Scott Pruitt Oklahoma Attorney General
The 10th Circuit Court in Denver, Colorado today upheld an injunction against the implementation of Oklahoma SQ 755, a constitutional amendment that instructed judges not to consider foreign laws in their decisions, it included sharia law, I believe, in that it is the religious law or ruling order used in a number of Islamic countries. The amendment passed overwhelmingly in the fall of 2010. The amendment reads, in part:
“The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”
In their brief, the court seems to ignore the fact that Muneer Awad, the director of Oklahoma’s chapter of CAIR, an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure in the U.S., did not actually demonstrate any direct harm from the amendment (he merely claimed he would be). The court afreed with him. Yet, they said the state failed to show a compelling interest based on any problems sharia law has caused and faulted them for it! So, a problem has to be demonstrated before a law is passed? Interesting. Nor, did the court even attempt to distinguish sharia practices (Islamic religious guideline) from sharia law. In fact they bought the misleading argument from Awad that such teachings and Quranic dictates comprise the foundation from >which both some clergy and believers have derived the content of their religious obligations. This body of interpretation is referred to as “Sharia law,” and it serves as a guide for Muslims to apply and practice their faith in everyday life, covering topics that include dress, grooming, and social interactions.
This seems to be important to do, in my layman opinion. Awad used the terms interchangeably in his brief, if I recall correctly, which blurs the difference (was this intentional?). I am pretty sure they are not the same thing.
Mr. Awad claims that the amendment threatens to injure him in several ways, such as condemning his Muslim faith, inhibiting the practice of Islam, disabling a court from probating his will (which contains references to Sharia law {z: sharia?}), and limiting the relief he and other Muslims can obtain from Oklahoma state courts.
Shortly after the law passed Muneer Awad claimed on national TV its success was based on a campaign of fear, hate and violence, a blatantly false statement.
State Sen. Anthony Sykes, who led the Senate’s effort to bring this amendment to a public vote issued a statement (click on January) emphasizing this matter is, and will continue to be, an on-going effort:
“On Tuesday the federal appeals court in Denver attempted to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of by and for the judges, or of by and for the people. How far will the people let them go? This ruling is right along with legalizing abortion and forced busing of school children.”
“The issue raised by this constitutional amendment is very simple – you are either for Sharia law or you are against it.”>“This is just the first battle in an ongoing effort. Although the courts have attempted to silence the voice of the people, I won’t let that happen. I’ll continue fighting to restore government to the people.”
The case goes back to Oklahoma federal court who will decide on the constitutionality of the law, itself. I worry that a court may unwittingly rule in favor of sharia law which will be used by Muslim activists in the future to advance the use of it in the U.S.
A number of other states are also considering bans on foreign laws.
Also See:
