Oklahoma lawmakers have seen the light...

[rdret1]

The law of the relevant jurisdiction is the only law one need consider in a matter. If it is a United States case dealing with United States laws, no other law law should be considered. Sharia and international laws do not have any bearing on any state in our union nor should they ever have any bearing.

If one is dealing with an international business deal, that may be another matter. If we start considering Sharia and international laws in our own country, what effect will that have on our ability to negotiate SOFA's that protect our troops from draconian laws in other countries?

[BoyScout]

Originally Posted by Coldsteel24

Damn I love my state!

Me too. I was the first question I looked for. I will admit that Sharia Law was not my main intent, the international law was (I probably naively lump Sharia into international law) and for reasons mentioned by Pete.

[Richard]

After considering the arguments being made, the wording of Oklahoma's SQ755, my albeit limited understanding of the basis for our codified system of laws, their enactment, and enforcement, combined with my personal experiences in international and treaty law as a Host Nation Support Plans Officer for the 21st TAACOM, I stand by my original thoughts on the subject and cannot help but wonder just how any case concerning International Law or a Muslim citing Sharia as a defense in an Oklahoma Court would not have to be (by definition) considered by a jurist – even if to but ponder the matter and then reject it as being irrelevant or inapplicable under American case law.

Richard's $.02

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by Richard

After considering the arguments being made, the wording of Oklahoma's SQ755, my albeit limited understanding of the basis for our codified system of laws, their enactment, and enforcement, combined with my personal experiences in international and treaty law as a Host Nation Support Plans Officer for the 21st TAACOM, I stand by my original thoughts on the subject and cannot help but wonder just how any case concerning International Law or a Muslim citing Sharia as a defense in an Oklahoma Court would not have to be (by definition) considered by a jurist – even if to but ponder the matter and then reject it as being irrelevant or inapplicable under American case law.

Richard's $.02

So, by your definition, if a case cites Klingon law, then it should be considered. Rather encompassing.

Since Sharia law is part of a totalitarian and evil ideology, I am glad to see Oklahoma take a stand.

[BigJimCalhoun]

Evidently, a lawsuit is expected
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/...w-in-oklahoma/

[Sigaba]

How much money and time did the state of Oklahoma spend to pass a law in response to events in the United Kingdom?

What are the long term implications regarding the independence of the judiciary if the legislative branch can reduce matters of law to what amounts to a popularity contest? (A lot of time and energy is spent talking about "original meanings" and the intent of the founding fathers. Did they not take steps to isolate the judicial branch from popular opinion? <<LINK>>)

Finally, in the run up to yesterday's midterms, the president's critics effectively argued that the man is out of touch with the interests and concerns of his fellow Americans. Based opinion polls focusing on what Americans see as the most important issues <<LINK2>>, does this piece of legislation demonstrate that Republicans are more in touch with those same interests and concerns?

[T-Rock]

...does this piece of legislation demonstrate that Republicans are more in touch with those same interests and concerns?

Considering this:

Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her this is according to our religion.

You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.

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.

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts...07-08.opn.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sh...s-religio.html
http://volokh.com/2010/07/23/cultura...ted-on-appeal/


And this:

I tell them that the Muslim approach to law and justice begins with religious language because secular movements have failed to deliver what Muslims want – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If that sounds suspiciously like the Declaration of Independence, that's because – contrary to what many people in the West believe – Islamic law and American democratic principles have many things in common.

"All the law that a Muslim needs is in the Qur'an and the Hadith, sayings of the Prophet Muhammad"
~Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf~

http://www.commongroundnews.org/arti...=en&sid=1&sp=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxjocm5fCc

YES!!!

[Richard]

...if a case cites Klingon law, then it should be considered.

If an attorney in a court of law chose to cite something (either in written or oral argument) in the defense or prosecution of a person - even if it is something as ludicrous as a nonexistant law for a nonexistant fairy tale civilization such as that of the Klingons or a matter of serious religious conviction - how could it not have to be considered by the court in formulating an appropriate response to the argument presented?

Originally Posted by T-Rock

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html

In reading about the NJ case, it would seem the process worked in that the original presiding judge's ruling (which failed to correctly adhere to existant NJ law) was reversed on appeal and the plaintiff (although a non-citizen) was granted the restraining order she sought against her abusive husband (also a non-citizen).

Are pundits now attempting to make an argument that such errors of judgment as shown by the original judge can and will only happen when the case involves a Muslim couple?

Richard

[T-Rock]

Are pundits now attempting to make an argument that such errors of judgment as shown by the original judge can and will only happen when the case involves a Muslim couple?

No, considering Muslims are establishing tax exempt communities with the blessing of the IRS for the purpose of defining geographical boundaries, clear sets of moral norms and values, based on Islamic Sharia, pundits are simply telling judges to interpret our laws on our Constitution, not on Islamic Sharia like the first Judge did.

IMO, Oklahoma simply recognizes, and preempts the Islamic incremental push for accomodations and concessions, and have chosen to halt Sharia's creep.

ETA

Are there any such banks out there?

> http://www.universityislamicfinancial.com/

[Sigaba]

If the people of Oklahoma had gotten burned first hand by this dynamic, I'd be less skeptical about SQ 755 and HJR 1056. As things stand, this strikes me as political theater of the worst sort.

As for the bashing of international law, that position does not exactly square with the "what would the founding fathers do" sensibility that is currently in vogue. The Second Anglo-American War (the War of 1812) began in no small part because Americans were rather quite tired of Britain's continued disregard for international law.

In his war message to congress, President James Madison put it succinctly.

British cruisers have been in the continued practice of violating the American flag on the great highway of nations, and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it, not in the exercise of a belligerent right founded on the law of nations against an enemy, but of a municipal prerogative over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral vessels in a situation where no laws can operate but the law of nations and the laws of the country to which the vessels belong, and a self-redress is assumed which, if British subjects were wrongfully detained and alone concerned, is that substitution of force for a resort to the responsible sovereign which falls within the definition of war. Could the seizure of British subjects in such cases be regarded as within the exercise of a belligerent right, the acknowledged laws of war, which forbid an article of captured property to be adjudged without a regular investigation before a competent tribunal, would imperiously demand the fairest trial where the sacred rights of persons were at issue. In place of such a trial these rights are subjected to the will of every petty commander.*

______________________________
* James Madison, war message to congress, 1 June 1812, available here.

[Pete]

"......As for the bashing of international law, that position does not exactly square with the "what would the founding fathers do" sensibility that is currently in vogue. The Second Anglo-American War (the War of 1812) began in no small part because Americans were rather quite tired of Britain's continued disregard for international law........."

Sigaba, I usually find your posts that include a bit of our history to be quite thought provoking. But I think you missed with this arrow.

If this, at the time, was an internal British issue (on that big island) I don't think the Americans would have been that upset. But even by that time the international sea lanes were under laws and treaties. The Brit's were violating those agreements, so the Americans said, against American shipping.

So that was a case of two countries on the high seas, some just off our coast, each claiming their laws were correct.

I think your example would be better illustrated by a British ship pulling into Boston and it's press gang rounding up anyone who sounded British. All while claiming they were just following British law.

So a living law Judge would say - "Hey, I got no problem with it, they are just following their laws."

[rdret1]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...est=latestnews

Either way, this will be the issue to watch in the near future. Richard, in a way, I see your point. It is like telling a jury to disregard testimony they have heard when preparing for a decision. It sounds good, but once you have heard something, it is difficult to completely disregard it. On the other hand, I think it is a good preemptive move on the part of Oklahoma. We have chosen to recognize a certain societal norm for our country. What would be considered good in other countries is not necessarily so here.

[T-Rock]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...est=latestnews

Since CAIR has come out in favor of Sharia, and CAIR openly declares that anti-Sharia is anti-Islam, maybe folks will see Sharia for what it is, Sharia = Islam.

Either way, this will be the issue to watch in the near future.

IMO, CAIR is putting forth a Separation of Mosque and State legal challenge, when SQ755 is just a confirmation of the Establishment Clause, by banning the judiciary from using a religion as basis for rendering judgments in legal cases.

It appears Islam has no equivalent to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"

Awad said the measure violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion...

Does the first Amendment protect Awad's religious legal right in dealing with a rebellious wife?

m10.12 when a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife.......He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once...
(Reliance of the Traveller - pgs 540 - 542 http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave.../dp/0915957728 )

[1982fxr]

As a resident of Oklahoma it was my pleasure to vote in favor of this issue. I am not qualified to debate international law and only know what little I know about Sharia from reading Reliance of the Traveller.

However, my estimate of this law was that it was intended to let our enemies know that we are aware of their presence and are watching them.

The finer legal points of this law will no doubt provide much food for discussion, but I was happy to poke a sharp stick in the side of Islam.

[zpo]

If the people of Oklahoma had gotten burned first hand by this dynamic, I'd be less skeptical about SQ 755 and HJR 1056.

I voted for it in a "learning from the mistakes of others" way.