sure if they were being sarcastic or not. But even granting their premise, do you really think when the cop asked for the veil to be removed, and the guy rejected it on religious grounds, that the cop was not assuming the religion was Islam?
And no other religion gets this kind of “respect” from people. If some Christian or Jewish or Scientology nut told a cop that they couldn’t cooperate on account of their religion, the cop would tell them to knock off their bullshit and start cooperating or they would get arrested. But with Islam, different story.
Michael in MI (#7) opined with regard to the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case in Idaho, “That cop SHOULD have said ‘your religion does not supercede American law enforcement. Lift the damn veil and allow me to do my job or I am arresting you for interfering with an investigation’.”
I don’t know anything about this case other than seeing Michael in MI’s opinion here and a cursory glance at the linked article. I can only hope that Michael in MI is not a cop. He would be a poor fit for the profession. While no cop has ever got 20/20 vision all the time in every situation, we should at least strive for something a little above legally blind when doing the Monday night quarterbacking. The cop should not have told the kidnapper to lift the victim’s “damn” veil so the cop could see if indeed she was the victim. The detective should have arranged for some back-up ahead of time, including a female detective, before approaching the woman in the library, with some sort of a game plan already in place for how to handle the situation if he was blocked from seeing the woman’s face upon request…which in my opinion, should definitely warrant physical restraint and arrest of the man for refusing to cooperate with a police investigation, if necessary.
This wouldn’t have gone down like this if he had just had a female detective with him because, under those circumstances, it would have become immediately apparent that the situation was not as Mitchell was portraying and that something was wrong.