Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure

[teapartysamurai]

Now THIS is telling!

If Muslims aren't for forcing sharia on the country, why would they object to a measure banning sharia?

Just two days after Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure banning state courts from considering Islamic or international law when ruling on cases, a local Muslim has filed a federal lawsuit saying the measure is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit against ballot measure, State Question 755 – or better known as "Save Our State" -- seeks a temporary restraining order to block the results of the election from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.

Oklahoma residents approved the measure with 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's election.

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.

Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure - FoxNews.com

Two things I notice?

The law banning sharia is "unnecessary?"

Well then why worry about banning it?

It would be like OK banning opening umbrellas during a zombie apocalypse.

If you don't think there will ever BE a zombie apocalypse, why worry then about the law? It will never effect you, so let the electorate look silly voting for such a law.

BUT, if you intend to FORCE sharia to be the law of the land, THAT is why you object.

And he cites the first amendment as a reason to object to such a law?

HOW is the first amendment served by FORCING a religious law on ANYONE?

I mean if YOU choose to privately live by sharia (where it doesn't violate already known law, like I don't think we are going to let ANYONE stone someone to death), well goody for you!

But sharia isn't about voluntary compliance. It's about FORCING people to live under the edicts of Islam.

THAT is the only reason to object to such a law.

CAIR reveals what they are really about with this law suit.

And people thought OK was being silly putting this on the ballot.

That CAIR objects reveals they weren't being silly.

THIS is very telling.

 

[del]

you know what i notice?

you're a fucking idiot

 

[California Girl]

you know what i notice?

you're a fucking idiot

I noticed that too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you know what i notice?

you're a fucking idiot

Bury that head even deeper you fucking retard.

 

[del]

you know what i notice?

you're a fucking idiot

Bury that head even deeper you fucking retard.

kiss my hairy white ass you fucking bigot

 

[chanel]

The CAIR people are professional litigators. It keeps them in business. In fact, I believe lawsuits are their business. If Sharia Law is instituted, they will have even more people to sue.

The Religion of Perpetual Outrage.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you know what i notice?

you're a fucking idiot

Bury that head even deeper you fucking retard.

kiss my hairy white ass you fucking bigot

Better work on that conversion and learning Arabic my stupid friend.

 

[California Girl]

you know what i notice?

you're a fucking idiot

Bury that head even deeper you fucking retard.

It's 'much ado about nothing'. OK voted on banning both International and Sharia law from it's courts decision making process. A Muslim representative of CAIR is challenging the law.

 

[del]

Bury that head even deeper you fucking retard.

kiss my hairy white ass you fucking bigot

Better work on that conversion and learning Arabic my stupid friend.

better saddle soap your triceratops harness, my dimwitted acquaintance.

 

[Sunshine]

Now THIS is telling!

If Muslims aren't for forcing sharia on the country, why would they object to a measure banning sharia?

Just two days after Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure banning state courts from considering Islamic or international law when ruling on cases, a local Muslim has filed a federal lawsuit saying the measure is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit against ballot measure, State Question 755 – or better known as "Save Our State" -- seeks a temporary restraining order to block the results of the election from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.

Oklahoma residents approved the measure with 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's election.

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.

Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure - FoxNews.com

Two things I notice?

The law banning sharia is "unnecessary?"

Well then why worry about banning it?

It would be like OK banning opening umbrellas during a zombie apocalypse.

If you don't think there will ever BE a zombie apocalypse, why worry then about the law? It will never effect you, so let the electorate look silly voting for such a law.

BUT, if you intend to FORCE sharia to be the law of the land, THAT is why you object.

And he cites the first amendment as a reason to object to such a law?

HOW is the first amendment served by FORCING a religious law on ANYONE?

I mean if YOU choose to privately live by sharia (where it doesn't violate already known law, like I don't think we are going to let ANYONE stone someone to death), well goody for you!
But sharia isn't about voluntary compliance. It's about FORCING people to live under the edicts of Islam.

THAT is the only reason to object to such a law.

CAIR reveals what they are really about with this law suit.

And people thought OK was being silly putting this on the ballot.

That CAIR objects reveals they weren't being silly.

THIS is very telling.

The problem with allowing someone to 'privately' live under Sharia law is that it would be illegal for, say, a Catholic or a Baptist to beat his wife, but a muslim would be legally beating his wife in 'private.' Our law is today makes it illegal for anyone to beat his wife.

Allowing the practice of Sharia in private would give them the right to stone to death any woman ajudicated, in private of course, of adultery. Keep it private and you can stone one another to death under Sharia.

Your logic is a little skewed.

Believe it or not, the courts have gone around on this one before. If you don't believe it have a big camp meeting that involves the handling or snakes, or refuse to allow your sick child a blood transfusion for religious reasons. You will see how fast the courts will get involved with the 'private' pratice of your religion.

 

[daveman]

The CAIR people are professional litigators. It keeps them in business. In fact, I believe lawsuits are their business. If Sharia Law is instituted, they will have even more people to sue.

The Religion of Perpetual Outrage.

...enabled by the Professionally Perpetually Offended.

 

[California Girl]

Now THIS is telling!

If Muslims aren't for forcing sharia on the country, why would they object to a measure banning sharia?

Just two days after Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure banning state courts from considering Islamic or international law when ruling on cases, a local Muslim has filed a federal lawsuit saying the measure is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit against ballot measure, State Question 755 – or better known as "Save Our State" -- seeks a temporary restraining order to block the results of the election from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.

Oklahoma residents approved the measure with 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's election.

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.

Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure - FoxNews.com

Two things I notice?

The law banning sharia is "unnecessary?"

Well then why worry about banning it?

It would be like OK banning opening umbrellas during a zombie apocalypse.

If you don't think there will ever BE a zombie apocalypse, why worry then about the law? It will never effect you, so let the electorate look silly voting for such a law.

BUT, if you intend to FORCE sharia to be the law of the land, THAT is why you object.

And he cites the first amendment as a reason to object to such a law?

HOW is the first amendment served by FORCING a religious law on ANYONE?

I mean if YOU choose to privately live by sharia (where it doesn't violate already known law, like I don't think we are going to let ANYONE stone someone to death), well goody for you!
But sharia isn't about voluntary compliance. It's about FORCING people to live under the edicts of Islam.

THAT is the only reason to object to such a law.

CAIR reveals what they are really about with this law suit.

And people thought OK was being silly putting this on the ballot.

That CAIR objects reveals they weren't being silly.

THIS is very telling.

The problem with allowing someone to 'privately' live under Sharia law is that it would be illegal for, say, a Catholic or a Baptist to beat his wife, but a muslim would be legally beating his wife in 'private.' Our law is today makes it illegal for anyone to beat his wife.

Allowing the practice of Sharia in private would give them the right to stone to death any woman ajudicated, in private of course, of adultery. Keep it private and you can stone one another to death under Sharia.

Your logic is a little skewed.

Believe it or not, the courts have gone around on this one before. If you don't believe it have a big camp meeting that involves the handling or snakes, or refuse to allow your sick child a blood transfusion for religious reasons. You will see how fast the courts will get involved with the 'private' pratice of your religion.

No law trumps US Law. Courts can, and do, consider the law of other countries when it is part of their remit to do so. For example, if a couple marry in England, with an English Pre Nup, and live in OK, and then divorce.... Is that pre nup enforceable in OK? A rational court would need to consider what the English law says on that matter.

It has nothing to do with being allowed to rape or murder anyone under a religious law.

Personally, I disagree with any other laws being considered other than the law of the land on which you live.

 

[Freeman]

why joos keep their religious tribunals (beit Din) over US? , but if muslims want to restore islamic laws in their civil system (marriage, divorce...)it's a problem!!

 

[chanel]

That's a conundrum. But as far as I can tell the Jewish religion does not treat their women like shit.

It seems like polygamous families in Utah are getting away with violating the law. No one can say with certainty that judges don't consider religion and culture in their decisions. This was a pre-emptive statute that will prevent that. Good for OK. If ME immigrants don't trust the US system, then move back to the fucking desert. Or Utah.

 

[teapartysamurai]

you know what i notice?

you're a fucking idiot

Based on what? You are on the side of CAIR?

Nice to have that on record!

 

[teapartysamurai]

you know what i notice?

you're a fucking idiot

Bury that head even deeper you fucking retard.

Ah, consider the source.

Some people just do not want to accept the obvious, as the obvious.

But what other reason WOULD CAIR have to sue against this law?

If it doesn't affect them in any way, why should they mind?

The ONLY reason to object is if they DO want creeping sharia in this country.

THIS is a very telling case. I put it on the order of the Flying Imams.

 

[California Girl]

That's a conundrum. But as far as I can tell the Jewish religion does not treat their women like shit.

It seems like polygamous families in Utah are getting away with violating the law. No one can say with certainty that judges don't consider religion and culture in their decisions. This was a pre-emptive statute that will prevent that. Good for OK. If ME immigrants don't trust the US system, then move back to the fucking desert. Or Utah.

Not all Muslims are ME immigrants, Chanel. Many were born and bred here. They have as much right to be here as anyone else. As do immigrants who choose to come here.

 

[teapartysamurai]

you know what i notice?

you're a fucking idiot

Bury that head even deeper you fucking retard.

kiss my hairy white ass you fucking bigot

It's bigotry to point out this case?

Exactly how? You mean multicultarlism is only served by burying your head and pretending CAIR isn't suing over this law that 70% of the electorate favored?

Explain that? I bet a dime you can't.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The CAIR people are professional litigators. It keeps them in business. In fact, I believe lawsuits are their business. If Sharia Law is instituted, they will have even more people to sue.

The Religion of Perpetual Outrage.

I think it runs even deeper than that, but I think you are on the right track. They are professional litigators, but it's WHAT they litigate that says a lot.

Like their Flying Imams bit. It's designed to further their agenda, and it's pretty obvious in this latest lawsuit.

 

[teapartysamurai]

you know what i notice?

you're a fucking idiot

Bury that head even deeper you fucking retard.

It's 'much ado about nothing'. OK voted on banning both International and Sharia law from it's courts decision making process. A Muslim representative of CAIR is challenging the law.

And WHY?

Like I said. If the law would NOT effect them in any way, why challenge the law?

I mean let's put this in context. If OK voted banning any institution of the Mosaic law, which includes stoning people for adultery, why object?

The only reason to object is if you WANT the country or the state to insitute the Mosaic law.

Otherwise, you would kind of shake your head and say "Okay OK, if you want to look this silly, be my guest!"

But if the law is NOT going to effect you IN ANY WAY as the Muslims claim it won't, then why object?

Why waste tax dollars and your own on a law suit for something that has no impact on your life?

The ONLY reason to do so, is if your agenda runs counter to the law.

That's the ONLY reason to do so.

To hide behind supposed first amendment rights is ludicrous because the first part of the first amendment so indicates that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Helloooooooo, any sharia law would BE establishing a religion on the US.

Thus citing the first amendment against any law banning sharia just doesn't hold water.