Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal judge in Oklahoma finds “Anti-Sharia law” amendment unconstitutional
The Progressive Pulse ^ | August 19,2013 | Sharon McCloskey

Posted on 08/19/2013 9:25:01 AM PDT by yoe

Late last week, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange in Oklahoma City ruled that a state amendment prohibiting courts from considering Sharia law when ruling in cases was unconstitutional.

In her (decision) he judge said that because the amendment discriminated among religions, the state had to demonstrate a compelling state interest to justify it — something Oklahoma failed to do:

(Excerpt) Read more at pulse.ncpolicywatch.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Philosophy; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: corruption; fraud; govtabuse; islam; oldnews; sharia; sharialaw
1. Sharia Law commands that drinkers and gamblers be whipped; Sura 5:90—91

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

2. Sharia Law demands husbands supremacy over thier wives Sura 4:34

If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)

3. Sharia Law ALLOWS exact punishment, an eye for an eye (literally) Sura 5:45

And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996

4. Sharia Law commands that a thief have their hand cut off Sura 5:38

Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

5. Sharia Law demands that highway robbers be crucified or mutilated Sura 5:33

Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter.

6. Sharia Law demands that homosexuals be executed (Hadith)

'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).

This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

7. Sharia Law demands that adulterers be stoned to death Sura 24:2

The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

8. Sharia Law calls for the death of anyone condemning Muhommed, Sharia Law or the Koran

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'

9. Sharia Law calls for apostates to be killed

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings

10. Sharia Law demands aggressive, offensive and unjust jihad

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax

Sharia is not a Religion it is Islamic LAW and not compatible in any way with the United States Constitution. This Judge should be dis-barred.


1 posted on 08/19/2013 9:25:01 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yoe

So let me see if I have this straight...

A law written to stop an unconstitutional establishment of religion was declared unconstitutional?


2 posted on 08/19/2013 9:28:57 AM PDT by Mr. K (Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

More proof that our courts system needs to be streamlined in order that people won’t have to learn how and why the system can roll over the wishes of the citizens.

This judge is a certifiable nitwit. I posted her picture and bio on another thread about this same issue yesterday. Americans are thwarted by this central socialist government and court system from every angle.

It’s time to ‘STAND OUR GROUND!’


3 posted on 08/19/2013 9:29:46 AM PDT by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Oh Good!

This ruling then establishes a legal precident for striking down all of Obama’s anti-Christian laws.


4 posted on 08/19/2013 9:32:32 AM PDT by G Larry (Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Toasting...


5 posted on 08/19/2013 9:35:02 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Can someone please tell me why this ban on Sharia law was even necessary???

It’s like passing a law that says judges must apply OUR law.

Totally nonsensical!...

Any judge that would override federal/state/local law with RELIGIOUS law should be disbarred for life! No need for a damn law that does nothing more than re-assert our own laws over foreign ones!


6 posted on 08/19/2013 9:36:51 AM PDT by Safrguns (PM me if you like to play Minecraft!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Bookmark For Later Read.


7 posted on 08/19/2013 9:37:53 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will. They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Hang on - it may be that she’s got a point. If the law was simply rewritten to state that courts may not take the religious doctrines of any particular denomination and justify rulings based on them this would be covered and you’d avoid discriminating against any particular religion - as was mentioned in the article with regards to a similar law in a different state that did not call out Sharia specifically.


8 posted on 08/19/2013 9:41:08 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.

So change the amendment to read "The courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law or any other religious law" and vote on it again.

9 posted on 08/19/2013 9:42:52 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Better yet ship her to Gitmo and let her practice
law with the islama-facists. You all know
how they treat women. She probably wouldn't be
happy.
10 posted on 08/19/2013 9:44:37 AM PDT by gakrak (“If you put the Fed Gov in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Any Judge who looks outside the Constitution for guidance should be disbarred.
What's next, Klingon law?
11 posted on 08/19/2013 9:49:00 AM PDT by MaxMax (If you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Can someone please tell me why this ban on Sharia law was even necessary???

From the judge's decision:

To survive strict scrutiny under Larson, [defendants] must show (1) a compelling government interest, and (2) that the amendment is ‘closely fitted’ to that compelling interest.” Regarding the “compelling state interest” element, the [Defendants] provided only one sentence on compelling interest. They simply assert that “Oklahoma certainly has a compelling interest in determining what law is applied in Oklahoma courts.”

Oklahoma’s asserted interest is a valid state concern. But this general statement alone is not sufficient to establish a compelling interest for purposes of this case. [Defendants] do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma. Given the lack of evidence of any concrete problem, any harm [defendants] seek to remedy with the proposed amendment is speculative at best and cannot support a compelling interest.

12 posted on 08/19/2013 9:55:25 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Resolution 1056 (“HJR 1056”):
"The Courts . . . when exercising th eir judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provide d in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another stat e of the United States provided the law of the other state does not incl ude Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. 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. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression."

Poorly written law. Courts have always looked at international or primary Roman law for the bases of law.

13 posted on 08/19/2013 10:01:08 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

The judge is an ass.


14 posted on 08/19/2013 10:22:33 AM PDT by ZULU ((See: http://gatesofvienna.net/) Obama, do you hear me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

The judge is an ass.


15 posted on 08/19/2013 10:22:37 AM PDT by ZULU ((See: http://gatesofvienna.net/) Obama, do you hear me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

The judge is an ass.


16 posted on 08/19/2013 10:22:44 AM PDT by ZULU ((See: http://gatesofvienna.net/) Obama, do you hear me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Vicki Miles-LaGrange was a Clinton appointee, and one of Trayvon Obama's people. It is no wonder she wants to destroy the legal system of the United States by subverting it to Islam or any other system that would assist in the Cloward-Piven scheme.
17 posted on 08/19/2013 10:52:19 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Blog: www.BackwoodsEngineer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax

Hmm, Klingon law might not be too bad. We could challenge a failure like Obama to trial by combat and be rid of him already.


18 posted on 08/19/2013 10:53:38 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RonF
"...Shria is not a religion...it is Islamic law it is not compatible to any form of government other than Islam.


19 posted on 08/19/2013 11:02:19 AM PDT by yoe ("They Come To America" order it now: http://www.theycometoamerica.com/buy-dvd/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns

Its the new normal...


20 posted on 08/19/2013 12:19:09 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yoe

"Obamah Akbar!"
21 posted on 08/19/2013 12:30:55 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Can someone please tell me why this ban on Sharia law was even necessary???

IIRC, there were two concerns for laws like this.

1) Supreme Court decisions in which justices flat out said they were using international law when making their legal desicions.

2) In an effort to pursue islamic dominance and multiculturalism, there has been a legal push from islamists and leftists, both, to create extra legal courts, officially recognized by the government, in which Sharia judges would rule on non criminal cases in the islamic community. These types of courts have been established in western countries; England comes to mind as well as France, I think. Here in the states, there have been pushes in several locations for them to be created. IIRC, San Diego, Deerborn, and some place in Tenn. were mentioned during the conversation.

The particulars may not be 100% in my recounting; you get the gist of it, though.

22 posted on 08/19/2013 1:05:05 PM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
I'm lost here.

So are you saying that because judges have used Roman Law in the past (which makes little sense outside of Louisiana) the legislative branch does not have the authority to state that their laws must be interpreted according to our cultural understanding and legal tradition from which the laws they wrote originated? They cannot state that other laws, specifically international law (which IS based on Roman Law) and Sharia Law cannot be applied, since they fall outside our Anglo-Saxon legal tradition (or for any reason they so choose)?

That's like saying a legislature cannot state, “A judge cannot use laws outside this jurisdiction because the judge prefers the results of the application of another jurisdiction's laws.” Good grief, it's stating the obvious that judges have simply ignored.

If the Oklahoma Legislature cannot direct its judges on how to understand the laws it creates on behalf of the People of Oklahoma, why have a legislature at all? A judge can just deconstruct the clear language of a statute to say the opposite of what it says to everyone else just trying to abide by the law.

The legislature is here to MAKE laws (or, better yet, to delete some). If it be the case that this is a poorly worded law, we are ruled by the whim of appointed judges.

23 posted on 08/19/2013 1:58:27 PM PDT by cizinec ("Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
I'm lost here.

So are you saying that because judges have used Roman Law in the past (which makes little sense outside of Louisiana) the legislative branch does not have the authority to state that their laws must be interpreted according to our cultural understanding and legal tradition from which the laws they wrote originated? They cannot state that other laws, specifically international law (which IS based on Roman Law) and Sharia Law cannot be applied, since they fall outside our Anglo-Saxon legal tradition (or for any reason they so choose)?

That's like saying a legislature cannot state, “A judge cannot use laws outside this jurisdiction because the judge prefers the results of the application of another jurisdiction's laws.” Good grief, it's stating the obvious that judges have simply ignored.

If the Oklahoma Legislature cannot direct its judges on how to understand the laws it creates on behalf of the People of Oklahoma, why have a legislature at all? A judge can just deconstruct the clear language of a statute to say the opposite of what it says to everyone else just trying to abide by the law.

The legislature is here to MAKE laws (or, better yet, to delete some). If it be the case that this is a poorly worded law, we are ruled by the whim of appointed judges.

24 posted on 08/19/2013 1:58:40 PM PDT by cizinec ("Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Re # 6 - so if a Muslim kills a homosexual, he can’t be arrested and tried in court because he was just following Sharia law?


25 posted on 08/19/2013 4:25:26 PM PDT by 3catsanadog (I love my country; I don't like its government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Sometimes I think one of these judges should actually read the Constitution.


26 posted on 08/19/2013 6:01:24 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange in Oklahoma City should be impeached and removed from office.


27 posted on 08/19/2013 6:47:21 PM PDT by Rapscallion (Obama does not know how bad he really is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cizinec
If there is no law presented that doesn't fit the any existing law the judge can find law from other old school law that does. But you are very correct that judges today just make up things as they go along rather then go by the book.

If this law was worded in a way that only targeted laws that contradict our laws then it should easily pass. Just use an example such as rape under sharia is completely different then ours.

28 posted on 08/21/2013 12:28:05 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Bump


29 posted on 08/21/2013 12:32:34 AM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a lot of things in my life that I'm not proud of. And the things I am proud of are disgus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson