ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,709
- 245
Isn't Sharia law unconstitutional...?
According to Sharia law if one was to leave Islam they are aspostates and are to be killed...and there are plenty of other aspects of Sharia law that blatantly oppose the laws of the United States...so why should we allow Sharia law within our borders just because it is part of a religion....?
According to Sharia law if one was to leave Islam they are aspostates and are to be killed...and there are plenty of other aspects of Sharia law that blatantly oppose the laws of the United States...so why should we allow Sharia law within our borders just because it is part of a religion....?
An Oklahoma constitutional amendment aimed at stopping the use of Islamic law in its courts was dealt a serious blow on Monday when a federal judge temporarily blocked the state from putting it into effect.
The amendment would forbid state judges from considering Islamic or international law in their decisions. Known as State Question 755, the measure passed with 70 percent of the vote during the Republican landslide on Nov. 2, and has generated bitter debate.
Muslims claim the state is discriminating against their religion, while supporters — many of them Christian conservatives — say the amendment is needed to thwart what they maintain is an effort by radical Muslims to impose Shariah law in the United States.
Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of Federal District Court in Oklahoma City, however, said in her decision to grant a preliminary injunction on Monday that the measure did not appear to pass constitutional muster.
It conveys a message, she said, that the state favors one religion or particular belief over others. The federal courts have long held that such a message violates the First Amendment’s clause prohibiting the establishment of a state religion, she said.
“While defendants contend that the amendment is merely a choice-of-law provision that bans state courts from applying the law of other nations or cultures — regardless of what faith they may be based on, if any — the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Shariah law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith,” the judge wrote.
The judge barred the State Election Commission from certifying the results of the election until she makes a final ruling. She set no timetable for her decision.
Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, had sued to block the amendment, arguing that the state was condemning his religious beliefs.
“We are definitely satisfied,” Mr. Awad said. “She is recognizing the majority vote cannot be used to take away my constitutional rights.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30oklahoma.html?_r=1&src=twrhp
Last edited: