Be careful: we have Muslim allies in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and occasionally get help from other Muslim governments.
The enemy in the hot war is Salafism—the religious underpinnings of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood, the view, specific to some Sunni extremists, and hardly shared by all Muslims, that the ideal society is a copy of the way Mohammed and the first few Caliphs organized Arabian society. We have a cold war with Ta’ajili Shia Islam, the religious view of the Iranian regime. It is possible that we could come into conflict with more general Sunni movements seeking to reestablish a Caliphate, like Hizt ut Tahrir, but at present they are not taking up arms.
Without Muslim allies, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have cost many, many more American lives.
On the other hand, laws forbidding courts from considering foreign or religious law when deciding criminal and civil cases, are perfectly reasonable—though it might be more politic to phrase it that way, rather than specifying Sharia. (Do we want our courts deciding cases on the basis of, say, Orthodox Christian canon law, or the Talmumd? Probably not.) Though as to foreign law, I’d make an exception to allow courts to consider precedents from other countries which share an English Common Law heritage if there are no applicable American precedents on a particular matter.
Well I see I was fumble-fingered and didn’t proofread well:
The name of the re-establish the Caliphate movement is Hizb ut Tahrir, and I obviously meant to type Talmud without the other m.
Doesn't mean they aint ponying up for them!
By my take, Oklahoma's amendment merely reinforces the Scotus decision.