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 ...
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.
So let me see if I have this straight...
A law written to stop an unconstitutional establishment of religion was declared unconstitutional?
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!’
Oh Good!
This ruling then establishes a legal precident for striking down all of Obama’s anti-Christian laws.
Toasting...
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!
Bookmark For Later Read.
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.
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.
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.
Poorly written law. Courts have always looked at international or primary Roman law for the bases of law.
The judge is an ass.
The judge is an ass.
The judge is an ass.
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.
Its the new normal...
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.