Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure

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

You do realize CAIR doesn't represent every Muslim just like those Christian lobbying groups don't represent all Christians.
 
What are you talking about Ravi? This won't cost a fucking dime.
Right now it is going to cost a lawsuit.

On a slightly cheerier note, the 10 commandments is international law and can no longer be considered in an OK court.

:thup:
 
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.

Then there is clearly no need for any extra laws.
 
This law is nothing but bigotry against a religious group. Same as if it were aimed at Catholics or Jews or any other religious group.

Except that Catholics and Jews don't live under Sharia law. And, so much for muslims wanting to live peacefully in America. Women in America have worked hard to overcome a second class status. and achieve equality Sharia law makes you a "non person". There's a great big wide world out there that lives under sharia law. you want you some sharia law? then move to where it is practiced. Good for Oklahoma.
 
Last edited:
well.....


Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal

While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.

After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.

Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff’s domestic violence action....

The Volokh Conspiracy Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal
 
you`re excally right,and anyone with at least one working brain cell should be able to see what CAIR really is and what there agenda is
every state in the Union should follow Oklahoma`s lead...



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.



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.[/QUOTE]
 
Lex fori (Latin for the laws of a forum) is a legal term used in the conflict of laws used to refer to the laws of the jurisdiction in which a legal action is brought.[1] When a court decides that it should, by reason of the the principles of conflict of law, resolve a given legal dispute by reference to the laws of another jurisdiction, the lex causae, the lex fori still govern procedural matters..
Lex fori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dicey and Morris on the Conflicts of Laws refer to lex fori as:

"All matters of procedure are governed by the domestic law of the country to which the court wherein any legal proceedings are taken belongs.

"While procedure is governed by lex fori, matters of substance are governed by the law to which the court is directed by its choice of law rule (lex causae).... The difficulty in applying this rule lies in discriminating between rules of procedure and rules of substance. The distinction is by no means clear cut."
Lex Fori Definition

In Gucci America, Inc. v. Curveal Fashion, 2010 WL 808639 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2010), the court ordered a third-party Malaysian bank, United Overseas Bank Malaysia ("UOB"), to produce certain documents regarding the defendant's Malaysian bank accounts even though UOB argued that production would violate Malaysian banking secrecy laws. UOB submitted a legal opinion from a Malaysian attorney in defense of its position, but the court nonetheless decided that the disclosure was warranted. The court reached this decision by applying the multi-factor analysis set forth by the Supreme Court in Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. Of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 (1987). The most influential factors for the court were: (1) UOB provided no information on the likelihood that it would actually be prosecuted in Malaysia for disclosing the documents; and (2) The "Malaysian government had not voiced any objections to disclosure in this case."

E-Discovery Law Alert: U.S. Courts Order Discovery Despite Foreign Privacy Laws - Crowell & Moring

The only issue I can see in the OK. is in civil matters like Divorce case for example, let's say a couple were married in Canada and then sought a divorce in OK. The courts would have to apply OK. law which they do now to the divorce, however given the fact that they were married in Canada one would have to wonder if they are recognized by the state as being married in the first place.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top